HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AGENDAhooksettschoolboard.sau15.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/...2015/01/06 · HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING-January 6, 2015 2 high schools. We were

HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING-January 6, 2015

1

HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AND

PUBLIC FORUM MINUTES

Tuesday, January 6, 2015 – 6:30pm LOCATION OF MEETING: David R. Cawley Middle School Cafeteria

CALL TO ORDER J. McHugh called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm. Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem – Faith Gormley, Grade 7 PROOF OF POSTING Dr. Littlefield provided proof of posting. ATTENDANCE Joanne McHugh, Chair, Mike Berry, Amy Boilard, Todd Lizotte, John Lyscars, and David Pearl Staff Dr. Phil Littlefield, Marge Polak, and Karen Lessard APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Hooksett Board Meeting December 16, 2014 T. Lizotte motioned to move the approval of the minutes to later on the agenda.

Seconded by J. Lyscars.

Vote unanimously in favor.

PUBLIC FORUM Pinkerton Academy Draft Tuition Agreement J. McHugh thanked everyone for coming to the forum. She presented information on the Pinkerton Academy high school proposal. Introduction A model was presented which depicted Manchester and Pinkerton has half of a whole. Both districts can accept all students. Inside the whole were other districts which are referred to as MOUs. They have a fixed number of students that they accept annually. Why the prior proposal for Pinkerton failed In December of 2013 a public forum was held where the School Board gained information on why the contract failed. Some felt Pinkerton was too far from Hooksett and the bus ride was too long. A question was raised on the cost to the taxpayers. Another concern was the contract restrictions. At that time, there was specific numbers that the Hooksett district would have to abide by to meet that contract. In May of 2014, after a lot of discussion as a School Board, the Board decided to form a High School Negotiations Committee whose members included me (Joanne McHugh), Amy Boilard and Mike Berry. The purpose was to negotiate possible agreements with surrounding


2

high schools. We were to become familiar with the law and take direction from the School Board on who to negotiate with. We had to meet strategies and timetables and we had to work with an attorney to put together any agreement the School Board was considering. During that discussion in May, the School Board decided to approach this in 2 steps; short and long term. The first was to insure that our incoming freshmen would be able to complete their 4 years at their chosen high school. So we set out to work for a short term agreement for 2015-16. That was accomplished. We also were to work on a long term agreement. That was also accomplished and we are here to explain the elements of that contract. We also did similar with Manchester and put together a short term agreement. We got an extension of the settlement agreement with Manchester. We now have 5 years which will guarantee any student that starts in 2015 to be able to complete 4 years. We continue to work on a long term solution with Manchester. Transportation Hooksett currently transports to Pinkerton and Manchester. We will continue to provide transportation to Manchester Central, Manchester West and Pinkerton Academy. Tuition Agreement elements Mike Berry: This proposal is 10 year contract. This will start following the newest one year agreement. After 5 years, we can opt out after the next 5 years or we can continue beyond that so it will be a rolling 5 years. Minimums: There is no minimum for the first 3 years. After that beginning 2019, the minimum will be the average of the percentage of 8th grade from the previous 3 years. That number will be fixed for the remainder of the contract. School Maintained by the District: The agreement approved by the State Board to allow a district to assign high school students. A district may maintain more than one district. Representation: We would have one member on the Pinkerton Board of Trustees. This is a lifelong assignment. November 1st enrollment notification for the following year. Other districts with Pinkerton have an October 1st notification date. We were given an extra month due to our unique situation Accreditation through the New England Association of schools and colleges. Pinkerton agrees that they will provide accredited education. Updates will be provided as required by the district. Tuition calculations are the actual costs divided by the number of students. We were supplied with $10,964 for 2015 which is among the lowest cost per student in the State. Compare previous agreement to current agreement This contract has a November 1st notification and last year had an October 1st date. This year it is a 10 year contract. This year there is No minimum for the first 3 years and then an average of those years One Representation on the Board of Trustees Status of Manchester Agreement We have a one year extension and continue to negotiate a long term agreement.


3

Comments and questions- Amy Boilard Phil Denbow: Please explain the 4-10 year minimum again. A. Boilard : The percentage of students that choose Pinkerton in each of the first 3 years are averaged for the minimum in the fourth year. J. Lyscars: We need to understand the students in the first 3 years will determine the minimums for the years 4-10 and the Board has not decided on how they will determine students to go to Pinkerton if the selection is below the minimum. T. Jennings: What is the total tuition compared to what we are paying at Manchester? Will there be an increase of decrease? A. Boilard: In 2015-16, Manchester-$10,400; Pinkerton-$10,900, MOUs and JCB $10,700. The Pinkerton cost is an “all in” $10,900. Manchester, we are still working on a settlement agreement so we are still paying capital costs. The Pinkerton cost includes capital costs rolled in as a total tuition number. What are the capital costs to Manchester? $791,000 per year which ends in 2019 regardless the number of students. The contract for Pinkerton, is Manchester getting the verbatim same contract? We haven’t done that yet. When the Board thought this out, you are thinking you are going to have two contracts. If Manchester says no, what else will you do? This is Pinkerton’s contract; with Manchester we will negotiate the best opportunity possible. There is some similarity but they are two different districts. With Manchester, as Amy said, we continue to negotiate with Manchester since the settlement agreement calls for the Hooksett School District to have the option of whether or not to send students to Manchester, for the extension of the one agreement we are paying cost plus 10%. With leverage, I would say that Manchester wants to have Hooksett students continue and for those students that want to continue, we want to make sure students have that choice and that is why it is so important for us to work on both contracts and have two anchor schools. When will the Manchester contract be available to compare so we can see the financial implications of these contracts? We received before Christmas that Manchester voted on the one year extension, and then we had the holidays.


4

You have this contract. To make an informed decision, you need both contracts because one could conflict especially if you have no one going to one and all to the other you are paying large capital. Is your intent to have both before moving forward? J. McHugh: It is the intention of the Negotiations Committee to resume negotiations as soon as possible and we want to let the voters know what is going on. D. Pearl: The 10% is not seen as a premium for choice. That represents the capital cost for year 5. The Board has agreed to vote on this contract after this meeting. We will vote on this contract without the other because we do not have the Manchester contract. The 5th year for Manchester is $10,800 in the 4th year so it will be actual plus 10%. What is the contingence plan if Manchester doesn’t want a contract and you have students that want Manchester? The Settlement agreement is for 5 years. The agreement says we will continue to negotiate. If they don’t agree, how will you accommodate students? J. McHugh: It will be like other students that want to go to a school that we don’t have an agreement with; the students will have to request acceptance at that school. Regarding the contract, in the settlement agreement it says before 2016 both Manchester and Hooksett must sit down and come to an agreement. There was the intent that we would continue. Now we are looking at capital costs beyond the 5th year and to completion of the original maintenance agreement which is until 2023. The buses; you said transportation is provided to Manchester and Pinkerton. Do students pay for both busses? The bus passes defray the cost for transportation, but the Hooksett district pays for the buses for both Pinkerton and Manchester. If this contract is voted and approved by the Hooksett School Board tonight, will it go before the voters in March? Yes. If the voters do not support this contract, what will happen after that? We can’t speculate what Pinkerton will do if this fails. How will transfers be handled; if a freshman decides to go to Londonderry after choosing Pinkerton and if so are we still on the hook for the money and the minimums?


5

Once the 8th graders choose a High School they are committed for 1 year. They can transfer after that but must then go to a school maintained by the district. The Board asked that students that want to transfer work with the school before changing. We are attempting to have both the school and students work with guidance to resolve the issues. I’m concerned that we are not committed to the tuition if an upper classman leaves. D. Pearl: The contract does not say we do not pay for students that leave. I am concerned with that. This final draft has not been reviewed by your attorney? J. McHugh: Yes the attorney has reviewed the contract. D. Pearl: I was not aware of that and did not sit down with the attorney. Will the attorney be reviewing the wording prior to going to the voters? J. McHugh: The attorney wrote the warrant and reviewed the contract. There is a provision that the State Board approve this contract. Will this get that approval prior to the vote? It could be but more often they are submitted to the State Board once approved not to waste the State’s time. Should students decide not to go Pinke4ton once enrolled, are we paying double enrollment? Comments Donna Morin, 8 Barberry St.: It only makes sense for the School Board to move this to the ballot. The Board did an excellent job getting the contract in line with our needs. The High School situation is important so I don’t know why it needs to go the ballot. It was mentioned that the MOU’s expire in 3 years and they may expire so we could be only a Manchester town if the Pinkerton contract fails. We could be completely at Manchester’s mercy. Since 74% of next year’s class chose schools other than Manchester, if Pinkerton fails, we will have little choice. Without Pinkerton, Hooksett only has Manchester as choice. They could raise the tuition and we will be at their mercy. J. McHugh: This contract has to go on the ballot because we are committing for the future tuition. It is like the teachers’ contract; voters have to decide if they are willing to commit for future years. That is the difference between the contract and the one year agreement.


6

Ben McIntyre, 20 Gailor Lane: Regarding the 3 year average, be careful in year one we go 90% and year 2 and 3 we go 40%; each we will be responsible for a higher average and that is the issue with the contract. I would like a standard deviation on top of those numbers so we can protect ourselves financially. We need to be concerned with monitoring the amount that goes to the school or be mindful of the percentages. J. Lyscars: The Negotiation Committee took on a large task negotiating with two large districts. We weren’t at the meetings but one important thing that happened with Pinkerton at the last meeting and Pinkerton said it would be too complicated but in years 1-3 they calculate the number. Dr. Littlefield asked for a rolling average. That would give you a better look at a three year enrollment. With that little tweak, this contract would have a better chance at passing the voters. M. Messina: When Manchester ran into problems we saw an exodus. Get us a contract for any number of years that is good for Hooksett. This contract fractures the town. With a minimum at both schools, you fracture the community. The community aspect of the school is being flushed down the toilet. J. McHugh: The only way is to build our own High School. With the original agreement with Manchester, it said we would send all our students. Now we have the MOUs to give students a choice and going forward to find a district that will take all the students. In a perfect world, it would be great to have a school that could take all our students. M. Messina: This came up when Manchester failed to meet the expectations and Manchester met the requirements and we wouldn’t be here. But things were so bad we had people wanting out. From a parent’s perspective, get a quality school and get an exit plan for the rest. M. Berry: Wasn’t last year’s Pinkerton contract just that, which failed? M. Messina: If my child is offered a school that is a quality school and I can JCB out if I want, I would support that. T. Lizotte: I go through the annual reports in my spare time. From 1958-61 we had two anchor schools; Manchester and Pembroke and as you look at the history of the School Board, you see decisions were made on two situations. Some made educational decisions and some made financial decisions. In an up economy, people were more liberal with the money and in a downturn were tighter. There is a note the 4 students went to Concord. This community has a history of this. We had a warrant article that asked if you would allow our students to have dual enrollments with Manchester and the Diocese schools. We are starting to make decisions that are not educational and more financial. We need to have a system that applies to all students. I am in favor of the dual anchor and find the equilibrium. This is not new for Hooksett; it’s been done.


7

Pam Walter, 22 Barberry St: I have 2 freshmen at Pinkerton that are doing fantastic, making sports teams and being involved. If we don’t negotiate this contract, we could be left with no choice for my 7th grader except Manchester. It would be a shame to take the opportunity of Pinkerton from future Hooksett students. Mr. Whatley, 11 Cedar Street: The primary thing is the quality of education for our students and not their social life. That being the case, they are all individuals and all schools have personalities. Our job is to find what interests these students have and match that. There is not another community that offers that in NH. I have been involved in education and I have never seen so many opportunities in quality institutions. Talk about Nobel Prize winners. There is not one Science Nobel Prize winner that came out of a school other than Private. A good science class costs a lot of money. Our public schools do a great job with Special Ed. Pinkerton has endowment funds. The opportunity that we should have is exactly what we are doing and have students talk individually to people and choose the school. We are not fracturing students. It doesn’t matter if he is living next door; it is who you go to school with. I think we need to get this contract done. T. Jennings: I have 4 kids and a 5th and 6th grader that will be affected by this. I have a lot of concerns. I have zero preference regarding schools. I have 4 very different students and if I don’t have a cookie cutter family, I don’t know how we can expect Hooksett to be a cookie cutter town. When we get to a point of where to send our students, if it a matter of 4 kids going to separate schools, or two going to one school to fail, I believe choice is always the best option. You can’t always get everything you want out of a negotiation process. We have given the committee our faith to do the best for the community, while personally a rolling average would be fantastic, I believe the proposal brought forward was the best they could do. Kara Salvas: Thank you to the committee for their work and listening to the concerns from last year. Everyone will not agree but I ask those that may not agree not go so far out of their way to make this fail. I appreciate that and my children appreciate that. Unknown: We have more to lose from inaction and our community is already fractured. If we don’t put this to the voters, Pinkerton may walk away. We have to give the voters a chance. I hope this is a formality and it will go on the ballot so we can choose what we want. Maureen McDonald: I feel if this contract fails, I worry that Pinkerton will say that is enough. I think if people haven’t been following this process, they don’t know how long this has taken. We are not where we were a year ago. You inherited a mess and have done the best you could. I don’t think choice is the answer, I think we need a Hooksett High School, but we need stability and we don’t need to guess what we will do for the next 10 years.


8

D. Pearl: It is a fact that enrollments are declining in all High Schools. And that is our advantage. It would be good to have our own High School but that won’t happen soon. We have a stable enrollment. Pinkerton will lose 500 students in 10 years so it is important that we step in and fill the gap. The MOU’s are welcoming us and they do that without capital costs and without a commitment and no transportation. If we lock ourselves to a school with a minimum and we have to push kids to the requirement amount, do we shrink our other opportunity to get the numbers. That is a concern. I support Pinkerton; I don’t like the minimum and don’t see the necessity at a school of their size. Michelle Gannon: I think this Board has an obligation to the community and how many of you have looked at the development happening in town. There are 3 new subdivisions coming. Have you taken into consideration those new homes? The option of Pinkerton is an amazing opportunity. Your obligation is to bring this to the residence and let them make the decision. J. Lyscars: A lot of constituents that have young kids don’t know what their first grader will want. What if Pinkerton and Manchester are not a fit for their students? We are now the tip of the iceberg. Dunbarton left Goffstown to go to Bow and now have to pay Goffstown for the expansions. With declining enrollments, why would we want to short change our students. T. Lizotte: We don’t have a choice model, it is options. You can get your first option and if you don’t’ get that option, you can get your second option, and if you don’t get that you get the only option. My kid goes to school and I pay 20%. I like the idea of options, but they are just options. I know the seriousness of costs and economy of scale. I know there are kids at a socio-economic level that can’t afford to choose an MOU or transport. I look at this contract, and yes no minimum would be good but this institution has a 200 year history. They want 10 years because they make plans and execute those plans. They are willing to allow us to have other contract. That is an opportunity to drive those numbers down. Manchester is on the right track but can they sustain it. I want to make sure we have another institution that has another option. I think we should deal with the two anchor system and deal with the consequences that come from that. Averages can be at a point where there will have stabilization and will there be 2 or 3 kids that will need to be assigned to Pinkerton, Yes, because the only contract we have now is a 3 year with Manchester. I think we need to look deep that there is a reality we are facing and a 2 anchor system and find that equilibrium Georgette Peltak: Thank you for the work on this contract. Representation would be great on the Board of Trustees. I graduated from Trinity. I want to see us make a choice. My fear is if we turn this down, what do we do if they don’t want to work with us? Will we go back to Manchester, with our tail between our legs and pay more for Manchester after we paid to get out. Educate the voters and maybe have community meetings.


9

What do we do if it fails? The quality of Manchester is not going to get better and Pinkerton’s quality is there. D. Pearl: The position on the Board of Trustees is not a representative; it is a Hooksett resident that Pinkerton picks to be a Board of Trustee member to look out for Pinkerton Academy for a lifetime. J. McHugh: We need to understand that the notion that Pinkerton is saying we need a minimum is because they need a number for planning purposes. If you have a school, you need to plan for programs. They want continuity and that is why that commitment is so important. I think the Board of Trustees is also there to make sure the educational quality continues. These are people with professional background but also are up to date with what is being taught at the high school. It is an academy but they have to follow some level of State Regulation and must report student enrollments. At the last meeting we got a copy from Pinkerton of their budget and it explains what the costs are and how they arrived at it. D. Pearl: The minimum for stability, if you do the numbers, it doesn’t pan out. If we vary from 35 to 40, it doesn’t impact them because of their size. You have to look at the percentage of the variation. They are willing to allow no minimum for 3 years so the idea of planning is out the window. J. Lyscars: What is frustrating for me during negotiations is what is dealing with a public institution and a private. I can watch Manchester on TV but Pinkerton is not. They can go behind closed doors and we cannot. M. Miville: I’m on the fence with these contracts but I questioned this Board going forward with this contract after the first one failed. I recognize that this proposed contract is different from the last. I see both sides made an effort to make that difference. Pinkerton is negotiating in private doesn’t mean there is any wrong doing. Manchester operates differently and makes headlines. If a parent wants to send a student to Pinkerton, they should be allowed. We don’t need to be working in the minutia. At the moment, I like the contract and should propose it to the voters. We are hearing a lot about our own High School. Two months ago we had a community profile meeting where citizens participated and we did action groups to develop ideas and long term planning of education goals. So if you want a HS, it has to happen here. Sarah Madison, Heritage Drive: I applaud you for coming up with the minimums. As a parent of a 3rd grader, this is important to me and I think it is important to have representation. You can watch Manchester on the TV but we have no say. Mr. Whatley, 11 Cedar Street: Your 9th grade curriculum will not be decided by the Trustees. What are the options? There are 3 levels of science at Pinkerton; there are 4 levels of Math. At Pinkerton there are 320 courses and 50 extra-curricular activities. If


10

you have problems there is a special writing class to catch you up. These are what trustees think about. They think about the order of science you take. Those are things you want for your children. This is what Pinkerton is designed to do. We want the kids to have that opportunity. Jeff Knieriem, 10 Ridgeview: I am all for a contract with Pinkerton and Manchester. I have a difficulty with minimums. We are asking voters to committee to something where we have no data. We have seen fluctuation from this year to last year. I don’t like telling kids they have to go to a particular school. Setting a minimum after a few years in is ok but we have no history. Do it with 10% minimum or no minimum but the average concerns me. Steve McNally, 17 Gailor Lane: I do love the contract. My concern is the people that are against it and don’t want to go because of the distance. I want them to know we don’t have a choice. We don’t even have a contract with Manchester. Two anchor schools or one school we all have to attend. There are people that are straight up no Pinkerton. They need to be informed and I don’t know how you are going to inform the people that aren’t attending these meetings. J. Lyscars: If we produce only one contract, people are going to say what about if we don’t produce another contract with Manchester. If we put both contracts in front of the voters, it would instill trust. Now we have half the solution. Donna Morin: Transportation, my son attends Pinkerton, and my daughter goes to Memorial and she is on the bus longer. The minimum; if we have a contract with Pinkerton and say 60% have to go there, what will we do if we don’t have Pinkerton? There will be a large number of students that will have to still go to a school they don’t want. T. Lizotte: The goal is to bring two contracts forward. I looked at 75% of students and parents didn’t choose MOU’s. The dual anchor system will find that equilibrium and Manchester, I believe, is interested in finding a solution. There are a lot of Manchester supporters. The reality is my intension is two anchors and then we will deal with the in between. We need to find the stability. D. Pearl: In November, I made a motion that we take the Pinkerton contract and have the Negotiations Committee rewrite it and submit it to Manchester. That failed. I think this Board isn’t ready to forge a Manchester contract. That would have been an excellent opportunity. We could have put it on Manchester’s table. M. Berry: The reason that failed, we were still making changes to the Pinkerton contract and now we could do that.


11

J. Lyscars: We ended the Manchester negotiations meeting in October and have not met with them in November or December. Have we done the best? No. We have work to do to bring you the best solution for the community. J. McHugh: I was on the Negotiation Committee with Mike and Amy and to say this Negotiation Committee ended in October is not accurate. During the negotiations, we were having difficulty in agreeing on capital costs. There were discussions and what happened from Manchester, at the table; they made proposals that were only valid if the entire Manchester Board agreed. At one point, they made a proposal and the Board didn’t agree. So it came back to Hooksett and Hooksett voted that if we are going to go back and forth, we are making our best proposal which was actual costs plus 10%. That went to Manchester in late November and Manchester finally voted on it and they voted to go forward on Hooksett’s offer. That didn’t come back to us until December. The Superintendent can speak to the fact of what was received from Manchester for the one year agreement. Dr. Littlefield: Your account was accurate. We spent a lot of time in the fall negotiating the one year agreement. We got a one year agreement to take care of our 8th graders. Subsequent to that, we looked for a long term. The one year took longer than anticipated. The time frame is accurate. It was in early December that the Manchester Board, in an 8-7 vote, approved the tuition figure we submitted and turned that over to their attorney to write the contract to submit to us. We anticipate receiving that but have not yet received that. Once the Board receives that they will act on the one year agreement and then move to work on a long term agreement. P. Denbow: We shouldn’t hold up Pinkerton because they negotiated quicker than Manchester. Some people stated that inaction is worse than action. I agree. I think eventually everything will settle. The nightmare is like what happened in Bow. If we don’t have something other than Manchester, the MOU’s will fill up and then you will have 3 lotteries for students to be forced to Manchester. J. Lyscars: We need to put something forward that will pass not only those in this room but all the voters. T. Lizotte motion that the Board only allow the Negotiation committee to respond to comments from the public. Seconded by J. Lyscars. Vote unanimously in favor T. Jennings: While many here have personal opinions, the reason is will they let those with children in the school be allowed to vote on this proposal. As a committee member, or member of the public, not everyone will be 100% behind any proposal. The difference we have to say at some point, does the Board believe you as an individual Board know what is best for us more than we know what is best for us. That is the only way you can say we don’t get a vote. If you don’t vote to allow us to vote on our behalf


12

then the burden falls on the Board to educate the voters to explain the percentages and the costs. The burden lies on you and us to have the voters see it our way for or against but to say as Board that we don’t have the right to vote is unacceptable. Jeff Czekanski, 11 Misty Lane: Jeff: I am Pinkerton alumni. Mr. Pearl is concerned with minimums. The solution is we write into the contract the minimum will be re-evaluated when the second anchor comes in. Dave Durazanno: 9 Heron View: Thank you to the negotiation team. Last year, given the contract from the previous Board, they did a stela job. I attended many Board meeting and participated in all events available. I also communicated and tried to get informed. I lost faith in the process after the contract was voted down. I commend the committee members that did not give up and used leverage to negotiate a better outcome than we had a year ago in terms of structure in the contract. I have a son at Pinkerton. He chose after given the choice and was able to shadow, Bow, Pinkerton, and Londonderry. It gives him many opportunities he would not otherwise have. He is the freshman vice president of the class. He enjoys that part of student government and is thriving at the school. He is a straight A student. He has found and met friends from different towns. I want to thank the efforts and I hope we can move forward and get a better outcome. I recall last year there was a lot of misinformation prior to the votes. There were bill boards saying taxes will go up. I hope the Board will find some unity and not further fracture the town in putting forward a contract we can all get behind. We will have to continue to negotiate with Manchester and come up with a second anchor, but for my 6th grader, we would like to have Pinkerton as an option but it will be up to him. D. Pearl motioned to move up Finance. M. Berry stated that at the last meeting, the Board motioned to take action immediately following the forum. D. Pearl motioned that the School Board approve of the contract. Seconded by J. Lyscars. D. Pearl: I think we should have two votes, one to approve the contract and one to move it to the ballot. Personally I don’t support the contract but I do believe that people should have the right to vote on it. I don’t want my vote to be misconstrued. T. Lizotte: My concern is that we received the contract and we should have a vote to accept the contract first. J. McHugh: Why don’t we vote whether to place it on the ballot and then we can vote on whether to support it.


13

J. Lyscars motioned to amend the motion “for the HSB to accept a minimum High School Enrollment Policy as defined in the document distributed”. No second. Failed J. Lyscars motioned to amend the motion “for the HSB to accept the minimum High School enrollment Policy Duplicate tuition” No second. Failed A. Boilard: I am struggling with the way we’ve defined our model. If the contract passes, we can assign as many Pinkerton as we want for 3 years. In the 4th year, I struggle with the fiscal side. Are we going to spend more on Manchester and Pinkerton just to have choice? What is the Board going to do in four years? Will it be what we intended today? T. Lizotte: The future is problematic. The reality is that we can’t predict the future but also in making this decision, by putting it out there, the majority of the citizens, 2400 parents of 8000 taxpayers, when the majority votes for this they understand that things can change. This Board could change this. As Board members do we believe we can get a contract with Manchester and create a dual anchor system? I think the negotiation team did an admirable job and I approve the contract and believe it is the best deal they can get. I can’t find in the negotiation tactics by Pinkerton that I don’t approve of. D. Pearl: It is not my intent to have my cake and eat it too. I want to be transparent to the public and I don’t agree with this contract. We are putting a tuition contract that will bind the town for 10 years and they should have that choice but I want the public to know that I don’t support the contract but I support the public’s right to vote on it. Roll Call Vote M. Berry Yes J. Lyscars No D. Pearl No T. Lizotte Yes A. Boilard Yes J. McHugh Yes 4:2 Motion carries D. Pearl motioned to move the contract to the ballot. Seconded by T. Lizotte. Roll Call unanimously in favor The Board took a break at 9:30 pm. Mike Berry left the meeting at 9:30 pm. D. Pearl motioned to move up Hooksett Sewer Water on the agenda. Seconded by T. Lizotte.


14

Vote unanimously in favor. Hooksett Sewer/Waste Water Plant Department request for transfer of Land The Superintendent spoke with the architect regarding the criteria for acreage. Dr. Littlefield: I spoke with the Architect and received a plan of the school site which is made up of 5 parcels. Those 5 parcels add up to 25.56 acres. I gave you a section of the State Department of Education manual on school construction and on page 32 of the manual; they give the minimum and maximums for the size of the school size. If you do the math for a school the size of Memorial, the minimum is 10 acres. The maximum would be 15 acres. When we looked at the plot plan with usable acreage, it is 25.56 and we would be required to have between 10 and 15 acres. The parcel in question which is “B” on the plot plan is 7.16 acres. If we deduct that we end up with 17.95 acres of usable space and we are required to have between 10 and 15. J. McHugh: At the last meeting, Mr. Kudrick explained the reason was to have this done before he retires. Bruce Kudrick: At some point, you wanted to make sure we are ready for the next phase. J. McHugh: You explained at the last meeting that if you did not obtain this land, you would have to separate the town in half or look to somewhere else? Bruce Kudrick: If I get this land, we have the opportunity to divide the town in half. J. McHugh: You explained that it would be an open treatment facility; can you explain? Bruce Kudrick: We are not sure what will be built there because the technology will change by the time we do this. The tankage will be more automatic than the one I currently run. We might not have clarifiers like we have now. As far as you were concerned with impact, this plant would probably only take 2 employees to run. There wouldn’t be any increase in truck traffic. J. McHugh: Did you do any study on the impact on the school property? Bruce Kudrick: We were experimenting with composting. J. McHugh: Do you expect to do any study on how this will impact the school district land, not just financially but any direct implication on being that close to the schools? Bruce Kudrick: It is too soon. There are new technologies in odor control. There is only one room that has odors. Part of the upgrade to the facility would include odor control.


15

We have had no complaints for odor. New technology would be part of the process. We will work with you to control the odors. We are not going to put something in that will create any problems for anyone. J. McHugh: It will be discussed at the Deliberative Session on February 6th. J. McHugh motioned to move up the manifest on the agenda. Seconded by J. Lyscars Vote unanimously in favor Review of Manifest and Action Relating Thereto J. McHugh motioned to approve the manifest for January 6, 2015 in the amount of $1,760,297.51. Seconded by D. Pearl. Vote unanimously in favor D. Pearl motioned to move up Personnel on the agenda. Seconded by T. Lizotte Vote unanimously in favor PERSONNEL (if necessary) – Dr. Charles P. Littlefield – Action required Notice of Movement on the Salary Schedule for 2015-2016 No action needed Warrant Articles Article 2 J. McHugh motioned to place Article 2 on the Ballot. Seconded by A. Boilard. Vote unanimously in favor. J. Lyscars motioned to recommend Article 2. Seconded by T. Lizotte. Motion and second withdrawn D. Pearl motioned to table consideration of the warrant to January 12th. Seconded by T. Lizotte. Vote unanimously in favor. D. Pearl motioned to hold a Special School Board meeting on Monday, January 12th at 5:30. Seconded by T. Lizotte. Vote unanimously in favor. L. Moynihan reported to the Board that it is her intent as School District Clerk to place the ballot the question to increase the term for the School District Clerk, Moderator, and Treasurer from one year to two years. D. Pearl motioned to support the idea of changing the terms of the clerk, moderator and treasure to 2 years. Seconded by t. Lizotte Vote unanimously in favor


16

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD M. Miville: A few weeks ago the Board related that there were contractual items in the budget. I made a Right to Know request and paid the fee. I found that some of those items were not contractual. I will forward that information. The School Board does not have a policy that if other Board request information, they should not have to pay for that information. Requesting for documentation should not require a Right to Know request. ADJOURNMENT D. Pearl motioned to adjourn. Seconded by T. Lizotte Vote unanimously in favor. Respectfully submitted, Lee Ann Moynihan

Documents

HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AGENDAhooksettschoolboard.sau15.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/...2015/01/06 · HOOKSETT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING-January 6, 2015 2 high schools. We were