The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on May 8, 2001 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

Prior to the Public Board Meeting, the annual Neshaminy Employee Recognition Program and a Public Input Board Meeting was held.

Recognition Awards - The annual Neshaminy Employee Recognition Program, which was held prior to the Public Board Meeting, included the Chanticleers, under the direction of Mr. Nelson, performing several musical selections.  Dr. Bowman presented to Mr. Nelson the American Red Cross Award.  The following long term service awards were presented to certified and support staff members for 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years of service.

15 Years of Service - Employees received a ceramic box inscribed with the Neshaminy School District seal.  Forty-eight employees have completed 15 years of service.

20 Years of Service - Employees received a gold lapel pin.  Nineteen employees have completed 20 years of service.

25 Years of Service - Employees received a 6�� silver bowl.  Fourteen employees have completed 25 years of service.

30 Years of Service - Employees received a brass hand bell.  Thirty-one employees have completed 30 years of service.

35 Years of Service - Employees received a 9� silver bowl.  Six employees have completed 35 years of service.

40 Years of Service - Employees received a crystal apple with an engraved base.  Two employees have completed 40 years of service.

Sixty-two of the one-hundred twenty long term service award recipients attended the Neshaminy Employee Recognition Program.

Certificates of Recognition were presented to the District�s mentors, strategic planning process participants and peer mediators.  The following 2000-2001 retirees were recognized and received a Neshaminy pin:  Nancy Williams, Samuel Everitt School, instructional assistant, and Irv Shanken, Pearl Buck School principal.

Ms. Sheila Murphy, 30 years of service award recipient, has received the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame Award.

Several former retirees were in attendance at the Neshaminy Employee Recognition Program.

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 9:25 p.m.

2.   Announcements

Information distributed at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman explained one of the corporations that the School District has been working with is Wheelabrator.  Last year Carl Sandburg Middle School students participated in the Northeast Symposium.  This year three Neshaminy groups, Sandburg Middle, Neshaminy Middle and Poquessing Middle Schools, participated in the symposium.  There are 12 to 15 students in each group.  Neshaminy also held its own symposium and it went very well. 

Dr. Bowman announced all of the students who participated in the Wheelabrator Symposium will be given the opportunity by Fisk University to receive a scholarship.  He reviewed the eligibility requirements for the general academic scholarship ($3,000), dean’s academic scholarship (tuition) and presidential academic scholarship (total cost) (see information distributed for detailed information).  This is the result of a group of teachers and principals working together, the District’s relationship with Wheelabrator and a project that involved students and a problem solving approach. 

Dr. Bowman reported the Sandburg Middle School students have been invited to present their project in Costa Rico.  He extended thanks to Wheelabrator and the Neshaminy staff that worked so hard, especially the students who participated in the program.

4.   Items for Approval

      a.  Approval of 2001-2002 Preliminary Budget

The following information was distributed at the meeting:  2001-2002 Projected General Fund Revenue Report, Neshaminy School District expenditure budget reductions list, effect on tax millage information sheet and unreserved fund balance analysis information sheet.  Dr. Bowman stated previous to this meeting, the Board received the document which listed the expenditure portion of the budget.  Since that time, revenue information has been received from the state and the administration has conducted local revenue calculations.  He noted by law, the Board must pass a motion by the end of May, which states the budget will be made available to the public.  The motion will be presented for approval at the May 22 Board Meeting.  The budget that will be made available to the public at that time will be the preliminary budget.  

Mr. Paradise briefly reviewed the 2001-2002 Projected General Fund Revenue Report (see report for detailed information).  The report reflects to date all the estimated state subsidies and local revenue estimates.  He highlighted the following:

·         No federal revenue or expenditures have been included in the budget at this point.

·         There is a 1.5 percent increase in local revenue.  The bulk of the increase is from real estate taxes, which is the result of additional assessments.  A large part of this is the Villages of Flowers Mill development.

·         State revenue has increased.  The bulk of the increase is from basic operating subsidies and specific program subsidies, which is primarily special education. 

·         The state subsidy for retirement has decreased by almost $400,000. 

·         There are no other financing sources listed because these funds have been reclassified to local revenue.

·         Total revenue is up $1,300,000 or 1.3 percent.

·         95 percent of the local revenue comes from taxes levied by the Board.

·         Approximately 50 percent of subsidies from state sources are  basic instructional subsidies.

·         At the current real estate tax rate, which is 429.4 mills, the real estate tax equates next year to $78,800,000.  This is an increase of $1,100,000. 

·         The assessed valuation is $187,665,000 which is an increase over last year’s amount of $184,000,000.  

·         Last year the value of the mill was $178,000 and this year it is $181,000.

·         As a result of changes in state laws regarding the public utility tax, the District will only receive $272,000.  In 1999-2000 the District received $761,013 and in 2000-2001 received 287,421. 

·         For 2000-2001 the current income from investments was budgeted at 5.5 percent.  Since prime interest rates have been reduced, 4 percent is budgeted for 2001-2002.  In doing so, it is projected the District will only  receive $1,600,000 versus $2,200,000.

·         Rental of facilities includes the rental income, $139,337, from the rental of a portion of the  Eisenhower building to Community Interactions of Bucks County, Inc.

·         Receipts/other schools districts and refund of prior year expenditures are now included under miscellaneous revenue.  Previously they were included under other financing sources.

·         The 2001-2002 basic instructional increase is the largest increase the District has had in a number of years.  The increase is $500,000.

·         There is an increase in the special education subsidy of approximately $400,000. 

·         The retirement subsidy last year was $633,241 and the 2001-2002 subsidy is projected to only be $111,248. 

·         The refund of prior years’ expenditures and incoming transfers-receipts from other Pennsylvania school districts is now included in local revenue-miscellaneous instead of other financing sources.

·         The budget reflects a $1,300,000 or 1.3 percent increase in revenue.

In response to a questions raised by Mrs. Butville regarding the Eisenhower facility, Mr. Paradise explained the tenant pays for the utilities, operating costs and does light maintenance such as cutting grass, etc.  The District does some maintenance on the structure itself.  The rental fee is revenue for the District.

Dr. Frank referred to the smoking citations revenue listed in the budget and inquired how the District benefits from smoking citations.  Mr. Paradise explained a fee is levied in the high school for individuals who smoke where they are not suppose to smoke. 

Mr. Stack inquired if a fine can be levied against adults for smoking on District property.  Mrs. Butville pointed out under the new smoking policy instead of punishing those who are caught smoking on District property, the District will pay for the individual to attend cessation classes.  Mr. Stack suggested at another time the Board may want to discuss fining adults for smoking on District property. 

Mrs. Butville inquired if the $200 child development fee is per year, per child.  Mr. Paradise explained the fee is per year, per child.  The child development program is a part of the District’s instructional program.  The fee helps offset the cost of the program.  It takes care of the materials and supplies portion of the program.

Dr. Bowman reviewed the expenditure budget reduction information sheet, which outlines the budget reductions already made (see information sheet for detailed information).  He pointed out the following expenditure budget reductions information. 

·         When the budget requests were received, the budget was at $122,703,888.

·         As of March 14, 2001 expenditure reductions totaling $2,308,200 have been made.

·         The roof projects have been removed from the budget and are being moved over to the Authority. 

·         As of April 27, 2001 a total of $4,896,165 in reductions have been made. 

·         $200,000 was added into the budget for Intermediate Unit transportation costs for transporting students for special education services.

·         The 2001-2002 projected operating budget has been reduced to $118,007,723.

In response to Mr. Schoenstadt’s question about the $300,000 reduction listed for textbooks, Dr. Bowman explained initially $600,000 was budgeted for the full implementation of the Language Arts Program.  Since the program will be phased in over a two year period, $300,000 was removed from the budget.  Previously, a two year phase-in program was conducted for the Math Program and Science Program.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated the District has 12 year old textbooks in the elementary schools.  He indicated he was opposed to delaying the program for two years.  He would prefer to implement the program as soon as possible.  Since the need for the textbooks has been researched carefully, he felt the implementation of the Language Arts Program should not be delayed.

Mr. Mecleary stated at the last Educational Development Meeting, the committee not only discussed phasing in the Language Arts Program over two years, but is seeking information for phasing it in over three years.  Mr. Schoenstadt felt the $300,000 would be well spent and timely spent if it implements the program all at one time.  Mrs. Butville stated actually the total implementation cost is $504,000.  When discussing phasing it in over two years, the first year cost was projected to be $314,500. 

Mr. Dengler stated he has discussed the new Language Arts Program with many of the reading teachers.  He noted next year probably 100 teachers will retire.  Why should the District implement a new reading program for 2001-2002 and put the teachers through learning a new program when it will only last one year?  He suggested the program be delayed one year so the teachers trained to use the program will be working for the District five to ten years.  He said he is opposed to starting the new program next year.  Mr. Dengler said most of the teachers he has talked to have told him in order to help the budget and keep a school open, they have no problem delaying the program one year. 

Mrs. Butville explained because the District will be implementing a new Language Arts Program, a lot of free materials were negotiated as a part of the agreement.  If the purchase is delayed a year, the District may not receive the free materials.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated the free materials are worth $100,000.  There are no assurances that the free materials will be available from the publisher. 

Mr. Mecleary stated the Educational Policies Committee will review the Language Arts Program issue further.  The committee will look into the amount of money the District can expect back by selling the old textbooks.  The committee will review the issue further and it will be discussed again at the Board’s June Work Session.

Dr. Bowman reviewed the 2001-2001 effect of tax millage information sheets (see information sheets for detailed information).  Dr. Bowman pointed out the following:

·         The information sheets provide three scenarios:  effect on tax millage without additional state subsidy as of March 27, 2001, with additional state subsidy as of March 27, 2001 and data as of May 8, 2001.

·         The information included on the effect on tax millage as of May 8, 2001 information sheet will be included in the preliminary budget.  It reflects a 30.4 mill increase, which for the average assessment ($6,600) would equate to a $200 increase per year or $17 per month. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that the administration will continue to review the revenue information and fine tune the fund balance.  Substantial reductions have already been made in expenditures and the expenditures will continue to be reviewed for further reductions.  Every effort will be made to reduce the millage increase. 

Dr. Bowman explained the budget contains the same number of staff positions that are currently in the District.  It does not include any additional positions.  At this point in time, there is a possibility of seven fewer elementary teachers.  There are requests by secondary principals to deal with staffing at the middle schools and high school.  The high school enrollment will be increasing approximately 70 students.  In accordance with the one to twenty ratio, additional staff will be needed at the high school.  By law, the District will need to increase the special education staff.  Dr. Bowman stated between now and the June Work Session he will review every section in the District at the secondary level, class size, number of sections requested, full justification, etc.  All of the school schedules for next year are into a master schedule as to how many sections will be needed, number of students requesting the courses, how many sections are being proposed and the number of teachers necessary.  Every section and team is being reviewed at the middle school and high school levels, as well as the obligation to reduce the class size at the elementary level. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board he recently spoke with Representative Wright and Senator Tomlinson and was advised the Education Bill was passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.  The House of Representatives and Senate passed a retirement Bill today (May 8), which is a major incentive for retirement.  The Bill will be effective July 1.  If the retirement incentive is made available this year and combined with the District’s early retirement incentive program, for every teacher that would retire the District will save $25,000 per teacher the first two years.  Thereafter, the savings will increase.  

Ms. Drioli inquired if Senator Tomlinson has indicated any support for freezing the tax on senior citizens’ property.  Dr. Bowman assured the Board that Senator Tomlinson, Senator Conti and Representative Wright are working hard for the school districts.  He noted the rest of the state looks at suburban Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as the wealthy area of the state and it becomes a real issue.  He felt without the efforts of the legislators, the District would not have received the additional education funding. 

Mr. Stack stated a letter addressed to the Lower Bucks County School Authority has been drafted that states the Neshaminy Board of School Directors is requesting Joseph Bush remain on the Authority for at least one additional year and the direction to the Authority is to spend the balance of their local funds within the next year.  There is further direction to terminate the Authority by June next year.  The Board members indicated they were in agreement with the contents of the letter.  There was Board consensus to mail the letter. 

Mr. Stack requested before Dr. Frank left the meeting, the Board discuss the issues of the appointment of a Treasurer and the school closing timeline.  None of the Board members indicated they were opposed to the request.

      b.  Appointment of Treasurer

Mr. Stack advised the Board Mr. Farmer has indicated he does not wish to be reappointed as Treasurer.  Mr. Schoenstadt recommended the Board consider Marie Wallace for the Treasurer position. 

Mr. Paradise explained the Board needs to make the Treasurer appointment in the month of May.  Mr. Stack announced anyone interested in applying for the Treasurer position needs to send a letter and resume to Dr. Bowman.  Ms. Drioli requested the press include the Treasurer position opening in the article about the Board Meeting.  The appointment of a Treasurer will be an agenda item at the May 22 Public Meeting. 

      c.  School Closing Timeline

Suggested timeline distributed at the meeting.  Mr. Stack stated the question was asked at the last meeting if there was Board consensus to proceed this year to make a decision on the school closing issue.  There was consensus to do that.  The suggested timeline lists additional meetings.  He reviewed the timeline and inquired if the Board is willing to hold a meeting on June 26 or July 31.  He said if the Board is going to take any action on the issue, the August 7 date is a key date.  August 7 is the latest the Board could take action and be in compliance with the School Code.  On August 8 it would have to be publicly announced in the newspaper.  Fifteen days later a Public Meeting must be held, which could be held on August 28.  The Board would not be able to pass a resolution until 90 days subsequent to August 28, which would be November 27.  November 27 is the last time the current Board, as a entity, would meet in public. 

Mr. Eccles questioned if there was consensus to proceed with a school closing this year.  He said why worry about it this year?  It seems as though the public wishes not to close a school.  Mr. Stack noted there have not been any surveys of the 72,000 Neshaminy residents.  He stated if the current Board does not take any action and the next Board does not take the same action that is being proposed for August 7 the first week of February, there will not be any decision on closing a school until September 2003. Mr. Mecleary pointed out the only definite difference in Board members currently serving on the Board and the next Board is Dr. Frank and Mr. Stack.   There would only be two or three new Board members. 

Mr. Eccles and Mr. Mecleary felt the School Board candidates should state their positions on the school closing issue and the public elect those who represent their position on the issue.  Mr. Stack noted the web site www.geocities.com/saveourmiddleschools states the position of all the School Board members.  It does not have the position of all of the candidates, which would be a benefit.  The primary election can decide a School Board election because candidates can cross file. 

Dr. Frank stated she is not voting for  it.  Dr. Frank left the meeting at 10:10 p.m.

Mr. Stack said there was Board consensus to vote to approve doing a timeline this year.  The information distributed is a specific timeline.  He said is there Board consensus for the dates listed on the timeline or are there alternate dates that should be considered?  Mr. Mecleary said January 2002 is when the Board should be discussing whether or not to close school/s.  He said he does not support the proposed timeline and was not sure there was consensus for the proposed timeline. 

Ms. Drioli said it was her understanding there was a majority to establish a timeline whether it be the proposed timeline or another timeline.  She felt the Board has to educate the community how the proposed changes can be positive for the District and community.  She felt the message that the proposed changes are a positive opportunity has not been conveyed to the public.  The only thing the public understands is that the Board wants to close school/s.  She said as much as I agree with closing a school, I am only hearing do not close the schools from the people who elected me to the Board.  I must listen to that.

Mr. Stack said is the timeline acceptable to the Board?  Mr. Schoenstadt stated he would not be able to attend a meeting on June 26 but could attend a meeting on July 31.  Mr. Stack inquired if the timeline was reasonable in respect to availability of staff and providing additional information to the Board.  Dr. Bowman stated if the Board will be meeting in the summer, it provides the administration time to provide additional information.  The administration is continuing to study any new proposals submitted.  It is a matter of the Board members being able to meet during the summer months. 

Ms. Drioli noted the proposed timeline lists August 7 as the date for naming the school/s to be closed.  Ms. Drioli said she could not approve the date of August 7 for naming school/s for closure.  She has recently heard some new ideas which need to be investigated.

Mr. Eccles felt the current direction of the Board is that it still wants to close school/s.  Mr. Stack stated at this time, a decision has not been made to do anything except to hold additional meetings.  Mr. Eccles said why is there a rush to close a school.  He suggested class size be reduced and  alternatives to closing school/s be investigated.  Mr. Stack noted a contract has been agreed to that provides for reducing class size.  Mr. Eccles stated he does not want to be a part of closing any schools.  He felt the Board is trying to railroad closing a school in a short period of time. 

Mr. Stack said he is trying to find out how many meetings must be held to obtain further discussion and input.  He asked the Board members to propose dates for additional meetings.  Mr. Mecleary felt there was not Board consensus to proceed with the school closing issue in accordance with the proposed timeline.  He noted Dr. Frank, Mr. Eccles, Ms. Drioli and himself were not in favor of taking action within the proposed timeline. 

Mr. Stack stated at the last meeting there was a simple majority in favor of the proposed timeline of action, not  the exact dates listed on the timeline.  He noted currently a full Board was not present.  At the previous meeting, the Board agreed to act on a timeline that the Board could use to affect closing school/s potentially in September 2002.  The proposed timeline is a list of specific dates to help the Board manage that.  Mr. Stack said tonight he does not hear a majority of the Board saying they do not support acting on the issue this year. 

Mr. Schoenstadt stated the consensus at the last meeting was not to have a timeline to close a school.  It was a timeline for this Board to review the options in much more detail and have the discussions occur in a public environment and public forum.  There was a consensus at the last meeting by all but one person, Dr. Frank, to expand the discussion.  He felt it would be wrong to close the public out of future discussions during this year.  He said the people are looking to this Board to be responsible.  The individuals who cannot afford the tax increases have as much right to a public discussion of their position as the Board members do of their positions.  By closing out the discussion now until a year from now, they would be denied that opportunity.  The senior citizens have as much right as anyone to the information.  By not providing the opportunity for a public forum, Board members would be doing the senior citizens a disservice and would not be fulfilling their responsibility. 

Mr. Eccles felt Board members have made up their minds and the Board is just going through the motions.  Mr. Mecleary felt the public hearings on the issue should be held next year and not this year.  Ms. Drioli said during the discussions she has kept an open mind.  She said she thought she had agreed to decide tonight on a timeline, whether it be the proposed one or a later timeline.  She said the Board has not heard from the senior citizens.  She indicated at this point, she has not reached a decision on the school closing issue. 

Mrs. Butville said at this point, she does not want to stop the process.  The Board should keep holding the meetings to keep generating ideas and studying the issue.  Ms. Drioli indicated she was in favor of continuing to hold the meetings. 

Mr. Stack asked if there were any specific dates listed on the proposed timeline that Board members could not attend.  Mrs. Butville suggested the timeline be followed up to the August 7 date.  If on August 7 the Board has received enough data and reaches a decision, it can take action then.  If not, then the timeline changes.  If the timeline is followed up to August 7, it does not mean the Board must take action on that date.  Mr. Stack said by following the proposed timeline, the Board would have the option to make a decision, take action or take no action.  Mr. Stack felt the Board has a responsibility to continue to hear public input on the issue. 

Since a full Board was not present, there was no clear majority on the school closing issue timeline.  Therefore, no decision was made on the timeline.

      a.  Approval of 2001-2002 - Preliminary Budget (cont.)

In response to Mrs. Butville’s question about the fund balance, Dr. Bowman explained the final fund balance is not available yet.  The proposed budget includes a fund balance of $2,500,000 to help balance the budget. 

Mr. Dengler stated he would not vote for a 30 or 10 mill increase.  He felt there are a number of things that can be done to reduce the budget, such as delaying some things for another year.  He noted a 30 mill increase would be equal to a $200 tax increase on a home assessed at the average of $6,600.  Many homes are assessed over $10,000, which will result in a tax increase of over $500.

Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the unreserved fund balance analysis information sheet distributed to Board members.  He noted the following:

·         Actual Audited as of  June 30, 2000                   $7,531,522

·         Amount to be used in Current Budget                 ($4,200,000)

·         Carry Forward Balance                                      $3,332,522

·         Estimated Anticipated Additional                        $1,500,000

·         Available for 2001-02 Budget                               $4,832,522

·         Amount to be used in 2001-02 Budget                  $2,500,000

·         Carryover into 2002-03 Budget                             $2,300,000

Dr. Bowman explained the rule of thumb is to try not to use over 50 percent of the fund balance so it will be available the following year in case there is no fund balance.  The fund balance is getting smaller every year, because computers are being used to rollover salary accounts and it is becoming a more accurate process of budgeting.  The projected $2,500,000 fund balance may increase slightly. 

In response to a question raised by Mr. Schoenstadt, Dr. Bowman explained there is a budget reserve account of $500,000, which is the emergency fund.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated state guidelines recommend 3 percent of the total budget be allocated for the reserve/emergency fund.  He said since the District’s reserve account is so low, isn’t the District taking a risk?  Dr. Bowman explained $500,000 has been budgeted for the reserve account for the last ten years.  If the District were to experience a tragedy, a part of the School Code allows emergency spending and the District has insurance.  

Ms. Drioli said it is difficult to increase taxes 30 mills when the District has a fund balance in excess of  $3,000,000 to $4,000,000.  She said she understands the District needs funds to rollover into the next year. 

Mr. Dengler left the meeting at 10:30 p.m.

Ms. Drioli said if the modular units were closed and the items stored in the Eisenhower building moved to the Maple Point building, would it allow the Board to generate more rental revenue and realize a savings in the areas of electricity, heating, etc.  Mr. Paradise explained closing the modular units will save a little in the operating cost area.  The cost of moving the modular units is enormous.  Two-thirds of the Eisenhower building is currently rented and the District receives $140,000 in rental income each year.  If the Facilities and Engineering Department were moved to another location and the entire building was rented out, the most the District would receive is an additional $60,000.  It would cost a huge sum of money to move the Facilities and Engineering Department.  The Department is responsible for the maintenance of 1,500,000 square feet of floor space in all fourteen school buildings in the District.  The Department works with very sophisticated  technology and has big shops.  The savings would not equal the cost of finding another location for the Facilities and Engineering Department. 

     d.  Resolution Requesting Permission to Participate in the Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit

          No. 13 Bid

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman explained currently the District cooperates with another Intermediate Unit’s bid process.  The Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit will be doing large group bidding.  Participating in bidding groups saves the School District money.  In order to participate in the large group bidding process, the Board must approve a motion. 

In response to a question raised by Mrs. Butville, Mr. Paradise explained the District does not have to buy the items submitted for bid by the Intermediate Unit.  However, approval of the motion will allow the District the opportunity to purchase the items if it chooses to do so.

Participation in the Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit No. 13 bidding process will be an agenda item at the May 22 Public Meeting.

      e.  2001-2002 Intermediate Unit Special Education Contracted Services

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman advised the Board every year the Board is furnished with a list of the Intermediate Unit special education services provided for Neshaminy students who the District does not have an appropriate program to provide for the students’ educational needs. 

The 2001-2002 Intermediate Unit special education contracted services will be an agenda item at the May 22 Public Meeting.

      f.  Bell Atlantic Easement Accommodation for CEV

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman explained the Board had previously approved a motion to allow an easement at the end of the Maple Point property.  The District was paid $6,000 for the easement.  Bell Atlantic never made use of the easement, but the District was allowed to keep the money.  The company now wants to do another easement and is willing to pay the District $8,500 for the new easement. 

A motion will be presented at the May 22 Public Meeting for approval of the easement request.

      g.  Appointment of Board Secretary and Assistant Board Secretary

Dr. Bowman advised the Board a motion will be presented at the May 22 Public Meeting to reappoint the Board Secretary and Assistant Board Secretary. 

      h.  Approval of Bids and Budget Transfers

Mr. Paradise reviewed the following bids

Bid No. 01-19 - Rooftop Air Handling Unit Replacement

Bid Amount:  $108,400.00

The bid is for the replacement of rooftop air conditioning units at the Maple Point Middle School.  When the Maple Point facility was renovated, 13 air handling units on top of the facility were not replaced at that time, because they did not need replacement.  It is a shared cost of this year and next year.  The bid is for one unit.  There are several other air handling units that will need to be replaced over the next few years. 

Bid No. 01-26 - Optical Imaging System

Bid Amount:  $11,650.00

The bid is for the purchase and installation of hardware and software comprising an optical imaging system for student records storage for Pupil Services.  The system will replace the data storage system.  Pupil Services is required to keep 99 years of student records.  Dr. Bowman explained this is an emergency purchase, because transcripts come out of the system.  A budget transfer from the District budget reserve will be requested for this purchase. 

Bid No. 02-06 - Classroom and Art Aids

Bid Amount:  $38,719.68

The bid is for classroom and art supplies for the 2001-02 school year which include the following:  paints, drawing paper, brushes, markers, yarn, cloth and other arts and crafts materials for the classroom use. 

Mr. Paradise reported Budget Transfer Report 01-07 (working copy), which includes three transactions, will be presented for approval at the May 22 Public Meeting.

The bids and budget transfers will be agenda items for the May 22 Public Meeting.

5.   Item for Discussion

      a.  Facility Closing - Timeline and Update

Dr. Bowman stated supporting the retention of modular classrooms and Intermediate Unit classes equates to not being able to achieve some of the scenarios without going to a higher utilization of the buildings.  Due to retaining some of the Intermediate Unit classes, some of the scenarios will be off the table when the full analysis is completed.  If a school is closed, there will be significant redistricting in the community.  Just because a student might not be attending a particular school, there could be a strong likelihood they could be moved to another building because of realigned boundaries.  Redistricting will require students to move from their current home school to another school.  To equalize the load in all buildings, students will need to be moved to other school buildings. 

Dr. Bowman pointed out that the elementary enrollment projection shows over the next five years enrollment will continue to decrease another 250 students.  St. Mary Medical Center is projecting over the next five years a decline in the birth rate.  This is in line with the data the administration has been using to project enrollment.  While the elementary enrollment has decreased over the years, the District has added Intermediate Unit classes.  The District is paying for three Intermediate Unit classrooms it should be providing space for but has not accommodated that need.  The cost next year will be $13,000 per classroom and the following year the cost will increase to $15,000 per classroom. 

Dr. Bowman explained schedules have been created for the scenario of closing a middle school, balancing out students in the other middle schools, and flexing into the Schweitzer School.  The impact of this scenario, especially how it will be accommodated in the special subject areas, will be reviewed.  One of the things being created as a result of this scenario is a mini middle school at the Schweitzer School, because some special facilities would have to be added to the Schweitzer School.  This will be reviewed in detail.  As new options are presented, they will be reviewed.

Mr. Stack stated he would be interested in the cost associated with using the Schweitzer School as an extension of the Sandburg Middle School.  He noted the closing of  one of the middle schools would allow for materials and equipment to be relocated to another middle school, which would defray some of the costs. 

Dr. Bowman said a typical classroom at the Schweitzer School is approximately 700 square feet.  Newer classrooms are 750 square feet.  A technical education lab runs approximately 2,000 to 2,400 square feet.  The family living class would probably be equal to two elementary classrooms.  Not counting equipment, renovations costs are approximately $100 per square foot and new construction costs approximately $125 per square foot.  The renovation issue has been discussed with architects.  Dr. Bowman said before deciding which renovations need to be done, he wants to first review the schedule created by the administrators.  Mr. Stack stated he would be particularly interested in knowing if the existing technical education facilities can be used.  How many periods a day is the technical education classroom utilized?

Mr. Mecleary left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.

Dr. Bowman said the key is when are the classrooms open.  He explained a team of  students (125 students) go to the special subjects at one time.   They are disbursed among technology, art, music, health and physical education and the computer lab.  It is not a matter of just having one space available.  The issue is how do you get maximum utilization out of the facilities and still maintain the integrity of the middle school program. 

Mr. Stack asked if the Maple Point Middle School can operate at 80 percent capacity and still provide a middle school program.  Dr. Bowman explained he will have more information tomorrow (May 9) after the meeting with administrators.  The administrators’ review included the following criteria:  do not take class size over 30 students, how many more students can fit into the Maple Point Middle School and provide the middle school program.  The questions regarding the Sandburg School are the same.  The Sandburg School would flex into the Schweitzer School with regular teams, the students would be housed at the Schweitzer School as a team and would leave Schweitzer to attend classes for special subjects.  Can the students be scheduled in the special subjects and are there enough rooms?

Dr. Bowman announced he will hold a meeting with administrators tomorrow (May 9) at 9:00 a.m. to review the utilization issue.  Board members are welcomed to attend the meeting.  Mrs. Butville, Mr. Dengler, Ms. Drioli, Mr. Mecleary and Mr. Schoenstadt have indicated they will attend the meeting.  Dr. Bowman emphasized it is not a Board Meeting.  It is the Superintendent’s administrative meeting. 

Mr. Stack stated the middle school program includes five periods within the facility.  When it goes beyond the five periods, it may be necessary for some of the staff to travel from a classroom they might use all day to teach a class in another location.  The District already has two facilities that exceed the five period usage.  Dr. Bowman explained it is not a regular teacher that is traveling.  The core teachers are not traveling.  They have a home base and are part of a team. The students are in the same room four periods a day and sometimes five periods.  During fifth period there are advisory classes taking place, mentoring, tutoring, etc.  Mr. Stack said is the middle school program jeopardized, because a subject teacher is traveling from one part of the building to another part of the building to teach a class of students?  Dr. Bowman stated if this is the case, that class of students does not have a home base.  If the teacher is part of the students’ core teaching staff, the students travel with the teacher.  The further the program moves away from the team approach, the closer it gets to being a mini junior high school program.

Dr. Bowman said one of the primary indicators of  quality teaching is the amount of time a teacher puts into preparing to teach.  If teachers do not put the time in preparing to teach, they will not be as affective as a teacher who spends additional time preparing.  Teachers prepare at night but also there are preparations in the classroom.   With technology and computers, there are things teachers have to have ready and available in their classroom.  Teachers are engaging students in a variety of learning activities.  Compromises will result in the program moving further away from the middle school philosophy, moving closer to the junior high philosophy and compromise the integrity of a program that has been working very effectively. 

Mr. Stack stated the Board has been advised that the maximum optimal capacity is 80 percent.  However, when approaching 80 percent, the usage of a given classroom increases from five periods to six periods.  Dr. Bowman explained the teacher leaves the classroom to go to lunch.  While the teacher is at lunch, a foreign language or health class could be taught in the classroom.  If a building had 300 rooms, would the Board want to make it a middle school at 80 percent capacity?  The ideal size for a new elementary school is 500 students.  The Central Bucks School District has planned a new middle school with 1,000 students.  However, it is two schools within one.  The ideal size for a new middle school is 750 students.  All the data states the optimum number of students to maximize effective learning in teaching is 750 students.  The ideal size for a high school is 1,200 students.  At one time, Neshaminy’s high school enrollment was 1,200 students.  There have been numerous additions to the high school and now there are 2,700 students in Neshaminy High School.  The Maple Point Middle School is operating with 1,100 students because of the way it is designed, organized and staffed. 

Mr. Stack noted by taking a position on the Intermediate Unit classes, the Board may have eliminated certain options.  He said he was interested in seeing the breakdown by building so he could see how the action would apply to each of the different buildings.  For example, currently the Hoover School has one Intermediate Unit class with three Neshaminy students.  If the Hoover School is closed, the capacity at all of the elementary schools would be between 90 and 95 percent.  He questioned how accurate it was to say by closing one class with three Neshaminy students will result in a 10 percent increase in all of the other District elementary schools.  Dr. Bowman explained if the Hoover School is closed, 621 students will be displaced and there will be the addition of 10 classrooms, which is equivalent to 250 stations.  

Mr. Schoenstadt stated using the rationale that the ideal middle school has 750 students, if the District had three middle schools with an enrollment of 750 students, the total number of middle school students would be 2,250 students.  The students would be distributed unevenly because the District has one large school, one medium size school and one small school.  If the District keeps four middle schools open, there would be capacity for 3,000 students, but the projected enrollment is only 2,407 students, which is within the 80 percent capacity.  In theory, the Board could do nothing and have the capacity to add 700 more students or close a middle school and be in the 750 student range per school.  The enrollment would have to be evened out among the schools.

Dr. Bowman explained the May 9 administrator meeting will include discussing how many more students can be handled at the Maple Point Middle School without interfering with the middle school program.  The discussion will also include how many students can be accommodated at the Sandburg School under the middle school program.

Mr. Schoenstadt stated the same basic educational program is currently provided in all our middle schools.  Dr. Bowman said the one exception is the area of technology.  The Poquessing and Neshaminy Middle Schools do not have the technology program that is available at the Maple Point Middle and Sandburg Middle Schools.  Funds have been allocated for next year to update the two middle schools’ technology programs.  With very few exceptions, the educational program is the same in the four middle schools.  The Board has consistently demonstrated equality throughout the District when it comes to educational and co-curricular opportunities. 

Mrs. Butville related a proposal someone had presented to her, which includes kindergarten classes being held in the morning only.  This would eliminate the afternoon busing of kindergarten students.  The kindergarten classrooms in the afternoon could be used for after school classes, which parents would pay for.                          

Ms. Drioli stated she received a suggestion which involved moving the modular classrooms to the high school to create an alternative school in the modular classrooms.  Mrs. Butville pointed out there may be some problems associated with the suggestion because some of the modulars do not have any bathrooms or plumbing.  The modular classrooms would have to be placed in an area where they would be self contained.  Dr. Bowman stated implementation of such may result in losing some of the ball field areas.  Ms. Drioli also suggested some of the community businesses may be willing to assistant the District in the relocation of the modular classrooms, which would help defray the cost.  Mr. Stack recommended the modular classroom/alternative school be presented in writing and reviewed by the administration.  Mr. Schoenstadt suggested the individuals formalize a quote on the modular classroom relocation so the administration can review the quote. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that House Bill 996 has been passed by the House of Representatives and Senate.  It includes a provision for the educational improvement tax credit.  Under the Bill there will be a tax credit to business firms that contribute to either a nonprofit scholarship organizations or nonprofit educational improvement organizations.  A contribution is defined as cash, personal property or services.  There is now a major tax incentive on the books that the Governor is going to sign that will encourage corporations and business firms to do these kinds of things and provide them with a tax credit. 

Ms. Drioli recommended the administration investigate the availability of any alternative school grants.  Mr. Schoenstadt stated the Bill also includes provisions for school districts to start their own charter schools.  Ms. Drioli stated if the District were to start its own Charter School, she would like the District to use its own union. 

6.   Items for Information

      a.  1999-2000 Neshaminy High School Profile

Information distributed prior to the meeting.  Dr. Bowman briefly reviewed the school profile information sheet distributed to Board members (see information sheet for detailed information).  The profile is a result of the data collected through the Pennsylvania School Assessment System. 

      b.  Surplus Equipment for Sale

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that the Neshaminy School District does sell surplus equipment once or twice a year.  The sale results in some revenue for the District.

7.   Superintendent’s Report

Dr. Bowman reported House Bill 996 includes the following provisions:

·         Allows districts to establish independent schools.

·         Provides for a new teacher assessment program.

·         Provides access to automatic external defibrillators in schools.

·         Provides for the educational improvement tax credit.

·         Provides for special education payments to school districts for the fiscal year 2001-2002.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board that House Bill 26, which is a new retirement bill that includes teachers, was passed in the Senate and House of Representatives.  It is projected the Bill will not cost local school districts tax dollars.  It provides a retirement incentive to teachers with a factor of 2.5.  If a teacher has been teaching for 30 years, it will be 75 percent and not 60 percent of their salary.  This is a major retirement incentive for individuals to retire early.  It will be paid for by requiring all teachers hired after July 1 to pay a new rate of 6.5 percent.  The Governor has agreed to sign onto the new program.  Dr. Bowman recommended this House Bill be tied with an early retirement incentive.

Mrs. Butville pointed out if teachers take advantage of the retirement incentive, it will not be necessary for the District to lay off as many people.  Ms. Drioli inquired if it is possible to hire any new teachers this year as long term substitutes rather than full time employees.  She expressed concern once the District hires teachers, the District is not able to suspend the teachers.  Dr. Bowman explained due to legal issues, it would not be possible to hire new employees as long term substitutes.  He pointed out in the 1980s the District suspended contract teachers with up to ten years experience due to declining enrollment.  Last year the District would have suspended fourteen positions.  Due to retirements it was not necessary to suspend teachers.  The same legal obligations apply to a long term per diem employee as a contract employee. 

Messrs. Schoenstadt and Stack indicated they favored tying together House Bill 26 and the District’s early retirement incentive.  Mrs. Butville indicated she was undecided.

8.   Committee Reports

      a.  Educational Development Committee

Mrs. Butville reported the committee reviewed the new textbooks for the Language Arts Program.  Initially the committee discussed phasing in the purchase over two years.  It also discussed phasing the program in over three or four years.  A different publisher was selected for the pre-first program so the children who go from kindergarten to pre-first will not repeat the same material they learned in kindergarten and first grade. 

      b.  Educational Foundation

           No report presented.

      c.  Finance Committee

Mr. Stack requested the committee review the budget document and the possibility of a bond issue.  Mr. Eccles stated the Finance Committee hopes to meet some time between now and the June Work Session. 

      d.  Intermediate Unit Board

Ms. Drioli reported the Intermediate Unit Board recently visited the prison where books are transcribed into Braille.  The Lions Club of Lower Bucks County has donated the computer equipment for the program.  She said it is a fantastic program. 

      e.  Board Policies Committee

Mrs. Butville reported the committee has been working on a student attendance policy.  The goal is to present the policy for approval at the June Public Meeting so it will be in affect by September.

      f.  Technical School Board

Dr. Bowman reminded the Board members that the Technical School Board Meeting will be held on May 10 and the Technical School budget will be presented for approval at that meeting.  He urged all Board members to attend the meeting. 

      g.  Technology Committee

Mr. Stack reminded the Board members they were provided with information regarding salary adjustments of 20 cents per hour for a few of the technology support staff members. The department manager is making $15,000 less than any of the counterparts in Bucks County.  The recommendation was to address the inequity over a three year time period.  The department manager has demonstrated additional efforts in various initiatives, and these efforts have been beneficial to the District.  Mrs. Butville and Ms. Drioli indicated they support the recommended salary adjustments.  Mr. Eccles indicated he would like to review the issue further.  Mr. Stack stated Ms. Drioli, Mrs. Butville, Mr. Schoenstadt, Mr. Dengler and Dr. Frank have indicated to him they support the salary adjustments.  Therefore, it was determined the majority of Board members support the salary adjustments. 

9.   Public Comment

Mr. McEchome, Langhorne, asked how many million dollars did the Board invest in the teachers contract by reducing class size in the elementary schools.  Dr. Bowman explained the declining enrollment that is occurring and will continue to occur over the next five years was reviewed.  The Board tried to implement the class size reduction program to follow the declining enrollment.  In essence, the administration will not have to create new classrooms as a result of decreasing class size.  The change in the contract is being phased in over time.  The Board took a prudent way of going about the issue of reducing class size over time as enrollment declines.  The change does not affect this budget. 

Ms. Dalton, Neshaminy Middle School PTO representative, asked what decision the Board reached regarding the school closing issue and timeline.  Mr. Stack explained nine Board members were not present at the meeting.  There was a difference of opinion among the Board members and the Board is split four, four.  The Board did not take any further action on the issue.  He said he had understood there to be Board consensus at the previous meeting for the Board to continue with the dialogue and proceed on some timeline.  An attempt was made earlier in the meeting to solidify a timeline with specific dates and times.  However, there was no consensus to do that.  Mr. Stack said he is very interested in having a full Board of nine members present to make this important decision. 

Mr. Peters, Langhorne, inquired about the plan in the elementary schools to reduce the class size.  He requested a chart be provided showing the current class sizes and how much they will be reduced each year.  Mr. Stack said that information can be made available on the District’s web site.  He explained when the teachers contract was approved, the proposal was broken down by grade and year.  The Board acted on the recommendation of the Facilities and Enrollment Committee and put the reduced class size program in place.  Ms. Drioli stated part of the decision was also driven by parents’ input.  Dr. Bowman stated the information will be made available on the District’s web site. 

Mrs. Butville noted the budget includes give backs in the area of prescriptions and medical insurance.  This year the District will be receiving back $225,000. 

A Neshaminy resident asked if members of the public can attend the administrative meeting scheduled for May 9.  Dr. Bowman explained the meeting is not open to the public.  It is a meeting

where the administrators will be presenting information to him.  As a courtesy, he has invited the School Board members to attend the meeting and absorb the information so they can receive it firsthand.  The end result of the information reviewed at the meeting may be shared at a Board Meeting.   Mr. Stack inquired if there will be Board dialogue at the meeting.  Dr. Bowman stated there will be no Board dialogue.  It is not a Board Meeting.  Mr. Stack stated if five or six Board members attend the meeting, he is concerned as to what extent the Board can reach any kind of conclusions or opinions.  Dr. Bowman said the meeting is his administrative meeting.  It is not a Board Meeting.  It is almost like an inservice training program.  The Board members are invited to attend the meeting and listen to the information presented.  He noted the Board can legally have an inservice training program with all nine Board members present. 

10. Future Topics

      There were no future topics discussed.

11. Agenda Development for the May 22, 2001 Public Meeting

      Dr. Bowman will develop the agenda for the May 22 Public Meeting.

12. Correspondence

Mr. Stack reported he received a letter from Ms. Morrow regarding a student who would like to have his picture included in the yearbook.  The letter inquires if it could possibly be arranged to have the student’s picture included in the yearbook.  The letter was referred to Dr. Bowman. 

13. Other Board Business

Mr. Eccles referred to the information included in the May 1 Board Meeting minutes regarding the “Speak Your Piece” radio program.  It was stated at the May 1 meeting there was an expense attached to the program.  He explained a sponsor has been obtained for the program.  Therefore, there will be no cost to the District.  He felt the District will also be able to obtain a sponsor for future programs.  He reminded everyone the program will be held tomorrow, May 9, at noon. 

14. May 1 Minutes Clarification/Correction

Page nine of the May 1 Public Board/Public Input Meeting minutes lists Mr. Dengler’s comment as follows:

“He said he would rather spend time reviewing the budget and postpone the school closing issue until next year.”

In order to clarify his statement and remove any ambiguity, the statement is being corrected to read as follows:

“He said he would rather spend time reviewing the budget and postpone the closing of a school until next year.”

Mr. Eccles moved the meeting be adjourned and Mrs. Butville seconded the motion.  The Board voted to adjourn the meeting with five ayes.  Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 11:40 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.