HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL OS SC Minutes 2.4.14.pdf FINAL
Approved 3 11 14
OPEN SESSION MINUTES
MINUTEMAN REGIONAL VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
SPECIAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 4,2014 6 00 PM
PAUL REVERE ROOM,MINUTEMAN HIGH SCHOOL
Present:
Alice DeLuca,Chair(Stow) Kemon Taschioglou(Lincoln)
Jeff Stulin,Vice-Chair(Needham) Laura Morrissette(Arlington)
Carrie Flood, Secretary(Concord) Jack Weis(Belmont)(arrived 6 15 PM)
Ford Spalding(Dover) Dave Horton(Lexington)
Cheryl Mahoney(Boxborough) Daniel Mazzola(Lancaster)
Judy Taylor(Carlisle) Doug Gillespie(Weston)
David Manjarrez(Sudbury)
Nancy Banks(Acton)(arrived 6 10 PM)
David O'Connor(Bolton)
Absent Mary Ellen Castagno(Wayland)
Others Present Ed Bouquillon,Kevin Mahoney,Ernie Houle,Elizabeth Rozan, Diane Dempsey, Sheila Nagle,
Eugene DiPaolo,Bill Blake,Kevin Lynn,AnnaMana Schnmpf, Michelle Roche,Marone Daggett,Dana Ham,
Mary Aim Ham,Carmm Reiss, Simon Bunyard, Mary Ann Williams,John Pelletier
1. CALL TO ORDER. OPEN SESSION
The Chair called the special meeting to order at 6 00 PM,and noted that Mr Manjarrez was recording the meeting
2 PUBLIC COMMENT
The Chair explained the time limitations of Public Comment, that items brought forth would not be debated or
discussed,and asked that people state their name and town No member of the public offered comment, Mr
Manjarrez offered his public comment in the form of an email related to the school's finances He chose not to read
this,as it had been placed at the table(see Attachment A) The Chair noted that it was available to anyone from the
public who wished to read it
3. CHAIR'S REPORT,Alice DeLuca, Chair
The Chair reported that earlier in the day, she had participated in Interest Based Bargaining with the Subcommittee
on Negotiations with the MFA She noted that there were about 15 people present,and that it was excellent She
also noted that it would be great if the facilitator,skilled in group dynamics,could offer a framing to the School
Committee
4. PROPOSED FY 15 BUDGET,Kevin Mahoney
The Assistant Superintendent noted that in addition to the Proposed FY 15 Budget,and the Power Point handout
from 1 23 14, he had distributed an updated Revenue Plan and Preliminary Assessment,which had been approved
by the Finance Subcommittee since the hearing(Attachment B) He explained that the state budget had been
issued,that the Finance Subcommittee had looked at options,and voted to increase the Regional Transportation line
by 100K as a result of the state budget He explained the other minor adjustment made related to the Middle
School program in Acton-Boxborough,to be consistent with their regional agreement
A motion was made(Spalding)and seconded(Stalin) A member explained that there had been discussion in the
Finance Subcommittee about revenue collected in FY 12 that had been moved into the next year's budget,that the
numbers aren't in yet from the FY 13 audit,and that there is 6 5M in anticipated out-of-district tuition for FY 15
He noted that he suggested using this to reduce FY15 assessments,and that this suggestion was thumbed down
The Chair of the Finance Subcommittee explained the Finance Subcommittee's role in this budget process,pointing
out that there had been a number of meetings and ongoing dialogue He pointed out that a number of issues
emerged,including how current year tuition will be used in the budget,as a policy, the infrastructure and expense
related to student enrollment,and that this budget reflects a growing student population,the small contribution to the
stabilization fund,and the meaning of level services in different towns He also commented on the process,
pointing out that there were excellent presentations from the Executive Team,which described current needs and the
vision,which he thought the entire School Committee would have benefitted from hearing Additionally,he noted
there was a high responsiveness to questions,and an improvement in reports that built confidence about voting to
recommend this budget to the full School Committee
Questions related to establishing a target number for the stabilization fund,staffing related to Special Education,
and total expenditures were addressed One member of the Finance Subcommittee explained why he did not vote
in favor of this budget,specifically that he thought the 6%increase was too high,and because of his concern that the
practice of allocating a Special Education"surcharge opens the possibility of a legal challenge Mr Mahoney
explained that the Administration has been working with DESE to determine the right solution for the Special
Education"surcharge" Another member pointed out that there is no policy on Revolving Accounts,and Mr
Mahoney clarified there are statutes that guide the use of Revolving Accounts,and that the auditors offer
recommendations on how to proceed if they see problems with the practices He also offered,in response to
questions,explanations of the change in assessment totals and details related to the bridge projects described in the
7000 accounts The following vote was then taken
ACTION 2014#13
Moved(Spalding)and seconded(Stulin)
To approve the FY 15 Proposed Budget by State Function Code in the amount of $19,645,065,as noted on
page 19 of the Budget Book(included with Attachment B)
Vote. 13 in favor,1 opposed,1 abstention
The Chair noted that this has been a long process of developing this good budget,and she offered thanks to all
involved There was a question of whether a separate vote was needed for the Middle School program assessments,
and it was determined that this has not been needed in the past It was also suggested that members take the time to
call or email legislators to inform them that the Commissioner of Education intends to reduce the out-of-district
tuition rate by 8%over the next 3 years
5 SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT,Ed Bouquillon,Ford Spalding(Chair, School Building Committee), Mary
Ann Williams
The Chair of the School Buildmg Committee introduced the members of the Building Committee who were present
(Bill Blake,Alice DeLuca,Ernie Houle,Simon Bunyard, Cumin Reis,Dana Ham,Jack Weis,and himself)and
moved and read the Superintendent's recommended motion, which was seconded(Stulin)
To direct the Superintendent,the Design Team and the School Building Committee to consider a"design
target enrollment"not to exceed 800,in order to expedite the study timeline and to manage the Feasibility
Study budget to fulfill the requirement of the contract that the District has with the Massachusetts School
Building Authority(MSBA) This action is taken with the understanding that,should the MSBA and
public feedback support lowering this"design target enrollment",it can occur
He also introduced Mary Arm Williams,the Operations Project Manager from Skanska,and explained that they
have been asked by MSBA to give them a design target enrollment number He noted that in the recent meeting
held with MSBA,they were flexible and willing to work with Minuteman,because they want to see this project
happen He also explained that it is far easier to design down than up.
The Superintendent then noted that the MSBA does not have all the answers, new staff have been assigned to the
project and are asking questions He pointed out the many moving parts,including revising the Regional
Agreement, revising the Admissions Policy,and incorporating Intergovernmental Agreement He then reviewed
the Building Project Timeline (Attachment C),highlighting the points at which the School Committee will be asked
to consider recommendations
OPM Mary Ann Williams offered the context for the timeline,noting that originally,the Feasibility Study was
viewed with a 12 month timeframe Now,the timeframe has expanded to June,2016,because there are multiple
things happening One of those is to approve this design target enrollment number so that the process can continue
forward
The Chair of the Building Committee explained that Minuteman is grandfathered at the 40%reimbursement rate,
while new projects are now at 31%,and that MSBA can turn the Minuteman project back to the end of the line,if
we don't comply with their requests for clarity along the way Additionally,he explained that$300K of the $725K
approved for the Feasibility Study has been spent,and that if the design team looks at 2 specific numbers,the funds
will be used up,and Minuteman will have to ask the towns for additional funds He emphasized that the
recommendation is to look at a design target enrollment not to exceed 800 students He also addressed some
specific questions he received
When will a decision be made to renovate or build new? December,2014
Will the question of looking at renovating or building new be part of the charge to the Design Team? yes
What body decides? The School Committee
How would a decision on scaling back be made? This would be based on a combination of enrollment,
district make-up,funding, and legislative support
Pointing out that it would be a way to get input from the School Committee members and the towns,a member
(Manjarrez)offered an amendment to the motion on the table,which was seconded(Weis)
To add and a School Committee debate within 30 days on right-sizing the school
Whether there was a need for this amendment, whether it was clear,ambiguous,frivolous,valid,or premature,
that the timeline is helpful,and that the proposed design target enrollment is a working number were points
expressed in response to this proposed amendment The member offering this amendment noted that twice the
School Committee voted to debate the size of the school,and offered his opinion that the real issue is the number of
tuition students,and that it is a money loser He suggested that his town is concerned about subsidizing tuition
students by funding operating and capital costs,and if the Committee votes his amendment down,it will be clear
that they don't want community input
One member offered her view that the discussion on the right size will evolve as a result of the work on the
Feasibility Study She noted that the timeline addresses this and is being provided as a tool for making the right
decisions thoughtfully along the process Another member explained the use of the term"right-sizing", specifically
that it emerged when hiring the Superintendent,and was related to the staff/student match He offered his view that
the District is not losing money from tuition students,and these students are helping to reduce member town
assessments now,although this will not necessarily be true in the future He emphasized that if out of district
enrollments were actually increasing member town assessments,it would be harmful A member moved the
question,and the following vote was taken
ACTION#2014#14
Moved(Morrissette)and seconded(Mahoney)
To move the question and end debate
Vote- 12 in favor,1 opposed, 1 abstention (with one member out of the room)
The Committee then took the vote on the proposed amendment as follows
ACTION 2014#15
Moved(Manjarrez)and seconded(Weis)
To add and a School Committee debate within 30 days on right-sizing the school
Vote- 1 in favor,13 opposed(with one member out of the room)
The vote on the amendment did not carry and the discussion on the main motion continued
A member expressed her concern with the number, specifically whether it was viable for students who want to
attend a vocational school,whether students would be able to receive a valuable education or would just being
housed here,and she expressed her frustration that the State has not come forward with help Another member
called attention to an inconsistency in language between the vote and the wording in the Educational Program Plan
narrative The Chair of the Building Committee explained that the Building Committee had a similar discussion and
voted"not to exceed 800" The OPM noted that the numbers are being determined at the local level The Chair of
the Educational Program Plan subcommittee clarified that the Educational Program Plan narrative is an
endorsement from the Superintendent alone That the professionals provide guidance along the way,that it appears
to be the creation of a state school supported by 16 towns, that tuition rates are set for the education of a student and
not for capital costs,that it is important to discuss intergovernmental agreements or facilities fees,that it is a
complex problem being solved with more complexity, and that the process of funding vocational schools is flawed
were some of the comments and opinions expressed
The OPM clarified that MSBA needs to know the direction the School Committee is taking Once that is decided,
they will review this proposed timeline Citing economic and political issues,a member emphasized that he rejects
the 435 size school as it is inadequate for providing quality vocational education to students in the District,and that
dissolving the school or doing nothing is better than considering a small school
A member of the School Building Committee,Dana Ham,challenged earlier comments about housing students
rather than educating them He noted that he has been involved in 4 MSBA projects,and from his experience,
MSBA won't entertain wasting their time or money,as is evident in Belmont and Lincoln,towns that lost their
projects He asked that people consider how long the School Committee been talking about enrollment,and whether
30 days would really provide clarity on the right size of the school
A member emphasized that 16 communities must demonstrate a willingness to work at finding solutions to the
problems of the District by passing the proposed draft Regional Agreement,finding pathways for other cities and
towns to join the District,and clarifying incentives that the State can help with She also noted that the timeline
provides a process for talking and planning,and that in her view the 800 number allows for the educational program
plan for which the School Committee voted
The member from Belmont offered his perspective on the history of the Feasibility Study,expressing concerns about
lack of clarity of scope,design enrollment numbers,enrollment studies,and fund expenditure for the Feasibility
Study He noted that he is not advocating for a smaller school,but expressed concern that with this number it will be
perceived that the School Committee agreed 800 was the design target enrollment number The Superintendent
clarified that 15 of the 16 towns voted to approve the Feasibility Study—Belmont did not, an enrollment study was
done,and MSBA rejected it and did their own,and another number was added due to political pressure from the
SOLVED Collaborative,to which the Commissioner succumbed
The OPM clarified that from a financial point of view,the Feasibility Study was originally a 12 month project,with
a certain number of meetings budgeted for Now,with the process changing,this vote will help make informed
decisions so that costs can be contained The School Committee Chair offered her opinion that the number isn't the
issue,rather it is funding,and getting the State to cherish the school She offered her viewpoint that establishing a
target number and passing the Regional Agreement will make it more attractive for others to join the District The
Regional Agreement Amendment Subcommittee(RAAS)Chair noted that there are many balls in the air,and the
extension of time is a gift She noted that she is ready,willing,and able to visit any community to clarify the
Regional Agreement amendments She expressed her opinion that after considering enrollment studies and listening
to discussions over the last few years,including those of the Educational Plan Task Force,she feels very strongly
that 435 is not a viable number,and that that the School Committee is responsible to move the project forward
The member noted that it is important to vote for the right thing,and if the goal is to get Town Meeting and town
support,some are concerned that tuition students cost them money Another member noted that the Feasibility
Study will determine the size of the school Another member voiced concern with the arbitrariness of the number
specifically that it was determined by people not involved with the school
Clarification was offered on community forums that have been held to date Making the number fixed or variable
was discussed An amendment was offered(Flood)and seconded(Mahoney)to eliminate the words"not to exceed"
from the motion A member moved the question,and the following votes were then taken
ACTION 2014#16
Moved(Taschioglou)and seconded(Spalding)
To move the question and end debate
Vote: 11 in favor,3 opposed(with one member out of the room)
ACTION 2014#17
Moved(Flood)and seconded(Mahoney)
To eliminate the words"not to exceed"from the main motion
Vote- 4 in favor,10 opposed(with one member out of the room)
The amendment failed
Back to the main motion,concern was raised that it is not the School Committee's call to pick a number,but rather it
should be determined through dialogue within the communities The Superintendent clarified enrollment trends
The Chair of the School Building Committee emphasized the importance of this project,and pointed out that if
nothing is done,towns will be responsible for 100%of the cost to address building needs He offered that the
School Committee needs to spend time on solutions because the tuition for out-of-district students does not include
payment for capital costs He emphasized that he loves what the school does,and shared that he has become familiar
with one student and is excited about the career and future she is preparing for at Minuteman He emphasized that it
is important to provide a facility that future students can be educated in,and that towns need to send more students
to Minuteman He urged building the building for the kids,and not setting up road blocks
Another member noted that he,too,has been happy with the education his son received at Minuteman and the
strong bonds his son established with faculty while here He offered that it is unfair and discrediting to think no one
wants to renovate the school He raised the issue of leverage with legislators or MSBA,and noted that having spent
300K already,and studying an 800 student school without input is not fair to any town The following votes were
then taken
ACTION 2014#18
Moved(Mahoney)and seconded(Spalding)
To move the question and end debate
Vote 14 in favor,1 opposed
ACTION 2014#19
Moved(Spalding)and seconded(Stulin)
To direct the Superintendent,the Design Team and the School Building Committee to consider a"design
target enrollment"not to exceed 800,in order to expedite the study timeline and to manage the Feasibility
Study budget to fulfill the requirement of the contract that the District has with the Massachusetts School
Building Authority(MSBA) This action is taken with the understanding that,should the MSBA and
public feedback support lowering this"design target enrollment",it can occur
Vote• 13 in favor,2 opposed
The Chair extended thanks to all involved in the process to date
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8 20 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Rozan Came Flood
District School Committee Assistant Secretary
ATTACHMENTS TO THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4,2014
A DManjarrez Public Comment 2 4 14
B FY 15 Proposed Budget Materials pg 19 of Budget Book,revised Revenue Plan,revised Preliminary
Assessments,Power Point handouts of Budget Hearing 1 23 14
C Building Project Timeline