Minutes: SIFT
October 26, 2010
Present: Mark Doyle, Kevin Donohue, Muphy Sewall, Chuck Pennewill, Richard Bloomer and Jeff Smith
Absent: Erika Haynes
- Call to order at 7:05
- Presentation – Paula Colen, Executive Director EastConn. She pointed that there there are 6 regional educational service centers in the CT, all of them public non-profits. EastConn has a budget of about $142M and 500 employees in 12 sites. EastConn works with Windham in a number of areas. In the Q&A with the committee members she pointed out two areas where she saw really innovative changes in public education in CT. The first was what she termed the “revolutionary” union contract in New Haven. This is with the same parent union as Windham has but in New Haven she saw the union as a critical agent of educational innovation. The key to the New Haven program was teacher evaluations. In Hartford she spoke about the “school portfolio” approach to educational improvement where schools are evaluated and managed by the superintendent based on how well they are doing. Low performing schools are reconstituted. She summarized saying that districts making real progress were very child centered.
- Bloomer moved that minutes be accepted as presented and Smith seconded. It was unanimous.
- Old Business focused on the budget projections. These numbers show a budget gap of $4.7 M next year mostly as a result of decreased federal support but that the gap is projected to grow to $10.8M by 2015. This would be to maintain services at the present level only and not with any new programs. The discussion went over how these numbers were developed by the committee over the last two meetings. (These are presented below.) Mark Doyle said that while it is impossible to know for sure what would occur in the future that these projections were good documents for planning purposes. Chuck pointed out that the school readiness numbers were probably expressed to minimize the budget gap but that these numbers were reasonable guides. Jeff said that this is probably as good as we can get.
Windham Public Schools Income/Expense Projections | ||||||
Projected Percent Rise Per Year | ||||||
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | ||
Health Care | 20.00% | 14.00% | 14.00% | 14.00% | 14.00% | |
Certified Staff | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | |
Non Certified Staff | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | 2.50% | |
Utilities | 2.00% | 2.00% | 2.00% | 2.00% | 2.00% | |
Tuition | 8.00% | 8.00% | 8.00% | 8.00% | 8.00% | |
Transportation | 2.00% | 2.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | |
Non-instructional | 0.00% | 0.50% | 3.00% | 3.00% | 3.00% | |
Other | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | |
Projected Costs | ||||||
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
Health Care/Benefits | 7,332,511.00 | 8,799,013.20 | 10,030,875.05 | 11,435,197.55 | 13,036,125.21 | 14,861,182.74 |
Certified Staff | 18,584,173.00 | 19,048,777.33 | 19,524,996.76 | 20,013,121.68 | 20,513,449.72 | 21,026,285.96 |
Non Certified Staff | 5,712,729.00 | 5,855,547.23 | 6,001,935.91 | 6,151,984.30 | 6,305,783.91 | 6,463,428.51 |
Utilities | 1,156,650.00 | 1,179,783.00 | 1,203,378.66 | 1,227,446.23 | 1,251,995.16 | 1,277,035.06 |
Tuition | 2,119,559.00 | 2,289,123.72 | 2,472,253.62 | 2,670,033.91 | 2,883,636.62 | 3,114,327.55 |
Transportation | 2,110,400.00 | 2,152,608.00 | 2,195,660.16 | 2,217,616.76 | 2,239,792.93 | 2,262,190.86 |
Non-instructional/Non Inst | 4,190,501.00 | 4,190,501.00 | 4,211,453.51 | 4,337,797.11 | 4,467,931.02 | 4,601,968.95 |
Other | 44,470.00 | 44,914.70 | 45,363.85 | 45,817.49 | 46,275.66 | 46,738.42 |
Total Costs/Year | 41,250,993.00 | 43,560,268.17 | 45,685,917.50 | 48,099,015.03 | 50,744,990.23 | 53,653,158.05 |
Projected Percent Rise Per Year | ||||||
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | ||
Tax Payer | 4.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | |
Priority | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
State ECS | -2.5% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 1.5% | |
ARRA | -2.5% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 1.5% | |
Grants | 2.0% | 3.0% | 4.0% | 4.0% | 5.0% | |
Projected Income | ||||||
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
Tax Payer | $ 17,000,000.00 | $ 17,799,000.00 | $ 18,635,553.00 | $ 19,511,423.99 | 20,428,460.92 | 21,388,598.58 |
Priority | $ 1,100,000.00 | $ 1,100,000.00 | $ 1,100,000.00 | $ 1,100,000.00 | 1,100,000.00 | 1,100,000.00 |
State ECS | $ 16,029,618.00 | $ 15,628,877.55 | $ 15,628,877.55 | $ 15,785,166.33 | 16,021,943.82 | 16,262,272.98 |
ARRA | $ 3,360,000.00 | $ - | $ - | $ - | - | - |
Grants | $ 3,412,487.00 | $ 3,480,736.74 | $ 3,585,158.84 | $ 3,728,565.20 | 3,877,707.80 | 4,071,593.19 |
School Improvement | $ 348,888.00 | $ 773,000.00 | $ 773,000.00 | $ - | - | - |
Total Income/Year | $ 41,253,003.00 | $ 38,783,625.29 | $ 39,724,601.39 | $ 40,127,168.51 | $ 41,430,126.54 | $ 42,824,479.75 |
Projected Gap between Income and Expenses | - | (4,776,642.88) | (5,961,316.11) | (7,971,846.52) | (9,314,863.69) | (10,828,678.30) |
- New Business – SIFT Blog. The idea of a blog where SIFT minutes could be presented and committee and well as public comment could be kept was discussed. Richard wondered about Facebook, Murphy said that it would be good to have public input and that this would be a better way to communicate with the people of Windham. Jeff pointed out that we might need to control it.
Richard moved and Jeff seconded a motion to have Kevin and Murphy come up with a prototype to discuss at the next meeting.
6. Future agenda items produced a discussion with no conclusion other than to stay with the approach already discussed including presentations.
7. Citizens and Delegation: Henry Crane pointed out that there was a need to reach out to the community. James Flores said that the Windham Public Schools system is out of touch with the community. He pointed out that even employees of the school system don’t support it as evidenced by the repeated budget failures.
8. Motion to adjourn at 8:25
We need an objective analysis of our existing facilities.
ReplyDeleteThe former SBC insisted that we have overcrowding, and therefore need a new building, and that Natchaug School would not close.
But during the budget process over the last few years, it was mentioned that Natchaug could be closed immediately. Those students would apparantly fit into existing classrooms. The 3rd floor of Kramer is empty, perhaps that was part of the plan?
We know that we do not have an "extra" 350 students to put in the new school. Logically, a school will close. Can we be honest about that? If so, we can figure the operating costs of that building into the expected savings.
Sweeney has no cafeteria, but is accessible without buses. Natchaug is oldest and perhaps most energy efficient (I believe the school has an analysis of this as part of the energy contracting they've had done), and accessible without buses. I have no real idea of the condition/needs of the other schools, but the Capital Improvement Plan shows few problems over all. Which school(s) will be closed when the Magnet opens?
Common sense tells us that we cannot accept "no school will close" as the truth.
Just trying to help close the gap.
Thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that once the magnet school opens closing one existing building will be an option. Natchaug School currently is receiving $773,000 a year in grant money that cannot be transferred to another building. That grant will expire after the 2012-2013 academic year.
Among the options the Board of Education will have to consider are: moving out of the leased space that the school district occupies in the Kramer building, applying for magnet school funding to make capital renovations to the Natchaug buileding and convert it to a magnet school, and closing one of our existing buildings.
Thanks for the reply, Murph.
ReplyDeleteBut it's still too vague. If we're going to apply for funding for a magnet school anywhere else, we'd better apply right now.
What school is closing? The BOE needs to make a decision right away so that plans can be made. If Kramer is going to be abandoned, we need to start plans to reuse it and/or turn it over to ECSU for demolition. If the ECSU option is chosen, we need to start plans for the new community center, asap.
If we have honest, open planning, then we can have good planning.