The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on June 5, 2001 in the Board Room of the District Offices, 
Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

*     Arrived at meeting at 9:40 p.m.
**   Left meeting at 9:50 p.m.

Mr. Stack announced prior to the Public Meeting, an Executive Session was held to discuss personnel issues.

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 8:25 p.m.

2.   Flag Salute

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

3.   Announcement

Dr. Bowman announced a letter was received from the National State Teachers of the Year, Pennsylvania Chapter, inviting the Superintendent and a Board member to attend a ceremony and luncheon on October 30 at the Harrisburg Hilton Hotel.  At the ceremony the 2002 Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year will be announced.  Neshaminy teacher Frank Collins is one of the twelve finalists.  Mr. Collins will be attending the ceremony and luncheon.  Copy of the letter was distributed to the Board members.  A Board member needs to be designated to attend the ceremony and luncheon.

4.   Public Comment

      No public comment was presented.

5.   Item for Approval

      Motion:  Student Disciplinary Action

      Mr. Mecleary presented the following motion:

WHEREAS, a disciplinary hearing of the Neshaminy Board of School Directors was held on April 2, 2001 and continued on April 30, 2001 and May 2, 2001.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Neshaminy Board of School Directors hereby finds that the student be expelled from Neshaminy High School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 school year and; that reentry to and continued enrollment in Neshaminy High School be based on the conditions as stipulated in the adjudication.  The Board President is authorized to execute the adjudication as prepared by Thomas J. Profy, IV, Special Counsel for the Board of School Directors.

      Dr. Frank seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with eight ayes.

7.   Items for Approval

      a.  Overnight Trip

Children and Turtles Without Borders Project/Sandburg Middle School to Mata Palo, Costa Rico on October 12-19, 2001

Information distributed prior to meeting. Mr. Reed, technology education teacher, and four Sandburg Middle School students were in attendance.  Dr. Bowman explained a group of Sandburg Middle School students participated in a recent Wheelabrator Symposium.  Mrs. Butville was one of the judges at the symposium.  Wheelabrator has made scholarships available to all Neshaminy students through Fisk University if certain criteria has been met.  All the Sandburg, Neshaminy and Poquessing School students, who participated in the symposium, are eligible for the scholarships upon high school completion.

Dr. Bowman explained students at the Carl Sandburg Middle School have developed a program titled “Children and Turtles Without Borders.”  The Sandburg Middle School students presented their program at a national symposium held in Philadelphia and the Middle Atlantic Symposium.  The students have been invited to Costa Rica to participate in activities which include observing the Leatherback turtles coming to shore to lay their eggs.  Dr. Bowman explained Mr. Reed has reported there is 100 percent parental support for the trip.  The trip cost per pupil will be $1,200 to $1,500.  Various fund raising activities are planned.

Mrs. Butville advised the Board the Sandburg Middle School students made an excellent presentation at the symposium.  She noted many more students than the ten to twelve students who will travel to Costa Rica were involved in different aspects of the program.

Dr. Frank informed the Board the Sandburg Middle School students presented the program at Pennwood Village and everyone was very impressed.  It was an excellent presentation.

Dr. Bowman explained all of the trip plans and arrangements will be reviewed to ensure everything is in order.  He stated he was not aware of any Neshaminy middle school students making this type of trip in the past.  He said Mr. Reed is one of the finest technology teachers in America.  The program and trip are the result of Mr. Reed working with the students.

Mr. Reed advised the Board the parent trip permission slips have been received and all the parents support the trip.  Mrs. Butville noted the following individuals will be chaperoning the trip:

Dr. Bien - Member of the Drexel University teaching staff who has been to Costa Rica several times.

Dr. Reiner - Drexel University professor who has been involved in studying the Leatherback turtle and has expertise in this area.

Ms. Meket - Wheelabrator employee who is fantastic in her work with students.

Mr. Reed advised the Board that Wheelabrator was so impressed with the students’ presentation that the company will match the funds raised by the students.  Dr. Bowman stated he will work with the service clubs to help secure funding for the trip.

In response to a question raised by Mrs. Butville, Mr. Reed explained the project is a two year project and possibly a three year project.  The second year of the project involves bring back research material/information, visiting elementary schools and developing a Web site with a link to  Leatherback.org.  There are plans to update the Web site from Costa Rica.  The program will involve various aspects of the curriculum, Science, Social Studies and English.

There was Board consensus for the trip to Costa Rica.

6.   Items for Discussion

      a.  Enrollment/Facility Report

Report distributed at meeting.

Mr. Stack noted at the May 22 Public Meeting the decision to not close a middle school in the foreseeable future was announced.  He stated all of the Board members have had an opportunity to meet with the administration and take a close look at the facilities and the impact of moving 100 to 400 students into the three existing middle schools.  As an example, he noted there would not be any real issues with moving an additional 100 students into the Maple Point Middle School.  However, an additional 300 to 400 students would require additional renovations and staff.  The following additional rooms would be needed: computer, family living (two rooms), art, music, special education and a room off the gymnasium.  Extensive renovations would be necessary to accommodate an additional 300 to 400 students.  The educational program would not have been enhanced by this effort.  The grade levels would have been expanded from ten sections of 25 students to twelve sections of 30 students.  Mr. Stack noted these are largely the reasons for the Board forgoing closing a middle school at this time.  The middle school population and decision may be different two or three years from now. 

Dr. Bowman stated it was very clear the Board wanted to look at the process and review the possibilities.  Once the Board had the opportunity to carefully study the middle school closing option, it was clear now is not the time to close a middle school for financial reasons.

Mr. Stack explained the Board also reviewed the impact of placing additional students at the Sandburg Middle School.  The Board felt for the same reasons as those in the Maple Point situation, it is not prudent to pursue closing a middle school at this time.

Dr. Bowman made an enrollment/facilities presentation.  See Enrollment/Facilities Update Report, dated June 5, 2001, distributed at the meeting for detailed information.  Dr. Bowman pointed out the following:

·         Report focuses only on elementary schools.

·         Five year elementary projections are based on current attendance boundaries.

·         Only three schools are using modular classrooms for regular classes.

·         Neshaminy provides classroom space for Intermediate Unit classes for 58 students.  Nineteen of the 58 students are Neshaminy students.

·         The Miller School has the largest percentage, 37 percent, of walkers.

·         The oldest school in the District is the Lower Southampton Elementary School, which was built in 1951.

·         The newest school is the Pearl Buck Elementary School, which was built in 1969.

·         The basic planning process was used to calculate the capacity data.  Under this process only regular classrooms are counted at the elementary level.  Twenty-five students are counted per classroom and 50 students per kindergarten classroom.  No numbers are counted for special education, art room and music room.  This equates to 90 percent of the capacity numbers.  This is the method used by the Department of Education to reimburse school districts for planning new facilities.  Example:  As of September 2002, the Everitt School’s capacity is at 92 percent.  The school’s capacity can be increased 8 percent.

·         The data includes 18 modular classrooms at the elementary level.

·         Consideration is being given to renting the modulars located at the Heckman School to the Technical School for the Nursing Program.

·         The largest elementary school chart is not a recommendation to close a specific school.  The District’s largest elementary school is the Hoover School.  It is not a recommendation to close the Hoover School.

·         By taking the Hoover School off line, 28 percent of the elementary students will have to change schools.  Students other than Hoover School students would have to change schools.  The buildings’ capacities would be from a high of 94 percent to a low of 90 percent.

·         Over the next six years, the contract calls for the reduction in class size.

·         The smallest elementary school chart is not a recommendation to close a specific school.  The District’s smallest elementary school in capacity is the Tawanka School.  It is not a recommendation to close the Tawanka School.

·         By taking the Tawanka School off line, 16 percent of the elementary students will have to change schools.  The buildings’ capacities would be from a high of 86 percent to a low of 84 percent. 

·         Closing the largest elementary school would change the boundary lines more dramatically than closing the smallest elementary school. 

·         Neshaminy’s attendance area is 26 square miles. 

·         If the smallest elementary school were closed, the savings would be approximately $837,000. 

·         If the largest elementary school were closed, the savings would be approximately $1,029,000.

·         The savings associated with closing a school is based upon reductions in consumables, gas, electric, telephone and personnel (i.e., custodians, teachers, health aides, nurses, principals, etc.). 

·         Possible alternate uses for the largest school would be a school, life care conversion or office conversion. Estimated rental income is $345,000 per year.  If the school is sold, the estimated selling price is $3,431,250 to $3,814,500. 

·         Possible alternate uses for the smallest school would be a school, life care conversion or demolish the building for residential development.  Estimated rental income is $160,000 per year.  If the school is sold, the estimated selling price is $1,356,00 to $1,582,000.

·         If a school is closed, the District could open an alternative school for students who are not functioning in regular classrooms and need to be placed in an alternative setting.  The alternative school would not include students who have been adjudicated or placed by the courts.  Currently, 52 Neshaminy regular education students are attending alternative schools and 20 students are attending approved private schools or Intermediate Unit placements.  The current cost for these placements is $1,188,160.  It would cost the District approximately $902,000 to set up its own alternative school.  It is estimated the first year the District would break even and the second year the District would realize a savings of approximately $285,000.  Additional seats would be available, which could be made available to other school districts for a fee.  In year two, the special education and approved private school placements could be phased into the facility.  If a school is closed, this would be the most viable alternative.  The District would not only save between $800,000 and $1,000,000 by closing a school, but would also break even the first year by avoiding alternative school costs and gain additional revenue the second year.  The alternative school would be serving Neshaminy students.

In response to a question raised by Mr. Mecleary regarding closing a school and meeting the terms of the contract to reduce class size, Dr. Bowman explained in the future it may be necessary to spot realign some of the school attendance areas.  It will be necessary to project out five years by census grids to determine the enrollment of the buildings and determine the student fit.

Mrs. Butville stated an advantage of closing a District school and utilizing it as an alternative school is the District would not have to bring the building back up to code if it is reopened in the future as a regular school.  Dr. Bowman stated this is a very complicated issue and an architect is researching this issue.  It is generally a safe assumption to make. 

Mr. Wilson explained there would be ten students in alternative school classrooms.  To accommodate an alternative school, half of a small school would be needed.  Dr. Bowman stated half of a small school could be used for an alternative school and the other half of the facility could be leased.  It usually takes approximately one year from the time the property is put on the market until there is a viable tenant. 

In response to a question raised by Mr. Eccles, Dr. Bowman explained the elementary facility presentation pertains to 2002-2003.  He emphasized the administration is not recommending the Hoover School and Tawanka School be closed.  They were examples of closing the largest and smallest schools in the District.

Dr. Bowman stated with the closing of a school at the elementary level, the District can provide the same educational programs, same educational opportunities, same quality of instruction and save $800,000 to $1,000,000.  There will be well over 1,100 fewer elementary students than the District housed in the early 1990s. 

Mr. Stack stated the report indicates that any one of the elementary schools could potentially be a target for possible closure.  Mr. Stack inquired which elementary schools would be a better fit for an alternative school, independent school, leasing to a group, etc.  Dr. Bowman said one of the indicators would be the realtor’s report regarding rental possibilities.  He felt an alternative school would fit anywhere the Board wants to place it.  In regard to an independent school, Dr. Bowman noted the new legislation states the parents and staff of the school are given the authority and funds to run the school.  It would not be a matter of the School District setting up an independent school.  The parents and staff would set up and run the school.  It is a whole new arena, which is very complex.  

Dr. Bowman recommended if the Board is going to close a school, it review the alternative school option.  An alternative school would result in a reduction in costs, save the District money and would serve Neshaminy students.  It would be ideal if the alternative school was centrally located.  Since the District is not that large, it could be located in any of the schools.  Currently, the District transports students to alternative schools much further than any schools in the District.  Having an alternative school located within the District would result in the District saving transportation costs.  Mrs. Butville noted if space is not available locally for alternative school students, the students may have to attend classes in the Palisades or Pennridge School Districts, which is a much greater distance than the distance between one end of the District to the other end of the District.

In response to a question raised by Mr. Eccles, Dr. Bowman explained the alternative school students are mostly secondary students.  The administration can plot where the alternative school students live, and provide the information to the Board. 

Mr. Schoenstadt inquired if the District had additional alternative education slots available, what is the realistic opportunity to encourage other school districts to send their students to Neshaminy’s alternative program.  Dr. Bowman explained school districts are continually looking for slots and Neshaminy’s program would not be as expensive as other placements.  Mr. Schoenstadt felt if the Board were able to project the size of the alternative school, it would be one of the deciding factors as to the size of the school to be closed. 

Mr. Eccles inquired what is the maximum size of an alternative school.  Mr. Wilson stated the maximum size is 200 students, ten students per class.  Mr. Wilson felt the District could easily fill the program. 

Mr. Stack felt there is a greater resistance to school closures where neighborhood schools are affected.  He noted the Heckman Elementary School does not have any walkers.  If the Board where to consider an alternative school from the point of view of the impact on a community, there would probably be less of an impact on the Heckman School community.    Mr. Schoenstadt stated the community that surrounds the school must be taken into consideration also.  Mr. Stack pointed out since there are no children walking to the Heckman School, there would be less of an impact at the Heckman School than the other schools. 

Mrs. Butville inquired if the type of facility, one floor facility or two floor facility, is an issue when considering the appropriate facility for an alternative school.  Mr. Wilson said it should be a one floor school.  He would not recommend utilizing a two story building for an alternative school.  Mrs. Butville noted the Heckman School has two floors. 

Mr. Stack felt is it important to bring a closed building back on line in some capacity.  The opportunity to deal with the cost of alternative education and at the same time generate potential revenue is very enticing.  He inquired if there is another District elementary school in a better position for deployment.  Dr. Bowman stated almost any school that is not a two story building could be utilized for an alternative school.  He noted a private group is running an alternative school in a portion of the Eisenhower building.

Mr. Eccles inquired if the District has entered into any contracts with any of the alternative schools for any length of time, and if the District must send a set number of students to the schools.  Mr. Wilson explained the District must make this commitment yearly.  Shortly, the District will need to make such a commitment for September 2001.  Mr. Wilson explained when the Barn (located on Langhorne-Yardley Road) was opened as an alternative program, the Middletown Township Board of Supervisors requested a letter stating some Neshaminy students would utilize that particular program.  It was not a commitment to a number of slots.  The letter just stated Neshaminy students would utilize the program.  The District has 18 slots at the Barn.  If the District had its own alternative school, Dr. Bowman would probably need to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors stating another school district could use those slots.  The District will have to provide a commitment this month or next month to the alternative schools it utilizes.  The average cost this year for alternative school placements is $85 per day, per student.

Mr. Stack inquired what kind of outside interest there was in District facilities.  Dr. Bowman stated the best way to determine the level of outside interest is to identify the school or schools and turn it over to a realtor.  The realtor would market the building or buildings.  From the time the Board would decide to market a building, it will take approximately one year to secure a tenant.  

Mr. Paradise explained a business realtor has looked at several of the properties.  In the past when the District had an empty building, it had to entered into an agreement with the realtor and then the realtor would market the building.  It took awhile, a year or more, to find a business client.  A realtor would want to enter into a legal agreement with the Board before seeking any clients.  Usually the realtor is paid a percentage which is deducted from the monthly rent.

Mr. Schoenstadt stated it is his understanding the maximum number of students to be placed in a District alternative school would be 200 students.  The District would have 72 placements plus possibly another 10 to 15 Neshaminy placements.  Therefore, outside school districts could send up to 100 students to the alternative school.  He estimated the alternative school would result in $1,000,000 in revenue for the District, which would be reoccurring income. 

Mr. Eccles stated the focus of establishing an alternative school should be to take care of the Neshaminy students first.  He said he does not want to approach the alternative school strictly from a financial point. Mr. Schoenstadt pointed out the alternative school will allow the District to generate $1,000,000 in revenue and reduce the burden on the taxpayers.  Mr. Eccles stated the Board is not here to turn a profit.  It is here to take care of  the students.  He expressed concern that the Board is basing its school closure decision on which school can fit 200 students and closing that school so the District can make $1,000,000. 

Mr. Schoenstadt said the alternative is, how much is the Board going to raise taxes, because it does not want to take advantage of alternatives available to it?  Mr. Stack stated the reality is there are 1,500 less students in the nine elementary schools than the District had nine years ago, and the enrollment will decrease by another 300 students.  He said some people are of the opinion that the District is not ready to close an elementary school.  When will the District be ready to close an elementary school?  What must the elementary enrollment level be to close an elementary school, 1,800 students, 2,000 students, etc.? 

Mr. Eccles said I don’t want to lose sight of what the Board is here for.  I don’t want to turn this into a profit making decision.  To save taxpayers money is one thing.  However, do not make a decision based solely on what the Board can profit by.  Mr. Stack stated no one said the Board is making the decision based solely on profit.  Mrs. Bostwick said the only way the Board can save the taxpayers money is to generate money.  The alternative school is one way to generate money that will ultimately save the taxpayers money. 

Mr. Stack said the Board is providing for a strong educational program for Neshaminy students.  The additional capacity at a facility will allow additional students from other school districts to attend the alternative school and provide revenue.  The students from outside the District will help defray the cost of the program and the students will be able to enjoy the same quality educational program.  Mr. Stack said the issue is do Board members support closing a school for any reason.  At what point should a school be closed, 1,500, 1,800, 2,000 enrollment reduction?  Mr. Stack felt the District is at a point now when a school should be closed and it would be a mistake not to take some action.  It is a question of which facility should be closed.  He said the Board has agreed to a timeline and on August 7 the Board will reach a decision. 

Mr. Eccles expressed concern that the Board is rushing to make a decision.  Mr. Stack stated the Board is not rushing to make a decision.  The public has had opportunities to present their comments and will have additional opportunities to present their comments.  The timeline was agreed to by five Board members.  Five Board members agreed to continue the discussion of the school closure issue.  If the current Board is to make a decision on the school closure issue, it needs to be done by August 7, which is why two additional meetings, June 26 and July 31, have been scheduled.  He said what additional information is needed for the additional two meetings? What will the nature of the discussions need to entail? 

Mrs. Bostwick said the Board needs to read and review the elementary school information distributed earlier in the meeting.  Mr. Stack stated if the Board is not committed to being in a position to make a school closure decision within the time frame, it should curtail reviewing the issue. 

Mr. Eccles questioned the need for the summer meetings.  Mr. Stack felt a decision could be made right now.  However, there is a question in some Board members’ minds as to which is the more suitable facility to be closed.   What will it take for the Board to work through those facilities to come to a decision?  How can the Board evaluate the facilities objectively?  What criteria can be established to review the schools? 

Ms. Drioli arrived at the meeting.

Mr. Eccles noted the Board is not closing a school for the 2001-2002 school year.  He recommended the summer meetings be canceled and the Board continue reviewing the issue in September.  He felt the current Board should not make the school closing decision for something that will take place one to two years into the future. 

Mr. Mecleary pointed out during the primary election, some of the people may have been voted for based on their position on the school closing issue.  He felt the newly elected Board members should help make the decision.  Mr. Stack stated the new Board members will be seated on the Board the first Monday in December.  The first meeting of the new Board will be the January Work Session.  The timeline is such that if the new Board does not identify a school by the first week of February, that Board will not be able to act upon that decision by the end of June and in time to affect that decision the following September.  One or two meetings is not a sufficient amount of time for the newly elected Board members to make that decision.  The current Board members have had the opportunity for the better part of the past year to listen to direct feedback, review and analyze a lot of information.  Mr. Mecleary noted three potential new Board members were in attendance at the meeting and have been listening to all the feedback.  Mr. Mecleary pointed out the Board President can schedule additional meetings, therefore, additional meetings could be scheduled for December and January. 

Ms. Drioli recommended the School Board candidates also receive the enrollment/facility data.  Dr. Bowman explained the School Board candidates will received a copy of the Enrollment/Facility Report. 

Dr. Bowman cautioned the Board to be careful when considering closing a larger elementary school.  The Board needs to feel very comfortable, as class sizes are reduced, students will fit.  Dr. Bowman recommended at the June 26 Public Meeting, he make the same Enrollment/Facility Report presentation to the public so the members of the public can understand the information.  Dr. Bowman said he believes the Board does not need anymore information.  The Board must make a difficult decision. 

Mr. Stack stated the school closing/facility usage issue will be presented and discussed at the June 26 Board Information Meeting.  The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. 

Mr. Mecleary requested since he had to leave the meeting early, agenda item 10 (a) Educational Development Committee Report be the next agenda item.  There was Board consensus for Mr. Mecleary’s request.

Mr. Eccles left the meeting at 9:50 p.m.

10. Committee Reports

      a.  Educational Development Committee

Minutes of May 1, 2001 committee meeting distributed to Board members.  Mr. Boccuti reported a Channel One presentation was made at the committee meeting.  The Channel One Program is presently in existence at the Poquessing Middle School.  The presentation was made by Mr. Sayre, principal; Mr. Stanford, who was principal during the initiation of the program; Mr. Lorence, business education teacher; and Emily Goll, Poquessing Middle School student.  It is the committee’s recommendation that the Channel One Program be implemented in other Neshaminy schools.  Mr. Mecleary pointed out there would be no cost to the District to expand the program.  The company installs all the necessary wiring at no cost to the District. 

Mr. Mecleary reported the committee reviewed the issue of constructing a studio for the advanced video program.  It has been requested that District maintenance and facility personnel be used to construct the studio within one of the existing classrooms.  Constructing the studio involves partitioning off a portion of a classroom, encasing it in glass, installing acoustical materials, etc.  The cost of materials for constructing the studio will be approximately $9,000. 

Ms. Drioli suggested possibly radio stations and television networks would help fund the cost of constructing the studio.  Dr. Bowman stated $9,000 will be designated in the capital improvements account for the studio construction cost and corporate sources will be solicited for possible funding.  Dr. Bowman pointed out that Mr. Minotti, Director of Facilities and Engineering, plans months in advance for projects done by District employees.  In order to complete the studio project by September, some other projects will have to be delayed or the studio project will be completed later in the school year. 

Mr. Mecleary left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.

7.   Items for Approval (cont.)

      b.  Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Traditionally, this is an item presented for approval every year at the June Public Meeting.  The Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note will be an agenda item at the June 12 Public Meeting. 

      c.  Approval of Year End Budget Transfers

Traditionally, this is an item presented for approval every year at the June Public Meeting.  The approval of year end budget transfers will be an agenda item at the June 12 Public Meeting.

      d.  Approval of Bids

Mr. Paradise reviewed the following bids:

Bid No. 01-27 - Computer Stations (ZAP ME)

Amount:  $31,502.50

This purchase will help provide a full classroom of computers in all five secondary school libraries.  Each station will consist of 15 computers, 15 monitors, one printer, one server, one satellite dish and related cables.  Cost per computer averages $300.

Bid No. 02-09 - Transportation Parts Supplies

Amount:  $102,223.67

The bid is for various supplies for the maintenance of District vehicles.  Quantities actually purchased may vary from the estimate, but will not exceed total recommended for award.  This allows the District to obtain the best price for the supplies.

Bid No. 02-12 - Electrical Supplies

Amount:  $15,357.77

The bid is for various supplies for electrical maintenance for use District wide for the 2001-2002 school year.  This allows the District to obtain the best price for supplies.

Bid No. 02-10 - School Agendas

Amount:  $27,515.30

The bid is for the purchase of agendas, teacher planners, lesson plans and record charts for all secondary schools.  For the first time the District is combining purchases made by five separate schools into one large bid to obtain the best price.

Removal of Asbestos Floor Tile at Lower Southampton Elementary School

Bid will not be available for review until Tuesday, June 12. 

      e.  Approval of Budgetary Increase for Federal and Other Programs for 2000-2001

Traditionally, this is an item presented for approval every year at the June Public Meeting.  The approval of  budgetary increase for federal and other programs will be an agenda item at the June 12 Public Meeting.

      f.  Facilities Application Fee Increase

Mr. Paradise advised the Board currently all non-profit organizations pay a $50 application fee for use of District facilities whether it is for six weeks, six months or ten months.  The $50 fee does not come close to approaching the District’s scheduling costs.  Mr. Paradise recommended the application fee for non-profit organizations be increased from $50 to $100. The fee increase would result in a revenue increase of approximately $10,000.  A Board motion would be required to increase the fee. 

Mr. Paradise explained the application fees charged by other school districts vary.  A number of the fees are usage sensitive.  In the past, the Board has agreed to not make the fee usage sensitive.  A loss of participation due to the fee increase is not anticipated.  If an organization said they could not afford the increase, the situation would be reviewed on a one-to-one basis.

Mr. Stack expressed concern with the frequency with which the facility fees have been increased.  Mr. Paradise explained previously the fees have only been increased for profit organizations and not non-profit organizations. 

There was Board consensus to include the facility usage fee increase as an agenda item for the June 12 Public Meeting.

      g.  Senior Citizens Rebate Program

Mr. Paradise explained the most significant difference between the state and District’s senior citizen tax assistance program is that last year the state agreed to only include 50 percent of a person’s Social Security.  The District’s program was not changed to reflect the state’s change in reporting Social Security.  One of the reasons for not making the change last year was that the administration had no way of predicting the cost of the change.  Since the change has been in effect at the state level one year, it can now be determined the number of applicants for the state program increased 48 percent.  Currently, the District allocates $60,000 per year for the program.  If the change is made to require only 50 percent of a person’s Social Security be reported, the

District’s cost will increase from $60,000 to $88,800. At the state level, even though the number of applicants increased 48 percent, the rebate increased 83 percent.  If the District’s rebate increases by 83 percent, it will equal $110,000 or a $50,000 increase. Since instituting the program, the District has paid back to senior citizens over $1,000,000.

Mr. Paradise recommended the District match totally the state program and reduce the income maximum to $14,999 versus $15,999, which is the District’s current income maximum.  Reducing the income maximum will only affect a minimal number of people.  If the two changes are made, the District’s program will mirror the state’s program for homeowners only.  The District’s program does not include renters.

Mr. Paradise pointed out if the changes are made to the District’s senior citizen tax assistance program, $50,000 will have to be added to the budget expenditure, which is equal to approximately one-third of a mill. 

There was Board consensus to have the District’s senior citizen tax assistance program mirror the state’s program for homeowners, not renters, and be included as an agenda item at the June 12 Public Meeting.

      h.  Adoption of Budget for 2001-2002

Summary of additional budget changes since proposed budget document information sheets and unreserved fund balance analysis distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board on June 12 the 2001-2002 budget will be presented for approval.  The preliminary budget, which was distributed at the May 22 Public Meeting, called for a 30.4 mill increase.  Since May 22 the administration has reviewed the budget further and made additional expenditure reductions and revenue adjustments.  The required millage increase has been reduced to 21.95 mills, which represents an annual increase of $145 or $12 a month on a home with the average assessment of $6,600.  The expenditures have been increased 3.69 percent.  All the accounts, excluding salary and benefit accounts, have increased only $25,000.  Significant reductions have been made in the budget.  The administration will continue to review the fund balance and monitor revenue and expenditures. 

Ms. Drioli stated if the Technical School budget had not been approved, the administrators would have been compelled to make budget reductions.  She felt the Technical School budget is somewhat inflated.  No reductions were made in the budget from the time it failed to pass when first presented to when it was presented a second time for approval.  The participating school districts nickel and dime their budgets to reduce expenditures as much as possible and yet the Technical School is not held to the same standard. She noted part of the Technical School budget is included in Neshaminy’s budget.  She said she will bring this up at the next Technical School Board Meeting.  Mr. Dengler indicated he concurred with Ms. Drioli.  He said the Technical School budget needs to be reviewed more closely. 

Mr. Paradise pointed out the proposed budget document reflected a 30.4 mill increase.  However, due to the increase in the insurance for retirement, the millage increase was actually 33.3 mills.  The changes in the retirement account added another $532,000 to the budget.  After 147 additional expenditure cuts, the millage increase has been reduced to 21.95 mills.  Mr. Paradise pointed out item no. 9, reduction of interest income, of the summary of additional budget changes since proposed budget document information sheets is a revenue reduction. The reduction is necessary as a result of the additional Federal Reserve rate cut.  This has dramatically altered the District’s ability to raise revenue from temporary investments.  The District probably will receive one of the lowest investment rates it has had in a long time. 

Mr. Paradise advised the Board the budget includes the use of an additional $750,000 of the fund balance.  The preliminary budget recommended the use of $2,500,000 of  the fund balance.  Due to updated data, the figure can be increased to $3,250,000.  However, this will result in leaving a balance forward of only $2,082,000.  At this point, these are preliminary and conservative estimates.  The trend has been a declining fund balance.  To balance the current year’s budget, $4,200,000 of the fund balance was used and $3,250,000 will be used to balance the 2001-2002 budget. 

In response to Mr. Schoenstadt’s question about the fund balance, Mr. Paradise explained the fund balance is the District’s net worth at the end of the fiscal year.  Dr. Bowman explained the fund balance is not a part of the written budget.  It is funds set aside that can be used to draw upon to balance the budget.  As the Board draws upon the fund balance, it is replaced by unanticipated revenue or expenditures that the District does not make.  At the end of the year, the District’s books will be audited and the auditors will provide a new fund balance.  It could be $3,000,000.  As the fund balance is drawn upon to balance the budget, the Board runs the risk of  not being able to replace all of the money on a year-to-year basis. 

Mr. Schoenstadt said the fund balance is money the taxpayers have already paid to the School District.  If the fund balance is used to reduce the amount of taxes the District collects this year, it is actually going to keep the Board from having to go back to tap the same pockets again.  Dr. Bowman said the rule of thumb is to use half of the fund balance to balance the budget.  He provided the following example:  If the fund balance is $5,000,000, use $2,500,000 (half of the fund balance) to balance the budget.  If there is no fund balance the following year, the other $2,500,000 could be used to fund that budget.  If all of the fund balance is used and it is not replaced at the end of the year, a large tax increase will be necessary the following year.

Mr. Schoenstadt stated if the need for revenue is anticipated and there is a long term plan that generates revenue, the District would be putting back from another source what it would have had to put back from the tax collection.  Mr. Paradise stated the fund balance is being reduced.  However, the fund balance should not be too low.  The District does not start to collect any significant amount of its revenue until the end of August.  The School District still operates in July and August.  The fund balance is needed to live off of for a couple of months.  The teachers have agreed to be paid over 26 pay periods, but the District must pay them off in June. 

Mr. Stack suggested the following budget items be reviewed further:

Plant Maintenance Increase of $582,000 (page 59) - Mr. Paradise explained this account includes salaries, benefits and fuel oil costs.

Employee Benefits - Group Insurance Increase (page 93) - Dr. Bowman explained the increase listed is the actual increase for next year.  In this particular case, it represents all regular instruction employees.  The account reflects the opt-out savings.  Mr. Jones reported Personal Choice increased 12 percent. 

Charter School Expense Increase

Textbooks - Opportunity to possibly defer some of the textbook cost to a future budget year.  Obtain the textbooks for next year and ascertain if billing can be deferred a year.  

Alternative Education - Possibly reduce cost by dealing with situation in another way in the future.

Guidance Counselor Increase at Secondary Level (page 125) -  Dr. Bowman explained there has been no change in the number of guidance counselor positions.  The salaries are contractual.  Some of the guidance counselors could be going through the part of the salary schedule where there is the “big bump”. 

The Cabinet/Director Account Under Instructional Support Services (page 129) - Reflects a significant increase. 

Teaching Supplies (page 135) - Reflects a significant increase.

Secretaries, High School (page 137) - Reflects a large increase.

Property Services, Repave Roadways and Parking Lot at Maple Point (page 162 - This could possibly be addressed under a future bond issue.   Mr. Paradise explained the paving needs to be done.  The longer the project is delayed, the more expensive it will be to do the work.  It is cost effective to do the entire project at once rather than only doing a portion of the project.  Once the equipment is brought to the site, it is cost effective to do the entire project.

Mr. Paradise said he would not recommend including the paving project as a part of a bond issue, because it is a normal maintenance item.  It is not something the Board would want to pay for over 20 to 30 years.  The Board is approving the budget now and the major projects are being bid for next spring.

Buses (page 171) - Are there any options other than purchasing five additional buses?  Mr. Paradise explained the District had always replaced buses on a ten year rotation cycle.  Several years ago, the decision was made to replace the buses on an 11 year rotation cycle.  If the rotation cycle were changed to 12 years, a bus would not actually be replaced until it is 13 years old and has a mileage of over 200,000 miles.  In buses there are tremendous safety and technology improvements in 10 to 12 years.  There are safety concerns related to transporting students on a 13 year old bus.  The current bus bids are very similar to the bus bids of previous years. The budget includes the purchase of only six buses.  The District started leasing buses a number of years ago to save money, therefore, the District leases a number of buses. There are advantages and disadvantages to leasing buses.

Information Technology Manager (page 173) - Item does not reflect the agreed upon adjustment. 

Technology - Some adjustments have been made to the technology budget.  Mr. Paradise stated the technology budget is being reviewed for further reductions.  Mr. Stack pointed out Neshaminy is not spending a fraction of what the neighboring school districts are spending on technology.  Mr. Schoenstadt referred to an article which stated the biggest problem in Pennsylvania is the lack of certified staff being properly trained on how to use equipment already in the schools.  Ms. Drioli stated the Intermediate Unit offers an excellent training program.  Mr. Stack  noted the District has taken some steps to train the staff.  Mr. Stack pointed out the issue of replacing the elementary schools’ computer labs or providing Internet access in the classrooms has not been addressed or factored into the budget.  Neshaminy is not expanding its technology horizons. 

Dr. Bowman stated technology is a very difficult money issue.  He pointed out Neshaminy was one of the first school districts to have e-mail throughout the District.  Some of the other school districts have floated large bonds to fund technology, which is something Neshaminy has not done.  The elementary computer labs are an issue.  Previously, the District used a short term loan to deal with the elementary computer lab issue. 

Ms. Drioli suggested the Board consider establishing a full-time grant writer position to help the District secure funding.  Mr. Dengler explained he has discussed the issue with Dr. Costanzo and she advised him Neshaminy is considered to be an affluent school district.  Most of the grants now are for the poor school districts. 

Replacement of Roof Top HVAC Units at Maple Point School (page 203) - Issue could be addressed as a part of a bond issue rather than be funded out of the general fund. 

Maple Point School Stage Floor - Mr. Minotti explained the stage floor is being resurfaced.  The estimated cost is $6,000.

Mrs. Butville referred to the budget item for athletic uniforms (page 189).  She said it was her understanding the uniforms are used for three years at the high school and then are passed down to the middle schools.  She suggested consideration be given to using the uniforms at the high school an additional year or two before being replaced.  Dr. Bowman stated the administration will look into Mrs. Butville’s suggestion. 

Mr. Stack estimated $250,000 of budget expenditures could be deferred and be included in a bond issue next year.  Mr. Stack stated he will not support a budget that exceeds a 15 mill increase.  He felt to stay current a 15 mill increase will be necessary every year.  With the significant tax increase of last year, the Board needs to get back to a more moderating number.  Mrs. Butville stated she would not support a millage increase of more than 15 mills.  Ms. Drioli indicated she favored a 15 mill increase. 

Dr. Bowman inquired what educational programs and services should be reduced to reach 15 mills.  Mrs. Bostwick stated she favored a reduction in staff.  Dr. Bowman stated a reduction in staff equates to programs and services.  Mrs. Bostwick stated the whole spectrum of the School District needs to be reviewed for reductions. 

Dr. Bowman pointed out the budget reflects expenditure increases of 3.6 percent.  All budget accounts other than salary and fringe benefits have increased only $25,000 over last year.  Eventually in the budget process, a point is reached where some very difficult decisions need to be made.  This is why the question was asked as to which program and services the Board wants to reduce.  He noted the Schweitzer School principal position will continue to be filled next year as it has been this year, which will result in saving the cost of a special education supervisor,  approximately $100,000.  If there are seven to ten retirements, there will be an additional budget savings.  To reduce the budget increase to 15 mills, would require reducing the millage by 7 mills or a budget reduction of approximately $1,200,000. 

Mr. Stack suggested some of the larger budget items be deferred for a year or be included in a future bond issue.  Mr. Paradise recommended the Board not float a bond issue for a relatively small amount of money, a couple of million dollars, because the cost to borrow money is very high.  If a facility is going to be renovated, it would be a good time to add on other various expenses.  An analysis would have to be conducted to determine if this is a good time to float a bond issue.

Dr. Bowman stated the administration will review the budget further and see how close it can come to 15 mills.  Factors that will be taken into consideration are retirements, principal position, fund balance, etc.  Mr. Paradise stated currently $3,250,000 is budgeted to be used to balance the budget, which leaves a fund balance of slightly over $2,000,000.   Mr. Paradise and Dr. Bowman stated they would feel uncomfortable using anymore of the fund balance.

Mr. Stack noted the District is receiving additional state funding and the District’s contribution to the Technical School was reduced.  He suggested the co-curricular programs that are underutilized be reviewed. 

Dr. Bowman stated the administration will review the budget further and try to achieve the 15 mill goal.  Any new programs will be reviewed.  The Reading Program will be reviewed for possible deferment. 

In response to Ms. Drioli’s question about cyber schools, Dr. Bowman explained if a Neshaminy student participates in a cyber school located in another school district, Neshaminy will have to pay the tuition fee. 

The budget will be presented for approval at the June 12 Public Meeting.

8.   Items for Information

      a.  E-Board Meetings and Open Meeting Laws

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman encouraged the Board members to read the article distributed so they can be cognizant of the issues related to e-mail.  Mr. Stack recommended the solicitor be asked to research how the laws are affected in the state of Pennsylvania. 

9.   Superintendent’s Report

      Dr. Bowman advised the Board members if they need graduation tickets to see him.

10. Committee Reports (cont.)

      a.  Educational Development Committee

           Report presented earlier in the meeting.

      b.  Educational Foundation

Mr. Dengler reported the Foundation is working on the wall of honor, which will be located outside of the high school auditorium.  The plaque has been designed and the first plaque has been purchased.

      c.  Finance Committee

           No report presented.

     d.  Intermediate Unit Board

          No report presented.

      e.  Board Policies Committee

Mrs. Butville reported the committee is working on the attendance policy.  Possibly the policy will be presented to the Board for approval at the June 12 Public Meeting. The committee would like the policy to be in effect September 2001.

      f.  Technical School Board

           No report presented.

      g.  Technology Committee

No report presented.

11. Future Topics

      No future topics were discussed.

12. Agenda Development for the June 12, 2001 Public Meeting

After a brief discussion, it was determined a brief Work Session will be held on the budget at 8:00 p.m. prior to the Public Meeting. 

13. Correspondence

Mr. Stack reported a letter was received from the Bucks County Courier Times pertaining to the June 28 Property Tax Reform Meeting, which will be held at the Bucks County Community College.  The letter invites the Board to send one representative to the meeting to represent the Board.  Mr. Stack stated he would be interested in representing the Board and providing testimony at the meeting.  There was Board consensus for Mr. Stack to represent the Board at the meeting.

Mrs. Butville noted Representative Wright’s newsletter included inaccurate tax information.  The issue has been discussed with Anne Donovan and she is planning to attend the meeting and present the correct information. 

14. Other Board Business

Dr. Bowman advised the Board the first Technical High School graduation will be held Tuesday, June 12, 7:00 p.m., at Neshaminy High School.  Since both the graduation and Board Meeting are the same night, Dr. Bowman suggested the location of the Board Meeting be changed to Neshaminy High School.  This will allow Board members to attend both the graduation ceremony and Board Meeting.  There was Board consensus to change the meeting location to Neshaminy High School.

Dr. Bowman reminded the Board members that Neshaminy High School’s graduation ceremony is Wednesday, June 13. 

Dr. Bowman stated the two summer meetings, June 26 and July 31, will be advertised.  At the June 26 meeting, Dr. Bowman will present the same enrollment/facility presentation that was made earlier at the June 5 meeting.  The Board will also discuss the criteria for making a school closing decision at the June 26 meeting.

Mrs. Bostwick moved the meeting be adjourned and Mr. Dengler seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with six ayes.  Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol A. Calvello
Board Secretary