HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-19 School Committee MinutesReading Public Schools Reading, Massachusetts RECEIVED TOWN CLERK Regular Meeting of the School CommitdRE A D I N G. M A S S. Open Session Date: January 19, 2012 Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: Superintendent's Conference Room School Committee Members Present Karen Janowski David Michaud Chris Caruso Chuck Robinson Lisa Gibbs Hal Croft Visitors: Craig Martin, Coolidge Principal Ellie Freedman, RMHS Principal Karen Feeney, Joshua Eaton Principal Beth Beaulieu, Parker Assistant Principal Phil Vaccaro, Athletic Director Lynn Dunn, Director of Nurses Matt Wilson, Network Administrator RPS Budget Parents Call to Order 1011 FEB -2 P1209 Staff Members Present John Doherty, Superintendent Mary DeLai, Director of Finance and Operations Alison Elmer, Director of Student Services Elizabeth Conway, Human Resources Administrator Barbara Jones, Reading Chronicle Paula Perry, Fincom Chairperson Robinson called the School Committee to order at 7:30 p.m. He reviewed the agenda and welcomed guests. II. Recommended Procedure A. Public Input (I) Reports I 1. Student 2. Liaison Mr. Caruso said he attended the Coolidge Middle School production of Cinderella. He said it was a great event. Mrs. Janowski reported on the recent Martin Luther King celebration. It was a nice ceremony and was well attended. January 19, 2012 Chair Robinson reported on the Audit Committee meeting he attended. The meeting was attended by the auditors. Discussion was held on the areas to audit next year. Reading had a breakeven year. 3. Superintendent's Report Dr. Doherty followed up on Mrs. Janowski's comments regarding the MLK Breakfast and Celebration. He thanked all that helped coordinate the event. He thanked METCO Director Jesenia Castro for securing the guest speaker for the event. He also reported on recent meetings he attended on the Educator Evaluation Process including his trip to Washington, D.C. to work with State and Federal officials. Dr. Doherty said he would present more information at an upcoming meeting. He also attended an informative workshop earlier in the wee. 4. Assistant Superintendent B. Continued Business FYI Budget Update Ms. DeLai reviewed that status of the FY 12 budget. All accounts are in good shape as we enter the second half of the fiscal year. C. New Business FYI 3 Special Education Cost Center Dr. Doherty gave a brief overview of this cost center and turned the meeting over to Ms. Elmer Ms. Elmer reviewed what was included in this cost center. She reviewed the roles of staff that are included in this area and focused on the need for the previously approved hirings to address the behavioral health of students by alleviating the case loads on the school psychologists to allow them to counsel students. Increases in this cost center include salaries for staff, the addition of staffing to address the above mentioned needs, legal services, tutoring services, transportation and out of district placements. She also mentioned that the district will be upgrading the software, adding modules to the Semstracker package. Reductions in the Special Education Cost Center include parent transportation, adaptive equipment purchases, out of district placements, paraprofessional educators, testing & evaluation, instructional and administrative supplies. The use of Special Education offsets will supplement the budget. Ms. Elmer and Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. FY 13 Other District Proerams Cost Center Ms. DeLai reviewed the make up and functions of this cost center. She reviewed the Health Service budget which includes the school nursing staff. Reading is fortunate to have a nurse in every building. Increases in salaries, professional development and supplies make up the increases in this cost center. Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. Ms. DeLai reviewed the Athletic Cost Center which includes salaries for the Athletic Director, Coaches and Clerical support as well as contracted services ranging from equipment maintenance to police details. The budget also includes supplies and materials and other expenses such as professional development, event entry fees, awards, equipment and dues & memberships. January 19, 2012 Ms. DeLai pointed out that the level of participation has not dropped with the implementation of higher user fees. As in all the other cost centers staff salaries contribute too much of the increases in the budget. Other anticipated increases include higher transportation and official fees, trainer and team supplies, uniform costs, entry fees and dues & memberships and the need for specialized equipment. The district will use athletic offsets to supplement this cost center. Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. Mr. Caruso asked if we were spending enough to support athletics and extra - curricular activities. He felt that participation enhances the whole school experience. He would like to discuss this at a future meeting. Ms. DeLai pointed out that parent and community groups also provide financial support for our athletics and extra - curricular activities. Mrs. Janowski asked if Ms. DeLai could provide the amount of money donated by theses groups. Mrs. Gibbs followed up with a request for the amount of money that has been donated to academic areas. Dr. Doherty and Ms. DeLai indicated that they will provide that information at a future meeting. Ms. DeLai reviewed the Extracurricular Activities Cost Center. She outlined the components of this cost center. Salaries, transportation, entry fees, royalties and equipment costs all contribute to the increase in this cost center. The district will use offsets to supplement this cost center. Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. Ms. DeLai reviewed the Networking & Technology Maintenance Cost Center. She outlined the components of this cost center. She reviewed the technology inventory and felt that it is very important to provide technology support to maintain the equipment. There is a request to add 1.5 FTE computer technician positions to address this priority. Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. FYI School Building Maintenance Cost Center Ms. DeLai reviewed the School Building Maintenance Cost Center. She thanked Director of Facilities Joe Huggins and Energy and Facilities Manager DJ Cacciapuoti for their diligence and overseeing our building maintenance to keep energy, repair and maintenance of facilities and gas costs down. Service and repair contracts are contributors to the increase in this cost center. Reductions in overtime, fire equipment, natural gas and utilities and uniforms were taken into account in the budget development. Ms. DeLai then provided an overview of the Town Building Maintenance Cost Center. Increases in this cost center include water & sewer and natural gas. Consumption of electricity has been overstated therefore there is a projected reduction for that. Ms. DeLai reviewed the Extracurricular Activities Cost Center. She outlined the components of this cost center. Salaries, transportation, entry fees, royalties and equipment costs all contribute to the increase in this cost center. The district will use offsets to supplement this cost center. Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members III. Routine Matters • Bills and Payroll (A) • Approval of Minutes January 19, 2012 Mrs. Janowski moved, seconded by Mr. Caruso to approve the open session minutes dated December 19, 2011. The motion carried 6-0. Mrs. Janowski moved, seconded by Mr. Caruso to approve the open session minutes dated January 5, 2012. The motion carried 6-0. • Bids and Donations Calendar Mr. Robinson reminded the committee that Monday evening will be the public hearing on the FY13 budget and after that the School Committee will discuss the budget. He requested that any questions be sent to the Superintendent ahead of time. The Financial Forum scheduled for January 25th has been cancelled. Dr. Doherty indicated that the Governor's House 1 budget should be out next week. IV. Information V. Future Business Vl. Ad*ournment Mrs. Janowski moved, seconded by Mr. Caruso, to adjourn. The motion carried 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. NOTE: The minutes reflect the order as stated in the posted meeting agenda not the order they occurred during the meeting. �I F. ohet , Ed.D. je rintendent of Schools FY 2013 Budget Questions Special Education 1. What is the percentage of students with disabilities statewide 2011 -12 (Table 4.8)? That information is not available and would not be available until next year when the student information data is submitted by all districts and collected by DESE. 2. Is there anything in particular that we can attribute the increase from 16.3% to 17.6% (10 -11 / 11 -12) for percentage of students with disabilities (Table 4.8)? The figures in Table 4.8 for 2010 -11 are incorrect. The actual number of students is 796 representing a total percentage of] 7.6%, which is unchanged in the current year. In general, we believe we are and will be seeing an increased demand from families that results from our district's reputation for high quality special education programs which can result in more families tending to move in. Also, as we further develop and expand our programs we attract more families to the community. To date we have received at least 10 inquires from families looking to move to Reading and wanting to know about our special education services. 3. How much has the DLC program grown? The numbers have varied over the years. The program has existed for over 15 years though started as more of a self - contained program of only a few kids, not necessarily all students with autism. It then became an inclusive program of three kids in first grade and each year grew from that point. For quite a few years, there was only one DLC teacher at Barrows overseeing the program, but when the program went to six grades the age range was too great and we had to hire 2 teachers with para support in all grades. We had between 8 -10 kids per year historically until around 2005 when the numbers increased in all grades. In 2009 we created the DLC2, the sub - separate classroom, which began with two students and there are now five students. Last year, there were 27 students in DLCI and three in DLC2. This year we moved to a model of co- teaching with a DLC teacher at each grade level, there are five DLC 2 students and 24 — 27 in DLCI. In addition, as the numbers increased and students transitioned to middle school and then to high school, we have added DLC programs at both Coolidge and the High School as well. The increase in the number ofstudents in this program is not surprising considering that there has been a 400% increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism over the last decade. 4. The narrative notes that the "Circuit Breaker" was 40% in the prior year. Refresh my memory. Didn't it end up back at 60 -65% when all was said and done? In FY2011, Circuit Breaker was funded at 40 %. In FY12, we began the budget process assuming 40% but late in the budget process, the legislature's budget included additional funding to bring that up an amount that is closer to 65% for the currentyear. 5. How many in- district programs do we currently have and what is the plan to add more programs in the future? We currently have the: DLC - Developmental Learning Center (students identified with autism spectrum disorders) HP — Integrated Learning Program (students identified with developmental delays, health impairments, intellectual impairments, and physical impairments) LLD — Language Learning Differences (students identified with language -based learning disabilities and other specific learning disabilities) SSP — Social Support Program (students identified with social and emotional disabilities) TSP — Therapeutic Support Program (sub- separate program for high school students identified with emotional impairment) We have added the TSP for this year, but you will see this program described in the budget booklet as a new program for next year. At this point, our focus will be on enhancing our current in- district programming through research -based best practices. 6. Is the therapeutic program mentioned in the narrative (page 45 and 46) the program we funded for the remainder of the FY2012 budget? Yes. Do we know the level of the increases that Landmark and Learning Prep have petitioned for? Boston Higashi (365 day residential) — increased by $25,344.67 (effective 1112) Landmark (day program) —10.7 % ($4,584.18 1year) Learning Prep (day program) — 22.5% ($7, 310.88 /year) 8. Why is Contract Services Category— Testing & Evaluation down 69.2 %? We moved 45 day placement costs to our tuition line. We are also making efforts to ensure that our evaluations completed by in- district staff are comprehensive and thorough in order to reduce requests for independent evaluations. We have sought rulings from the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) to prevent us from having to pay for independent evaluations at the parent /guardian's request. 9. Why is Contract Services Category —Tutoring Services up 44 %? This projection is based on current year spending. Each time one of our students is hospitalized we need to provide access to the general curriculum and provide tutoring services, which is usually provided through a contract with a provider at the hospital, typically at a rate of $30 1hr. Our cost center covers ALL students, whether they receive special education services or not. So a student who has had major surgery and is out for several weeks, we will provide tutoring services to the student either in their home or the hospital. We also have at least two students this year, who were removed from their current out of district program for failure to comply with the program and /or attend. While we looked for another program that would suit their needs AND accept them, we are are required to, provide educational services and we've done so through tutoring. 10. I realize it is a small amount, but I am curious as to what the additional compensation line is in the Other Salaries Category? There is also a line for the in the Professional Salaries Category. Additional compensation includes both longevity and sick leave buyback. 11. I understand the increase in legal counsel. Are these services we are able to bid every few years or does the counsel vary on a case by case basis? I do not believe that this is something that we have competitively solicited in the past. Legal services are exempt from Chapter 30B, the Massachusetts Uniform Procurement Act (public bidding laws). That does not mean that we cannot solicit competitive quotes in the future if we choose. As an aside, we currently pay $215 per hour for these services which is far below the average rate of $300 per hour that districts are paying for special education legal services. 12. As the number of students in out of district placements increases, what learning profiles do we additionally need to target to support our students within the district? We are developing a Student Support Program at the High School. Are there additional programs we need to create to meet the needs of our students within the district? See response to Question 5 13. When our Special Education department last presented, it was noted that our out -of- district per pupil expenses were near the top of the state, well above the state average. What is our current per pupil expense for out of district placements? The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not track out -of- district special education per pupil expenses; rather, they only track out -of- district tuitions per pupil expenses for all students. This out -of- district tuition figure that the state tracks includes tuitions that districts pay for students who participate in school choice (which is capped at $5, 000 per year) as well as charter schools. These tuitions are low compared to special education out -of- district tuitions. All but two of our out -of- district tuitions are special education tuitions at a cost anywhere between $20, 000 and $300, 000 per year. We only have two regular education students out of district at the Greenfield virtual school at a cost of $5, 000 per year. Many other communities have far more students in these lower cost regular day placements which keeps their cost per pupil down when compared to ours which is 97% special education. 14. What is included under "Therapeutic Services ?" Why is this number increasing slightly if we are adding additional therapeutic staff (OT, SLP)? This $700 increase represents a 1.4% increase in spending. We've added a slide to explain who are contract providers are and what services they offer. These cover services we do not provide through in- district personnel —hearing, vision, & mobility. Many times we also have to pay for services that are not provided at the out of district placement, as well as related therapies that we have to cover over the summer months. . 15. Why are two Team Chairperson positions being added to the administration salary line item and not to teachers and specialists? We employ the same number of team chairs that we always have. It's not that we are adding Team Chair positions. Rather, the federal IDEA grant had previously covered the cost of four team chairs and due to the fact that grant funding has remained relatively fat while salaries have increased over the past two years, the grant funds are no longer sufficient to cover these positions and they had to be shifted back to the operating budget. 16. Please detail the additional increase in the Behavioral Health Services line item. This seems more than the positions described in the narrative. Included in this line are the salaries for the 1.0 Behavioral Health Coordinator, the 1.5 FTE Social Worker positions requested to be added in FY13 and the 1.0 Districtwide evaluator position requested to be added. It also includes the reclassification of a school psychologist position from regular day to special education. In FY12, the Coolidge Middle school restructured a special education teaching position to an adjustment counsel /social worker position to address behavioral health needs of students in their special education programs. This salary is currently reflected in the regular day budget but should really be reflected in the special education budget given the nature of the position. 17. Have we explored ways to reduce transportation costs such as regionalization? Please describe. We do currently participate in a regional network for special education transportation that is managed by the SEEM collaborative. The collaborative coordinates transportation such that students from member communities who are attending the same schools are transported together on the same bus. This has helped us maintain relatively stable costs for transportation with total expenditure fluctuations driven more by the number of students than the cost per bus. 18. What software licenses are included under this line item? Why has this line item increased by 30.9% We pay for our Semstracker license under this line. The —S4600 price increase is due to adding modules to our software package. We will now be able to create uniform documents, as well as track and store in one place all 504s, ELL, Gifted /Talented, Hospital /Homebound, Response to Intervention (all tiers), BullyTracker, as well as district-specific programs. 19. In the past, we have had students from other districts enrolled in our special education programs. It appears there aren't any students from other districts in our schools. What is the status of this? We currently have five students from other districts attending special education programs in our schools and paying us tuition. 20. Please expand on "the least restrictive environment" (p. 42 that we provide for our special ed students so that our stakeholders understand the challenge. Ie time, monies, and collective energy expended upon projects like Killam School — 2011. The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is a legal standard outlined in the federal regulations set forth in IDEA. The LRE demands to the maximum extent appropriate we educate students with disabilities with students who do not have disabilities. This is generally understood to mean mainstreaming or inclusion opportunities by most laypeople, however the placement must still allow the student to effectively progress in the general education curriculum (with special education and related services to meet the students individual needs). So to that extent, student may be 'pulled out" for services or a specialist may 'push in " to the classroom to deliver services. For a student whose individual needs exceed this type of service delivery they may receive services in a "substantially separate" placement, meaning they are still in our schools, but the majority of their day is spent outside the general education classroom. These programs tend to have higher teacher:student ratios and students receive multiple related services. 21. Clarify the "72% administration salary line" (p.42) and its impact on this and other aspects of the budget. See response to Question 15. 22. "Personnel expenses for staffing ...are partially offset by revenues such as tuition" (p. 42) reflects that the District absorbs the remainder of expenses. What is the amount and how has it impacted the Spec. Ed. budget? Revenues from pre - school tuitions and special education tuitions that other districts pay to us for placing their students in our programs will provide an offset next year of $540,000. This represents approximately H% of the professional salary expenses related to special education. 23. Explain in layman's terms the hardship that 7 "out of district placements" (p.43) have had upon the District's Special Ed budget. "Tuition and transportation" are necessary in each case as is staffing so this is not only a challenge but a sacrifice made by the community at large. Do the resultant pressures extend beyond Special Education and how? The figures we used to present the Therapeutic Support Program highlight this hardship. Using a conservative tuition projection (publicly funded day programs — SEEM, NEC) 7 students at a rate of $37,500 for each student highlights this cost already ($262,500). Transportation to SEEM Collaborative is relatively low at $600 1mos for each student (depending on the number of students on that run) and assuming they don't require summer services is another $6000 1ea student ($42,000 total transportation for 7 students). We should also consider the legal fees we would extend to try to reach a legal agreement with the families so the district did not absorb the entire cost of the program. 24. Evolving from # 4; show that the addition of 2.5 LICSWs impacts the total budget elsewhere; perhaps regular day. Could the targeted "interventions" be more effective? The .5 LICSW is intended to be a district -wide position. While it is funded through the special education cost center, the expectation is that this individual would be deployed to district -wide to provide crisis intervention and case manage the most complex and time consuming cases. Have two LICSW on staff will also be a benefit to the larger school community as they will be available to consult on other student cases through TST, Child Study, and CASE conferences. Health Services 1. What is the Other Salaries Category? Other Salaries represents the cost of nurse substitutes who provide coverage for nurses who are absent. Athletics 1. When we say an increase in revolving fund support is not a sustainable solution, when do we mean? Can we do it again next year or is it a one year solution? We envision this would be a two year solution. Based on our projections, we could do this in FY13 and in FY14 but in FY15, we would need to reduce the offset back to • level that represents what we actually receive in a given year. This would result in • funding gap that would need to be made up by either increasing the amount of funding to the Athletics budget, or increasing revenue (i.e., user fees) or some combination of the two. 2. Why were coaching salaries charged to the EdJobs grant? This was a planned and eligible expense under the EdJobs grant and was discussed during last year's budget process. 3. Increases in participation are actually flat due to a decrease in football offsetting increase in hockey. Why then a need to increase the equipment maintenance line? The data in Table 4.14 shows historical participation and does not reflect this year's participation. We are projecting an increase in participation in FY2013. 4. Are the participation levels for Girls Ice Hockey correct (Table 4.14)? There doesn't seem to be an increase for the addition of the JV program. The figures that you see are for FY2011. The increase in the number of students participating in Girl's Hockey overall has increased from 24 last year to 27 this year. Why are we letting student athletes participate when they need a special helmet due to a concussion? It would seem to me that when it gets to a point where we need to purchase a special helmet it may make better sense to have the student athlete stay out of competition. These helmets are purchased for student athletes who are returning post- concussion with full clearance by the doctor. This special equipment provides an extra measure ofprotection for those athletes. How many home football games will we have in the fall of 2012? We lost out on revenue in 2011 due to the small number of home games. The budget was developed with the assumption that there will be 7 home games next year. 7. How do our coaches' salaries compare to surrounding districts? We are above the average for communities in the Middlesex league and above the median for most districts in the Middlesex League. The table below shows the comparison to just a few of the Middlesex League districts. Position Belmont Wakefield Stoneham Wilmington Woburn Average. Median =Reidi,n RPSv.Avg RPS v. Med Football (Head) 10,200 9,142 11,829 7,731 11,903 10,161: 10,200 �:,S 12,2484 2,087 2,048 Field Hockey 5,308 4,768 6,033 4,346 5,745 5,240- 5,308 46,560 1,320 1,252 Soccer 5,308 5,074 6,033 4,346 5 745 5,301 5,308 6 560 -" 1,259 1,252 Volleyball 5,308 6,033 4,346 5,229 5,308 1 65609 1,331 1,252 Cross- Country _ 5,467 3,765 5,160 4,346 4,541 _ 4,656 4,541 _.. „6,560. 1,900 2,019 Basketball 6,826 6,875 7,367 434 6 6,989 6,481 6,87 5 - r6560 79 (315) Hockey 6,826 6,196 7,367 4,346 6989. 6,345 6,826 6560; 215 Swimming 4,585 3,377 6,033 5,745 4,935 5,165 �. +'6,560 _ 1,625 _(266 1,395 Indoor Track 4,585 4,663 6,033 4,346 6,002 5,126 4,663 6560 1,434 1,897 Wrestling 4,585 4,663 4,346 6,002 4,899 4,624 6560: 1,661 1,936 Baseball 5,467 5,353 6,033 4,346 6,989 5,638 5,467 6,560: 922 1,093 Softball 5,467 5,353 6,033 4,346 6,989 5,638 5,467 ', +6,5608 922 1,093 Lacrosse 5,467 5,353 4,346 5,745 5,228. 5,410. ~6,560- 1,332 1,150 Tennis 5,467 3,640 4,706 4,346 4,541 4,540 4,541 ,6,560' 2,020 2,019 Outdoor Track 4,585 5,183 6,033 4,346 6,002 5,230 5,183 '6;560- 1,330 1,377 Extracurricular Activities 1. Since 2009 this budgeted item has decreased over $50,000. Is this the area where, given recent initiatives on Behavioral Health, invigorated planning for post school - day activities should be placed? The overall level of spending on extracurricular activities has actually not decreased appreciably over the last several years; rather, an increasing amount of the expense has been offset by revolving fee revenues. In FY09, there were no offsets from revolving fund revenues and in FYI there is an offset of $42, 000. That difference accounts for the majority of the apparent $50, 000 decrease to this budget. Networking and Technology Maintenance 1. Why is the telephone repairs budget up 17.4% We have two school 's phone systems that have come off or are coming off of warranties. We have now had to add them to our maintenance contract which has increased the cost of that contract. 2. How can we address the district wide need for timely completion of technology work order more creatively and in a cost effective manner? The narrative supports the use of student technology support teams for routine issues that interfere with instructional time, such as upgrading (iOS device) software. The use of students to handle routine technology issues which do not require highly specialized skills offers our students community service, leadership positions and the opportunity to explore vocational interests for their futures. As we mentioned at the January 9`� meeting, we are proposing adding 1.5 FTE technicians to the technology staffing for next year. This will bring us up to respectable, but not optimal level for the maintenance of technology and will allow us to continue to move forward in some of our technology driven initiatives. To use student technology teams is an excellent idea and one that we advocate for, but it requires supervision, planning, and training. We do not currently have the staffing level to provide that supervision, planning, and training. We have had experiences in the past where students who were not supervised were able to access our network and maliciously corrupt our network. Your reference to the iOS device, which transpired at the last meeting needs to be clarified. The iOS software was not updated because of lack of staffing, rather because our older wireless access points at our elementary schools do not support the iOS 5 software. Therefore, if we upgraded the software on the administrator's ipads, they would not have been able to use them because of lack of wireless connectivity. In the Capital budget, there is $75,000 allocated to upgrade our wireless and to provide 100% wireless coverage in every school in the district. In conversations that 1 have had with Janet Dee, the Instructional Technology Specialist at the high school, we will be using students for our BYOD pilot in helping teachers and students with the applications associated with coordinating a BYOD class. We feel that students can provide greater benefit to students and teachers in this manner than in providing service to computers. School BuildinjZ Maintenance Last year I was told that there was going to be a discussion about increasing the $25,000 in revenue we receive from Reading Recreation. Nothing has been done and data shows that we are $155.70 (per event) below market value. This is a significant amount of lost revenue. Please provide some thoughts on this. The agreement for rental offacilities is an agreement between the School Committee and the Recreation Department. The amount of $25,000 was agreed upon several years ago. We can certainly have a discussion with the Town Manager and the Recreation Department about increasing the amount. However, it should be noted that we currently do not pay the Town of Reading for any use of outdoor fields that are under the direction of the Recreation Department. Are we seeing any extra wear and tear from all of this extra use of our facilities? How are we accounting for the potential capital expense associated with extra wear and tear? As various pieces of equipment requires repair or replacement (e.g. basketball nets, gym floors, scoreboards, auditorium a/v components, etc.) or areas of the building require extra work (e.g. painting, carpet cleaning, floor refinishing, etc), if those expenses are attributable in part to facility rental use, we will often charge some or all of those expenses to the revolving fund. With respect to the capital plan, we are always balancing projected life expectancy with actual use and planning our capital replacements with both in mind. 3. What are Other Services in the Contract Services Category? Included in this category are pest management, environmental testing, sewer /drain clearing, boiler water treatment services, and paging services. 4. Why is Wood End's water and electricity consumption always higher than the other elementary schools (Tables 4.22 and 4.23)? The charts are actually showing consumption per square foot as opposed to consumption. Wood End's electricity consumption is actually just slightly higher than the elementary schools and their consumption per square foot is higher. This has to do with the fact that, as a new school, they have more fans, pumps, and motors operating to meeting code for air exchanges and other environmental measures. With more equipment per square foot, we would expect to see more consumption per square foot. With respect to water consumption, the field in front of Wood End has a water sprinkler system and the water comes from the building and is metered at the building. This is the only field adjacent to a school that is sprinklered and watered regularly. Town Building Maintenance 1. Why is overtime projected at flat when actual for 2011 was $32,197 (Table 4.24)? Where is it running halfway through the current year? As of the end of December, the budget was a little over 25% expended. This is low when compared to other years as this has been a very mild winter with virtually no snowfall. As with school building maintenance, we tend to budget overtime based on the highest amount expended over the past three years of actual data. You will see in FYI 0, we spent almost $39,000. Other Questions I believe last week it was stated that the METCO grant was budgeted down $25,000, but page 63 on has it down $6,795. Please explain. The budget offset was decreased by $25,000. The reason for the offset decrease was twofold. First, we assumed a 2% decreased in METCO grant funding. Second, next year, we will no longer be sharing our elementary METCO bus with Wakefield (they are entering into a contract with Lynnfield). As a result, our transportation costs will likely increase by approximately $17, 000 per year. These two factors together led us to decrease the revenue offset by $25, 000. 2. How many unanticipated out of district placements did we have in 2012? What are the legal expenses associated with these placements (Page 64 narrative)? We have had five unanticipated placements, two pending placement settlements, and one additional student who moved to Reading this year who is in an out of district placement. With respect to legal expenses, we have paid a little over $35, 000 in legal expenses related to these cases year to date compared to total expenses in FYI of $18, 000 and $9, 000 in FYI 0. 3. Why are the RISE Pre - School and Use of School Property revolving funds down (page 65)? In the case of RISE, we drew down more in offset than we took received in revenue. This was anticipated. As for the Use of School Property, the table is reporting revenue as of June 30, 2011. In actuality, a number of the rental invoices for rentals that occurred in FYI] were not received and posted until July or August. Actual revenues attributable to FYI were closer to $190, 000. 4. How do our rental fees compare to surrounding communities (Table A2)? Our rental fees are very comparable to those surrounding communities who rent out their facilities and charge rent. Many of our surrounding communities, however, either do not rent out their facilities or do not charge rent for groups to use their buildings. 5. What is the breakdown of facility rentals "For Profit" vs. "Not for Profit "? Data is, unfortunately, not tracked this way in our facility rental system.