Meeting Date:	1/13/05
Minutes Submitted On:	1/16/04
Board Attendees:	Ellen Pratt (EP), Anne Fines (AF), Virginia Scholl (VS), Peter May (PM), Rebecca Coffey (RC)
Administration Attendees:	Ron Stahley (RS), AS Stone (AS), Jim Kane (JK)
Community Attendees:	Brian Howlett, Francis Holland, Gerry Gatz, Linda Cassidy, Peg Alden, Kathy Ingram, Sigrid Howlett, Ellen Wood, Sue Kochinskas, Mary Anne Deer, Nancy Mackler, Frances Holland, Benji Cragin, Howard Weiss-Tisman

Location:	PCS Writing Room
Meeting called to order at:	4:45 pm
Meeting called to order by:	PM
Finish time:	7:55 pm

NOTE: These minutes should be considered a draft that awaits approval and possibly amendment by the board at its next scheduled meeting.
AGENDA TOPIC	MOTION			MOVED BY		SECONDED BY		DISCUSSION		PASSED?
Prior Meeting’s Minutes	Move to approve minutes of 12/16/04.			AF		EP				Unanimous
Communications	None.
Committee Reports: Finance/School Forest/Early Education Outreach Advisory Committee	School Forest Committee. Met January 11. Submitting a mini-grant application to Vermont Dept of Forest, Parks, and Recreations for tools. The committee started its part of the Winter Sports program today (1/13/05). Took 9 girls out snowshoeing and played Duck, Duck, Goose on snowshoes. In the process of starting a School Forest Web page, which Daniel Hoviss has volunteered to help with. Anyone with et someone on the committee know if you have any ideas for the web page. Erosion on the far side of the Portal to the Sacred Woods bridge is a concern. May try to pile bricks there next spring. Will need volunteer help. Will be trail blazing this Spring.
Warrants	Move to approve 1037 FAST for $7,503.00, 1038 FAST for $35.92, 1039 REGULAR for $22,208.84			VS		PM				Passed. (This motion was made and passed after Rebecca Coffey (RC) left the meeting.
Administrators’ Reports	Update on library automation given by Nancy Mackler. They have weeded the collection and made sure that every book is up to date and in used condition and is getting use. Then shelf list was sent to the company that does the conversion. The company took 10 weeks to print up bar codes. Those came in September. Eight days to put the bar codes on the shelves. The computer is ordered. Software is here. Once software is installed, Nancy will set up systems for checking out books. All computers in the building will have access to the catalog.
Unfinished Business: Budget FY06	Jim Kane (JK), Business Manager of WSESU, distributed a Draft 5A budget. The difference between it and the previous draft are: K-6 substitute teachers were reduced by $3000; secondary tuition was reduced by $20,000; school board printing and advertising was reduced by $500; special education behavioral consultant was reduced by $800; special ed psychological services was reduced by $2000. Totals $26,300 total reduction. With assessments included, the overall increase in Draft 5A over the budget from FY05 is 7.57% Draft 5A shows a PCS General Operating Fund of $3,215,424 and a total for Putney Central School (after Vocational Educational Block Spending and the Capital Fund are added in) of $3,316.529. Draft 5A also shows a BUHS assessment of $1,433,341, and a WSESU assessment of $168,664. Therefore, Draft 5A shows a combined total of $4,918.534. The Total Putney Central School Line item is the sole item in that budget over which the Putney Town School Board has control. Its figure of $3,215,424 represents a percentage increase of 5.52% over FY05. According to JK, Draft 5A’s combined total of $4,918.534 would result in an estimated homestead tax rate of $2.624. Although that represents a 15% increase over the FY05 rate, it also represents a decrease from the FY04 rate. (Note: As is apparent later in these minutes, the board cut an additional $49,500 in expenses before passing a budget. The budget that passed represents an increase in Total Putney Central School spending of 3.89%. Therefore, the dollar figures and percentage increases quoted in the summary below are obsolete and are included only to help readers understand the factors that the board considered in coming to its decision about FY06 budget.) (Also note: All handouts from this Budget FY06 discussion are in the school board binder in the school office. They are public documents. All are welcome to peruse them.) Summary of Discussion re: Budget FY06 A community member pointed out that Draft 5A does not include a revenue item from tuitioned students. (PCS receives significant revenue from tuitioned students. One is privately placed in PCS, and in that case the student’s family pays tuition to PCS. Most tuitioned students attend PCS because the town of Westminster allows them to choose PCS as a middle school. Westminster pays tuition to PCS for such students). Other schools that accept tuitioned students sometimes anticipate the subsequent year’s revenue and include such revenue in a budget. JK and principal Amelia Stone (AS) explained that the current estimate is that 6 tuitioned students will attend PCS next year. PCS has no guarantees, however that that will be the case. Given the lack of absolute certainty about the actual number of tuitioned students PCS will have in academic year 05-06, a conservative approach to budgeting suggests that those tuitions should not counted as certain income sources for the purpose of the FY06 budget
	In response to questions from board members about how, regarding Draft 5A, the homestead tax rate would rise so precipitously (15%) when the educational needs only required a 7.57% increase in spending, JK responded that some revenue sources such as Title I and Special Ed aren’t increasing at the rate of mandated spending. The other factor is the Common Level of Appraisal. That is dropping for FY06. JK also explained that, while the estimated homestead tax rate would rise 15% in FY06 were the board to pass Draft 5A, the tax would be income sensitive, with lower- and middle-income people paying a disproportionately small portion of the tax. JK passed out several sheets of information showing that, were Draft 5A to pass: · Owners of either a $100,000 home or a $200,000 home who have a household income of $20,000 would pay an increase of only $44 in their tax in FY06. This represents an increase of 7.7%, not 15%. · Owners of either a $100,000 home or a $200,000 home who have a household income of $30,000 would pay an increase of only $66 in their tax in FY06. This represents an increase of 7.7%, not 15%. · Owners of either a $100,000 home or a $200,000 home who have a household income of $40,000 would pay an increase of only $88 in their tax in FY06. This represents an increase of 7.7%, not 15%. · Owners of either a $100,000 home or a $200,000 home who have a household income of $50,000 would pay an increase of only $110 in their tax in FY06. This represents an increase of 7.7%, not 15%. (Note: According to 2001 data provided on the website of the Vermont Department of Education, the median household income in Putney in 2001 was $40,346.)
	JK explained that, even if the school board were to cut $100,000 off of the Draft 5A budget, the reduction would not significantly affect the tax impact for lower- and middle-income households because Act 68 ties tax more closely to income than anything else. JK noted that $80,000 in surplus from FY04 is included in the revenue budget for FY06. He also said that, typically, by November of any given year he can give school boards information about surpluses from the prior fiscal year Despite the welcome news that Draft 5A would not impose a 15% tax increase on lower- and middle-income households, board members remained committed to exploring cost savings throughout the budget and particularly in the area of staffing. Enrollment projections show that enrollment will probably hold steady for next year but that the enrollment will be scattered throughout the school in a way that leaves a small enrollment in the 3^rd/4^th grade cluster. That presents the board with an opportunity to eliminate a classroom and cut back on a teaching position. With an eye towards trying to maintain the significant assets that the school has in terms of teacher talent the board asked JK to explain the economics of teacher buyouts. Kane explained that the terms of buyouts (early retirement offers) are not set forth in the Master Agreement that stipulates teacher compensation. However, the formula that has been used successfully in nearby towns is an offer of 20% salary for 2 years with health benefits covered for those 2 years at the same ratio that the contract now stipulates. In other words, a teacher with a $50,000 annual salary could retire early and receive $10,000 per year plus full health benefits for two years. According to the current teacher contract, any teacher who waives health benefits receives a payment of $500. This would also be the case for a teacher who waives health benefits in a buyout. Depending upon a teacher’s age and length of service in the district, the Master Agreement does stipulate that a teacher taking the early retirement option may also be eligible for a $6000 separation payment. The board also discussed whether to reduce the FTE (full time equivalents) of the school librarian and teachers of art, music, and PE given that, as of academic year 05-06, the school may have reduced its number of classrooms by one per year over the last three years. The board currently believes that “specials” help account for our growing population of revenue-producing students and therefore enable us to offer an enriched curriculum to all students and at no additional cost to the town. Therefore, the board decided to withhold from making a “specials” cut for FY06 but to very closely reexamine in its discussion next of FY07 the issue of specials and of the projected stability of revenue from tuitioned students. Regarding specials, AS noted that, with declining enrollment, the PE teacher has fewer classes to teach, which presents PCS with the opportunity of providing health education. She suggested two possibilities: Either cut back the PE teacher to an 80% position and hire a 20% health teacher or cut back the PE teacher’s PE duties to 80% and assign that teacher 20% health teaching duties. The board expressed support for the idea of incorporating health into the curriculum at 20%. The board asked AS to speak about the impact of a teacher reduction in the 3^rd/4^th grade cluster. How would she reconfigure the classes? Currently there is one “straight” 3^rd grade, one straight 4^th, and one 3^rd/4^th multiage group. AS said that she would make that decision in concert with the teachers for that grade level. Options are two multi-age groups and two straight age groups.
	The board also looked at the Early Education Outreach Coordinator position. Medicare funds that at $16,000 per year. It costs the school an additional $2000 per year. The board elected to withdraw its $2000 contribution to that position. This will, of course, result in a reduction of service hours for the Early Education Outreach Coordinator. The board looked at the possibility of getting ADM money from the state for the preschoolers attending Head Start at PCS. According to state guidelines, if a teacher with licensure for early education were to spend a minimum of 10 hours per week in the Head Start classroom, the following year the program would begin to qualify for ADM reimbursement. The board therefore has two options: It could insist that the Head Start teacher be licensed or it could redefine the Early Education Outreach Coordinator position so as to require licensure in early education. The EEO Coordinator could then spend 10 hours per week in the Head Start classroom, which would be a large portion of her time spent with the school but which would qualify the school for ADM reimbursement. The board decided to continue this discussion at least one meeting prior to its review of the Head Start program, which is scheduled for February 2005. (The only February 2005 meeting currently scheduled is February 10.) There was significant board support for the idea of funding the PCS Winter Sports program. (Draft 5A proposed a $2500 level of support. The board has not supported the Winter Sports program financially for the past three years.) AS said that a significant educational component will be introduced next year into the “on campus” portion of the program and that it might therefore qualify as curriculum enrichment and for consideration by the school board’s 1% Fund. Community members expressed the following concerns and opinions: · Some members of the community were concerned that in the 3^rd/4^th grade cluster, 17 would be too large a class size. (Academic research suggests that, for 3^rd graders, class sizes that exceed 17 present academic risks.) · One community member asked whether, considering that enrollment is declining, we need a full-time principal. · There was widespread support of the idea of buyouts should the board elect to reduce a position. · One community member congratulated the board on proceeding carefully, openly, and deliberately through the difficult choices it has to make.
Executive Session 6:43 – 7:28	Consideration of budget item for administrator for FY06; personnel matter.
New Business: Keyboarding.	Tabled.
Unfinished Business: Budget FY06		The board made the following cuts to Budget Draft 5A: $2,000 from the Early Education Outreach Program $2,500 from the Winter Sports Program $45,000 for the RIFF (this eliminates one primary school position and saves $20,000 to be used for a single potential buy-out) This will result in a “Total Putney Central School” (a/k/a/ total operating budget) increase of 3.89% over that of FY05. Considering that Winter Sports will include a significant on-campus educational component next year, board members agreed that they would like the opportunity to consider it for one year’s worth of 1% Fund funding.
Budget FY06		Adopt Budget Draft 5A with General Operating Funds as specified in 5A’s 1/13/05 draft with elimination of $49,500 in additional cuts.	PM		EP		In a later meeting the board will decide the details of any buyout offer. The board is only seeking to buy out one teacher.		Unanimous
Capital Budget FY06		Approve the capital budget for next year at an appropriation of $15,000 (as opposed to $30,000 that the board in FY05 considered appropriate for FY06)	VS		AF		AS reported that she is establishing a building committee to help think about what types of building/maintenance projects might come up in the future. The board would like to discuss the capital budget at the future meeting		Passed (RC had left the meeting a few moments earlier having indicated her support of any such motion. She was not, however, present for the actual vote.)
Next Meeting: Wednesday, Jan 26 at 5pm. · Professional Learning Communities Update as part of Administrators Report. · Discussion of EEOC position (Note: This may be slated for a different meeting.) Thursday, Feb 10 at 5pm · Kindergarten committee report. · Keyboarding. · Head Start program review. (Note: This may be slated for a different meeting.) · Review of 360-degree survey instrument that is part of the annual principal review process. It is to be distributed in February by the principal to students, teachers, staff, parents, and community members. · Executive Session: Board evaluation of the Superintendent. (Note: This may be slated for a different meeting.) · Planning for board presentation at town meeting. Upcoming meetings tbd · Capital budget

Respectfully submitted by: Rebecca Coffey. Ellen Pratt recorded the portion of the meeting minutes for which RC was absent.

This represents RC’s understanding of this meeting. If you have any changes, please submit them at the next board meeting.