NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE JANUARY 15, 2009
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. John Decker, Chair Mr. Chet Batchelder (Excused)
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Rep. Mr. Gene Reed (Excused)
Mr. Peter Bock, BOS Rep. Mr. Scott Curry (Excused)
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Ms. Donna Danis
Ms. Gail Powell
Mr. Michael Koester
Mr. Kyle Barry (Arrived 7:50pm)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Michelle Carvalho, Principal, Nottingham School
Mr. Allan Demko, Business Administrator, SAU #44
Mr. Dave O'Brien, School Board
Mr. Jack Caldon, School Board
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10pm.
SCHOOL BUDGET DISCUSSION:
Mr. Caldon said that he wanted to thank the Budget Committee for sending their questions to the School Board. He said that the School Board had spent three hours discussing the budget earlier that day. Ms. Carvalho said that the School Board had made some adjustments to the default budget. She said that they had also changed the technology line by putting the mobile computer lab back into the proposed operating budget instead of leaving that item as a warrant article. She said that the reason some of the items in the default budget were budgeted higher than those in the proposed operating budget was because they had used the definition of the default budget when they had put in the default budget amounts. She said that they had removed the proposed salary increases for the employees who were not covered under
any collective bargaining agreement from the default budget. She said that the default budget had not included those proposed increases last year so they had decided to take them out of this default budget as well. She said that they had also removed some items from the default budget which they had determined were one time expense items. She said that those items had been in categories such as new equipment and furniture. She said that there had also been some corrections made to the default budget. She said that the library catalog software had been reduced in the default budget because a portion of the money had been a one time expense. She said that the money remaining in that line in the default was for software and other things that needed an annual subscription. She said that the money in the default budget for field trips now reflected the current budgeted amount. She said that the decreases in salary that they had made by
taking the proposed cost of living increases for employees not covered under the collective bargaining agreements out of the default had carried over and they had also made the correct adjustments to the FICA and retirement lines of the default budget.
Ms. Carvalho said that the Budget Committee had questions regarding the soccer goals that the school wanted to replace. She said that she had done some follow up research on soccer goals. She said that the expensive supports on the current goals were worn and cracked. She said that you could not see the extent of the damage now because part of the goals were covered with snow and ice but she said that there were some parts of the goals that were fixed with duct tape. She said that replacing the soccer goals was a safety issue. Mr. Decker asked whether the school had looked into repairing the current goals. Ms. Carvalho said that it would be challenging and costly to fix the pipes that the goals were made of. She said that she felt the damage could be attributed to the age of the equipment. Ms.
Danis asked how old the current goals were. Ms. Carvalho said that they were at least as old as the school building. Mr. Decker asked how they could prevent wear and tear on the soccer goals in the future. Ms. Carvalho pointed out that a lot of children used the soccer goals. Mr. Decker said that soccer goals were supposed to be built to withstand that kind of abuse. Ms. Danis asked about an amount. Ms. Carvalho said that they were looking at approximately $3,000. Ms. Danis asked if the school was looking into getting cheap goals. She said that if they were bought she wanted them to last a long time. Ms. Carvalho said no, they were not looking at getting cheap goals. She said that they were looking to buy near the middle of the pack. She said that some soccer goals cost from $1,100 per goal and others cost from $2,200 per goal. She noted that the school needed to replace two soccer goals. Mr. Decker asked
whether they could do fundraising for the money to pay for the soccer goals. Ms. Carvalho said that she had not looked into the possibility of fundraising for the goals. She said that the school already did several fundraisers and she noted that it would be very difficult for many people if they added more. Mr. Decker said that when he was younger, the Parent Teacher Association used to fundraise for that type of a purchase.
Ms. Andersen asked about the athletic uniforms that needed to be replaced. Ms. Carvalho said that the uniforms used by the softball and baseball teams needed to be replaced. She said that they were complicated uniforms so they were going to be a little costly to replace. She said that they needed to replace 20 uniforms at a cost of $60 each. She said that the uniforms were used by students in grades 6-8.
Ms. Carvalho said that the district bid out for propane each year. She said that the SAU was in the process of forming a committee to help them explore options to get better pricing on all types of products. Ms. Plante said that Nottingham used propane but Northwood and Strafford used oil for heat.
Ms. Carvalho said that the School Board had removed the technology warrant article for $33,100 and had put it back into the proposed operating budget. She said that the money would be spent on a mobile computer lab. She said that the lab was a part of the school technology plan. She said that they had to rewrite their technology plan every three to four years. She said that the state expected districts to have new computers and to offer staff development which would teach them how to teach technology to kids. She said that the technology plan also was about teaching computer literacy and connecting with the community. Ms. Danis asked if the mobile lab consisted of twenty new laptops. Ms. Carvalho said yes. She said that the lab they had now was being used 90% of the time. She said that
the computers in Nottingham were on a five year plan. She said that the goal was to keep the lab as up to date as possible and then to trickle those computers into the classrooms as they got replaced. She said that most of the classrooms had three computers, one primary computer and two secondary computers. She said that the primary computers were the newest. Mr. Koester asked whether there was a safety net for the technology program if the proposed operating budget were not passed by the voters. Ms. Carvalho said that they had looked into some grants but they did not qualify for them. Ms. Andersen asked why. Ms. Carvalho said that Nottingham had a low percentage of students involved in the free and reduced lunch program. She also said that there were quite a few grants which were looking for urban school districts. Mr. Caldon said that in a situation where the district was forced to fund with the default budget they might not
be able to fully fund their technology plan for that year.
Ms. Carvalho said that there had been an increase from the previous year in the workshop line. She said that the paraprofessional contract included having the district make money available so that paraprofessionals could attend workshops. Ms. Danis asked about the costs for workshops. Ms. Carvalho said that the costs for workshops were usually between $150 and $250 for one day workshops. Ms. Danis asked if these were workshops that paraprofessionals chose to attend as opposed to the ones offered on teacher workshop days. Ms. Carvalho said yes. She said that these workshops were part of individual education plans which were set up by paraprofessionals who were interested in them.
Ms. Carvalho said that the proposed operating budget included increased attorney and negotiator fees. She said that the district would begin teacher negotiations in the summer of 2009. She said that their current teacher contract was going to run out this year. Ms. Powell said that she thought the expenses associated with getting a new teacher contract would go beyond the time usually allotted. She asked how the district would deal with an overrun in that line. Ms. Carvalho said that in that case they would have to freeze spending on items in the budget which were more discretionary. She said that would be at the discretion of the School Board. Mr. Decker asked how much the district had spent on attorney and negotiator fees for their last teacher contract. Ms. Carvalho said that she wasn't sure
because she had not separated out the amounts spent on the attorney for reasons other than contract negotiations. Mr. Caldon said that both the paraprofessional and teacher contracts were three year contracts. He said that they were negotiated in back to back years and there was one open year. He said that the School Board was also required to budget for track changes. Ms. Powell asked what the turnover had been the previous year. Ms. Carvalho said that four teachers had left. Ms. Powell asked whether the new teachers had come in at a lower pay rate. Ms. Carvalho said yes.
Ms. Powell said that she had requested the proposed operating budgets for Northwood and Strafford but she had not received them yet. Mr. Demko noted that both Northwood and Strafford were involved in contract negotiations but at this point their budgets were up about 2.7% from the previous year. Ms. Carvalho said that the budgets for Northwood and Strafford were both typically much higher than the one for Nottingham. Mr. Caldon said that the largest parts of the school district budget were spent on Special Education, health insurance, tuition and retirement. He said that those costs had all increased. He said that rising fixed costs cut into what the district could spend on other educational concerns. Ms. Powell said that the proposed budget for Deerfield was up 9.9%. She said that 5.5% of that was
just on educational improvements. Mr. Demko said that those numbers compared gross versus net. Ms. Plante said that according to the most recent statistics available on the Department of Education website the state average per pupil expenditure in the public schools was $10,700 per year. She said that the date of the statistics was 2006-2007. She said that most recent cost per pupil number was $12,000 for Deerfield, $10,700 for Northwood, $10,500 for Strafford and only $8,700 for Nottingham.
Mr. Decker said that the budget information should have included $15,000 in revenues from other high school tuitions. Mr. Demko said that he would look into that.
DISCUSSION OF WARRANT ARTICLES:
Mr. Decker asked if there was any discussion of warrant articles. Ms. Carvalho noted warrant article #7 which asked if money should be raised for the purpose of hiring a regular education paraprofessional to help with the Kindergarten due to their increasing enrollments. She said that more students were coming into the school who needed special education services. She said that in grades K-2 the guidelines said that the "districts shall strive" for twenty students per class. She said that the class sizes in Nottingham at those grade levels were 14-16 kids. She said that they currently had four sessions of Kindergarten children.
Mr. Demko noted warrant article #6 which stated that a school district would accept the provisions of RSA 198:20-b and adopt an article stating that the School Board could apply for, accept and expend unanticipated money from any state, federal, government or private source that became available during the school year. He said that they had heard of the possibility that the incoming Obama administration economic stimulus package would provide money to school districts. He said that the purpose of the article was to allow the district to accept the money if it were made available to them.
Mr. Caldon said that warrant article #5 discussing the proposed operating budget would need to be changed to reflect the most up to date totals.
Mr. Bock pointed to warrant article #8 which asked if $40,000 should be raised for the purchase, installation and wiring of a propane generator. He said that the town would like a generator as well. He said that recent events including an ice storm which had knocked out power to the town hall had added urgency to the discussion of a generator. He said that the police had needed to work outside their building during the power outage. He said that the situation had led to more discussion in town about emergency management issues. Mr. Caldon said that Nottingham did not really have a center. He said that in many communities the town center became the school. Ms. Danis noted that the previous year there had been an article on the ballot about a generator. Ms. Carvalho said that the previous year
they had bought a generator hook up so that they would be able to use a generator provided by another entity, such as the National Guard. Mr. Caldon said that there needed to be a generator available in order for them to use the generator hook up. He said that during the recent outage the School Board had felt that they were not really giving help to the people who needed it. He said that buying a generator was still on their radar even though they had the generator hook up. Ms. Andersen asked whether a generator for the community should be a part of the school budget. Mr. Bock said that he had a similar question. Mr. Caldon noted that sometimes the school had power outages too. He said that if the school did not have running water, they needed to cancel school.
Ms. Andersen noted a possibility that money for an irrigation system would become a warrant article. She asked what that irrigation system would entail. Ms. Carvalho explained that they wanted to put a hose from the pump house to the rain cannon which would be used to water the athletic field. Ms. Andersen asked whether they had a drought resistant field. Ms. Carvalho said that the materials in the field were considered an "athletic mix." She said that the SAU had done the research for the new field. Mr. Koester asked about the cost of the field. Ms. Carvalho said that it had been about $53,000 but they had added loam and other things to enhance the field. Mr. Decker asked whether they could get water from the river to put on the field. Ms. Carvalho said that they had asked
about that possibility and were told that because of the distance between the river and the field they would need a new pump house. Mr. Decker asked whether there was a possibility that they would drain their well in the process of watering their field. Ms. Carvalho said that the company which did that type of work for the school felt that their plan for using well water on the field was doable. Ms. Andersen asked about the condition of the field. Ms. Carvalho said that it was covered with snow and ice but that the condition had been good before that. She said that the UNH Cooperative had given them information on when was best to water the field. Ms. Andersen said that she strongly recommended that they take that advice seriously. She said that they should not over water the field. Ms. Carvalho said that they were being careful.
Ms. Carvalho noted warrant article #9. She said that it was for raising money which would be used on determining the options for the building based on predictions of population growth. She said that the school had the information from various studies which had been done about future population growth. She said that they wanted to spend $30,000 to look at their current site as well as potential new sites. Ms. Andersen said that there was a group called "PlanNH" which did design work pro bono for school districts and towns. Mr. Caldon said that he had used that service earlier in his life in a different town and he had found that the information gathered was very preliminary stuff. He said that it facilitated discussion but it was very short lived. He said that he had found the work to be
simply a way to look at options, not something which would save them money. Ms. Danis asked whether the committee looking at options was a Building Committee or a Use of Space Committee. Mr. Caldon said that the school building had structural issues and the site had wetland issues. He said that they needed to look at all their options for handling growth. Ms. Plante said that Northwood and Strafford both had similar issues with their facilities and their population growth. Ms. Powell suggested the possibility of a middle school which could serve students from all three communities. Ms. Plante said that was certainly one of the options that the committee would consider and discuss. Mr. Caldon noted that all the options would have pluses and minuses.
FURTHER SCHOOL BUDGET DISCUSSION:
Mr. Demko showed the Budget Committee a pie chart that he had made of the proposed budget amounts in each budget category. He noted that 70% of the budget was just Special Education and regular education costs. Mr. Decker commented that transportation costs were also a good sized block of the budget. Ms. Andersen said that she would be curious as to how much of the regular education costs were tuition and salaries. She said that she thought the pie chart was a good visual. She said that she thought it might help members of the community understand the budget better. Mr. Decker said that he thought the chart might have too many categories on it to be useful. Ms. Powell asked what was being done to get the budget information to the public. Mr. Caldon said that he would know the answer to that
better after the next School Board meeting. Ms. Powell said that the public did not need all the detail that the Budget Committee got but she said that maybe a three page summary including a chart might be a good idea. Ms. Danis said that the people wanted to know the total numbers of the operating budget and the default budget, they wanted to know why the numbers were high and they wanted to know what the numbers meant for them personally. Mr. Bock noted that Nottingham tax rates were reasonable in comparison to other local tax rates in the area. Ms. Powell noted that because of the economic climate every number would hurt this year.
Ms. Plante said that the school district payroll had been in the town report the previous year. She asked if the Budget Committee wanted it listed any differently. Mr. Decker said no. He said that the most important part was that it needed to include every employee and not just teachers.
Mr. Demko said that the information he had given to the Budget Committee was from January 8, 2009. He explained how the tax rates were calculated. Mr. Decker asked whether Nottingham was a donor town. Mr. Demko said no. Mr. Decker asked whether the tax rates had anything to do with state grants. Mr. Demko said no. Ms. Danis asked whether the tax rate information provided for the proposed budget included the warrant articles. Mr. Demko said no, it did not but he said that he would figure out that information for the next time the school budget came before the Budget Committee. Mr. Caldon said that for every additional $10,000 in the school budget the tax rate would go up two cents per every $100,000 of valuation based on the current equalized valuation. He said that they did not know what
the equalized valuation for the next year would be.
Mr. Bock asked how many school days had been lost in Nottingham. Ms. Carvalho said that there had been four days where school had been cancelled and two days where the kids had been released early. Ms. Danis said that if those numbers held the kids would get out of school for the summer on June 23, 2009.
Mr. Koester asked whether the school had looked into buying a used fire proof file cabinet. Ms. Carvalho said no. She said that the new file cabinet would come with a lifetime warranty. She said that it also weighed about 1000 pounds and would need shipment. Mr. O'Brien said that he did not think it would be appropriate to use a used file cabinet to store Special Education files.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Andersen made a motion that the Budget Committee approve the minutes from their meeting on December 18, 2008. Mr. Koester seconded the motion.
The Budget Committee discussed some minor changes to the minutes.
Ms. Andersen made a motion that the Budget Committee approve the minutes from their meeting on December 18, 2008 as amended. Mr. Koester seconded the motion. Ms. Andersen, Mr. Decker, Ms. Powell, Ms. Plante, Mr. Bock and Mr. Koester voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Danis and Mr. Barry abstained from the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with 2 abstentions.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE REPORT:
Ms. Andersen gave the Budget Committee an updated report of the requests made to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Ms. Powell said that the requests made it look like the 2011 taxes would be a nightmare. Ms. Andersen said that if something was paid for through a bond, all the money would show in one year but the town would not necessarily pay all of the money in one year. Mr. Koester asked whether it would be more appropriate to estimate bonds. Ms. Andersen said that was not how the system worked. Mr. Bock said that they would not know the interest rate to use to estimate bonds. Ms. Andersen said that the Capital Improvement Plan should be used as a planning tool. She said that it should be used by the Planning Board when they looked at subdivision applications, impact fees and other planning
needs for the town. She said that the Capital Improvement Plan should not just be a budgeting tool.
Ms. Andersen said that some of the things on the Capital Improvement Plan needed more information and clarification. Mr. Bock asked whether the amount on the plan for the fire engine was a hard number. Ms. Andersen said that the Capital Improvement Plan Committee had gotten the number from the Fire Department. Mr. Bock said that the amount was a not to exceed number. Ms. Andersen noted that the plan did not include any road construction for 2014. She said that she would like the Budget Committee members to get any questions about the Capital Improvement Plan to her by Tuesday morning (1-13-09) so she could ask them at the Capital Improvement Plan Committee meeting.
INFORMATION REQUEST FORM:
Ms. Andersen said that she had sent all the Budget Committee members copies of the information request form. She said that she just wanted to make all the newer members of the committee aware that there was a process in place for asking questions and getting information. Mr. Decker said that it was easier for people to ask questions now that all the members of the Budget Committee had email access.
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE:
Mr. Decker said that the Budget Committee needed to have a representative to the School Building Committee. Ms. Andersen said that maybe they should wait to choose a person until the School Board fleshed out the purpose of the committee a little bit. Mr. Koester said that he was concerned about the significant time commitment of that committee. Ms. Danis said that the committee would need more people. She asked how proactive the School Board was being in looking for people. Ms. Plante said that the School Board had been spending most of their time on the budget lately. Ms. Danis said that she could not volunteer for the committee because her husband was interested in being a part of it. The Budget Committee members decided to wait on choosing a representative to the School Building Committee.
NEWSLETTER ARTICLE:
Mr. Decker said that he written an article for the town newsletter. Ms. Danis asked when it would appear in print. Mr. Decker said that he did not know. Mr. Koester read Mr. Decker's article out loud. He noted that they would need to update the numbers used in the article. Mr. Decker said that they should just put in a date saying when those numbers had been current. Ms. Danis said that she was concerned about when the newsletter went to print and whether or not it was before the Deliberative Session. Mr. Decker said that the voters felt there was a communication problem in the community and he said that he was hoping his article would help start discussion. Ms. Andersen asked if they should even put in any numbers at all because of the publishing delay. Ms. Danis said that she would ask
whether the Budget Committee should even submit an article. Ms. Plante asked if most voters in town knew there was a Budget Committee and what the Budget Committee did. Mr. Koester said that the difference between the proposed budget and the default budget was less than $72,000. He said that the updated total proposed budget amount was $9,534,370.38. Ms. Andersen said that the total of the warrant articles was $107,235.46. Mr. Decker read the article out loud with the proposed number changes. Ms. Andersen asked whether the Deliberative Session snow date should be included in the article. Mr. Decker said that since the newsletter would not be published before that date, it was unnecessary to put it in the article. Ms. Andersen suggested they clarify that the default budget only applied to the school. She said that it might be easier if the article used bullets for the three budget numbers, proposed, default and warrant articles. Ms. Danis said that she did not think the
article should mention the default budget number. She said that she thought that number would be a little misleading and confusing for the public. Mr. Decker said that he did not want to use any bullets because he was trying to make his article more of an explanation of process than about the budget numbers. He said that his goal was to explain that this was a work in progress. Ms. Andersen said that the Budget Committee should do an article for the March newsletter instead. Ms. Danis said that the article in March should explain the budget process. She said that she would volunteer to write the article. Mr. Decker said that it should be noted in the minutes that the Budget Committee had decided not to use the article he had written.
OTHER:
Mr. Bock said that there had been an interesting article in the Concord Monitor about Budget Committee's taking School Board's to task in the difficult economy.
Ms. Andersen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:55pm. Ms. Danis seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
