MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
BOARD OF FINANCE
AND BOARD OF EDUCATION
MAY 10, 2005
A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the Board of Finance and the Board of Education was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 in the Council Chambers.
Those in attendance included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, James Zeller, Joseph Nader, and Bruce Cornish, Board of Education members Paul Cavegnaro, Chairman, Dawn Lambert, Kenneth Edwards, Ronald Bourque, Bates Lyons, Douglas O’Connell, Elinor Carbone and Robert Lutka (arrived at 5:52 p.m.). Also, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan O’Brien, Assistant Superintendent of Schools Barbara Campbell, Director of Business Services James Gaskins, Director of Human Resources Gary Lambour, Interim Director of Special Programs Judith Babcock, Principal Southwest School John Pelchat, Principal Vogel Wetmore School William Joslyn, Principal at Torringford School Cathleen Todor, Interim Principal at Forbes Paul Ciochetti, Principal at Torrington High School Veronica LeDuc,
Facilities Director David Bascetta, and City Comptroller Alice Proulx. Absent was Board of Finance member James Nichols, and Board of Education members’ Edgar Trinidad and David Oliver.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. The Board of Education presented their budget to the Board of Finance.
Chairman of the Board of Education Paul Cavegnaro thanked everyone involved in creating this budget. Essentially, this was a maintenance budget, since it did very little to advance the educational agenda in the district. They found themselves constrained this year by searing budgetary facts of life over which they had very little control, contractual obligations, increases in student population, energy and transportation costs, and the legal imperative to meet compliance with the No Child Left Behind mandates. The board was left with very little discretionary room to move in terms of significantly improving student performance. Mr. Cavegnaro stated that this board, with its new administration, was committed to rethinking the ways of evaluating all their programs and processes so as to better sharpen
their focus on board priorities and thereby effectively advancing student education and achievement in Torrington in the coming years.
Dr. O’Brien stated that the budget being presented was very lean and asked the Board of Finance to please approve it. It was indeed a maintenance budget with very few dollars to advance student improvement. The Board of Education was pleased to follow Mayor Quinn’s directive in regard to the 6%, and they put their best effort forward to comply with that request. They all shared a sincere concern for the taxpayers and a sincere duty to be good stewards of public funds. She asked everyone to remember, that schools throughout the state and nation were being asked to do so much more than when we were in school. All the joys and the ills of society come through school house doors every day. They have to meet the needs of alternative programming, have a duty and obligation to provide a safe and
healthful environment for our young people, and have to build high quality academic and vocational programs. They are committed to moving forward with all the No Child Left Behind requirements and to address the needs of our changing population.
Dr. O’Brien pointed out that the high school in the very near future, was going to undergo the accreditation process with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and that the school system has incredible challenges to meet the needs of the students in order to maintain the accreditation. The reason for the many challenges is because the recommendations of the past accreditation report were not implemented. A wide variety of situations were in place that prevented those recommendations from being fulfilled. In the next few years, we must meet our accreditation standards in order to continue the fine tradition of Torrington High School. In addition, we have literacy initiatives of the past that must be met, and we have to develop alternative choices for a very diverse student
population.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that her fingerprints were barely on this budget because she came in at the eleventh hour. However, her fingerprints would be all over next year’s budget. Those fingerprints would demonstrate stewardship of public funds, concern for taxpayers, but most importantly, advocacy for the children and young adults of Torrington and the entire community. She pledged that they would continue to build upon the priorities of the past with a sharper focus accompanied by plans for action and assessment.
Chairman of the Budget Committee, Dawn Lambert, gave a presentation of the budget. She stated that the budget originally began with a 10.71% increase. She noted that additional staff was required to address the 7.7% of the current student population who did not speak English, compared to the 3.7% who did not speak English ten years ago. The high school had 10 bilingual students ten years ago. Last year there were 42. The system presently has 1,500 more students than ten years ago.
To set the record straight, Bruce Cornish informed the Board of Education that the 6% increase previously mentioned was not Mayor Quinn’s directive. The Mayor’s guideline was zero growth, plus contractual. Mr. Cornish said he took the Mayor’s directive to the city, and interpreted it along with some number crunching on the Board of Education’s budget. He felt that using the state’s budget policy was unreasonable, and clearly 10.71% was not reasonable. The 6% was reached when he used the Mayor’s directive to the city of zero growth plus contractual, and laid out on paper the contractual expenses for salaries, transportation, inflation created from the escalation in energy costs, etc., applied a 3% inflation to the current per pupil cost of the district, and
multiplied it by the anticipated enrollment.
Mayor Quinn stated that the Board of Finance has in the past waited for the Board of Education budget to be passed over to them, sort of ceremoniously. During his tenure he has made certain that each board member is sitting around one table and that no one is in an elevated position. He supported education. He believed the district did have experts in education and they should have the necessary resources. On the other hand, there were areas the Board of Education may not have the expertise, and that was a matter that he and Dr. O’Brien could discuss in the future.
Mayor Quinn said he has challenged the city to zero growth plus contractual. He has not given good financial news to anyone in the city nor the Board of Education during the past three difficult years, and has held the city and the Board of Education very stringent.
Mrs. Lambert stated, that although each board member had a different roll, they respected each other’s roles, and there was a big awareness among all board members that they wanted to get to the same place. It’s not that people don’t want to increase the cost of education, or at least properly educate kids, it’s about how we can do that within our economic structure in Torrington.
Having originally received a 10.71% budget, Mrs. Lambert stated that they went back to the administration and asked them for a 6% budget, plus an impact statement of what would occur with every staff position that they requested, if they didn’t fund it. In addition, they requested a line by line impact of every cut on the education of students to get to the 6%. They were asked to prioritize the cuts in three different ways: least impacted, the middle impacted, and highest impacted. Cuts from the first tier included Torrington High School detention, professional development funds, uniform expenses, conferences, etc. The second tier included cuts that the administration didn’t feel comfortable with, like summer school, technology, TAG, etc.
The board then looked at the way they could change programs so they are less expensive or serve more children. One example was the middle school sports where extra curricular activities were funded, as compared to inter scholastic sports as a way to be able to meet the needs of more students while all students would be invited to participate, but the cost would be reduced to taxpayers.
The board also changed the way they looked at programs. The administration said they wanted to design a summer school for reading for second grade children because reading by the third grade was a priority. She stated that they have been doing pre-imposed assessments to determine after one year whether the funds were spent in a way that increased the priority of reading by the third grade. They created some methodology for doing that. The benchmark was very good in the first year’s assessment and that’s the reason the summer school reading program was continued in this year’s budget. Other programs, like Reading Recovery, is not funded in this budget because of the expense. It will be replaced with something that will benefit more children. While TAG is still in the
budget, it was reconfigured.
The guidance on this budget included four key priority areas:
1) Reading by the third grade
2) Reorganization of the High School (Gateway, Southeast)
3) Annual progress
4) Drop out rate.
Mrs. Lambert indicated that the board moved funds from the originally proposed Capital Budget to the Operational Budget in order to get it (the Operational Budget) to 6.32% and meet the minimum needs for next year. The Capital Budget thus reflects a 30% decrease over the amount of money budgeted in this fiscal year. The Operational Budget reflects a slightly greater increase than the 6% in order to retain several staff positions that were critical in order to meet some of the educational needs of the students. The board had a list of everything that was cut from the Capital Budget.
She talked about the budget impact from priority areas. As an example, two new special education positions will go to the middle school because the middle school has not met the annual progress for two years in a row, with respect to special education students meeting the standards. This is a concern because our federal Title 1 funding will be at risk in the future if we repetitively fail to meet the annual progress and continue to move in the wrong direction.
Mrs. Lambert stated that the enrollment in the high school will be increased by 100 students. Due to the fact that the Gateways Program was not effective last year, it will be replaced with a program geared more to regular classrooms and will have intervention in those classrooms to meet the needs of those priority students.
Mr. O’Connell reported how pleasurable it was to have an open, free exchange of ideas and dialog with the Board of Finance. Although he understood what the Superintendent meant when she indicated that the document was a maintenance budget, with few dollars to improve student achievement, he viewed it as a budget that was totally dedicated to improving student achievement. The budget is now approached differently by monitoring how the dollars are spent and monitoring the effectiveness of the programs.
Mayor Quinn agreed that both boards were talking about educational enhancement and dealing with fiscal realities. He commended the board for performing evaluations and impact studies. As the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Torrington, he found it gratifying to see the Board of Education using good, healthy business practices. Previous double digit budgets were basically dead on arrival. He commended Mr. Cornish as well for taking on the responsibility of being liaison between boards.
Mayor Quinn pointed out his concern over the fact that, in 2002-2003, the board reduced the Capital Budget to the tune of $219,000.00, and in 2003-2004, the board once again reduced the Capital Budget by approximately $150,000.00 for some upgrades, and that they were once again looking to drop a sizable amount from the Capital Budget in the proposed budget. He cautioned the Board of Education about that practice, since the city had a huge investment in schools. He thought it was a dangerous road to borrow from our future.
Mayor Quinn explained that the Board of Education budget was a combination of the Operational Budget and the Five Year Capital Plans. The Operational Budget increased 7.34% to $51,858,758+, and the Capital Budget decreased 36.29% to $736,000.00. The combined budget is $52 million, which represents an increase of $3M+ which equates to an overall budget increase of 6.32%. If you look at net of revenue, that’s gross
expenditures minus the revenue that’s anticipated, that’s 11.59%.
Mayor Quinn understood the difficulties encountered by the Board in the present budget year including a change in Superintendents, $600,000.00 in contention, and an unexpected hit of $60,000.00 for garbage.
Chairman of the Board of Education Paul Cavegnaro, on behalf of most of the board members, indicated that they had the full intention of keeping the integrity of the Capital Budget next year and that it will be a key priority. In addition they have every intention of respecting what those dollar amounts represent and the importance of maintaining the physical structures and the integrity of their buildings and to provide the funding necessary for that. He called this year a transition year in many ways, and didn’t believe they would be having this conversation next year.
Mayor Quinn inquired how much Title 1 funded.
Mrs. Lambert indicated that Title 1 funds were $676,803.00.
Mayor Quinn stated that he couldn’t see a connection with grants listed on Page 17 and those listed on Page 13.
Mr. Gaskins informed him that they wouldn’t necessarily tie into each other. Some grants are passed through from other agencies, and therefore, could be listed on one page but not on another.
Mayor Quinn indicated that he would expect an explanation for “tie ins” throughout the budget.
He pointed out a $30,000.00 amount on Page 1 of the Capital Budget for Southwest School. On the original document submitted, the $30,000.00 in the 05-06 fiscal year was moved to the 06-07 fiscal year. Since this is grant money he thought they should take advantage of it in the earliest year possible. He asked for an explanation on why it was moved.
Mrs. Lambert indicated that it was reimbursement from the state.
Mayor Quinn pointed out that the numbers in the Board of Education budget will have to have some degree of reliability so he can be comfortable with the data in the reports. He would have to reexamine some of these numbers. Perhaps they needed to be re categorized so that everyone would know that the line items were in the correct category narrowing any fluctuations that might exist by a considerable margin. Some of the numbers defied explanation, like overtime wages in clerical being up by $42,000.00. He would like the Board of Education to furnish him with detail and back up material that he is accustomed to seeing on the city side. Before he reached the point of showing some leniency, he would have to be educated and sold.
Mr. Cornish said he appreciated Dr. O’Brien’s statement that they didn’t strive for the middle of the road in their ERG as far as achievement, they strive for the best.
Mr. Cornish agreed with Mayor Quinn’s comments in regard to the Capital Budget. He would like to charge the Board of Education to add the concerns of the Capital Budget to their list of priorities for the coming process, and to balance a five-year Plan instead of a Single-Year Plan, to avoid the peaks and valleys and to get a dedicated budget in order for them to take care of the facilities that they invest so much money in.
He was also interested in the outcome of the comprehensive high school initiatives. There may be some cost efficiencies as a result of what they are undertaking at the high school. That’s an extremely important project going forward.
Mr. Cornish wanted to confirm that there were no vacancy savings/surplus because of the hiring of new staff at lower salary levels from those who were retiring.
Mr. Gaskins indicated that they were accounted for.
Mr. Cornish inquired about Out-of-District Placements. It seemed as though there are additional revenues that are not accounted for or estimated in the current budget. He asked Dr. O’Brien what impact she thought they may have on next year’s revenues, if they had any impact at all. If it isn’t in the budget and they’re not carrying it in their operating statements, there has to be some positive revenue to the city.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that she and Mrs. Babcock would research that matter.
Lastly, Mr. Cornish asked what the impact would be if the Board of Finance took half a million dollars from the existing budget to meet a financial goal.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that the impact would affect personnel because they are so thin at this point in terms of programs. The discretionary pieces for program improvements like supplies, materials, software, technology, etc. have already been reduced significantly.
Mrs. Lambert stated that a half million-dollar cut would require engaging a process that would involve the community. She thought it was important to note that last year’s budget was less than 4% over the prior year in terms of operating. They had a lot of support from the administration saying that it was an achievable budget, but the bottom line is that the Operating Budget is running over. While they are comparing to last year’s Operating Budget, last year’s budget wasn’t achievable. They really shouldn’t be in the business of cutting back to 4%, eliminating positions, coming in as tight as possible, not filling positions because we have other things going on. You can do that for a couple of years and not really notice a difference, but if you do it over the
long run, you’ll see significant problems with respect to the achievement level of students.
Mr. Cavegnaro stated that cutting personnel would directly affect classroom sizes. Further cuts will have an immediate impact on the school district.
Mayor Quinn pointed out the Estimated Revenue of $19,510,433.00 on Page 12 of the Operational Budget, and asked if anyone was tracking the Governor’s Proposal, the Appropriation, the Democrat’s Counter Budget, which he believed was showing somewhere in the neighborhood of almost a half a million dollars more than that figure.
Mr. Cornish indicated that Mr. Gaskins sent him those estimates today. While the state budget is moving through the process, those figures may change. Just last week, they heard a proposal or a desire to redistribute another 100 million to communities, so that would have a positive effect on the system.
Mayor Quinn noted that positive feedback would be welcomed. It was believed that additional dollars would be earmarked for distressed cities like Torrington. The surplus anticipated in the state government is causing people to look at one of the problems we have in the State of Connecticut, the over reliance in the property tax system. He received a letter from the Lt. Governor stating they were hoping the surplus could, by formula, go back to the municipalities in an effort to compensate for a property tax system that is causing us all to be where we are right now.
Mr. Nader compared the Board of Education’s budget that was distributed on February 11, where there was an anticipated surplus of $145,775.00 with today’s budget where they were reflecting $79,432.00 surplus, and inquired what caused the reduction in the surplus of approximately $65,000.00.
Mr. Gaskins said it was due to the fact that the state released new estimates on April 21st that were included in the most recent document.
Mr. Zeller pointed out that, if the numbers were released on April 21st, the budget document in front of them was dated April 6.
Mr. Gaskins would look into the matter. As far as why the estimate in the state’s projection would have changed, he would meet with the Special Education Director. He would get back to the board with an explanation.
Dr. O’Brien said it was specifically a Special Education line item, based on an reexamination of the numbers of Special Education children you have, and where they are out- placed. The state uses a formula to determine the amount of support they give you for various placements and they re-calculate that based on a March 1st account. They give you the most updated number in terms of what you’re going to get back, usually in mid-April. So that could have been an estimate based on March 1 numbers.
Mr. Zeller asked Dr. O’Brien if there was anything that needed to be addressed immediately in terms of the High School accreditation.
Dr. O’Brien said they need to determine ways where they can achieve a stronger, tighter, more uniform curriculum across the various content areas. She noted that it is very difficult in a large high school to supervise the quality of the content and the discipline when Department Supervisors and Content Area Leaders have been eliminated.
Dr. O’Brien stated that, in regard to accreditation, the NEA looks for a high quality curriculum that’s uniformly offered to students, a curriculum that’s assessed by the teachers and viewed from a perspective of continuous improvement. Those are things that we have to start to line out right now. This is more of an assessment, a discussion, and an organizational piece that doesn’t cost anything, but when these visiting teams come to visit us within the next couple of years, we have to have in place for the accreditation process, a curriculum that is well written, articulated, and rigorous. We have to address the needs of those young people who are not successful in the curriculum and have an alternative plan in place for them. We need to make sure that our best and
brightest are being challenged at the highest levels and make sure we have the AP courses and honors courses in place. It’s a huge project, especially in light of the fact that we don’t have those content area specialists to lead the charge, and to monitor and supervise what goes on in the classrooms. Those key positions make certain the content of the curriculum is correct, current, and delivered in the best and most efficient and effective manner as possible.
Mr. Zeller inquired whether the teachers would expect a raise in pay when their responsibilities are bumped up in what they are required to do.
It was pointed out that the teacher’s contracts will be negotiated next year.
Although it may impact the budget because it’s a change in working conditions, Dr. O’Brien thought this was a perfect time to start chatting with the teachers about some of the expectations for professional behavior and accountability. Some things could be achieved through good will and by looking at what the students need. The teachers are not particularly happy without content area support. They are feeling the absence of that kind of organizational support and fragmentation. Middle ground should be able to be reached.
Mr. Zeller asked Dr. O’Brien if a grant of approximately $1.5 or $1.6 million funded in the past would no longer be available, would it become a deficiency that would have to be addressed immediately.
Dr. O’Brien said that would be a very bad thing. A lot of these grants have been around for decades. The Title 1 grant began in 1965 and it has been like the flagship of federal education grants. They don’t look towards those kinds of grants being taken away. In fact, they look for some growth in them. The problem is that anticipated growths don’t match anticipated needs.
In regard to teacher salaries and accreditation, Mr. Zeller inquired whether there was any tie-in with teacher negotiations over salaries / benefits and the accreditation and responsibilities, or if it was not something that could take place.
Dr. O’Brien said it depends on the district. Some districts will use professional development time that’s already built into the calendar to address some of the duties, obligations and the writing of narratives. In both districts that she was aware of, a lot of the writing and organization was borne by department supervisors or content area specialists. Much discussion will be needed to figure out how the work is going to be done and who is going to do the work to bring the narratives together for the accreditation. It probably will have a cost, and most likely be in next year’s budget request. It’s a huge amount of work which can not be left to do at the last minute.
Mr. Zeller indicated because revenue remains fairly constant, anything increasing the budget is borne by city taxpayers. He asked how much was saved by eliminating school athletics and going to intramural athletics.
Dr. O’Brien answered about $20,000.00.
Personally, Mr. Zeller said he would always hope they could find a way to fund interscholastic athletics through the middle school level. Not only because he thought kids deserved it, but because it builds a base for the high school level. When Torrington teams do well, there is a positive impact on the community.
Mr. Cavegnaro stated that much discussion had taken place on this issue and it will continue during the next budget year. Perhaps they can find ways outside the school district to fund athletics. He stated, when a town like Torrington gets new residents, they sometimes tend to be low income residents and they bring a different cost factor to educating them. They bring certain needs to the town that other towns like Simsbury and Farmington don’t have to deal with. Those needs show up in our budgets in many ways that aren’t necessarily a line item, but have to be dealt with. It is far reaching and continuing. To address those kinds of problems is beyond just the Board of Education. The problems need to be addressed within many other agencies and boards within this town.
Like all municipalities that have to deal with those issues, Torrington is bearing a large share of the burden for social problems that are not specific to education. We are doing the best we can, and we will continue to do so. Even though funding increases, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it increases specifically in educational modes. That won’t change. The solution will not come solely from the board, but will come from the board working with the City Council and the Board of Finance, and through an accounting state level to try to find some relief for those issues.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the Board of Education asked the administration what effect the elimination of athletics in middle school would have on the high school, and their answer was that the travel teams were the feeders’s at the high school and it should not have a significant impact in interscholastic sports at the high school. They cut the areas where there were other opportunities out there like Travel Teams or PAL Leagues. They recognized it wasn’t a great solution, but one that was sensible.
Mr. Nader said he thought the elimination of sports in the middle school was disheartening. He indicated that middle school sports give a lot of students a focus, and it’s a disciplinary driver as well. You may have honor students in sports as well as children at the other end of the educational spectrum who participate in sports and that’s their catalyst for staying on the right path.
Mr. Nader inquired as to why the Board of Education targeted the boys volley ball team for elimination at a savings of $12,500.00, after recently being outfitted with brand new equipment. Also, why did athletic transportation costs increase when middle school games were eliminated?
Mr. Nader also inquired about the increase from $85,169.00 to $173,048.00 towards salary for an in-house computer technician, and wondered whether they would be better of subcontracting the work.
Mayor Quinn said he looked for the reliability of the numbers and what he was seeing was more questions over what’s going on and that things didn’t quite add up. He required a better comfort level, and it seemed as though that’s what he was hearing from the Board of Finance as well. He informed the Board of Finance that they had the ability to dissect any line item from the city side of the budget. However, that was not the case with the Board of Education budget. The role of the Board of Finance is to listen and ultimately approve, increase or decrease the budget. If they are to decrease the budget, they may only give the Board of Education a dollar amount that it is to be decreased by, and the decisions are left for the Board of Education to make.
Mr. O’Connell informed Mr. Nader that there was only a 4% increase in the salary for the technician over the current year. Two years ago, it was $85,169.00 and they went to $166,080.00 in the current year because they hired an inside technician as opposed to an outside contractor, which saved the city money. There would have been a reduction in contracts somewhere else in that year’s budget.
Mr. Nader inquired about Homebound Services that increased from $61,216.00 in 2004 - 2005 to $110,000.00 in the proposed budget, and how many students were receiving homebound services.
Mr. Gaskins indicated that account was under funded this year. The account includes salaries, computers, and substitutes. Account modifications and re-groupings will be made on this account in order to obtain consistencies. In regard to how many students were receiving homebound services, Mr. Gaskins would get back to Mr. Nader with that answer.
Mr. Nader asked if the Board of Education could look at other types of health insurance to bring costs down.
Mr. Gaskins indicated that they were already self funded jointly with the City of Torrington in one big pool for medical insurance, and that they go out to bid or negotiate from year to year. It was his belief that 10% increases for school districts were quite reasonable.
Mrs. Lambert stated that they re-opened the contract last year specifically because of concerns about the rising costs of health insurance. The budget was reduced to reflect the negotiations. The board agreed that they needed to continue to look at insurance on a yearly basis.
Mr. Lyons added that there was some discussion in the state Comptroller’s Office to allow the municipalities and school districts to join the state plan. He didn’t know what the impact would be, but it will be reviewed.
Dr. O’Brien asked the Board of Finance to get their specific questions to Ms. Proulx, whereby she will turn them over to her via e-mail and she will farm them out to whomever they belong to. Their homework will have been done the next time they meet.
ADJOURNMENT #540
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Zeller, the board voted unanimously to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
