Board of Education Finance Committee Regular Meeting October 22, 2009

October 22, 2009

Board of Education

Finance Committee

Regular Meeting

October 22, 2009

ATTENDANCE:      Jody Bishop-Pullan, Chair; Amy Jimenez, Jack Chiaramonte;

                                    Glenn Iannaccone

STAFF:                      Dr. Dan Cook, Mark Gorian  

OTHERS:                  Rosa Murray, BOE chair

CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Bishop-Pullan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2009

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.

REVIEW SUGGESTED TIME LINE FOR ELEMENTARY FACILITY STUDY.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

Ms. Jimenez asked where the priorities were for the Elementary Facility Study and commented that those may have been considered in setting up the time line. She then suggested that the staff be asked for recommendations on using some of the funding left over from earlier projects. The Committee will move forward but might come back to the staff for more facts and information on what the current needs are. She said that it was important to recognize that the City owns the building and that the City is responsible for periodic updates.  So, these are City funds.  Ms. Jimenez said that the Board goes to the City with their wish list and that this list is what the City has asked for.  She said that the six million only covers Level Five of the projects.  There are about five or seven schools that have not already received improvements from the original 70 million dollars.  She asked what improvements would fall under the qualifications for State reimbursement so that the District could take advantage of this.  

Ms. Bishop-Pullan asked Mr. Gorian if he had received an update from the State on what they would reimburse. Mr. Gorian explained that at the end of every fiscal year, the State requires the municipalities to submit their proposed projects.  The State then reviews these and informs the City which projects would be bonded. Currently, there isn’t any information on whether the State will bond.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan asked if Mr. Gorian or Dr. Cook had additional information to answer the parent’s questions.  She said that the parents were concerned that the needs weren’t being addressed. She said that there were concerns that the funding would be shifted somewhere else, and reminded everyone that the City was in charge of all these projects, which is why there was such a lengthy approval process. She added that the Board would be watching carefully to make sure that everything goes well. 

In response to a question asked from the audience, Ms. Bishop-Pullan explained that the enrollment projects had been done out to 2014. The discussion then moved to how the RFPs would be issued. Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that any project that is done through the City has to go out to an RFP and that this was standard operating procedure for any municipality. When asked if an RFP had been done for the study, Dr. Cook replied that the individual who authored the report had a long history with the City and knew the background. He said that if another company had been brought in, they would have to backtrack to find all the information that the author of the report already knew. It would double the cost and could also result in a loss of accuracy.  Dr. Cook said that it was the same vendor that had been doing the enrollment projections for the last twenty years.  The most current set of enrollment figures were being calculated and would be sent to the Board within a day or so.  When asked, Ms. Bishop-Pullan assured everyone that the enrollment projections were public information and available to the public.

The discussion then moved to the evaluation of the various school building spaces.  Ms. Bishop-Pullan assured those in the audience that when the Board discusses serious items, like the amount of space in a school, it is posted on an agenda to notify the public.  She added that this was also one of the reasons that the Board was holding meetings in the various facilities. She added that the Facilities Department tours the buildings and evaluates them in terms of safety issues and other criteria.  Mr. Gorian explained that the method that the Facilities Department uses to evaluate schools is listed in the updated plan. 

One of the audience members asked how long it would take to complete all the projects.  Mr. Gorian reviewed the planning and bidding timeline.  He said that it takes about two years from the planning stages to completion, but noted that Brien McMahon took two years of construction. 

Discussion about the details of various projects and the ad hoc building project committees then followed.

Ms. Jimenez asked what the timeline would be if the Board did not have to have the caveat about the funding being available. Mr. Gorian said that each project would have to be prioritized by June 30th.  The current list was broken up into categories like roofs, mechanical, and windows.  He then said that architects would be hired for planning, permission requested from the City, and that it would most likely be the summer of 2011 when most of the projects would actually be underway. Ms. Jimenez said that by not filing for the projects by June 30th, 2010, the projects would not be able to done.  Mr. Gorian explained that the District could move forward but it would be with the risk of not having the State accept them and provide reimbursement. Ms. Bishop-Pullan pointed out that currently the District could move forward and meet the June 30th deadline.  Mr. Iannaccone asked if the study could be done by April.  Mr. Gorian confirmed that it could be completed by then.

Mr. Iannaccone asked Dr. Cook about his sense of where the NFCC wished to do about this study.  Dr. Cook said that his sense was that the Committee wished to move forward with the repairs.  Discussion followed about the process and how to insure the projects were moving forward.

TITLE 1 – REVIEW QUALIFICATIONS AND APPLICATION PROCESS

Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that Dr. Cook had updated information on Title One funding. Dr. Cook said that Ms. Marinaccio was not able to be present for the meeting. He then distributed a packet of information to the Board that Ms. Marinaccio had prepared. All the Title One Federal funding is directly determined by the number students eligible for the Free and Reduced Lunches Program. The percentage of students eligible for that program is calculated annually with a cut off date of October 1st.  For the 2008-2009 year, there are 3,274 students enrolled in the Free and Reduced Lunch program out of a total population of 11, 369.  This results in a 28.8% rate for the Free and Reduced Lunches.  Any school that meets the average qualifies for Title One funding.  Dr. Cook said that the percentage for the 2009-2010 school year is 33%, but this includes the private and parochial schools.  Those figures must be subtracted and accounts for about 400-600 students.  This will not be completed until approximately mid-December, but it will reduce the overall percentage.  Mr. Iannaccone asked if the percentage would drop below the previous year.  Dr. Cook said that he felt it would increase over the 2008-2009 percentage because there has been an aggressive effort to contact parents about the Free and Reduced Lunch program. The more reimbursements that the District receives for the Lunch program are higher for Free and Reduced Lunch. Also, the higher number of enrolled students will directly affect the amount of Title One funding for the schools. Any elementary school that had an enrollment in the program for the 2008-2009 school year was identified as a Title One school in the information packet. Discussion about this formula then followed. 

Dr. Cook said that the Title One funding schools were indicated in the packet by highlighting.  This year with the ARRA funding, this should be about 2.8 million dollars. There are qualifications for funding requirements.  A minimum of 10% must be spent on professional development in the schools that have been identified as Title One. 

Dr. Cook explained that Norwalk is receiving ARRA funding, also known as stimulus funding, in three areas.  One is cost sharing funds, which will have no real effect on the District budget.  The Title One funds account for about 1.1 million.  Under the IDEA Special Education funding, the District should receive an additional 1.3 million along with the regular funding.  Dr. Cook said that this would be for two years.  The overall philosophy is that in two years, the economy should have recovered somewhat and that the funds that are currently not available from the State will become available again. In theory, the ARRA money will not be needed then.

Ms. Jimenez asked if the 1.1 million was a lump sum payment to be spent over the next two years, or if it was a yearly allocation of 1.1 million with another allocation to follow next year.  Dr. Cook said that it was his understanding that it was a yearly allocation.  He went on to explain that there was some MOE funding that equals another $300,000, which has been applied for approximately three weeks ago. Because the District met all the criteria, the funding has been granted and Mr. Daddona is overseeing how those funds are disbursed in the Special Education program.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan asked about the requirements for the ARRA funding, which Dr. Cook reviewed with her.  Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that it was her understanding that this was the first year that any of the Title One funding had to be tied to the School Growth Plans, along with a justification on how the funding was spent.  This is also being monitored by the Federal Government.  Ms. Jimenez said that 50% of the utility aides and 50% of the literacy specialists were being paid out of Title One funding.  Any City reducing in District funding does not result in the District being able to use Title One funding to make up the shortfall because the Title One funding has to be for items above the regular budgeting.

Dr. Cook reiterated that the current figure of 33% was not accurate because the parochial and private school students had not been removed from the overall total.  He said that he would like to state for the record in regards to the Lunch Program.

Discussion followed about the allocation of the Title One funding.  Ms. Bishop-Pullan stated that in Norwalk, the funding goes to the elementary schools and distributed by the principals, which was a decision that was made many years ago.  In other Districts that may not be the case.  When asked about this practice, Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that she would check into this. 

Ms. Jimenez said that she had spoken to Ms. Marinaccio about the gathering of the data.  She said that she had asked for an analysis of the process because she was coming back onto the Board and wanted a better understanding. Ms. Jimenez said that she wants a clear understanding of how many students this involves and what the trends are.  Ms. Murray asked if there was hard copy of the process for the parents.  Ms. Jimenez said that she had asked for this two months ago and would make the report available to the public.

UPDATE ON LUNCH PROGRAM

Ms. Bishop-Pullan asked for an update on the Lunch Program.  Dr. Cook said that it was a quick month and a half.  All the applications were filed.  As of October 15th, the District had processed and approved 3,565 applications for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Of those applications, 2,824 were for the Free Lunch and 743 were for Reduced Lunches.  He explained that represents 33% of the student population.  Last year at this same time, there were 3,288 applications filed.  In October of 2007, there were 2,800 applications filed.  The number of applications is climbing. At the end of last year, the percentage was 35% of the population.  He said that he felt that the District will surpass that this year because the District will have an additional 151 students that were previously incomplete applications.  Dr. Cook said that he felt that ultimately the District would have 40% of their population.  However, as the numbers increase, the rate of increase will slow down. 

Regarding the uncollectables, the District will begin to address that because it was not possible to work on this until the Free and Reduced Lunch enrollment was set. If a student was in the uncollectible category but qualified for Free and Reduced Lunch, the District will be reimbursed for the money. 

The first meeting with the Utility Aides has been held at the elementary schools for reviewing the process.  Dr. Cook said that he believes that the District will end the year in the black.  The last three years, the final balance has been in the red. However, with all the new procedures in place, Dr. Cook felt that the goal of being able to purchase a refrigerated truck was not unrealistic.

Mr. Iannaccone pointed out that has the percentage of overall students increases, the individual schools will have more difficulty meeting that percentage.  Dr. Cook said that as the percent increases, so does the percent of the total district.  This would mean that there would be more funds coming to the District.  Discussion about this followed.

Dr. Cook said that the form was four pages long and very intimidating when it is first seen.  However, if there is someone to help the applicant, it is easier for the applicant. Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that there had been some communication from principals who were still confused about the process.  Dr. Cook said that he was working on this and working with the principals individually.  Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that the concern was to make sure everyone understood the process and to insure that the schools aren’t overburdened. Ms. Jimenez said that it would be good to see the actual application.  Mr. Chiaramonte asked for it to be included in the Board packet.   It was pointed out that the form comes from the State. 

Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that she would like to have an update on where the District was in the budget process and an update on the ARRA funding, along with the other funding.  Dr. Cook said that he would include in the budget report not only the District’s expenses, but any income from the City to date.  Ms. Murray then asked if the principals input could be included in the budget. She said that the Board members have heard that the principals feel they have no opportunity for input into the budget process.

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. IANNACCONE MOVED TO ADJOURN.

** MR. CHIARAMONTE SECONDED

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Sharon L. Soltes

Telesco Secretarial Services