Get documents about "2012 01 21FY13BUDGET
Document Sample
MANCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Special Meeting—FY2013 BUDGET
January 21, 2012
The Board of School Committee met on Saturday, January 21, at 9:00a.m. at City Hall in
Manchester. Present were Mayor Gatsas, Vice Chair Gelinas, and Committee Members
Ambrogi, Stewart, Shoults, Rokas, Soucy, Wihby, Staub, Connors, Beaudry, Avard, Cooper, and
Beauchamp. Present from Administration were Supt. Brennan; Asst. Supt. Burkush; Asst. Supt.
Tursi; and Business Administrator, Ms. DeFrancis.
Mayor Gatsas presided and called the meeting to order. The Committee shared in the
Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silent reflection. The clerk called the roll.
MANCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT FY2013 BUDGET
Supt. Brennan distributed some additional information to the Committee and noted that the
3 scenarios of the proposed FY13 budget had been sent to the Committee in their weekly packet.
The handouts distributed included some additional information relative to the tax cap and the
revised number. Yesterday the number of the CPI was learned so the revised number was
adjusted. The 3-year average of the CPI is 1.4%. There was additional information provided
relative to how the tax cap was developed and how its impact is calculated. The final handout
was about the adjustments that have been made with the budgets back to 2009. The information
regarding the year 2011 is missing because that year the Mayor and the District were able to
limit the adjustments necessary to the budget in terms of elimination or reduction of positions or
programs. Supt. Brennan said the 3 scenarios of budgets included a budget that takes into the tax
cap, another that is being referred to as the ‘needs budget’, and the third which is being called the
‘progressive budget’.
Supt. Brennan said he would work with the tax cap budget first. He said the District’s
appropriation for this current year was $150.2million. There is the less amount of the debt
service on the bonded debt of $12,233,490 so the subtotal is $137,966.510. Taking the 3-year
average of the CPI of 1.4% the increase allowed under the new tax cap is $1,931,531 over the
$150.2million.
Comm. Beaudry said when Mr. Sanders had come before the Committee the other evening
he had said the worst case scenario regarding the CPI would be 1.53%. Supt. Brennan said he
believes Mr. Sanders indicated he did not know what the number would be. It came out
yesterday. With that number it was determined the 3-year average is 1.4%.
Supt. Brennan said the expected expenditure appropriation would take into account the
FY12 appropriation less the bonded debt service amount of $137,966,510 with the inclusion of
the increase allowed per the tax cap of $1,931,531 and the inclusion of the FY13 bonded debt
service of $12,477,966 for a FY13 appropriation of $152,376,007. He referred to page 2 of the
handout and “where we are in terms of the General Fund.” In looking at expenditures the
amount of reductions that needs to take place is $9,679,040 in order to get to the tax cap number
of $152,376,007. The preliminary number for the FY13 budget regarding the sub-total of the
revenues from tuition and other sources amounts to $16,415,212. Added to that number is the
1
$46,761,263 of Adequate Education Aid and the state and local taxes to be collected totaling
$79,199,532 to come to the budget number of $150.2million.
Mayor Gatsas referred to the $16,415,000 amount regarding the revenues and noted that
the current year’s revenues were budgeted at $18,661. That is roughly a $2.2million reduction in
revenue. The School District can propose a budget to the BMA with the tax cap of $152million
but when you look at that $2million as it reflects in the entire tax cap that is going to have to be
an increase on the 1.4% to achieve that $2.2million. There needs to be a make-up of that
revenue loss.
Vice Chair Gelinas said actually then the Board is looking at a budget of $2.2million less
than what the Superintendent has shown us today and to make that up it would have to be by the
BMA if they so choose to do so. Mayor Gatsas said the $2.2million which is about 1.4% would
have to be included. The Aldermen would have to look at raising the tax cap. Vice Chair
Gelinas asked “are we looking at an additional $2.2million from the budget that is being
suggested by the Superintendent under the tax cap?” Mayor Gatsas said he is not suggesting
that. It would take 10 votes to raise the tax cap to do that. He would suggest that we may want
to look at $2.2million less as a realistic approach at what you’re looking to cut. Vice Chair
Gelinas said in other words we need to be prepared to find another $2.2million if the Aldermen
do not have the 10 votes to vote for the additional revenue. But we’re not precluded from
sending the budget at $152.2million but we should be prepared to look at a maximum of
$2.2million later on.
Comm. Wihby asked is the approach that we look at the $152,376,000 number because we
can pass that by law to the Aldermen and maybe prepare something for this Board to look at a
budget that would be $2.2million less because that would be what it would look like with that
1.4% override. Mayor Gatsas said “that’s an assumption but if it’s an assumption that they’re
going to do then we would have to look at what would be a shortfall on the City side.” Comm.
Wihby asked if the revenues on the City side were higher; let’s say they were down $2million
and we were up $5million, that would help the bottom line. Mayor Gatsas agreed. He said if the
increase on the City was $5million and the decrease on the School District side was $2million
that would be a net of $3million and that means the total would be reflected in the tax cap which
means there would be more push on their side. Comm. Wihby asked if that revenue number is
higher than last year. Mayor Gatsas replied “yes.”
Comm. Wihby referred to page 1 and asked about the amount of debt service at
$12,233,000 why that number wasn’t the same one on page 3 for debt service. Ms. DeFrancis
said the number on page 3 also includes the textbook loan and that’s not bonded yet.
Comm. Beaudry asked if the $2.5million difference when you look at the local taxes
reflects the 1.4% increase in the budget so that would increase and that would fall under the tax
cap. Every 1% means $1.7million roughly. So we would be sending a budget over that would
suffice the tax cap and it would be one the BMA could accept because it is within the 1.4%.
Mayor Gatsas said when the tax cap is looked at it is looked at as a unit. That unit from the
District’s side would have the 1.4% represented. The unit from the City side would be put in to
that tax cap formula so it would exceed the 1.4%. The City side revenues are up. We could be
in a worse place if the City-side revenues were down and if you were down and both were down
that would be reflected on both sides. Comm. Beaudry said he was somewhat confused. He
said he is looking at the total impact to the taxpayers. If we send a budget as presented right now
of $152,376,007, that would fall within the parameters of the tax cap on the School side.
2
Mayor Gatsas said “but you would be down $2.2million in revenues.” Comm. Beaudry said “but
we’d be raising revenue through local taxes.” Mayor Gatsas said “but before you go there your
revenue is down and that’s effective on the tax cap. You’ve gotta make that $2.2million up
somewhere. You’re making it up with the 1.4% increase just on your side.” Comm. Beaudry
said “right, but it seems like the District is getting hit twice. If you’re taking out the $2.5million
and then calculating the budget you’re hitting us twice then.” Mayor Gatsas said “I’m not hitting
you, it’s the tax cap that is hitting you. Certainly, you can thank some of your colleagues on the
other Board for that.”
Comm. Beaudry said if he is correct in what he heard from Atty. Teague the Board can
submit a budget that would take into consideration the total tax cap implication of the City. So,
say the City budget is $150million and we’re at $150million we could look at a $300million
and submit a budget that would reflect a tax cap for that total amount. Mayor Gatsas said he can
tell him that the City Solicitor would tell him that is not how it works. Comm. Beaudry said “but
when the budget goes back to the Aldermen, it does work in a way that way because they can
take revenue from us and put it on the City side, which they have in the past, with the last budget
they raised taxes and the District got .28% of that tax increase and the City got 2.5% of that
increase. So, they can use it in totality for their side but we don’t have that opportunity to do
that.” Mayor Gatsas said “I think you may see in totality this time it may be flipped.”
Comm. Avard said even after having the attorney come to him things are even more
confusing. He referred to the language of the tax cap that the voters voted on in November and
section D1 that says ‘real estate taxes raised from the prior year shall not be increased by a factor
of more than the average of the changes in the national consumer price index…..’ In the earlier
part of this and what we see on page 1 is the appropriation minus the debt service times the 1.4%
comes to a $1.93million increase. But if you look you see that the taxes raised cannot be
increased by more than the CPIU then this would bring us down to $1.046million based on the
numbers on page 3. So this year the total taxes raised is $74.77million between State and local
and if you multiply that number by the 1.4% that comes to $900,000 less than what we’re
looking at. So, when this all shakes out, when the attorneys shake this out, we might actually be
looking at almost another million dollar difference because just looking at the tax line we cannot
have that tax line raised more than 1.4%, according to the language there. Mayor Gatsas said
“but you gotta remember you have not offset your revenues from that number.” Comm. Avard
said “but this is even prior to the revenues….. Mayor Gatsas said “but you have to offset it
because the tax cap can’t exceed that number but you now have to offset revenues from it.”
Comm. Avard said “so we may be further in the hole than we’re even looking at here once this
all shakes out with the attorneys.” Mayor Gatsas said “I think Vice Chair Gelinas hit it on the
head when he said we have to find a number that is $2.2million less than the $152,376,000.”
Comm. Avard said “that’s pretty accurate.” Mayor Gatsas said “I want to make sure, the
numbers we see before us are not etched in stone.”
Supt. Brennan referred to the handout sheet regarding the impact of the 1.4% in terms of
the expenditure projections. The estimated increase through obligations totals $11,855,047. The
estimated decrease in revenue is $2,245,969. The largest percentage of that is the Educational
Jobs Grant in the amount of $1,674,236 and there are other decreases in an estimated amount of
$571,733. The total estimated increase is $14,101,016. The Expenditure summary indicates an
expenditure increase of $11,855,047 and the FY12 appropriation of $150,200,000. When the
3
two are added together we end up with a FY13 budget of $162,055,047. The appropriation for
the tax cap as the District has calculated it is $152,376,007 so the reduction needed to meet the
tax cap, previous to this conversation, is $9,679,040.
Supt. Brennan said what they attempted to do was to look at the area with the largest
impact to the District’s budget which is with staffing. So with the $9million reduction that is
necessary, if everything we’ve looked at is constant and we did not use any of the expendable
trust money or any one-time fund money, we would be looking at a reduction of 194 FTEs. That
was projected on a salary of $50,000 per position. That is not in teachers but we would look at
all positions, from the Administration through all staffing. If we were to use half of the
expendable trust which is currently $4.5million, so there would be the approximate use of
$2,250,000, the revised reductions would be approximately $7,429,040. Following the same
calculations relative to FTEs that would be 149 FTEs. If we were to use all of the one-time
money, which totals $4.5million, the revised reduction that would be needed would be
$5,179,040 or approximately 104 FTEs. If we are to plan for $2.2million, we’re looking at
approximately 45 more positions that would need to be added into these calculations and then
pro-rated on the breakdown.
Vice Chair Gelinas asked if the number of the positions, on either of the 3 lines, is based
on before or after the projected retirements. Supt. Brennan replied “we have accounted for them
in our budget so I would say after.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked what is the projected retirement
number. He said “I’m sure it’s low.” Ms. DeFrancis said “currently we are projecting 15 teacher
retirements and 7 from administration or support staff. The teachers we know of as today, or at
least those we would have to pay a severance to because they had until December 31 to notify us
to receive the $7,000 stipend. It is April 15 that the principals have to let us know if they plan to
retire and the support staff have to give a 30-day notice. We are definitely sure of the 15 and we
have built into the budget another 7.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked what is the approximate dollar
amount of the salaries of the 22 individuals leaving? Is the $50,000 per position being used for
that? Ms. DeFrancis said “no. When we know the teachers that are retiring what we build into
the salary line is what we pay the teachers for 4 summer paychecks and for the new person that
would start in September we pay them from September to June so there are 22 paychecks at the
lower salary rate. We have estimated that we would hire a new person at a BA3. So, we’ve
taken into consideration in that $162million budget and we’ve said we would have to take into
consideration the severance of the teachers leaving; however we would hire someone at a lower
salary. That would be approximately $20,000 per position.”
Supt. Brennan wished to comment about hiring at a lower salary. He said the first 3 years
he was in the District we used a level of a Bachelors 3 and Masters 1. This year the Board
indicated they didn’t want me to follow that procedure in the future. So, any savings or net gain
is subject to the hiring of new personnel. It was easier for us to project the numbers if we would
stay within those categories but the Board made it very clear they want us to hire the best person
available and most qualified, regardless of where their salaries fell. He wanted to talk about that
in terms of how they looked at this 3 years ago and how they have to look at it now.
Comm. Wihby asked “the salary, the $78million, do you know what the total number of
teachers that includes?” Ms. DeFrancis said “we have a listing here that ties into the needs
budget; actually we have all of our staff. What we do is we break that down between the General
Fund, School Food & Nutrition Services, and our special revenue funds. I don’t have this year’s
4
numbers with me but looking at the projection for next year of the $84million, that makes up in
the General Fund1,561 positions. That would include teachers, administrators, support staff, and
para-professionals.” Comm. Wihby asked “so, is the $78million going to the $84million, which
looks like it is the COLA and the steps and the benefits, with the ones that are retiring you are
filling the positions?” Ms. DeFrancis replied “included in that $84million on the projection for
next year, yes, we would be replacing the retirement positions as well as filling any vacant
positions.” Comm. Wihby asked how many vacant positions are there now? Ms. DeFrancis
replied “on the General Fund there are 17.5 vacant positions and the salary and benefits on those
positions would be $605,837.” Comm. Wihby said “so if we would not fill the vacant positions
we would save how much?” Ms. DeFrancis said it would be $605,837 for the vacant positions
and in addition and if we did not fill the retirements that would be $459,508. That is a total of
$1,065,345 for salary and benefits. Comm. Wihby said “and that would be going with the same
staff you have now, basically.” Ms. DeFrancis concurred. Comm. Wihby asked “and you could
deduct that out of the $84million?” Ms. DeFrancis said “if we did not fill those positions.”
Comm. Wihby asked “and what does that mean for staffing?” Supt. Brennan said “that could
have a significant impact in terms of what those positions are. It’s not that they’re all classified
or categorized in the same role. As we did this year, even though our intent was not to rehire
retirees or resignations, we found that there are certain positions that we must fill in order to be
compliant to the law and to ensure the class size numbers that we have. I could not give you a
specific number or break-out at this point nor would I have it ready for Monday. It would have
to be as we go through the process and we see what happens with the budget and how we need
those staffing.” Comm. Wihby asked “how long have they been empty? All year, or due to
some reason would they be from 2 weeks ago?” Ms. DeFrancis said “it varies; there are some
that have been vacant since the beginning of the year and there are some that are more recent.
We send a vacancy list in the Board packet every week so the positions would be included on
that listing.”
Comm. Beaudry said “I know in prior budgets we used to use the number of 20teachers
per million dollars. Is that still a good number to use?’ Ms. DeFrancis said “yes, that’s the
number we are using, but again, when we talk about the elimination of positions, that’s an
average. We’re saying $50,000 per position so yes it would be 20 to a million dollars. However,
if you were looking at a lower-paid staff member you’re looking at higher numbers that you
would be looking at eliminating and if you were looking at higher-paid staff it would be less staff
to come up to that million dollars. That is why we average it at $50,000.” Comm. Beaudry said
“so we would be fairly safe if we’re doing something and we use the 20 per million.” Ms.
DeFrancis replied “yes.” Supt. Brennan said “that is why in the conversation about what we
have projected we’re looking at the 45.” Comm. Beaudry asked if the Board has the most
updated list of vacancies. Supt. Brennan said it was provided in the Board packet. Comm.
Beaudry asked the number as far as what those vacant positions amount to for dollars. Supt.
Brennan said it is $605,836 for all vacant positions as of 1-19-2012. Comm. Beaudry asked
what is the total of the 15 teachers and 7 others that would be retiring? Supt. Brennan said it
would be $459,508. Our total is $1,065,345 for salaries and benefits for the vacant positions and
those expected to retire.
Mayor Gatsas asked of the 22 positions what is the total being paid in benefits today,
forgetting about the severances package that may be going out? Ms. DeFrancis said “the million
dollar includes the salary and the benefits and we’re looking at a 42% benefit rate.” Mayor
5
Gatsas asked “so the 22 people that are retiring, Dr. Brennan said it was $459,000.” Ms.
DeFrancis said “that includes the 15 teacher retirements we know of as of today.” Mayor Gatsas
asked “what are those 15 teachers earning today, it has to be twice that, it has to be close to a
million dollars with benefits.” Ms. DeFrancis said she would have to add that up.
Comm. Cooper asked “if we use the $4.5million of the expendable trust and that leaves
$5.2million or $5.1million in revised reductions, is it possible to freeze the COLAs and the steps
to alleviate that because that is $4.2million there?” Mayor Gatsas said “not by contract.”
Comm. Cooper said “that would leave us at a little over a million dollars and that’s only 20
positions.” Mayor Gatsas said “that could be done if they agree to it. I don’t know if Dr.
Brennan has had any progress in discussions but I can tell you if they come back and meet the
same criteria that some of the unions have stepped forward to with the health insurance, a close
calculation is about $3.8million in savings on the health insurance account.”
Vice Chair Gelinas asked “would that include, for lack of a better word, a promise of no
lay-offs as was done with the police unions?” Mayor Gatsas said “there was no promise of
anything to the police union of no lay-offs.” Vice Chair Gelinas said “it has been reported….”
Mayor Gatsas said “well, I’m telling you that I negotiated that deal…..” Vice Chair Gelinas said
“well, that is what has been expressed by the news media.” Mayor Gatsas said “let me tell you,
there is absolutely, unequivocally, no clause in this contract that says no lay-offs to police.”
Vice Chair Gelinas said he would change the subject. For the benefit of the new Board
members he asked for Ms. DeFrancis to explain how they arrive at an expenditure surplus and a
revenue surplus and what authority does the Board have over both. Ms. DeFrancis said if we
have an expenditure surplus the Board has the right to move money around within the line items
in our budget, except for certain line items. Whatever we budget in the expendable trust line
items, we have 5 trusts including a special education trust, the health insurance trust, a
transportation trust, a repairs and maintenance/capital projects trust, and an athletic equipment
trust. Whatever we budget for those line items in the beginning of the year, if there is a surplus in
those line items, we have to put that money into the trusts at year end. If there is a surplus, in say
our supply line item, the Board has the authority to move that money into say the salary line item
or to purchase equipment before year end. If the Board chooses not to, then the surplus on the
expenditure side, and if there were a surplus on the revenue side, those 2 amounts would go to
reduce taxes for the next fiscal year. Vice Chair Gelinas asked that Ms. DeFrancis explain the
revenue piece of it. Ms. DeFrancis said if there is a surplus on the revenue side the Board does
not have authority to spend it; that automatically would go back to reduce the taxes in the next
fiscal year. We did have a revenue surplus last year or the prior year and we had asked the BMA
for authority to take that revenue and put it into the health expendable trust and they did give us
that authority. Mayor Gatsas said it was the year before and it was close to $3million. Vice
Chair Gelinas asked “based on our current expenditures, what are you projecting right now for
surplus?” Ms. DeFrancis said “right now we are not projecting a surplus. We have a shortfall.
We didn’t have a January Finance Committee but we will be reporting this at the February
meeting. We are now anticipating a revenue shortfall of about $300,000. That is due to the
recent billings we did to the sending towns for tuition. The Auburn School District is sending
less students then we had anticipated so we’re looking at about a $300,000 shortfall on the
revenue side. And on the expenditure side; therefore, that means that we cannot spend $300,000
because we cannot go into deficit. On the expenditure side, we’re also anticipating utilizing
6
$4million of one-time funding. That was approved during the last budget process and that would
be from our health expendable trust as well as from the textbook loan account.”
Comm. Avard asked if the Administration has already removed from the list of the retirees
that would be a critical position that needs to be replaced or is that list all of the retirees that he is
talking about. He knows that the Theatre Director at West High School is retiring and if he is not
replaced that is a program that is eliminated because there is nobody else that can fill in in that
position outside of replacing that person. There are certain positions that are critical that we
must replace. Has that been taken into consideration with these numbers? Supt. Brennan replied
“no, it has not.” Comm. Avard said he would like to know which positions and how many
positions are critical as we look at this number. As well, when we need to look at the potential of
having to reduce FTEs he would like to see a list of employees in reverse hiring; those most
recently hired all the way through the past 3 years. To see the position, the amount they are
being paid with benefits, and an indication as to whether they are critical. For example, if
they’re a para-professional that is driven by a student’s educational plan we can’t relieve that
person of that position. We need to see how far down that list we need to go because these
numbers don’t always add up to the $50,000 average because some are lower-earning positions.
We need to look across the board and not just at teachers but at paras, support staff, and even all
the way up through the Administrative Office if we need to. Supt. Brennan said they continue to
assess that. He said “we can provide some priority. There are others I would not be able to
identify at this point but the program you talked about at West is a critical piece in my mind. As
I said in my opening comments, every position will be reviewed in terms of if there is a need to
go forward. The reason we use the $50,000 is exactly as you describe; it could be anywhere
from a position such as a para-professional to an administrator. That’s why we’re looking at the
$50,000.”
Comm. Soucy asked “earlier it was said the percentage used for benefits is 42%, is that an
across-the-board calculation or do you calculate the actual and 42% is the average of the actual
calculation for an FTE?” Ms. DeFrancis said “42% would be the average.” She referred to
page 5 of the needs budget. There are the actual numbers back to 2009. Again, this is an
average, so you’re looking at the total benefits for that year that came in at $30million and the
salaries were $77.2million. So that worked out to 39%. You could go forward to what is being
projected for FY12 which is 41.6 % and then the preliminary data for FY13 would be 42%. So,
yes, that is based on an average. Comm. Soucy asked “in the past back, looking at these
numbers, going back to FY09, how many of those years have we put money back into the health
expendable trust?” Ms. DeFrancis referred to page 3 and the line ‘spending before transfers’.
She said “in ‘09 we spent $147.9million and in the needs budget for FY13 we’d be looking at
$162million. The next line item shows the transfers to or from the expendable trust. I would
point out that in FY10 that $3.9million will not match what was put into the trust; we actually
put in a bit more because that was the year we were allowed to put the revenues in. So, from an
expenditure point of view those were the transfers that we made to or from the trust for those
fiscal years.” Comm. Soucy said “these are all expendable trusts, but specific to the health trust
would you say these are applicable to each one of these? This says ‘transfers to expendable
trust’ so it’s across the board.” Ms. DeFrancis said that was correct. Comm. Soucy asked “could
you tell me if there were transfers made in each one of these years specifically to the health
expendable trust?” Ms. DeFrancis said “in 2009 there was a transfer out of the expendable trust
of $1,072,894, in FY10 a transfer was made to the trust in the amount of $3,918,696, in FY11 a
7
transfer was made to the trust in the amount of $2,554,890, and in FY12 it is anticipated that the
District will be taking out $3,168,813 of the trust.”
Mayor Gatsas asked Ms. DeFrancis to give a quick synopsis where the money came from
in 2010 and 2011because that looks like an anomaly when you look at those amounts. It’s
$6.4million we put into the trust and then we took out $1.9million and then we took out another
$4million in ’12. Why were so many dollars put into the trust in ’10 and ’11? Ms. DeFrancis
said “in FY10 the total put into all trusts was $4,682,176.” Mayor Gatsas said he was speaking
specifically to the health trust. Ms. DeFrancis said “that was $3,918,696. A portion of that
came from our surplus. That is the year that the Aldermen allowed us to put money into that
trust. I don’t have the breakdown of how much was from the surplus and how much was from
the health insurance line.” Mayor Gatsas said “wasn’t it roughly in the vicinity of $2.2million
that was in drug rebates that we had discovered that hadn’t been paid.” Ms. DeFrancis
concurred. Mayor Gatsas said “and the other was the additional revenue from the insurance that
we had for claims over $250,000.” Supt. Brennan said “that was the stop loss.” Ms. DeFrancis
agreed. Mayor Gatsas said “so it was not that all of a sudden we had a great year with health
insurance. Those are funds that we discovered we had not been compensated for from the health
carrier. And the number there for ’12 indicates drug rebates. In 2012 even though there was a
shortfall, that does include drug rebates. And the ’13 budget also has drug rebates in it. Ms.
DeFrancis said “correct, as far as getting reimbursed from Anthem.”
Comm. Beaudry said he wanted to start looking at some of the expenditures the District
has. Looking at transportation, he doesn’t know why the increase is so big. It has gone up
11.3% between the 2 budgets. He said “if you look at the CPIU at roughly 3.5%, I think I know
why that increase is so big on that line item but how can we bring that down. I’m assuming
school choice is raising that number considerably. And if you look at special ed transportation,
that is almost equal to regular ed transportation. Regular ed transportation is $2.7million and
SPED transportation is $2.6million. I don’t know how we can change those numbers. I actually
sat one of the committees that dealt with the bussing and negotiating the cost of it but it is a very
hard item to get a handle on. Is there a way we can try to cut that cost down? An11.3% increase
in this economy to me seems pretty steep.” He asked “can you give an example why it is that
steep?” Mayor Gatsas said “especially since the contract was negotiated at flat.”
Supt.Brennan said he could not give an explanation. One could be provided at the next
meeting. He said “in terms of regular ed transportation, one consideration which is a difficult
one, is to extend the walking distance up to 2 miles which is what the law allows for. That is one
possibility. As far as working out the details in responding to the increase, I will prepare a
statement and provide that information on Monday.” Comm. Beaudry asked that his response
include the impact of school choice. Mayor Gatsas asked that Supt. Brennan provide a list of the
routes and the number of children on the routes and what changes would there be if some
redistricting was done and also what that savings would be if we’re bussing some of those
students now.
Comm. Beaudry asked “can we double up the routes with special ed?” Supt. Brennan said
“we are doing that. Those routes and all of our routes are constantly being reviewed. We are
doubling up and tripling up if we can, depending on time and bussing with a particular program.”
Comm. Beaudry asked if there is any way we can get federal dollars or some type of subsidy
through IDEA or special ed in the transportation aspect. I’m assuming that special ed is about
10%, or a bit more, of our total population yet the special ed transportation is almost equal to
8
regular ed transportation. Is there any avenue of federal dollars or some type of Title I money
etc. to come in to help with transportation? Supt. Brennan said “we continue to assess whether
or not we can utilize dollars in a different way. We are maximizing our use right now, in my
opinion. This is not uncommon for school districts. There are some districts that actually pay
more to transport a child then to pay for the service that is provided once they get to the
destination. We continue to review that on an annual basis and even throughout the year. If we
have an additional need for transportation for a student or for students, we do look to see where
the routes are and we don’t necessarily just add a route simply because we’ve added a student.”
He said “I don’t want to get into a finger-pointing game but we keep talking about what the
federal government said they were going to do in 1972 relative to covering the cost of this law
that they put in place. I think it was approximately 40% that they were looking at and we’re
around 18%, 19%, or 20% depending on who you talk to. We’re nowhere near what the law
requires in terms of meeting the needs of students with disabilities nor are we getting that support
from the federal government.” Comm. Beaudry said he is glad that the Superintendent made
that comment. He said “really, that is what I’m looking for. These children need to go to school
and we need to transport them but I just would like to see any type of assistance that we can get
for transportation. It is going to be at some point unsustainable if we’re going to keep increasing
at 11.3%. I’m talking just about special ed transportation but I’m talking about even regular ed
transportation because that went up dramatically. Supt. Brennan said “in my opinion when asked
what the federal government can do in terms of supporting education, the first thing I indicate is
‘pay what you owe us regarding special education. I think every superintendent in every school
district would benefit from that. So whatever pressure we can bring to the federal government,
just in that area alone, would have a significant, positive impact on our districts.”
Comm. Beaudry said “my last comment on transportation is we’ve talked about increasing
walking routes. I would really be skeptical of that because with the demographics of the City
and how many pedophiles and concerns of certain areas where children would walk and
concerned parents that have come in. The infra-structure in this City is actually not conducive to
walking once you get out of the inner City. I know in ward 9 we don’t have the sidewalks they
have in the inner City so children would be walking in the streets. That would be a concern
when we broaden the mileage for walking. It would be something to look at but I would
definitely want to have the safety of our children come first.”
Supt. Brennan said “when we start talking about options that are available to us those will
be difficult decisions because for the most part we have captured not only the low-hanging fruit
but we’ve gone up into the tree. It’s going to be a problem no matter what decision, whether you
want to talk about extending the walking distance or any decision relative to student services,
you will have people in the audience wanting to go back. So, these are not easy decisions, but
we have no ability to make the easy decisions, and those decisions were hard. We need to lay
that groundwork as we go forward in this conversation.”
Mayor Gatsas asked Ms. DeFrancis to provide the additional dollars from federal funds.
She said she could provide that information. Mayor Gatsas said “the truth is what we spend is
not $150million, the true spend is about $168million.” Supt. Brennan said “it is around
$180million. Mayor Gatsas said “the new Board members should know that it really isn’t
$150million on the spend side but it is more like $180mkillion on the spend side. We should see
all of that and see how those dollars are spent. Ms. DeFrancis said in the past she has provided a
spreadsheet that showed the General Fund and the ARRA funds we had at one point in time and
9
then the special revenue funds. Mayor Gatsas said “with the budgets of 2010 and 2011 we had
$10million each of one-time funds. Those have evaporated. Those were the ARRA funds that
came to the City. We distributed those funds and we are not to trying to get off that cocaine that
we were all on. We reduced that $10million one-time spend to $4million of one-time spend,
taking it from the expendable trust last year but at some point we have to get off of the one-time
money and be able to support ourselves on the funds that we have before us. At some point, that
one year that it happens, it is going to be a very difficult year. We either make that choice for
this year or we can take all the one-time money, as Dr. Brennan has shown us, for this
year……You can take your number and the number you would probably looking at for a tax-cap
number next year is going to be somewhere around 2.3%. So take that number and plug it in
and one of these 2 years we’re going to have to make some very, very difficult decisions. So, if
you can get us those numbers so that the new members can see them we can go from there.”
Comm. Wihby asked if the transportation numbers are correct or not. Mayor Gatsas said
“I can only tell you that I negotiated a contract that had flat spending for 3 years.” Comm.
Wihby asked “so how do these numbers get bigger?” Supt. Brennan said “that’s the question
that will provide an answer for on Monday night.” Comm. Wihby said “so, at this point you
don’t know where they came from?” Supt. Brennan said “I do not.” Comm. Wihby asked “is
there some more impact fees somewhere, $1.5million or something? So, that’s a possibility also?
You don’t have that on here.” Mayor Gatsas said there is a million dollars still available. He
said “they used the same number on the impact fees as they did last year so there is a million that
is still available.” Ms. DeFrancis said she believes the balance in the impact fees is about
$2.5million. She said “however, we’re utilizing $500,000 this year so that will bring that
number down. And the impact fees could be utilized on the revenue side. So that doesn’t
necessarily offset our expenditures but it could offset shortfalls in revenue.” Comm. Wihby
asked “to cover up the $2million that we’re down?” Ms. DeFrancis replied “it would help offset
that, yes.” Mayor Gatsas said “that’s one-time money again and when we use it it’s gone.”
Comm. Wihby responded “I understand that, Your Honor.”
Vice Chair Gelinas said “I’m assuming that under the tax cap rule all departments on the
City side are under the same restraints.” Mayor Gatsas said “as a matter of fact, the departments
on the City side must absorb their COLAs and their steps within the budget that they have this
year, so they’re under a tougher constraint.” Vice Chair Gelinas said “my question then is on
City services. It’s a minor point but it’s obviously higher than last year’s appropriation. Is that
increase due to increases from them or an anticipated usage on our side?” Ms. DeFrancis
referred to page 26 of the needs budget. She said that is a listing of the various departments the
District uses from the City. The first on the list is the Parks & Recreation Department and we
utilize them for our school and grounds maintenance and the plowing of facilities as well as for
the maintenance of the athletic fields and Gill Stadium. The 3 line items total $270,000,
$151,000, and $25,500. That is the same number that we are projecting for fiscal year ’12.
We’re comfortable going forward after talking with Mr. Capano that level funding for that next
year would be appropriate. Again, it’s difficult to tell based on the plowing as it all depends on
what type of winter we have. We have level funded that as well as the amount for the Highway
Department that does the sweeping of the parking lots and some smaller paving jobs. With the
Building Maintenance Department we have included a 1.6% increase. The amounts for the
Health Department and the Police Department, that’s all salaries. The billings we get from them
are for the nurses in the schools, so the salaries and benefits expected for next year, and for the
10
SRO officers and the crossing guards. They have actually increased by more than a 1% increase
because we have to pay for those actual salaries and benefits. With the final few line items we
have not received communication yet from the City Service Department so we are just estimating
a slight increase in our workers compensation and general liability agent fees. The total that we
are projecting in the $162million budget would be $9,076,765. That is a 2.8% increase over the
$8.8million from FY12.”
Vice Chair Gelinas asked if the line item from the Police Department reflects the
concessions that they voted on earlier this week. Ms. DeFrancis replied “it would not because
we receive that number from the Police Department probably a month ago.” Vice Chair Gelinas
asked “would those concessions affect that line, Your Honor?” Mayor Gatsas replied “no.”
Vice Chair Gelinas asked why not. Mayor Gatsas said “because the changes come in effect for
medical and this is just directly wages. And it’s still a 2.5% increase they’re getting for ’13.
They’re 1% goes into effect July 1 of 2013. They’re still at 2.5% for raises for this year just as
the teachers are.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked “if their insurance is going to kick in in July of ’13,
we’re working on the 2013 budget which starts in July.” Mayor Gatsas asked “this is just wages,
isn’t it?” Ms. DeFrancis said that it reflects salary and benefits. Mayor Gatsas said “OK, then
you would see a reflection in the benefits.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked “any idea how much?”
Supt. Brennan said “we would have to find out.” Vice Chair Gelinas said “it’s a minor point on
a budget of $152million but…..” Mayor Gatsas said “it might be $10,000 or $12,000.” Vice
Chair Gelinas said “it all adds up.” Mayor Gatsas said “you’re right.”
Comm. Cooper said “forgive my ignorance but regarding the transportation, how often
does that go out to bid? I mean could we reduce our costs by bidding that out?” Supt. Brennan
said “we just went out last year for this year. We do go out to bid. Mayor Gatsas said “we just
completed those negotiations. It’s a 3-year flat rate that we negotiated. As a matter of fact that
rate I believe was less than the year prior to the rate that we put into effect.” Comm. Beaudry
made a point of order. He said “I believe we went out to bid for special ed but we never went
out to bid for regular ed. We negotiated with the MTA. We never went out to bid because there
was some question if it was legal because if the MTA would have lost the School District they
might have lost funds for other bussing. We found out that that wasn’t true but we never went
out to bid for the regular ed.” Supt. Brennan said “Your Honor negotiated most of that language.
That’s true, it was clarified. I was thinking of negotiations and not going out to bid. We have
not done that recently. We do have an agreement that lasts to 2014.” Mayor Gatsas said that
was correct. Supt. Brennan said it is Board policy that within 10 months of an expiration of a
contract it is brought to the Board’s attention and then we go out for an RFP if that is what the
Board desires. Comm. Cooper asked “do the City services go out to bid also, as far as plowing
and that kind of stuff?” Supt. Brennan said “no. We haven’t done that. We’ve talked about it.
It becomes a problem in terms of logistics. First of all, not too many people have the capacity to
do the entire District and then if you end up with 9 or 10 vendors it becomes problematic. I think
the economy of scale indicates that we need a larger operation that would take it all on as
opposed to a varied group of individuals.” Mayor Gatsas said “and then you have a problem if
the vendor’s guy that was supposed to plow say Memorial was sick……it’s unacceptable.” Supt.
Brennan said “that’s what I was getting at. You have more redundancy within the City services
and they do a very good job. Again, if you go out to vendors, and we’ve seen this in other areas
in our District, there is an adjustment. As the Mayor pointed out, if someone doesn’t show up,
it’s just that one person but the impact is significant.”
11
Comm. Connors asked “do we know what the cost savings would be if we were to change
the transportation to the 2 mile distance?” Supt. Brennan said “no, but we could look at those
numbers. One of the things that is part of this conversation is are there certain areas you want us
to go after and others that we don’t want to go after. As Comm. Beaudry indicated, we have
talked about this. We talked about this with kindergarten and other issues. We’ve had
community members come to the Board for various exceptions and for the most part they have
been granted. Candidly, I do not want to spend a lot of effort spending time putting numbers
together if the Board isn’t in agreement with the 2 mile, just to save us time. It would save a lot
of anxiety. It’s one of the things that I think this Board needs to come to agreement. Do you
want to go to 2 miles? It is not simply to talk about what numbers we may or may not save
because there would be a savings, but is that what you want to do. I think that is what is
important. Is it 2 miles or 1.8 or what do you want?” Comm. Connors asked “could you get that
number for us because I have a feeling that parents are going to be upset if were cutting over a
hundred teachers as well. If you could share that number with us, that would be helpful?” She
asked another question related to the health costs. She asked “regarding the nurses, are those just
the school nurses that are listed or does that include expenditures for field trips and things like
that?” Supt. Brennan said “it’s just for our school nurses’ salaries; day to day, it does not include
field trip money.”
Comm. Avard said “if you’re doing that calculation for bussing I’d like to see a breakdown
by a tenth of a mile so we could look at it and if we decide we’re not comfortable with 2 miles
maybe it could be 1.5 or 1.6. I’d like to see what those numbers would mean for us.” Mayor
Gatsas asked “how about we ask for each quarter of a mile?” Comm. Avard agreed. He said
“when looking at the nurses I see $2.2million in nursing costs. I know that Tim Soucy and the
Health Department have worked very hard to keep these costs low but that still comes to an
average of over $100,000 per building for our 22 buildings. I wonder if there is a way we could
save money using LPNs versus RNs versus LNAs if there is a different way we can approach
this. I don’t know what the State laws or requirements are and I think Tim Soucy could help us
out with that. Also, whether or not it would be more cost effective to have the nurses in house
instead of being sub-contracted through the Health Department, so that is another avenue that I
think we should look at.” Mayor Gatsas asked “do you think the Health Department has a
padded number in there?” Comm. Avard said “I don’t think it is padded but I’m wondering if
there is another way of going about it using a different level of personnel; again, an LPN versus
an RN versus an LPN and going with the lower acceptable training. It would be just like going
with a BA3 or a BA2.” Mayor Gatsas said “I’m sure it is whatever the State standard is
requesting.” Comm. Avard said “that’s why I’m saying we need to talk with Tim Soucy to find
out what is the State requirement and see if we’re realizing the greatest savings that we can
realize based on those State standards.” Mayor Gatsas said “I’ll have him here on Monday.”
Comm. Beaudry referred to page 20 of the needs budget and the lines related to the copy
paper, ink, and toner. He asked if this was part of the $211,000. Mayor Gatsas said that is the
contract that was negotiated for the per copy price. Ms. DeFrancis said she would have to look
that up and whether that was combined with the allocation to the schools. They do post ink and
toner to a different line item so that cost can be tracked. Comm. Beaudry referred to page 26 and
the information regarding building maintenance. The lion share of that cost is for Aramark but
he would like to have the rest broken down as far as what that represents from the Highway
12
Department. He asked how much of that is actually being contracted out. He said he thinks the
City’s employees do a great job but if we’re paying for someone to be a third party administrator
and they’re contracting these things out on a regular basis he thinks the District should be
looking at an RFP to see what may be available out there at a lower cost. He would like to know
how much they do and how much they sub out. Mayor Gatsas asked “of that $5.5million how
much of that is Aramark?” Ms. DeFrancis said she would have to find that out. Mayor Gatsas
said he would say it is about $4.3million and that is a lesser number than what it was last year.
Comm. Beaudry said “$250,000 less, thanks to all of us who worked on that.” Mayor Gatsas
said “including a contribution for City Year.”
Comm. Stewart referred to the needs budget and the lines for salaries. He asked if the
$84,122,000 salaries is for the about 15,061 staffers? Supt. Brennan replied “yes.” Comm.
Stewart asked if there was a way to get a breakdown of the benefits’ costs as was done with the
salary detail provided on page 4. For example, with the para-professionals, we can see that
they’re making $4.4million in salaries but is there a way we can see how much we are spending
on employee benefits. Supt.Brennan replied “yes.” Comm. Stewart asked to be provided with
the total number of people in the system that receives employee benefits. He would assume it is
the 1,561 staffers plus dependents. Supt. Brennan agreed.
Comm. Rokas asked “Dr. Brennan, have you had any talks with the unions?” Supt.
Brennan said he had yesterday afternoon and they would meet again next week. He said he
senses a willingness to participate in a discussion and he feels more optimistic than he did at this
time last year. Comm. Rokas said “so we won’t have any information for Monday.” Supt.
Brennan said “no, we both have things to do and to research in terms of personnel, contracts,
health benefits, etc. and that is what will be done between now and next Thursday.”
Comm. Cooper asked where to find the information regarding the bidding process. Supt.
Brennan said that information could be found in the policy manual under the fiscal policies.
Comm. Avard referred to page 4 of the needs budget. He asked how many retirees did the
District have in FY12 that we paid severance to? Ms. DeFrancis said “12 teachers that we had by
the time that we built the budget and then by year end we had maybe another 5. They have to
tell us by December 31. If they don’t have the 20 years in and they’re not entitled to the $7,000
stipend they can tell us later in the year we could have a handful of those by year end.” Comm.
Avard said he wanted to see what that was compared to what we have for this year because he
sees an almost 50% increase on the expected severance costs. Ms. DeFrancis said “included in
the preliminary data for ’13 that $636,000 includes 15 teachers and 7 administrators or support
staff. The 7 administrators and support staff is just an estimate at this time but she can get data
from last year so there can be a comparison of the 2 numbers as to why there is the increase; that
increase from $451,000 to $636,000.”
Comm. Ambrogi said she had a question on a slightly different track. She said when the
Board was provided with the information and the different budgets one was the progressive
budget. She recognizes that the District is not looking to spend more money. She would like to
be provided with an overview, an executive summary, of what the differences are that are
incorporated into that and what the things the Administration hopes to accomplish with that. She
said that as the Board makes the decisions going forward if there is any aspect of the progressive
budget that possibly could be incorporated into the budget the District will end up with. Supt.
Brennan said “with your permission I’d like to start with the needs budget because we built upon
that. In terms of things we are looking at include the IT equipment, dedicated Internet access for
13
each school at an approximate cost of $32,844. Also, IT equipment to manage the wireless
network upgrade for $300,000. And chairs and tables for classrooms at $100,000. As well, to
have assistant principals at every elementary school. This is something the School Board has
been wanting to do for quite some period. That represents 3.5 new positions at a salary of
$280,672 and $117,882 for benefits. That was what was added in the needs budget. When we
got to the progressive budget we added 29 staff as per requested by our administrators as to what
they felt they needed, and 3 literacy/math teachers from grants to take that on from non-Title I
schools. Also, an AlertNow System that notifies parents of events that may be happening, such
as school cancellations etc. We’ve been talking about that for years. That costs approximately
$60,000. And also some consumables for literacy of an additional $30,000. That makes up what
we looked at if we had a progressive budget along with keeping everything the same and going
forward.”
Comm. Ambrogi asked “where would full-day kindergarten fall in the different budgets
and what is allocated for that?” Supt. Brennan said “that would be under the 29 new staff in the
progressive budget. It’s not just in terms of hiring people but it is also in terms of space
available in some of our schools, particularly our elementary schools. Elementary schools are at
capacity when you average them out throughout the District. They are at 94%-95% capacity and
that is a significant number. It’s not just that one piece.” Comm. Ambrogi said she would
assume as we move forward and we see the results of for example your discussions with the
unions that we could keep in mind the listing the items that the Superintendent just went through
where there are choices to make because those all sound very worthy things to try to implement
for approval to move education forward. She would appreciate the Administration providing a
listing to reference going forward.
Comm. Beaudry asked are we going the listing of the employees in the District and what
their pay is and a breakdown of what people are getting a stipend and what positions they
represent along with any other additional fees or compensation we give to our employees? And
if it could be listed separately so we know about each so if we want to eliminate a certain thing
we would know what the dollar amount is. Supt. Brennan said that could be provided.
Vice Chair Gelinas said “going back to Comm. Rokas’ question, let’s work on an
assumption if our unions were to accept the same concessions that the police have done, what
kind of dollar amount are we looking at?” Mayor Gatsas said it would be roughly $3.8million
over the term of the extension of the contract. Vice Chair Gelinas asked “what would that be for
2013?” Mayor Gatsas said “probably the biggest majority of that. There is a 3% bump that goes
up and that is probably worth maybe $300,000, so if we say $3.5million it would be very close.”
Vice Chair Gelinas said “let’s say $3million.” Mayor Gatsas said “if you don’t want to use the
half million I’ll keep it on the City side.” Vice Chair Gelinas said “no, we’re going to use it; I
just don’t want to go overboard.” Mayor Gatsas said ‘if you remember, when they came to the
20% contribution it was $6million; $3million in plan design and $3million in contribution. The
plan design is very close to the plan design that I was requesting. So you can use $3million plus
for the contribution. You folks may be a little bit less because you’re already at 7% or 6.5%.”
Vice Chair Gelinas asked Ms. DeFrancis to explain why we’re at that difference; it’s
because what we did two and a half or 3 years ago. Ms. DeFrancis said several years it was
negotiated to extend the contract by 3 years. Included in that negotiation was the employees
would take only 65% of the COLA that year and we extended the contract at I believe a 1.5%,
2.5%, and 2.5% over the 3 years. In addition to that the employees gave an extra contribution of
14
a half percent per year in the health insurance including that 1st year in which they reduced the
COLA as well. So it was a half percent that 1st year as well as only taking 35% of the COLA.
The next year they increased their contribution by another half percent and this year that we’re in
now by another half percent and the final half percent in next year. The HMO was originally at
5% and in next year’s budget it would be at 7%. The POS was at 12.5% and now it would at
14.5%. For dental it was at 15% and now it will be at 17% in the beginning of the next fiscal
year. Vice Chair Gelinas asked “do I understand correctly with the union contract it has been
extended 2 years to 2015? “ Mayor Gatsas said that was correct.
Comm. Beaudry said “what the School District did the City side did not. They did not go
to the 65% and eliminate 2% over the course of the contract. They gave 50% up the first year
but they gave up nothing on their health care or benefits.” Mayor Gatsas asked “are you asking
to be a department of the City now?” Comm. Beaudry replied “no. I’m just saying that the
School District is very frugal and that our employees gave up a lot more. I actually like what
Atty. Teague had said for us to try get our own Charter.” Mayor Gatsas said “let’s put it on the
ballot whether the people want you as a department or a district. Let the people make the
decision. I offered that up last year but nobody wanted to take me up on it.”
Supt. Brennan said one consideration we need to keep in mind as we go forward is our
enrollments, as we project our enrollments. Yesterday he was at a meeting with the
superintendents of the south central region of the State. Those who provided information are
concerned that they’re having a decline in their enrollment over the next few years. With our
projections, even looking out at a 20-year projection, we’re looking at a less than 1% decrease in
our enrollment. We see a very flat enrollment in our School District. It was noted that
Manchester’s enrollment seems to be constant; particularly with the elementary level. The
majority of other districts are seeing a drop-off in the elementary level. As we talk about the
budget and people talk about declining enrollments, I believe we’ve already had our dip and
we’ll be level across K to 12. The enrollment studies were done by NESDEC. So we’re using
comparable data with comparable information. He said he wants to point out. When people start
talking about a declining enrollment throughout the State, that is not true with Manchester.
Mayor Gatsas referred to page 13 of the needs budget. He sees the property insurance
policy is at about $202,000. Is that a charge from the City or does the District have its own
policy? Ms. DeFrancis said “we do. Henry Ntapolis is involved with that. He works with us on
that and we’re self-insured up to the first $100,000. Mayor Gatsas said “so you’re on the City’s
policy and you don’t have an individual policy. Ms. DeFrancis said “this policy comes to us
individually from the Ferdinando Agency.” Mayor Gatsas asked “is there a reason why we
wouldn’t be looking to do that under the City’s umbrella?” Ms. DeFrancis said “I believe it is
the same policy that the City would have. Isn’t the City self-insured for a certain dollar amount
and then above that you have an insurance policy?” Mayor Gatsas said “right, but actually it’s
much higher than that.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked if we went to the City-side would our costs be
lower? Mayor Gatsas said he didn’t know but he would ask the question.
Comm. Beaudry said in talking about student enrollments and numbers. He commends the
people of Hooksett to try to get their people to come to Manchester. As stated, with Auburn
more of their students are leaving. He said he doesn’t know what the District can do but could
we write a letter. They’re taking students away from our District and going against the contract
and they should be on record. He doesn’t know if the District can charge them for that. He
15
doesn’t know what the attorney has actually said about that but the contract says all students are
going to be in Manchester except on a case-by-case basis yet we’re seeing hundreds of students
leaving. That is revenue coming out of the District’s pocket when it is needed. He would like to
see this addressed. Mayor Gatsas said about 2 years ago members of this Committee sat with
members of the sending towns and we were reprimanded that we hadn’t had meetings for the
sending districts to participate in discussions. We’re still waiting for Dr. Littlefield to set a
meeting. Mayor Gatsas said “I guess if he doesn’t want to set one up I would suggest that we
redefine the position of this District and maybe we need to set it up and we should get back to the
table to see what these school districts are looking to do. Maybe we start sending out
ultimatums. Supt. Brennan said he would echo Comm. Beaudry’s comments. He goes to visit
each of those school districts and he goes to their meetings. He was at a meeting in Hooksett
where there was a group of parents that came forward asking for a placement other than
Manchester. He said “they have held very strongly how they interpret the agreement and they’ve
done an excellent job working with Dr. Littlefield. That particular board has done its due
diligence relative to the agreement we have. What Your Honor has said means I will be having a
conversation with Dr. Littlefield. Mayor Gatsas said “we know very well with the numbers we
are looking at with this budget we’re going to start hearing foot beats coming from the other
districts and I guess I would like to know when was the last time that anyone sat in on any of our
committee meetings or came to any of our Board meetings or voiced their opinion on anything.
Now that we’re talking about 100 or 200 teachers going home I’m sure that the sending districts
will start to respond.” Supt. Brennan said one particular member, Mr. Tardiff, from Auburn,
does come to some committee meetings. Mayor Gatsas said he is not a school board member; he
is just an interested community member.
Comm. Shoults asked that pending discussion by Dr. Brennan with the unions he would
like to see a list of expenditures in the budget that are fixed and cannot be changed at all and with
the rest of the items to have an order of relative, subjective importance of those that could
reasonably be cut and the implications and consequences for each cut. That would be very
helpful. Supt. Brennan said “we will do everything we can to put that type of list together.
Typically it is about 3.4% of any school budget that you have control over. We have been
pruning that for some time.”
Mayor Gatsas asked for the Administration to provide a list with 15 bullets of things that
are in the contracts that might effectively change what we do in the District. For example, right
now part-time employee gets full benefits. Let’s say we pay certain part-time people $14,000
and if they’re on a family plan they could cost us $22,000. Another example, we only have a
small number of people that we pay overtime but let’s say we have to pay an additional payment
that could change based on a different method of calculating. There has to be things that we may
be able to change in the complexion of costs versus what we are doing today. So in the contracts
are there 15-20 bullet points that are cost items and if there are we should take a look at them.
So to have some of those things and maybe what potentially could change with some. Supt.
Brennan said “if you talk in terms of extra, co-curricular activities there are stipend positions.
Mayor Gatsas said “maybe we’re not looking to eliminate those but maybe we change the base
salary of a teacher. Right now we say we have the lowest paid teachers coming into the District
at $27,000. After their first year what is their COLA and step increase? Is it 9.5%? I’m not too
sure that any place in industry anybody gets a 9.5% jump. It’s kind of camouflaged by what
happens at the end of the year. I don’t have a problem increasing that and removing the 9.5%. If
16
we took them to a higher number to start and we eliminate the game that we don’t see in
between.”
Comm. Connors asked “do we pay for overtime to say Parks & Rec employees or
departments in the City for their work?” Supt. Brennan said “yes, for let’s say plowing; there
could be overtime. It is stipulated in the invoices that we receive. Yes, I know we have.”
Vice Chair Gelinas asked the Superintendent if he is working on any revenue projects that
could be used for the 2013 budget such as a before school or after school program or a daycare-
type set-up that would bring in revenue for the District that could be used in the budget? Supt.
Brennan said “we haven’t at a formal level. We have looked at a type of program. Bedford runs
a program that allows for kindergarteners to have half-day kindergarten and half-day daycare.
They have the space available for that.” Vice Chair Gelinas said that had been talked about
briefly in the last term. Mayor Gatsas asked “Dr. Brennan, are you prepared to institute that in
September if we find a building?” Supt. Brennan said “in terms of having half-day kindergarten,
I think we could do that.” Mayor Gatsas said “and include preschool.” Supt. Brennan said “I
know the folks I work with may start shuddering but yes I think we could do that.” Mayor
Gatsas said “I don’t want a think because I know around here we think a lot and we start finding
projects but we never complete them until 2 or 3 years out. If someone wants to guarantee me
that that project if we find a building we could be up and running by September and creating
revenue then that’s a different story and I will start looking for one tomorrow.” Supt. Brennan
replied “yes, sir.”
Comm. Avard said about a year or a year and a half ago there was talk about having a
program if any of the District’s employees opted out of using their health insurance to use their
spouse’s health insurance from another source they would get a bonus check from us. He said
the Board hasn’t heard of an update on that. Did that ever get off the ground and if so how is it
working out? Mayor Gatsas said “it’s a portion of the contract that we negotiated in with the
police. It went from a $1,500 payment to $4,000. But that’s not reflective if you’re a City
School employee. It does not apply.” Comm. Avard asked “did it ever get implemented on the
School side?” He said “I know that we talked about it.” Mayor Gatsas replied “no, I think we
had communication with the unions but….” Comm. Avard said “it never came through.” Mayor
Gatsas replied “no.”
Mayor Gatsas said “let me tell you some of the things I found interesting. We don’t have
double-dipping on health insurance anymore. We had people who worked on the City side and
the School side and they both would take the medical insurance and the only thing that was
different was that they would pick up the deductible of the portion that wasn’t paying on one
side. So that has ended. But now people have figured out that they can double-dip on the dental
so if someone on the City side has a dental plan the spouse picks it up on the School’s plan they
get twice as much dental for a pretty small fee. That has been eliminated in the contracts and
they cannot double-dip on the dental insurance any longer on the City side. So if there are things
that as we go through these contracts that we find we can eliminate that is why I have asked Dr.
Brennan to bring in a list of the 15 or so things that are in the contract to look at because it’s an
eye-opening experience.”
Comm. Beaudry said “to go back to the Selma Deitch Early Learning Center, if we find a
place that would open up the space in our regular school but I would like to have the cost that
would be associated with that. I agree that we should open up some of the space but there will
be a cost associated with that. Right now we don’t have a principal any more for that because
17
when it was brought in to the other school the principals in that school basically oversee that
program. We would have to get an administrator at least. The teachers came over from Easter
Seals. And we would have the cost of whatever the building would cost us.” Supt. Brennan
said “plus the fit-up and maintenance costs.” Mayor Gatsas asked “could you give me that
number before we start looking?” Supt. Brennan responded “yes, sir.” Comm. Beaudry said
“we would need to have the cost associated with moving the students out of the existing building
and back to a single location.” Supt. Brennan said “you would have an estimate.” Mayor Gatsas
said “also, to estimate what you think is a revenue that we could add by having students coming
in and paying for this. Obviously we have an advantage because we have people that are already
certified, moreso than daycare centers that are out there. You know we wouldn’t be taking in
infants but it would be preschoolers that would be looking to come to the School District’s
daycare.” Comm. Beaudry said “we do have a very good program at MST where we do take
preschool children and have daycare. I hope that when MST goes to a comprehensive school
that that program stays over there and it continues to flourish.”
Comm. Avard said “I know we did talk about retirees and how that affects the budget this
year but we haven’t talked about any expected non-renewals.” He knows that comes about later
in the year but he wonders if there are any non-renewals to potentially look at?” Supt. Brennan
said it is too early in the process. He said “I would put out that caveat that we may have a list of
people that we’re not bringing back but we do have a list of positions that we need to fill.”
Mayor Gatsas said “another piece that was negotiated in the police contract, I know that we have
a $7,000 stipend if someone notifies us by December 31, and the policeman’s stipend is $13,000
if they notify us by June 30 of this year.” Vice Chair Gelinas asked if the Superintendent has a
copy of the agreement that the police union came up with. Mayor Gatsas said it is a public
document and a copy could be provided.
Comm. Ambrogi said she thinks it is a great idea to look at preschool or kindergarten as
potential revenue. She would like a list of what the current offerings are at each of the
elementary schools in terms of where we offer full-day kindergarten and where we don’t. There
is a parody and a fairness issue across the District and she has had questions asked of her of this.
This is something the Board should want to keep this in mind when looking at which schools
may have the ability of having some type of revenue program but she would want to be sure that
the Board has a sense of how we are offering those services across the District and to keep all of
the elementary schools in mind.
Comm. Beaudry said he would go back to Vice Chair Gelinas’ question regarding people
retiring and the stipend. He said “you’re saying it’s roughly $3.8million right now but if we
have 200 teachers that decide that they want to leave at $13,000 a piece that is going to absorb a
lot of our savings which is what we need this year to keep teachers in the classrooms. In my
opinion I think it would be counter-productive to offer such a thing. I guess we could offer
anything but if we’re looking to keep teachers in the classroom we have to be sure that we’re not
going to offer a plan that is going to be so rich that it is going to be against our goal which is to
keep teachers hired and in the classroom. That would be a concern to me.” Mayor Gatsas said
“if someone leaves at $61,000 and I can hire someone at $30,000 that’s a net change of $30,000
and $17,000 is my net in my pocket so I probably would do that with 200. That gets to you
somewhere to about $3.5million in the first year.” Supt. Brennan said “there is a concern about
the severance that we have to pay out that first year.” Comm. Beaudry said “correct, and my
concern would be that we wouldn’t rehire. If we need to come up with $9million and we can’t
18
hire back and we’re going to lose 200 teachers if these 200 decide they want to bail out to take
the $13,000 we’re going to be further in the hole because we’re not going to be hiring teachers.
That’s a concern I have for the short term and the long term.” Mayor Gatsas said “we’re already
paying them $7,000. The other thing that was in that contract was they have the ability to go to
the high deductible plan. The City is paying for the high deductible for a 2-year basis.”
Comm. Staub asked when Dr. Brennan prepares the statement about the kindergartens if
he would also include the revenue streams for those programs; for example, which are being paid
by Title I or for Even Start. That way the Board can see where the money is coming from to
fund kindergarten.
Comm. Soucy asked if with the summary of the collective bargaining agreements, coupled
with that and as important as that, the Superintendent provide some type of a summary of the
State standards. As Dr. Brennan said earlier, about 97% of the District’s budget is set and maybe
3% is actually discretionary. Much of what we do in terms of staffing has to do with the
requirements of either No Child Left Behind or the State standards. To the extent that some of
that information could be summarized, particularly at the high school level, depending where the
retirements are there may be no savings because we would actually have to replace the teacher,
she knows that happened the last time around with science and highly-trained math teachers in
particular. Those are hard to find and we actually have to hire at a higher level because we’re
mandated. She realizes that is voluminous as well but to have some type of an overall view
would be helpful, particularly for the new Board members because much of what we do is driven
by forces outside of this room.
Comm. Wihby asked where do we go from here? Supt. Brennan said the next meeting
would actually be held next Thursday. Comm. Wihby asked “will you have what you consider
to get down to the $9million budget cut by then, to get to that tax cap number?” Supt. Brennan
said he would provide suggestions as to how to go about it. He may have some information from
the unions by then. Mayor Gatsas said “we might not have a number from the unions until May.
Some of the important dates that people should understand are lay-off notification for principals
is by April 15 and for teachers it is a May 10 deadline. Those 2 dates are important to keep in
mind because if there is a number of 104 on this piece of paper that number has to be critical to
announce to those people before then. I would make a suggestion to the Superintendent that if
this Board votes to RIF teachers that it would not be just the minimum but to RIF the entire
teaching force so there aren’t individuals that are on the line and everyone would get a pink slip.
That’s me and that may need discussion by this Board but that’s what I feel should happen. If
we’re going to RIF anybody, everyone gets a pink-slip going forward.”
Comm. Beaudry said teachers know you can RIF everybody but when you bring teachers
back they all know that it goes by seniority. The top people aren’t going to be worried about
getting a pink slip because they know that they’re going to be coming back.” Mayor Gatsas said
“I understand that but I think it’s perception that’s important.” Comm. Beaudry said “I have a
difference in philosophy in having people get uncomfortable whether they’re going to have a job
or not. I don’t want to play games with people’s lives. Last year the rumor was out there early
on that 200 para-professionals were going to leave. They knew what people were the 200 and
for 6 months those people basically were in turmoil. I don’t want to see people go through that
again.” Mayor Gatsas said “if there is a $9million problem on the table someone is going to
19
have to be in turmoil.” Comm. Beaudry said “I want it legitimate. Whatever we do I hope it is
going to be a legitimate purpose for doing it.”
Comm. Stewart asked Supt. Brennan when he talks with the unions does he work with
Anthem or share some of the ideas that they have about how to cut costs in the health care
benefits. Supt. Brennan said “we have. I have been working with the labor management group.
Anthem provided some direction and we continue to work with some of those suggestions. I
also have what was presented by Anthem the other night and I share that with them.” Comm.
Stewart said “I found that to be very instructive.” Comm. Ambrogi said “to amplify that, the
message that I got from the presentation that we had the other night is what we need to focus on
is wellness programs. There are a lot of things that are already in the plan that people are not
taking advantage and we need to encourage wellness . It’s not a cost issue for us, it’s things we
already have built in.”
ADJOURNMENT
At this time it was agreed that the scheduled Monday night meeting would be cancelled.
Tentatively a meeting would be scheduled for Thursday or Friday evening of next week.
Vice Chair Gelinas made a motion to adjourn the meeting at this time. Comm. Cooper
seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned at
11:05p.m.
A TRUE RECORD ATTEST:
Suzanne O. Sears
Clerk of the Board
20
