MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
BOARD OF FINANCE
AND THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
MAY 8, 2007
A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the Board of Finance and the Board of Education was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 in the Council Chambers to review the Board of Education budget.
Those in attendance included Mayor Ryan J. Bingham, members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, Bruce Cornish, Mark Bushka, Thomas Scoville, and James Zeller, City Comptroller Alice Proulx, Chairman of the Board of Education Paul Cavegnaro, members of the Board of Education Douglas O’Connell, Elinor Carbone, Robert Lutka, Wendy Traub, and Heidi Laus, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan O’Brien, and Director of Business Services Nancy Haynes. Board of Finance member James Nichol was absent.
Mayor Bingham called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
Board of Education Chairman Paul Cavegnaro thanked Mayor Bingham and the Board of Finance for taking this time to discuss the 2007-2008 Board of Education budget.
Mr. Cavegnero said public education is a cornerstone of any viable municipality, and a primary and essential mechanism by which a community passes along to each succeeding generation its core values. Further, it’s the means by which a community provides each generation with the intellectual and social skills necessary to survive in an increasingly competitive and hostile world. The Board of Education understands full well their responsibility to do everything in their power to live up to these obligations, and it understands that we live in a real world of both spiraling educational demands and increasing limited resources. Reconciling the educational opportunities that the Board of Education wants for the children of Torrington with the reality of what the taxpayer’s can afford has been at the
very crux of every meeting, debate, and passionate argument that the board has endured during the past four months.
Mr. Cavegnero said this budget represents their best compromise to achieve, not everything they want, but everything that the Superintendent and her staff feel they need to advance the educational goals of the children of Torrington in the coming year.
The superintendent of Schools, Dr. Susan O’Brien, indicated that the Torrington school system suffered from regression in terms of policies, decision-making, programs, faculty, textbooks, and in the high school accreditation process between the years 2000 and 2005.
Dr. O’Brien stated that the high school was evaluated in 1997 and put on warning that it may lose its accreditation if a list of improvements isn’t carried forth during the next few years. When she was hired in 2005, she was devastated when she realized the situation in which our high school was in. She then dedicated herself and her staff to begin the restoration of this school district, and in particular to Torrington High School, so that it would not lose its accreditation in the evaluation study that will take place in 2007. Her theme is to “Restore the Pride to the Torrington Public Schools.” She brings the budget to the Board of Finance with a very sincere heart knowing that every penny must be dedicated to improve our schools and to maintain the
accreditation of our flagship school.
Dr. O’Brien identified the following Board of Education’s goals:
1. Advance academic achievement
2. Address the accreditation process
3. Provide safe and welcoming school environment
4. Comply with the No Child Left Behind mandate
5. Use all our resources effectively and efficiently
The priorities of the Board of Education are:
1. To address the NEASC accreditation expectations
2. To reduce our drop out rate
3. To advance literacy attainment
4. To advance our adequate yearly progress plan, mandated by No Child Left Behind.
The Board of Education’s budget proposal is to go from the current budget of $56.3 million to $59.7 million. That represents an increase of $3.3 million, or 5.9%. She pointed out that 2.77% is spent on contractual obligations, and 3.46% on mandated services such as special education and No Child Left Behind. Before they even started to look at program improvements, they were faced with mandatory obligations of approximately $3 million, or 5.4%.
Dr. O’Brien said it makes her sad and gives her a sense of despair sometimes when she looks at these budgets year after year and sees just how tiny their program requests are, but they keep trying to get more. Program improvements make up 0.76% of this budget.
Proposed program improvements for the Elementary Schools:
1. Expand the literacy staff at Torringford and Southwest
2. Half time media specialist at Southwest
3. Expand our summer school opportunities, focus on reading, grades 1 & 2
4. Additional supplies and materials, as well as leveled reading books
5. Increase English Language Learner programs
Proposed program improvements for the Middle School:
1. Language Arts I and Language Arts II class to help children who have a hardship in reading at their grade level
2. Devise more challenging and rigorous World Language options and high school level Algebra for TAG students in grades 7 & 8.
3. Support for English Language Learner students
4. Supplies, library books and textbooks
5. Two special education teachers
6. A half time social worker
Proposed program improvements for the High School:
1. The NEASC accreditation
2. Add an Instructional Leader in Social Studies and Science
3. Social Worker to split time between the middle and high school
Mr. Cornish pointed out that special education, out-of-district tuition, tuition in general, and transportation amounted to $1.9 million of the $3.3 million requested increase in the Board of Education budget. He noted that $2.8 million was expended on tuition in 2005 versus the $4.7 million requested for tuition in the proposed budget. That led him to think that this line item would be a target for reduction should the Board of Finance decide that their budget is too aggressive. He asked what could be done to control this line item.
Mr. Cavegnero said they don’t have control over out-of-district costs and it has become a grave concern. There are many factors for an increasing number of out-of-district students placed in the Torrington school systems for special education that we are responsible for. There seems to be a surprising lack of control and accountability from the state in terms of alerting us when additional students are brought into our system and for allowing the school system to anticipate and to control these costs.
Dr. O’Brien stated that they had twelve more DCF placements at the end of September 2006 of which they had absolutely no control over whatsoever, which gave them a deficit right from the beginning because they were not budgeted for those twelve children. Additionally, some of the folks moving into town will have children with special needs and the Board of Education won’t know that until the child is registered for school. They are legally bound to serve those children. The courts will often place children as well, and it’s our obligation to serve them.
Dr. O’Brien further explained that the Torrington school system has been an “F” ERG district. In other words, we were grouped with other districts of like social economics, and of like descriptors. We dropped to a “G” ERG last year after the state reconfigured the factors. That means that our community is getting poorer in terms of per capita income. As our school population becomes more diverse, it also has more needs.
Doug O’Connell indicated that the city will receive excess cost reimbursement to offset some of those expenses. It’s the net increase they will have to look at, as opposed to the gross increase.
Ms. Haynes said the state reimburses the school district anything beyond four times the per pupil cost for each child they place. If it’s a state agency or a DCF placement, we’re responsible for anything beyond one time the per pupil expenditure. When the per pupil expenditure is calculated, special education costs are taken right off the top.
Dr. O’Brien stated that when they noticed the projections were not where they wanted them to be at the beginning of the year, they put a freeze on all special education funding. They stripped all the special ed grants and any additional expenditures to dedicate those dollars toward that mounting deficit. When it became evidently clear that what they were doing wasn’t enough, they made a general freeze of all district spending. That meant that some of the richness and benefits planned for the entire school year was not brought forward.
Mr. Cornish said if the Board of Finance reduces the Board of Education budget by the $250,000.00 built in escrow in the out-of-district tuition line item, the reality is that they will be plucking funds from services to students, things they plan to do for the benefit of the children.
Dr. O’Brien said “Precisely right, we will deliver 2/3rds of a program instead of the entire program.”
Mr. Cavegnero stated that public education today is, in many ways, about social services as much as it is about education, and the Board of Education catches and absorbs many of those social problems in the school system.
Mr. Farley said it was his belief that tuition was being increased by $1.3 million, and that $250,000.00 of that was being put aside in a contingency. He inquired about the remaining $1 million.
Mr. O’Connell said it was the cost associated with the outplacement that is known or expected for next year. Other than that $250,000.00 there’s nothing built into the budget for students who might enter the district next year, similar to what happened this year.
Ms. Haynes said this year’s budget was based on 73 outplaced students as compared to next year’s budget which is based on 91 known outplacements.
The remaining $1 million is to cover the increase from 73 to 91 students and the costs associated with them because the costs of tuition and transportation increases.
Mr. Zeller pointed out that estimated revenue in 2007-2008 for educational cost sharing was approximately $3 million higher than it was in the previous three years where it remained relatively consistent. He asked how accurate this figure was, because the increase in the budget borne by taxpayers if they were not to receive the entire $3 million would be significant.
Mr. O’Connell said the Budget Committee and the board did not recommend or approve a budget based upon that revenue figure, and they were not projecting that figure to come to the city. That number, given to them by the Governor, was used for information purposes. The Board of Education is saying it needs a 5.9% increase to achieve its goals. If that number doesn’t come in for Torrington, it’s nothing that they can control.
Ms. Haynes said she spoke with her contacts and a finance director from another town who had actually surveyed a number of towns to get a handle on what numbers they were using for their revenue estimates in education and the far majority of them were using the Governor’s numbers.
Mayor Bingham pointed out that the majority leaders in the House and the Senate have sent letters to Mayor’s and First Selectman of all 169 towns telling them not to use the Governor’s figures. There were four different budgets and he was inclined to go with the majority. It looks like the appropriation numbers are the best, in terms of getting the most positive results.
Mr. Zeller inquired where we fell in regard too per pupil spending.
Dr. O’Brien said she didn’t have those numbers with her, but would get a copy to him.
Mr. Zeller inquired to what extent will the proposed program improvements lead to future contractual obligations in terms of additional staff, etc.
Dr. O’Brien stated that most of the program improvements are directly tied to people who will give direct service to children. If funded, those folk will be included on the salary line, and over time, they will increase our contractual obligations and salary benefits.
Ms. Haynes said when you look at the increase in their contractual obligations, it was lower than it was last year. The Board of Education has taken some very aggressive steps through contract negotiations toward contributions made by teachers and administrators and retirement benefits. Even though there will be associated increases in contractual obligations, aggressive steps will be taken to reduce the increase in those contractual benefits as they move forward.
Dr. O’Brien said they were attempting to slow the growth and reign it back in through contract negotiations over the years, i.e., by increasing the share that employees pay for health insurance. She added that they looked at existing resources and used them in different ways. Several teaching positions are cost neutral because existing folk were rearranged to do different things.
Dr. O’Brien explained that per pupil costs are derived by taking the total budget and dividing it by the number of students.
Ms. Haynes added that the state calculates the per pupil expenditure based on a formula, and the two largest components, special education costs and capital costs are not included in the per pupil expenditures.
Mr. Scoville noted that the drop out rate will be addressed by putting an emphasis on language arts in the middle school. What other ways will they address the drop out rate?
Dr. O’Brien noted that the board approved an Alternative High School program called THS Goal; however, they were unable to find a site to implement the program. They are hoping to find a site during the course of the year in order to implement that program for the fall of 2008. She added that they will attempt to place students at risk in classes of around 12 or 15 students so they can get more personal attention.
Mr. Scoville asked Dr. O’Brien if she thought Torrington would ever have a coop/technical high school.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that Superintendents in Litchfield County were pressing her to start a coop so they can send some of their students to Torrington. They don’t have enough young people to start such a program themselves. If we had one, we could be on the receiving end of the transfer tuition of ten or twelve young people carefully selected who meet our criteria to help defray the cost of our alternative program. The great majority of young people would be our students.
Mr. Scoville asked if they ever received additional revenue for out-of-district placements during the year.
Mr. Cavegnaro indicated that they do receive revenue during the course of the year but it doesn’t cover the total amount. At this point, there’s talk of a full fledge epidemic of autism in our society. Typically, the solution for this kind of disability is to have more people, as opposed to more textbooks.
In regard to the drop out rate, Mr. Cavegnaro said years ago, Torrington had classes and courses at the high school that fit the needs of a working class community with job opportunities to fit students who preferred to work in shops or on cars instead of going to college. Two things occurred. Manufacturing jobs are no longer available and the previous administration gutted the tech ed programs because they wanted the focus of the high school to be college prep. There’s nothing available to hook the kids choosing not to go to college into the school system. They don’t have the classes nor the curriculum to hold them in school. The school board is very aware of this problem and they talk about getting a robust tech ed curriculum, not only in the high school, but beginning
at the elementary school level with the discussion of robotics; however, they can’t seem to make any progress in that direction because of the need to meet the government’s demands on mandates.
Mr. O’Connell said the Corps Plus Program, and adding a part time social worker at the high school, should have some effect on the drop out rate.
Mr. Bushka asked if the savings from textbooks was due to the tremendous investment they made on textbooks during the current year.
Dr. O’Brien said that was correct. They are continuing to acquire new textbooks but not spending the massive amount of money that was spent in the current year.
Mr. Bushka inquired about the non certified salary adjustment of $209,000.00.
Ms. Haynes indicated that those funds were put aside for non certified staff who are currently in negotiations, and it includes anticipated increases for non certified staff who are not in the union as well.
Mr. Bushka inquired about the accreditation process.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that the dissertation will occur in September of 2007 whereby a team of eight to ten visiting evaluators will stay in town for three solid days. They will do a thorough review and speak with every teacher in Torrington High School, every member of the central office staff, and with the young people. She noted that the standards for accreditation have increased dramatically. It’s no longer “how many books do you have in the library?”; it’s “at what level are all your students reading, and why aren’t they progressing?”.
Hosting costs of $20,000.00 will be fully implemented here in Torrington. The district will bear the cost of rooms and meals for the evaluators. A brief exit forecast of what they’ve found, including the good as well as areas that need improvement, will be shared with Dr. O’Brien and others as they leave the district. Later, they will furnish the district with a very extensive report outlining areas for praise and improvements that we need to meet over the next ten years. Periodically, the district will write a stylist report to show them how we are implementing their recommendations.
Dr. O’Brien noted that the high school received a warning during the last accreditation process ten years ago and we proceeded to remove programs, staff, and the funding for textbooks.
Mr. Cornish asked if there was anything in the current proposal that could compromise their district goals of safe environment and their responsibility to preserve their assets.
Mr. Cavegnaro said no.
Mr. Cornish asked if there was anything they should consider adding back to meet those goals.
Mr. Cavegnaro reviewed the items that were removed.
Vogel Wetmore hallway treatments
High School equipment garage
Building partition at the high school
Library wall at the high school
Migeon Avenue facade
Middle School Special Ed classroom
Conference room furniture
Mr. Farley asked how they were able to assume that they would get less in Medicare and School Readiness grants.
Ms. Haynes indicated that the Medicaid grant had been running with a deficit, and it’s been very difficult to recapture what is reimbursable from Medicaid because of some mandates. The early reading grant, which was reduced by the Governor’s recommendation, will affect them greatly at Vogel Wetmore where they have Power Hour to support struggling learners.
Mr. Scoville asked how much the board cut from their original budget.
Ms. Haynes said the Superintendent’s budget was $60,207,066.00, the Budget Committee’s budget was $59,731,581.00 and the Board of Education’s adopted budget was $59,704,140.00.
Mr. O’Connell said he will furnish Mr. Scoville with a spread sheet that takes them through all the cuts on one page and displays what was cut in capital.
Mr. Farley asked the board if they took advantage of the Energy Opportunities Program through CL&P.
Ms. Haynes said they received a $30,000.00 grant from OPM for energy improvements for boilers installed at Forbes School, and they recently signed up with a company to get rebates on shedding their electrical load during the summer months. That revenue is built into the revenue side of the budget.
Mr. O’Connell pointed out that Mr. Cornish encouraged the board to look at how the summer pay was influencing the salary account. That resulted in a $200,000.00 reduction in the salary account in the proposed budget, which, in years past, would have been available as a contingency for excess cost placements. It was his belief that the district would be at risk should the Board of Finance cut the $250,000.00 from Contingency for out-of-district students.
Mr. Cornish explained that the 5.9% increase in the Board of Education’s proposed budget was based on last year’s approved budget. Acknowledging that we have a revenue and an expenditure increase, an adjustment will be made before the close of the year to reflect the out-of-district placement and additional revenue. This will have no impact on the taxpayers, but it will impact the expenditure and revenue side of the budget. When you add that in as an adjustment to the current services and project budget increases off of adjusted current services, this budget is much closer to a 5% increase than it is to a 5.9% increase, and it was his belief that it was lean.
ADJOURNMENT: TAPE #2 #185
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Scoville, the board voted unanimously to adjourn at 6:45 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
