I'd like to uh call the meeting to order. The North Hunteran Warhees Regional High School District Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, March 17th, 2026 is now called to order. In accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, NJSA 104-6,
adequate notice giving the time, date, location, and to the extent known, the agenda of this meeting was sent to the Hunter County Democrat, Star Ledger, and Courier News on January 7th, 2026, and published on January 12th, 2026, and subsequently readvertised on the
district website. In addition, notice of this meeting has been posted at the North Hunter High School and Vorhees High School provided to the municipal clerks of Bethlehem Township, Califon Burough, Town of Clinton, Clinton Township, Franklin Township, Glengardner Burrow, Hampton Burough, H Highbridge Burough, Lebanon Burough, Lebanon
Township, Tukesbury Township, and Union Township, as well as other interested parties and posted on the district website. Fire exits are located in the direction indicated. If alerted to fire, please move in a common orderly fashion to the nearest smoke-free exit.
Restrooms are located through the doors behind this desk and to the right as indicated. At this time, please silence all cell phones. Um, and I would just read the mission statement. The North Hunter and Vorhees Regional High School District empowers all students through
innovative and personalized learning to achieve their full potential, embrace lifelong learning, and contribute responsibly to a changing world. Roll call. >> Miss S here. >> Mr. Chapman >> here. >> Mr. Hanley >> here. >> Miss H >> here. Mr. Lordy
>> here. >> Mr. Matthews >> here. >> Missappa >> here. >> Mr. Morgan >> here. >> Miss Reyes >> here. Mr. Spanton >> here. >> Miss Stein >> here. Mr. Kaiser >> here. All right. Please stand for the pledgece
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Um, so as far as our work
session goes, we do have our minutes um, from the prior meeting. I didn't know if there was any items or anything there that caught anyone's eye or needed any additional attention or anything to discuss.
Okay, we will vote on those next week. Um, next we have the chief school administrators report, Dr. Burgess. And so, uh, as we've been doing so far in the committee as a whole structure, I'll give my full report next week. Um, there is a resolution on there just for your reading pleasure to recognize the unsung
heroes that were recognized, um, on March 4th, I believe. Um, and so, um, it was a great ceremony from what I understand, but, you report next week and resolutions, unless there's any questions on the monthly reports. Okay.
And then I don't know um I didn't know I know it was mentioned in your report regarding the CBS broadcast. Um and I didn't know if that was something that you would I know you shared it with us and I I didn't know if at some point it
was something we might draw more attention to either through newsletter whether it's the school newsletter or the district newsletter. Um, I think it's just a very noteworthy sort of celebration of local community that and it was great to see both yourself and
Tara as part of that and sort of really embodying uh the school in the community. >> It was a great opportunity. I think we should get as um much traction out of that as we could. It was, you know, um not very often is our district um featured on a national, you know, news syndicate. Um and I think it was a great
story. I think they did a great job and I was proud to be a part of it. I know Tara was as well. you know, we were there on Sunday to meet Dave and and the crew and um so yes, uh I I think we will definitely get that posted on the website, get some information out there and then include that in newsletters, make sure our parents know. Um
>> yeah, >> and um I loved first they highlighted our unified, but it encapsulates in what he had said about small pockets and these started decades ago. Um and our district has been very instrumental in making sure all of our students are
included. So, um, it was such an honor and our district does an outstanding job. Um, least restrictive environment and everybody's included. So, it shines brightly on our special education and our administrators and our teachers. So, and our par professionals. So, it was
great. >> Okay. >> It's great people. >> Mhm. Good people. >> 5.5 is new, right? Does that be >> part of the law change reset? >> Yes. So, I added that the the intent of the law is to make sure that the public
knows where to find all of our legal ads now. So, now that we're not doing newspaper advertisements, we try to put it in as many places as I can. So, I figured on the agenda is a good place cuz a lot of people will look here and then they'll know where to find our new advertisements, which is on the legal notices section of our website. So,
thank you for the opportunity to say that, too. >> All right. Um, as far as my report goes, um, we are getting close to the, uh, board self-evaluation and CSA, uh, CSA evaluation. Dr. Burgess will be
finishing up his portion of that, um, by the end of this month. So, uh, as we move into April, we'll get a notification and an email process for you to log in to the CSA evaluation. Uh, there's there's multiple parts to that CSA evaluation. It goes through each of
the district's goals uh and leadership qualities where you're commenting on what you've seen or giving feedback and providing an overall rating. Uh and then similarly there is a second section that is sort of a board self-evaluation
um where we can provide feedback on our work, the things that we feel we can improve upon or potentially even suggesting the direction of board goals as far as that might go. So we'll keep you apprised of that. Uh next week we have uh if you recall we were
reinstituting the board leadership roundt with our constituent districts. Uh so Tara and I were making ourselves available next week. Um I know a number of the districts have signaled their availability to attend. Um I don't know if we have the exact enrollment on that
yet. It's probably still evolving. Um, and I know I had reached out and sort of said if there were topics or things that you thought that would be brought to that table, um, you know, certainly send them my way. Um, I'm I'm just naturally anticipating the budget challenges that
all districts face will be part of that conversation. um as as districts are sort of talking about where they are with all of that and the particular challenges they may be facing um that has often been a forum for shared services. So I wouldn't be
surprised with those kinds of conversations continuing and um uh I think we had an update also about the uh originalizations grant um being received submitted and in right now. >> So we were able to get it submitted
today um so it's officially submitted. So, the school revitalization efficiency program grant um is in the state's hands now. As soon as we hear um about that, I'll let you know. >> And I guess I only bring that up because I know a number of our ascending districts are parties to that as well. >> Clinton Township, um Franklin Township,
Union Township, and Hybrbridge. Um, and then separately sort of in that spirit of district communication, I know we had begun some preliminary conversation based on some outreach from Franklin Township. So those
conversations are are being set up and and we'll proceed uh to sort of get a better understanding of uh some of their questions uh some of their their thoughts and and that kind of um conversation about um where districts
can support one another, help one another out, and with regionalization being on the table, um I don't know if that's an inroad to that type of conversation, but we'll certainly keep you posted as far as that goes as well. Um
the last reminder is that we have our preliminary budget uh adoption at the regular board meeting. Uh so next week, March 24th, 2026, 7 p.m. at the district office. Any questions on any of those items?
All right, that brings us to our opportunity for public comment. During this portion of the meeting, the public is invited to address the board of education with comments. You're requested to sign the register provided and state your name, municipality of residence, group affiliation if applicable, and direct your comments to
the school board president. While all comments will be considered by the board of education and response may be forthcoming if and when appropriate, individual school board members may not respond to the speakers at the time of their appearance. The public comment period will be a maximum of 30 minutes in length unless there are unusual
circumstances. You will be allocated three minutes to speak and no one will be permitted to speak more than once on the same topic until all others who wish to speak on that topic have been heard. Please keep your comments respectful and non-defamy and maintain the level of decorum appropriate for a public meeting
where students may be present and in the audience. Do we have anybody who would wish to speak at this time? >> Good. >> Okay. And with that confirmation, we will move forward to uh
>> Thank you. Uh curriculum, instruction, and technology. We have the uh the one home instruction item. Uh I don't know if there's anything specific to discuss or or note there. >> There's not I do want to note that, you know, typically we have been having a presentation from Rich each month, you
know, in this area. Um I asked him actually to forgo that for this month, uh because we wanted to focus really on a budget. that we would have a lot of information on a budget. We don't have a lot of information for you tonight. We're going to have some discussion. Um, but you know, the big presentation will be at the next at the meeting next week
because of all the budget timelines were pushed up. Um, and I thought about asking Rich to do a presentation last week, but I thought that might be a little too much to ask him to do in a week. So, no one will complain if we have a short meeting on St. Patrick's Day. So, >> okay. >> Brian,
>> question. It's um it's a theme we've had just going on for a little while about home instruction is another one that falls under this category. Um next week we'll vote on
accepting home this home instruction. It's another example of what are we exactly doing when we vote yes or no on that. I mean, obviously, well, I should say I can only speak for
myself. I I don't know the details, right? Dozen things going on there. So, it's it's one of the another one of these like, are we just acknowledging deceit? >> I think in the past when it's been at the committee level, it's generally recognizing that home instruction is
sometimes required because of students, you know, physical or or or mental condition. there's a recommendation the administration um sort of vets and affirms that and provides that um and it's not something that we've ever in my
understanding you know sort of yay or nade but rather uh if there has been conversation it's been maybe more about trends or something like that >> I'm sorry >> we we don't actually vote on that >> well it's I think usually the committee would recommend approval of all of the
items there so it gets bundled under I I'll just add it to the list of questions of what are we when we vote what are we are we voting receipt are we voting approve >> so >> yeah I I believe you're voting to
approve this as an expense basically um just like bills list right um where you know the information is um the goods and services have already been provided um this is the same thing where we're bound by legislative code to provide home instruction for a student that is ne that is required for And as a, you know,
transparency to the public, the board votes on these things to say, "Yes, we um are voting to affirm that these things are happening and we're aware of it happening." And that's, I think, why you vote on it. >> Yeah. It's not that you necessarily know the details on whether or not the third person on that list is eligible for home
instruction. That's what you count on my office for in the office of Mike Scorchia and, you know, other people in our district that are um, you know, making sure that the processes are are functioning the way they should. But as a board, you know, you have the um responsibility to say yes, we approve
these expenses so that these students can continue with their academic um with their academics even in their current situation that requires home. >> Um can you just briefly I guess summarize the process that they have to
go through to apply for home instruction if Sure. >> if they need it. since I have him here. Mike, do you mind giving a quick overview of the process of home instruction? >> Sure. Uh, there are a few different reasons why a student would qualify for home instruction. Most of them are
medical situations where we get a doctor's note where they're going to be out of school in excess of 10 days. Um, and then we approve that. Uh, we go through the process. We try to get a beginning and end date. Sometimes those services are provided
within the district and we have one of our teachers go out and work with them. Usually at least two teachers um they cover the subjects and and a certain number of hours are allotted based on that time written from the medical note.
Um and then in some cases there is an outside agency that's working with them and then they'll provide the hours to support the students instruction. we give that information to that tutor or to the student depending um and then
they fill those hours and then we pay that third party. So it can be a little little different. >> Okay. >> So yeah, but we we always have some kind of medical documentation or some kind of um there are times where we put a student out administratively um and then
we are required to provide home instruction. So we there we can either put them out for certain reasons and then provide home instruction or there's a medical or some other kind of um I guess it's really only medical that >> we can put them out for and then we get documentation that from a physician we
verify that with our physician and make sure that they are provided the hours that they are required by law. >> Okay. >> And some of them those hours vary depending on whether or not they are regular education or specialist. on the sec second from the bottom. Um the end date is in 1826.
>> We'll fix that. So it's a new one. It says start 3526 and then end 311826. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Listen, you don't know their condition. >> I know, right? Back to travel time traveler. >> We will fix that type >> for sure.
>> Yeah. >> This is why we have a work session. >> Yeah. And >> just wondering if we're approving this as an expense, should there be a cost associated with it so we can see a total expense. I'm just, you know, that I'm not sure that we are approving it as from an expense standpoint or not. I
sound sound like maybe that, you know, I'm not certain that that's 100% the case, but if there is, I do think then we should have an understanding of how much >> sure >> the cost is. >> Yeah. Not gay. But I think if I understand what you're
saying, Katie, it's just an awareness. U I'm sorry, Andrea. It's an awareness of the cost rather than an evaluation of of the >> Absolutely. And I have seen it done uh the cost and other agendas. I have seen the cost say for what the hourly rate
for the teacher. So you I've seen it in presented a different way, but we were aware of the cost that we were approving and aware that you know of the cost that is born by the D district to do this. >> Got it. So my my followup is to find out why the board is approving that whether it's because of an expense
to number or if it's just that you need to by some legislative code approve that this student is eligible for home instruction and you know what the actual purpose of it is. Doesn't that kind of show on the bills list? Um or not really broken down enough?
>> When the individuals are paid um then it will show up on a bills list because the check is issued. But this is just approving the students to be able that are eligible for the home instruction to get it. >> Yep. >> So you do see it twice actually I guess but in this situation you don't know the teacher providing it. But on the bill's
list you know the teacher providing it but you don't know which student they provided it to. So it is a little disjointed there. It sounds like the why is going to have to involve being into the legislative code. >> Yeah. And that's what I need to dig into is find out exactly what the purpose of
what you're doing when you approve this. >> And then I guess Andrea to your point the rate is whether it's the stipended rate for home instruction from a teacher here or if a student is in a placement somewhere you know whatever that cost might be.
>> Yeah. And again, we we do have a contracted rate. So it is um >> so it is fixed. >> It is a fixed rate per hour and then it's based the amount of hours that are here. That's what it will cost. But but I'll get you that fixed rate. >> That's good that it's fixed. >> That could be my next question.
>> It is fixed. It's in our schedule. >> So would it be better off just to put it on there so you don't have to >> like the fixed rate? >> Correct. Yeah, we could put that maybe just as right underneath the table. >> A footnote >> says, you know, current contract rate of whatever per hour.
>> Now, if it's a not a teacher from the district that provides it and it's from a third party, is that a different rate? >> It is. Um, well, it can be. We try to negotiate that with the third parties and say, "Here's what we pay for this." Um, sometimes if it's a third party, it's usually a student is in some type
of an institution that, you know, they provide the home instruction as part of their treatment. >> Okay. >> Um, but I think we usually negotiate that to our hourly rate, right? >> Yeah. They're all contracted. Uh, they're on approved list.
>> Okay. So then, yes, the answer is the same rate. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, moving forward, we're going to uh policy and school security. Um, the policy ad hoc committee did meet again
last week. Um, we have a number of items to bring forward. Um, Brian, I'm going to hand off to you to sort of preface what's here and and why it's here. Um, I believe these were shared uh through Rich's communication that they would be
coming up for the first read. Um and the other thing I had alerted the board was we did have a discussion in the policy ad hoc. Uh I think I clarified that a question had come up as to whether or not we were uh in compliance with the open public meetings act by not
enumerating the policy specifically and the answer was that we were in compliance. uh in other words the link format that we were providing previously uh was permissible but the committee felt that when there's a small number of policies like this uh it might just
serve as a good clarity and reminder for all of us here they are you could kind of see them obviously if there were larger policy adoptions like when we moved from our one vendor to the other uh enumerating them all becomes unwieldy on the agenda so that's just sort of an
update kind of pertaining to the different uh appearance of these being here. So that said, I will hand off to Brian to sort of preface what these are and why they're here um before we talk about any of them. Right. So, um, what
you're seeing here for, uh, 91 and 92 are, uh, policies and regulations slashexhibits that we did not get in our
uh, original um, school board's policy. Um, >> bundle manual. >> Bundle manual. bundle bundle right so these were ones that should have been there when we adopted this in June of last year
we you know we had a we had they have provided we had a spreadsheet that said you know here's the old your old policy here's how it maps onto the new policies and what we all failed to do was to actually go through and make sure that
every one of the new policies was actually in our manual. So through a process that really through a kind of serendipitous pro uh happening that doesn't really matter why but school boards identified oh wow we didn't give you we didn't put those in
your manual these three policies and uh six regulations exhibits. So we the the ad hoc committee had some other ideas about what to do uh in the policy space but we decided this was
going to take precedence. It had to these are policies that we meant to have in the the set. They were supposed to be there and somehow they just didn't get uploaded. So uh we don't we didn't want by any means to just you know call a mulligan
and just have them appear. So we said well we have to go through the process. So we're doing a first reading today. Uh this is in very much analogous to that day you know the meeting in in June of last year where we
said we're going to adopt them all in one fell swoop again first reading second reading following the process. Uh and so we as a team as the ad hoc committee um took a look you know before when we had whatever it is how many
policies we have we tried to read through them but we didn't really go into depth we decided that we were going to adopt it full scale and then work through them after we adopted this time with just three policies you know a number of us took a look we didn't see
any red flags um there's some things that maybe we want to touch on in the future, you know, analogous to the uh paragraph on pale playgrounds or something like that where school boards has kind of a template and parts of it
may not apply to us. Uh but otherwise there's no I'll say for my eyes there was no red flags. It would prevent me from recommending that we go through um these policies to do first reading today. And of course, it isn't until
second reading next week that they actually are adopted. Um, this is to get them in front of the the board. Regulations, I'll remind you, and slashexhibits, um, are not subject
to the first reading, second reading process. Um, in fact, technically, the administration basically owns regulations. this is how they're going to implement the policies objectives, the board's objectives as stated through
the policies. Um, but the practice has been in this board ever since I've been here and as far as I know to bring them in front of the the board and make sure that um the board understands which when there is a regulation that's being put into the manual that the board sees it
um and has a chance to comment on it. So those are not going through, you know, that's why they're separate from the the first readings, but next week we will also vote to adopt those. That's the intent is to have the policies that you see there, the three
and the six regulations exhibits on the um agenda next week for voting. So, a couple of things like and I I don't know like in the first read we had a little bit of a conversation or sort of pointed out that the um uh the
regulation on smoking talked about um parent outreach um being done by the principles and you know it came up that it's probably not something that's done by the principles but potentially through counseling or some other designate in the district. So that would
be sort of a detail for um Rich to confirm. Um, also things like the disciplinary procedures. Um, wait, I'm trying to remember. Is that one on here? The disciplinary procedures one. Um, might not be. >> Yeah. Code of conduct.
>> Oh, code of conduct. Uh, regulation. Just making sure that the code of conduct regulation since this is newly to us from school boards does in fact match our code of conduct that we give out to students. So something that the principles would potentially review in
vet to ensure that those things are in sync as far as that goes. Um but it is an opportunity. I didn't know if there were other items or other uh dimensions of the policies that um folks had questions on or would want to uh have
administration take a closer look at something. Um obviously there's that opportunity still next week as these come up. Um >> um and also point out this was as Brian said we're not part of it but going
forward with the working session when we have policies it won't it'll be first readings and then the next month will be second like we traditionally had done in the past under committee but these had to be done you know because they were missing they should have been there but they weren't. So that's why we're doing
the first reading now and then the voting on next Tuesday. But going forward, now that everything's in place, we'll have first reading one month and then the next month will be the second reading and voting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it feels like everything we've been doing so far in 2026 have been
exceptions to the rules that we want to apply, >> right? >> But they've been these kind of one, you know, because we had to get a policy on the books. we were we're overdue to have a policy in the books and now this one came up. Um
so so that's item that's item one of three that I have. Um so but I don't want to cut that conversation short >> questions clarifications. So, so the thought process on this is going to be adopt these next week and then have the
administration look at them to review or have >> in the interim like in other words the final version should be ready for next week if there's any tweaking >> next week there will be corrections or edits made so we'll go back to the first reading >> to the policies no we've already gone
through the policies and and I don't see anything that has to be changing the policy for the regulations as Brendon mentioned prohibition stuff. There might be still a couple language changes because they haven't gotten through all of those yet, >> but those aren't subject to first second readings. So that's why it can just be adopted.
>> Yeah. So next week um unless somebody has something they want changed from a board level um on the policies, those will be presented to you as they are tonight for a second reading. And then the regulations again might have a couple wording changes like Brendon had mentioned the um parental outreach. We
it says the principal is responsible for parental outreach or it might be principal or or their destiny, right? Instead of just the principal and so we might add some words like that just to clarify it. >> Any other items? >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Um All right. >> Two. No. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Brian. >> Not so not going to get off so easy here. >> All right. The second item is um an item is what I'm going to be calling what I
want to call preuncter housekeeping. Um so Stephen noticed for example in the manual and for a couple few instances it looks like we have two policies with the same number. It turns out all it is is
this one of the two the one that's appropriate to be a regulation is actually should have an R behind it. So it's the associated regulation. So all it is is there was a basically I'll call it a typo. Somebody didn't
type in the R when they entered it into the manual. So you're not changing anything about the language of the policy, the spirit of the policy, the intent of the policy. All you're doing is clarifying in the manual that there's, you know, there's not two policies 1 2 3 4. One of them is
regulation 1 2 3 4 which is indicated by an R. So when those are discovered and hopefully there's not very many to discover um we we are advocating the ad hoc committee is advocating that the administration just makes that change.
It doesn't require a first and second reading to change the title to the correct title. >> It's a clerical error. >> It's a clerical error. Thank you. That's a much better term. And then there's a second type of clerical error that is
because of the school board's adoption and that is so after the policy if you read a look at a policy most of them have this at the very end there's a a set of references there's a reference to legal you know state code items and there's there's kind of like a cross reference between different policies
within the the manual. In some of those cases, those policies that school boards, you know, this their reference list is is is just a copy paste, but we don't have one of those policies
>> in the reference, the cross reference. So again, what we're suggesting is that's a clerical error that shouldn't, you know, we should not have a reference to policy uh 6789 because we don't have 6789 even though school board's
base default does have a 6789. Of course, I'm making the numbers up. Um and we would just administration would just delete that cross reference. It doesn't have to go through a first and second reading because we're not changing anything about what we're, you know, that why the
policies there, what it's it's doing. It's it's just being correct. And so I wanted to bring that up in case there was strong feeling that that's not a good strategy to correct clerical errors that you want to the board wants
to see all those and go through the process of first read, second read. We have a lot of stuff to do. So I'd hope we could not have to do that. >> School boards did weigh in on that as well and they said there is no legal reason for those to be board approved
but of course it's up to the perview of the boards. >> Yeah. Yeah. Their their legal counsel had an opinion that way. >> Okay. Um last for us is um based on those two things I just
discussed. Um clerical errors and oops we forgot to upload some things. Uh I just wanted we thought it would be good for the rest of the board to know that we've started to wrestle with was that a right decision
to move from Strauss estate to school boards. um that's money we've already spent and effort we've already spent and it's not something we would I don't think would advocate to do anything quickly but um
you know the the what's hanging over the our heads is okay now we want to actually go in and start making sure that all the policies you know now we might actually be tweaking real substance not just
errors um And some of that work would be silly to do if we knew in six months say, you know, we had a crystal ball and said in six months we're going to punt and say go back to Strauss estimate. That would be silly to spend the board a bunch of boards time kind of
massaging the the policy, continuing to to to make it what we really want it to be and then swap over back to their language. So nothing to recommend or anything like that. I just wanted I thought it was the ad hoc committee thought it was
important that the board know we're starting to wrestle with that idea. >> Andrew and then Mel and Andrea >> for those of us who are not pretty when that decision was made. What was the driving factor to make that change and
how often would something like that generally occur? A switch. The recommendation originally came from the prior superintendent um board before he departed. Um and it
was actually I think it was my first year on the board and I was in the policy committee and he showed up and said I recommend we go to school boards. Um and then over the next year the board sort of went back and forth and discussed it. Um,
I think historically school board's pitch has always been that their policies are briefer and more, you know, reader user friendly. Um, there is a little bit of a a fiscal advantage. There's a couple thousand difference for an annual subscription to one or the
other. Um, but as Brian said, I think the the two instances that we've had now of either playing catchup or being alerted to misses in the policy book is is creating sort of the moment.
Um, Dr. Burgess, I don't know if you have anything more about the the rationale for the change. I know uh where sort of the the person who made the recommendation isn't here to articulate that. >> So, I was the assistant superintendent at the time. So I was tasked when this
decision was made that we were going to switch to school boards to work with school boards um in converting the policy. So I spent about a year and a half um doing that. Um it was a significant process. Um and the last thing I guess I would want to do after going through that effort is to go back.
But I can say that um the attention to detail as we've seen in a lot of instances, two of them came up tonight, but I can tell you there's there's more that I've seen over the course of this time frame um is just it's not the same as what we got from stress. Strauss
head, you know, they have um 95% of districts in the state. So when they develop a policy, everyone is adopting the same policy. Um it it allows us to be consistent with other districts throughout the state as well. um that has been their numbering system is completely different. Um and you know,
we're a year into it now, so we're starting to get used to it. But if we I guess if there's a time to change, it's now. If we don't change now, we're going to be with school boards for you know, probably the foreseeable future. Um and so there was there was the only other thing I can remember from the time
frame was there was language in um Strauss policy that um certain board members didn't like. Um they expressed that to the superintendent and the superintendent's solution to that was well we'll just go with school boards because they have less language they do you know they try to make their policies more succinct and I think that was the
rationale at the time I don't know if that still holds true now because of things that h you know things in two years a lot has changed in school boards as well as you know straps so also you know back when we we would get regular updates from them um and while we weren't bound by their language 100%
they really gave us solid language I I think you know again we've started to look at some of the policies that we want to change a lot of you know language in and I think we would change we still would change some language because this board has their own you know unique um identity to what they want their policies to say but I think
those language changes would be easier to implement if we started with a clean version of a policy that gave us 90% of what we want and then we're working on 10% instead of 70% of what we want and we're trying to work on 30%. Those are just some of the thoughts that have gone
through my head over the last few months. So, >> uh, and I just want to concel, Andrea, and Brian. >> Sure. Um, which one was cheaper? >> So, school boards, actually, when we originally contracted with school boards, they were about the same cost. Um, I think it might have been about $800 less for school boards. Um, since
then, school boards has this January, school boards has announced that they are giving their policy service away for free. Um, and so they're not going to charge us for the policy service. we still have to pay to have it posted online um through Board Docs, which is the solution that school boards uses for that. Um and so in the end, I think it
would be about $2,800 more to go back to Strauss. And so again, I I don't want to spend the money if we don't have to. But if we're going to get a superior product and we feel like that is worth that extra $2,800 a year for that, um that's really what it comes down to. Is it
worth um what we get from Strauss? So >> Andrew, >> I was just uh curious if you felt if we had to go back or did decide to go back to South Asme, is there a policy I mean you'd already spent a number of years crafting those policies to be what you wanted. So is it but it's been 2 years
since then. And so I'm just wondering how much do you feel like we could just adopt that and you know spend 10% of the time you'd spend going through all these new policies um you know from the school boards to kind of go back cuz you know we had a you had a policies from stop
size may it worked for you you've just made changes as they came I assume that policy manual still exists someplace >> so part of that rationale is exactly that and that's why and maybe this is a little selfish on my part but like that's why it's like sort of like now or we'll right because we're going to spend
a lot of >> because Strauss had said they would our we officially adopted the school board's manual on June 25th of 2025 right so less than a year ago um so on that date we had a Strauss estimate policy that was up to date and and was good to go so
because we're only a year in Strauss has said they will take that um version of our manual that was updated according to them add the updates that have come out this year present sent that to the board for there. And so we could have a we wouldn't have to go through the conversion that we did before, >> right? And we would but we'd have a year
of changes to go through and make sure that those changes those policies. >> They're just updates. >> They're updates. Yeah. Well, there might be a few new on that. We would still review them. I'm just saying we know for sure that the policy related to the right to read Act is going to have them
updated. >> Yes. >> Right. So, it's a year's worth of of policies and updates. I get it. Rather than an entire new manual. I was just wondering if we had a you know a base strauss that policy that we might be 90% happy with >> as opposed to
>> we know it's probably closer to 98% >> right maybe of a I don't know if school boards into something that we're only 10% happy with >> right that's the that's the amount of work you guys are looking at thank you for doing it but >> so I wasn't on the policy committee when
that decision was made but um I got on it later um But just to have eyes wide open there was there's a reason we switched. We weren't there was some level of of frustration
with stra me was was con constant regular like almost every month you know updates. So it was kind of um and and they were like um the one I remember well was you
know all these policies we were changing pupils to students. >> Yeah. >> Things like that. So there was this like uh and then that was one one item was that there there was a level of frustration in terms of how often they were being there was churned. It felt
like there was churn. Mhm. >> Two was apologies to the lawyers in the room. A lot of legal ease. It felt like to the to a lot the number of the board members it was dense. It was dense to read their policies and school boards felt simpler.
um in addition to kind of fewer and but um uh I I think I think that and the cost and then the final so you know it was pitched as it's going to save us a little bit of money
you know directionally it's was less money wasn't a lot less but it was directionally you know you'd rather have costs go down than go up and then the last thing was I think I I I felt that there was a well everything else we do is with school boards, you know, we have
the the rep come in. We we use their their tools for evaluations. You know, there's so much we're kind of locked in with school boards a little bit. Why wouldn't we be locked in with their policy manual? So, I think all those
things kind of led to to the decision, but it just has not been smooth as I would hoped. As we go through the school board's policies, do we and and we stray further from what their default policies are if
we feel like we need to, you know, make them better. Do we leave ourselves at any kind of risk from straying further away from what they've suggested as far as legalities or anything like that? Like, do we get a certain amount of backing from them as far as if it's changed
>> the policy and then the further we change it from what their suggestion, are we at any kind of risk? I mean, I don't know. It depends on what that language change would be. I think that's subjective, right, to what the language change is. Um, I think if we were deciding to take out references to
legal code or legislative code, um, we would probably be at risk, right? Because we're no longer pointing to something that the state is saying we have to do. Um, if we were changing, you know, some a policy on, you know, what the sports philosophy was on, you know,
athletics or pay to play or something like that, that's different, right? Because that's this board's own identity and what you want in that. >> So, I think I don't have a an easy yes or no answer for that, but I think it really depends on what policy and what language you're trying to use.
>> Yep. So to follow up on Richard Richard's thought before I ask my question, um the school boards which you're currently using, do you have any concern that they are not going to be alerting us to when policies are written
in such a way because the law requires it? I would hate to see the board deviating from a policy unaware that there's a statute that requires certain language being in the policy. And that was well I Merald that was
often one of the things that folks would point to is that uh Strauss Esme would embed the statutory language as part of the policy and that is often what made it as Brian was saying sometimes dense long um but I don't and and then of
course the school board cell was we don't have all the legal ease and statutory language in there and I think to Rich's point if something changed in the statute, then it had to change in the policy because your policy had the statute embedded within it. At least
that was kind of always my take and Brian. >> I my view of that would be first to recognize that there's school board is not reviewing our policy manual like on any kind of regular basis unless >> Yeah. So, if we took out if we took out
some key reference to to Rich's point um to to some statute and now we're in not in compliance with the statute. It it wouldn't be school boards who would flag it. It would have to be our attorney. But but is the tool
efficient enough to allow you to know that there's certain language in the policy that has to be in the policy because it reflects state statute? Or are you operating with school boards a bit unaware where you might unknowingly deviate from certain language not
realizing that you were taking out something that by law needs to be in >> because it seems I think that's a risk. >> Okay, that's >> I mean the the references are there but the at the bottom of the page and sometimes in school boards there is
a reference to a statute but but it's not. >> So my my actual question um was just going to be it sounds like the subcommittee is looking to report back to the full board within a short amount
of time. make your decision as to whether we want to own school boards and work with the policies for the duration of time or whether we want to cut our losses, if you will. Is it fair that you're going to decide pretty quickly and and come back and
make a a decision? >> Well, certainly the ad hoc committee does not make a decision like that or make a recommendation >> recommendation at best. >> Um, and I think we have to take into consideration the cost or be aware of the cost, right? um because it's it's it'll be a fee to kind of
>> get us up to speed and then there's a larger annual fee to host and and then on top of that I'm thinking >> yeah what does it say about our board >> we turned over the whole board didn't I
mean it's >> I know um school boards monthly and on the county meetings we always have a legislative section where They go into legislation to let us know if there's anything that we need to be aware of. But that then puts more oneness on us where Strauss Sesame was doing that
updating for us and alerting us and I don't know if we're going to be getting that from school board other than us being attending all of the the monthly sessions to see where the changes have that are coming out of uh Trenton. So yeah, so it's a lot. Yeah, it's a concern.
>> And I think the only thing I think to your question, Merryill, is in the committee meeting, Rich, you mentioned that there is sort of a timeline here for us to act if we're going to by a certain time, but I don't recall the specifics of that. So again, it the
board decides to move towards back to stress estimate based on a recommendation from the committee and based on the research that I do. the board decides to do that, we I think we need to do that by April so that we can have those in place by May and have a first reading in May and a second reading in June so we can adopt them for
July 1st. I mean, worst kind of worse, we had to adopt them for August 1st, we could uh because we're still before, but I'd want to have that before the beginning of the school year. Um, so July 1 would be ideal. So, I think we are in a little bit of a time crunch right now if we want to do this. Um, it
just I I don't I don't have all the information to even make a recommendation to the committee who would make a recommendation to you yet. So, we're we're still reviewing that information. I just presented this this month as an option. Um, and I I will work, you know, um I know the proposal that I shared with committee and
everybody else can see that proposal u because it's in the policy um committee structure that we used to have. We're we're utilizing that since it's already there. So, you can sort of navigate through and find it. If you can't, let me know and I'll get it for you. But um you know I think that there are some
setup costs and things like that. Um if the board decides to go back to Strauss, I'm going to use the um leverage that if you want us as a customer, you know, we we're going to we don't mind paying a little bit more per year, but we're not not going to pay you
a a fee to undo what we did a year ago. Right. So >> you're watching. Well, don't say that. Bill, if you're watching, uh, Andrea, >> um, have we, is there a way maybe before we make this decision decision to see a sample Strauss SMA policy update?
>> I don't know if I recall from my previous board, we used Strauss SMA is that they were better at kind of crossing out the changes and redlinining. And it's very easy to see what new things you were adopting. and I get a little lost in the weeds when I look at the the these policies get
because I'm not sure what's changing or what's new. So, I don't know if we want to maybe ask for a sample so that the policy committee can kind of see, oh, this is what we'd be dealing with if if it wouldn't be easier to >> probably have them in some of those. >> Yeah, I can actually share our old
manual because we still have it on it's still posted online. Um, and I can share a bunch of information with the board on that. Um, and then obviously the policy committee, we can talk about all that information. um in a little bit more of a close setting and then discuss it again next month, you know, as a full board, I think. So, it sounds like it's
at least worth me doing the work to collect all that information and present it to the board so that you can all make a decision. >> Okay. >> The idea of presenting red line changes is >> it can't it it has to be the way you do it. You it doesn't have whether we stick
with school boards or or not. whenever there's changes to the policies, we need to do red line versions. That's what where I stand on that. This this is also a pretty big, you know, kind of the board's job is policy.
And this is kind of a big thing. The board's job is policy and budget. >> Yeah. >> And that's the other thing about this discussion right now is that there's this elephant in the room called the budget that also has a tight timeline.
>> Yes. So, >> yeah, that's why I'm not trying to tackle policy conversions this month. >> Okay. Uh, >> Brandon, the school board's uh um agreement or subscription that ends
June 30th. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Well, the board docs does. Yes. And actually, school boards does right now, but we wouldn't have to pay that next year because they again they're not charging for the service. Uh but they're still charging for the online component because it's a it's a contracted third
party measure that they use. >> So I just wanted to shift attention briefly to 9.3. >> Yeah. So 9.3 um we added this here because we used to have job descriptions that were revised under personnel agenda and again when we had a personnel committee we would discuss them in
personnel and then we would talk about personnel prior to us going into executive session. um and we could have conversations about non-confidential items like um job descriptions, but we don't have that anymore. We have personnel sort of after, you know, executive session and we thought it was
um more appropriate to have that in a discussion where we're discussing all the other items because job descriptions aren't confidential. And so we fit them in a place that we thought would fit the best, which would be a policy and security committee, not so much security, but definitely policy because I think a job description isn't really
defining the person that's filling that, but it's defining what the role of that position is. So I thought this was a good place to put it. There's three that we are um proposing. Um and again, one of the things that school boards does very well is they have a database of job descriptions um for public school
districts. And we you what we do is when we revise a job description, we take our exist existing job description, we download the um the version from school boards and we compare those two and then we determine what the actual um responsibilities are of the of that
position within our district. And then we take the language from school boards that's applicable. We put it into ours and we take stuff out that isn't applicable anymore. We sort of use a a a hybrid of what schoolboards recommends and what our responsibilities are for that position and then give you a redline version of that for your
consideration. >> But to be clear, that is independent from our policy conversation. >> It is independent. Policy committee did not talk about that at all, the ad hoc committee. Um so I just decided it fit here better and we can always change it somewhere else if we wanted to later.
Again, that's up to >> No, I guess what I was really clarifying was our being with school boards as a policy >> vendor. That's not >> two separate items. Just being a member of school boards, >> the job description uh manual
>> and so we don't have to be assigned to policy services for that. Yeah. The policy service is this little thing that is independent in school boards whereas as a member of school boards we get access to everything and we get access to the policy now but um prior to that that was a little carve out that they
had that was special. >> So all the red lines that are listed on all three of these job descriptions are just making them specific to our school district from the template that they ser they supplied us >> using the language from school boards but specific to what these people are expecting to do here. Yeah. and the
assistant school work business administrator is an important one obviously because we're hiring for >> okay question on that credit um so that's that was my question that um Nicole asked so
some of this language here so I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly um and it's on a lot of these so I'm just going to take the assistant school board administrator one first um is there so so number for minimum experience as determined by the board.
Should that say that or because we're not really involved in that process, right? Like or is there like I don't I don't know how to read that. And then when you go down to um the the salary portion of it, it kind it kind of has that same language. So,
should it be changed to to say like approved by the board instead of determined by the board? We're meaning like we're not involved in salary negotiations with any of these people. So I don't know if determined, you know, contract terms and salary determined by the board may be the the correct
language there. >> So yeah, I think that language is there because the board does have to approve the individual. >> That's what I'm saying for the position. Um and so you know the qualifications that the board wants to see in that person is determined minimum experience is determined by the board. Does this
board want to hire first year people um or do they want to hire someone with more experience? And I think that's what that's supposed to mean. I'm not saying it's clear as it should be. Um but I think that's the intent of that and I think the same thing with the salary is that you know we're going to negotiate a salary with a person that we want to attract and come here to work in the
district. But the ultimate decision is whether or not you approve my recommendation. Right. And so that's what I think that language is there for. >> Yeah. That was I understand. That's why I I think maybe it be suggested to say approved by the board, not determined by the board because we're not involved in
any of that. Um, and that's that's for all job descriptions, but specific to the assistant school board administrator because that one is on the docket now. Um, like we we've never talked about minimum
experience like how like what? So I don't understand, you know, when it says minimum experience determined by the board, I don't know what it what is the minimum experience. We've never discussed it. I have no idea. >> So are you suggesting like sort of the
same consideration like approved versus determined? >> Yeah, because I don't know like I mean if we're I would definitely suggest that for the at least the terms and the salary because we're not involved in any of that, right? So we're not determining it. We're not
negotiating it. We're just >> But we are approving. >> We are approving it. >> So that's why I think approving might be an appropriate verbiage there as opposed to determining it. Um >> well, I think even to your point that if the board were aspiring to some ideal of
minimum x years of experience, the market might be such that that is not to be had >> and we're going with what's being recommended in in in in the situation. Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. >> No,
>> I I mean, what you're right, you're being more precise. If it doesn't hurt to make that change, I think that's the more precise um >> I think so >> action that we would be taking. We're going to rely on your recommendation and and approve or not approve.
>> Sure. So if we were going to change determined in both of those locations on all three of those job scripts to approve by the board satisfy that >> alternative suggestion is that that kind of requirement
be removed. >> Okay. Isn't it really it's up to your judgment >> unless the board >> still has to approve >> but the board has to approve it that the board also has to approve that
>> uh if if the you by approving this um job description we're approving that we are requiring a criminal history background check >> again I think >> everything about this we're approving Yeah, >> it's just why why why put that
>> handcuff on you? >> So you're you're approving this job description so that I can make a recommendation >> right based on the criteria. Yeah. And in the past they >> does this board require a minimum experience level for assisted VA? Do we
know a priority? Would we be okay with in some circumstance with >> No, but that's why he's saying we're not determining that. They're they're determining that, making recommendation, then we approve it. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I mean, would it be better to change
>> I know we're all throwing out suggestions here, but would it be better to change minimum experience as determined by the administration? superintendent. Yeah. >> And minimum and his salary as determined by the administration because they're the ones determining it
>> whether we you know I mean I >> Yeah. >> I don't know what would be best to change. >> Okay. We're all wordsmith and everything. I know. I know. I don't want to do that. I I can't help myself which is not not good because I don't want to
bog everybody down. I think it goes without saying that I so so respectfully I don't think we need that language Nicole because I think it goes without saying that it's going to be a decision that
Katie and and Rich come up with. Of course it's as determined by them. I don't think we even need that language. That's assumed. That's their job. >> Yeah. And again we could just strike that language out. minimum experience as determined by the board. I agree it if
that doesn't make any sense, we just take it out, right? Instead of trying to word smith it into something else that might make sense today and not tomorrow. Um and the same thing with the salary, we can go down there and we can simply say um you know terms of employment are 12
months. You know, you know the contract terms and the salary they are not determined by the board, but they are approved by the board. that I would maybe have a little bit more um I think that's a little bit more important u because the board does have to agree on the contract terms and the salary, right?
>> Yeah. >> So, I'm fine with anything. I'm I just threw it out there just to have another option. So, I'm fine with anything. I take no offense to >> So, we can definitely make those changes. Um and then that'll be what's presented to you at the U meeting next
week. >> Okay. Great. >> And and again, part of committee is, you know, discussing this, right? Talking about it. And that's what I'm glad we're able to do here. Um, if there is something we think about between now and then, you know, let us know as well and we'll, you know, if it's small changes like that, we can definitely try to come
up with those changes. But I present to the full board. Okay. If there's not anything else, I would like to call for a motion and a second to approve agenda item 9.1,
the three missing policies. moved. Uh Nicole, second Brian. >> Thank you. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. None. Okay, that brings us to finance, facilities, and transportation.
Miss Blue. >> So, my presentation for this month will be next week because sty was released at the end of last week. So, I just need a little bit more time to put that together. But Rich and I shared with the board through his superintendent update last week a few documents in the board
resources folder. So if you have the time to go into there now I thought it might behoove us just to run through the one projection document for revenue. Um so again it's in the board resources folder under resources and then budget
2627 budget document. There's a PDF in there that's called 2627 projection final. So that is our final revenue projection now that we have the state aid number to drop in. Everything else on this worksheet we >> can you can we just maybe have a minute
so we can all get there. >> The easiest thing to do would be to go to Rich Bjack's uh Friday emails. >> I wonder if email there's a link to it.
No short on the Sunday. >> And then Rich Rich's email. >> Yeah. One from the >> I just sent an email out to be announced if you could. >> Okay. So if you're having trouble finding it should be top of your email Q
>> right here in the folder. >> Oh, there we go. Okay. the 2026 2027 budgetful documents and then Katie, you were referring specifically to the tax levy scenarios document
>> or the projection document. >> Okay, gotcha. >> Down at the bottom there. >> All right, is everybody navigating? Okay,
>> so the highlighted column for the projected budget FY2627, you'll see the tax levy is 58.845909. That is a 4.48% increase. So, I know through the superintendent update again, we've described the budget that we've prepared
um with salaries, benefits included, and those few final adjustments after receiving state aid that was actually beneficial to us of $17,000. That is the tax levy that we're proposing. The pro the budgeted surplus number
we've discussed that was at the conclusion of last year's audit, that's the carryover surplus. The tuition that we received for added district students is 200,000 for the year. A slight decrease from last year. Interest revenue that's conservative compared to last year.
Again, a $25,000 reduction. Miscellaneous, which is a reduced um income based off of the facility rentals being a bit more conservative this year, as well as the no parking fees. And then maintenance and capital reserve interest that's carved out as well.
So, under the state sources, you'll see the state aid number as a $17,000 increase from last year. Again, not a tremendous increase, but it's not a reduction. Extraordinary aid, we're expecting $100,000 less this year. Again, the county offices told us to be more conservative in that number as
well. And then the semi number slightly higher than last year. Um, that program is dictated by the state. we submit for um special education students um and get reimburseable costs for those at risk students. So again, this is just kind of a high level overview of all of the
revenues of the projected budget that I'll be presenting next week. So again, this is just so that you have in your hands all of the numbers. And the second document is >> just Katie, before we leave the first document, the Medicaid semi uh reduction
from 17,000 to 14,000, the percentage change, I don't know if there's a typo in there or if I'm just Oh, it's an increase. All right. Sorry. >> Three to 17. >> Gotcha. >> Some reason they really poorly funded the semi program last year and now we're budgeting to something more in line with
what we had two years ago. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Again, it's not a lot of money considering the amount of paperwork that we have to file for that. >> Okay. What is extraordinary aid? >> Um, extraordinary aid is an application that we file in May for all of the special education students that rise
above a certain dollar amount. So, out of district students that rise above, I believe it's 55,000. And then the indistrict students that if we can take a class of students, divide them up and make sure that each student um can rise above a certain dollar amount. I believe
that's 40,000. Yeah. Um for those students, we take that entire application, send it to the state, and see how much they fund it for the year. Unfortunately, every year it's been going down by about 10%. So I think for what we apply, we get maybe 40 to
50% if we're lucky. Yeah. >> Um, so it's unfortunate that the state is not funding that program well, but that's why we're anticipating another decrease next year. >> Yeah. >> The all all these numbers are estimates right now, right?
>> Yes. They're projections. >> Projections, >> but at this is our final projection. >> Final and then to the state. I'm sorry, the county. Correct. Okay. And so, um, this the final the bottom line of 68.7
million is what you've determined we need to run the district. >> Correct. >> So, it's kind of like um start one way to think about it is starting from that number. That's how much we need to run the district. You've got all these estimates for Medicaid, extraordinary
aid, state aid. State aid may be a little more firm than some of the other ones. And that's how you get to the final text. >> I'd almost say conversely, what we do is we take our expenditures and appropriations and figure out what do we
need to run the district and then we back into these numbers and say what do we need in order to fund all of these programs, individual salaries, benefits, every single budget line. How do we fund them given the constraints of the
revenue? So then we make cuts in order to agree those back to the revenue items. >> Okay. >> With the tax levy being the last thing that we want to increase. Right. >> Right. >> But it's based on what the other increases are and what the other projections are. What do we need after
all those other things are considered >> and then what do we have to do to the tax levy in order to get to that number of what we need. >> Right. Right. It's it's got to be a bit of give and take. you know that we know like if if we were to have if this board
ends up were end up saying no no we want to stick with our 2% tax levy then you got to go back to the other side of the ledger and start whacking it >> correct >> absolutely >> okay I didn't mean to sidetrack Katie you were going to I think the next docu
Oh I'm sorry >> it's okay it's okay >> yep the other document is again just bouncing right off of what Brian just said which is, you know, we were tasked with the scenario of what we would recommend and the 2%
cap and what we would do to get within 2%. So again, that second document is what we've cut already in order to get to 4.48%. >> Maybe order differently for different people. Which one you which document do you like this cut? Now
>> the second document is now tax levy scenarios >> tax le for me it's last for some reason. I don't know why. Yes, I think it's last organiz >> but it's another PDF. >> Y >> tax levy scenarios. >> Yep. >> So the first section of that worksheet
is what did we have to cut to stay within that tax levy parameter of 4.48. So our full taxing authority this year we could go up 4.6. Um Rich and I went back to the drawing board, tried to cut a few more things and then had positive state aid news.
Again, not tremendous, but we were able to take that and again reduce the tax levy from the 4.6 to the 4.48. >> So, do we we bank that little bit? >> We will have bank cap for about $69,000. >> Okay. Oh, it says right. Sorry.
>> So, you could I guess in theory too, you could say we could take that next year if you so choose. You have three years to use bank cap. So over the next three budget years, you could take that 69,000 back and increase your tax levy in a future time when it's needed.
Now the second part of this worksheet is if we had to go 2% what else would we reduce and that's shown on this worksheet as well. >> So these are things that this is how you amounts reduced >> right >> the first box is what we have already reduced in the budget to get to the 44.
>> So the 4.48 48 is there has already been a reduction of 1.5 million >> correct >> to get to 4.48. >> So at some point you were able to cut 1.5 million from the budget.
>> And and again the things listed there are things that we already those are we already know that we're going to cut those. So these the the first box is things that we've already decided on moving forward next year. These are things that will not be in the budget
next year, guaranteed. The second box is if we had to go further, right? These are these are ideas, right? These are things that we look at right now that we say this is probably where we could cut this funding. Um it's not 100% sure that we would like I know we have listed
there, you know, um cutting staff, we we might decide instead of cutting four staff, we cut three staff and find some other um efficiency somewhere else and things like that. So the the bottom box I don't want to say is you know if we go to 2% these are definitely what's going to go but this is a way that we can get
there if we had to. >> Andrew, >> where does the currently vacated assistant superintendent position fall on this? >> So that's in the budget. So that has not been reduced. Um, so it's currently in the current expenditure budget that
Katie has developed and the assistant superintendent is in there. >> I have a question. So >> would we say that the district's finances are stronger or healthier this year compared to last year or weaker?
>> How would you define stronger? >> Are we in a better position financially this year than we were last year? >> Since healthcare went up 20%. No. >> Okay. So then I guess my question to that to that would be if we're in a less stronger financial position than we are
than we were last year and why are we raising non-affiliated salaries more this year than we did last year. That part I don't understand. Um I get where the district is locked into um things that have already been
negotiated but that part I don't understand. So I is there any consideration to not going? >> You're talking about cutting salaries? >> No, not raising salaries for non-affffiliated correct for the people that are in the >> correct
>> because it sounds like you know we're in a le we're a weaker position this year >> but the raises are higher this year than they were last year >> but we were in a stronger position. So I I don't that part I would >> well just I'm not I don't know if you want to explain how the affiliated
salaries. >> Sure. So most of our track I know we go through negotiations for the affiliated staff, >> right? >> Yeah. So our affiliated staff um are our education association, our administration association. Those are already negotiated guaranteed um for
through 2028. Um the non-affffiliated is 26 people in the district. Um it includes our IT department, includes our central office. Not everybody in central office but the majority of the people in central office. Um I'm trying to think um what other
categories that includes. I think it's just central office and the IT department really. Um and it you know we've always given them the same raise that the negotiated agreements got whether it be 3.4 or 3.2 or three or whatever was negotiated because we wanted to show that those employees were
as important to our district as the rest of the employees that were getting the races. Um, you know, in my opinion, if we give those non-affiliated employees less money than what was negotiated for all of their colleagues that are in an association, um, it sends a message that we don't value them as much as we do the
other people. Um, if we were in a position where we had no other choice but to, you know, lower those 26 people's salaries um, and say that's the only salaries, >> that's the only way we can balance this budget. Well, we would lower their salaries from what they were expecting because most people because we've always
done it, they would expect that they're going to get the same raise on July 1st that everybody else is going to get, right? So, um the amount of money we would save with that is is, you know, it's not going to balance our budget, right? >> Every bit helps. >> Well, sure. Every bit helps. And that's why we do our job of um you know, going
through and and and making the tough cuts so that we can take care of the people that run this district. And that's really what this district is about is the people that run it. And I think sending, you know, giving a small segment of people that are not affiliated with the union less of a raise than what all the other people in
the district get um for what that saves, I don't think that that's going to give you um the efficiency that you want from those people. So that was always been my stance on >> If I was in the union, I think that um they look at it the other way that Oh, shoot.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um are these people not part of the union just because it's not available to them or are they not part of the union because of choice or >> so some of them are excluded they are um exempt employees. So, in other words, secretaries that work um anybody that
has access to negotiations information, which would be my secretaries, superintendent secretaries, people that work Katie's department, they um are are exempted from the units are not allowed to be. >> So, the majority of the people that are not affiliated
>> are not allowed to be affiliated. >> Yes. And even the people >> at no fault of their own that they're excluded. >> That is true for for a a portion of that. Some of them um you know the IT departments, the supervisors of the custodial services, there's a few other categories like that. They just they are
not in the recognition clause of the association. And so at some point the association could go to that group of people and say hey you want to be represented by us. That group of people could say yes we do. They join the association. They develop a salary guide. They come up with rules and regulations for that group of people.
But they're like it is one of those things that's currently not in the recognition clause. And so that's why they're not affiliated. >> So either the association doesn't recognize them or they're exempt from inclusion in so basically nobody is
excluded because they don't want to be part of the union. >> That's correct. >> Okay, >> Maril. >> So it's a sorry >> as an easy answer. Yes. >> Okay. >> So I I I appreciate you sticking up for for the staff that is not affiliated. Yeah.
>> Um, but can I ask if if increases were not given to those employees, how much money would that be? What would that cost? >> So, it depends on what you would say would not be the >> So, like no raise >> zero raise. I think it was around >> I think it was 70,000.
>> Yeah, 69,000 chicken. So, just under 70,000. >> Okay. >> That would be zero raise. And I think I did between 2% and 3.4% was like 29,000 I believe. >> Right. You know, something we need to consider is if we don't just give them the same
percentage, we'd be looking at negotiating raises with each of them individually. They could come back and be like, "Hey, I want to negotiate this." That just brings on something else, but we have to consider. >> Well, >> yes. I mean, you know, I mean, we don't have to negotiate that, but we, you
know, again, >> it comes down to um again, we're we're an industry of people, right? And I understand there's numbers and I and I do appreciate that, but um I would rather find somewhere else to save $30,000 and keep 26 people happy and um
and feel like we took care of them so that they give back to the district. Um you know, and feel like they're taken care of than cut that 30 I'd rather cut that $30,000 from somewhere else on a thing than a person is what it comes down to. >> Mel. >> Okay. Thank I'm good.
>> No. Okay. I think what I was saying is more like optically we're hitting the taxpayer pretty hard, right? There's no can't get around that, right? So, I think for me, like listen, I I get it. You know, you want to take care of people. Everyone
everyone here does. I think if we would have maybe kept it even the same, that's an argument that you can go back to constituents and make, right? But making it higher this year compared to last year when we're in a weaker position, that's hard to explain. That's all by higher
>> the the raise higher this year than what was given last year >> 2.68 last year increase from last year >> the tax lev >> tax lev the raises for nonaffiliated are not higher than they were last year >> they were the same three last year I
believe was 3.5 this year 3.4 >> so it's oh it's down >> so it's actually less >> I thought it was I thought it was 3% last year why why did I think that >> no it was three it was it was whatever again I'm negotiated. >> If you've ever negotiated rats with us and I believe last year was 3.5. It's a
4-year contract. I think it went 365 3.34. >> And I guess I just I do want to make the statement of being careful here because we are we're charging the administration to to reach a goal and how they do it is how they they do it. Um I don't know
that it's incumbent upon us to say do it here, do it here, do it here, and do it here. Um, if we're saying, you know, this idea of bring it down a little bit more, um, I think we have to be careful about and leave the discretion with them
to figure that out. Um, Mel Andrea. >> Uh, so I think my understanding is that if you know raises that's not a significant amount. That's not going to move the needle to get a tax le down to closer to a 2% or something you know
that's not four over four. There's a list of other things on that second sheet that you know we have I think we owe you some direction of is this what we want you to consider to look into. There's some things that we would have to vote on as a board like a pay for
play and um I just lost the field trips and things like that. I just I think you know before you go and do all the work and figuring we have to decide if that's something that we would even want to give direction to. >> I guess that's my feeling like you know
before we go say like oh whack all of this well we have to know well what what we're changing and how it changes kind of you know the the atmosphere of our district. Well, one of the things I think I did reach out to school boards because I think the fact of the matter is right now every district is going
through a version of this and districts are in probably the most difficult position they've been in in quite some time. There are a number of costs that have spiked that are completely beyond their control from healthcare to transportation to energy to just the
cost of goods and services. school boards themselves is is no longer um actually advocating for the 2% increase simply because they recognize that sets
districts up for um a short-term feeling good but a long-term um fiscal disadvantage. Uh that those costs are exceeding the 2% cap. And it sort of goes back to the um what was cited as
our taxing authority is at 4.6%. If we were to go higher, we would have to go out for a referendum. Uh we'd have to go out for a vote to get the voters permission to go higher. when they give us our taxing authority that is in recognition that there are costs that
are beyond our control and they determine what that taxing authority is based on that. Um the 2% has been in place since 2010 maybe um and it's just the state's recognition that the ability
to maintain costs within a 2% cap has become unsustainable. So I mean that's just sort of a a part of that entire just logistical balance act that balancing act that schools are sort of forced into at this moment. Merryill
>> that was helpful for me to hear Brena the way that you put that. Um, did I understand you to say that school boards is actually recommending abregation of a 2% cap because it it's just it's just not doable given so many costs
that that rise above that. They are saying when I reached out that they are not advocating, they are not recommending and going out to districts and saying you need to be mindful of the 2% cap because they realize that that has become untenable and that that is um
puts districts in a position where their their um costs are just naturally going to exceed what they can stay out of >> this year. uh this year has become a new norm. >> I think it has become
more pointed this year simply because of the spikes that we are seeing across the board. Um and you know I I think we will hear around the county um numbers that that range very differently from what schools have been able to manage over
the past few years. I think that's just the reality of it. what the future holds. We could be right here next year doing the exact same thing. Uh because those costs that are out of our control can continue to spike in the ways that we cannot predict. Um and if we're not
setting ourselves up to be positioned to um control or contain them, uh it will be additional it will be additional cuts next year. >> So then how do we set ourselves up to be in a position to control or contain them? I well I think that's part of the
recommendation of what the they're they're ultimately saying but yes I mean I think I think part of it is there's nothing that's going to contain a 30% spike in health care costs. There's nothing that's going to contain a 20% spike in transportation or energy costs
or even the the cost of a paperclip or a piece of paper. Um, the school has an administration that seeks to position the district as advantageously as they can to be in a positive
situation to manage as best as they can. And this we're obviously looking at with a $1.5 million reduction. Um, that is putting us in a place that they are recommending. Um, we choose to accept that or we choose to say no, we'd like
you to go lower. we'd like to consider something else. Um, and everything is a trade-off as far as that goes. Yeah. >> And I just want to point out, I think ju just being on the board a little longer, being here four years, I think what I've seen through the years, going back to my
first year on the board, is the administration's position of not being shortsighted, looking at the short-term win for one year versus the long-term plan going forward. So look looking at
what do we need to do this year so that three or four years down the road we don't fall off a cliff and that I that I remember specifically that that chart that we looked at that first year where we were heading towards uh a physical fiscal cliff and uh and what we needed to do to to avoid that to push it off
and that's kind that's what I've seen through the years is that constant need to kind of not not kick it down the road but to to kind of hold it hold it at bay so that it's not, you know, okay, we did, you know, we we win this year and then next year we're, you know, we need
to go out for a referendum because we're we're underwater. So, >> Stephen, oh, Brian, >> I just wanted to to Merill, back to your point, um, you know, what are some of the things we're doing to control costs as well? Um, and just a reminder, you know, the facilities grants that, you
know, the business office was able to obtain, um, those are huge. Those are things that we would have had to expend out of our capital reserve which at some point needs to be replenished by tax levy. Um, and by obtaining those grants and doing that, we saved a ton of money, which ends up leveling us off to be able
to, you know, so we only have to cut 1.5 million, right? And so, um, facilities grants and then also polytech. Um, that was another thing by us having themies and the facilities that we, um, built here. Uh, I I believe the numbers were
our Polytech tuition is like $3.7 million and we end up getting 3 5 million or 3.4. >> We pay 3.4 in in tuition expenditure to Polytech in order for our students to attend their program and then we get 3.1
million back from them by hosting their programs on our campus both at board. >> So again, those are things that they sort of go unnoticed, but they are major initiatives that um took a significant amount of effort over a lot of years to be able to get um in our district and they help plug those holes. They help us
keep um because we're not expending the expenditures through Polytech, we don't have to make those expenditures through the um facilities projects, it allows us to have that money to maintain staff and keep people and do things. >> And I would say a number of years ago
when the state went into a series of cuts, the game in the county became how do you attract students in an era of declining enrollment? How do you attract students to your building? On my prior board, it was establishing send and send and receive relationships with other
districts, which I know we've done fairly recently, or build programs that attract either keep kids in or attract them from other districts. And that is obviously been a big strategy here as well. Uh Stephen, you had a comment and then Brian had
>> no really waiting till the end of the presentation. >> Okay, >> Brian or question. So, um I want to acknowledge your comment about uh not getting too deep into how to run the
district. Um, but I want to I want to feed on uh build on and on on Andrea's comment about some guidance. And my personal opinion would be um I'd much rather
implement uh recover some costs on the athletic side than reduce the security in the buildings. So this you know I and and I recognize Dr. converge that because it's making these recommendations that that the and
it would only do so the buildings will be safe with half an SRO in each building. But this is a little bit controversial on this board, but it's quite the wrong direction in my opinion. I'd much rather see us um recoup some costs of athletics and reduce SRO staff.
>> I agree. I feel like we could be creative now. Again, we are very limited to how we can present it in order to, you know, make suggestions and recommendations, but I am in agreement, you know, security is not something to
skim off. >> And I think I've mentioned that before, too. I don't want to ever um cut ourselves short on security. So, I have actually um we're working with the police departments, and I don't have anything to report tonight. Um but I hope we'll have some good news um in the future. But again, that's all going to
be the the budget conversation is where are the buckets, right? And and and I understand there are some buckets that are important to some people and that bucket is very important to me from a security standpoint. So, I'm going to do everything I can to maintain what we can in that area. That was going to be my
question cuz that this this um this is assuming your re the the recommended um changes that were in the slide that you >> correct. So you're saying that you think there's going to be changes on top of that
>> there may be changes in how we staff things not how we um end up at the right number. We're going to still be at the number that those slides >> the number doesn't change just how you you might correct get some advantages some other ones. >> Yeah, we're trying to get I'm getting creative with both police chiefs um and
how we can um maybe maintain you know full-time presence but still have um that full-time presence not cost the same amount that it has in the past. >> Cynthia, >> has the district ever had any hiring freezes? like if there are certain positions that are open like corporations and companies um if they're
in a certain fiscal um challenge, they have hiring freezes and things like that. Has the district ever experienced that? Has that ever happened before? And so share some insight.
>> Yeah, sure. I um so I quickly went over um positions that we haven't filled in the past 5 years and um you know my quick numbers were um over the last 5 years we've reduced nine teaching positions over the district um and those were all through attrition um people
that left and we said can we be more efficient with this and combined classes and class sizes might be a little higher but um can we do this and we were able to do that for nine positions over the last five years. Uh we also have three administrative positions that we reduced including one this year but um prior to
this year we had two um so we had three all together over the last 5 years that we've reduced three administrative positions. As far as educational support staff um and we have one school counselor and two um secretary positions that we have reduced and become more efficient and
brought things into our district office. So we reduced those over the last 5 years. Uh, and then the last thing that I had here was just, you know, it's it's not our employees, but uh, we did an RFP again for mental health services last year and we were able to save a little over $200,000 on the mental health
clinicians that we contract out for. Um, and so that was a $200,000 savings. And so again, all these things are things that over the course of the years we are constantly finding efficiencies. We might not call it a hiring freeze, but we're always looking at what do we need to run the district and maintain our
current services, class sizes, academics, um sports and activities, right? All the things that make these schools great places. Um and that's what we've done over the last and >> as far as people, that's what we reduced, >> right? And if not um if not a hiring
freeze, but also maybe putting caps on certain salaries for certain positions that are open. So, a lot of that is most of our people except for those 26 we talked about tonight are are bound by collective bargaining agreement, right? So, we could we could say we wanted to put a cap on um hiring. So, in other words, if
we had a math teacher that was available, we could say the board doesn't want to consider anybody above step five on the guide, right? And that would sort of give us a cap and then we can look at that, you know, the the >> I'm just asking about creative ways. >> Absolutely. And and and and I agree that
we are constantly trying to be creative this way. Um and so when we look at you know filling um teaching roles we do try to get people at a lower salary if we can. There are times though um certain teaching positions that are in high demand we might have three applicants and you know two of them one of them
doesn't have the qualifications. We wouldn't want them to teach our students and the other two are already you know working at another school district on step 18 on column five and they're making $12,000 a year. Right? So the the choice then becomes well do we hire the unqualified person that we can hire on
step five or do we hire a qualified person that you know and and those are the tough decisions we make regularly. >> Oh absolutely. I think in any position it's never an easy um >> decision to make >> but we are always considering that we're always looking at hiring at the lowest level we can with the most for the most
qualified person. Um before I kind of want to get back to Stephen's point and Katie, I know we sort of jumped from one document to another and I didn't want to um cut anything else off as far as presenting. I wanted to make sure cuz I know Stephen was like and I didn't want
to skip documents or topics that were part of the conversation. >> Stephen really wants to go last and I'll ask another question. >> Okay. Oh, well I I think I was being mindful of the fact that there might have been information that we had
more about either scenario and what specifics of any in scenario two because scenario one is already >> anyways didn't know if there's more so that's why I was >> okay so I don't I don't expect a a quantitative number uh but it's
intriguing uh to get a feeling for the cost of athletics. So on on in scenario two, you have a um $100,000 per student per sports, which
>> $100 per student. >> $100. Yeah, that that that's that solve our budget problem. >> We'd be the New York Jets. >> More successful. >> Uh so so that's about, you know, your
that round calculation gets you about $175,000. Is that that's a tenth of athletics? Is it half? >> I did athletics. Oh, >> you mean if you had to recoup the entire cost of transportation,
>> coaches, transportation, >> coaches that aren't already insurance, >> maintenance of facilities. Um, >> I think we're looking at $3 million. >> I'd have to get back. So $175,000 is not happen.
>> It's a way to try to close that budget gap a little bit, right? And that's >> we were to do a pay to play would and I know we have opportunity because it's important for students to be able to have these. It's part of their high school experience, the ones that participate. But if they couldn't if
they couldn't financially afford it, we could do I know we you know scholarships or >> typically if a student is approved for free reduced lunch which means they're an atrisisk student they have low income or approved for SNAP tan if at the state level >> they typically have any fees waved so
they get the free yearbooks at the high school free. >> So we wouldn't be able to the pay to play but again that'll be in your policy. So if the policy is drafted in a way that talks about that we can just make sure. >> Okay great thank you. Do we think we're leaving anybody else out though?
>> I would I agree with you, Tara, that um that that is enrichment and it's it's it belongs in the school and every child should be able to participate if they're so interested. And so >> do you think that whatever that bar is
to qualify for school lunch? Um are there people above that bar who might be not >> I think that's a conversation that a lot of districts have. Some districts have put in pay to play and then they've taken it away because they're afraid of that barrier to entry for some of those students that may not qualify for free
lunch. But that is a very low bar. It's, you know, poverty level condition. So if you're somewhere in the middle, um, you may still have difficulty paying for the supplies that you need for the athletics and the entry fee. >> And if you've got multiple kids in the district, multiple sport.
>> So that's just a conversation at the board level whether you would have that appetite. >> And we're not advocating for that right now. These are just ideas, right? These are these were possible ideas that if the board decided that we only want to go 2%. These are some things that we could do to try to make up that gap.
>> So, >> and can be changed, too. That's that's just an arbitrary number that is, but some people go higher, some people go lower. >> Has the district ever done it before? Pay to play. I feel like it was a popular idea a number of years ago. I think when things budgets were getting
tight previously, I don't recall if it landed much or much happened or they moved into it and then moved away. Um >> Okay. We've talked about it more than once, but never >> Okay. How how common is that at the high school level in the state it's >> I think we looked in the county. I think
you could say maybe a half and half. >> Yeah. I you know I I I don't know. Um I think it's more common at the elementary level to be perfectly honest. >> More common school, >> but I was at Bridgewater. did have pay to play for clubs and athletics, but I think a future board then pulled it back
and decided it was a barrier to entry and they removed it. So again, it's just depends on the feeling on it. >> Rich, >> are we strictly looking at either of these budgets either at the 4.48 or the 2% or it's possible we land somewhere in between?
>> Right. That was going to be my question. >> Well, last year was the same thing. I think >> for instance, we know that we have to get down that that top box. We feel like maybe that's locked in. Um, but are there some things in the lower boxes that are more the lower box that are
more palatable than others? I mean, you we have on here reduce four out of five mental health clinicians, which seems extreme to me, and I don't know anything about it, but it would seem more reasonable to reduce one. Um, if if
we're thinking that we can save some money but not get all the way down to 2%. Is that something that we should think about? >> Oh, you speak. >> So, yeah. So, it is possible um that we could we could land somewhere in the middle of that. Um you know, right now I
believe we have a school district that provides the services that are necessary for students. It's not I don't think there's any waste here. I don't think we're providing things that are over um what we should be providing. Um but again, if we wanted to reduce some of that, a percentage of it, we'd have to
figure out those numbers. Um, and so if we were going to reduce one mental health condition, that would save us, you know, instead of 4.48, I don't know what the number is, but let's say it brought us down to 4.38, right? >> And if that was the case, is that worth the 30 some kids that aren't going to
get services from that one mental health condition. And if it is, I'm okay with that, right? That's our charge. Um, but that's where I guess we when we looked at this budget, we went line by line, talked about every possible cut. We were able to come up with the, you know, originally we were at the 46, but you
know, we're down a little bit now, but we were able to come up with those cuts that brought us to the 4.48. If we want to go deeper than that, I think it's it's going to hurt somebody and that's what I'm trying to avoid. >> So, you're really behind the 4.48. I >> I mean, that's what I'm recommending. Um, but again, that's up to the board.
So, the board has to agree to that. And so, >> and in the past, again, this is the first budget that we've had without a committee structure where yeah, >> we have the committee discussion based on our recommendation. We come out of committee recommending then to the board the committee's recommendation. Dan
would typically report out on what the recommendation would be and then that's what's presented to the board for approval. So, based on now being a committee of a whole, I guess this is the consensus conversation. you know what does the board have the consensus right now so that I can finish the budget this week so that you have a
resolution on the table next week >> Cynthia >> so I think Andy had asked the question in regards to the assistant superintendent right and so we are budgeted to fill the position for the assistant superintendent
>> yep it was budgeted this year too >> it was budgeted this year >> and again um you know yeah and and again this might sound selfish, but yeah, I I would like to do the things that I think we need to do to make sure our strategic plan is completely implemented, to make sure
that our district is moving forward in the um the directions that we've set with that plan. And if I don't have the help to do that, I'm not going to be able to I'll be able to maintain, you know, and and and we'll we'll make small strides. Um but without somebody else
helping me do that, I'm I you can only do there's only so many hours in the day, and that's what the assistant superintendent comes down to. And we have an opportunity this year where we reduced an administrator already. Um so we we are already reducing one administrator in this budget. Um I don't
want to reduce another one. I would like to fill this one and absorb some of the responsibilities that that administrator were reducing with that position and then also use that person for things that I was used for for eight years. >> Which administrator job was reduced?
>> Uh the um school safety specialist. Well, that's he retired. >> Yeah, but it was attrition. >> Well, yeah. Um, I guess my question would be and kind of to Rich's point,
can we see like options, there's a 2% option, there's a 3% option or there's a 3 and 12% option. like what what what your recommendations would be at different percentage levels as opposed to the 2% and
4.48%. Like I'd like we see some options that are in the middle. >> So this is the opportunity to tell us what you want to raise the tax levy and then we will make those options a reality. Um so what I'm recommending is that um we stick with the $ 1.5 million
cuts. We raise tax levy 4.48. If the board um gives me a different direction then yes I will have to come up with those options but I don't have an option of you know 2.3 2.8 3.2 to well it's really just a math
>> or some combination of the extreme. It's like you said reduce one or two of some of these positions and take out one line item or >> you know so I it goes back to my question are we okay with reducing any of these things and are any of these
things really in discussion it sounds like pay for play really isn't because I don't think we want to take opportunities away from our students but are any of these other are reductions in any of the other things palatable to us >> pay to play by the way is 33 high school districts
33 high school >> out of how many are in New Jersey? >> 400, I think. >> Yeah. >> So, I guess my other question would be I mean, and I'm just going to say the quiet part out loud. I mean, I feel like every time we go through budget season,
the first thing that is talked about cuts is things that impact kids in and teachers and students. And I hate that, right? I still and I know there's members of this board that agree. I still believe the district is way too topheavy, you know? And so at some point the administration or we the board
should take a look at reducing the amount of administration further. Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean h how how many um how many assistant principles are in north? >> Four. >> How many are boardings? >> Three. >> That's a lot. That's that's that's a lot
right there. I mean I know >> we disagree with you. >> I of course you do. I I know things are different, but like when when I was in school was the principal, the guidance counselor, and and the vice principal, and that's it. >> When I was in school, I had a smoking
happen again. But I I listen, we're I I think they really we're at a time where it seems like the things that impact kids and teachers are always first to go, but this district, like many in in
the state, I believe they're topheavy and and there's efficiency that could be there. I mean, seven assistant principles is excessive in my opinion. But that's getting something like that in
talking about administration. So So what I'm saying you're exemplifying through a specific you're ex here again you this isn't about reducing. You're pointing at an item and you're administering saying reduce that one. >> That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's that's something to take a look
at cuz I believe and I know there's other members of the board that feel the same way. I'm saying it out loud. That's the difference. So I agree we should look at that actually. Did you take a look at in that folder in the 26 27 budget document there's an administrative salary document that we attached for you?
>> It says comparative analysis 2324 administrative administrative salary costs for two high school districts. It talks about group performance benchmarks and how we stack up against other two high school districts. So, as you can see, North Hunter and
Borhees per pupil is less than Morris Hills Regional, West Morris, Northern Valley, Ramipo, Pasc. So, we're actually the lowest in two high school districts. >> Two high school districts, meaning districts, two physical plans.
>> There are there are 46 um 712 or 912 regional high school districts in the state. >> Okay. Um out of those 46, six of those have two high schools in them. Um and again two high schools makes a difference. We have duplication of services with a lot of things, multiple
sports teams, multiple administrators, multiple um bands, everything, right? Um we have two where a lot of places only have one. So out of two high school districts, out of those six, we are the lowest per pupil cost for administrative
spending um out of all of those. And we're only $104 per pupil above the mean average. um for or the average for all 7 to 12 or 9 to 12 high schools. So
comparatively, if you are looking at the data again that we we put here, we we are we're not topheavy. We're actually light on administration. We're going to try to continue to do that as long as we can. Um, when you say it doesn't hurt kids, not having administrators who can
run programs and monitor teachers and monitor programs and make sure that things are happening the way they're supposed to happen at school does hurt kids. So, I know everyone wants to blame the big bad administrator as that's where all of our spending is going, but that's not the case. They are actually
um good, caring people who are making sure that programs are maintained and continue and are safe for our students. So again, I I know what your thoughts are on that, but I this is what I see on a day-to-day basis, and that's why I make the recommendations I do.
>> You probably disagree with that the most. >> The teachers, >> Brian, did you have >> Okay. Um, so I guess we're at this point where we have to make a recommendation
to the administration to present next week. Um they are currently recommending a 4.48 increase. They've given us a scenario of a 2% increase and and what that would potentially entail. Um I don't know the best way to do this, but
we sort of have to give them our sentiments and our consensus sentiments of what to do next. Um so you're you're sort of you have a choice of saying I you know I hear your recommendation of 4.48. I understand it's difficult. um
and I may not love it, but I I I accept your effort to go there and present that to us next week. Or you're saying, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this, or I'm very uncomfortable with it. Um
and asking them to go back and and find something else. Um that's kind of where we are. And it I don't know that it's as easy as, well, give us a 4.4 and a 4.2 2 and a 4.0 and a 3.8 and a 3.6. Um
I I think we have to express some level of either comfort with where we are and we'll process it um or discomfort with where this recommendation is and a desire to go a little bit further to that point and that's where I get
confused by the guidance here because you say like this is what we need to do but then when I mention things of how to >> you see I'm getting too far in the weeds. So it's like the hell you supposed to do both >> because all all you really need to do is say something like I'm uncomfortable
with 4.48. >> Um I would really like to see I don't know 4.0. I mean personally that would be a statement that you might make. It is not incumbent upon you to say let me help you do it by pointing here, here,
here and here and get rid of those things and that'll do it. That is the administrative discretion to make those cuts and determinations based on their understanding and the needs of the district. You're giving them a target. The what they are figuring out the how.
And they need a signal for us of either I'm comfortable with this or I'm not comfortable with this. And maybe that's the first pass we need to take. I'm comfortable or I'm not comfortable. And if the majority of us are not comfortable, then we have to get a
little more specific. in terms of a target. >> Does that No, it does. I guess where I struggle was, and I'm going to be quick, is that I disagree with the levy, but I also disagree with the cuts in the scenarios. >> So, that's what I struggle. >> It's a double-edged sword on both sides. I think we're all feeling that feeling
of >> both these scenarios aren't ideal. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> But, but do we >> It's It's We all I think we all agree that it's a tough decision to to rely on either way for everyone involved. Well, I'll go.
>> There was I just want to maintain I think it was Dan Mar just real quick. I I I don't I don't think you should use the word comfortable or uncomfortable because I don't think any of us >> agree agree. So maybe it's like maybe it's just I don't want to getting back to wordsmithing but just saying you
support what you're doing or you don't support you know cuz I think like I said I think we're all uncomfortable. >> Yeah. Okay. Fair point. Maybe I was trying to make it too nice. Yeah. >> Marill. So in in in coming up with your
extras for the 2% is it fair to say that you sat down and worked at if we have to cut further to get to 2% in your professional judgment this was where those cuts could be made. You considered globally what the universe of cuts could
be and you determined that if we had to do it these were the best of the worst options. >> Yes. and and it's because they have to be large ticket items. We're not going to gain another $1.6 million by finding
$29,000 here and $29,000 there, right? And so that's why we were looking at large numbered items because if we have to cut another $1.5 million, it's it's going to be >> big ticket items, >> Tara. And then there's there's only so many big ticket items. >> Okay. >> Yeah, good. >> You're good. Okay. And then I saw I
think Rich. Yeah. So is it the position of the administration that if we were to cut more than the 4.48 that in your feeling it would have an adverse effect on students? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And I I will say this is where trust comes in between the board and the superintendent. I'm new. I mean, you have control here. And if you >> were
digging in on not going below 4.48, I suppose you could in in bad faith give us things with that were so not palatable that there would be a board member who would accept it and you would perhaps get we would want. And um I'm
not I'm not seeing that from you at first blush. Of course, there are board members who've worked with you for longer than that, but um we've got to rely on you that you're >> and I appreciate that and and believe me, as um Dan mentioned, I'm
uncomfortable with this. I don't want to recommend to the board a 48% increase. I don't I I wish I could come to you and say we don't have to raise taxes at all and we're going to maintain programs and we're going to continue to, you know, have the great schools that we have. I wish I could do that. um I
can't. It's just not possible in my role. And so I appreciate the trust that you said you have to have in me. Um and again, for most people I think that know me, I I I will I an open book. I'm as honest as I can be. Um there's some
people that might not not agree on that. Um but you know, again, I think when you get to know me better, you'll know that that's the case. Sorry. I would add um when we did the strategic plan last year, one of the questions we
surveyed the community on was budget and the feedback we got from the community on budget um was interesting in the sense that um there the thing they wanted about the budget was information
and we've aspired to do that this year through the presentations that we've done putting them on the websites so that things are more visible and available. Certainly the committee as a whole has brought that committee conversation to the floor. Um but one of
the other things that came through in that feedback was recognition that they did not want to see programs cut. Um, and that was something that came through, um, and was was surprising in some way because it
was recognizing that things cost money. Um, and the community in that feedback seemed to recognize that they wanted clarity more than they wanted to see programs cut, which was an interesting piece of feedback to get through that
community process. Um and and and I know that's if you weren't here through that process and part of that that feedback um that's context that um I feel has some value and and
may not be widely known. Stephen, >> would it be fair to say that there's probably not a single board in the state that isn't struggling with this and having to raise their taxes because of this incredulous
spike of the healthcare costs mainly but also as we said transportation and everything. So while it would probably be going up 2% normally to adjust for standard things
that this under 5% while isn't anything anyone wants might not be that crazy comparatively. Do we have any, you know, anything to know of anywhere else that to maybe help people feel more,
oh, like, oh, well, we're not 12%, you know, I don't know. >> Again, I it's not not out there yet, right? >> You know, I wouldn't there is a countywide spreadsheet. Everyone's been talking about what they're proposing to their boards and and what their um
actual um tax levy um is allowed to go up. Um, and a lot of districts have what's called bank cap, so they can go up even higher than the um, healthcare adjustments, but everybody got a pretty significant healthcare adjustment this year. And yes, people are going up anywhere from 3 and a half to 9% are
things that I've seen. Um, and a lot of them are in the fives and sixes. Um, as a reminder, our healthc care costs increase by 1.6 million. The extra 2.48 is actually not even 1.4, report, but
it's probably like 1.3 million of that 1.6. So, the only reason we're asking you to go above 2% is because of healthcare costs. >> That's the only reason, >> right? A cost we have a no control over, right? >> Right. Yes. And so, without that, I' i'd
be able to recommend a 2% increase and and we could find some more efficiencies just like we did this with this 1.5 million up here. But to find it, that's it's that's the only reason we're having this conversation. The only reason most boards are having this conversation around the state is because of healthare.
>> So question, when was the last time the district was at 2%? >> Two years ago. >> Yeah. No. Um it was >> two years ago we were still using bank but we were giving the refund back for service. So it was technically like a
180. So two years ago. >> Y. >> Yeah. Two years ago was like 180 was like 176. The last presentation has a slide, but I don't remember the exact numbers. Um, prior to that, you know, I mean, I can
go back 10 years. I think we had 0% increases. 2% increases. We did have those. Yeah. Um, that's where we got the bank cap from. The only reason we would have bank cap is if we had less than 2%. Right? If you only went up 2% every year, you don't accumulate any bank cap.
If you go up 1.7 instead of two, whatever difference is between that 1.7 and two, you get to bank that for and use it over the next three years. >> And the 2% it sort of came in prior to the 2% districts had to go out to the vote every year. Yeah.
>> And the percent they would ask 3% 4% 5% and that was perceived as something that was getting out of control. The law changed and said, "Hey, if you can do 2%, you don't have to go out to a vote. you're considered to be doing fiscally responsible work and over time and
actually I think right out of the gate there was recognition that certain costs are simply beyond your control and we build in these allowances that you're going above 2% but you're still considered within the the range of fiscal responsibility because the state
gave those flexibilities and those allowances and so that's been the story of the past more than a decade almost 14 years it actually it actually started 2008 and it was a 4% cap and then it moved in 2010 to a 2% cap and that's how
it's been since then. And there are districts I know of right now and Westfield is one of them. I saw a presentation on it. They're actually they moved their vote to April. They asked their voters to vote under budget again because they they said we can't sustain a 2%. Um in a town where you have all the people in the town all run
the school, that's a lot easier to do than trying to sell it to 11 or 12 different municipalities here, right? And so that's um the challenge we have that they don't >> uh Rich or Stephen I can't remember I saw somewhere >> I mean I was just going to add when when you did share that data of the last
seven years of the increase it actually came out to less than 2% >> Stephen >> um and there was recall something from the Brown and Brown presentations both at Hunter in that you linked us as well
as the one that there was a live stream that we could have joined last month I believe I know I was on it and I can't find my note but um the presenter mentioned so I maybe someone could just help me remember and bring it up to
everyone else about I think it was about the 2% cap and so maybe that's chapter 44 is that what that is and basically that's expiring this year and for everyone to >> I think it's next year >> or yeah something like that to to kind
of not he his suggestion was to uh push or not push legis but for people to want legislation is to not reenact that clause again or something like that. So maybe does anyone recall that information?
>> Chapter 44 dictates what we are allowed to take out of an employes paycheck to contribute towards their health insurance. So chapter 78 is what dictated that prior. Um if they're in our legacy plan, it would still be chapter 78. Chapter 44 is for this new like garden state health plan that was
put in by statute. So it is suns setting. That would be a good thing if we were able to get people to contribute more towards our health insurance. I doubt the state will end up moving in that direction. But again, that remains to be seen. >> Okay. >> Um but chapter 44 does dictate how much we're paying for our health insurance is
is what it is. You right, the shift dictates the premiums, but how much we're able to collect from employees dramatically decreased when they put in chapter 44. So, ever since that's been implemented, it has been reducing how much we're able to collect for that. >> So, then potentially if that were to
sunset and not be reenacted, it could help. >> It could help >> some not. Who knows? You would then be able to set what their contributions are differently >> and that may future help out which then could reverse any tax levy if it increased a lot. So it could if they end
up taking away those options of the chapter 44 plans, they are expensive for us to offer. We could then through collective bargaining potentially talk about different plans, different plan designs, different employee contributions based on chapter 78 and then that would reduce the employer
cost. So that would reduce the our expense or expenditure. >> Is that a realistic thing to be hoping for? >> Uh I kind of recall hearing somewhere hope is never a strategy. Yeah, it would be a stretch. >> I mean, yeah, we could talk about
healthcare all night because chapter 78 chapter 78 was was, you know, I don't remember when that was enacted, right? Prior to chapter 78, there were districts like ours that um you know, employees almost contributed nothing. You know, that was back in the day when people were becoming teachers because you got good benefits and a good
pension, right? And um you know then chapter 78 came out and that was um implemented over a course of I don't know five years I think. Um and then by the end of that people were paying a good portion of their um of their health benefits. The employees were paying good
portion of their health benefits by law. It was required. That was the whole purpose of chapter 78 was to get employees of public entities to pay more of their share for healthcare. And then chapter 44 came out and that actually changed the the bar again. and chapter 40. Now you have the option between 78
or 44 and most people are choosing 44 because it's cheaper for the employee. And then um that adds the burden to us. When that does sunset, you know, whether or not they come up with something that would be beneficial to our board and our local tax levy or beneficial to the public employees, that's going to really
be or a combination of the both. Right. >> Okay. Um question Brian Mench. >> Mine is about the the in the process. Um next week you you want obviously to have
a item to vote up or down by the board. What happens if we vote it down? We have an obligation to say the same thing that Doug said last year. I don't know. I don't know. I think the county office expects that this board can come and set us in an agreement so that you
can have something in your office. >> Okay. So, so really but the deadline is >> like you have to decide tonight >> what's going to be on the agenda for >> you need to decide tonight because I need to be able to prepare that budget that you decide. So if you decide 3% or 4.48 48. I need to be able to put that
in this budget software, >> this many pages this week, >> so that on Tuesday next week, that tax rate schedule can be approved by the board and then I can finish this so I can submit it to them by Thursday of next week. >> That's the point. I guess what I should
ask, it's due next month. So, we got to get it done this month. We can't we can't hem and haw and vote it down and then vote something else in April. >> So, that's too late. >> The county office needs it next week. so that they can start their review so that they can approve it so that we then can
advertise and then have a public hearing in April. They need a 3 to four week window to do that. >> This may not be the conversation for this month, but but what does this look like 5 years from now? I mean, even statewide officials, you hear from
people all over like this isn't sustainable. So, like from an administration's perspective, >> are there ideas? are there. Yeah. >> So yeah, one of that that's one of the main reasons that we're looking at that school revitalization efficiency program is
>> and how long like how long does that take? >> So that will take anywhere from 9 to 12 months for them to um once we get approved for the grant, we get funding. Uh we'll do an RFP to um hire a consultant to do it. Um and then once that consultant starts the work, it'll take 9 to 12 months. Then even after
that that's really just gives us the information that we need to then even look and say to our sending districts do we want to do this and what is the and then you know if we if we decide to start that process then hypothetically maybe 3 to four years
that could be in place right um >> again yeah I think some people are looking for this now though and it's >> yeah that that sounds like a slog you know >> but in the meantime over the next three to four years, what we would do is continue to do what we've been doing,
which is find efficiencies, you know, um get grants, not have to spend money on facilities so that we can maintain staff so we can keep class sizes where they are, keep programs, and those are all the things we've been doing for as long as I can remember. So, I wish I could tell you exactly what the formula is to
do that, but every year we just look through those lists and we find ways to do it, and that's what we did again this year. So, >> shared services are one of those things you would call an efficiency. Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, I realize this isn't a
motion sort of moment, but it's I guess it's more of a duck check kind of moment. Um, uh, Merryill, would you care to kick us off? >> No, I >> You were nodding, so I went with you. Well, because I'm agreeing with the gut check, but I was going to volunteer all
of you senior board members. And I'd like to know with those of you who've been on the board for a while if you want to lead the gut check. >> Okay. >> And then >> and I will I will just say that usually as the chair, you know, um I think
theoretically I'm not supposed to tip my hand and you know, signal. So, I might hold off on that until we heard from senior folks, then new then new folks, and then go from there. Dan, >> do you want me to go first? >> Raise your hand. >> So, we're just
gut check. So, I support what the administration is recommending based on what we've seen in the past. Um, I support the recommendation going forward. >> Uh, Tara or Brian as next more senior. >> Um, I support the administration. I I
would like for the community um if we could maybe pull it down a little more to four. Um but I I if we couldn't and it would be detrimental to the students. Um but four just seems like a number that you know is a little bit more
palpable to the our taxpayers. you know, we have a lot in my community that, you know, are getting hit hard and but I don't want to take away from students and their experience here in the district. So, >> understood,
>> right? >> Uh, for me, it comes down to the trust that you you mentioned, Mel, and I I'll support this. Um, Cynthia, >> I'm supportive of what the
administrative, you know, recommends. Um, I do struggle with the, um, security cuts. >> Um, I feel that's important for students, faculty, and, um, I would like
to see a more creative way of happy medium. >> Okay. So that's possible. >> Understood. Uh Rich, >> so I'm senior with one year on the board. >> It's amazing how that
>> you can't use that. I'm a new board member. >> Senior. Um yeah. So I kind of go back. I'm a no on the on the supporting 4.48%. And it kind of goes back to like what
these two scenarios presented for me. It's like doom and gloom worst case like the scenario is like okay let's gut the the mental health clinicians right or go up to scenario one which is 4.48 say
well nobody wants to do that right so you're you're almost like pigeonhold to to to go with 4.48 48 there. Nobody. So, there's got to be a happy medium. So, I'm not going to go any further, but there's ways to get this down. I don't want to get into the weeds of where I
think we should go. >> Thank you. >> But, um, I don't support the 4.48 in its current format. >> Andrew, >> um, I think I'm going to go, you know, with a consensus so far and say that I generally support the administration. A little lower than 4.4 four would be
great, but um you know there's definitely things on that uh doom and gloom list that I don't want to see cut. So, >> uh, Stephen, >> I just have a question of like maybe you could tell us obviously mental health is important, right? Uh, why you chose to
put that on there and what we would be losing cutting that cuz that is a large sum of money, but so, you know, we just see mental health and everyone's like, "Oh, mental health." But you put it on there for a reason potentially other than just a big number or maybe not. I
don't. So maybe just some reasoning behind some of the doom and gloom scenario twos to help us better understand than just the line that's there maybe. >> So it it mental health um the mental health clinicians are not required in schools. Um so that's one of the reasons
that we try to see things that you know aren't required. Um and it's also a fairly new program. I mean it's not when I say new I think it was six years ago we started it right. So, but it's not something like, you know, that's been here for 20 years and we've utilized.
So, again, it's something that we saw on the list as I I don't want to cut it. I think it's important to our students. But, um, there are people that have the philosophy that, you know, if a student needs mental health services, well, that's what they have insurance for. They can go outside of school and get it. Why does a school have to provide
that for them? And I've heard those things before. And so with that feedback, I'm not saying I agree with that stance, but I've heard that feedback and that's why that becomes one of those things that you look at as a potential and it's a big number, right? And that's why >> So then these are like psychological or
like psych like right psych school psychologist positions or >> they're not school psychologists. They're um clinical um so clinical social workers or um licensed professional counselors who are contracted through the hospital through the um behavioral health department, >> right? Um, we actually used to use a few
different companies for this. Um, again, we were able to save $200,000 last year by putting this out for RFP. And our local 100 behavioral health actually um was in a position to to um respond to that RFP and they did. They were able to give us the same amount of
clinicians, service, same amount of students for about $200,000 less. >> Right. >> So, um otherwise we would have been looking at cutting these services probably last year. Mhm. >> You know, but again, they kept the the cost the same this year. So, we don't want to cut those. I think it's
important to our students, but again, it was a large number of something that is not required and that we have had for a shorter amount of time that we said if we have to cut another 300,000, that's a possibility. >> Do we have five because of the size of our student population and everything
that it just better suit serves >> to have? The reason it says cut four out of the five is that we actually one of the um one of those clinicians is assigned to one of our um >> special programs. >> Um and >> if we didn't have that clinician there, the students that are in there wouldn't
receive the services they need and then could potentially go out of district which would cost us more than that. Right. A lot more. So >> So then one person that's being saved is only been able to serve a handful or you know few handfuls of students and everyone else that was getting service will no longer get them at all. Right.
That's not like the one left can serve everyone kind of. >> No, the one left has to be dedicated to that program and that's why it's there specifically. >> So So Rich, do they get do do they does the contract work that they're paid like hourly or they do they get the same
amount if they see one kid or 30 kids? Like how how does that work? >> Yeah, it's contracted through the hospital. They don't see one kid. If they were seeing one kid, I would >> No, that's what I'm asking. Like how does that work? So, well, the the hospital gives us a cost of what it's going to cost to staff those five positions and we pay that contract and
then the hospital pays the employees, >> right? But I guess what I'm saying is how do we know how it's being utilized? >> Yeah. What's the utilization? >> We're monitoring on a pre-regular basis. I mean, Mr. Mike, >> that's my question. We have the five, but are they being used? Are they at max
capacity? Are they at 50%, are they at 30%. Like, that's my question. that Mike >> sure I um they're not at max capacity but they are utilized all the time and and the size of their case load also is not the only thing that we um utilize
them for. So they they do they do have a dedicated number of students that they see regularly, but they're also doing clearances to keep kids in school that would normally be sent out of school. previous years they would have to go to Hunter Medical Center to get cleared to
be able to return to class because they made a certain comment certain things happen. So they were able to do those clearances and keep the kids in classes and report back to their classes instead of having the disruption of a p family having to take them to the ER for a
clearance possibly um you know the student missing an entire day or couple days of school before they can get that clearance to come back. Um, and they also support other students that are walk-ins too beyond their case load. So,
they are uh an integral part of our counseling staff that you know they're seeing students constantly and supporting our programming and um you know they're they're utilized a lot and they will certainly be missed if they're
not with us next year. So obviously you would never recommend cutting that for anyone. They students would be >> I would not recommend it and my staff certainly would not recommend it. But >> I guess I was just asking to understand
why it was on there and it would h could like if it didn't that's what I was trying to find out is if it So I didn't didn't think it wouldn't. I just wanted to see why it may have been on there other than just the the large financial sum of it. So >> thank you. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Uh, I'll close out the the I guess the veteran round. Uh, and then we'll start with the rookies. Um, I am supportive of the budget. I'm supportive of the administration in figuring out the best way to do this. Um, I'll go
around the table. Um, Maril, >> I would be supportive of the budget and the administration as well. >> Stephen, I would as well. I mean, I'd like if there was any possibility to cut a little bit closer to four if it was, you know, but I see how that would be
very difficult because you'd have to have large sums to get there. So, understandably so. I don't I think anyone wants to absorb this cost anywhere personally as well as for our constituents, but I think we all understand that this is the guidance
that'll keep us hurt the the least for everybody involved. >> Rich, I agree. I'm supportive especially under the pretense that you know students will be less supported with with less money. Um
obviously if there's any other cuts that could be made. So so one quick question and I think I know the answer but even after this budget is approved if you were to find other efficiencies then that would just be money not spent that would carry over into next year's budget.
>> Correct. And and and there will be some of that. Um, but we don't know all those answers now. We're in the middle of trying to figure out what our staffing requirements are for next year. I might be able to reduce, you know, um, some staff. I don't know that yet. I wish I had that information now, but again,
these budget deadlines don't allow for that. So, >> uh, Nicole, >> um, I'd love to be able to say cut fat or even cut fat. There's no fat to cut. Um, I mean, I trust you guys. I know you've
all done the hard work. If this is what you recommend, best serves our students, then go for it, >> Andrew. >> Yeah, I'm of the same mindset. You know, I trust the professionals that we hired to do the job that we give them. This is
a recommendation. I think it's acceptable. I think, you know, a lot of the ideas we've had maybe get into the weeds a little bit, I think, but I think voicing them might at least give you some things you maybe didn't think of, right? Not give you any
directions, but just ideas that are out there. Um, >> as a parent of athletes, >> you know, that number is huge and you know, it hangs over everything. So, you know, >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm not going to say anything beyond that.
All right. So, I am hearing a I'm hearing a majority support, I think, but I'm also hearing if we were to come back next week and there was the possibility to trim a little bit more, we would appreciate everything that moves
us south of this number. Um, is that a fair >> charge for the next week? Okay. >> I just have one thing to add. I would just personally not feel comfortable with slashing any mental health um
services. I I think it's something that is underfunded, underattended. I I would not feel comfortable seeing that. So, if the way that you guys would be looking at making any further cuts would be in
the mental health services area, it's not worth it in my mind. understood. >> Okay. Uh yes, Brian thought we were there. >> What what um
what round number you kind ofish number was was is the reduction in revenue due to us not charging seniors for parking. >> It's about $40,000. >> Yeah. Almost 40,000 between the two schools.
>> Between the two schools. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, so finance, facilities, transportation. There's a whole bunch of other items on there. >> 10.1 we've already addressed at length.
Excuse me. So 10.2, the ratification of emergency facility repairs. Everyone is aware of the district office issue that we had with the pipe bursting. There will be a resolution on here with the board to ratify the emergency service that we needed to bring in. It was a co-op vendor that ended up coming in under the bid threshold. So, it turns
out we really didn't need to call an emergency, but we did proactively, not knowing how much this would cost based on how much water we saw that morning. Um, so we were fortunate. The number is just south of 40,000. Again, we have insurance for this. There's a pretty low deductible. I think we've already shared that with the board. Um, so that will be
mostly covered by insurance. And again, the rebuild is what's something that we're working on. But again, this is just the ratification of acknowledging the emergency and the cost that was associated. The semi-corrective action plan is required to be submitted with the budget. Every year we have a
semi-corrective action plan because we're never seen to be performing at the level that they deem necessary in the state. But if as you see the attachment, um it's really getting the parents to respond to our communications to them. So we do our best to get them to respond, but again the honor is on them
at some point as well. So you'll see that attachment there. the contract with Honeywell. Um, I sent this to Phil Stern over a week ago. I've asked Stan Bushwer to take a look at this. This is time is of the essence with something like this. This is the grant that I shared with the board last
month. Um, if I can get it to you for next week, we will be in line for some or a portion of the funding that's available for the New Jersey Perfect grant. Um, if I can get that contract to you next week, um, the intention would be for Honeywell to submit the grant
application for us. And then if approved, if we get the funding, we can then decide if we want to accept. So we will make sure that the contract with Honeywell states that we will not be paying anything to Honeywell unless it's successful. And then we can decide whether it makes sense for our district or not.
>> Okay. Is this for >> Do we know what the project's for or >> it's a combination of sorts? So, >> I I I looked up the program. >> Yes. >> But it's Do we have projects that we know? >> We have three of the five components. One of them being on-site renewable
energy, which instead of the rooftop solar, we could do canopies over the parking lots. Obviously, that's substantial cost. So, that's part of the does it make sense, you know, based on the cost of how much it will cost. Um the energy efficiency improvement is the other um piece that we would be um
fulfilling along with the refrigerant replacement part of the grant. Those two would be fulfilled by HBC projects at both buildings. So each building would have its own application. >> Vorhees would be able to upgrade the boiler or um the um chiller, the large chiller that feeds the whole building.
And then north would have the one section of the building that we weren't able to touch behind the theater that had some um reasoning that we couldn't do it in the last round of the grant application um a few years ago. So we could target that area and get that HBC improvement
done under the grant. >> Great. >> Excellent. >> I had a quick question. What's the hold up on getting that? >> Um it I sent this to Phil a week and a half ago and I got no response. So by today I decided I had to get bushel
group involved. That's something that I want to talk about at the end of all the agenda items if I'm not responsive. >> And that was something they had reached out to me and I said if you need to access other counsel to expedite >> okay >> then then do >> okay
>> so if I can get the contract to you great. Um if not we'll just see if the funds are available for the following month. 10.5 the insurance company has assigned Kaggno Law Group u per the request of the insurance carrier at their hourly rate. So again this is
covered by insurance. So you're approving the hourly rate. However, we will not be paying this amount. This will come directly from the insurance company. >> What is this for? >> This is for an insurance matter, an insurance agreement. So they're allowed to pick the legal
council. So they are picking the magnet law group for that insurance >> and they're one of our >> uh rep like law groups that represent us. I'm sorry since the board hasn't already approved. We approve the other vendors. We just have to approve it at
that hourly rate that the insurance company can pay that on our behalf. >> I think it's >> and that's the rates that they charge us outside of charging the insurance to is that like the same anyways and that's just the insurance is paying them. We just had to say, "Yeah, you can use >> authorizing." Yes. That amount.
>> Those are the same rates they did provide in an RFP previously. So, I know they're same rates. >> This is just a proactive thing or is they were actively something that they your insurance company needs are insuring? >> They need the board to approve this so that they can provide the insurance coverage for the representation.
>> Is the district being sued? >> It's insurance for >> an insurance matter. >> Yes. Is the district being sued? >> I would defer this to legal counsel. That's not here. It's a legal matter. >> So, I would not discuss that.
>> Are we going to discuss it in executive session? >> Cuz I'm here. I I don't I have no idea what this is. So, I don't like >> Okay. >> All legal goes through executive session. >> That's what I'm asking. >> Okay. So, that would be an executive
session matter. So, tuition contracts from Conne County Vocational School, the full-time on-site academy programs, and the share time Polytech. You're going to see that based on ASSA enrollment. They typically approve these contracts now so that they can have the programs in place for next
year. They're all based on this year's October um headcounts for what who was in the program for last year. And then you'll see these subsequently approved again in August and then typically November again um as we true up those
figures. We will only pay the vocational school for the students that actually attend. This is only to lock in the programs and an estimate of how many students will be attending. This is not actual numbers if that makes sense. >> Okay.
>> Same thing with coordinated transportation. This is for us to lock in that coordinated transportation with Hunter County ESC and with Mor County Special Services. We have routes with both of them right now. So, they just want us to be able to authorize them to continue for next year. And again, there's always um ad there's advantages
to coordinated transportation with both of them because they can always double up on routes. If they're special education students all going to the same out of district placement, um they can coordinate that for us. >> Yep. Um I have a question about the transportation.
I know this is just the general approving that we'll do it but it says the agreed um now therefore is that the consideration of prorated contracts cost. So it's like there's no cost there because it's somewhere else I guess and saying we've approved that cost before
but it's prorated. So this is to authorize them to represent us for coordinated transportation. If they actually do a route for a student next year, you will see that route in July, August, and you'll have all of those approvals separately. >> But >> so even though there is an amount here,
you will get the amount >> is there. So that and that's obviously the cost is estimated in the budget as to what it will be next year based on a prorated like it increases 2% three whatever like is that >> so we'll take current year routes and
then we'll estimate you know CPI or if we have to go out to bid we'll estimate you know slightly higher amount so we're doing that separately in the budget. Yes. >> Okay. And then one other thing at the bottom of the the last title, title B, title five, um it says that understood and agreed
upon by all parties that the board of directors of H of Hunter County ESC is not responsible for its transportation contractor's failure to provide services agreed upon herein. So they're kind of like >> saying, ohity, if you Yeah. Like if if a
kid misses the if one of our contracted bus drivers doesn't pick up a kid, it's not our fault. Is that kind of what it says? And then like how's it corrected and whose fault is it and who pays for that route or obviously then are we getting it deducted from our tuition
cost because it was a planned route in a you know this is the cost for all of your routes but that route was missed. Do we get we're not getting that back? And that's kind of what that says there. And is there anything >> technically even though we allow them to do our coordinated transportation and figure out all of our routes we technically do contract directly with
let's say Craft. If Craft bids on one of our routes, we are contracting with Craft 100 ESC is just assisting us in making sure that all of our routes are as efficient as possible and that we're sharing routes with other districts and that we're doing that shared service opportunity, but technically those contracts are ours to maintain with the
vendor. So, I think they're just indemnifying themselves that if there's an issue between us and a vendor, it's kind of still between us and the vendor. >> Okay. So it's I was under the conception that um that we were hiring them as the broker
to hire the transportation companies. That's >> how that wordage was. I was interpreting that. So I understand that we're then from what you said then we're contracting those those um >> well those transport we're putting the contracts in place with those
transportation providers and ESC is just helping us with managing those >> the management of >> people okay so it could be crap it could be deal it could be whoever is the bus owner ESC doesn't own the buses they're just helping us with transportation
>> in lie of us having a transportation coordinator and director of transportation we have them do the management. So they have kind of an administrative office that does all of that backend work. >> Then then that makes sense now that that title B makes sense. Thank you. >> Y
training and travel is attached, district donations and district property that we are looking to dispose. Everything else will be attached for Friday for the financial reports. Um and the last item that I did want to bring up is um the legal services issues that
we've been having as administration. We have a list of ongoing items that have been run responsive um from Taylor Law Group. So we had asked Brennan to utilize our special counsel in some instances this week when we were getting responses and we would recommend that we
go up for RFP. This is not board action. This is just something that we would let you know about that we feel it's important to have strong legal services and answers to our questions quickly. Um so if we go out for RFP it would be soon and you know we can talk about how that
committee would work. If you wanted representation when we evaluate um those submissions you know we can happily do that as well. >> Okay. >> I have a question on that. Has Mr. Stern been told that? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. because I just didn't want to make sure he was finding out for the first time if he's >> that we were reaching out to other council. >> Yeah. Yes. >> No, no, no. I'm talking about the um >> going out to RFP,
>> correct? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Well, that was mentioned at a public meeting prior to this. >> So, no, but he's he's aware. So, he's aware that's what you want to do. >> Yes. Steve, would someone be to share with the new board members what our legal
council structure is just briefly as to how many different representatives we have and what their costs are and what they represent us in and maybe that's yeah I don't know I I don't I'm sorry. Yeah. >> So I can get you a list with all the
costs. I don't know all the costs. Um Sure. Sure. But typically what we used to have was we would have general counsel and we would have special counsel. And special counsel was really there in case general counsel couldn't provide the services that we needed. Um and the last time we went out for RFP, we actually picked four um different law
firms. Um one is a general counsel. Uh one is a special education council. Uh one is a labor and relations council um and Oprah council. Sorry, Oprah was thrown in there as well. And then the fourth one was special counsel. Um, so the two in the middle are sort of
specialized as to what the board hired them to do. Um, the other two are general, but one is supposed to be used primarily and the other one is there in case the other one can't provide those services for whatever reason, whether it was a conflict or whether it's not available or um in the interim when when
Phil was moving from D. Franchesco Baitman to Taylor Law Group, uh, we had used Bush Law Group because we didn't have representation to the board at that point. There was a time frame that we didn't have it. So that's what special counsel is after. >> And Bush is the special counsel. I'm sorry. >> Bush is our special coun.
>> They've been our special counsel. >> Yeah, they have. >> They have for a long time here. >> Have they ever been the primary counsel? >> They actually didn't want to be >> Okay. Right. Is that >> No, they they they um responded to the RFP last time and and wanted to be special counsel, but it was determined
>> general counsel >> or general counsel, I'm sorry. And >> put me name them as special. I seem to remember that they Oh, >> Brian, >> do we need Does the board need to approve that? >> You you can go to RFP. Go to RFP. We
just want to let you know this was sort of a committee meeting. We want this is again something we typically talk about FFT committee >> and so we're starting to finally get our committee. >> We need our opinion about it. Please put it on the agenda. Are are we how far are we into our
current agreement with our current players? >> Not even either. >> Well, we're less than a year. Um, we actually are much less than a year because they switch law firms, >> right? >> But for all four >> for the actual attorney, it's been since July first. Yeah. >> July. Okay.
>> You ask me what I would structure the RFP. I think I would have the start date be July 1st so it could be starting at the fiscal year and then it would just make sense to to have that >> um so we could go out for RP in the next few weeks we could have it open for you know the 20-day mandatory time frame and then maybe an extra week or two just to
make sure there's enough respondents so then by the end of April May we could have discussion on what the respondents were what the pricing looks like and then have the recommendation of the board in June so that it could be a July start >> sorry >> that's I just don't I don't want to discourage it And if we feel like we
need a change, we should go for a change. I just want to avoid >> going out for RFPs every >> 8 months. >> We don't like to go out every year for it's usually a 3 to 5 year process depending on the service. Um but in this case I feel it's necessary.
>> And then would that with our new setup would that come to to a working session or would we have an ad hoc to review the >> Yeah. So the way we would structure this is we would um probably ask particular board members to be a part of a committee to review all the documentation or review
the RFPs um help us make a decision that then we would present to the board as a recommendation and then the board would talk about that at one of the work sessions and then vote on it at the next work session >> and interviews would be to that committee or to this to the board. >> Last time it was in the committee
structure. So, last time a board committee, a board ad hoc committee was formed for this, the last time we did this, which was a year ago, um Rich was on that committee, so he could speak to it if he needed to. Um but in the in the previous um times that we've done RFPs for legal services, it was usually, you
know, the administration would collect all the RFPs, we would develop a short list of people that we felt um would provide the services to us that the district needed and then we would usually bring it up in FFT. Got >> um you know on who we're recommending and then >> they would recommend to the board and
then the board would build up. Yeah, >> there was board input when we hired >> I think there was one or two board representatives on our administrative team that when we got to like the last round of legal counsel interviews, there was questions from the board, the board
could input questions into a Google sheet and then we could ask them those specific questions and then report back out to the board what their answers were. And this was just like the final two candidates who >> Yeah. Right. The short list >> makes sense. I think that was in 2019.
>> Once I get to the point of getting the responses, then you know we can refine it. >> Yeah. >> And again, we can sort of do in between what we did last time and what we did before up to what the board wants. So >> is our our contract is with the log
>> not just Phil. >> Yeah, it's tailgory. We could be talking to I mean when we send Phil a request he could have someone else respond, right? I mean
it but still it's just not a response. >> That was the end of >> that's it. Okay. Uh community relations and student affairs. I see we have a couple of club proposals. >> These are all volunteer clubs. Um, but
if you read the descriptions of them, I think they all sound like great clubs. >> Sure. >> And again, they're all on a volunteer basis now. So, this doesn't this isn't costing board anything, but we asked the board to approve it so that it can go on a list. And then what happens is other paid clubs drop off, volunteer clubs
move up based on seniority, and they get paid. >> Uh, delegates reports. I don't know if we have anything. >> We don't right now. No, May is the next delegate assembly. So, >> and the closest thing we might have at this point is the folks who county
school board meeting will be in April. So, I'll send you guys all a reminder for that. >> Do you know the date budget yet or >> I don't have it on top of my head. >> Okay. You could just send >> Yeah. And it'll be at the chalet and it'll be our end of the year because they'll be doing the teacher and all those recognitions. So,
>> it'll be a good one. And I just wanted to thank Tara, Brian, and Rich for making it out to the unsung heroes event, which was again nice county representation as well. >> It was a great day. >> It was a great evening. >> Uh, okay. So, we have a call for a motion and a second to adopt resolution
uh 0317261 for an executive session to discuss matters reflected in the attached resolution. The board expects to be in executive session for approximately 45 minutes and upon return to public session action will be taken. Can I get a motion? Motion. Uh Dan
second. Andrea. Thank you. All in favor? >> I opposed extension. Um, I'm calling for a motion and second to reconvene public session. Can I get a motion? Dan, can I get a second? Rich,
Cynthia, sorry, I think Rich just took you out. >> Uh, all in favor? >> Opposed? None. Um obviously we have our personal um and executive session minutes for uh review. Um and additional
ones hold on the February ones or need two executive sessions. Oh, that's right. That's right. Okay. So multiple Februaries, right? Because now we have we have executive every time we have a meeting. Okay. Um,
and old and new business. >> Um, I'm sorry. >> New I, um, I looked. It's April 30th and it's at the chalet. Um, it's for our county school board meeting. So, >> there's no elsewhere. >> Oh, yeah. You go on to your schoolboard account and just register. It's free,
but >> or just wait and they'll send you an email. >> Yeah, they'll send you an email. >> What was that again? I'm sorry. >> 30th. >> Uh, April 30th. M >> yes something else >> and this is good because it's the
teacher of the year >> celebrating the teacher of the year and that means somewhere between now and in in a month's time is >> will be announced >> the teacher of the year will be >> the county will >> well the county teacher of the year will be the building level ones have already
happened yeah the ones from northern have already happened >> have already happened and so okay >> so this will be the county >> I guess last year we went we happened to celebrate a north >> as the county >> because >> it was the county. >> It was a coincidence. >> Mhm. >> Yes. The teacher of the year for last
year was from >> Yeah. Okay. I was just thinking we Okay. >> Anything else under older new business? Okay. Can I get a call for a motion and a second to adjourn? Can I get a motion?
Cynthia, would you like it? >> All right. Cynthia, you got it. Second, Andrea. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed abstain. None. All right, that's a wrap. Strick is >> Oh, still got 40 minutes to celebrate.