|
Manchester
Public Schools |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
January 19, 2006 7:05
P.M. |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Crockett, Edwards, Hackett, Huyler (arrived 7:35 p.m.), Rizzo, Rowe, Small-Miller, Stafford ABSENT: Golas ALSO A1.
Call to Order A2.
Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Hackett welcomed everyone to the January 19, 2006 Budget Workshop. She mentioned that this is the first of several budget workshops that the Board will conduct, at which time the proposed budget will be reviewed by the Board of Education, and finally adopted by February 11, 2006. It will then be submitted to the Town General Manager by February 21, 2006, per Board of Education Policy. She mentioned that the next workshop is Tuesday, January 24, 2006 in the Robertson School cafeteria at 7:00 p.m., with a snow date of February 1, 2006. The budget workshop after that is scheduled for Wednesday, February 1, 2006, with a snow date of February 8, 2006. She also mentioned that if a fourth workshop were needed, it would take place on February 8, 2006. Ms. Hackett explained that the Personnel and Finance Committee will run the workshop, and it is Co-chaired by Mr. Mike Rizzo and Mr. John Rowe. She stated that the Board hopes to entertain the public's questions during the public comment sessions of the meeting, which are at the beginning of the meeting and one at the end of the meeting. Ms. Hackett asked the public to limit their questions to ones that are relative to the budget. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. Mr. Stringfellow mentioned that there are a lot of expenses that come up in the budget, and one disturbing article that he read was the indirect blaming of teacher salaries, and he hopes that the Board has a comprehensive budget that takes everything into effect. He feels there are good programs going into place. He hopes the budget message will reach non-homeowners. He mentioned that 6% of residents of Manchester are renters. The message and the facts need to get out to retirement villages also, so there can be better feedback and attendance at the next meeting. C. Opening Remarks Mr. Rizzo mentioned that mostly staff was present at the meeting, along with some members of the public, and he thanked them all for taking the time to come out tonight. Mr. Rizzo gave preliminary information to Board members, mentioning the Budget Policy #3110, which outlines the process that the Board will undertake to review the budget. He mentioned that tonight begins Phase I, which is the Superintendent's opportunity to outline the entire budget. The process continues with Board members asking the Superintendent questions on the budget, with the Superintendent bringing answers back at the next workshop. The process continues until they reach Phase II, which is where Board members may propose any reductions or additions to the budget. The policy is specific, saying that the Board does not entertain any reductions or additions until that time when the Superintendent and her staff have completely brought the budget forward and made it public for everyone. Mr. Rowe thanked everyone for coming out to the meeting. He also mentioned that tonight is for the Superintendent to propose her budget to the Board, and that it will be a learning process for the Board as well.
Superintendent Ouellette stated that the Manchester Public Schools' mission guides the district improvement agenda, which outlines the district's goals and objectives for the year. She mentioned that the FY06-07 budget includes several initiatives that are designed to further the goals and objectives of the School Board. The beliefs/mission/goals statements approved by the Manchester Board of Education provided the foundation for the recommendations contained within this school budget. She stated that the following presentation highlights many issues facing our school system. Superintendent Ouellette said that student achievement and meeting the proficiencies on State assessments remains the focus of our school system. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) continues to have significant impact on our local school system, both academically and financially. She mentioned that in the spring of 2005, members of the Manchester Board of Education and Board of Directors met with the Central Office staff to revise the format of the budget document. Although the final budget document is considered a work in progress, it does provide the means to understand the budget requests and priorities through explanatory text that includes both level service funding, budget projections, and new district initiatives. She stated that as we work on providing additional cost savings to the district and await information on State funding, the final budget document will be printed and bound based on the Board's final budget. The Superintendent stated that at the beginning of the budget process, Central Office staff, building administration, and program supervisors were provided a general framework for preparing their budgets; this included establishing as a priority the goals and objectives as approved by the Manchester Board of Education, and outlined in the district's Strategic Plan. The Central Office staff and Administrative Team considered, first, redirecting existing resources to meet the priorities within the district, and then considered the request as a viable means of financing new initiatives. Superintendent Ouellette mentioned that staff members, at all management levels, participated in the development of this budget. The Board of Education will conduct budget workshops involving the Superintendent and administrative staff, and have invited the public to participate. This actively supports the development of the Superintendent's recommended budget by providing guidance on priorities and strategic directions. She stated that the preliminary projection indicates that approximately a 6.6% increase over the prior year would be required to maintain current programming and level of services. In each of the past years, student programs were preserved with the adjustments and modifications made from the administrative team. Wherever possible, the administrative team has satisfactorily applied cost-containment and reduction measures. In addition, numerous important building and maintenance capital projects are prioritized into multi-year phases. The Superintendent said that although Connecticut citizens generally value a strong public school system, many people have pushed for local tax reductions, which squeeze individual school systems, like Manchester, for additional dollars. At the same time, the cost of operating a school system continues to increase. Every school system these days struggles to deliver quality education while managing expenses. Based on current revenue projections from State and Federal sources, the Board of Education will need to prioritize expenditures. Those assigned the highest priority were included in the FY06-07 budget. Superintendent Ouellette stated that the Manchester staff faced many challenges in developing the FY06-07 budget. Those challenges included meeting the staffing needs of the school system with an accelerated middle school schedule and continuing to offer a competitive compensation package for all staff. She mentioned that with the merging of grades 7th and 8th of Illing Middle School and Bennet Middle School for the 2006-2007 school year, this budget reflects the instructional and educational needs as best that can be predicted at this time. Specific allocation of funds has been made by the two middle school principals based upon the needs of each middle school. Program change and adaptation, especially at the elementary level, may necessitate the refinement of certain areas where more funds may need to be redirected. Since curricula decisions have yet to be made for the 6th Grade Academy, an accurate budget proposal, for professional development, is difficult to predict at this time. The Superintendent stated that the momentum gained in FY05-06 for funding the NEASC initiatives, would continue in FY06-07 with the addition of another $326,127. NEASC representatives have urged the district to allocate resources to the NEASC recommendations on a consistent basis. The computer technology funding in the budget is expected to provide a recurring funding source to replace the instructional technology in all schools each fiscal year. She also mentioned that Manchester Public Schools has concerns about disproportionate representation of children of color in many areas. Discipline, including suspensions and expulsions, continue to show disproportionate numbers of Black and Hispanic males being disciplined. Therefore, Manchester Public Schools is establishing a pilot alternative education program to address the issue of disproportionality. This program will be another opportunity to provide appropriate alternative education for children with behavior concerns. This is one more step on the continuum to address the needs of children. Superintendent Ouellette stated that diversity training, positive behavioral environments, and good instruction that emphasizes higher order thinking with hands-on applications and embedded skills instruction are other initiatives that need to be continually fostered in the regular educational setting but is paramount in an alternative setting. She stated that the Manchester District-wide Technology Plan, as well as the No Child Left Behind legislation, identifies a clear vision and goals for technology integration into classroom teaching and learning. She also stated that the MHS graduating class of 2006, and classes thereafter, must demonstrate competency in technology literacy as a requirement for graduation. The Superintendent mentioned that in order to help students be successful in a technologically rich economy (districts must):
She stated that in summary, this budget proposal provides recommendations for the necessary resources to sustain the Manchester Public School District's vision, and consistently meets the many goals and objectives for student achievement. She welcomes the public to participate in the budget workshops through the public comment sessions, and urge them to take a budget binder that has been provided for the public this evening. The Superintendent stated that it is with great respect that she presents to the Board and the public the FY2006-07 budget.
Educational
Priorities
Clear Vision of Student Achievement
Budget Priorities
The Superintendent stated that the recommendation for the 2006-07 budget request is for $90,227,433, in comparison to last year's budget, which was $82,986,851, for a total increase of $7,240,582: a recommended increase of 8.7%. Level
Service Increases The Superintendent stated that the costs would have been much higher, but she is anticipating some projected retirements that has reduced the cost for these line items. Level
Service Increases The Superintendent
state that the pension account has been under funded for many years,
and it needs to be rectified immediately and added into next year's
budget, which is a significant cost in this budget. Level
Service Increases The Superintendent
stated that projecting for next year's utilities is very difficult,
and that
The Superintendent reminded the Board that this is the final year of the transportation contract with First Student. She mentioned that the increases in tuition costs are tuitions for special education students in Connecticut district's private and magnet schools, as well as Vo-Ag and Charter Schools. This has been a significant increase, especially in the magnet schools. The Superintendent stated that the Level Service Increase needed, in order to contain and sustain the current level of program and instruction, is $5,458,432; a 6.6% increase. The Superintendent explained that increases in the budget were for some of the initiatives, one being, which is a top priority this year, the Accelerated Middle School Project Increases:
New Teaching Positions - 6th Grade to Elementary
New Positions
Total of Increases for the Accelerated Middle School Project Increases: $574,665 The Superintendent stated that this increase is needed in order to sustain the level of services for 6th grade students, as well as middle school students. The Superintendent mentioned that the second priority for the school system is the NEASC increases. This is for the accreditation of the high school. She mentioned that with Bennet and Illing merging, and having Bennet Middle School off-line, she anticipates being able to really take a look at, and address, some of the initiatives that NEASC has recommended, as well as reorganize the staff again. NEASC Increases:
Total of NEASC Increases: $326,127 The Superintendent
wanted to make mention to the Board and the public that the original
request was in the amount of $914,340, but because of the reorganization
and adjustments that were made, the amount of the requests was reduced
by $588,213. She feels that in working with the The Superintendent
explained that the focus in the past budgets, which is a continuous
struggle, is the replacement for technology. Every year it is placed
in the budget and every year, with adjustments that need to be made
to the budget, technology has not been in the forefront as a priority.
This year, she is really trying to hold on to the technology plan that
Ms. Gejda has worked on with the teachers and administrators in the
district. She explained that more than 40% of the computers in the district
are over 5 years old.
The Superintendent explained that the Alternative to Expulsion Program would be presented to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee within the next couple of weeks. Also, Ms. Tait will further detail the program in an upcoming budget workshop. Superintendent Ouellette further explained that this alternative program is designed to decrease the disproportionate representation of children of color and disciplinary action, and decrease expulsion. She feels this new program will reduce some of the out-of-district tuition costs for special education expelled students. Budget Additions:
The Superintendent stated that when it is reported to the State, in the annual October 1st report, that the district has more than 20 Spanish speaking, English language learners in any one school, the district is eligible for bi-lingual services. Manchester has been identified as reaching that threshold, and she feels it is in our best interest to be proactive and looking at a bi-lingual program within the district, before we are sited by the State of Connecticut. The Superintendent mentioned that these Town commitment increases are included in the Level Service Increases, the 6.6% increase that she provided earlier in her presentation. Town Commitments:
Per Pupil Expenditures FY 2003-2004:
Per Pupil Expenditures FY 2004-05:
The Superintendent explained the budget summary, highlighting such pertinent points as:
The Superintendent stated that, in summary, her FY 2006-2007 Recommended Budget has a total of $90,227,433, which is an 8.7% increase over the FY 2005-06 budget of $82,986,851 with the following increases:
Mr. Rizzo thanked the Superintendent for her presentation, and stated that this portion of the meeting is open for questions and comments from Board members. Ms. Huyler asked about the general insurance on equipment, and if there is insurance on any of the investments that are made on equipment. Ms. Brooks stated that there is coverage on all the equipment under the Manchester Self Insurance Program (MSIP). There are very large deductibles, so many times when equipment needs to be replaced; it is taken out of the allocation that is received each year. Property damage is a $50,000 deductible. She was not certain of the deductible for equipment, but she knew it is very large. Ms. Huyler stated that if a computer had to be replaced due to property damage, a large number of computers would need to be replaced for it to make sense. Ms. Brooks responded saying she was correct, that it was very difficult to get up to the $50,000 deductible, even when there has been a fire, which would entail additional costs for custodial overtime and maintenance. Ms. Huyler asked if there were different levels of insurance that would provide different levels of deductibles. Ms. Brooks stated that the Board's insurance is covered under the Town's insurance, and to really save money the large deductible is the only way the Town can afford to finance the insurance. She stated that when we do have a loss, the Board's budget has to support its end of the loss. Mr. Edwards asked about the electrical rate, saying that he assumes it includes the recent rate increases that have been put through the DPUC. Ms. Brooks said that it does. Mr. Edwards asked about policy #3510, wanting to know if the Bennet square footage was removed when the 3510 funds were calculated. Ms. Brooks said that it was not. Mr. Edwards said that this might be something to look at, given the fact that Bennet will be brought off-line for this fiscal year and under construction under the bond and therefore no maintenance on it, and we could save some money there. Mr. Edwards stated that with regards to the Bennet Music, Visual Arts, tutors, nurses, etc., $575,000 seems like a lot if you come at it from a standpoint that we already have nurses, tutors, and teachers for all those kids today. Superintendent Ouellette responded saying that she is trying to maintain the level of services in eight different locations. Mr. Edwards asked if the $575,000 is really a net increase, due to the inefficiency of having 6th graders in eight different locations. The Superintendent said he was correct. Mr. Edwards mentioned that he might want more detail on it, as it seems like a lot. The Superintendent said she would place that on the agenda at an up-coming workshop for further explanation. She also stated that instructional minutes are quite different at the elementary level, compared to the 6th grade, currently. If they were to reduce the instructional hours for art, music, and physical education at the current middle school 6th grade level, then that would need to be reviewed by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee in order to permit her to make that adjustment, as the current curriculum in place has allowed for that amount of time. Mr. Edwards asked about the $25,000 for the Pentamation Server and if it included software. Ms. Brooks said that it is just for the physical server and warranty. Mr. Edwards also wanted to know if this was a Windows Intel type of server. Ms. Brooks said it was a Unix Server. Ms. Brooks said she had the quote from Pentamation, if Mr. Edwards would like to see it. Mr. Edwards asked if it was going to be competitively bid. Ms. Brooks assured him that she always goes out to bid when spending $25,000. Mr. Edwards talked about the Alternative to Expulsion Program, saying the Superintendent mentioned that it would potentially have some net savings on the other side, in terms of not having out-of-district tuition, etc. He asked if the number quoted was a net number, or the cost to implement, whereby we are hoping to see savings later. Superintendent Ouellette stated that is the cost to implement, and they hope to see savings later. She explained that the out-of-district placement costs have been adjusted. Ms. Tait explained that some of the students that are currently being paid for out-of-district placement are being brought back into the district, so their tuition was taken out of the tuition line to fund the new program. The Superintendent told the Board that Ms. Tait would be presenting further information on this program at a future budget workshop. The Superintendent explained that this is an initiative that has involved working with the Chief of Police and his staff, to work with some of the more challenging youth. She hopes to have the program take place between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mr. Edwards asked about pension under-funding, and whether it was not handled correctly in the past. Ms. Brooks said he was partially correct, saying that when she became employed by the Board last year, the question she asked the Town and the answer she interpreted was incorrect. Last year she asked the Town how much she should budget for pension, and they told her 10%. She interpreted that as a 10% increase, and that is what she budgeted, but it was supposed to be 10% of covered salaries, however, there was a sizable increase last year with the 10%. The year before, the calculation was incorrect, and last year her calculation was incorrect. Mr. Edwards mentioned that since there were incorrect calculations for the past two years, that's why in this next year we have to catch up to make it correct. Mr. Edwards commented that looking at this budget, he asked himself what are the biggest changes, and the first one that stands out to him is certified salaries with a 5% increase, the second one is health benefits with a 14% increase. He stated that almost half of the proposed increase of this budget, 47%, goes to certified staff salaries and health benefits across the board. He brought it up to show that it is a fact, a statistic, and it's the biggest factor that drives the increase up. He also stated that it is the most important thing for the Board to concentrate on and try to get control of. He complimented the Superintendent saying the budget was well done, and it was easy and clear to understand. Mr. Crockett asked about the gasoline charge going up 300%, and where do we use the gasoline. Ms. Brooks explained that the largest increase is for buses, that the Board pays for everything over $1 a gallon, and that includes diesel, plus it is used for all the Board's maintenance vehicles. Mr. Crockett asked about the increase for dues and fees. Ms. Brooks explained that many of the dues and fees are based on student population, and they are the fees to The Connecticut Regional Education Council (CREC) and The Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE), professional organizations, which provide services to the Manchester Board of Education. Ms. Hackett asked for clarification on 2006-07 as being the final year for the bus contract. Superintendent Ouellette responded saying it was. Ms. Hackett stated that the increase, therefore, is just basically in the bus contract, which increases that much per year. Superintendent Ouellette said she was correct, and that she anticipates going out to bid next year in the spring. Ms. Hackett asked if retirements have been anticipated and reflected in the numbers in the budget. Ms. Brooks stated that they are reflected in the certified salaries with an anticipated reduction of 18 retirements, which has been the average each year. Ms. Hackett asked what the deadline is for notification of retirement to the Board. The Superintendent believes it to be March 1st, and stated she will bring the exact date back to the next budget workshop. Ms. Hackett asked about the School Resource Officers (SRO), as a Town commitment, and if it is still a 50-50 funding commitment with the Town. The Superintendent said she was correct. Ms. Hackett asked for an explanation as to the roles and responsibilities for the Dean of Students, listed in the budget under the NEASC section, and how it fits into the organization of the high school. The Superintendent explained that some of the day-to-day operations, because it is such a large high school, and some of the issues regarding the behavior management within the high school, really need the attention of an administrator when it comes to suspensions or any type of severe discipline. She stated that many of the administrators and vice principals have obligations and many additional responsibilities, with regard to staff supervision, committees, WalkThroughs, and making sure teachers are high qualified. She said that in some of Connecticut's larger high schools, a Dean of Students is a cost effective way to do some of the day-to-day preliminary work for the administrator on student data regarding tardiness, class skipping, absentees, and consulting with the student and preparing paperwork for the administrator so necessary disciplinary action can be taken. It is a cost effective way of not adding another administrator. Given the significant number of students per administrator at the high school, this is a way to help streamline and report some of the student information to parents and teachers on a daily basis. Ms. Hackett asked how this individual would fit into the organization, and who they would report to. The Superintendent explained that as far as the NEASC initiatives, she is going to invite the high school principal, Mr. Sierakowski, and his team to come to the next budget workshop to discuss this with the Board. She stated that the Dean of Students would probably report directly to the grade level principals, or to the principal of the building. Ms. Hackett asked if this position would have any curricular responsibilities. The Superintendent said it would not. Mr. Rizzo asked if the Superintendent could briefly detail the process she went through to calculate the health insurance figures that were presented. Ms. Brooks explained that the health insurance figures were figured using a new personnel accounting package, by taking every person on payroll and pulling what they are electing for a health insurance and applying that to the new rates that were given to her by the insurance company. Mr. Rizzo asked if that involved taking every employee and applying the current package they have to the new rates. Ms. Brooks said yes, and it involved adjusting it because most of the contracts that were negotiated have a different co-pay for next year. In addition, the retirees were done in the same way by who is currently on the insurance by retirement. Mr. Rizzo asked for the next budget workshop if the Administration could put together a one page sheet of the new positions that are in the budget, so he can see them all in one spot to get a better handle on them. The Superintendent asked him if that includes the reorganization in transfers as well, or just new positions. Mr. Rizzo said just new positions. Mr. Rizzo said he would be interested in hearing more about the Bi-lingual teacher position. He said that from what he heard earlier, it sounded like we were eligible for funding from the State when we reach a certain number of students. The Superintendent responded saying we are eligible for a grant, but are required by the State to provide a Bi-lingual program. She will have Monica Giglio present to the Board regarding this issue. Mr. Rizzo
asked what is included in the $105,000 Facilities Project Management
item. Mr. Rizzo
stated he knew that the Facilities Manger has been in our budget, but
asked if the Town Architect had always been in, or is it new for next
year's budget. Ms. Brooks said she believes it is new for this next
year. Superintendent's office. The money is reprioritized and relocated, and given directly to the schools so is shows a reduction, but it is actually going into the schools' accounts. Ms. Brooks said that is correct for FY06-07. The original budget for FY06-07 was about $64,000, but monies were transferred into it to increase that line item to $126,000 during this fiscal year. Next year's increase looks like a decrease, but it is actually an increase over this year's original budget request. Mr. Rizzo mentioned that the unwritten expectation is to spend 1% of the budget on professional development, and he knows this budget is nowhere near that. He would like to know what the figure is in this budget. He feels it's a good idea for the building principal to have the control over the professional development funds, since they know what their staff need. Mr. Rizzo asked if this is intended to give more building level control. Ms. Brooks stated that at the beginning of the budget process, it is all in the Assistant Superintendent's account and she gives the schools a dollar amount to do what they want through the year. Mr. Rizzo
asked if they still go through the Assistant Superintendent for approval
for professional development programs, and Ms. Brooks said she believed
they did. The Mr. Rizzo said he was glad to see money in the budget for School Focus, in the amount of $5,100. He stated that this hasn't been in the budget for a number of years, and he asked what has happened to the themes in each of the schools and how they plan to use it. The Superintendent explained that the $5,100 will not provide a lot of new initiatives, but it will maintain what they currently have in place, such as supplies, copying costs, and brochures. She said she believes that not every school put in for it in their budget request. Mr. Rizzo asked what is included in Program Improvement for $513,500. The Superintendent stated that was for technology. Ms. Brooks stated that $500,000 is for technology, and she would respond back to him at the next workshop as to what the $13,500 is for. Mr. Rizzo asked if that is also what they have for New Equipment. Ms. Brooks said it is not included in New Equipment at this time, and that it is usually budgeted at the beginning in Program Improvement and then she moves it, according to the objects. Mr. Rizzo talked about the increase of 19.3% for Instructional Supplies, and asked why such a large increase. Ms. Brooks said that was the Per Pupil Increase, saying that this year we are funded at $124 per pupil and next year we are up to $150. Mr. Rizzo was hoping she would say that it was due to the fact that, in the past, we have frozen that account. Ms. Brooks said that is correct. The Superintendent stated that Ms. Brooks has done an outstanding job keeping the budget supplies coming through and trying to hold back as far as implementing a budget freeze. She stated that currently we are in a budget freeze at this time, but in years past, the freeze would at times begin in August or September. Some of the 6th grade supplies are going to be redistributed to the elementary schools, but we will still need some supplies to help out the elementary schools in the coming year. Mr. Rizzo mentioned the Text Books line, where usually they see a significant increase, but this coming year they are looking at $812, which does not mean they will not purchase any textbooks, since they are still budgeting $267,000 for textbooks. He said he was curious as to why the sudden change from past practice. Ms. Brooks said it was because of no large textbook adoption needed. Ms. Brooks said the funding would be used for additional student replacement textbooks that are worn, and 6th grade where they are sharing some of the textbooks. Mr. Rizzo asked if they have a sense of how textbooks are being replaced, if there is a program that handles this. The Superintendent stated that this is handled through the schools themselves, and through their individual budgets. Ms. Small-Miller asked about the new position budget for Dean of Students, and if it could be integrated with Guidance. The Superintendent said that perhaps it could. Ms. Small-Miller said that maybe someone in Guidance could take on that responsibility. The Superintendent stated that the Guidance Department is really serving the academic needs at the high schools, such as assessments and college applications, SATS, and CAPT testing. The Dean of Students would really be for, more or less, the technicalities of the day-to-day operations at the high school, as she envisions it. She said that Mr. Sierakowski would be at the next budget workshop to give his comments on it. Ms. Small-Miller said that looking at the amount budgeted for that position, if they are not going to be involved in academics, she asked if that amount is appropriate for that position. The Superintendent said that the amount is appropriate, but it is certainly up to the Board to assess the need and then make the priorities and adjustments as they see fit. Mr. Rizzo stated that the budget format is different than what they are used to seeing, and he knows this is not what it will look like when it is finished. He asked if the administration would like to talk about the change in the format. The Superintendent explained for the public that they have chosen not to have the Superintendent's Recommended Budget officially printed and bound, for cost factors, since it is a working document, and instead decided to use the binder as a handout. Once the Board has officially adopted the budget, it will then be professionally printed and bound. As far as the format, she and Ms. Brooks met with Director Sheridan, prior Director Naab, Ms. Hackett, and Mr. Rizzo to discuss what Phase I would be for the Board of Education's document. They realized that replicating the Town's budget format would take a couple of years to put into place, so they decided to make the changes in phases. Ms. Brooks stated that the format changes that were recommended were the addition of Summary Staff Levels, so that there is a summary table to propose staffing increases. In addition, the current year expected expenditures are to be shown by location and by program, and that is taking a lot of work to do. Also the use of budget commentaries is being used to indicate why there are increases and what those increases are there for, whether they are mandated, or a request. In addition, budget totals by location and program will be in the format, as well as some new sections that include an outline of Special Education Tuition, and how the calculation was arrived at. The 3510 account, Capital Expenditures, and Reimbursement and Grants will have a section in the budget book, which will show the current year's grants and the projected grant for the next fiscal year.
Ms. Hackett asked about getting more information on the Alternative to Expulsion Program, and assumed it would be scheduled at an up-coming budget workshop. She asked if the differences could be highlighted, as to what we have now and how is this going to be better for our student population, and what will be the success indicators of this new program. Ms. Hackett asked that when the update on NEASC is presented, if the most up-to-date number on what has been spent, cumulatively, on library volumes could be provided.
1) Mr. Keith Carson, 45 Kane Road. Mr. Carson asked the Superintendent if she has met with the new Town General Manager. The Superintendent responded saying she is planning on meeting with him on January 20th. Mr. Carson said that it is early in the process, but he wondered if anyone had started talking about the overall Town budget and the increases there, and what is being proposed on a Town wide basis for an increase. The Superintendent said that nothing has been discussed with the Interim General Manager, but that Ms. Brooks has been working with the Finance Department at the Town and looking at cost savings with regard to fuel and those types of issues. Mr. Carson asked about the Capital Improvement Plan with the priorities for the project 3510, and asked if that was a document that could be provided at the next workshop. Ms. Brooks stated that the document is being shared with the Building and Sites Committee next Thursday, and will be given to the Board, for adoption, at the following Board meeting. Mr. Carson asked what would happen to all the furniture, and everything that is in Bennet Middle School when it is shut down. The Superintendent explained that both principals from Bennet and Illing are looking at the furniture in Bennet and prioritizing what they feel they can use, and what is salvageable. Whatever is not used will be put in storage, or put on the surplus list. Mr. Carson asked if there are any grants this year that are running out, grants that are funding some of the instructional programs. The Superintendent mentioned that she read in the national news that there is a significant reduction in Title I funding and the IDEA grant funding. She has not received official word from the Commissioner, but she is reading that there is at least at 1% reduction in Title I funding, which could significantly impact us. She can provide information on grant funding for Title II, and Title V later to him, when she gathers that information from her academic team at Central Office. 2) Melissa Dumont, 9 Hendee Road. Ms. Dumont asked about the Tuition Line and how it was said there were 27 Magnet students, 19 Charter students, and 4 Vo-Ag students. Multiplying by the per pupil allocation for these 50 students, she came out with $516,000. Ms. Tait explained that they pay a tuition cost per student to go to the Magnet Schools, and on top of that is the special education costs for children with special needs, which is an addition to the tuition. The Tuition Line does not include regular education students that go to the Magnet Schools. Ms. Dumont also mentioned that under Professional Development, it is very alarming that the number continues to go down. She asked about the funding that goes to the schools, if it is equally distributed, and how is it determined how the distribution happens at the schools. The Superintendent stated that it is per the request of the principal, depending on where they are on the implementation stage of some of the initiatives in their buildings. Ms. Dumont mentioned that according to IDEA 2004, the teachers need to be highly qualified, and that is not always occurring in some areas, and that would be an area that would fall under professional development. The Superintendent assured her that the teachers are highly qualified, and we make sure we are within the No Child Left Behind Act, respecting those guidelines, and those teachers that are not, are addressed. 3) Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. Mr. Stringfellow commented on dealing with fuel, and wasn't sure if natural gas was included in it, as the prices are going up and he thought that should be looked at. Also, he mentioned that the hiring of school bus drivers is going well, but according to an article in U.S.A. Today Newspapers there is a shortage of school bus drivers, and he hopes we always have enough drivers with good background checks. Mr. Stringfellow had a question regarding the drop out rate and how the school system is working on different alternatives. He wondered if they had had a chance to study what other school systems are doing. He is hoping that an updated presentation can be given regarding Adult Education, and what is going on at night school. He also asked about the training of staff and if substitutes are included in that. He feels that with regards to the No Child Left Behind Act, this should be addressed as well, that all professionals need to be brought up to date. 4) Mr. Keith Carson, 45 Kane Road. Mr. Carson cautioned about the pension numbers, which were talked about earlier, and how that was fixed this year, and about the communication with the Town. He hoped we have learned from that. The Superintendent mentioned that Ms. Brooks brought the issue to her attention immediately, and felt in past budgets this item had been significantly under funded, and it needed to be attended to. The Superintendent said that the communication between the Town and the Board, this past year, has been wonderful and they are working very closely in many aspects of this budget. Mr. Carson
asked about the Electrician position and whether it is an after hours
position. Mr. Carson
asked about the Athletic Field Maintenance, and if it is the Town's
salaries. Mr. Carson also asked about Assisting Other Events for $600. The Superintendent explained that this was for the transition program of students going from Bennet to Illing, and also students from Nathan Hale to Bowers and students from Buckley to Robertson, which include picnics and early year initiatives, and also for paying chaperones and stipend positions. G. Closing
Comments MOTION: Edwards/Stafford s.v. To adjourn: 8:57 p.m. 8/0/0 Respectfully submitted, David Golas, SecretaryManchester Board of Education |