The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met on February 8, 2000 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

BOARD MEMBERS:                                                          ADMINISTRATORS:

Mr. Edward Stack, President                                            Dr. Gary Bowman
Mr. Harry Dengler, Jr., Vice President                               Ms. Kathleen Haggerty
Mrs. June Bostwick                                                         Mr. Harry Jones
Mrs. Yvonne Butville                                                        Mr. Richard Marotto
Ms. Carol Drioli                                                               Mr. Joseph Paradise
Mr. Richard Eccles                                                          Mr. P. Howard Wilson
Dr. Ruth Frank                                                                 Mr. Bruce Wyatt
George Mecleary, Jr., Esq.

Mr. Steven Schoenstadt                                        OTHERS:  Approximately ten persons
                                                                           from the public, staff and press

1.  Call to Order

     Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.

2.  Pledge of Allegiance

     Mr. Stack requested that those in attendance join in the salute to the flag.

3.  Announcements

Mr. Stack announced prior to the Work Session, the Finance Committee and Board Policies Committee met.  Following the Work Session, an Executive Session will be held.

4.  Item for Information

     a.   Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report distributed prior to meeting.  Unreserved fund balance analysis information sheet distributed at the meeting.  Mr. Paradise advised the Board that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is produced internally.  Mrs. Donovan, Director of Financial Services, is responsible for producing the report.  Only eight school districts in the Commonwealth produce such a report.  The goal is to take the District’s financial data and put it in a format that is very presentable, completely readable, documented internally and audited by the auditors.  When the Board considers floating a bond issue, the report is a critical document.  Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the contents of the report.  (See report for detailed information.)

Mr. Eccles inquired if the report lists the fund balance for the last ten years.  Mrs. Donovan explained the fund balance is listed on pages F-4 and F-6.  On page F-6 the fund balance includes all of the reserves.  The combined balance sheet on page F-4 details the fund balance.  It shows the entire equity/fund balance and the unreserved/undesignated fund balance, which is $9,544,271, as of June 30, 1999.  When discussing the fund balance with the Board, the unreserved/undesignated fund balance is always discussed.  The report does not list the fund balance for the last ten years.  Mrs. Donovan advised the Board she will provide the Board members with a listing of the fund balance over the last ten years in the form of dollars and percentage of the budget.

Mr. Paradise reviewed the unreserved fund balance analysis information sheet and pointed out the following:

·         $6,807,503 of the fund balance was used to help balance the 1999-2000 budget

·         $2,735,599 is the carry forward balance

·         $1,500,000 is the anticipated additional fund balance (at least)

·         $4,235,599 is the minimal projected fund balance for the 2000-2001 budget

Mr. Paradise pointed out the District is required, by law, to never overextend the budget.  Therefore, the expenditures are budgeted in such a way to ensure there is enough money available for the expenditures and revenue projections are conservative.  The hope is to under spend  expenditures and over receive revenue.  Dr. Bowman stated the fund balance should be 3 to 5 percent of the budget.

Ms. Drioli stated as a Board member, she does not want to be in the position of increasing taxes when there is a $9,000,000 fund balance.  She felt the Board did not make the wrong decision when excess funds were used to offset the 1999-2000 budget deficit.

In response to Mr. Stack’s question about a June 30 fund balance estimate, Mr. Paradise explained in order to calculate the fund balance, the expenditure balances must be estimated for all accounts.  The expenditure estimates are first calculated the beginning of April and a more detailed analysis is conducted in May.  Revenues can dramatically alter the fund balance.  Taxes are booked only when paid.  Therefore, projections must be made as to when taxes will be paid and who will pay their taxes.  Mr. Paradise stated the administration will be in the position to provide a fairly accurate fund balance estimate at the May Work Session.

Mr. Schoenstadt noted except for essential items, historically the District has frozen expenditures at a certain point in the year.  He suggested expenditures be frozen a little earlier this year.  Dr. Bowman explained he will establish the expenditure cut-off date.  Historically, the date has been in April.

5.  Items for Discussion

     a.   Request for “Spot Realignment”

Dr. Bowman stated a request was presented to the Board to relocate a portion of the Ferderbar School’s student population, which would be a spot realignment.  Historically, the Board has not realigned any portion of the District except for the following reasons:

·         A new housing development in the District

·         School building cannot accommodate the enrollment

Dr. Bowman noted at this point in time, the Ferderbar School is not in either situation.  The Ferderbar School’s principal has stated the school can accommodate the 2000-2001 enrollment.  Basically the school will have the same number of classes next year as it does this year.

Dr. Bowman recommended if the Board decides to do a spot realignment, it review the entire District, which is a major undertaking.  He assured the Board, under the currently established census zones, the elementary school buildings can accommodate the 2000-2001 elementary enrollment.

Dr. Bowman explained the District is divided into many different census zones and the population is tracked in each zone.  Each school is assigned a certain geographic area.  The District was last realigned when the Maple Point Middle School was opened and sixth graders were moved into the middle schools.  At that time, there was minimal realignment in the elementary schools, but there was realignment of the middle schools.  When the Hoover Elementary School was opened, there was a massive realignment of the elementary schools.  The geographic zones for the elementary schools have been in place since the Hoover Elementary School was opened.  Spot realignment in one geographic area often grows beyond the one school.

Ms. Drioli stated she has received feedback from more than five teachers and parents with regard to overcrowding at the Ferderbar School.  She said she has been led to believe that the Tawanka School is not as utilized as the Ferderbar School.  Dr. Bowman pointed out the following:

·      Currently, all classes at the Ferderbar School have a classroom.

·      Two modular classrooms have been removed from the Ferderbar School and installed at the Sandburg School.

·      A Ferderbar School classroom was made into a nurse’s suite, because the nurse services both the elementary and middle school students at the complex.

·      The Ferderbar School’s enrollment has been increasing and the Tawanka School’s enrollment has been decreasing.  There is more space available at the Tawanka School.

·      Classroom size is determined by the collective bargaining agreement and the classes do not exceed the guidelines.

·      The maximum class size is lower in the primary grades and increases to 33 students in grades four and five.  If, by October 1, the class size limit is exceeded, the District must add a class with a full-time teacher.

Dr. Bowman cautioned the Board about considering spot realignment.  Ms. Drioli said within a two mile area, there are two elementary schools.  One is under enrolled and one is over enrolled.  She questioned what is the problem with taking students from one school and placing them in the other school.

 Mr. Dengler stated he has not received any telephone calls from Ferderbar School parents or teachers regarding the overcrowding issue.  Mr. Schoenstadt indicated he received two complaints regarding fourth grade overcrowding at Lower Southampton Elementary School.

In response to a question raised by Mrs. Bostwick, Dr. Bowman explained if, by October 1, class size exceeds the maximum enrollment limit, the District must add a class.  If there were no classrooms available for the additional class, some accommodation would have to be made, i.e. mentally gifted, music or art teacher would travel from class to class.

Dr. Bowman stated enrollment data can be provided for all District schools.  Ms. Drioli indicated she would like to review enrollment data on the Lower Southampton area schools, which are the Ferderbar, Lower Southampton and Tawanka Schools.  She pointed out no matter what the numbers indicate, it is the parents’ perception that the Ferderbar School is too crowded.

After further discussion, the Board directed the administration to provide enrollment data on all of the District’s schools.  The enrollment data will include capacity of buildings, enrollment and average class size.  Special education will be factored into the data as it is today.

     b.   Request for Additional Class at Lower Southampton Elementary School

Dr. Bowman noted the additional class request is for the 2000-2001 school year.  He explained at the Lower Southampton Elementary School all the requirements, according to the collective bargaining agreement, have been met.  Since the classes are in the thirties, the parents would like another class added.  In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement class limits, the Board is not required to add another class.  He cautioned the Board if the Board makes an exception for one building, others will request the same type of change.  He noted the enrollment data, which will be provided for all the schools in accordance with the spot realignment issue, can also be used to review the Lower Southampton Elementary School additional class issue. 

Dr. Frank felt possibly parents’ requests for spot realignment and smaller classes are motivated by the federal government reports recommending a class size of 20 students.  Ms. Drioli felt the federal government recommendations are not motivating the request for spot realignment.  She emphasized both teachers and parents have contacted her about the issue.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board of a recent situation involving a new pre-first student.  Adding a new pre-first student to an existing pre-first class would have resulted in having to create another section.  The student was sister schooled where there was a vacancy.  Therefore, it was not necessary to hire another teacher.  He cautioned the Board to be very careful when considering spot realignment.

The Lower Southampton Elementary School enrollment data will be provided as a part of the enrollment data being provided on all District schools for the review of a possible realignment.

     c.   Exclusive Beverage Agreement Research

Information previously distributed and additional information distributed at the meeting.  Mr. Hoss, Director of Purchasing, was in attendance at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Mr. Paradise and Mr. Hoss have been reviewing the beverage agreement issue.

Mr. Paradise referred to the memorandum from Mr. Hoss entitled “Exclusive Beverage Contract” and pointed out the following:

·         Memorandum is a preliminary list of information

·         Memorandum is not meant to be all inclusive

·         Hopefully, list of additional questions will result from review of memorandu 

Mr. Paradise advised the Board that Mr. Hoss spoke with representatives at school districts that have participated in a beverage program.  He pointed out the following regarding the agreements:

·         Agreements are entered into with a district in exchange for an upfront amount of money.

·         It is an exclusive agreement to only ever use a particular company’s product.

·         Company controls the price of the products.

·         Company controls the amount of product sales (sales quota in contract).

·         Company controls period of time product is sold.

·         Company controls number of vending machines and placement of machines in some    situations. 

·         If a district’s minimum sales fail to materialize, the contract will be extended to meet   the requirement.  Example:  Ten year contract could be extended to thirteen or        
   fourteen years.

Mr. Paradise noted none of the school districts have had enough experience to know all of the problems associated with the agreements.

Mr. Paradise explained Neshaminy’s approach to vending machines is not centralized.  The District is not in the vending machine business.  The vending machines are exclusively run by individual organizations and in the individual buildings.  For the most part, the vending machines are run by booster groups, secretary associations, marching band, etc.  Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the vending machine spread sheets.  He noted most of the vending machines do not sell soda.  There are strong restrictions as to how the vending machines are operated and there is a Board Policy regarding vending machine use.

Mr. Paradise explained the bulk of vending machine use is by the Food Service Department.  The Food Service Department is a private, profit-making business that is not supported by the taxpayers or general fund.  One of the ways the Food Service Department has been creative and self-sufficient is through the use of vending machines.  They obtain the vending machines free from the vendor, purchase their own products and stock the machines themselves.  They sell products in the vending machines that they would ordinarily have to pay laborers to sell, which allows the Food Service Department to realize a larger profit.  The Food Service Department’s percentage of the total vending machine sales is 80 percent.  An exclusive agreement with a company will prevent the Food Service Department from being flexible in dealing with the students’ interests.  He noted the current “cool” drink is Snapple.  However, the Food Service Department has no idea what the “cool” drink will be next year.  If the supplier’s product is not favored by the students, the Food Service Department would lose revenue.  If the Food Service Department does not market to its customers, it will lose money.

Mr. Paradise pointed out the vending machine sales total District wide is $268,498 and $216,818 of this amount is generated by the Food Service Department.  Approximately 50 percent of the $216,818 is pure profit for the Food Service Department.  He raised the following questions:

·         How does the District enter into an agreement with the type of structure in place in the District? (District does not have any vending machines, but individual entities have machines.)

·         How will the District deal with the competitive marketing nature of the Food Service Department? 

·         How will the Food Service Department’s interests be protected?

Mr. Paradise advised the Board that the Pennsylvania Department of Education has stated the school districts cannot enter into privately negotiated agreements.  It must be bid.   Mr. Paradise stated the District could competitively bid the commission.  He noted the District has not been contacted nor has the District contacted any of the potential beverage companies.

In response a question raised by Mr. Stack, Mr. Paradise explained the Food Service Department is a totally separate funding entity.  It is not funded in any way by the general fund.  Mr. Stack questioned how an agreement with one of the potential beverage companies will affect the agreements the District currently has in place. 

Ms. Drioli felt half of the vending machine profits of the various organizations should go into the District’s student funds. Mr. Mecleary inquired if the exclusive nature of a beverage contract will affect the ability of the various groups, such as the booster clubs, to conduct fund raisers.  Mr. Hoss stated he did not receive any commentary on this issue.  He was told any groups that would sell on District property would have to sell products from the company with whom the District had a contract.  The distribution of profits from a fund raising event would be an issue to be resolved between the School District and the organizations. In response to Board members’ questions, Mr. Hoss provided the following information:

·         Agreement between the beverage company and the District will contractually specify the remuneration (commission, etc.). 

·         The contract will specify the price at which the product will be sold. 

·         The District will purchase the product from the company’s distributor.  

Mr. Wilson explained the Central Bucks School District has a beverage contract and the profits at football games go the coach, not the football team or students.  Mr. Hoss noted Central Bucks School District was one of the first school districts to enter into a beverage agreement.  Their contract was signed five or six years ago, and the district did not receive a lot of upfront money. 

Mr. Paradise pointed out that the “N” Club runs all of Neshaminy’s stadium concessions.  The “N” Club’s profits are used to give back to the students.  He noted the majority of profits generated by the vending machines are used to benefit the students.  The number of vending machines used to benefit the staff Sunshine Clubs are minimal. 

Mr. Eccles recommended the Board contact the beverage companies and review the issue further.  Mrs. Bostwick expressed concern about contacting the beverage companies.  She suggested, if possible, the issue be reviewed further without contacting the beverage companies.  Mr. Schoenstadt pointed out the Food Service Department, through vending machine sales, has generated approximately $1,250,000 over a five year period, which has resulted in a profit of approximately $500,000.  The profits from these sales fund equipment purchases and the cost of operating the Food Service Department.  He suggested since the Board now has a base figure to use for comparison purposes, it review possible proposals. 

Mr. Paradise inquired if the Board enters into a contract, is it the intention of the Board to protect the Food Service Department’s existing profits.  The difference of a $100,000 will make the difference between the Food Service Department being able to operate and not being able to operate.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated he does not see any justification to change the program that currently exists.  He indicated he is looking for an opportunity for additional revenue.  Mr. Eccles felt the issue should be reviewed and a decision be made based on what is in the best interest of the District.  

Mr. Stack noted currently the Food Service Department receives $425,000 a year in federal and state subsidies as a part of the National School Lunch Program and approximately $96,000 a year of commodity food products, which would be lost if soda is sold to the students.  Mr. Paradise explained, by law, the District is not allowed to sell soda in school cafeterias.  The school districts that have beverage contracts are either not selling soda during school lunch hours or they are not a part of the National School Lunch Program.  He noted many of the beverage companies who make soda also make non-carbonated beverages.  Mr. Stack questioned why only beverage deals are being considered.  Since various snack products are sold in vending machines, he requested information be obtained on possible agreements with snack companies. Mr. Mecleary suggested some of the current contracts with the school districts be obtained for review. 

Mr. Stack recommended the issue be referred to the Finance Committee for further review and evaluation.  Possibly arrangements can be made to have representatives from the beverage companies make a presentation before the Finance Committee.  There was Board consensus to have the Finance Committee review and evaluate the possibility of a beverage or snack agreement with an outside company.

Mr. Stack recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m.  Mr. Stack reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.  Mr. Stack moved the agenda be amended to allow public comment as the next agenda item and Mrs. Bostwick seconded the motion.  The Board unanimously approved the motion. 

6.  Public Comment

There was a two minute limit per speaker.  Mr. Graham, Neshaminy student, advised the Board a $85,000 quote has been received from Applied Video Technology, Inc. for a full television editing station.  Mr. Clifford Davis from Alpha Video Technology in Minnesota will be mailing a quote for approximately $45,000 for a top-of-the-line system.  The quote includes the cost of two cameras.  If a less expensive camera is purchased, the quote could be reduced.  Copies of the two quotes are available through Mr. Graham.  Mr. Graham stated he would like to have some of the new equipment available for Gym Night, which is scheduled to take place in March.  Mr. Graham advised the Board that Alpha Video Technology recently built a studio for the Parkland High School, which is located outside of Allentown.  Plans are being made to visit the Parkland High School’s studio.  Neshaminy’s studio would be the same as the new Parkland High School studio.  Upon receiving payment, the equipment will be provided to the District within three weeks.

Mr. Graham suggested a Television Programming Committee be established.  One of the responsibilities of the committee would be to explain to students the reasoning behind television programming. 

Mr. Stack requested any information acquired be given to the building principal.  He noted the Board has agreed to fund the television production course for next year, because there is funding available within the high school budget for the program.  Any additional expenses would have to be presented to the central administration. 

Dr. Bowman pointed out the equipment will have to be bid, which will take three weeks.  After the bids are received, the Board would have to award the bid at a Public Meeting.  The process would not be completed before Gym Night.  However, possibly the company would allow the District to use a demo camera for Gym Night. 

Mr. Eccles suggested commercials be allowed on the District’s cable station.  Dr. Bowman stated a Board Policy would have to be established on the issue of commercials which outlines the parameters, fee, etc.  Mr. Paradise stated if the Board is going to allow commercials on the cable channel, someone will be needed to operate it. 

Mrs. Cormick, Lower Southampton, inquired if she could select which Lower Southampton elementary school her child would attend. Dr. Bowman explained the District is divided into geographic regions.  A certain number of geographic regions are assigned to each school building.  The District does not have open enrollment which allows parents to decide where their child will attend school.  The geographic boundaries of the schools were last determined in 1986 when the Hoover School was opened.  Currently, the elementary enrollment is declining throughout the District.

In response to Mrs. Cormick’s question about charter schools, Mr. Stack stated one of the administrators will discuss the charter school issue with her.

Mr. Spitz, Middletown Township, explained he has some concerns regarding the Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendation regarding the earned income tax, and there was some disagreement within the committee on the earned income tax issue.  He urged the Board to consider carefully all the issues related to an earned income tax before deciding whether to implement the tax.  Mrs. Butville stated the Tax Advisory Committee was very careful about their wording.  They really wanted to word it that the committee recommended the Board investigate the earned income tax issue.  By the time the report came out in print, it came out that the Tax Advisory Committee recommends an earned income tax.  Something got lost in the translation. 

5.  Items for Discussion (cont.)

     d.   Board Planning Session

Mr. Stack distributed to the Board members a goals/objectives form and asked the Board members to list their short and long term goals/objectives and assign priorities to the goals/objectives.  He explained the intent is to determine which issues the Board should discuss at the March, April and May Work Sessions.  A discussion of the Board members’ goals/objectives resulted in the following listing of goals/objectives:

¨       Pass budget

*         Taxation

*         Cost reductions (Finance Committee)

*         Alternative sources of revenue

·         Block scheduling - Impact on cost and budget concerns (Educational Development Committee)

¨       Strategic Plan (September)

¨       Impact of new comprehensive technical school

*         Renovations/bond issues - Poquessing School and Neshaminy High School

·         Continued improvement of student achievement

·         Educational Standards (September)

*         Tax Advisory Committee recommendations

·         Technology priorities (Technology Committee)

·         Decrease class size (Educational Development Committee)

·         Course Offerings (Educational Development Committee)

·         District’s own alternative school

·         Full-day kindergarten (Educational Development Committee)

*         Student enrollment projections/possible closing of elementary school (2000/2001)

·         Public relations coordinator

¨       First Priority

*         Second Priority

Mr. Stack noted the Board has a short time to discuss a number of items and will be required to pass a budget in June.  The District will be receiving additional monies from the state this year, possibly an additional $100,000 in general subsidy.  The District will also be receiving additional special education funds from the state, possibly $119,000.  Even with the special education funding increase, the state will still be providing less than 50 percent of the cost of special education.  While the first priority is the budget, the Board has an obligation to continue to improve the educational product in Neshaminy. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board on February 9 and 10 he will be in Harrisburg to receive specific budget information in the areas of special education and transportation and the impact of the budget on Neshaminy.  The District has a new software program, which includes budgeting.  The administration plans to provide the Board with a simple spread sheet in March, which will show the general trend of the budget and reflect the potential gap between revenue and expenses.  The detailed budget document will be distributed to the Board in April.  This will allow the Board to address the budget in April, May and June.  While reviewing the budget, the Board needs to address the comprehensive technical school issue.  By the end of February, the number of students who want to attend the comprehensive technical school will be known.  Once the number of students attending the comprehensive technical school has been determined, the administration will have a sense of how the comprehensive technical school will impact upon staffing.  At the March Work Session, information will be provided regarding the comprehensive technical school and staffing implications.  By the April Work Session, preliminary data will be available about high school scheduling, which impacts upon the budget. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board the salary for a public relations coordinator, secretary and related costs have been included in the budget process.  Ms. Drioli pointed out the previous public relations coordinator did not have a secretary and questioned why a secretary would be needed.  Dr. Bowman explained the position is being expanded to include media, television, cable, etc. and the public relations coordinator will need secretarial assistance. 

Mr. Stack noted the Board needs to consider the Tax Advisory Committee’s earned income tax recommendation, and advise the administration what additional information is needed in order for the Board to reach a decision on the earned income tax.  Mrs. Butville recommended the Board review the Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendations.  Mr. Mecleary recommended a meeting, with the public invited, be scheduled to review the earned income tax issue.  Mr. Stack suggested a meeting on the earned income tax issue include the presentation of the pros and cons of the earned income tax issue and the public be asked to provide input. 

Mr. Mecleary recommended a review of closing an elementary school be included on the goals/objectives list.  Dr. Bowman stated reviewing the closing of an elementary school should be a priority item.  Funds for a third party study on enrollment projections for the School District for the next five to ten years should be included in the budget.  If the study indicates an elementary school should be closed, possibly the building could be used to house the District’s own alternative school.

7.  Items for Approval

     a.  Overnight Trip - State Debate Tournament - Selinsgrove - March 22-23

Information previously distributed self-explanatory.  Mr. Wyatt presented the trip for approval. There was Board consensus for the trip.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board there is an upcoming ski trip to Killington, Vermont.  The Board indicated they would support a ski trip to Killington, Vermont. 

     b.   Contracts for TODAY, Inc.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board a contract document was not submitted to the District for approval for last year.  At the February Public Meeting, contracts for last year and this year will be presented for approval.   The TODAY, Inc. program is an alternate source of revenue for the District.  The Intermediate Unit runs the educational program and the facility is located within the Neshaminy School District.  Neshaminy charges school districts the District’s tuition fee for each student attending the program.

Contracts for TODAY, Inc. will be a February Public Meeting agenda item.

     c.   Approval of Bids/Budget Transfers

Mr. Paradise reviewed the following bids:

Bid No. 00-25 - Scrubbing and Refinishing Wood Floors

Award Amount:  $12,778.00

The bid is for work to be done on gym floors at Neshaminy High School (2), Neshaminy Middle School, Poquessing Middle School, Sandburg Middle School, Maple Point Middle School, Miller Elementary School and Ferderbar Elementary School. 

Mr. Eccles inquired since the Sandburg Middle School gym floor is new, why is it necessary to scrub and refinish it.  Mr. Paradise explained the scrubbing and refinishing of the wood floors is an annual maintenance item.  It does not matter how new or old the floors are in the gyms.

00-26 - Irrigation System for Neshaminy High School Football Stadium

Award Amount:  $17,800.00

The bid is for the installation of an irrigation system for Neshaminy High School football field.  This is a budgeted item.  The initial bids received last year were over $30,000.  The project was rebid this year at a different time of the year.  The specifications were the same except for the inclusion of an auxiliary pump.  It was determined the water pressure was sufficient and an auxiliary pump was not necessary. 

Ms. Drioli inquired if the various Neshaminy athletic teams that use the football field, could be asked to contribute to the cost of having the irrigation system installed.  Dr. Bowman explained the Neshaminy High School football field is only used by Neshaminy High School teams.  The field is used by the District’s soccer team, football team and band.  The only organization that has any potential to raise funds is the “N” Club and the soccer group, because they operate the concession stands.  The funds raised through the concession stands are turned right back over to the students to offset the cost of equipment, shoes, sports banquet, etc.  Mrs. Butville pointed out the teams do not receive any portion of the admission charge.  The admission funds go into the District’s general fund.

00-27 - Tennis Court Reconstruction

Award Amount:  $56,360.00

The bid is for the repair and resurfacing of the tennis courts at Neshaminy High School.  The repairs will extend the tennis court life approximately ten years.  This a budgeted item.  The work is scheduled to begin June 15.

00-28 - Bituminous Concrete Paving, Resurfacing and Repair

Award Amount:  $61,800.00

The bid is for the repair of damaged and deteriorating paving at Poquessing Middle School and Heckman Elementary School.  This bid will complete the balance of the paving work at the Poquessing Middle School.  The entire Heckman Elementary School parking lot will be paved.

01-01 - General School Supplies

Award Amount:  $180,221.71

The bid is for various classroom and office supplies for use throughout the District for the 2000-2001 school year.  The amount of the general school supplies bid last year was $207,000. 

Ms. Drioli advised the Board that the cost of boxes will be increasing 12 percent in March.  Mr. Paradise pointed out that cost of fuel oil is increasing and could have a dramatic affect on the budget.

Mr. Paradise advised the Board that Budget Transfer Report No. 00-04, which has four transactions, will be presented for approval at the February Public Meeting.

The bids and budget transfers will be presented for approval at the February Public Meeting.

8.  Superintendent’s Report

Dr. Bowman reported the following:

Governor Ridge’s Proposed Commonwealth Budget

Information distributed at the meeting.  The District will receive an increase of approximately $200,000 in state funding for special education and general subsidy.  Ms. Drioli inquired why the charter schools are a part of the funding formula.  Dr. Bowman explained the charter schools receive from the state start-up money.

Chapter 4 Strategic Planning Guidelines

Information distributed at the meeting.  A request to delay Neshaminy’s Strategic Plan due date to November will be submitted.

Student Attendance Policy and Curfew Information

Information distributed and reviewed at the meeting. The Board Policies Committee is considering a student attendance policy.  The number of high school students absent more than ten days this year is a small percentage of the students at each grade level.  They are contributing to a large number of the absences, and this, in essence, becomes a target population that needs to be addressed.  The number of unexcused/unlawful days absent for the year totals 1,307.  This is information that should be considered when determining whether to support the daytime curfew that Middletown Township is reviewing. 

Mrs. Butville inquired if the 344 students listed as having ten or more absences pertains to unexcused absences.  Mr. Wyatt explained it pertains to any type of absence.

Dr. Bowman inquired if the Board would like to take a position on the daytime curfew issue.  Mr. Stack requested the Board members review the student attendance and curfew information and advise him if the issue warrants further discussion.

Mrs. Butville inquired if there is a truant officer in the District.  Dr. Bowman explained the District has a home and school visitor, which is a similar position.  Every school district, by law, must have a home and school visitor.  If a student is truant, the home and school visitor is sent out to investigate the situation.  Mr. Wyatt will provide the Board with data regarding how many students have been truant and how many visits the home and school visitor has made for the first half of the school year.

School Calendar

Instructional time summary information sheet distributed at the meeting.  One day of school has been missed due to flood situation and two days of school have been missed due to snow.  Currently, the District is meeting the state minimum hours of instruction, which is as follows:

·         Kindergarten - 458 hours

·         Elementary    - 900 hours

·         Secondary     -  990 hours

The information sheet includes the early dismissals at the end of the year and day of the flood (line 2c).  It is recommended that one of the three days be made up the Monday of spring recess (April 24).  If two days are added on to the end of the school year, the District has to deal with the heat issues and there is minimal return.  The District could apply for Act 80 time for the two other missed days of school and schedule inservice time for teachers.  Another option would be to have school the Thursday of spring recess (April 20).  If the Thursday of spring recess is scheduled as a school day, there may be a problem obtaining enough substitutes to cover all the classes that day, because a number of staff members have already planned trips. 

Mr. Stack recommended both the Thursday and Monday of spring recess be scheduled as make-up days.  After further discussion, there was Board consensus to schedule both the Thursday and Monday of spring recess as make-up days.  Mr. Dengler indicated he was opposed to scheduling the Thursday of spring recess as a make-up day.  Mr. Mecleary noted according to the instructional time summary sheet, the District is not required, at this point, to make up any of the missed days.  He questioned why the Board was making calendar changes at this time.  By making this calendar change, the students will be making up two of the three school days missed due to weather conditions. 

A revised school calendar will be presented to the Board for approval at the February Public Meeting reflecting classes will be held the Thursday and Monday of spring recess.

Neshaminy Education Foundation Mini-Grants

Information distributed self-explanatory.

9.  Committee Reports

     a.   Board Policies Committee

Information distributed at meeting.  Ms. Drioli reported the committee has reviewed Board Policy No. 512 - High School Diploma/Graduation Requirements and a line is being added to the policy to include the Chapter 4 requirements.  A copy of the revised policy will be distributed to the Board members.  After reviewing the policy, any Board members who have questions or suggested changes should contact Ms. Drioli or Mr. Wyatt.  The committee plans to present the revised policy for approval in March.  Ms. Drioli requested the Board review the proposed changes to Board Policy No. 551 - Behavior Management and advise her of any comments or recommended changes.  The policy will be discussed at the March Work Session.

Ms. Drioli inquired if the Board would like an attendance policy developed.  Currently, the District has an attendance procedure in place.  In Neshaminy excessive absences are currently affected by loss of activities and privileges.  Students can miss any number of school days and pass a course.  She noted attendance problems occur as early as the elementary level; and therefore, the policy should include all grade levels.  Mrs. Butville indicated she was in favor of the attendance policy including grades kindergarten through 12.  After further discussion, there was Board consensus for the Board Policies Committee to develop an attendance policy.

Ms. Drioli stated in regard to a policy regarding the review of the Superintendent, she will e-mail the Board members about this policy.

     b.   Educational Development Committee

Mr. Mecleary reported the committee is gathering information on block scheduling and how it will impact the budget.  Possibly the block scheduling information will be available by the next Educational Development Meeting which is scheduled for March 7.  The committee will be reviewing the alternative school issue. 

     c.   Finance Committee

Mr. Eccles reported the committee has reviewed the Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendations again.  As a result of the committee’s review of alternative school options, several questions were raised.  Mr. Wilson is obtaining the answers to the committee’s questions.  If some of the alternative school students were in an internal program, it would save the District a large sum of money.  Currently, there are 100 students on probation.  Presently, there is a total of 129 students attending alternative schools.  Consideration is being given to developing a program to continue educating in the District those students expelled from school.  If such a program is developed, possibly an additional 40 to 43 students from other school districts could attend the program.  Different aspects of an inhouse alternative school were discussed by the committee.  One of the alternative schools issues being reviewed by the committee is school hours.  If there are no laws prohibiting it, possibly the program could be conducted after regular school hours in the District’s own facilities. 

Mr. Stack inquired what are the educational requirements for an alternative school program.  Dr. Bowman stated there is minimum number of minutes per day mandate for an alternative school program.  The Board would have the authority to establish the curriculum for the program.  Chapter 4 lists what must be offered to every student. 

Ms. Drioli state zero tolerance has created a new situation.  Students are being expelled because of zero tolerance and not necessarily due to serious crimes.  In order to keep some of the costs down, some of the students could be placed back into the District’s own system.  Mrs. Bostwick stated would it be more wise to revamp the zero tolerance policy?  Mr. Schoenstadt stated by revamping the zero tolerance policy, there could be a liability issue.  The District would be assuming the liability by adding to the risk to the other students.  Mrs. Bostwick felt the zero tolerance policy is getting school districts into some silly situations and these are the types of situations that should be avoided.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated he would rather be a little bit silly now than trying to explain why he endanger children in the District.  The zero tolerance policy is to keep something from happening. 

Mr. Eccles reported the committee also reviewed reducing the electrical demand at the Maple Point Middle School.  The cost of a study to review electrical usage costs at the Maple Point Middle School would be $9,000.  It is estimated the electrical usage costs could be reduced by $40,000 to $60,000 a year.  The committee also discussed lighting replacement in two additional schools.  The cost to relamp the schools would be funded entirely by the lighting cost savings.  Mr. Paradise recommended the Lower Southampton Elementary School and Poquessing Middle School be relamped.  However, if the Poquessing Middle School is going to be renovated, the school should not be relamped at this time.  The savings of a relamping project takes place over five years.  If the Poquessing School were relamped and then renovated in three years, the District would still be liable for the two year payment.  Mr. Paradise stated within the next two or three months, the committee would like to narrow the project to two schools.  Mr. Eccles stated at the last meeting, the committee did not discuss alternative funding sources.

     d.   Intermediate Unit Board

           Ms. Drioli reported the Intermediate Unit budget looks favorable.

     e.   Technical School Board

Mr. Dengler reported students are in the process of signing up for the Technical School.  The issue of staffing is still being reviewed.

     f.   Neshaminy Education Foundation

Mrs. Bostwick requested the Neshaminy Education Foundation be listed on the agenda under committee reports.  She referred to the mini-grant listing, which was distributed earlier in the meeting, and reported every school received a grant.  This year 24 grants were awarded.  Last year only 17 grants were awarded.  She pointed out everyone can contribute the Foundation and all the funds go towards enhancing the classroom experience.  The Foundation’s two annual fund raisers are the auction and health and fitness fair.  Mrs. Bostwick encouraged the Board members to advise everyone of the Foundation and participate in the Foundation’s activities.

     g.   Tax Advisory Committee

Mr. Stack recommended a copy of the committee’s report be sent to the PSBA and state legislators, and they be asked to take into consideration the committee’s recommendations when making decisions.  Mr. Mecleary felt by sending the committee’s report to the PSBA and legislators, it may tend to give the Board’s stamp of approval to the recommendations and report.  He questioned if, at this point, the Board has approved the recommendations.  He indicated he was opposed to Mr. Stack’s recommendation.  Mr. Stack noted the committee took certain positions on the issue.  One was that the Board consider enacting an earned income tax.  This would have no bearing on the PSBA or state legislators.  It is an issue that the Board needs to review and consider.  The report included other issues such as special education funding, state funding, etc. 

Ms. Drioli felt if the report is forwarded to the PSBA and state legislators, the letter should state the report is the result of a group of Neshaminy citizens reviewing the various issues.  Mr. Mecleary suggested Mr. Peters, as the chairperson of the Tax Advisory Committee, forward the report rather the Board doing so.  Dr. Frank felt a letter should be sent advising the legislators the report is a result of the study by a group of Neshaminy citizens.  Mr. Schoenstadt suggested a copy of the report and videotape be sent to the legislators.  Mr. Mecleary said he did not want the report being sent  out  as  the  Board’s  position. Mr. Schoenstadt  stated  if  the  report is sent out as though it is endorsed by the Board, the Board is saying it has made up its mind.  He said I have not made up my mind on the issue. 

Mr. Stack stated the Board can send the report as a presentation from the Tax Advisory Committee or deliberate the issue and take a position on specific points of the report.  There was Board consensus to send the report to the PSBA and state legislators as a presentation from the Tax Advisory Committee.  Mr. Stack will compose the cover letter and send the letter through e-mail to all the Board members for review before mailing it.

10. Future Topics

      There were no future topics discussed.

11. Agenda Development for the February 23, 2000 Public Meeting

      Mr. Stack briefly reviewed the agenda items for the February Public Meeting.

12.    Correspondence

       There was no correspondence.

13. Other Board Business

Mrs. Butville advised the Board that last week she toured the high school bathrooms that the Board had agreed to renovate.  Some of the bathrooms are in desperate need of repair.  One of the bathrooms, which is located in “G” hall, has cinder block walls that need to be removed as a part of the renovation work at a cost of approximately $3,800.  The cinder block walls need to be removed, because the stalls are the cinder block walls.  The renovation work would have to be done after hours when no one is in school.  This particular bathroom is in good condition, but it does not have doors on the stalls.  Consideration had been given to making the bathroom an ADA bathroom, but it is too small.  The school already has other ADA bathrooms.  Mrs. Butville recommended this particular bathroom not be renovated, and an effort be made to find a way to install doors on the existing three stalls.  Mr. Paradise indicated he would investigate the possibility of doors being installed on the three stalls.

Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.  A Executive Session was held to discuss personnel issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol A. Calvello
Board Secretary