The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on June 26, 2001 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

Prior to the Public Information and Public Board Meeting (Work Session), a Public Board Meeting was held. 

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

2.   Items for Discussion

      a.  Enrollment and Facilities Data

Enrollment and Facilities Data Report distributed prior to the meeting.  Copies of the report available to members of public at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman reviewed the data included in the report (see report for detailed information).  During the presentation, the following additional information was provided: 

�         Data included in the Enrollment and Facilities Data Report has been confirmed by the Pennsylvania Economy League Study and supports the projections provided by the Department of Education and the District.

�         Over the last 28 years, the attendance boundary lines have been realigned twice.  The current boundary lines have been in place since 1986. 

�         The goal of changing attendance boundary lines is to balance each school so each school has a reasonable percentage of capacity. 

�         The District has declining enrollment and buildings have classrooms available.

�         25 percent of the classrooms are not being used.

�         If an elementary school were closed, the District would still function with the same quality educational program.

�         The Board should be careful about closing a large building.  The certified staff contract includes decreasing class sizes, therefore, additional classroom space will be needed to accommodate the change in class size. 

�         The educational programs in the nine elementary schools, for the most part, are the same.

�         The Neshaminy School District is only 26 square miles.

�         Space is available and the Board has an opportunity to make some changes.

The Alternative Placements/APS Elementary Attendance Area information sheet and list of critical questions for discussion distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman noted one of the alternative uses for a closed school would be an alternative school for Neshaminy students.  Currently, 107 Neshaminy students are attending alternative schools.  The information sheet lists how many students from each elementary school are attending alternative schools. 

Dr. Bowman referred to the critical questions for discussion list and explained the list was developed to generate discussion and help the Board arrive at a criteria for making a decision.  The Board may want to add other questions to the list.  Ms. Drioli referred to no. 14 (Will closing this school avoid or defer renovation costs?) on the question list.  She pointed out when a school is closed and reopened at a later time, there is a large expense associated with reopening the school.  Reopening a school involves renovating the facility and installing state-of-the-art equipment.  She said the Board is committed to keeping whatever land is around whatever building it closes.  The Board realizes the school grounds, fields, playgrounds, etc. of every school in the District are utilized by every community in the District.   The schools� grounds are an important, integral part of the community. 

Mr. Stack said the list of critical questions for discussion is a way of reviewing all of the facilities based on a certain criteria and devising a way in which to evaluate one facility against another, identify those facilities that meet more of a criteria and help the Board identify a potential facility for closure.  He pointed out the closing of a large facility will result in a greater savings.  The closing of a small facility will result in a smaller savings. 

In response to a question asked by Mr. Stack, Mr. Wilson explained if Neshaminy operated its own alternative school, the District would receive a lot of requests for placement of students from outside of the District.  The District would charge the regular tuition rate, which would not be an inflated rate.  The District’s program would be a quality program and would be certified.  Many alternative school options are not certified institutions with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  He felt the District may have to turn people away. 

Mr. Stack stated minimizing the impact on walkers (no. 8) goes hand in hand with impact on neighborhood schools.  There is interest in trying not to upset neighborhood schools.  He noted the Heckman School currently has no walkers.  At the Miller School a number of students (37 percent) walk to school.  Since the Miller School has a large number of walkers and was recently renovated, Mr. Stack felt the Miller School should not be considered for closure. 

Mr. Dengler pointed out under the Tawanka School on the critical questions for discussion list there are not any no answers listed and the Lower Southampton School only has one no answer listed.  One way of viewing the critical questions for discussion list is to consider yes as meaning yes close the school.  Dr. Bowman noted the three smallest schools (Lower Southampton, Schweitzer and Tawanka Schools) have the largest number of yes answers. 

Ms. Drioli stated she favored retaining the Intermediate Unit Program in the schools and the District operating its own alternative school.  She recommended any staff members displaced through the closing of a school, be the first staff members offered a position at the alternative school.  Mrs. Butville inquired about the anticipated number of retirements next year.  Dr. Bowman stated it is anticipated there will a substantial number of retirements next year.  If a school is closed and an alternative school is opened, Neshaminy employees would be transferred to the alternative school.  Staff members would be asked their first choice.  Some teachers, who are not in a school that is closing, may want to teach in the alternative school. 

The Board reviewed each of the critical questions for discussion and noted the following:

·         Permit Balanced Loading of Remaining Schools - All the schools meet this criteria.

·         Provide Equal Educational Opportunity for Students - All the schools meet this criteria.

·         Lengthen the Time Needed Until Next Realignment - Keeping the larger schools open will provide more flexibility.

·         Avoid Closing a “Neighborhood” School - If this is an issue to be considered, the Board needs to define what is a neighborhood school.  When there is a large percentage of walkers, it makes a school more of a neighborhood school. 

·         Maintain Educational Programs for Greatest Time - Keeping the larger schools open will provide more flexibility.

·         Support the Existing I.U. Program - If just one school is closed, the District will be able to continue supporting the existing I.U. Program.

·         Minimize the Number of Students Changing Schools - Closing a larger school will result in a larger percentage of students changing schools. 

·         Minimize Impact on Walkers - Factor when considering neighborhood schools.

·         Provide an Excellent Location for an Alternative School - Due to their proximity to major roads and not being located in the general neighborhood, the Hoover and Tawanka Schools would be good locations.

·         Provide an Excellent Layout for an Alternative School - A two-story building or huge building would not be a good choice for an alternative school.  It is easier to manage and control students in a single floor building than a two-story building and there are no handicap accessible issues.  The biggest issue would be the size of the furniture.  The furniture in all of the elementary schools is basically the same.  The Buck (two-story building), Heckman (two-story building) and Hoover (large size) Schools would not be good locations for an alternative school.

·         Provide an Excellent Location for Partial Rental Income and Excellent Layout for Partial Rental Income - Previously when the Hoover School was leased, the building had three different tenants.  Next year the District will be renting three modular classrooms to the Technical High School.  Possibly the following year the Technical High School may be interested in entering into a more permanent agreement with the District.

·         Minimize Impact of Transportation Costs - Closing a larger school will result in a greater impact on transportation. 

·         Avoid or Defer Renovation Costs - At least in the short term, closing a school will result in avoiding or deferring renovation costs.  The Ferderbar and Miller Schools have recently been renovated.  The renovation costs for the Buck and Heckman Schools would be small compared to the other five elementary schools.  Both are newer buildings. 

·         Generate Expense Savings - The larger facilities will generate a greater savings than closing a smaller school.  However, the range is not great.  The deployment of a facility will have a bigger bearing on the potential financial impact.

·         Generate Revenue - Closing a larger school will allow the District to generate more revenue.  Utilizing a closed school for an alternative school will result in a reduction in expenses.  The revenue generated by an alternative school would be offset by the cost of renovations for the school.  A portion of the facility housing the alternative school could possibly be leased to generate income.  However, the Board may want to place restrictions as to who the facility would be leased to.  Some physical changes would have to be made to the building to isolate the alternative school for the other party/parties leasing the other portion of the building. 

·         Reduce Need for Modulars Over Time - If a smaller school were closed, there would be an opportunity to do something differently with the modulars.  Other uses should be considered for the modulars that are used for regular classroom instruction.  When drawing attendance boundaries modular classroom use should be taken into consideration. 

·         Provide Lower Capacity Usage in Remaining Schools and Provide Adequate Space for Reduced Class Size - In lieu of continued declining enrollment, at least for the next five years, closing a larger school would not be a problem. 

·         Avoid Future Realignment for Greatest Time Period - The smaller schools provide the most flexibility.

Board members having any additional criteria item suggestions should advise the administration.

In response to a question asked by Ms. Drioli, Dr. Bowman explained Title I funds are awarded based on a set criteria.  The District would not lose the funding.  One school may not be eligible but another school would be eligible.  The program may move from one school to another school.

Mr. Stack noted there is not a good geographical distribution of the schools.  Many of the schools are located in Levittown and Lower Southampton.  The only elementary school located in Northern Middletown Township is the Heckman School.  Three modular classrooms located at the Heckman School will be rented next year to the Technical High School. 

Dr. Bowman stated generally the critical questions for discussion list suggests closing a smaller school.  The District has three small schools that are in the same range.  Mr. Stack stated if the Schweitzer School were closed, in three or four years the building could be a possible middle school option.  According to the Pennsylvania Economy League chart, a reduction in the middle school enrollment will occur in 2003 or 2004.  Closing the Schweitzer School will provide an option. 

Mrs. Butville inquired if all of the elementary schools, except the Heckman School, are handicap accessible.  Dr. Bowman stated the Heckman School is the only elementary school that is not handicap accessible. 

Dr. Bowman stated the administration has provided the Board with all the data it needs to make a facility decision.  No one likes closing a school.  It is not a popular thing to do. None of the community members want their school closed.  If the Board had requested another $800,000 be eliminated from the budget, there was not much left other than educational programs.  To guarantee the community quality, maintenance of facilities and educational program equity a school needs to be closed. 

Mr. Stack stated after the criteria review, it appears the Lower Southampton, Schweitzer and Tawanka Elementary Schools are candidates for school closure.  He said the next step would be to pick a school for closure.  He recommended the Board select only one school for closure.  Since the Board has stated it wants to retain the Intermediate Unit Program, it cannot close two schools.  Dr. Frank said another option would be to not close a school.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board the Pennsbury School District has a school with a student enrollment of only 250 students.  The decision has been made not to close the school.  Mr. Stack said the issue is a matter of choices.  He stated he would like funds to be available for renovations in the District and other purchases for the District’s educational programs.  He noted the Board has been debating whether it should replace textbooks.  This is an issue that should not be debated.  The schools need to be operated efficiently so the educational program can be properly provided for. 

Mr. Dengler pointed out the certified contract includes reducing class size, which must be taken into consideration when deciding whether to close one or two schools. Mr. Drioli noted the Board has contractually agreed to reduce class size, and closing a school will not increase class size.

Mr. Stack requested Dr. Bowman review the issue of closing one elementary school versus two elementary schools. 

Mr. Stack reminded the Board if a school is to be closed for September 2002, the Board must decide which school to close by July 31 or August 7 at the very latest.  He recommended the decision be made at the July 31 Board Meeting.  He explained once a school is identified, a public hearing must be held at least 15 days from that time.  The hearing could be held in August.  The Board cannot formally vote on closing the school until three months after the hearing. 

Ms. Drioli stated she only wants to close a school if an alternative school will be opened in the District.  She does not want the District to have a vacant building.  She recommended once a decision is made to close a school, plans be established for the alternative school. 

Mr. Stack explained the next Board Meeting is scheduled for July 31, 7:30 p.m.  If at least seven Board members are able to attend the meeting, the meeting will be held.  Dr. Frank explained she will not be able to attend the July 31 Board Meeting.  Ms. Drioli stated she was not sure she will be able to make a school closing decision by July 31. 

3.   Other Board Business

Mr. Stack requested that all committee preference sheets be returned to him as soon as possible.  An effort is being made to resolve meeting date conflicts with other committees.  Mrs. Butville requested the Educational Development Committee meeting date be changed from the first Tuesday of the month to another day of the month, because it conflicts with the Board Policy Committee meeting day.

4.   Public Comment

There was a two minute time limit per speaker.  Mr. Schieber, Village of Flowers Mill, stated he is in favor of the Board closing schools.  He stated the data indicates there is a 25 percent reduction in enrollment.  Therefore, the Board could close a little more than two schools.

Mr. Spitz, Middletown Township, questioned why the program capacity numbers for individual buildings change in different scenarios.  It was his understanding the program capacity number should remain the same.  Since the Board seems to favor establishing an alternative school, he recommended estimates of the renovation/reconfiguring costs be obtained before it is converted to an alternative school.  He pointed out if five or six years from now the building is needed for regular education classes, the costs of converting back to an elementary school would have to be incurred again.  He urged the Board to obtain estimates for total renovation costs, operating costs and revenue for an alternative school.

Mr. Spitz referred to the chart listing the current percentage of walkers to each elementary school.  He recommended the percentage of walkers after a school is closed be calculated.  He felt the fact that a student walks to school or rides the bus to school does not mean the student is any less attached to the school.  The percent of walkers should not be a major factor in determining which school to close.  He noted the Board has some discretion as to determining walking distance.  He stated a small enrollment does not necessarily correspond to a small building and all the other schools should not be eliminated.

Mr. Jarr, Langhorne, referred to Mr. Spitz’s comments about the difference in the program capacity numbers, and stated the difference is due to the inclusion of the Intermediate Unit classes.  He urged the Board not to swap a permanent classroom for a modular classroom when realigning the District.  He felt the issue of the number of walkers to a school is a low priority issue.  He commended the Board for reviewing facility usage based on program capacity and not on how many students can it squeeze into a building.

Mr. Jarr referred to Mr. Schieber’s comments and pointed out when purchasing a home you know how much the house costs and what the taxes are on the property.  He said he can understand the difficult financial situation of someone who has lived in their home for 35 or 40 years and is now on a fixed income.  He pointed out the Village of Flowers Mill is a new, relatively high priced, age 55 and over housing development and those purchasing the houses know the price of the house and taxes before purchasing it.  He suggested the Middletown Board of Supervisors be contacted about the zoning laws and reconsidering applications for age 55 and over housing developments.  They are not necessarily a plus for the community.  Whatever the School District gains in taxes received versus services given will be given up in a period of years by a voting block that will not support the school system.

Mr. Lindner, Middletown Township, urged the Board to listen to the Superintendent, Dr. Bowman, in regard to any school closings.  He said Dr. Bowman is the leader of the educational community. 

A Village of Flowers Mill resident stated she moved to the Village of Flowers Mill after living in Holland for 23 years.  At the time of the purchase of her home, she was told the taxes would be $4,000.  After moving in, she found out the school tax only was $4,000.  Since her home is at the low end of the price range, Village of Flowers Mill residents’ school tax bills are $4,000 to $7,000.  She said the rest of the community is not paying their fair share of taxes.  She estimated the school taxes paid by Village of Flowers Mill currently equal over $3,000,000 per year.  She felt since her community is paying over $3,000,000 in school taxes and are not sending any children to the School District, there should have been a surplus in the District’s budget.  She explained she purchased her house for $159,000 and it was reassessed at $209,000, which resulted in her taxes being increased.  She said how many people would volunteer to have their homes reassessed to reflect current market value?   She said the Village of  Flowers Mill is the only development in Middletown Township that has a true assessment.

Mrs. Knauth, Neshaminy employee, said it has been a privilege and honor to be a part of the Neshaminy family that Dr. Bowman has created over the years.  She thanked  Dr. Bowman for all of his leadership and all he has done.  She said she is a proud member of the Tawanka School staff.  Even though the Tawanka School has been mentioned in the facility closure issue, not one educational beat was missed.  She reported the computer lab, which was installed in 1993, is used by students in grades kindergarten through five.  The computer lab is used 90 percent of the time as a writing lab.  She said everyone at the Tawanka School understands that closing a school is a difficult decision.  No matter what the Board decides, Neshaminy still is the best school district to be involved in.

Mr. Clark, Levittown, noted the data indicates only one-third of the students in Intermediate Unit classes held in Neshaminy are Neshaminy students.  He questioned the cost efficiency of providing classroom space for Intermediate Unit classes and providing the service for the overall Bucks County community. 

Mr. Clark said when serving on the Board, it was a treat to bring Dr. Bowman in as Superintendent.  He said I know Joan (Dr. Bowman’s wife) is smiling today and you are breathing a sigh of relief.  He said I am sad for this community.  The community will miss Dr. Bowman.  He thanked Dr. Bowman for all his work and support.

Mr. Champine, Neshaminy teacher, stated he was shocked to learn Dr. Bowman was retiring.  He said he has worked for six Superintendents.  Dr. Bowman’s leadership to the School Boards he has served is reflected in the quality of the program at Neshaminy.  Dr. Bowman has extended Joe Ferderbar’s legacy and created one of his own.

5.   Board Comment

Mr. Stack commented that school taxes is a big issue.  The Board has been very active escalating the issue with other legislative bodies in Pennsylvania.  This Thursday, June 28, a meeting with legislators will be held at the Bucks County Community College regarding the tax issue.  He said he will be attending the meeting.  Mr. Stack explained he believes other ways to fund education need to be found. 

Mr. Stack wished Dr. Bowman the very best in his retirement.  He said Neshaminy is losing him, but is not losing him.  Dr. Bowman will be very much involved in the community.

Mrs. Butville moved the meeting be adjourned and Dr. Frank seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with five ayes.  Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol A. Calvello  
Board Secretary