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

The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met on March 14, 2000 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

BOARD MEMBERS:                                                          ADMINISTRATORS:

Mr. Edward Stack, President                                            Dr. Gary Bowman
Mr. Harry Dengler, Jr., Vice President                               Ms. Kathleen Haggerty
Mrs. June Bostwick*                                                       Mr. Harry Jones
Mrs. Yvonne Butville                                                        Mr. Joseph Paradise
Ms. Carol Drioli                                                               Mr. Bruce Wyatt
Mr. Richard Eccles                                                    
Dr. Ruth Frank                                                                      SOLICITOR:

Mr. Steven Schoenstadt                                                          Robert R. Fleck, Esq.**

BOARD MEMBER NOT PRESENT:                     OTHERS:  Approximately ten persons from
                                                                        the public, staff and press
George Mecleary, Jr., Esq.                                 

SECRETARY:  Mrs. Carol Calvello                 

 *   Left meeting at 10:50 p.m.

** Left meeting early

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m.

2.   Pledge of Allegiance

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

3.   Announcements

Mr. Stack moved the agenda be amended to include the sale of property to the First Baptist Church of Langhorne as the first item for discussion (item 4a) and Mr. Schoenstadt seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with eight ayes.

Dr. Bowman announced Mr. Marotto is recuperating from surgery.  He appreciates everyone�s thoughts and get well wishes.

Mr. Stack requested due to the length of the agenda, presentations be limited to 10 to 15 minutes and discussions be limited to 10 to 15 minutes.

4.   Items for Discussion

      a.  Sale of Property to First Baptist Church of Langhorne

Mr. Fleck reminded the Board that the Board authorized obtaining an appraisal of the property, and the property has been appraised at $8,000.  Under Section 7707 of the School Code, sale of the property will require a two-thirds vote of the Board at a Public Meeting.

Mr. Fleck advised the Board that he has received a fax from Mr. Marte, First Baptist Church of Langhorne�s attorney, requesting the sale be handled as quickly as possible.  The church wishes to submit their land development agreements to Borough Council to proceed with the addition to the building.  The church has received approval of the zoning variance and approval as a 501C3 corporation (non-profit corporation).

There was Board consensus to include the sale of the property to the First Baptist Church of Langhorne on the agenda of the March Public Meeting.

      b.  Hulmeville Soccer Club Parking Addition at Hoover School

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Mr. Paradise advised the Board the Hulmeville Soccer Club has agreed to maintain the parking lot addition and deal with a lot of the issues that the administration had expressed concerns about.  In response to the concern regarding the hiring of an engineering firm, the Hulmeville Soccer Club feels they have already done this.  An engineering firm developed their plans.  The Hulmeville Soccer Club is willing to share the report and review the report findings with the Board and administration.

Mr. Paradise explained the Hulmeville Soccer Club will circulate a notice advising the neighbors in the area of the parking lot proposal and provide the neighbors with a method to provide feedback on the issue.  It is anticipated the feedback will be positive.

Ms. Drioli questioned what the following sentence in Mr. McCaffery�s letter means:  �We are willing to do as needed maintenance of the parking lot to keep it clean and safe for the citizenry.�  Mr. Paradise explained the administration had asked the Hulmeville Soccer Club if they would take care of the normal maintenance of the parking lot, i.e., snow plowing, cleaning, painting lines, etc.  Mr. Paradise stated the organization is giving the parking lot, as a gift, to the School District.  The administration is trying, within reason, to obtain some assurances as to what the organization will do on a day-to-day basis.  The administration is not going to arm twist the Hulmeville Soccer Club to put things in writing.  The Hulmeville Soccer Club has agreed to paint the lines and do regular maintenance of the property.  The club is willing to do �as needed� maintenance to the property.  Dr. Bowman stated a letter could be returned to the organization regarding the maintenance issue stating �such as� and listing the maintenance items.

In response to a question raised by Mr. Stack, Mr. Fleck noted the plans attached to the letter are not certified by an engineer nor have an engineer�s stamp on them.  Mr. Fleck stated the plans were probably drawn up by Pickering, Courts and Summerson.  He questioned whether the traffic patterns are safe.

Mr. Stack said he wants to make sure the neighbors� feedback is collected and the Board is provided with the feedback information.  Mr. Paradise stated he will send a letter to the Hulmeville Soccer Club inquiring about their public input process and request the Board be advised of the neighbors� feedback.

Mr. Fleck stated it is his understanding that the proposal will not be approved until the Board reviews the public input on the issue.  Mr. Schoenstadt inquired why approval of the project will be delayed until the public input is reviewed by the Board.  Mr. Stack explained over the years, residents have expressed concerns about the lights, use of the fields, parking situation, etc.  It is believed the proposal will address the situation in a positive way.  He noted grass will be replaced with blacktop.  Some of the residents may feel environmentally this may not be the appropriate thing to do.  Mr. Stack pointed out it is important for the residents to feel they are involved in the decision, because it will affect them directly. 

Mr. Stack stated it is necessary to confirm that an engineering study has been conducted.  Some assurance that the proposal meets all the necessary requirements is needed from the township.

Mr. Paradise will write to the Hulmeville Soccer Club inquiring about their public input process and request the Board be advised of the public input.  The administration will ascertain from the township some assurance that the proposal meets all of the necessary requirements.  The Board will review the issue for approval after reviewing the public input information.

      c.  Lower Southampton Parking Addition

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Mr. Paradise advised the Board that Lower Southampton Township has requested permission to add a parking area along Woodbine Avenue, which is adjacent to the Lower Southampton Elementary School, to alleviate problems of parking when the little league and adult softball areas are in use.  The township has provided the District with several options and the administration chose option number three. There would be no cost to the District. It will be a stone parking area.  If the parking area alleviates some of the concerns, at some point in the future the township may consider paving the area.

Mr. Stack stated the township needs to make the Board aware of the community’s input on the proposal.  Mr. Schoenstadt recommended one of the conditions of the proposal’s approval be that a public hearing be conducted and any significant concerns of the residents be addressed.  There was Board consensus for Mr. Schoenstadt’s recommendation.

After further discussion, it was determined Mr. Paradise will write Lower Southampton Township a letter outlining the Board’s public input conditions for approval of the proposal.  The Board will consider approval of the proposal after the public input conditions have been met.

      d.  Middletown Township Daytime Curfew Ordinance

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board all the municipalities and school districts attended a March 2 “State of the Program” meeting.  Since the meeting, Bristol Borough has approved a daytime curfew.  Most of the municipalities have approved a daytime curfew ordinance.  Middletown Township is one of the few townships that has not approved a daytime curfew ordinance. 

Dr. Bowman stated a daytime curfew does make a difference.  In those areas that have enacted the curfew, it has increased attendance by 4 to 6 percent, there have been 49 citations and 89 students returned to school.  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the information distributed prior to the meeting.  In the communities where the curfew is in force, there have not been any problems, it has been welcomed and home schooled students are not an issue.  The curfew is based on the belief that students should be off the streets during the day and in school.  It is a federally funded program.  Under the program, in addition to returning students to school, it also puts policemen and vehicles on the streets during the day that would not normally be there.  Dr. Bowman noted in 1998-99, 179 Neshaminy High School students had 35 or more days of absence.  He pointed out the Status Report on Youth Curfews in America’s Cities (part of information distributed to Board members) includes a 347 city survey. 

Dr. Bowman stated the daytime curfew is one of the tools that is a part of a safe school effort by the school district and the entire community.  He noted Middletown Township has not adopted a daytime curfew ordinance.  Dr. Bowman has sent Middletown Township a letter indicating as Superintendent of Schools he supports a daytime curfew in the Neshaminy School District.  Middletown Township would like to know the Board’s position on the daytime curfew issue.  He urged the Board to advise the Middletown Township Board of Supervisors of their position on the daytime curfew issue so the Board of Supervisors can consider this information as they deliberate and make a decision for the township.  The School Board cannot pass the ordinance. 

Dr. Frank stated she is in favor of a daytime curfew.  She pointed out during the day, there are children unattached to anyone running around the inside and outside of the Oxford Valley Mall.  These students should be in school.  Mr. Eccles pointed out as surrounding municipalities pass the daytime curfew ordinance, students from those municipalities may be hanging out at the Oxford Valley Mall, because Middletown Township does not have such an ordinance.  Therefore, all the unattended students at the Oxford Valley Mall during the day may not all be Neshaminy students. 

Mrs. Bostwick felt the Board should consider the fact that there are constitutional issues, especially due process, involved with the daytime curfew ordinance.  Individuals will be creating a crime by being a certain age.  The ordinance singles out a small group of people.  It makes them criminals until they can prove themselves innocent.  She felt it was an unconstitutional movement.  Dr. Frank pointed out the Pennsylvania School Law states students must be in school.  The ordinance is needed to enforce the law.  Mrs. Bostwick stated the truancy officer has the right to go and get the children and serve them.

Dr. Bowman explained the District has one home and school visitor (truancy officer) who works with students at risk, dysfunctional families, etc. and is overwhelmed with these issues.  There is a Pennsylvania School Law that states students belong in school.  The ordinance will allow the police officers to stop students, tell them they belong in school and return the students to school.  The students might be given a citation.  No fines are involved until there have been multiple offenses.  Mr. Eccles explained currently a police officer can only stop a student if there is probable cause. 

Mrs. Bostwick felt the constitutional right to move free within the society will be circumvented by the ordinance.  Mr. Eccles stated the students are required to be in school.  The township police officers cannot stop someone unless there is an ordinance stating they can.  If there is not a ordinance in place and they stop someone, then they would be violating the individual’s constitutional right.  The curfew ordinance would allow police officers to stop students who should be in school.  Dr. Bowman explained the Pennsylvania School Code law for mandatory attendance is the District’s particular problem.  The School District does not have the funds to hire eight people to serve as truancy officers.  The municipalities are not authorized to enforce the Pennsylvania School Code law.  The ordinance will provide the township with the authority to pick up students and return them to school.  Mrs. Bostwick stated under the ordinance, a judgment will be made based on age or a look.  The individuals will have to prove themselves innocent, because they are considered criminals.

Mr. Schoenstadt explained initially he was concerned about infringement of the civil rights of individuals and discussed the issue with the American Civil Liberties Union.  One of the concerns is already addressed in the School Code, mandatory attendance.  However, there is no real enforcement agency, because nothing mandates or provides funding for the school districts to act as the policing agents.  There is no likelihood that the state legislature will address the issue.  Therefore, it becomes a local issue that must be addressed township by township. 

Mr. Schoenstadt stated if there is a requirement to be in school, students are actively, intentionally violating the law by not being in school when required.  By their choice and decision not to attend school, the students place themselves in the position where the criminality issue becomes a concern.  Mr. Schoenstadt said he supports the daytime curfew ordinance.  Mr. Dengler indicated that he also supports the daytime curfew ordinance. 

Mr. Stack inquired if there would be any financial consequences to the ordinance. He indicated he does not support having to contribute funds to the process. Mrs. Butville asked if grant funds are no longer available, who will fund the program.  Mr. Eccles stated the ordinance will help the township, because student attendance will increase (4 to 6 percent) and there will be less crime.  He felt funding for the program is not the District’s concern. 

In response to Mr. Stack’s question regarding improved attendance in the District due to such an ordinance, Ms. Drioli noted Lower Southampton Township has a daytime curfew.  Attendance at the Lower Southampton schools could be reviewed to determine if there has been a change in attendance.

Mr. Stack noted if student attendance increases as a result of the ordinance, it  will not result in any additional state subsidy funds.  There will not be a positive financial implication nor will there be a negative one, because the District will not be obligated to pay for the services required.  The possible discontinuation of the grant funds in future years is not the District’s issue.  It is the township’s issue. 

There was Board consensus to support a daytime curfew ordinance and convey the Board’s position to the Middletown Township Board of Supervisors.  Mrs. Bostwick indicated she was opposed to the ordinance.  Dr. Bowman will send a letter to the Middletown Township Board of Supervisors indicating at a Work Session the majority of Board members indicated support of a daytime curfew in the Neshaminy School District.

      e.  Preliminary Budget Information

Information distributed at the meeting (preliminary expenditure totals by major account as of March 10, 2000, draft spreadsheet-significant changes, revenues information sheet, unreserved fund balance analysis, ten year fund balance history and note page).  Dr. Bowman assured the Board there will be a sizable sum of money reduced from the expenditure side of the budget in the next month.  The expenditures will probably be reduced over $1,000,000.  The final budget draft will be distributed to the Board members in April.  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the preliminary expenditure totals by major account as of March 10, 2000 spread sheet.  He noted the salaries listed are as per negotiated contracts.  Currently, the spread sheet reflects a $7,761,390 or 7.01 percent increase. 

Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the draft spread sheet-significant changes information sheet and pointed out the following:

·         Salaries, per collective bargaining agreements, will increase 3.5 percent or $2,407,000.

·         An enormous increase in employee health insurance is projected.  It is believed it will increase 17 percent or $1,676,000.  The number is an experience driven number.  This expenditure will be reviewed for possible reduction.

·         The Technical School payment increase, $1,932,000 or 128 percent, is based on the initial budget projection.  This is not net of any reductions the District will experience. 

·         Approximately three years ago the District’s debt was refinanced.  The Board chose the option to take the savings over the first three years.  The year 2000-2001 is year four.  Therefore, in 2000-2001 the debt service returns to the level at which it was previously.  The debt service will increase $498,000 or 29 percent.

·         The increase in fuel oil is projected to be $107,000 or 102.5 percent and the increase in diesel fuel is projected to be $89,300 or 91 percent.  These two areas are being competitively bid with the county.  The current budget figures are projected numbers, but the fuel expenditures will be dramatically higher than this year.

·         If all of the huge items are negated, with the exception of the salaries, the budget increase is only slightly over 3 percent.  This is indicative of a budget that is not having dramatic pressure on its expenditures with the exception of a few minor, specific items.

Dr. Bowman pointed out due to changing to the comprehensive technical school program, the  Technical School payment reflects a large increase.  Since several hundred Neshaminy students will be attending the Technical School full time, fewer high school teachers will probably be required.  The enrollment information will not be available until late April.  This offset is not included in the preliminary budget information.  Ten fewer teachers could result in a $500,000 offset. 

Mr. Schoenstadt stated the District’s Technical School contribution cost average per student is $8,500, which is $1,000 more than the current cost of education per student within the District.  He felt this was difficult to justify and suggested there be some very sharp budget examination in this area.  Dr. Bowman explained there are one-time costs that they must expend to open the comprehensive technical school.  The Technical School Budget Committee met on March 11.  Dr. Bowman stated he suspects the Technical School budget will be decreased. 

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about the 83 percent increase projected for the property account (account 700), Mr. Paradise explained this account includes all forms of capital outlay.  It includes any purchase of capital equipment, replacement of capital equipment and any major requests for repairs to major facilities.  This account includes a lot of facility items.  This is one of the areas that will be reviewed over the next month for possible reductions. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that today, March 14, he issued a memorandum to all administrators that there is a budget freeze.  No non-essential items will be approved. 

Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the revenues information sheet and pointed out the following:

·         The District is experiencing some limited growth in real estate taxes, approximately $700,000.

·         The state has reduced the Public Utility Realty Tax (PURTA) payment, which will result in a reduction of approximately $480,000 or 62 percent. 

·         There will be a $800,000 or 54 percent reduction in the retirement system subsidies.  The revenue reduction will be offset with an expenditure reduction for the retirement account. 

Dr. Bowman reviewed the unreserved fund balance analysis information sheet and noted the projected fund balance available for the 2000-2001 budget is $4,236,768.  He pointed out the difficulty in the budget is increased expenditures, revenue continuing at the same pace and a lower fund balance amount than last year.  To balance the budget it will be necessary replace the fund balance with the same amount of last year’s fund balance, which will not happen, reduce expenditures or increase local revenue.  The fund balance is a significant issue that cannot be ignored.  Dr. Bowman reviewed the ten year fund balance history information sheet. Dr. Bowman advised the Board the budget will be reviewed for further changes.  The changes will primarily be in the 400 and 700 object areas.  

Mr. Stack inquired about the $15,837 increase in the employee benefits account.  Mr. Paradise explained the dramatic decrease in the retirement rate has resulted in offsetting the health insurance increase.  Every effort will be made to reduce health insurance costs.

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question regarding a reduction in fuel costs, Mr. Paradise explained due to when fuel bids were solicited in the past, the District has been protected from increases in fuel costs.  However, this year timing is not on the District’s side.  All possible options will be reviewed. 

Mr. Stack stated the Board has a commitment to try to provide direction to the administration and double its efforts to examine areas where expenses can be reduced and revenues can be obtained.  He urged the Board to be in a high state of alert.  He noted even if half of the expenditure increases are trimmed, there may still be a significant impact on some of the educational programs.  He felt the Board needs to look at a variety of different issues. 

Ms. Drioli stated over the last three years, the Board has tried to seriously review various issues for possible reductions and it has not been very successful.  She said her direction at this point is “cut this budget”.  She felt due to the opening of the comprehensive technical school and reduced elementary enrollment, there should be a reduction in the teaching staff, which would result in a cost savings.  However, the opening of the comprehensive technical school and contract obligations, will result in some expenditure increases.  Mr. Stack felt the Board will need to provide specific direction, make some hard choices and take the time and effort to examine some of the hard choices.

Mr. Schoenstadt commended the administration for providing the Board with the preliminary budget information.  He urged the Board to be proactive and review those areas that can be addressed.  If the Board cannot affect the 2000-2001 budget, it should make changes to affect the 2001-2002 budget.  He recommended since there will be a major transition at the Technical School, the Board and administration carefully review the issue of blocking scheduling at the high school level.  He pointed out with the changes taking place due to the opening of the comprehensive technical school, there will be major changes in high school staffing, and this would be a good time to create the most efficient, best possible educational environment in a constructive, proactive way. 

Mr. Schoenstadt recommended the Board examine the resources in the District in regard to the utilization of the buildings and programs and structure of the educational program.  He explained at the Finance Committee Meeting he proposed the following educational program restructure plan be reviewed.

·         Grades K through 4   (Seven elementary schools)

·         Grades 5 and 6           (Two elementary schools)

·         Grades 7 through 9     (Three middle schools)

·         Grades 10 through 12  (High School)

Mr. Schoenstadt stated as a result of changing to the proposed restructure plan, savings will develop.  This is a plan to react now to the declining elementary enrollment.  The declining elementary enrollment is resulting in a impact at the District now, but will impact the District more significantly in the next five years.  Under the proposal, the savings would not be great at the elementary level, because the same staff and facilities would be used.  However, there would be better utilization of the facilities and there would not be so many overcrowded classroom situations.  This would also allow the District to retain elementary education at the community level. By changing the middle school grade structure to grades 7 through 9 and with declining enrollment, only three facilities would be necessary and one middle school could be closed at some point. 

Mr. Schoenstadt explained his proposal includes making the Heckman and Tawanka Schools grade 5 and 6 schools, which would create a transition middle school for students in grades 5 and 6.  Students would be able to rotate for Math, Science and Reading classes. The Lower Southampton Elementary School has such a program in the three major disciplines and it is very effective.  It is a positive experience and its impact should be considered.  He suggested if the administration has even more creative ideas, they be invited to present their ideas to the Board.  He said financially and educationally things are changing and the Board has to react to the changes.  It cannot continue to always do things in the same way.  The Board has to keep the high standards of education in the District, but it has to be done with a degree of financial reasonableness. 

Ms. Drioli felt there may be some community resistance to Mr. Schoenstadt’s proposal.  However, it would provide the financial break the District needs without impacting the quality of education and programs in the District.  Mr. Schoenstadt pointed out under the proposal, seven elementary schools would remain unchanged except the fifth grade students would be moved out of the elementary schools.  This would allow for the reallocation of the resources and possibly result in reductions in class size.  It is not necessarily intended to reduce certified staff.  As the enrollment declines, it will mandate that there be adjustments in the staffing.  The primary objective is to justify and recognize that the middle schools are under utilized and justify closing one of the middle schools.

Dr. Frank stated the enrollment data does not indicate that the middle schools are under utilized.  Mr. Schoenstadt explained if the sixth graders are removed from the middle schools, the environment will be changed.  The proposal recognizes the maturity level of the fifth and sixth graders.  He stated the administration would have to determine whether the proposal is feasible and practical. 

Mr. Stack stated before the proposal can be reviewed, an enrollment study would need to be conducted.  Dr. Bowman explained funds are budgeted for next year to contract with a group that specializes in enrollment projections.  The projection would probably be a ten year projection. 

In response to Mr. Eccles’ question as to Census 2000, Dr. Bowman explained the census will have an impact on the amount of federal funds the District is entitled to receive. 

Dr. Frank suggested the District’s payment to the Intermediate Unit and the services received be reviewed. She felt possibly the District may realize some expenditure savings by examining this issue.  Dr. Frank noted the Intermediate Unit could save money by reviewing the mailing lists.  She noted she receives double mailings from the Intermediate Unit.  Ms. Drioli stated the District’s contribution to the Intermediate Unit’s contracted services budget is not any more than it was last year. 

Dr. Bowman stated if the District could operate its own alternative school, it could save a lot of money.  He noted ten years ago a study of enrollment projections, capacity and educational options was conducted.  Dr. Bowman pointed out review of enrollment projections, capacity, etc. is a long term issue and will not be ready for next year’s budget.  Ms. Drioli urged the administration and Board to move forward with enrollment projections, alternative program structures, etc.

      f.  Alternative Taxing Revenues

Information distributed prior to meeting.  Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the information distributed prior to the meeting, which included the Profile of Taxing Options Report updated March 1998, Tax Advisory Committee Final Report to the Board of School Directors and Earned Income Tax Updated Summary Information Report.  Mr. Paradise noted there are a number of taxing options available to the District.  The only one of any magnitude that the District has not levied is the earned income tax.  Mr. Paradise reviewed the Earned Income Tax Updated Summary of Information Report.  See report for detailed information.  He noted any adoption of the tax must be passed by June 1 in order to begin on July 1.  A first year levy of one half percent beginning July 1, 2000 should generate approximately $3.5 million and the second year receipts at the same rate would generate approximately $5.8 million.  One major advantage of the tax is the ability for the tax proceeds to grow without raising the tax rate because of the expanding tax base, which is a sharp contrast to the relatively stagnant tax base of real estate. 

Mr. Schoenstadt stated the Tax Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation on the Act 511 earned income tax.  He stated if he voted to levy an earned income tax, from that point on he could not justify any increases in the real estate tax.  Many of the objectives of the earned income tax are to relieve the burden on the elderly whose income is fixed.  The earned income tax generally does not affect the elderly, because their income is mostly unearned.  Approximately 22 percent of the District’s residents are in this category.  He noted the first year the tax is levied it would only generate approximately 18.5 mills, which is one half the current dollar difference.  The second year the tax would generate approximately 30.5 mills.  He said what is the realistic impact in the first year?  Mr. Paradise stated the first year the tax would generate approximately 18.5 mills.  Dr. Bowman noted the 18.5 mills does not include the fund balance issue.  Mr. Schoenstadt questioned how much more could realistically be collected if the District was very aggressive in the collection procedure. 

In response to Mr. Eccles’ comments that the Tax Advisory Committee did not make a recommendation but provided a report of its findings and various options, Mr. Stack read the committee’s recommendation listed on page 4 of the Tax Advisory Committee Final Report to the Board of School Directors.  The recommendation reads as follows:

“The committee recommends that if and when a property tax increase is required that the Neshaminy Board of School Directors consider enacting an earned income tax under Act 511.  It is the opinion of this committee that the adoption of this tax is more fair than an increase in property taxes and more desirable than the adoption of Act 50.”

Mr. Stack noted that Mr. Spitz, Tax Advisory Committee member,  has made it known that he is not in favor of the above recommendation.  The recommendation is the majority opinion of the committee. 

Mr. Stack pointed out the review of the preliminary budget information earlier in the meeting indicated a property tax increase will be required to balance the budget.  Since the time that the budget gap information was shared with the Tax Advisory Committee, the budget gap has increased.  Mr. Stack recommended the Board seriously consider the earned income issue.  He stated he is not asking for a position on the tax issue at this time.  He inquired if the Board were to enact an earned income tax, how would it impact the residents of the District.  Can the impact of the earned income tax be compared to the District’s current tax structure?  Dr. Frank pointed out people do not always stay with the same job.  Some residents may change their place of employment, which may result in them working in Philadelphia.  She felt it will be very difficult to project the revenue generated by an earned income tax.

Mr. Stack stated the Neshaminy School District has the second or third highest property tax rate in Bucks County.  The District is overly dependent on the use of the property tax to help balance the budget every year.  He felt if the only recourse is to increase the property tax as the sole means of making up the budget deficit, it is an injustice.  He said very clear direction was provided a couple of years ago when the community overwhelming approved the Homestead Exemption.  The legislators have fallen short in terms of enabling legislation to act upon the Homestead Exemption.  He said he hopes the Board receives community input on the tax issue.  He noted the residents have been very quiet in terms of making their concerns known to the Board.

Mr. Eccles stated he will never support an earned income tax. Ms. Drioli felt that the approval of the Homestead Exemption was not a true indication of taxpayers’ support of it, because many of the taxpayers did not understand what they were voting for at the time. Ms. Drioli stated at this time, she will not support an earned income tax.

Mr. Stack felt if Board members are not willing to support an earned income tax, they have to be willing to support a significant property tax increase.  As elected officials, the Board has an obligation to pass a budget by the end of June.  He said it will not be easy.  It will take a combination of different types of tax revenues and dealing with educational programs.  The Board has to get the questions out and obtain public input on the tax issue.

      g.  Community and Public Relations Position

Dr. Bowman stated the Board members received in their Board folder at the last Public Meeting a copy of the job description for the community and public relations position.  The feedback received from Board members is represented in the job description.  Twenty-two letters of invitation were mailed out inviting the applicants to submit their portfolio to Dr. Bowman and inquired if they wanted to continue in the process.  The response has been as follows:

·         Eight individuals did not respond.

·         Four individuals stated the salary is too low; and therefore, are not interested in the position.

·         Two individuals assumed other positions.

·         Eight individuals are interested in the position and have submitted their portfolio.

Dr. Bowman inquired if the Board was in agreement with the job description.  He stated parameters are needed in regard to the salary for the position.  The letter to the applicants indicated the salary is in the low to high $40,000 range, depending upon qualifications and experience.

Mr. Schoenstadt stated in regard to the salary, the Board should be flexible.  He noted a competitive salary range would be between $45,000 and $55,000.  Such a salary range would be competitive with private industry and surrounding school districts.  Keeping the salary under $50,000 may be too restrictive.  He indicated he could support a salary in the $45,000 to $55,000 range.  Mr. Stack stated the low to high $40,000 range was determined as a result of incorporating the Board members’ feedback on the issue.

In response to a question raised by Mrs. Butville, Dr. Bowman explained based on the rubric, 22 people warranted consideration.  Mr. Eccles inquired about the hiring timetable.  Dr. Bowman stated the individual would not be hired this month (March).  A date will need to be established after the interviews are completed.

Mrs. Bostwick inquired if the position will include a probation period.  She stated the individual could be hired at a lower salary rate and the salary increased upon completion of the probation period.  Dr. Bowman stated establishing a probation period would be a Board decision.  It is a non-bargaining unit position, and the individual will report directly to the Superintendent.  He noted the job description will help distinguish the candidates.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board the District’s previous community and public relations representative raised $15,000 in direct funds in one good year.  The $15,000 does not include the $45,000 raised for the concert choir trip.  Mr. Stack noted the position has the opportunity to secure additional revenue for the District through various corporate sponsorships.  Corporate sponsorships are only one aspect of the position.  Mr. Stack stated it is a very significant position, and there is tremendous economic value to the position.

Mr. Dengler noted the individual previously filling the community and public relations position only earned a salary of $35,000.  Dr. Frank and Ms. Drioli indicated they would support a salary range of $45,000 to $55,000.  Mr. Dengler and Mrs. Bostwick indicated they would support a $40,000 to $45,000 salary range.  Mr. Eccles stated if a candidate has only a little experience, the salary should be lower.  He questioned if the Board is hurting itself by limiting the salary and losing the best qualified applicants due to the salary issue.  He suggested the salary be left open.  Dr. Bowman stated the salary could be left open until after the interview process is completed.  Mr. Schoenstadt suggested Dr. Bowman identify the most favorable candidates and then establish a salary.  He indicated he was uncomfortable limiting the salary up front and for a few thousand dollars losing people who could be the best candidates.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated he anticipates the community and public relations representative generating significant revenue for the District.

Dr. Bowman stated the candidates remaining have expressed an interest in a low to high $40,000 salary range.  One of the candidates that withdrew was a wonderful candidate who had corporate experience.  However, his salary bracket was in the $70,000 range.  He noted a possible option would be to hire a candidate as a consultant.  The individual would be paid a base salary and a percentage of the funds generated for the District. 

After further discussion, it was determined the response to candidates questions about the salary range will be that it will probably be in the low to high $40,000 range.  If it is a unique situation, the issue will be open to discussion.

      h.  Proposed School Calendar for 2000-01

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the calendar and noted the first day of school for teachers would be the Tuesday after Labor Day and the first day of school for students would be the Wednesday after Labor Day.  Two of the school districts that participate in the Bucks County Technical School are starting school for students the same date.  The Technical School will not be starting school until at least these dates.  The Technical School has to meet a very aggressive construction schedule to achieve the opening of school for students by September 6.  He noted the November schedule is similar to this year’s schedule with conferences scheduled in the month. He noted that not all school districts hold conferences.  However, parent/teacher conferences have been a tradition in Neshaminy and the conferences are very important to the parents.  He pointed out on the back of the calendar, under special notes, Thursday, April 12, and Monday, April 16, are listed as possible snow make-up days.  The bargaining units have been consulted on the calendar.  Dr. Bowman recommended approval of the 2000-2001 school calendar.

Mr. Stack noted by starting school prior to Labor Day the past few years, the District had the advantage of ending the school year earlier in the month of June.  He noted in 2000-01 there are no extra holidays scheduled for the month of September as occurred last year.  If there were two additional holidays scheduled, the last day of school for students would have been June 20.  He felt it was educationally advantageous to complete the school year the second week in June.  He recommended in the future the District follow a practice of beginning the school year the week before Labor Day.  He said he understands currently there exists contractual situations which may prevent this.  However, he would like to see this contractual situation remedied in the next contract.

Mr. Dengler indicated he was opposed to April 12, Thursday, being scheduled as a possible snow make-up day.  He stated he considers this date a religious holiday.  Ms. Drioli noted that Thursday is a business day. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that he will calculate the earliest date for graduation for the class of 2000 and announce the graduation date at the March Public Meeting.

The 2000-01 school calendar will be an agenda item at the March Public Meeting.

      i.  Elementary Classroom and Enrollment Data

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the Elementary Building Classroom Teacher/Student Data Report distributed to Board members.  He noted the bottom half of the report (number of classrooms, number of modulars, building capacity, total students in building and % capacity) needs to be updated.  The information regarding the individuals schools for grades K through 5 (students, teachers and class average) has been updated. He also noted in reference to the 20 year high and low data, 20 years ago the District did not have as many special education classes as it currently has in place.  See report for detailed information.  Dr. Bowman pointed out the data indicates the Board does not need to consider moving students from one building to another at this time. 

Dr. Bowman explained in the past, the administration has made class assignments in May based on the students enrolled in the schools at that time and everything is maximized without moving students out of their attendance areas.  If new students are registered for school in July, August and September, it may require opening a brand new class.  If there is no space available in the school for the new student, parents are advised there is no space available for the child in the neighborhood school this year.  The child will be placed in a sister school for the school year.  At the end of the school year, the child will be moved to the neighborhood school.  By using the sister school system, this year the District saved $150,000. 

There was Board consensus for the administration to place students in a sister school when necessary.

5.   Items for Approval

      a.  Overnight Trips

Dr. Bowman presented the following four overnight trips for approval:

·         Neshaminy Middle School Music Competition, New York, May 6-May 7

·         Maple Point Middle School FBLA State Leadership Conference, Champion, Pennsylvania, April 10-12

·         Neshaminy High School FBLA State Leadership Conference, Champion, Pennsylvania, April 10-12

·         Neshaminy High School Ski Trip, Killington, Vermont, March 17-19

Mr. Dengler stated he would not support the Neshaminy Middle School Music Competition trip to New York.  He noted he has not supported the trip for eight years.  There was Board consensus for the four overnight trips.

      b.  Intermediate Unit No. 22 Programs and Services/Instructional Materials Budget for 2000-01

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that page 13 of the Intermediate Unit’s budget report lists Neshaminy’s obligation.  The amount listed is the amount Neshaminy pays out of its general fund budget.  The budget reflects a $1,167 reduction.  It does not include the District’s special education payments.  Ms. Drioli encouraged the Board members to support the Intermediate Unit No. 22 budget.

The Intermediate Unit No. 22 budget will be an agenda item at the March Public Meeting.

      c.  Act 29 Lighting

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Mr. Paradise pointed out Act 29 lighting was completed at two schools this past year.  It is recommended two additional schools, Heckman and Lower Southampton Elementary Schools, have all their lighting fixtures replaced with state-of-the-art lighting fixtures, which will result in an energy savings and address the issue of poor lighting in classrooms.  The cost of replacing all the lighting fixtures at two schools would be $174,000.  The cost would be paid for over a ten year period by the savings generated by the change in lighting fixtures.  Actually, the savings would exceed the cost by approximately $99,000.

Mr. Paradise advised the Board the Finance Committee discussed doing the same project at the Poquessing Middle School.  If the Board wishes, the administration is prepared to have the lighting fixtures replaced at the Poquessing Middle School.  It would dramatically improve the lighting and the project would pay for itself over a ten year period out of the savings. 

Mr. Paradise suggested in the budget, the Board focus on the Poquessing Middle School’s flooring issues and some day the exterior window wall.  If these issues are addressed, the Poquessing Middle School would be a significantly improved building. 

Ms. Drioli noted if the lighting fixtures were replaced, the flooring issues resolved and the exterior window wall addressed, the Poquessing Middle School would be aesthetically appealing and safe. She recommended the Building Utilization Committee review replacing the lighting fixtures,  address the flooring issues and exterior window wall situation versus a total renovation/rebuilding of the facility.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated he would like any improvements at the Poquessing Middle School to be included as a part of the budget presentation.  He noted lighting and tile are critical issues.  He pointed out that the lighting on the second floor of the Poquessing Middle School needs to be increased.  Dr. Frank noted the lighting project is environmentally important.

Mr. Stack inquired if the Board were to consider larger renovations at the Poquessing Middle School, would the lighting work be undone.  Mr. Paradise explained it would depend on the scope of the renovation project.  Mr. Paradise stated if the Board is seriously considering renovating the Poquessing Middle School to the extent that the Sandburg Middle School was renovated, the lighting project should not be undertaken at this time.  By undertaking the lighting project, the Board would be committing to a program cost of a certain number of dollars over a ten year period.  The cost of the lighting work is to be paid for out of the savings generated due to the lighting changes. 

After further discussion, there was Board consensus to include the Poquessing Middle School in the Act 29 lighting project.

      d.  Audit Report Response

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Mr. Paradise advised the Board a motion will be presented at the March Public Meeting to formally respond to the state audit report.

      e.  Approval of Bids and Budget Transfers

Mr. Paradise reviewed the following bids:

Bid No. 01-02 - Technology Education Supplies

Award Amount:  $11,174.79

The bid is for supplies for the instruction of industrial technology including design, problem solving and research and development.

Bid No. 01-03- Athletic and Physical Education Supplies

Award Amount:  $83,471.16

The bid is for supplies for the physical education programs and various team sports.

Mr. Paradise advised the Board Budget Transfer Report No. 00-5 (working copy) includes six transactions with subtransactions.  He noted item no. 3 pertains to funds being transferred for expenses incurred due to an emergency replacement of a compressor at the Maple Point Middle School.  He pointed out the footnote, which states additional transfers will be added to the report to reflect changes in salary accounts.  Funds are being transferred between subaccounts for changes that have occurred during the course of the year.  The net effect on the budget will be zero.

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

6.   Items for Information

      a.  Election of Members to Intermediate Unit Board of Directors

Ballots for the election of members to the Bucks County Schools Intermediate Unit Board of Directors were distributed at the meeting.  All ballots are to be returned to Mrs. Calvello for mailing to the Intermediate Unit. 

7.   Public Comment

There was a two minute time limit per speaker.  Mr. Spitz, Middletown Township, referred to the earned income issue and said he would like to provide the Board with views on the issue that probably did not come through in the Tax Advisory Committee Report.  He felt the Board is looking for an issue that is not there.  He noted the lack of public attendance at the Board Meetings and that there is not a groundswell of opposition to the current tax structure in the Neshaminy School District. 

8.   Superintendent’s Report

      a.  Blue Ribbon Visitation

Letter from Mr. Rothenberg, site visitor, distributed prior to the meeting.  1999-2000 Blue Ribbon Schools Program Application document and related documents distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Mr. Rothenberg, reviewer from the United States Department of Education, will be visiting the Neshaminy Middle School on March 20 and 21.  Mr. Rothenberg is from Maryland and is a trained reviewer.  He will be arriving Sunday evening, March 19, and will meet with Dr. Daggett at that time.  Mr. Rothenberg has established an agenda and his agenda calls for a meeting on Monday, March 21, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., with parents and School Board members.  Mr. Rothenberg’s mission is to verify and confirm that the information included in the application is, in fact, what is happening at the Neshaminy Middle School.  He wants to engage in a dialogue with School Board members.

Dr. Bowman reviewed the information distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman requested the Board members read the 1999-2000 Blue Ribbon Schools Program Application document prior to the meeting with Mr. Rothenberg so they will be informed and able to answer Mr. Rothenberg’s questions.  He briefly reviewed some of the questions Mr. Rothenberg may ask. 

Dr. Bowman commended the work that the Neshaminy Middle School staff has done.  He stated it represents not just the Neshaminy Middle School, but the entire Neshaminy School District.  It is one of the highest forms of recognition a school district can receive.  Neshaminy Middle School can now say it is a school of excellence. 

As a result of the Neshaminy Middle School’s application, a few of the elementary schools plan to apply for Blue Ribbon status next year and some of the middle schools plan to apply during the next middle school application period.

Mrs. Butville, Mr. Eccles and Dr. Frank indicated they would attend the March 21 meeting with Mr. Rothenberg.  Ms. Drioli and Mr. Schoenstadt indicated they would attend the meeting but may arrive late.

      b.  Consortium for Healthy Youth and Communities

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board that the Pennsylvania Commission of Crime and Delinquency has provided a large sum of money to the Bucks County Commissioners, which will be funded through the Bucks County Drug and Alcohol Council, to provide a community program.  The Bucks County Violence Prevention Task Force is also participating in the program.  With the use of these funds, a county consortium is providing a process to bring a whole community, all stakeholders, together.  It will help to make the community a better place by focusing on what is happening with students and in communities. It is not just school districts.  All communities are involved in the program.  It is an outstanding program.  He noted the Bensalem School District last year had a Communities That Care Program, which it sponsored on its own.  The program will be a county wide effort.

9.   Committee Reports

      a.  Education Development Committee

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Mr. Dengler reported the committee discussed the following:

New Elementary Reading Program - The committee reviewed the process for selecting a new Reading Program.  The current Reading Program is ten years old.  The same format that was followed for the selection of a new Science Program and Math Program will be followed for the new Reading Program.  Five publishers will present their programs to the Selection Committee.  Two programs will be selected and be piloted next year.  The teachers will use each of the programs for one half of the 2000-2001 school year.  There will be no cost for the pilot program or budget impact on next year’s budget.  When the District starts phasing in the new books the following the year (2001-2002), there will be a budget impact. 

Intensive/Block Scheduling - The committee discussed the issue of intensive/block scheduling.  The committee will be presented with a sample of how intensive/blocking scheduling might work at the high school at its next meeting.

Summer Writing Program - The committee discussed the Summer Writing Program.  In the past, the program was operated in conjunction with West Chester University.  This year the program will be a district-operated program and be included as a part of the Neshaminy Summer School. 

Dr. Bowman noted the Summer School information packet was distributed to the Board members.  He pointed out the Summer School is self-supporting and it has been a very successful program.  The Summer School needs to be advertised so residents know it will be offered again this year.  The Summer School staff is determined based upon enrollment.  The Summer School is approved when the Board approves the budget.  Traditionally, the Board also approves it as a separate Board motion. 

Ms. Drioli noted in previous years there were some concerns regarding the Summer Performing Arts Program.  Dr. Bowman explained the issue was resolved last year and the program will be handled in the same manner as it was last year. 

A Summer School motion will be presented for approval at the March Public Meeting.

Mr. Stack explained he was approached by a parent about a required summer reading assignment for all grade levels.  The program would include the students reading a book over the summer vacation and an assessment being conducted in September when students return to school.  It would be a way to further challenge the students and would not be an expense issue.  He requested the administration review implementing a summer reading program. 

Dr. Frank suggested the curriculum coordinators oversee the book selections for the summer reading program.  Mrs. Butville suggested the reading list include several selections for each grade level.  She pointed out it will be difficult to obtain the book if only one or two book selections are provided for each grade level.  Ms. Drioli recommended the summer reading program include all grades, including the elementary grades.  Ms. Drioli recommended the Educational Development Committee review the summer reading program recommendation.

Mr. Stack said he did not believe the administration is precluded from taking action to implement block scheduling.  He said he would expect that it would only be done so in unison with discussions with the teaching staff.  In accordance with the way the teachers’ contract reads, there is an obligation that must be met.  However, it is within the administration’s prerogative to enact block scheduling.  Mr. Stack stated in his opinion, the administration is not precluded from reviewing, pursuing and possibly implementing block scheduling under the existing contract. 

      b.  Educational Foundation Committee

           No report presented.

      c.  Finance Committee

Finance Committee agenda distributed prior to the meeting.  Mr. Eccles reported the committee discussed Act 29 lighting projects for the Lower Southampton Elementary School, Heckman Elementary School and Poquessing Middle School, which was reviewed earlier in the Work Session.  The committee also discussed various ways to raise funds through vendors, Neshaminy cable network, issuing tickets for illegal parking in the parking lot, running the swimming program more like a business to increase funds and putting advertising on District vans.  The issue of increasing the price of products in the current vending machines to increase revenue versus seeking an agreement with an outside vendor was discussed. 

Dr. Frank referred to pouring rights legislation, which is pending in Harrisburg, and noted this legislation would not allow profit making for public institutions.  Under this legislation, no other vendor could come in and act as an agent for the public institution.  She recommended the Finance Committee review this legislation before making a decision on any type of agreement with a vendor.  Several Board members raised questions about applying the legislation to the School District, because it is a non-profit organization. 

Mr. Eccles reported a representative from Coca-Cola Company, Alexis Troy, met with the committee members.  He explained Coca-Cola has a separate department called the Educational Department, which deals strictly with schools, all levels (college, high school, middle, etc.).  One of the goals of Coca-Cola is to help the community more so than just to come into schools and make a profit.  When asked why the School District should use Coca-Cola as a provider, the response was they are the only provider that sells 100 percent orange juice, their mechanical services are better than the other providers and they track sales better than other providers.  The contract with Coca-Cola can be an exclusive contract or one that is tailored to meet the District’s desires.  Mr. Eccles recommended there be continued review of the issue.

Ms. Drioli recommended consideration be given to leaving everything in place as it presently stands, and installing new vending machines in prime areas where the public can access the machines.  The machines can be set to be turned off during the school day.  The provider would install the machines. 

Mrs. Bostwick inquired about the cost of installing the vending machines and who establishes at what point the School District starts to make a profit on the vending machines.  If the School District does not reach the established sales goal, who is responsible for the unrealized sales goal?  Mr. Paradise explained the School District would be responsible for the installation cost of the machines, which is not a minor cost.  The installation costs have been enormous for some of the school districts.  The School District would also be responsible for any vandalism or damage to the machines. 

Dr. Frank recommended it be ascertained why some school districts are no longer participating in vending machine programs.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated the issue of what the company’s proposal will generate over what the School District already receives should be reviewed to determine whether there would be an advantage to participating in an agreement with an outside provider. 

Mr. Eccles noted the Coca-Cola Company is very flexible as to the structure of the agreement.  However, the company will not allow a third party, a consultant to analyze data or negotiate a contract,  to enter into any agreement.  They are not allowing this because they want the funds to go directly to the School District and not profit-making persons.  The District’s solicitor could review the agreement.  It takes two to three months for the Coca-Cola Company to develop a proposal.  Mr. Eccles stated reviewing possible agreements and ways to generate additional funds is very time consuming.  The District needs a community and public relations representative on board as soon as possible to follow through on this type of issue. 

Ms. Drioli suggested the Food Service Department be protected and allowed to continue their present practices.  Possibly the Food Service Department could increase the price of certain items and the additional profits be allocated to the District.  Mr. Eccles noted there are Snapple machines in the cafeteria and suggested Snapple sales be reviewed for possible increased revenue.  Dr. Frank questioned whether the District wants to sell everything.  Possibly the number of vending machines should be decreased. 

Mrs. Bostwick left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.

Mr. Eccles inquired if someone, on a consulting basis, could review the situation from a business standpoint and provide the District with some insight into possible profits.  He expressed concern about overwhelming the new communications and public relations representative with the vending agreement issue.  He noted the communications and public relations representative will have a number of other responsibilities.  Mr. Stack felt the Board has a window to act on a soda deal. Such a contract may allow for an impact on the upcoming budget year, and the Board cannot depend upon closing the contract with the community and public relations representative’s involvement.

Dr. Frank suggested the solicitor be given direction to determine what is possible for a non-profit organization, the School District, to do as far as profit is concerned.  Mr. Stack noted there is a lot of precedent in Bucks and the state of Pennsylvania for soda deals. 

Mr. Schoenstadt stated the immediate budget can be affected by increasing the existing vending machine prices to generate increased profits.  If the District enters into a contract, the prices will be increased.  Mr. Eccles said if there is only one vendor, would the District have a larger profit margin rather than being involved with ten to fifteen different vendors?  Mr. Schoenstadt inquired if the District currently has a contractual agreement with any vendors.  Mr. Paradise stated the District has no involvement with the vendors.  Mrs. McGee, Director of Food Services, pointed out food and beverage contracts have to be bid. 

The issue of a soda contract will continue to be reviewed.

      d.  Intermediate Unit Board

           No report presented.

      e.  Intermediate Unit Legislative Committee

Dr. Bowman advised the Board an early retirement teacher bill ( 30 years and out) has been proposed.  If the bill is approved, it would help the District’s early retirement program and result in a savings to the District.  He stated special education funding is still being reviewed at the state level. 

      f.  Board Policies Committee

Ms. Drioli advised the Board that the committee recommends Board Policy No. 551- Behavior Management (working copy no. 3) be approved.  Minor changes in the wording were made to the policy.  Ms. Drioli reported the committee reviewed Board Policy No. 552 - Student Attendance.  She recommended the Board members review the other school districts’ student attendance policies, which were previously distributed to the Board members, e-mail Mr. Wyatt with their comments and copy her.  She indicated she liked the Central Bucks School District’s attendance policy.  A copy of the Council Rock School District’s attendance policy will be distributed to the Board members. 

Board Policy No. 551 - Behavior Management will be an agenda item at the March Public Meeting.

      g.  Technical School Board

Mr. Dengler reported the Technical School Board has started the budget review.  Advertisements have been placed for academic teachers.  The Morrisville School District has brought to the Technical School Board’s attention a controversy regarding the Technical School’s funding formula. Copy of letter outlining the Morrisville School District’s concerns was distributed prior to the meeting and listed under correspondence (agenda item 12a). The issue will be reviewed.  He pointed out the Technical School teacher contract expires in June.

Mrs. Butville reported when developing the plans for the Technical School, computers were not included in the plans.  There are only three computers in the Technical School.  The school would like to at least have a computer lab. In order to get a computer lab up and running by the first day of school, financing has to be promised by May 1. The computer lab issue is being reviewed.

Dr. Bowman reported the number of Neshaminy eighth grade students selecting the Technical School is very low.  Neshaminy is the only school district participating in the Technical School that has a grades 6 through 9 middle school.  Ninth grade is a natural break for students in the other school districts.  Neshaminy’s eighth graders want to remain in the middle school for ninth grade.  Therefore, the District may experience low enrollment.  Meetings will be scheduled with parents to provide more information on the Technical School.  The low ninth grade enrollment will not affect the District’s contribution, because the contribution is based upon last year’s enrollment.

10.   Future Topics

        No future topics were discussed.

11.  Agenda Development for the March 28, 2000 Public Meeting

       Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the agenda items for the March 28 Public Meeting.

12.  Correspondence

       Copies of correspondence distributed prior to the meeting.

      a.  February 24, 2000 Letter from the School District of Morrisville

           Letter self-explanatory.

      b.  March 1, 2000 Letter from Bristol Township School District

           Letter self-explanatory.

      c.  Proposal of the Pennsylvania Association of Growing School Districts

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that Neshaminy is eligible for membership in the Pennsylvania Association of Growing School Districts.  The membership cost is $2.00 per pupil.  One of the most prestigious law firms in Pennsylvania is working with the group.  The impact would be a possible additional $329,000 for next year’s budget.  Dr. Bowman reviewed the names of the school districts that have joined the organization. 

Ms. Drioli stated participation in the organization will allow the District to join forces with other school districts and make an impact. 

Membership in the Pennsylvania Association of Growing School Districts will be an agenda item at the March Public Meeting.

      d.  March 9, 2000 Letter from Thomas J. Gentzel, PSBA

Mr. Stack reported a letter was received from Thomas Gentzel, Assistant Executive Director of Government and Member Relations of the PSBA, thanking the Board for sending him a copy of the Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendations.  The letter states the same issues are being pursued across the state.  In the letter Mr. Gentzel noted the PSBA is opposing the restrictions on access to the amusement tax by school districts.

13. Other Board Business

Mr. Schoenstadt referred to the March 10 PSBA Legislative Report and pointed out the Secretary of Education went before the Senate Appropriations Committee and explained the Governor’s proposed new special education budget.  Senator Tomlinson took objection to the proposed distribution formula and proposed reimbursing school districts for at least 50 percent of their special education costs (SB153).  There is a strong likelihood that Senator Tomlinson’s proposal will be approved.  Mr. Schoenstadt suggested this be a budget consideration.  He suggested if Senator Tomlinson’s proposal is not approved, the Board should make sure the PSBA pursues the issue.  Mr. Schoenstadt noted the federal government committed to pay 40 percent of IDEA and is only paying 10 percent. 

Mr. Eccles moved the meeting be adjourned and Mrs. Butville seconded the motion.  The Board approved the motion with seven ayes.  Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,                                                                                           

Carol A. Calvello
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.