TOWN OF ROCKY HILL
BOARD OF EDUCATION
BUDGET WORKSHOP OF
Members Present: Nadine Bell (Chairperson)
Peter Arico
Kirk Bostwick
Neil Geldof
Francis Palazzolo
Anne Schmidt
Catherine Vargas
Jennifer Viggiano-Grosse
Members Absent: Charles McMonigle
The first budget workshop of the Board of Education was held
on
Prior to his PowerPoint presentation concerning his budget proposal to everyone, Dr., Vautour gave everyone a series of documents which are corrections to the budget. Dr. Vautour pointed out the corrections: Page 1, the Supt. of Schools Budget Message, in paragraph 4, a total of 12 honors courses had been indicated, but it should be 13 instead, because A More Perfect Union is coded to allow for honors as well; Page 21, A More Perfect Union has been listed out so that the 13 courses in question are there within the book itself; Page 40, under 2004-2005 year, Elementary K2 Math was not inserted, and that was addressed in this current year; Page 14B, Mr. Watson discovered that the word “calculators” had been misspelled so it has been corrected; Page 22B, in original document, the 590 Account was listed as $2,000 for legal fees, but in reality this is for the Virtual Academy for Alternative, and Clinical Program, and the legal fees are on the previous page with an amount of $5,000; Page 24 in 810 Account, some of the language has been cleaned up because some of the fees are within the departments themselves so art and math are reflected within the departments themselves; final document is just a clarification on the elementary enrollment for 2004-2006.
Moser is being displayed as it currently exists, which means there is only one second grade teacher, and that is why the decision for a 2nd second grade teacher is sitting there, because there are 43 students that require instruction (out of these 43 students, 13 of them have siblings at Stevens and it would be the intent to transfer some of the second grade students over to Stevens to better balance out all 6 of the second grades).
Dr. Vautour went into his presentation.
Dr. Vautour thanked Mrs. Boutilier, Mr. Turansky, Ms. Levy, and
all of the administrators for submitting the Superintendent’s Budget to the
Board of Education in his absence on
Dr. Vautour went over the budget review process. He said it has been decided these budget
workshops will begin at
Dr. Vautour went over the budget book layout that everyone has. There are three Sections: Section 1 (Budget Overview); Section 2 (Budget Detail); Section 3 (Budget Support Materials). Dr. Vautour said the budget was constructed based on Board approval of the charge, the District’s mission, the vision we have, and our goals.
Dr. Vautour explained the Board of Education is responsible as an agent of the State to carry out certain mandates, and he explained what the mandates are. He stated that in every instance elementary, middle, and high school, Rocky Hill exceeds the minimum requirements of the State in terms of the 900 hours of instruction requirement. In the budget book, Dr. Vautour said is a listing of the courses that are mandated.
Dr. Vautour explained about the assumptions used in constructing the 2005-2006 budget. He said in the budget proposal, there is a request for two additional elementary teachers (2nd grades at Moser and West Hill) because of class size guidelines. The budget was also constructed to honor contractual obligations with bargaining units.
Dr. Vautour went over the staffing requests not honored for 2005-2006. He said each year the administrators give him their best estimates relative to what they need, and he has the task of attempting to decide what is reasonable given the needs he perceives, as well as the economy. Therefore there are staffing requests, and other requests he does not honor, and he feels it is important for people to know what has been submitted to him so they can develop a proper perspective. He indicated a detailed list of staffing requests not honored is in the budget book.
Dr. Vautour’s reductions made with regards to staffing
requests, as submitted by the various administrators, came to a total of
$1,125,324. He reduced $244,879 for
Stevens/Moser, $100,675 for West Hill, $173,270 for
Dr. Vautour went on to explain about the district’s operating budget being composed of two components. He said this is unique to Rocky Hill, because in most other communities facilities is a part of the board of education budget. In Rocky Hill there is the superintendent’s proposed operational budget, and then there is the Facilities Department school-based budget. He said the Facilities budget is approximately in the, 1.8 to 2 million dollar range, and it addresses personnel expenses, contracted services, and capital project requests. The capital project requests are submitted to Mr. Cooke on an annual basis. Dr. Vautour reviewed the list, which is contained in the budget book.
Dr. Vautour noted that the list of items for capital projects has not been prioritized by the Facilities Committee of the Board, and this will be done in the coming week so that it can be suggested to the full Board the items that should be put forth to Mr. Cooke for his inclusion in his budget for this coming year. The items on the list far exceed what can be done in a single year, and the Facilities Committee of the Board’s task will be to decide what items should be worked on right away.
The budget submitted addresses the contractual obligations of the Board. It also addresses the State mandates (for instructional areas, support areas, and various policy issues). It also addresses community expectations, which as Dr. Vautour perceives them in Rocky Hill are first and foremost a high, quality academic program, participation in athletics, participation in co-curricular activities, and provision of a school lunch program.
The Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Request for 2005-2006 totals $23,700,004.
The dollar increase is $1,730,377, and the percent increase is 7.88%. This is with Dr. Vautour already having removed $1,200,000 of money requested by the administrators. He does not take it lightly that it is a 7.88% increase and believes it is his responsibility to present to the Board the items he feels should be considered in attempting to move the district forward.
Dr. Vautour went over the budget summary by major categories. Salaries represent
71.7% of the budget, employee benefits represents 15.4%, transportation represents 3.8%, and tuition represents 2.3%. These four particular items make up 93.2% of the entire budget which leaves 6.8%, or approximately $1, 600,000 to address supplies, materials, equipment, and textbooks. Dr. Vautour said if you look at it in a different way, with a population of approximately 2,400 kids, discretionary money not addressed in the first four items would translate into approximately $650 per student for the year. He said we are in an extremely labor intensive organization, and the bulk of the money goes to paying for quality staff, providing their benefits, transporting the students, and addressing the special education areas. A lot of the Board’s work is going to be trying to figure out what to do if they need to reduce the budget, realizing that 6.8% is not tied into the staff itself, transportation of students, or special education tuition.
Dr. Vautour said in terms of increases, the bulk of the increases it is found in salaries, which is $1,068,055, and of this there are 4.2 new positions being requested (the dollar amount for these comes to $218,240). Employee benefits, at approximately a 16% increase, total $325,093. For tuition the increase is $195,954. The increase is $71,269 for textbooks, $38,379 for supplies, and materials, $17,411 for transportation, $7,813 for field trips, and for all other $5,903. The increases by major categories come to a total of $1,730,377.
Existing contracts is $16,992,907 which reflects a 5.4%
increase for teachers, 3.5% for administrators, and other bargaining units are
yet to be determined. Employee benefits
represent $3,640,900. At the present
time a 16% increase is anticipated, but Dr. Vautour is hoping this is lower
before the budget is approved by the town.
Tuition is $557,400 which includes special education out-placements in
the amount of $508,000 (this number is predicated on an analysis of those
students we currently know about, where they move forward to next year). Contained in the total tuition of $557,400 is
one placeholder (John Doe) at $30,000.
Magnet schools is anticipated to be $10,000, and Mr. Turansky will
clarify later about the magnet school tuition amounts and Choice revenues that
come into the town. This amount is for
24 students at GHAMAS, and 16 students at the Academy for the Performing Arts,
and for Project Choice presently there are 45 students. Originally the figure was 46 students, but
one student went back to
With regards to enrollment, it is anticipated that the
elementary population is not going to have a lot of significant growth over the
next ten-year period (enrollment will be 1,221 in 2004-05, and is expected to
peak at 1,241 in 2013-14). In the middle
school, there is not a lot of movement, in terms of population expected (peak
enrollment expected in 2011-12, at 645, and expected to decline through 2014-15
to a low of 599). For the high school,
the greatest impact in terms of population is anticipated (peak enrollment of
728 is projected in 2014-15 with a low point change of 662 projected for
2007-08). The peak enrollment for the
district is expected in 2014-15 to be 2,567.
For staffing adjustments, based on enrollment analysis, it is believed
that an additional second grade teacher will be required at
The second position Dr. Vautour put into the budget, for staffing adjustments district-wide, is a math implementation specialist. Well over $100,000 is being invested in a new elementary math program, and extensive work in curriculum is being done at the middle school, and the high school. The present staff needs someone brought on board that is
truly conversant in mathematics instruction, can assist the staff in developing best practices, and has a good understanding of the expectations of the 4th generation of the CMT and of the CAPT tests. In the budget packet, there is a job description for each of the positions that Dr. Vautour is requesting as part of staffing adjustments.
The impact of the cost of staffing adjustments is $218,240 (elementary: grade 2 teachers (2 at $55,700 each); high school: $33,420; district wide: $40,000 for the technology assistant, and $33,420 for the math implementation specialist).
Dr. Vautour went over the budget highlights. The budget continues to emphasize the importance of instructional technology ($139,805), textbook acquisitions cycle, excluding new course or replacements, and the bulk of this being for the completion of the elementary math series ($127, 977); curriculum development ($20,150); professional development ($31,000), and new courses/upgrades, attempting to introduce a number of honor level offerings across the disciplines ($65,618).
For technology, there is a lease in place. A second installment of $49,805 needs to be made. Dr. Vautour recommended introducing an additional lease for purposes of replacing technology, and allowing for some evolving requests at $50,000. The third component of this is the request for a Technology Assistant at $40,000. The total cost for the instructional technology recommendations is $139,805.
For new textbooks, the total amount is $127,977 (excluding new course requests). The high school textbook requests total $22,765 in the areas of business education, English, family and consumer science, math, and science. The middle school requests total $13,200 for social studies. The elementary requests total $92,012 in the areas of health, math, music, and science ($60,000+ of this request is for the math series, and approximately $23,000 is for music). The health text series (Here’s Looking At You 2000) is considerably outdated.
For curriculum development, the total is $20,150. The high school has $7,280 to deal with business education, English, family and consumer science, math, and science (in the budget book is a listing out of the number of curriculum hours per subject that are being requested). The middle school has $260 for social studies curriculum work. The elementary schools have $10,010 for health, math, reading, technology, science, and music. District-wide there is $2,600 to continue the initiative of curriculum mapping that Mrs. Boutilier has begun in the past year. This mapping will help prevent duplication of
instruction, and will identify gaps in instruction so there is more consistency in what is being done.
For the professional development budget proposal, the three areas of focus are teaching techniques, technological application, and inclusionary practices. The professional development budget addresses the requirement of the State of providing 1.8 CEUs of training. The total cost is $31,000 ($15,000 for district-wide; $8,000 for school-wide initiatives; $6,000 for administrators; and $2,000 for nurses, per nurses’ contracts.
The new course request totals $43,633. This includes a digital design course at the
honors level in art; in family and consumer science, the UCONN honors course individual
and family development; in science at the general level an integrated biology/ chemistry
course; in social studies, a senior seminar opportunity actually available for juniors
and seniors, A More Perfect Union (general, academic, and honors); and
in technology introducing the course digital electronics offered as academics
and honors. At this time development and
reading study skills were not recommended for
In summary, Dr. Vautour said the budget he has proposed, $23,700,004, with a dollar increase of $1,730,377, and a percent increase of 7.88%. Its impact he believes responds to enrollment changes. It provides for upgrades of texts on a current year basis, and maintains commitment to technology. It reinstates the level of commitment to professional development. It also reinstates the commitment to curriculum writing, and it allows improvements in programs, and courses. It upgrades some courses. It maintains the magnet school involvement as a partial response to the Sheff vs. O’Neill court case. Dr. Vautour said there is increasing pressure being placed upon the State to expand their efforts to effectively address the issue of diversity. The impact of this proposed budget also sustains the involvement in the Choice Program as further response to Sheff vs. O’Neill. Dr. Vautour stated that given the enrollment constraints we are facing this current year, he has not proposed in this budget the acceptance of any more Choice students. We have been receiving approximately 10 per year. Dr. Vautour indicated we will sustain the 45 students we have, and revisit this next year. The other impacts of this proposed budget are maintaining summer school programs; maintaining funding for athletics and co-curricular programs, and committing to appropriate levels of supervision and professional development for completion of changes in the district’s math program.
Upon completion of his presentation, Dr. Vautour asked Mrs. Schmidt if there were any questions, he would answer them. Chairperson Nadine Bell said she had one. She referred to Page 8 and the reference to the distance learning lab. She asked for a brief overview of the distance learning lab, and she also asked if you could take courses for credit at another institution, such as an honors class at GHAMAS. Mr. Pitocco said the distance learning unit that GHAMAS is donating, will give us a computer unit in which we will be able to do video conferencing. Chairperson Bell confirmed that this really would not be auditing or taking away a class that is going on, and Mr. Pitocco said it wouldn’t be. He also went on to say we could enroll in an individual course for an individual student. Chairperson Bell was wondering if enrollment is not high enough to sustain an entire class, she wanted to know if this might be an option for a student to take a class through that technology. Mr. Pitocco said they could if the money is there. Dr. Vautour said this represents one additional opportunity for students. Through the virtual high school, we might be able to provide a student with an additional opportunity without the student having to travel to another location. Chairperson Bell asked if it would be possible to get a “ball park” cost for this. Mr. Pitocco said he has the whole proposal for this. Mrs. Schmidt asked if this was just an access fee, or if licensing had to be paid for to be in this program. Mr. Pitocco said one way is to pay a larger initiation fee which would give blanket access to all of the courses, or it can be done on an individual kid basis. Mrs. Schmidt asked, at this time, if the proposal would be for individual access. Dr. Vautour said this needs to be piloted, and he is looking at it as the limited option for the one student that we can’t get at right now. Mrs. Schmidt asked where a student would get support for the distance learning. Mr. Pitocco said this is interactive.
Mr. Bostwick asked about sizeable gifts the school system has received on computers. He asked if there was any way of finding out how many PCs, and laptops have been received as gifts. Mrs. Boutilier asked if he wanted the age of these gifts as well, and Mr. Bostwick said yes. Mrs. Boutilier will get this information.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if the equipment is purchased at the end of the technology leases. Dr. Vautour said it is. Mr. Turansky said it is typically a $1 buyout, and he has only seen it exercised once.
Mr. Arico asked if the salary increase figures include fringe benefits. Mr. Turansky said the figures include fringe benefits for the new positions, and the benefits for existing personnel are separated.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if there were any other questions on the front sections of the budget book.
Dr. Vautour said he gave back-up materials for the presentation he gave this evening, and if there were specific questions relating to the details he would be happy to answer them.
Mrs. Schmidt asked about the .6 FTE math specialist that is being proposed by Mrs. Boutilier, and said on the job description it was listed a person needed to have a minimum of 3 years experience, and she wanted to know if that was enough. Dr. Vautour said actual placement on scale will depend on the experience of the person hired.
Mrs. Schmidt said when she was looking at “Analysis By Program” on page 14, of the Superintendent’s Proposed Budget, she noticed the student assessment services were eliminated ($15,300) that was part of off year testing, and she is wondering if there is going to be no off year testing. Dr. Vautour said there is going to be CMT for grades 3-8 every year, and possibly grades 10 and 11 if President Bush has his way. Mrs. Schmidt asked when this would be starting, and Dr. Vautour said in 2006.
Mrs. Vargas asked about the textbooks “Analysis of Budget Increases” on page 17, and this states the figure went up $71,269. She then said when you look at the textbook requests, the total is $127,977. She wants to know if the $71,269 is part of this figure. Mr. Turansky said the $71,269 is an increase over the current year budget so the $127,977 details out the new textbooks requests being looked for. Mrs. Vargas then asked if $50,000 of that was in last year’s budget, and Dr. Vautour said yes, we are building on that base.
Mrs. Vargas asked about the curriculum mapping ($2,600) and if this is an annual cost, and asked if this is the cost of the licensing to access the system. Mrs. Boutilier said the licensing is covered under software requests. Mrs. Boutilier said this amount is to provide the time for people to get this done in the summer. Mrs. Vargas asked if someone is presently getting paid to working on this. Mrs. Boutilier said technically yes.
Mrs. Schmidt referred to page 42, under Math Trailblazers, and asked Mrs. Boutilier about the numbers she put in, if she felt confident, for instance if we could only put in Grade 3, would $21,941, and $20,901, represent what would have to be put in potentially for the next budget. Mrs. Boutilier said some of this is enrollment driven, and some of it is dependent upon the company’s pricing policies.
Mrs. Vargas had a question about fact that no request was put in for a .5 FTE position in guidance. She also said we are nowhere where we should be in guidance, and is wondering where all of this stands with our accreditation. Mr. Pitocco said when we received the .5 FTE we currently have, we are within the ratio range that is acceptable for NEASC. Mrs. Vargas asked if this is okay by accreditation standards, and Mr. Pitocco said it is. Mrs. Vargas also asked if the developmental guidance is on target, and Mr. Pitocco said essentially it is in place.
Mrs. Schmidt referred to page 48, and the digital electronics course, and said she believes she took it out of last year’s budget at $19,225, and this year it is in at $14,031. Mr. Turansky said he will have to do a comparison.
Mrs. Vargas asked about the leases, and the graph Mr. Turansky usually does. Mr. Turansky explained that one lease expired, and there is one currently in place, so for this coming budget we will have year two of an existing lease, and then there will be a new lease asked for. Mrs. Vargas asked if in the current budget we have two leases. Mr. Turansky said we made the final payment on one lease, and the first payment on a second lease. Mr. Turansky said that Mrs. Vargas is correct in the fact there are two leases. There are two leases budgeted for this year, and Mr. Turansky is going to ask to budget for two leases for next year, but the amounts will be slightly different because he can’t get a lease at exactly $50,000 depending upon the equipment that is purchased. He referred Mrs. Vargas to page 36 in the detail part. Mrs. Schmidt confirmed there would not be a net increase to the budget other than a modest amount, and Mr. Turansky said that is correct. Mrs. Schmidt told Mr. Turansky he did a really nice spreadsheet on technology last year, and she asked him if he could do the extra piece to it for this year, and he said he would.
Mr. Palazzolo asked about the technology assistant, and asked if it would be possible to get a person who is qualified for $40,000 which he stated is a low figure. Dr. Vautour said he believes it is possible. Mrs. Schmidt asked if the $40,000 includes benefits, and Mr. Turansky said it does. Mrs. Schmidt then asked if salary wise, this amount comes to $30,000 to $32,000, and Dr. Vautour said yes, and it would be an entry level position.
Mrs. Boutilier said right now they are using high school students, and Mrs. Schmidt asked how that was working out. Mrs. Boutilier said it is “spotty”.
Mrs. Schmidt had a brief discussion about summer school with Mrs. Boutilier. Mrs. Schmidt brought up the fact about this program going from 2 two week programs, to 1 three week program, and Mrs. Boutilier said among some other things that there is going to be a curriculum shift in this, and spoke about contact people also.
Mr. Geldof mentioned to Dr. Vautour that during his PowerPoint presentation this evening he laid out an ambitious program about needed capital improvements. Mr. Geldof asked what the process would be for prioritizing outside of this budget, and he wanted to know how some of the lower issues will get prioritized. Dr. Vautour said the Facilities Committee will be meeting next Tuesday to talk about the list and get some sense of prioritization. Dr. Vautour said he believes one issue is clarifying what is on the list that would be better deemed to be routine maintenance, and could be incorporated into the Facilities Director’s budget that addresses routine maintenance. He doesn’t believe that it has been fully sorted out yet in the mind of the Facilities Director. Dr. Vautour believes additional dialogue will be necessary between the Government Operations Committee, and facilities to try to clarify issues. Mr. Bostwick said he had an electronic copy of the list e-mailed to him, and some items will be added to the list of what was picked up on by the Board. He also believes there are three categories: maintenance; yearly projects; and ones that don’t meet either. Mr. Geldof asked about the relation to the $20,000 study. Mr. Bostwick said the $20,000 study is going to come back, and state what some of the priorities are overall. Mr. Bostwick stated we have insufficient gym space. He also said the portable classrooms are outdated, and should be replaced. Mr. Geldof said one of the issues that has to be addressed is the storage trailers. Mr. Bostwick said to compound things the fire marshal, and health inspector are required to walk the schools on a yearly basis. Their charge is retroactive. If something comes in, is passed by the legislature, it becomes law, and things have to be done to conform. These become other projects Facilities has to take care of, and these are not in any planned budget. Mr. Bostwick said that we have made substantial gains in the past year.
Mrs. Schmidt said that what she has for outstanding requests is the per cost per the student in the distance learning information for the high school, the details of the donations of technology equipment, the updated spreadsheet on technology issues, and the clarification of the digital electronics course amounts between last year, and this year.
Mrs. Schmidt said that in the next two evenings of budget
workshops, the Board is going to try to go through the rest of the
programs. They have asked for
Mr. Turansky handed out some object summaries that were
requested, and the
Mrs. Schmidt moved, and Mr. Bostwick seconded, to adjourn the budget
workshop at
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION CARRIED
Respectfully submitted,
Jo-Anne Booth
Recording Secretary Accepted by: _________________________