We held our first meeting of the new school board on Monday 3/17/08. Newly-elected member John Parker and I were sworn in prior to the start of the meeting.
I usually enjoy the first meeting of the year. Everything seems fresh and new, and we get to look forward to trying to make improvements. Much of the activity during the year is geared towards providing good choices for voters on the March ballot, and it is somewhat satisfying to finally finish the process. The final outcome is not always what I had hoped for, but it is good to have a completion of some type. The March elections are a bit like taking finals at the end of the year; you study and do the best you can during the year with the hope that there is confirmation of your work by doing well on the final test.
We held a "non-meeting" before the regular meeting to discuss contract negotiations. This type of meeting is specifically excluded from the right to know law, and the discussion is confidential.
Elections and Appointments
The first meeting of the year is an organizational meeting. We made the following elections and appointments:
Peter Bragdon - Chairperson
Paul Dargie - Vice Chairperson
No Secretary was elected; there is not much of a need for this position
No Truant Officer was appointed; we will search for a candidate
Paul - Professional Development Committee
Bert Becker - ATC Regional Center Advisory Committee
Paul - Technology Committee
John Parker - Wellness Committee
No appointment - PEG Committee
Paul - High School Renovations Committee
Paul - Athletics Fund-Raising Committee
Paul - Finance Committee
Bert - Finance Committee
Bert - Policy Review
Bob Willette, while no longer on the board, was kept as the board representative on the Bales Study Committee
Public Comment
Bob Willette spoke at some length discussing Milford's test scores.
MathCounts Presentation
Mrs. Page made a short presentation to the board regarding the MathCounts team at the Middle School. She has been the coach for the team for a long time, and has done a great job with it. She had three current members of the team with her, and they each discussed an aspect of the team. The team recently competed at the Keene regional competition, and will be going to the Plymouth State College state meet soon.
My daughter was on the MathCounts team about five years ago, and I was able attend the Plymouth state meet. It was a great event - the kids were all excited about Math, which can be a difficult thing to get them excited about.
Superintendent's Report
* The district has started an internal newsletter called Milford Minutes. The first issue was distributed to board members.
* The annual job fair is this Thursday. This has been a great way to get quality candidates for anticipated openings.
* The workshop day on voting day went well. There were a variety of programs available including responsive classroom, personalized profiles, and CPR training.
* The recent 11th grade NECAP scores were reviewed, with a comparison to state scores. In summary, Milford's results were very close to the state average, but the scores for both seemed low, especially for math. It is not clear if the problem was that students in general are not able to complete work at grade level expectations, or if there was some sort of a problem with the test. I'm guessing that at least some of the blame is due to the test. For example, I find it very hard to believe that 17% of 11th grade students are proficient with distinction on Reading, but only 1% or 2% are proficient with distinction in Math. There is usually a much higher correlation between the two categories than that.
* Laurie Johnson announced some grants that had been won: $10K for e-portfolio development, $10k for various items such as professional development reading improvement, etc.
Calendars
We set up the school board calendar for the year, with all the standard events scheduled.
We approved the school district calendar for the 08-09 year. School starts on 8/27/08 and Christmas break is 8 weekdays: 12/24/08 to 1/2/09. The last day of school without snow days is Monday 6/15/09, which means that the real last day will be around 6/18/09 or 6/19/09.
School Board Goals
Each year the school board sets their goals for the year. Each member can bring up options at the first meeting of the year, and we set the goals at the second meeting. The final list is usually a subset of the ones that are first presented. These are the potential goals for the year:
* Develop plans for a 09-10 start-up for a public kindergarten program in Milford. This is likely to take the form of adding portables to Jacques to create the space needed for the program.
* Develop plans for the presentation of a warrant article on the 2009 ballot for the construction of permanent space for public kindergarten. This is likely to be a proposal that is similar to the one that was article one on this year's ballot.
* Negotiate with the Teachers bargaining unit and the Support Staff bargaining unit with the objective of agreeing to contracts that will be presented to the voters on the 2009 ballot.
* Develop action plans based on the final Bales Study report due in June.
* Do some sort of activity regarding the potential severe Retirement System cost problems.
* Do some sort of activity regarding the development of gangs in Milford. This might involve working with law enforcement professionals in some manner.
* Manage the High School, Track, and Bales Roof renovation projects.
* Subdivide the Heron Pond lots.
* Negotiate with Mason regarding having their Middle and High school students attend Milford schools on a tuition basis, perhaps starting in the 09-10 school year.
* Do some sort of activity regarding the poor test scores, especially the 11th grade math scores.
* Start a conversion of our district policies to match the model policy format used by the New Hampshire School Board Association.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
High School Renovation Project
The MHS Project Management Advisory Committee held their monthly meeting yesterday to review the status of the ongoing renovations at the High School. Everything seems to be moving along well, with the overall project appearing to be on budget and on schedule.
Track and Field Update
Good progress was made on the track and field portion of the project during the fall months. Most of the major field work was completed, the drainage was installed, some fencing was put up, old bleachers were torn down, excess loam was removed from the site, lights were moved, subsurface and base coat for the track were installed, and the foundation for the storage building was installed.
Work has stopped on the site for the winter, except that the ATC construction program will be starting to construct the storage building soon. When the weather improves, they will start up again. Some of the major activities to be done include finishing off the track surface, building an appropriate foundation and installing bleachers, installing the press box, electrical and data feeds to the press box and scoreboard, and installing sod.
Most of the work should be completed by late spring or early summer. The football field will be rested for a while to allow the sod to take. It is expected that the field will be in great shape in time for the next football season.
High School Renovations Update
There are a number of renovation activities that will occur in the High School. Some activities have occurred over the past couple of months and will continue through the school year, but most of the activity will occur during the next summer.
The band room renovation is coming along well. It was gutted, new walls put up, stage storage area was constructed, stage handicapped lift area constructed, drainage put in, and practice rooms were created. The instrument storage system will be installed soon.
There are several interior rooms that are in progress. We ran into a minor snag in a couple of the rooms in that the roof supports turned out to be inverted wooden trusses instead of steel as had be expected. Some rooftop units were being installed, so they had to figure out a way to beef up the support structure to handle all the loads. They did come up with an approach that is safe and relatively inexpensive.
Bales Roof
The contract for the replacement of the Bales roof was given to Turnstone Corp, the construction manager for the high school project. The work will be done next summer.
Financial Update
The high school project is largely a renovation project, and it is always difficult to be exact on the costs up front since you never know what you are going to run into. There have been some items that were more expensive than expected and others that were lower, but in total, our best estimate at this time is that we have roughly $200k that is not spoken for as of yet, out of the $4,900k total project budget. There are quite a few items that still have place holder values in the cost roll-up, so this is subject to considerable change as we go through the project. In very rough numbers, we have committed spending of about $4,400k so far, with another $500k remaining to be committed.
The project management committee has worked well at making decisions to keep the project on budget. Priority decisions have been made, and in my opinion, good choices have been made.
The project seems to be in good financial shape at this point, with the majority of the big cost items mostly set, with only minor activities still up in the air.
Track and Field Update
Good progress was made on the track and field portion of the project during the fall months. Most of the major field work was completed, the drainage was installed, some fencing was put up, old bleachers were torn down, excess loam was removed from the site, lights were moved, subsurface and base coat for the track were installed, and the foundation for the storage building was installed.
Work has stopped on the site for the winter, except that the ATC construction program will be starting to construct the storage building soon. When the weather improves, they will start up again. Some of the major activities to be done include finishing off the track surface, building an appropriate foundation and installing bleachers, installing the press box, electrical and data feeds to the press box and scoreboard, and installing sod.
Most of the work should be completed by late spring or early summer. The football field will be rested for a while to allow the sod to take. It is expected that the field will be in great shape in time for the next football season.
High School Renovations Update
There are a number of renovation activities that will occur in the High School. Some activities have occurred over the past couple of months and will continue through the school year, but most of the activity will occur during the next summer.
The band room renovation is coming along well. It was gutted, new walls put up, stage storage area was constructed, stage handicapped lift area constructed, drainage put in, and practice rooms were created. The instrument storage system will be installed soon.
There are several interior rooms that are in progress. We ran into a minor snag in a couple of the rooms in that the roof supports turned out to be inverted wooden trusses instead of steel as had be expected. Some rooftop units were being installed, so they had to figure out a way to beef up the support structure to handle all the loads. They did come up with an approach that is safe and relatively inexpensive.
Bales Roof
The contract for the replacement of the Bales roof was given to Turnstone Corp, the construction manager for the high school project. The work will be done next summer.
Financial Update
The high school project is largely a renovation project, and it is always difficult to be exact on the costs up front since you never know what you are going to run into. There have been some items that were more expensive than expected and others that were lower, but in total, our best estimate at this time is that we have roughly $200k that is not spoken for as of yet, out of the $4,900k total project budget. There are quite a few items that still have place holder values in the cost roll-up, so this is subject to considerable change as we go through the project. In very rough numbers, we have committed spending of about $4,400k so far, with another $500k remaining to be committed.
The project management committee has worked well at making decisions to keep the project on budget. Priority decisions have been made, and in my opinion, good choices have been made.
The project seems to be in good financial shape at this point, with the majority of the big cost items mostly set, with only minor activities still up in the air.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Kindergarten - What Now?
With the failure of all three kindergarten articles, we now need to develop alternative plans on what to do going forward.
It is very likely that the current state mandate for providing public kindergarten starting in September 2008 will be pushed back to September 2009. It is also likely that there will be no more delays allowed beyond that date so, we need a solution to meet the mandate.
Our options for providing a public kindergarten program in 2009 are fairly limited. The most realistic and obvious approach is to add portable classrooms to Jacques to provide the needed space. It is likely that the state will pay 100% of the cost of portables for 3 years to help get programs going while alternative permanent solutions are developed. Adding portables should now be our plan for a 2009 start-up.
In parallel with planning to start the program with portables, we should also review our permanent solutions again with the goal of having a warrant article on the 2009 ballot for a September 2010 implementation.
Article 1 did fairly well this year by getting 50% of the vote. This is respectable considering that it was not supported by the school board, there were two other competing articles to confuse the issue, and the state funding details were not complete. As of now, I expect that the permanent solution to be presented next year will be similar to or identical to the plan that was presented this year.
One big difference is that there are now three board members that are generally in favor of public kindergarten, and it is likely that the proposal will have board support. There may still be competing petition warrant articles, but having board support should make some sort of a difference. Also, the state funding situation should be a lot clearer by then, so there won't be so much FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) going around on the subject.
Doing a construction project while the kindergarten program is active and the portables are on site will be more difficult, and we will need to be very careful about construction activity scheduling to make sure that there are no safety issues relating to the project.
The fact that article 1 failed is a set-back, but I think that it is only a temporary one. Most people are reasonable, and once they see the dust settle on the state funding issue, they will be more likely to support a cost-effective long term solution.
It is very likely that the current state mandate for providing public kindergarten starting in September 2008 will be pushed back to September 2009. It is also likely that there will be no more delays allowed beyond that date so, we need a solution to meet the mandate.
Our options for providing a public kindergarten program in 2009 are fairly limited. The most realistic and obvious approach is to add portable classrooms to Jacques to provide the needed space. It is likely that the state will pay 100% of the cost of portables for 3 years to help get programs going while alternative permanent solutions are developed. Adding portables should now be our plan for a 2009 start-up.
In parallel with planning to start the program with portables, we should also review our permanent solutions again with the goal of having a warrant article on the 2009 ballot for a September 2010 implementation.
Article 1 did fairly well this year by getting 50% of the vote. This is respectable considering that it was not supported by the school board, there were two other competing articles to confuse the issue, and the state funding details were not complete. As of now, I expect that the permanent solution to be presented next year will be similar to or identical to the plan that was presented this year.
One big difference is that there are now three board members that are generally in favor of public kindergarten, and it is likely that the proposal will have board support. There may still be competing petition warrant articles, but having board support should make some sort of a difference. Also, the state funding situation should be a lot clearer by then, so there won't be so much FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) going around on the subject.
Doing a construction project while the kindergarten program is active and the portables are on site will be more difficult, and we will need to be very careful about construction activity scheduling to make sure that there are no safety issues relating to the project.
The fact that article 1 failed is a set-back, but I think that it is only a temporary one. Most people are reasonable, and once they see the dust settle on the state funding issue, they will be more likely to support a cost-effective long term solution.
What Happened in the School Board Election?
I was surprised by the results of the school board election. I had been expecting the Bob Willette and I would be re-elected, and that John Parker would come in third. My simplistic thought was that Bob and I are fairly well-known and thus we would get the most votes, and that John was somewhat of an unknown to most voters in Milford and would thus receive fewer votes.
Upon reflection, I have an idea as to what happened, and it relates to the way a three-way race for two positions can play out.
There are three types of voters for this school board race:
1. Status quo voters: ones that like the way things are going and want to stay with the current directions.
2. Conservative voters: ones that are relatively conservative and want to move the board to the right from the status quo.
3. Liberal voters: ones that are relatively liberal and want to move the board to the left from the status quo.
As a general rule, Bob is fairly conservative, and I am more liberal than him. John's political leanings are less well known, but my impression is that he is perceived as being somewhat in the middle relative to Bob and I. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter; what does matter when making a voting choice is the perception of the voters. Assuming the perceived positioning is correct, then:
* Status quo voters would tend to vote for Bob and I, to try to keep things moving in the same direction as today.
* Relatively conservative voters would tend to vote for Bob and John, since John is perceived as being more conservative than me.
* Relatively liberal voters would tend to vote for John and I since John is perceived as being more liberal than Bob.
This three-way arrangement is common for a three way race for two openings. The three choices are evaluated on some sort of a continuum (such as liberal-conservative), and then they are ranked according to the perception.
Each candidate is chosen in two out of the three possibilities. The number of votes that any one candidate gets is determined by the distribution of voters into the three categories, neglecting bullet voters that only vote for one candidate instead of two.
It seems to me that the candidate that is in the middle when the three choices are rank ordered will have an advantage since he will be the second choice for voters on both ends of the spectrum.
I think that there were somewhat fewer status quo voters this year, and that of the voters that were not leaning towards status quo, there were more liberal leaning voters than conservative leaning voters. This mix would end up with John getting more votes than he would normally get as an unknown candidate.
I'm sure that these types of electoral dynamics are studied in depth somewhere, but I could not find any studies with a brief google search. I would be interested in reading them if anyone has a link to a discussion somewhere on this topic.
Upon reflection, I have an idea as to what happened, and it relates to the way a three-way race for two positions can play out.
There are three types of voters for this school board race:
1. Status quo voters: ones that like the way things are going and want to stay with the current directions.
2. Conservative voters: ones that are relatively conservative and want to move the board to the right from the status quo.
3. Liberal voters: ones that are relatively liberal and want to move the board to the left from the status quo.
As a general rule, Bob is fairly conservative, and I am more liberal than him. John's political leanings are less well known, but my impression is that he is perceived as being somewhat in the middle relative to Bob and I. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter; what does matter when making a voting choice is the perception of the voters. Assuming the perceived positioning is correct, then:
* Status quo voters would tend to vote for Bob and I, to try to keep things moving in the same direction as today.
* Relatively conservative voters would tend to vote for Bob and John, since John is perceived as being more conservative than me.
* Relatively liberal voters would tend to vote for John and I since John is perceived as being more liberal than Bob.
This three-way arrangement is common for a three way race for two openings. The three choices are evaluated on some sort of a continuum (such as liberal-conservative), and then they are ranked according to the perception.
Each candidate is chosen in two out of the three possibilities. The number of votes that any one candidate gets is determined by the distribution of voters into the three categories, neglecting bullet voters that only vote for one candidate instead of two.
It seems to me that the candidate that is in the middle when the three choices are rank ordered will have an advantage since he will be the second choice for voters on both ends of the spectrum.
I think that there were somewhat fewer status quo voters this year, and that of the voters that were not leaning towards status quo, there were more liberal leaning voters than conservative leaning voters. This mix would end up with John getting more votes than he would normally get as an unknown candidate.
I'm sure that these types of electoral dynamics are studied in depth somewhere, but I could not find any studies with a brief google search. I would be interested in reading them if anyone has a link to a discussion somewhere on this topic.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
2008 Milford Election Results
This are the results from the March 11th, 2008 election. There were a total of 1723 votes cast.
School District Election
School Board
1033 Paul Dargie
906 John Parker
859 Bob Willette
School Treasurer
1381 Rose Evans
School Moderator
615 Peter Basiliere
578 Gary Daniels
259 Carolyn Magri Halstead
School District Clerk
1377 Joan Dargie
Question 1 Jacques addition for public kindergarten (failed)
823 Yes
838 No
Question 2 Brox stand-alone school for public kindergarten (failed)
228 Yes
1397 No
Question 3 Study private kindergarten options (failed)
661 Yes
980 No
Question 4 Operating Budget (passed)
1076 Yes
598 No
Question 5 Tuition Agreements (passed)
1226 Yes
439 No
Question 6 Subdivision Approval (passed)
1103 Yes
556 No
Question 7 Deputy Treasurer (passed)
1229 Yes
416 No
======================================
Town Election
Selectmen
1314 Mike Putnam
1173 Katherine Bauer
Cemetery Trustee
1407 Leonard Harten
Library Trustee
1320 Sarah Philbrick Sandhage
1116 Michael Tule
Moderator
1435 Peter Basiliere
Supervisor of the Checklist - 2 Year
1332 Gil Archambault
Supervisor of the Checklist - 6 Year
1377 Bobbi Schelberg
Trustee of the Trust Funds
1375 Bill King
Water-Wastewater Commisioner
1321 Peter Leishman
Zoning Changes - All 8 passed
All 18 Ballot questions passed
Zoning 1 - Offensive land use in residential districts
1304 Yes
312 No
Zoning 2 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) definition
1224 Yes
362 No
Zoning 3 - ADU by special exception
1115 Yes
455 No
Zoning 4 - Corridor Overlay District
1358 Yes
254 No
Zoning 5 - Driveway paving permits
1285 Yes
309 No
Zoning 6 - ADU special exceptions for Zoning Board
1126 Yes
430 No
Zoning 7 - Storage of goods in home occupation space
1170 Yes
391 No
Zoning 8 - Growth management restriction revisions
1352 Yes
252 No
Question 3 Operating Budget
1209 Yes
449 No
4 Wastewater budget
1368 yes
278 No
5 Water Department
1310 Yes
308 No
6 Route 101A Oval Improvements
1327 Yes
349 No
7 Cemetery Building
1030 yes
629 No
8 DPW Dump Truck
1129 Yes
532 No
9 Social Services
1302 Yes
338 No
10 Pumpkin Festival
1207 Yes
453 No
11 DO-IT
1163 Yes
485 No
12 Fireworks
1121 Yes
536 No
13 Band Concerts
1245 Yes
413 No
14 Parades
1387 Yes
280 No
15 Patch Hill Open Space
1241 Yes
386 No
16 Beech Ridge Lot
1392 Yes
233 No
17 Transportation Needs
1332 Yes
315 No
18 Property Tax Resolution
1311 Yes
292 No
School District Election
School Board
1033 Paul Dargie
906 John Parker
859 Bob Willette
School Treasurer
1381 Rose Evans
School Moderator
615 Peter Basiliere
578 Gary Daniels
259 Carolyn Magri Halstead
School District Clerk
1377 Joan Dargie
Question 1 Jacques addition for public kindergarten (failed)
823 Yes
838 No
Question 2 Brox stand-alone school for public kindergarten (failed)
228 Yes
1397 No
Question 3 Study private kindergarten options (failed)
661 Yes
980 No
Question 4 Operating Budget (passed)
1076 Yes
598 No
Question 5 Tuition Agreements (passed)
1226 Yes
439 No
Question 6 Subdivision Approval (passed)
1103 Yes
556 No
Question 7 Deputy Treasurer (passed)
1229 Yes
416 No
======================================
Town Election
Selectmen
1314 Mike Putnam
1173 Katherine Bauer
Cemetery Trustee
1407 Leonard Harten
Library Trustee
1320 Sarah Philbrick Sandhage
1116 Michael Tule
Moderator
1435 Peter Basiliere
Supervisor of the Checklist - 2 Year
1332 Gil Archambault
Supervisor of the Checklist - 6 Year
1377 Bobbi Schelberg
Trustee of the Trust Funds
1375 Bill King
Water-Wastewater Commisioner
1321 Peter Leishman
Zoning Changes - All 8 passed
All 18 Ballot questions passed
Zoning 1 - Offensive land use in residential districts
1304 Yes
312 No
Zoning 2 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) definition
1224 Yes
362 No
Zoning 3 - ADU by special exception
1115 Yes
455 No
Zoning 4 - Corridor Overlay District
1358 Yes
254 No
Zoning 5 - Driveway paving permits
1285 Yes
309 No
Zoning 6 - ADU special exceptions for Zoning Board
1126 Yes
430 No
Zoning 7 - Storage of goods in home occupation space
1170 Yes
391 No
Zoning 8 - Growth management restriction revisions
1352 Yes
252 No
Question 3 Operating Budget
1209 Yes
449 No
4 Wastewater budget
1368 yes
278 No
5 Water Department
1310 Yes
308 No
6 Route 101A Oval Improvements
1327 Yes
349 No
7 Cemetery Building
1030 yes
629 No
8 DPW Dump Truck
1129 Yes
532 No
9 Social Services
1302 Yes
338 No
10 Pumpkin Festival
1207 Yes
453 No
11 DO-IT
1163 Yes
485 No
12 Fireworks
1121 Yes
536 No
13 Band Concerts
1245 Yes
413 No
14 Parades
1387 Yes
280 No
15 Patch Hill Open Space
1241 Yes
386 No
16 Beech Ridge Lot
1392 Yes
233 No
17 Transportation Needs
1332 Yes
315 No
18 Property Tax Resolution
1311 Yes
292 No
Saturday, March 1, 2008
2008 Milford School Warrant - Recommendation Summary
Here is a summary of my recommendations for this year's warrant articles:
1. YES - Jacques addition for kindergarten
2. NO - Brox stand-alone building for kindergarten
3. NO - Study private kindergarten
4. YES - Operating budget
5. YES - Tuition agreements
6. YES - Subdivision approval
1. YES - Jacques addition for kindergarten
2. NO - Brox stand-alone building for kindergarten
3. NO - Study private kindergarten
4. YES - Operating budget
5. YES - Tuition agreements
6. YES - Subdivision approval
Warrant Article 6 - Subdivision Approval
This article will give the school board the authorization to sell off two building lots from the Heron Pond site. These potential lots abut Brookview Drive.
This land is not really suitable for any district function. It is property that is behind the playing field at Heron Pond, and can not be easily used for any extra function such as parking.
The property is best used for building lots, so that is what we want to do. Although it is not certain, it is likely that the lots will be used in the building construction program. They will build houses on the lots over a couple of years per house. This will probably start in the 09-10 school year, since we are not set up to do it next year. We need to allocate construction money in the budget to make the program work.
We are not sure how much the lots will generate in terms of profit. There will be a cost associated with making the subdivision. They need to be surveyed, and a road and associated utilities needs to be provided.
Please vote in favor of article 6.
This land is not really suitable for any district function. It is property that is behind the playing field at Heron Pond, and can not be easily used for any extra function such as parking.
The property is best used for building lots, so that is what we want to do. Although it is not certain, it is likely that the lots will be used in the building construction program. They will build houses on the lots over a couple of years per house. This will probably start in the 09-10 school year, since we are not set up to do it next year. We need to allocate construction money in the budget to make the program work.
We are not sure how much the lots will generate in terms of profit. There will be a cost associated with making the subdivision. They need to be surveyed, and a road and associated utilities needs to be provided.
Please vote in favor of article 6.
Warrant Article 5 - Tuition Agreement
Warrant Article 5 will allow the school board to enter into a tuition agreement with other towns such as Mason. We had developed a preliminary draft of an agreement with them a few years ago, but they were unable to get out of their agreement with Mascenic.
It now appears that they will be able to withdraw from Mascenic and contract with another district such as Milford. They have roughly 90 students in grades 6 through 12 that would come to Milford. This is roughly 12-15 students per grade level, and we should be able to absorb them without too much in the way of additional spending.
The tuition agreement would be very straight-forward. Mason would pay a per student fee for the students to attend Milford. The fee is based on a formula that starts with our total per pupil spending, subtracts out some items such as special education costs, some transportation costs, and a few other items. Mason will be responsible themselves for the excluded items.
The idea is for the Mason students to become unified with Milford students. They would be eligible for all extra items such as co-curricular activities, clubs, and sports on the same terms as Milford students.
Mason would not have a seat on the school board or any other similar rights; this would be a straight tuition agreement.
This would raise perhaps $700k-$800k in revenue, depending on the number of students and the formula for the tuition. The spending that will be needed is harder to estimate. There will be some spending for consumable items such as workbooks and books and other variable costs, but the big issue as usual will be if we will have to hire new employees for any area. It is possible that there will be some grades or subjects where we are right on the edge of needing a new teacher, where the addition of 12-15 students in the grade might require that we hire another person where we would normally not have done so. In any event, it is expected that the total extra spending will be much less than the additional income.
It is important that we try to find additional revenue sources as much as possible in order to try to minimize the amount of money that we need to raise by local property taxes. The addition of Mason students to Milford would be a big help.
Please vote in favor of article 5.
It now appears that they will be able to withdraw from Mascenic and contract with another district such as Milford. They have roughly 90 students in grades 6 through 12 that would come to Milford. This is roughly 12-15 students per grade level, and we should be able to absorb them without too much in the way of additional spending.
The tuition agreement would be very straight-forward. Mason would pay a per student fee for the students to attend Milford. The fee is based on a formula that starts with our total per pupil spending, subtracts out some items such as special education costs, some transportation costs, and a few other items. Mason will be responsible themselves for the excluded items.
The idea is for the Mason students to become unified with Milford students. They would be eligible for all extra items such as co-curricular activities, clubs, and sports on the same terms as Milford students.
Mason would not have a seat on the school board or any other similar rights; this would be a straight tuition agreement.
This would raise perhaps $700k-$800k in revenue, depending on the number of students and the formula for the tuition. The spending that will be needed is harder to estimate. There will be some spending for consumable items such as workbooks and books and other variable costs, but the big issue as usual will be if we will have to hire new employees for any area. It is possible that there will be some grades or subjects where we are right on the edge of needing a new teacher, where the addition of 12-15 students in the grade might require that we hire another person where we would normally not have done so. In any event, it is expected that the total extra spending will be much less than the additional income.
It is important that we try to find additional revenue sources as much as possible in order to try to minimize the amount of money that we need to raise by local property taxes. The addition of Mason students to Milford would be a big help.
Please vote in favor of article 5.
Warrant Article 4 - Operating Budget
The district administration, school board, and budget committee spent a lot of time going over the budget this year (as usual), and have come up with a responsible budget that I support.
The operating budget spending is less than I would actually prefer from a programs perspective, but the impact on taxes is high due to low state adequacy aid, that we need to be very tight this year.
We follow a process for budget development that seems to work fairly well. These are the main steps of the process:
* The school board decides whether to set a bottom-line number up front, or to wait to see what is presented before deciding on a number. We have chosen to use the wait and see approach in recent years, and this has worked well since the administration has made good faith efforts at developing responsible budgets.
* Administrators responsible for various areas of the budget develop their first pass at the budget. The Superintendent gives them guidelines to follow while developing their budget. The budgets are built using a bottoms-up approach, where the planned spending for each cost account is individually developed. Any new positions or programs are included in the overall numbers, but are separately identified for ease of discussion.
* The individual budgets are loaded into the system, and then reviewed in total by the Superintendent. The Superintendent will then remove some items from the budget. New positions and new programs are areas that get the greatest scrutiny.
* The budget is distributed to the school board and the budget committee. It is reviewed in detail at an all-day Saturday meeting so that everyone involved has a common understanding of the issues.
* The school board then gives a reduction task to the administration to achieve a bottom line number. The administration revises the budget to meet the task amount. It is reviewed again to see the impact of the cuts. This process may be repeated as we home in on an appropriate bottom line number.
This year there were three iterations of the budget that occurred over several meetings. The first request made by Peter Bragdon was for a $400k reduction. The second request made by me was for a $180k reduction. The third request made by Len Mannino was for a final $50k reduction.
The progression of budget reductions was fairly typical, except for the fact that it took more time than usual. Each cut was more painful than the previous one, and it was more difficult to find areas to cut that would not have direct impacts on education delivery.
The final budget number we ended up at was $32,618,179 as compared to the default budget of $32, 455,230. The default budget is a calculation based on last year's budget plus spending changes that are legally mandated by law or contract, minus special items. Since there are some items that are excluded from the default budget that make sense to include, the fact that we are so close to the default budget shows that we are holding tight on the spending this year.
Some of the larger items excluded from the default budget but included in the proposed budget are things like raises for employees not part of a bargaining unit, and new equipment. We typically try to include raises each year for everyone to keep up with inflation. We also try to spend money each year on curriculum improvement as part of our planned improvement cycle where each major area is refreshed on a regular schedule that results in relatively level loading of improvement spending.
On a side note, Bob Willette had made a motion to reduce the budget by $50k just before Len's motion, but his was geared toward making the cuts in specific areas such as co-curricular activities. It is my philosophy to try to just manage to a bottom line number and not try to second guess the Administration as to the priorities for the spending. We all have our pet projects and areas, so it would be slippery slope if we start doing the cutting on a line item basis. One board member might want to preserve spending in one area and another member may have a totally opposite viewpoint. Once we start picking and choosing, then we would have trouble coming to an agreement on the items. Bob's motion failed due to lack of a second, so it appears that most other board members share my opinion on this.
I urge everyone to support the operating budget.
The operating budget spending is less than I would actually prefer from a programs perspective, but the impact on taxes is high due to low state adequacy aid, that we need to be very tight this year.
We follow a process for budget development that seems to work fairly well. These are the main steps of the process:
* The school board decides whether to set a bottom-line number up front, or to wait to see what is presented before deciding on a number. We have chosen to use the wait and see approach in recent years, and this has worked well since the administration has made good faith efforts at developing responsible budgets.
* Administrators responsible for various areas of the budget develop their first pass at the budget. The Superintendent gives them guidelines to follow while developing their budget. The budgets are built using a bottoms-up approach, where the planned spending for each cost account is individually developed. Any new positions or programs are included in the overall numbers, but are separately identified for ease of discussion.
* The individual budgets are loaded into the system, and then reviewed in total by the Superintendent. The Superintendent will then remove some items from the budget. New positions and new programs are areas that get the greatest scrutiny.
* The budget is distributed to the school board and the budget committee. It is reviewed in detail at an all-day Saturday meeting so that everyone involved has a common understanding of the issues.
* The school board then gives a reduction task to the administration to achieve a bottom line number. The administration revises the budget to meet the task amount. It is reviewed again to see the impact of the cuts. This process may be repeated as we home in on an appropriate bottom line number.
This year there were three iterations of the budget that occurred over several meetings. The first request made by Peter Bragdon was for a $400k reduction. The second request made by me was for a $180k reduction. The third request made by Len Mannino was for a final $50k reduction.
The progression of budget reductions was fairly typical, except for the fact that it took more time than usual. Each cut was more painful than the previous one, and it was more difficult to find areas to cut that would not have direct impacts on education delivery.
The final budget number we ended up at was $32,618,179 as compared to the default budget of $32, 455,230. The default budget is a calculation based on last year's budget plus spending changes that are legally mandated by law or contract, minus special items. Since there are some items that are excluded from the default budget that make sense to include, the fact that we are so close to the default budget shows that we are holding tight on the spending this year.
Some of the larger items excluded from the default budget but included in the proposed budget are things like raises for employees not part of a bargaining unit, and new equipment. We typically try to include raises each year for everyone to keep up with inflation. We also try to spend money each year on curriculum improvement as part of our planned improvement cycle where each major area is refreshed on a regular schedule that results in relatively level loading of improvement spending.
On a side note, Bob Willette had made a motion to reduce the budget by $50k just before Len's motion, but his was geared toward making the cuts in specific areas such as co-curricular activities. It is my philosophy to try to just manage to a bottom line number and not try to second guess the Administration as to the priorities for the spending. We all have our pet projects and areas, so it would be slippery slope if we start doing the cutting on a line item basis. One board member might want to preserve spending in one area and another member may have a totally opposite viewpoint. Once we start picking and choosing, then we would have trouble coming to an agreement on the items. Bob's motion failed due to lack of a second, so it appears that most other board members share my opinion on this.
I urge everyone to support the operating budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
