Loading...
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