A. OPENING

PRESENT: Crockett, Hackett, Huyler, Pohl, Rizzo, Stafford

ABSENT: Edwards, Rowe, Small-Miller

ALSO PRESENT: Superintendent of Schools Ouellette, Director of Student Support Services Tait, Director of Business and Operations Brooks, Director of Human Services Libby

A.1. Call to Order
Mr. Rizzo called the Budget Workshop to order at 7:10 p.m.

A.2. Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Rizzo led the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments

Mr. Rizzo extended a welcome to all present.

Mr. Rizzo opened his remarks by thanking the Board of Directors, on behalf of the Education Board, for the consideration they had been given this year. The General Manager, the previous evening, had recommended to the Directors, adding $125,000 their budget, an increase of 6.5%, bringing the total budget for 06/07 school year to $88,353,644.

D. SUPERINTENDENT'S BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Dr. Ouellette, assisted with a Power presentation, given by Ms. Brooks, commenced to explain the budget, item by item, illustrating how the funds would be allocated and how they had made adjustments to reduce the budget by approximately $1.7 million.

Dr. Ouellette said people from the Central Office had worked very closely with the administration over the last couple of weeks to make appropriate reductions. Current programs for students; the integrity of the Mission of the Manchester Public Schools and the vision of the direction needed to complete and preserve strategic plans had been preserved.

As a reminder, Dr. Ouellette stated the original request was an approximate of $90 million, with the General Manager's recommendation of an $88 million increase for the 2006/07 budget. The total reduction needed was approximately $1.9 million.

As Mr. Rizzo stated previously, they are very appreciative of the Board of Directors' increase in the General Manager's budget of $125,000, lowering the amount of necessary reductions by the Board close to $1.8 million.

Some of the budget adjustment for increases, one of which was Manchester Early Learning Opportunities, had been presented to the Board by the Town after the Board of Education had already made its recommendation. This was an equally shared position with the Town, and Manchester Public Schools, with regards to the School's Readiness Council, and it promoted early learning opportunities for the Town. The thinking was that, with the Early Learning Center and pre-school initiatives (supported by the Governor), this was desperately needed to be included into the budget.

Cost of copier rentals had been added, as one of the elementary schools had to place this in next year's budget. It had been inadvertently overlooked in the first budget presentation by the Board of Education.

A projection had been done for the April 1st enrollment and it had been identified by Attorney Libby that we needed two additional elementary teachers around the district, in order to provide the appropriate student per teacher ratio.

Town pension was reduced by 11.4% to 10.2%: a savings of approximately $137,343.

Life Insurance projection provided an additional reduction, (based on new rates): a savings of approximately $20,000.

The Alternative to Expulsion Program had been presented to the Board a few weeks previously. The Board had great confidence that, with staffing; curriculum and the vision the Board has for the program, also the anticipated savings in out of district tuition due to the program; they could project a $597,460 reduction. They also expected to receive a $280,000 increase from the Excess Cost Grant.

Dr. Ouellette recommended the Board consider reducing the Consultants' fee in the amount of approximately $29,000 and overtime costs of $10,000.

An adjustment was needed to the 3510 Account to match the budget increase of 6.5%. This amounted to $9,868.00.

With regard to the reduction in Education Technology Purchases, Dr. Ouellette stated that Dr. Gejda had worked very closely with staff and had just re-submitted a plan to the State. The Board was struggling to hold true to the vision for our technology. At this point in time she recommended that the Board budget in the amount of $175,000 for the next fiscal year, with the possibility of either looking to continuously add $175,000 each year thereafter, with a 3-year commitment, or to fund $175,000 in the 2006/07 school and then, perhaps, lease the other $325,000. This was something to be explored following the presentation.

The NEASC initiatives area was one the Board is concentrating on for the upcoming year. As a reminder, currently, the Board has respected the NEASC's initiatives and has been able to allow for a 1.0 FTE English Teacher; 1.0 Math Teacher; .5 Athletic Director; 1 FTE Social Studies Teacher; 2 Special Education Teachers; Athletic Director's secretary; 1 full-time Guidance secretary. In addition, library books in the amount of approximately $31,000. Those initiatives were still holding.

Additional reductions had been made to the NEASC line item and it was recommended that we decrease the .4 FTE Music & Science and Supplies, because the per pupil allotment had been adjusted for the high school, middle school and elementary schools; library books adjustment in the amount of $25,000, and the removal of the Late Bus fee in the amount of $30,000.

Dr. Ouellette recommended the Board retain the 2nd Shift Custodian Supervisor position. The Electrician position was still required and would be funded, possibly, through attrition. The Remedial Tutor position had been removed, as it could not be funded at this time.

It had been possible to reorganize Student Programs for the Middle School, as part of the Accelerated Program. As stipend positions had been opened up, it had enabled the Board to assess the interest level of staff/student. They had been able to reorganize for the middle school next year and make an adjustment in the amount of almost $50,000.

Dr. Ouellette worked with the Director of Support Services, Ms. Tait, looking at placing the .9 FTE Speech Clinician and the part-time Special Education Administrator in the amount of $43,870, through an anticipated carry over this year of the IDEA Grant.

Dr. Ouellette transferred more experienced staff into some of the title grants. Hopefully, anticipated savings in unfilled positions due to attrition. Some of those positions would be retirements, career changes. These would not be filled at this time and would produce a cost savings of $120,000. With the reorganization of Illing and Bennet Middle Schools, the Board transferred current staff to new positions. As a result, the Board reduced the benefits for the new positions not funded, in the amount of $125,000. Filling these positions had already been calculated into the Health Insurance.

In summary, between budget adjustments and benefit adjustments; recommended additions to the budget after the Board of Education had accepted the budget; partial funding of the Manchester Early Learning Opportunities, Copier Rentals; two elementary school teachers; reduction in the Town Pension Contribution in the amount of $137,343.00; Life Insurance of $20,000, one could see where the plusses and minuses added up.

Adding up to reach the final number, Dr. Ouellette referred to the anticipated savings in tuitions due to the new Alternative Program in the amount of $597,000.46; reduction in Consultant fees; reduction in overtime; adjustment to the 3510 account; adjustment in the Education Technology, NEASC and new positions eliminated; reductions to the Student Programs; positions transferred under the IDEA Grant; budget reductions to positions being moved from the most experienced into some of the grants; the unfilled positions; current staff moving to new positions, and reduction in benefit costs.

Dr. Ouellette stated that, taking into account all of the above, they had been able to add back into the budget certain initiatives to which the Board needed to be sensitive. She expressed her thanks for the assistance of the Board of Directors, who had been very sensitive in supporting the Middle School project. We needed the 2.5 Equivalency Music Teacher, 2.5 Visual Arts Teachers and .5 FTE Nurse. These were required to bring Middle School off line, to properly service our elementary schools in those areas.

In addition, it was a priority to add into the budget the full-time Math Teacher at Manchester High School; .5 Athletic Director; $30,908 for library books under the NEASC initiatives; Pentamation Server; Full-time Evening Custodial Supervisor; Full-time Bilingual Teacher (required by the State of Connecticut), and a Full-Time Grant Writer.

In summary, the total of the 2006/07 budget, as compared to the adopted budget, had been increased by 6.5%, to $5,366,793.

At this time, Dr. Ouellette asked the Central Office team to join in the discussions.

Mr. Rizzo opened up the floor for questions.

Dr. Ouellette requested Dr. Gejda to explain how the goal could be achieved in meeting the standards within the technology area. Mrs. Brooks would also give some input.

Mrs. Brooks stating that she was not in favor of leasing, as she felt that getting hung up with lease payments was a deterrent in keeping up with technology. If the Board were to lease the $325,000 it would probably cost that each year, for three years. If $125,000/$150,000 were put into each budget for lease payments, that would also pay for computers and save financing charges. Either way, computers, software and site licenses were needed, in order to remain operational. The only difference in leasing is that it would allow us to buy the entire $500,000 at the beginning of FY 07.

Mr. Rizzo asked what total was left in Educational Technology and was informed $175,000. This figure was already in the budget. If the Board wanted to fund $500,000 they would have to lease $325,000.

Mr. Pohl asked what were the actual specific implications of not fully funding this.

Dr. Gejda responded that the biggest concern was that we were approaching 50% of our computers being five years or older. We had been fortunate in that we had talented people who put things together and kept them running. We might not be able to keep up because of our aging technology. The first priority would be to establish an acquisition and replacement plan for technology and that would be done by a district-wide committee, as well as members from the community. Up to the present, we had been able to support the things in place, but we might not always be lucky. Currently we needed to be careful to try to maintain our level of service.

Dr. Gejda thought one of the advantages of the building project was that some of the pieces might fit into that, and provide some technology. Were the Board to approve $175,000 for technology, the first thing would be to get a group together, determine the priorities, and then develop the acquisition and replacement plan, starting with the replacement of the oldest computers.

Mr. Pohl expressed concerns about the $175,000. That was an absolute. However, $500,000 was what was in the budget, and we were scaling back to $175,000 even though we needed to keep the students up-to-date and competitive. What implications might that have on our student population?

Dr. Ouellette told Mr. Pohl that Dr. Gejda was commenting only on what the team had recommended. Certainly, he could direct them to wholly allocate the $500,000. The money would certainly have to come from another area.

Mr. Rizzo asked Dr. Gejda how many computers she thought the $175,000 would get, factoring in the peripheral equipment and software. He was told it was mostly the software that was important, also the servers and the server software needed in some of the elementary schools. In terms of desktop computers, at the elementary level, they usually figured around $700.00 per machine, even though they purchase in bulk where possible. We had to maintain our district-wide software. In the case of some of the newer versions of computers we had had to upgrade our licenses, to be compatible. If one took a round figure of $1,000.00 it would probably purchase anywhere from 100/125 computers.

Mr. Crockett wanted to know how much of the $175,000 was going to the students and how much to the administration. Dr. Gejda asserted it was for instructional purposes.

Mr. Crockett asked about a breakdown and Dr. Gejda told him that the Business Office generally works with the district-wide administration software. This is strictly instructional technology.

Mr. Crockett wanted to know how we rated technology-wise and was told by Dr. Gejda that, in terms of the strategic school profile, we were probably very close to average for the number of students per computer. That section looks at a piece where we had to report out the number of students per computer. We were very close to the State average.

Mr. Crockett wanted to know if we got credit for various libraries that have computers. Was there a statistic out there to suggest whether or not Manchester is a leader in technology? Are our students suffering by only having $175,000, rather than $500,000?

Dr. Gejda reiterated her biggest concern was aging computers. When they tried to upgrade, as new versions come out, then in one building they might be running two different versions of software. She does not have a record of how Manchester competes with other districts, in terms of their libraries, or other towns. They looked at themselves in terms of how they, as a district, were using technology and what the needs of the students were. The "No Child Left Behind" law stated that it had to be determined, by Grade 8, whether or not our students are technologically literate so the district had put into place an assessment of Grade 8 students that would come online next year. In addition to that, there was a graduation requirement and they were going by guidelines, set by the State, that students should be able to do certain things in technology.

Mr. Crockett disagreed with Ms. Brooks on the question of leasing. He had always heard that the product depreciated, but if leased, appreciated. We could get more computers by leasing. If we decided to go at $175,000 and everyone was happy with that, he would have no problem.

Ms. Brooks told Mr. Crockett that they were looking at straight leasing. This gave the Board the opportunity to buy the software, as that could not be leased/purchased. We could still lease the computers and buy the software. Ms. Brooks said this was something they would look at.

Mr. Stafford asked Dr. Gejda to tell him how many computers would be the number for 50% in schools, and was told that about eight to nine hundred are approaching 3-5 years old.

Dr. Gejda stated that the high school had a fairly high number of computers, looking at what we have in grades K-8, so it was getting to the point where we really had to be very careful.

Mr. Stafford asked if we would be redistributing the computers after the Bennet School closes and was told that the ones worth saving would be put into classrooms. They had been functioning in the classroom for record-keeping purposes, etc. The lab ones are better, and they would be dispersed to some of the schools. Mr. Stafford wanted to know if there were other computers in town that were older than five years. Dr. Gejda did not have a figure on that. A survey last year had revealed we were approaching approximately 40% in that range.

Mr. Rizzo said he had discussed an Acquisition and Replacement plan. He thought this was very much like policy 3510. We needed to keep in mind that, every year, we had to spend something on computer equipment. $500,000 might be too much and $175,000 might be too little - perhaps something in between would be better. It had to be a number that the Board could commit to every year. Computers did not last that long and were always having to be replaced. They did not want to have to replace eighteen hundred computers all at once. In addition to the replacement plan, we needed to have some type of a program together where we bought new ones and increased the inventory. This presented a dual problem and needed to be given some thought. The board should come up with a plan with which they felt comfortable and put that into place. It was critical to have computer equipment and not wait until they needed to be replaced.

Ms. Hackett agreed with Mr. Rizzo about doing a 3510 account for technology purchases to ensure we are current and forward thinking. At this time she was unsure of how this should be done, but suggested that the Policy Committee take a look at the feasibility.

Mr. Rizzo requested that the Board look at this information and a lease/purchase option so that they could decide the best way to go.

Mr. Pohl would like to have the question revisited to see if we could find money somewhere. He thought technology affected our children's readiness and should be top priority.

Mrs. Brooks said when they were providing the education plan for the State they met on a regular basis. Her suggestion had been that we needed to stay current and identify what our needs were, district-wide, and start building a 3510 policy.

Mr. Pohl, asked for a more detailed implication of what the reduction in the amount of student programs, or reorganization of student programs, would have.

Dr. Ouellette responded that, with the anticipation of Bennet School coming online, the budget had been prepared. The final vote for the dissolution of Bennet Middle School did not occur until November. However, the Board had taken a look at the participation rates of some stipend positions. Some of them had not actually been filled. In past years they stayed vacant. Recently the Board had opened up all the positions, in anticipation for next year. They had quite a few at this point at this time with vacancies in them, which indicated there was no interest from staff to fill the positions. There was, therefore, no need to use the stipend money. This fluctuated from year to year, with student population. This was a guesstimate.

Attorney Libby said they would be trying to have a balanced filling of these positions but there were several where no one had applied. Mr. Rizzo wanted to know if this was where the money had come from. Attorney Libby told him "No", it was because they had joined the Illing and Bennet Schools.

Dr. Ouellette said that there was some interest, by reason of the Board's interest, and discussions about several teams, so they had preserved the stipends. In looking at the whole picture, the Board had looked at what the current interest level was, and there did not appear to be any interest. They do have concerns at this point, and probably will re-open it for the third time. Dr. Ouellette hoped, with the announcement of a new principal within the next couple of weeks, that there might be some interest.

Mr. Pohl queried if they were talking about clubs, as well as sports, and was told this was the case. He requested a list of what organizations were vacant. He asked if the number for a reduction just included the combination of the two middle schools and was told that was the case. Dr. Ouellette had asked Mrs. Brooks to keep in some stipend monies, in the event there was an interest at the elementary level, as they were looking at 6th graders as well. This could change, but at this time she would not recommend it.

Mr. Pohl's reservation was that before voting for this reduction he would like to know, in terms of clubs or sports, precisely what he was voting for. Dr. Ouellette reassured him that the Board was not cutting sports.

Ms. Hackett asked for the current position of the posts where people had shown no interest. Were these advisory roles in the clubs, or activities? When there is no response do we go externally to fill them?

Dr. Ouellette said in the past they had been added to the budget, generated on interest level within the building. A student might pilot it for a couple of years and once there was an interest they approached personnel for it to be added.

Attorney Libby stated that the post was initially offered to the certified staff and then other parties were considered. Certification, or non-certification, depended on the specific position.

Mr. Crockett asked if a parent wanted to volunteer would that be a violation of any contract by allowing them to run a club. Attorney Libby told him that they would have to be treated like any other employee, if payment was involved. With regards to volunteering, Mr. Crockett was told that would be a contractual issue.

Mr. Stafford wanted to know if the $30,000 relating to the late bus had been added on and was now being removed. Dr. Ouellette confirmed that was the case; there was not one now. They had, however, accommodated most of the other NEASC initiatives.

Mr. Rizzo questioned if they had finished the discussion on stipends. Dr. Ouellette reaffirmed that the stipends were still in there. There may be a need for two advisers and one had been removed, as there was no interest. Illing Middle School had all their stipends. If two additional advisers were needed, they might have to be added.

Ms. Hackett expressed her pleasure that they had kept the commitment to enhancing the library and adding to the volume, as this was a good investment.

Mr. Stafford was reassured that it was still planned to spend almost $31,000 after a reduction of $25,000.

Mr. Rizzo commented on progress over the last couple of years with the NEASC recommendations, notably the purchase last year of library books. Probably, most notable, was the passage of the referendum agreeing to the increase.

Ms. Hackett stated one of the challenges on the list of NEASC recommendations, which required monitoring, was that they are expected to increase the number of electives offered, but space is tight and that is what is creating the issue. She still saw that as a big piece of the NEASC overhead to be addressed. The budget showed the commitment to the NEASC initiatives.

Dr. Ouellette said that the organization had recognized our efforts with an update to their report to the Board of Education. This was very positive and encouraging.

Ms. Huyler reverted to the decision to eliminate the electrician position, and was informed by Ms. Brooks that the position was included because they were falling behind on preventative maintenance, etc. Current electricians were able to cope with many other duties, including technology.

Mr. Rizzo reverted to the question on the addition of two elementary teachers, and Attorney Libby informed him that this was for enrollment purposes, as projections were being made when 2nd grade moved to 3rd grade, etc.

Mr. Rizzo questioned why two elementary teachers were being added when rumor had it that enrollment was decreasing, and Attorney Libby responded that she did not agree that enrollment was declining. There are changing situations in every school and a 5th grade teacher this year might become a 4th grade teacher next year. The data in the elementary schools did not appear to show a decrease.

Ms. Huyler asked Mrs. Brooks to comment on how enrollment was handled.
Dr. Ouellette asked Attorney Libby to respond. Ms. Huyler was told that enrollment was looked at very carefully, on the first of each month, to see what the projections are, specifically at the elementary level.

Mr. Rizzo asked about money being saved from medical, and was assured by Dr. Ouellette that there was "no found money".

Ms. Hackett referred to previous years where savings had been realized through plant migration and wanted to know if that had any impact now. Mrs. Brooks thought not.

Mr. Rizzo and Mrs.Tait discussed the Alternative to Expulsion Program. The reduction here was by not having to pay district tuitions, because of the Excess Cost Grant. Mrs.Tait said they had been notified they would be getting a little extra back in excess costs for the next year.

Mr. Crockett stated that $600,000 was a big proportion of what they were looking at and queried if we were realistically hoping to get $700,000. He hoped we had a safe rate, and questioned what would happen if we did not. Mrs. Tait told him they viewed this as a moving target. It was impossible to make any predictions. It was understood that $280,000 of the $600,000 was coming back to us. An additional amount was put into fund Excess Cost at 90%; rather than the 80% funded this year, and 100% in the past. We had been surprised, one year, by only receiving 75%. This year they were trying to get us back up there and had budgeted for a 90% reimbursement.

Mr. Stafford asked if Reduced Consultants referred to professional development. Dr. Ouellette said she had reduced the training budget for her staff, plus Special Education Consultants.

Ms. Hackett asked about anticipated items for the next budget workshop to be held on May 17th, and was informed by Dr. Ouellette that one issue would be in the technology area. In order to prepare for the next workshop, direction was needed from the Board on some of the line items, if more significant reductions were to be made.

Ms. Hackett asked if, in the likelihood of the adoption of the adjusted budget at the May 22nd Budget Workshop, we might not need to utilize the May 24th Budget workshop.

Dr. Ouellette will defer to the Board's preference. They have the timeframe, within the next week, to direct the team as to where they would like adjustments. The budget policy stated that it must be adopted by June 8th.

Ms. Huyler reverted to the subject of lease versus purchase of computers, and was reminded by Dr. Ouellette about Dr. Gejda's presentation to the Board when she had shared her views on the subject. Currently, the Board had recommended $175,000 be budgeted for next year, with the hope of budgeting again, at least $175,000 the year after, and another $175,000 for the years 2008/09. The other option, because of the reduction of the original requested $500,000, to budget for the $175,000 and, if the Board wished to move more aggressively in the area of technology, explore the option of leasing the remainder of the $325,000. The Board indicated that it could not move in the direction of a lease/purchase because software was involved. The Board had asked Mrs. Brooks and Ms. Tait, who chair the Policy Committee, to perhaps look at a 3510 account for computers.

Ms. Huyler complimented the team on the tremendous job they had done on the budget. She had two questions for the team, firstly, "What had been the hardest issue on which to make a reduction?" Secondly, what would the team want not to change?'

Dr. Ouellette emphasized that this had been a team effort; decisions were not made individually. The General Manager's recommended budget had been shared with the administrative team, who had provided her with some recommendations. The budget reflected a combination of a collective set of minds that included administrators in the district who had worked with the Central Office. Every line item was gone through with the impact on students uppermost in mind. The adjustments made, whether the current year or last year, had not directly impacted students.

Ms. Huyler passed on a message to new Board members. One thing she had learned, as a new Board member, was how important it was to know what questions to ask. They should feel free to approach the Superintendent or the Chairman if they had questions. It was important to have unanimity among Board members. One of the most important things they do as a Board is to get all the answers out there.

Mr. Stafford asked if the Board had to spend the entire $325,000 on technology, could just a portion of that amount be used to lease, and then stagger the lease? For example, spend some money this year, and some the following year? Dr. Ouellette told him that we needed to keep that in the back of our minds as next year's budget was being constructed.

Ms. Hackett thought there were a lot of different scenarios that could be tested to build up our technology and, because of the different ways, asked if some sort of matrix or spreadsheet could be created to show us what we are spending on each; what we are getting for it, and what the bottom line impact is on the budget.

Mr. Rizzo said we were budgeting $175,000 and wondered what $250,000 would get us. He would like to see something other than $175,000 and Dr. Ouellette reminded him that Dr. Gejda had stated it would be difficult to identify that, at this time. This would require putting together a team to get their input.

Mrs. Brooks said she would like to go to Apple Computer and find out their options for lease/purchase, and she would do a couple of scenarios. Recently she had attended a Workshop on Lease vs. Purchase and she had some good information to share.

Ms. Hackett followed up on a point made by Ms. Huyler. For the record, she wanted it known, that the collaboration which had taken place, involved not only Central Office and Administrators, but principals, other key decision makers in the districts and supervisors et al. It had been a very inclusive process. In her opinion, full consideration of all the important components of educating our children had been taken into consideration.

Dr. Ouellette responded that they respectfully analyzed and looked at every school, viewing each school as unique, and having its own set of needs and strengths. They tried to complement that and tailor the budget accordingly.

Mr. Rizzo complimented the administration on doing a phenomenal job on the budget.

Ms. Hackett commented on the very calm and non-sensational manner in which the Budget Workshop had been conducted.

Mr. Rizzo announced the next Budget Workshop would be held on Wednesday, May 17th in Robertson School.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Rizzo, Secretary
Manchester Board of Education