Click Here to Return to the Neshaminy Home Page. Neshaminy - We build futures!

January 14, 2003

The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on January 14, 2003 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:



Mrs. June Bostwick, President


Mrs. Yvonne Butville

Mr. P. Howard Wilson

Ms. Carol Drioli
Mr. Richard Eccles**

Dr. Raymond Boccuti
Mr. Joseph V. Paradise

Mr. Steven Schoenstadt*

Mr. Harry P. Jones

Mr. Michael Soifer

Mr. Bruce Wyatt

Dr. William Spitz
Mr. Edward Stack***

Mr. Richard Marotto 


OTHERS:  Approximately twenty persons from the public, staff and press



Mrs. Kimberly Jowett 


SECRETARY:  Mrs. Anita Walls

SOLICITOR:  Robert R. Fleck, Esquire

* left at 8:15 p.m.


** left at 9:25 p.m.


*** left at 10:00 p.m.



1.     Call to Order

Mrs. Bostwick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

2.        Pledge of Allegiance

Mrs. Bostwick requested that those in attendance join in the salute to the flag.

Mrs. Bostwick requested that the following changes to the meeting agenda be made:

-  Public comment reserved until after the Executive Committee presentation

-  Table Agenda Item 7(e) Appointment to the Bucks County Technical School Authority

Upon motion made by Ms. Drioli and seconded by Mrs. Butville the following changes to the meeting agenda were passed by a vote of eight ayes and zero nays.  Mrs. Jowett was not present.

3.        Executive Committee Recommendation to the Board for High School Project

Mr. Wilson introduced three members of the Executive Committee, Mr. Collins, Mr. Wyatt and Mrs. Butville, to make a recommendation to the Board regarding the high school project. Mr. Wilson stated that the Administration would like that after the recommendation is presented, a consensus from the Board, whether to move forward and accept the recommendation, begin scheduling public informational meetings and Act 34 hearings, or how the Board wishes to proceed.  

Mr. Wyatt provided a brief review of the process used by the two committees, Steering Committee and Executive Committee.  Mr. Wyatt advised that the Steering Committee was appointed by the Superintendent to review the options for improving the learning environment for the high school students and for all others using the high school facility.  Dr. Boccuti facilitated the Steering Committee which was comprised of nineteen members made up of elected officials, retired citizens, parents, adults without children, business representatives of the community, school district administrators, teachers, support staff, and representatives from the architectural firm of ATS&R.

Mr. Wyatt advised that the committee members were appointed because of the district’s desire to have the diverse opinions represented in their final recommendation.  At the conclusion of each of the six meetings the committee members were asked to take the information gathered back to the community, and at the following meeting were asked to provide community comments.  Mrs. Walls served as recording secretary at the meetings.   The Steering Committee toured the high school to see first hand the condition and size of the facility.  Mr. Paul Minotti, Mr. Joseph V. Paradise, staff and students made presentations at various meetings.

Mr. Wyatt further advised that the Executive Committee (made up of twelve members) was established to oversee the high school improvement project.  The committee included the superintendent, board members, administrators, and representatives from ATS&R.  The committee was established to make day to day decisions based upon the direction of the policies set by the school board in relation to the high school project and the committee will oversee the board’s directives in the areas of budget, space requirements, locations of space, high school program, etc.  The Executive Committee met the day following the Steering Committee meetings, as well as numerous additional occasions after the Steering Committee made its recommendation. 

Mr. Wyatt advised that two (2) community newsletters have been mailed to more then 23,000 Neshaminy School District households with up-dates on the high school improvement project.

Mrs. Butville presented the recommendation of the Steering Committee.

“The Steering Committee understands something needs to be done to address the condition of Neshaminy High School.  The solution should be comprehensive in order to support the educational program, as well as health, safety and security, for the foreseeable future. If cost were not a factor, a new school would be the best solution.

                        However, since cost is a major issue, the Steering Committee recommends that the school board should examine all available options that would serve the educational needs of the community at a cost that can be borne by the Neshaminy taxpayers.

                        The Steering Committee also recommends that the school board consider all options for community input including informational hearings and/or a referendum.”

Mr. Collins advised that the Executive Committee did, in fact, consider the Steering Committee’s recommendation feeling that a new school, with some factors, would be the best solution. Neshaminy High School Project Costs Evaluation was distributed to board members.  Mr. Collins advised that costs would be as follows:

                -  Maintain the present building                

                                (over next 10 years)                     $39.8 M

                - Improvement project (Hybrid)                    $49.8 M

                - Renovation of Existing High School          

                                                 (three years longer then new  construction)                     $99.l M

-  New Construction                                     

                                    (includes a number of reductions,

                                     reimbursement from state, movable

                                     door in gymnasium vs. curtain)                $84.4 M

Mr. Collins advised that based on all the data provided and the estimates provided it is the Executive Committee’s unanimous recommendation that the school board please consider the  new construction option.

Ms. Drioli requested the names of the members of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Stack inquired how the $84.4 M figure was arrived at for new construction and what items are not now included.  Mr. Collins advised that an analysis was done, line by line.  Major items such as a swimming pool and mechanical door vs. curtain in gymnasium were considered.  Mr. Collins advised that a new auditorium is included in the $84.4 M. 

Mr. Schoenstadt advised that in order to have the necessary classroom space the existing auditorium could not remain.  Maintaining the present auditorium changes the total cost configuration and increases the overall cost of the project, due to the fact that if the present auditorium remains certain areas of the facility would need to be three stories instead of two stories.   Mr. Collins further advised that the present auditorium is inadequate and does not meet the needs of the school and community. 

Mr. Schoenstadt noted that discussion was had regarding keeping the award wall and stone front of the auditorium.  Mr. Collins advised that tradition and sentiment have been considered and the front lawn and trees would remain.

Dr. Spitz requested an explanation as to what additional items the district would be receiving  (educationally, physically, etc. ) in new construction $84.4 M versus the improvement project (hybrid)  $49.8 M.    Mrs. Butville advised that security, space, extreme distance within the building need to be considered.  Mr. Wilson advised that the 9th grade students would not be accommodated in the hybrid option.   Mr. Wilson stated that new construction includes additional square footage, the hybrid option does not address square footage, however provides renovation to the existing building.

Mr. Schoenstadt advised that the hybrid option does not bring the science facilities up to date.

Mr. Wyatt advised that one major educational difference between the hybrid and new construction is that hybrid will continue to provide the district with the educational footprint of the existing Neshaminy High School, and new construction will open up vision to educational programming, design, layout of the school within a school concept, smaller schools within the school. 

Mr. Collins stated that the pros and cons of the advantages and disadvantages would be provided to board members. 

Dr. Boccuti, as facilitator of the Steering Committee, provided the following comments:

-          Steering Committee was given three (3) options

-          Maintaining the present facility

-          Renovation

-          New construction

Dr. Boccuti commented that during the course of the Steering Committee meetings the fourth option was brought up.  Dr. Boccuti advised that the first two options would require a set amount of money that would not even be visible to the eye (such as, roof repairs, pipes, electrical, etc.)

Mr. Soifer inquired what is being eliminated in the new construction since the figures are considerably less.  Mr. Soifer’s concern is that things are being eliminated, that in the future will need to be addressed.  Mr. Wilson advised that there is an extensive list from the architects available.  Mr. Wilson assured board members that the building has not been sacrificed.  There have been no reductions in square footage. 

Mr. Stack raised the question regarding the HVAC, and if it will be necessary to air condition the entire facility.  Mr. Wilson advised that due to new standards, air exchange and air circulation, air conditioning is the only option. 

Dr. Spitz inquired regarding a conceptual layout.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated that once a decision is made on the direction then through the Act 34 hearings it will be communicated to the community and a conceptual layout will be provided. 

Dr. Spitz advised that the Department of Energy has published numerous books on efficient design of school buildings, and specific to various regions in the country.  Specific recommendations are made for our region concerning direction of the building, window location, etc.  Dr. Spitz’s feeling is that to just accept the fact that we need to air condition the entire facility is premature at this time, and felt that the air conditioning must be researched thoroughly since it is such a costly item, not only initially, but to maintain.

Mr. Wilson stated that he is optimistic that the $84.4 M figure will go lower.  New prices are going to be received from the asbestos abatement company as negotiations proceed.  Mr. Wilson stated that the complete cost of technology in the amount of $l.9M is included in the price.   Mr. Wilson stated that as the district goes through the hearings, if the cost is still too prohibitive, there are options on air conditioning, auditorium, etc.  which can be looked at further.

Mr. Wilson noted that eliminating the pool from the project was a major cost item.  Mr. Wilson also noted that the $84.4 M does not include anything regarding the football stadium.

Mr. Collins noted that furniture, fixtures and equipment costs were cut from $3M to $l.5 M since the consideration was made to salvage certain items. 

Mrs. Butville noted that reimbursements will be made by the state for new construction. 

Ms. Drioli inquired if the existing high school were renovated what would the reimbursement figures from the state be like, and when renovations took place on the existing auditorium was there reimbursement from the state.  Mr. Paradise noted that the district did not apply to the state for reimbursement due to the fact that the district has one opportunity every twenty (20) years to receive reimbursement, and the district wants to maximize that opportunity with a large project.

Ms. Drioli stated that this is the time to do something with the high school.  Ms. Drioli stated that the value of our properties need to be considered. 

Mr. Wilson stated that $84.4 M is the gross cost of new construction and reimbursements will be in addition.  Mr. Paradise advised reimbursements could be in the neighborhood of $7M-$10M spread out over twenty (20) years.

Mr. Stack inquired whether there was an advantage to new construction versus renovation with regards to the reimbursements received.   Mr. Paradise stated that it is very similar.    Mr. Stack suggested that there is a different view in the state’s mind regarding new construction or renovation when it comes to reimbursements.

Mr. Paradise advised that with new construction or renovation the district could get more or less from the state depending on how the district renovates or constructs a new facility.  Many factors determine the type of reimbursements from the state. 

Mr. Wilson noted that the percentage of instructional reimbursement at this point appears to be higher then any of our neighboring districts who have recently constructed a school have received reimbursements from the state.

Ms. Drioli commented that when presented to the public they need to be made aware that state reimbursement will be made and the $84.4 M is not the final figure.  Mr. Wilson stated that at this point the district needs to make the public aware, and the public needs to let this board know whether they can afford same.  Mr. Wilson also stated that if the public cannot afford it, he is not willing to sacrifice an educational program for a new building. 

Mr. Wilson stated that if the district can do a single prime the costs will be considerably less.  Mr. Wilson commended Mrs. Butville for not allowing space in the building to be compromised.  The facility can accommodate 3,l00  - 3,200 students.

Mr. Eccles questioned whether the state reimbursement was based on a total dollar amount or based on an individual facility.  Mr. Paradise stated that it is based upon each facility individually.  Mr. Eccles noted that other district schools will be in need of major work.

Mr. Eccles stated that projections in the amount of $30M have been given for some of the other schools.  Where does this fit in and, if a bond issue is decided upon, when is the next bond issue?  Mr. Eccles inquired whether it should be considered since the district is looking at a total dollar amount and twenty to thirty years in advance. 

Mr. Stack noted that we do not have the capacity to renovate all the schools at one time.  Mr. Schoenstadt noted that it comes down to how long can a bond issue stay active.  Time lines govern the projects and completion needs to occur within five years.

Mr. Soifer stated that certain projects may need to occur simultaneously in order to take advantage of the rates. 

Mr. Wilson noted that the architects took a preliminary look at Poquessing Middle School and a figure of $l0M - $l2M to renovate the building was provided.  However, discussions ceased since the dollar amounts initially were so high, and the timeline stretched over seven years. 

Mr. Soifer stated that all the projects need to be evaluated, and a bond issue should be taken for all the major renovations, which need to be done in the upcoming years.  For example, a new roof at a middle school has nothing to do with the renovation or construction of the high school. 

Mr. Wilson advised that Mr. Paradise has figures on what the other buildings within the district need.  Dr. Spitz felt that it would be very helpful, since the district does not want to mislead the public on any of the capital expenses that will be needed for the district. 

Dr. Spitz also noted that savings would occur if the 9th grade were moved to the high school since the possibility of closing a middle school would exist.  Dr. Spitz questioned what the savings would be for the district if a middle school were closed.  Dr. Spitz recalled a figure of $2M per year.

Mr. Eccles stated that it was previously discussed that Neshaminy Middle School needs $20M worth of renovations and work.   The taxpayers would save this expense if 9th grade could be moved to the high school. 

Dr. Spitz noted that the administration will provide the other capital needs in order that the board can see the big picture.

Mr. Wilson stated that the concept of closing a middle school needs to be addressed, since the district owes it to the students, parents, teachers, and public.

Ms. Drioli commented that if plans are made in advance to close a middle school, students would no longer be placed at the facility, so the year the school is slated to be closed it will have its last graduating class, so no disruption to students occurs.

Mr. Schoenstadt moved for a consensus of the Board to take the Executive Committee’s recommendation to follow through on the new construction option and have a series of Act 34 public hearings and communicate the detail of the project to the public.  Timetable to be established by the Administration.

Mrs. Bostwick called for a consensus of the Board. By a vote of six ayes, Mrs. Bostwick, Mrs. Butville, Ms. Drioli, Mr. Schoenstadt, Mr. Soifer, and Dr. Spitz, one nay (Mr. Eccles) and one abstention (Mr. Stack).  Mrs. Jowett was not present.

Mrs. Butville questioned Mr. Eccles why he would not want to take the information to the public.  Mr. Eccles responded that he has been asking for months for public input, and there is no greater public input then at the ballot.  Mr. Eccles advised that only two public meetings are required and then the Board can vote on a school.  This is of great concern to Mr. Eccles.  Mrs. Butville noted that many meetings will take place.  

Mr. Eccles again asked the Board to consider a referendum on this project.  Mrs. Bostwick asked the Solicitor, Robert R. Fleck, Esquire, to provide the law regarding referendums.

Mr. Fleck recalled that at the Board meeting on December 2, 2002, there was board consensus for the solicitor to begin preliminary review of the law regarding referendums.  Mr. Fleck stated that there are three major cases.  One is an appellate court case from Commonwealth Court, which states that a nonbinding referendum cannot have access on the ballot.  The Court stated that the elections board only had discretion to place questions on the ballot if the election codes specifically grants discretionary power. 

Mr. Fleck further noted that there are two instances in the school code when a question must be placed on the ballot:

-       If a school district would incur a cost for a building which exceeds the amount set by the Department of Education per student, which is referred to as Taj Mahal Act. 

-       If the bond issue would exceed the district’s maximum allowed debt based upon tax assessment.

Mr. Fleck advised that after discussions with bond counsel, the district’s debt is approximately $40M and the district would be allowed to go up to $240M.

Mr. Fleck further advised that a referendum could be authorized for electoral debt to be placed on the ballot, and that would have a specific question as stated in the statute that the district would be incurring a certain amount of debt for a specific building.  If this referendum were defeated the district could not issue any bonds or borrow any funds for 150 days after the election. 

Mr. Eccles advised that there is another rule referred to as Dillon Rules.  Mr. Eccles noted that it is the opinion of a board or entity that wishes to go further, the board could agree to a referendum, not saying it would get passed different departments, but we as a board could agree to place a referendum on the ballot.  The board does not know what entity would stop them, and if they would, the only time they are not allowed would be if it is challenged.  If the district wants the voters to be involved in this process, Mr. Eccles does not see anyone who would challenge this. 

Mr. Fleck distributed his opinion letter to board members.  Mr. Fleck further noted in the last sentence of his opinion to obtain a written opinion from the Bucks County Board of Elections to see if they would place such a referendum on the ballot.  Mr. Fleck noted that after verbal discussions with the Board of Elections indications were that they would not place such a question on the ballot.  Mr. Fleck would like to obtain a consensus from the board to obtain that opinion in writing

Mr. Eccles noted that he has also been in touch with the Board of Elections and the majority of their opinion lies with costs to place a referendum on the ballot.  If the Board of Elections denies placing a referendum on the ballot, the district has the right to go to court to overturn that rule by the Board of Elections. 

Mr. Eccles reiterated that the Steering Committee also recommended that the school board consider all options for community input, including informational hearings and/or referendum. 

Mr. Eccles stated that if this board wishes to pursue a referendum and involve our voting and taxpayer public, it can be done.  The board can challenge if someone challenges us.

Mrs. Butville stated that she would much rather have informational meetings and Act 34 hearings and present the information to the public, and have interaction with the public many different times, rather then putting one question on the ballot that says “yes” or “no”. 

Dr. Spitz commented that he spoke with the election coordinator at the Bucks County Board of Elections and it was very clear that nonbinding advisory questions cannot be placed on the ballot, and it is unlawful for them to be placed on the ballot.  Dr. Spitz noted that the Center for Local Government Services has a very specific comment in their referendum handbook, which gives all the details of what is allowed to be done regarding referendums.  Dr. Spitz cited:  “Advisory questions on school building construction are unlawful.  The status of advisory questions is now clear; three recent appellate court decisions have ended the practice of placing nonbinding advisory questions on the ballot in Pennsylvania.  A county board of elections is without power to place nonbinding advisory questions on the ballot.” 

Dr. Spitz stated the question is “moot.”  Even if the board wants to place a question on the ballot, we cannot place a question on the ballot, and Dr. Spitz advised that he would like to stop wasting time discussing the issue. 

Mr. Eccles disagreed with Dr. Spitz.

There was board consensus to authorize the Solicitor to obtain a letter from the Bucks County Board of Elections.  

Mrs. Bostwick expressed that she would like the public to attend the meetings and hearings, hear and learn more about the process, since this is not just about money, it is the education of our children for the next twenty-five to thirty years.

Mrs. Bostwick recessed the meeting at 8:l5 p.m.

Mr. Schoenstadt left the meeting at 8: l5 p.m.

Mrs. Bostwick reconvened the meeting at 8: 30 p.m.

4.     Public Comment

Mrs. Bostwick advised that there would be a time limit of two minutes per speaker.

        Mrs. Donna Tull, Levittown, stated that she was in attendance on behalf of the Samuel Everitt PTO.  Mrs. Tull advised that Dawn Kelly, Principal, has been great.   Ms. Kelly has inspired many teachers to go over and beyond their duties, the door is always open, parents love her.  Ms. Kelly is very visible throughout the school.  Mrs. Tull advised that her presence in the classroom has made Ms. Kelly a favorite amongst students.  Parents are very satisfied with Ms. Kelly.

        Mr. Phil Scheiber, Langhorne, addressed the school board, administration, parents and taxpayers of Neshaminy School District:

“I was a member of the High School Advisory Committee.  I feel that I would be remiss; if I did not comment on the consensus report to be discussed this evening.  First, you should be aware that the Committee was only allowed three options.  These were: 

-          Renovate the existing high school

-          Build a new high school

-          Do nothing

Perhaps it would have been a better decision on my part not to participate at all given these limitations.  However, I felt compelled to participate in order to understand the process, discover the scope and cost of the project, and form an educated opinion as to the feasibility of going forward.  After attending the first three meetings I reported back to my community “Neshaminy needs a new high school.  Neshaminy cannot afford a new high school.”  After attending the final meeting and having voted in favor of forwarding the consensus report to the school board, I am still of the same opinion.

While I have many concerns, four in particular are troubling.  These are:

-  Why can Council Rock District build a new high school for $75M including the cost of the land when our estimate exceeds $100 M and we own the land?

  Why have we not examined using the Maple Point complex as a high school when that was its original purpose?

  Why, now, with a dwindling student population?

 Why was the Committee allowed only three options?

Why did I vote in the affirmative?  Because, believe it or not, I care about our children’s health, safety and their education.  But we, all of us, need to develop a solution that will not bankrupt the taxpayers.  There are other options and they must be explored before this school district once again gouges the taxpayers.  This country was founded on a motto of “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”  Please, either give us a referendum or go back to the drawing  board.”

Mr. Scheiber thanked the board and administration for allowing him to participate on the committee.  Mr. Schieber stated that it was a worthwhile endeavor and it did represent the community.

Mrs. Judy Beck, PTO President of Neshaminy Middle School, noted that she is definitely for a new high school.  Mrs. Beck has a senior at the high school and a ninth grader at Neshaminy Middle School.   Mrs. Beck has been at the high school many times and cannot believe the condition.  Anyone who says that a new high school is not necessary has not been on a tour of the building.  Mrs. Beck noted that we need to keep up the area, and keep up with the other school districts in the area.  Mrs. Beck’s fear with a referendum is that the community will not get enough of the information.  Mrs. Beck commended the presentation given at the Maple Point Auditorium and noted that she was probably one of five members of the community present.  Mrs. Beck is concerned that all the community will see is the referendum and bottom line.  Mrs. Beck advised that there is a need.   Mrs. Beck advised that as PTO President she will dedicate one of the PTO meetings totally to the high school.  Hopefully, we can get the people in the community out. 

                Mr. Charles Lauble, made the following comments:

·         Tired of the security issue.  Will not live life in fear and hopefully his children won’t either.

·         62 doors are not scary.

·         Teachers would have protected students years ago if an intruder were present.

·         Other options exist.

·         Sell the entire school and start over at another location.

·         Wants the best education for the children, even though he is opposed to a new school

·         The best education can be received without a new school, because parents need to help.

·         It is not a new school building that guarantees children a good education.

Mrs. Irene Boyle, Langhorne, PA, was a member of the Steering Committee, and noted that referendum was one of the options that was recommended.  Mrs. Boyle encouraged the board to consider that.  Mrs. Boyle was not aware of the solicitor’s opinion and would like to find out more about that.  Mrs. Boyle encouraged the board to pass a resolution that the board would abide by whatever the results of the referendum were.  Mrs. Boyle noted that people are tired of hearing about the bottom line, but if you speak with people in the community that is the only question that anyone asks.  Mrs. Boyle is also concerned about the financial impact on the seniors of the community and people with fixed incomes.  Mrs. Boyle felt a referendum would be a good way to proceed.

5.       Presentation

a)       High School Electives

Mr. Bruce Wyatt, Director of Secondary Education, introduced Mr. Mark Collins, Principal at Neshaminy High School and Mr. Alex Menio, Twelve Month Assistant Principal for Scheduling at Neshaminy High School.  Board members received multiple handouts regarding scheduling at the High School, Overview of the High School Ad Hoc Discussion Areas, and Courses/Sections.  Mr. Wyatt advised that the membership of the Ad Hoc Committee that was established by the board was chaired by Dr. William Spitz.  Mrs. Jowett and Mr. Schoenstadt were members of the committee.  Dr. Boccuti, Mr. Collins, Mr. Ferrara and himself were administrators.  Kevin Knowles and Jeff Dunkley, were teacher representatives.  Two meetings took place in April and May of 2002.   Mr. Wyatt advised that the purpose of the committee was to review the current status of the elective program at the high school and to look at the scale and scope of the current elective courses offered.  Details by departments, course numbers and number of sections, current class sizes, maximum class sizes, etc.

Mr. Wyatt advised that current staffing and scheduling were reviewed.  Also, alternative methods of scheduling and human resource and financial impacts were discussed.  Mr. Wyatt advised that scheduling at the high school is a year round process.  Scheduling begins with the Course Planning Guide finalization, which occurs in November.  Distribution of course selection information, counselors go to middle schools, and 9th graders come to high school in mid-February.  In March and April review of course selection and staffing take place, recommendations are made and a staffing number will be ready in time for budget.  Mr. Wyatt noted that Board Policy #5l2 outlines graduation requirements.  Mr. Wyatt advised that Neshaminy High School has an eight period day and students select 6 major subjects and 2 elective subjects.  Mr. Wyatt commented that very few students are in study halls.  Tenth graders have no study halls.  Eleventh and twelfth graders may have two or three study halls a week.  Mr. Wyatt stated that Mr. Menio will discuss program and class size. 

Mr. Wyatt distributed handouts to board members.  Mr. Menio presented the Power Point presentation to board members.  A copy of the presentation is available in the Superintendent’s office.  Mr. Menio, Mr. Collins and Mr. Wyatt also answered questions presented by school board members.  Mr. Wyatt also advised board members that if they had any questions regarding Courses and Sections 2002-2003 to present those questions to the Administration.  Identify the courses were questions exist, and information can be provided.

Mr. Eccles left the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Mr. Stack left the meting at l0:00 p.m.

6.       Items for Discussion

7.        Items for Approval

a)       Overnight Trips

i)                    Ski Club Trip – Neshaminy High School, Killington, Vermont

January 31 February 2, 2003

ii)                  Ski Club Trip – Neshaminy High School, Killington, Vermont

February 21 – February 23, 2003

There was Board consensus for the trips.

b)       Attendance at the National School Boards Conference – April 4-9, 2003

Mr. Wilson stated that three board members will be attending the conference, which will be held in San Francisco. 

c)       School Director Recognition Month

There will be a board motion at the January 28th public meeting.

d)       Acceptance of the 200l – 2002 Audit

Mr. Paradise advised that if anyone would like a copy of the audit to complete the memo.  There will be a motion on the board agenda to formally accept the 200l-2002 audit.

Mrs. Bostwick stated that she would also like the district to look into whether it would be beneficial to have Berkheimer collect the taxes rather then the individual tax collectors.  Mrs. Butville questioned how soon that could occur.  Mr. Paradise advised that once the salary schedule is set for the tax collector four year term, which has already been set, the district must wait until the end of the four year term.  However, a tax collector can voluntarily agree to appoint Berkheimer as their deputy tax collector.  The tax collector would still exist, but they will receive a lesser salary and Berkheimer would be responsible for all the work. 

f)        Approval of Bid/s Budget Transfers

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Mr. Paradise reviewed the following bid:

Bid No. 03-27 – Exterior Door Replacements at Joseph Ferderbar and Pearl Buck

Elementary Schools; Exterior Window Replacements at Oliver Heckman Elementary


Bid Amount:  $54,700.00

Replacement of 4 doors at Pearl Buck Elementary School, 2 doors at Ferderbar Elementary and 6 windows at Heckman Elementary School. 

The above bid and Budget Transfer Report No. 03-3 (working copy) will be presented for approval at the January 28, 2003 Public Meeting.

8.        Superintendent’s Report

Mr. Wilson advised that Miss America was at Maple Point Middle School and did a fabulous job with the students.  She is extremely bright and articulate.  Her plans are on attending Harvard Law School when her duties of Miss America are complete.  Mrs. Butville advised that she held a press conference, had a luncheon with the student peer mediators and held an assembly for all students.

9.     Committee Reports:

a.        Board Policies Committee

Mrs. Bostwick reported that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 16, 2003.

b.       Educational Development

Dr. Spitz advised that the next meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2003.

c.        Finance/Facilities

Mr. Soifer advised that a meeting will be scheduled in the near future.

d.       Intermediate Unit Board

No report

e.        Educational Foundation

Dr. Spitz advised that the Anniversary Dinner went very well, and the foundation is in the process of awarding the funds.

f.         Technical School Board

Mrs. Butville advised that the Technical School is in the process of accepting applications, and for the first time in a long time, Neshaminy numbers for allotted students are very close.  The placement test is scheduled for January 25, 2003. 

Negotiations with support staff is still ongoing.  A mediator was involved last week and at this point one more meeting may take place, however, then it will go to an arbitrator.

g.       Technology

Dr. Boccuti advised that a detailed report was distributed to all board members, which included this year’s technology plan.  The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 2003.

10.     Future Topics

Act 34 hearings and informational meetings.

11.    Agenda Development for the January 28, 2003 Public Meeting

12.     Correspondence

No correspondence.

13.    Other Board Business

No other board business.

Dr. Spitz moved the meeting be adjourned and Mrs. Butville seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with five ayes.  Mrs. Bostwick adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anita E. Walls
Board Secretary                                                                                           


Copyright © 1998- 2007 Neshaminy School District, Langhorne, PA  19047. 215-809-6000. All rights reserved. 
 Contact Us: Email  Webmaster  with questions or comments. Last modified: August 17, 2007.