Budget Hearing - April 25, 2007
Minutes
BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
SPRING BUDGET HEARING #1
APRIL 25, 2007
SPRING BUDGET HEARING #1
The first spring 2007-2008 budget hearing of the Board of School Directors of the Bethlehem Area
School District was held on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, beginning at 6:06 p.m., in the Auditorium
of East Hills Middle School, 2005 Chester Road, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Members present: Directors Craig, Dexter (arriving at 6:10 p.m.), Heske, Koch, Leeson, and
Williams - 6.
OTHERS PRESENT
Others present: Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, Superintendent of Schools; Stanley J. Majewski, Jr., Board
Secretary; administrators, members of the press, and other interested citizens and staff members.
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS
Chairperson Koch offered courtesy of the floor to visitors. Speakers are asked to come to the
podium, stating their name and address. Public comment in the first session is limited to 30
minutes. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The board requests that, when possible, all
individuals supporting a like position on a topic select a speaker to present their views to avoid
repetition. If that is not possible, all are welcome to speak. As per school board policy,
generally, speakers are limited to taxpayers, residents, or employees of this school district. At
the conclusion of the regular school board meeting, another block of time will be allocated for
public comment. At that time, the same rules will apply. It is asked that speakers observe
proper decorum, without personal attacks towards a specific individual or individuals. It is not
the custom for the board to enter into a dialogue at these meetings about concerns. However, the
board does listen with care to issues raised. Speakers will receive responses, in some form, by
the administration. No one wished to address the Board of School Directors.
Chairperson Koch announced that Mr. Majewski would give a presentation. However, Director Craig
will speak first.
Director Craig said he thinks that starting at about six oÕclock, the board ought to set a
three-hour time limit for tonightÕs meeting. In this process it is fine that there will be
questions. Anything after two and a half or three hours is antiproductive. He suggested staying
on task, asking as many questions as possible in an orderly way, but at nine oÕclock, which would
include courtesy of the floor, he thinks the meeting should be adjourned. There is another budget
hearing scheduled in May. It would be appropriate for anyone having questions not answered
tonight to call Mr. Majewski or Dr. Lewis or bring those questions to the next budget meeting.
DIRECTOR CRAIG MOTION Ð 3-HR TIME LIMIT
Director Craig moved that tonightÕs meeting be kept to a three-hour time limit. Director
Williams seconded the motion.
Director Leeson said that asking questions and getting answers is not the only part of this
process. The other part is analyzing the budget, determining what the goals are, and letting the
money follow where we need to go with our district. It is not just asking the administration
questions and having the administration answer the questions. Director Leeson said her second
comment is that she sincerely thinks the board should be able to conclude in two and a half to
three hours, so she has no problem with the motion. But, if the board should get into a
discussion where they feel there is a need for it, she thinks they should be open to the idea of
another session. May might be too far away, if it is a topic the board is in the middle of.
Chairperson Koch said that, perhaps, that can be decided as they go along.
VOTE Ð LIMIT MEETING TO 3 HOURS
The question of limiting the meeting to three hours was called. The motion carried by voice vote.
DR. LEWIS Ð PLAN FOR TONIGHTÕS MEETING
Dr. Lewis explained that administration is not going to give a full presentation this evening. The
board had a slide presentation from Mr. Majewski at the initial hearing where the board made a
determination to commit to a tax increase no higher than the index assigned to the district by the
state. Mr. Majewski will explain many of the revenue impacts and expenditure changes. Revenue
projections have become healthier. As a result, administration was able to reinstate, on the
expenditure side, some of the things that the board showed concern for in the first draft.
Included are driver education, department chair positions, additional guidance counselors, and
additional special ed staff. Mr. Majewski will also give reanalysis of expenditures that he has
done relative to changing markets, changing interest rates, commodity pricing, tax collection, and
areas that touch on various other expenditures. In summation, the board has a revised proposed
budget. Dr. Lewis said he is proud to say, for the fifth year in a row, a millage impact of a
mill or less or a 2.68 percent increase and a millage recommendation of 37.56. Mr. Majewski will
review how administration arrived at that and will speak about the modifications. Then, the
meeting will be open to questions relative to the original proposal and current proposal.
MR. MAJEWSKI Ð REVENUES
Mr. Majewski stated back in January when talk started about the budget development, the board was
told that the earlier you prepare a budget during the year, the less information is available from
the state as well as current trends. At this point of the year, administration has been better
able to identify what monies will be received from the state. Administration has been able to look
at some trending. In some cases, it has been beneficial to the budget. In other cases, it has
been detrimental. Mr. Majewski stated he will bring the board up to date as to what changes this
budget includes over the last presentation in January in the way of revenue. Interim real estate
tax revenue was increased by $200,000. The public utility realty tax budget was increased by
$2,000. Payments in lieu of tax budget was decreased by $4,000. Interest on investments was
increased by $200,000. The miscellaneous revenue account was increased by $20,000. The basic
instructional subsidy account was increased by $523,594. The charter school subsidy account was
increased by $173,717. The special education subsidy was increased by $61,250. The health
services subsidy was increased by $15,000. The total increase to the revenue account outside of
real estate taxes would be $1,191,560. In looking at the local housing market, even though it
slowed some, it looks like it will continue to have more activity than he initially anticipated
with some earlier readings. That is why the interim real estate tax account was increased by
$200,000. The original budget for interest on investments assumed a slowing of the economy and a
lowering of short-term rates; however, the short term interest rates have not dropped yet because
the economy does appear to continue to be somewhat robust. Mr. Majewski said he expects that
through the next budget year it will start to decline. In the short term he expects to be able to
take advantage of some of the higher short term rates before they start to drop. The basic
instructional subsidy, charter school, special education, and the health services subsidy were all
updated as a result of the governorÕs budget being announced and some preliminary information
provided to the district.
MR. MAJEWSKI Ð EXPENDITURES
Mr. Majewski announced that on the expenditures side, $40,000 were put into the budget for a new
Liberty High School business lab. The current lab is terribly outdated and in need of
replacement. That was not budgeted previously, but was determined to be a need. Legal and
auditing fees was increased by $73,000. Approximately $25,000 of that was because of
underbudgeting in the current year of the audit account. Also, it was anticipated that the legal
budget would come in lower than it currently appears to be projecting out. Budgetary reserve was
decreased by $39,438.
The superintendentÕs contingency account was increased by $83,000. Mr. Majewski explained that
the term ÒsuperintendentÕs contingency accountÓ which has been looked at over the years is one
that when the question is asked, ÒWhy is it presented in that manner?Ó the reply is that it always
was. There was a time when that was a true contingency. However, he does not want to give the
perception that those are not obligated monies in that account. We are looking for spending out
of that account the payments for regular and Saturday detentions. Secretaries for the Freedom and
Liberty community service activities are paid from that account. Payment is made for contracted
professional services that would include payments for the public relations office and staff
development activities. In the district there are very few color copiers. One of those is in the
superintendentÕs office. There may be an impression that it is theirs alone. Care has been taken
not to provide the entire district with a color copier because at one point there was quite a
difference in the cost of a color copier and black and white. When anyone needs color copying,
they will be directed to the Education Center. That is why the funding shows up in the
superintendentÕs account even though it is not directly related to the office of the
superintendent. Postage will be charged to the account, primarily for public relations activities
and advertising. The calendar and other printing/binding charges will be out of that account. All
interdistrict travel will be out of that account and monitored by the superintendentÕs office.
That includes charges for teachers having assignments between two buildings or other staff needing
to travel between buildings, not conference-related travel. Most conferences for principals will
be charged to that account as well as conferences for other instructional and noninstructional
staff. It is set up that way for monitoring purposes. Supplies will be charged to that account
for district-wide duplicating as well as other supplies necessary for staff development and the
superintendentÕs office. Textbooks includes a small portion for the purchase of equipment. Dues
and fees are for PSBA and instructional meet and discuss staff. There is a small budget for
miscellaneous expenditures of about $4,000. Even though the name ÒcontingencyÓ is used, it is not
a true contingency. In all honesty, that needs to be restructured so that it is not identified as
a contingency but more closely to its activity. Mr. Majewski stated that he fell into the rut of
doing it that way because even before he came to the district that was the way it was done. It
needs to be corrected.
Mr. Majewski continued stating the changes to the expenditures. Two additional building monitors
are included. Two additional guidance counselors, two additional special education teachers, and
one teacher added to the teacher contingency account. When initially reviewing the budget, a
certain number of teacher retirements was anticipated. The reason is that there is a calculated
spread between a retired teacher and those that will be hired. Savings are involved. The teacher
staffing account will be reduced in anticipation of those savings. Based upon the numbers, they
are under what was projected in January. Another $100,000 has been put aside for teacher staffing
contingency. Some student-teacher ratios are on the fence and we need to make sure, if there is a
need, to be able to add staffing once enrollments are completed in August. In the initial budget
the department chairs had been removed and given teacher assignments. That means there would have
been a reduction of the FTEs which allowed $162,000 to be saved in the budget. However, the
department chair assignments will remain as they are this year. Therefore, money had to be put
back into the budget. The staffing substitute account, in monitoring the trending, it is clear
that the budget was about $300,000 underbudgeted. Money needed to be put back into that account.
Driver education has been placed back into the budget. Another $22,000 needed to be added for the
current resource officers in the district, not additional resource officers for next year. In
tracking the trends for homebound it was seen that the activity is going to be higher than
budgeted. An extra $30,000 was budgeted to Burkheimer for tax collection.
Mr. Majewski stated that health benefits is, by far, the largest increase of all. For the last
two years, in particular, the district has had a fairly stable health benefits cost. Earlier in
the year, it appeared that the trend would continue. However, it has become very clear that the
cost of the health benefits has gone up significantly. He was not surprised when he read an
article in the Morning Call that indicated that the inflation rate for medical costs in the Lehigh
Valley for hospitals was an increase of over 17 percent. With that information, with the increase
we are looking at in our budget, our increase is still under the rate of inflation in the Lehigh
Valley. However, the amount budgeted needed to be increased to reflect what our current spending
will be. Additionally, we have a number of very severe medical cases, not just one or two, that
are an ongoing trend and very expensive. We do have stop loss insurance and once they hit that
level it is picked up by the districtÕs reinsurance. However, the number of cases that have been
getting close to reaching that level has increased. Primarily, we are looking at an increase in
the number of cancer patients.
Mr. Majewski continued the review of expenditure changes. The laminator maintenance account
required $4,500. The natural gas account was able to be reduced by $100,000 Ð a direct result of
the settlements with the PUC. A transportation dispatcher was added to this budget and a data
operator.
Mr. Majewski stated that the net increases to the expenditures are $2,424,000. There is a
positive note that we did not have in January. Northampton County, in particular, had quite a
backlog of properties that were either underassessed or not assessed. During the last couple
years of extraordinary growth, the county fell behind. They have made a yeomanÕs efforts to catch
up and have told him that they are now caught up. For this budget, there is a one-time increase,
greater than the average increase, in taxable assessed values which means to get the same revenue,
the millage rate was decreased. As a result of what the Northampton County assessorÕs office has
accomplished, Bangor Area School District is seeing an increase of 4.35 percent in taxable
assessed value. We are at 3.54 percent. Easton Area School District has a 15.6 percent increase
in taxable assessed values; Nazareth 6.58, Northampton 3.01, Pen Argyl 1.9, Saucon Valley 1.8, and
Wilson Area 4.8. For this year, these school districts are beneficiaries of their efforts to
bring the assessment up to date. That increases the value of one mill. We are able to increase
the rate of collection on the bills outstanding. It brought the value of one mill to $2,664,316.
The proposed budget shows that it requires a millage increase of 37.56, a .98 mill increase, or a
2.68 percent increase from the current year.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD
Director Craig stated that he noticed an increase from two to three dispatchers. He asked what
the need is for the addition.
Dr. Lewis replied that the need is due to increased transportation as a result of district
initiatives and nonpublic initiatives. Transportation has been operating with the same staff
since 1981. There has been geometric growth in the number of busses operated, the number of
drivers, the number of schools served, the number of routes run. Transportation has been
overwhelmed. In the first overture, cabinet did not agree to put the additional dispatcher in the
budget, having to stay under that index. As money became available, this was one of the higher
priority staff positions. Also of high priority was the data operator because of the addition of
very sophisticated financial software installation that is anticipated and the addition of a
personnel package that has been long overdue. Some of the consolidation in human resources, in
essence, is a shift into the data department by the request of adding this position. Those two
positions were high priority.
Mr. Majewski elaborated on the dispatcher. Currently, there are two assistants. One, primarily,
has responsibility for overseeing the maintenance area Ð a fleet in excess of 100 busses. Early
in the morning, he may take over some of the dispatcher responsibilities, leaving one person to be
the dispatcher. In a perfect world with all drivers needed by Mr. Himmelberger to run the
operation, that still would be somewhat of a problem. However, many times to be able to meet the
requirements of the runs, if there are not sufficient drivers, people including Mr. Himmelberger
will need to get in the bus and drive.
Director Craig remarked that asking a question does not mean he is opposed to anything. The board
is often criticized for not asking questions. It is a good idea to make sure everybody is clear
as to why the individuals are needed.
Director Williams pointed out that at least two additions to the budget are a direct result of
board requests such as the monitors and guidance counselors.
Dr. Lewis stated that the request is for two additional counselors in addition to what was in the
original submittal.
Director Leeson thanked Mr. Majewski for the page with the description of each cabinet code. She
also thanked him for explaining the superintendentÕs contingency. A huge amount of money Ð
$257,000 Ð is going into that contingency that appears to be unaccounted for. She asked for a
breakdown of that by the next budget hearing.
Director Leeson stated that everything the board does through the year impacts the budget. The
budget has a .98 mill increase proposed. It will cost .93 mills to cover financing. When the
board very readily said, ÒGo ahead. Add another $10,000,000 to the financing,Ó that also
impacted. We are now paying the piper for that decision. She stated she sees that there is an
increase in income of about $15,800,000 by the increased millage. She asked if that is correct.
Mr. Majewski explained that a combination of factors may be included. If you want to adjust the
millage increase component, consider these factors. Approximately 2.6 is a result of the
assessment value increase, a .98 mill increase in real estate taxes, increased investment income,
$2,700,000 in additional state subsidy, and fund balance. Mr. Majewski stated he never identified
that amount just from the millage increase.
Director Leeson asked if she is correct in stating $15,800,000 is the increase from all of those
sources, not just the one source.
Mr. Majewski confirmed that she is correct.
Director Leeson said she had misread that. She asked if she is correct that it is the increase in
revenue income.
Mr. Majewski replied that the increase in revenue income would be equal to the expenditures. The
expenditures increased $2,560,000. There was a shortfall because of other revenues that came in
of $6,760,000. There is roughly $6,000,000 of organically generated revenue. In order to be able
to bridge the difference, that $6,760,000 you looked at roughly $2,600,000 for the .98 mill
increase. There were increase of investment income of about $200,000; $2,700,000 in additional
state subsidy budgets, and additional fund balance put into the budget.
Director Leeson asked how much of the fund balance is being put into this budget.
Mr. Majewski replied that two different fund balances are incorporated in this budget. Two
million is from the general operating budget and $2,500,000 from the fund balance in the capital
reserve account.
Director Leeson asked what the capital reserve has been used for in previous years and if that has
been used to balance the budget.
Mr. Majewski replied that the only time he remembers using any of that money to balance the budget
would go back to 2001 or 2001-02 when about $400,000 was used to pay for debt service. He
believes some of that was related to a new debt service. Other than that, most of the
expenditures in that account were related to construction. About $2,600,000 would be for the
SPARK building and information technologies renovations.
Director Leeson said that was what she thought; that the capital reserve was for capital projects,
not usually used to balance the general budget.
Mr. Majewski explained that there are two different types of capital accounts. One is a bond
account and for bond financing. Clearly, because we have a responsibility to the holders of our
bonds to use it for very specific things, it is identified in the bond issue, and the district is
restricted to use it for those purposes only. The capital reserve account was established by the
board in the 1990s. At the time, the board created a capital reserve account and transferred
money into the account because the capital reserve account, under the school code that was
created, is somewhat of a quasi-restricted fund. It is the board-created account which means the
board can control it. However, if you keep the money there, there are restrictions on its use.
You can use it for construction projects, capital purchases, debt service, and busses. The
account has not been used for bus purchases, but it is allowable under this type of capital
reserve account. In order to bring money back into the general fund, you need to approve a
resolution authorizing that to be done. The budget includes $2,500,000. If the board approves
the use of this money, administration will need to present the formal resolution at a future
meeting transferring the money back to the general operating fund.
Director Leeson asked if it isnÕt a little concerning to have $4,500,000 coming from one-time
sources. It is like taking out of your savings account to pay for your regular expenses.
Mr. Majewski stated that there are, sometimes, reasons for doing so. However, as a rule of good
business you attempt to limit that or not do that because when that one-time money is gone, it
needs to be made up elsewhere. One-time money has been used in the fund balance in the past
because enough fund balance was accumulated, it was felt something needed to be given back to the
taxpayers instead of allowing it to accumulate. As a rule, it is concerning, but his point is
that in certain cases it may be something that the board decides to do because it wants to return
money back to the taxpayer.
Director Leeson commented that fund balance would be down to about $3,000,000 or $3,500,000.
Mr. Majewski stated that as of the end of June 2006, the district had $7,500,000 in general
operating. Preliminary projections for this year show that it is likely the district will use
about $3,000,000 this year, bringing it down to approximately $4,500,000 as of June 30, 2007.
Director Leeson stated it would bring it to $2,500,000 left if $2,000,000 is taken out.
Mr. Majewski stated that if the full $2,000,000 needed to be used, that is correct.
Director Leeson commented that money would also be taken out of the capital reserve account which
was originally set up not for this purpose.
Mr. Majewski stated that the capital reserve account had primarily been funded by the refinancing
money that has been done over the last couple of years. There have been other sources including
some e-rate money coming in and insurance costs associated with the Lafayette building. There is
approximately $5,800,000 in the capital reserve now. Some of that has been obligated by board
actions including $600,000 for the financial software purchases.
Director Leeson stated that the capital reserve account could be used for some of the Broughal
project, so that the district would not have to borrow.
Director Dexter asked if this budget represents the priorities that are set forth in the strategic
plan.
Dr. Lewis said administration believes it does. It addresses the areas of guidance, ESOL,
staffing ratios, technology. In a global sense, ÒYes.Ó
Director Dexter asked if anyone from the administration actually reviewed the budget priorities
and the strategic plan when it determined where to pump up the budget and where to take away.
Dr. Lewis said he did not understand the question.
Director Dexter gave an example. In the strategic plan, priorities have been set forth in a
number of different categories. Ratings were given to things to be done as a district by
importance. She asked if anyone went through the budget and determined if this strategic plan is
consistent or inconsistent with what has been stated to be priorities.
Dr. Lewis said that as most of those priorities seem to settle around personnel, he knows Mr.
Gross has done some cross walks.
Mr. Gross stated he has copied the human resource/personnel part of the strategic plan to keep in
his book, but it is in a folder in his office. The answer is that from a personnel/human resource
point of view, yes, it has been gone through to the tune of drilling down and prioritizing for
counselor adds when cabinet reconvened in March to review the budget considering the additional
revenue pool. He suggested adding as first priority, counselors, as per the direction of the
board. There are some pieces, however, that the budget does not address from a personnel
standpoint. That is in large part due to the fact that we are encumbering a lot of money for the
human resource and business financial software where it is thought we can compensate. The human
resource package and the financial package came into play post development of the strategic plan.
Therefore, substitution has been done in that area. Technology-wise, the document has also been
studied.
Director Dexter asked whose job, in administration, it is to actually determine if the budget
priorities are those set forth in the strategic plan.
Dr. Lewis replied that every cabinet member has a cabinet code and is responsible for aligning
their various requests for funding to the priorities of the plan. As Mr. Gross pointed out,
sometimes that changes slightly. They generally sit in multiple meetings and give justification
to that. If there is an area that has not been addressed that she can elaborate on, perhaps
administration can answer the rationale of why that was not done.
Director Dexter said she is not actually looking at any one thing. One area that comes to mind
and talked about at an earlier meeting was the guidance counselor issue. She had asked Mr.
Washington how many guidance counselors would need to be added to comply with goals set forth in
the strategic plan. His response was 12. She asked if that has changed.
Mr. Gross stated it has changed, in so far as upon re-evaluating the student to counselor ratios.
Essentially, four counselors are being added and in a subsequent budget 3.4 more would be needed
to complete the strategic plan issue of adding 12. Over the past several years, we have added two
and two and two. It has changed and we are meeting the ratios.
Dr. Lewis commented that he believes, as Mr. Gross looked at the pro rata assignment, staffing was
actually one counselor ahead. The response from Mr. Washington was legit; it was just the
complete plan over six years.
Director Dexter said she is really happy to see the guidance counselors added to the budget. She
was concerned when she heard Mr. WashingtonÕs response that we needed even more than that. That is
the kind of analysis she was referencing. That is one example that came to her mind. It seems
that when the board made the strategic plan, it was done with a variety of resources of people,
staff of all levels, parents, board members, and others. This should be the guiding document,
although she recognizes that sometimes changes must be made.
Director Dexter asked about the rifle program. She thinks the rifle program should be reinstated.
She is not sure why it keeps coming out with the driver ed program. ItÕs almost like a game: take
it out/put it back.
Dr. Lewis said itÕs not a game. It is almost a prevailing philosophy that we are losing
competitors. There is nowhere to go. Mr. Villani could not attend this meeting because he is
presenting in a literacy workshop this evening. He gave information that while it is not an
incredible savings, the issue is that there would need to be a location to practice and a location
to compete. Also, transportation costs are probably the largest portion of the expense of
operating this sport. If this board decides it wants to keep rifle, we will keep rifle and find a
way to make it work. About $33,000 would be needed, according to Mr. VillaniÕs assessment.
Director Craig, as a former athletic director, stated that rifle has always been a very
traditional sport in Bethlehem and very successful. Up until the late 1990s there were at least
six to ten schools in the Lehigh Valley area who sponsored rifle. He thinks it is now down to
three. Two are in Bethlehem. His understanding is they are having to compete against Delaware
Valley in northern Pike County, schools in the Scranton area, Blue Mountain near Pottsville. The
competition locally is not there. In order to get matches they must compete at long distances for
just every day matches, not tournaments. When construction was done at Liberty High School, the
rifle range was below the lab center area at the far end, and that area is no longer available.
Part of the problem is getting a suitable place, if we have the sport, for practice. When he was
the athletic director at Liberty High School, there was a similar problem one year with the rifle
range. They tried to get use of the police rifle range in Allentown and Bethlehem and could not.
They ended up using the range at Saucon Valley High School for that one year. Saucon Valley
dropped rifle in 1995.
Director Dexter said that for the last two years the board has had presentations by the rifle
coaches who said that those problems could be easily solved and they had suggestions for doing so.
She does not want to get into comparing every sport, but she is aware of our athletic programs.
People travel to Delaware Valley, the Poconos, Hazelton, Wilkes-Barre, Harrisburg, and Virginia.
Director Craig commented that that is true, but those are not everyday occurrences. Those are
special arrangements. Generally, every sport that we compete in with the Lehigh Valley
Conference, of which the district is a member of, has teams within a 10-mile radius of Bethlehem
that we compete against. The wrestling teams go out of the area once in a while.
Director Dexter stated that the basketball team has had scrimmages an hour away even after the
season was over. Her thinking is if for traditional sports transportation is not a problem, where
games can be played is not a problem, we have already talked about it. Rifle is a special sport
that attracts different students. It is a different kind of competition. She is well aware of
data that tells us that a student who participates in extracurricular activity is highly more
likely to do well academically. In her mind, it is worth the buck.
Director Craig stated that, in that case, we need to consider adding ice hockey and lacrosse to
our school district. We have a lot of students participating on the club level in those two
sports. If we are going to use that philosophy that athletics is so important, and he believes it
is, then he thinks the board needs to consider that because those are two sports that have
probably more students ready to compete than rifle does.
Chairperson Koch told Director Craig she is assuming that he is not making a motion.
Director Craig said it is not a proposal, but he thinks it is something the board may think about
down the road.
Director Dexter said she would be happy to second it, if it was a proposal, because she has a son
who plays both of those sports.
Chairperson Koch suggested talking about this in curriculum committee for the future.
Director Craig questioned the rental amount of $78,000 listed on page 13.
Dr. Lewis replied that it is the rental cost of the Regional Academic Standards Academy.
Director Craig referred to page 15 showing a 20 percent increase in salaries for officials and
administrative salaries for the assistant superintendent. He asked why it is such a high amount.
This year it was $364,603, increasing to $434,055.
Mr. Gross stated he believes that is the reallocation of the coordinators of literacy. There used
to be two reading recovery teacher leaders in the budget. When two literacy coordinators were
added, the teacher leader position was split into two. While it did not cover the total budget,
some other central office curriculum department staff was reallocated. A budget neutral
transition was made last year by adding coordinator of literacy K-5 and coordinator of literacy
6-12. They are now properly placed into this budget.
Director Craig questioned if another area decreased somewhat.
Dr. Lewis stated that Dr. LoFaso assumed the reading recovery lead teacher responsibility and
became our K-5 coordinator. That position was previously occupied by Carol Jacoby who went to the
Asa Packer principalship. The work is being done. It has been reclassified.
Mr. Gross stated that the nice thing about it was that when Carol went to Asa, the duties of that
position were assumed by Mia Fernandes, so the position was not filled, officially, for a year.
Director Craig said he noticed on page 16 Ð other professional services Ð under the board, the
amount went from $156,000 to $229,000 for the coming year. He asked what kinds of duties are
causing our solicitor to have so much of an increase.
Dr. Lewis replied that increased special education litigation is probably one of two major
contributors.
Mr. Majewski stated that part of the difference is what he had indicated earlier that included is
the budget for auditing Ð the external auditor. Typically, that has been about $50,000. That was
cut last year to $25,000. It should not have been. The $25,000 had to be reinstated because the
services were there. The difference is the increase in the legal costs. The district has spent
$15,000 for the solicitorÕs retainer, at $1,500 monthly or $18,000 a year total. There is a $225
charge for pending litigation letters related to the audit. Labor-related costs are about $2,500.
Director Craig interrupted, telling Mr. Majewski he does not have to explain everything he is
spending the money on. He asked if there is something that jumps out to cause the increase.
Mr. Majewski stated two drivers have actually jumped out and have accelerated Ð the cost for
expulsion-related due process hearings as well as special education. Special education has really
started to require even more legal attention this year. That is just our solicitor. Other costs
have jumped out including some of the law suits we have been getting. It is not that we lost, but
we had to participate. The cost of the insurance deductible has impacted the district where you
look at payment, for example, to Murphy and OÕConnor of about $9,300 this year and about $6,000 to
Marshall Dennehy. The insurance company provides the attorney. The district pays the deductible.
Director Craig asked if some of the difficulties and challenges the district has had with the
Broughal project are helping to drive up this cost.
Mr. Majewski said that in looking at our solicitorÕs bill, they have absorbed most of those direct
questions under their retainer and have not billed us for that.
Director Leeson wanted to piggyback on some of Director CraigÕs comments. She is wondering two
things about our legal fees Ð the issues on page 16. She asked why special ed litigation is being
classified under the board instead of under special ed other professional services.
Mr. Majewski replied that the way the program codes are done, there are two ways to look at it.
One is the function. That is an accounting code that is established by the status of how it is
identified. There is one code for legal costs, a function of 2350. Budgetary responsibility for
monitoring that is with an A code and is with the superintendentÕs office. However, it is
ultimately the boardÕs liability and responsibility so it has come under that category that the
board is identified as being responsible for legal costs. It is not so much the special ed
department because it is a district-wide initiative. As the state would look at it, it is not
providing services to special education students. It comes under the errors and omissions or the
school directorsÕ insurance under the boardÕs liability policy.
Director Leeson asked if legal fees could be looked at during the next human resource meeting and
to look at trying to negotiate some standard fees for expulsions and some ongoing activities as
opposed to the hourly rate. Perhaps professional service contracts can be reviewed.
Dr. Lewis told Director Leeson that can be done. These rates are annually negotiated in a
contract. Administration can bring those to the next meeting to look at.
Director Leeson stated she thinks the board set the retainer and the hourly rate. But when there
are ongoing services such as expulsions, the district can still sit down and negotiate at any
time. That is not necessarily part of the contract that was signed. We could look at some of
these ongoing expenses and see if we canÕt stabilize them.
Director Leeson referred to page 13 Ð alternative ed program and asked why this category does not
reflect all of the costs of the program.
Mr. Majewski replied that the vast majority of the costs will be under the teacher staffing
account.
Director Leeson thanked Mr. Majewski for the breakdown. She thinks there are a few more costs
that were not listed.
Mr. Majewski stated the only difference was the principal was prorated. It should have been
approximately $19,000 higher.
Director Leeson commented that, if she remembers correctly, that would be in the ball park of
$1,300,000 for that program. We have had some struggles with this program. What we thought was
going to be cost neutral has become an expensive program. If she is correct, there are under a
hundred students there, now. Our cost per student is over $13,000 because transportation or some
other things were not factored in which would be for regular education students.
Mr. Majewski told Director Leeson she is correct. Transportation was not included in that
calculation. It is possible to do that. However, a student seat is not tracked because the bus
is running whether the student is there or not.
Director Leeson stated she that knows that, but when the cost per child is calculated, all
expenses are divided. When looking at the alternative ed cost every one of those single items are
not included. She asked if she is correct that the cost per student is in the ball park of $6,700
to $7,000 per child.
Mr. Majewski replied that there are many different ways of looking at it. The calculated tuition
rate is split between secondary and elementary. Elementary is about $7,700; secondary is about
$7,300.
Director Leeson asked if that is the cost per child.
Mr. Majewski replied that it is a cost per child. When you look at tuition, it excludes certain
costs such as transportation in its calculation.
Director Leeson commented that, at this point, we are ball park, not quite double.
Mr. Majewski stated that ball park is about $10,000 per student. The easy way to look at that is
about $160,000,000 budget; 15,000 students; about $10,000 per student.
Director Leeson asked what the cost is for special ed because those have been differentiated over
the years.
Mr. Majewski stated that we donÕt have a calculated special ed cost. When they did away with cost
plus some years ago, that calculation ceased. The cost for special ed depends on the program.
Certain programs will cost about $13,000. Some are about $22,000. Others are in the neighborhood
of $60,000 to $70,000 and sometimes $90,000 per student.
Director Leeson said she thinks what he is saying is the $7,700; the $7,300; is probably a little
better gauge than the $10,000 because the $10,000 includes the special ed students, so we have a
disproportionate number of high cost students causing an elevated tuition rate of per pupil cost.
Mr. Majewski told Director Leeson she is correct. That would be comparable.
Director Leeson stated that this cost is not quite double, but getting close to double the costs
of educating our average child in a classroom. We should also take a look at the Career Academy
and ways to perhaps do the job at a lower cost. That should be reviewed in committee.
Director Craig commented that the Career Academy is one of the subjects that he thinks a number of
the directors want to talk about in light of the presentation Mrs. Robledo-Shorey made at the last
committee meeting.
Chairperson Koch asked about the subsidy account for charter schools. She would not have expected
to see that as a revenue account. She asked if this is money coming in from the state.
Mr. Majewski replied that, with Act 22, in theory, the district is to receive 30 percent of the
costs incurred in the following year. If we spent $1,000,000 in this year in charter schools,
next year in theory, the district should be receiving a subsidy of $300,000. In practice, what
occurs is they donÕt fund the charter school budget as well as they need to. We have been
receiving about 27 percent of our prior year costs.
Chairperson Koch commented that they are paying more than they have in the past.
Mr. Majewski responded that they are actually paying less than they have in the past. At one
point, the district received the 30 percent. Because our costs are going up, so is the subsidy.
But the percentage being received per dollar has gone down.
Chairperson Koch said she read in Paul CarpenterÕs newspaper article where he commented on
payments to cyber schools that there was a cyber school that was very upset because they said they
need the money because it costs $14,000 per student. She asked how on earth they could have such
high expenses if they donÕt have to build schools and hire the number of teachers that public
schools do.
Director Williams pointed out that she thinks it is somewhat misleading to look at the per student
costs per se. As an example, if we reduce the class size to serve special needs or specific
students, the cost for those students will increase because one of the biggest drivers for our
cost is going to be class size. When looking at costs for Career Academy we must remember that we
served all of those students before the Career Academy was in existence. We had costs for those
students previously. Not all of the teachers listed as part of the Career Academy now are new to
the district. To really look at the new costs for the Career Academy, the sheet received does not
really do that.
Director Craig referred to page 19 and asked where the hall monitor cost is listed. According to
the helpful insert, under building staff it says principals, building office staffs, building
monitors. He asked if that is referring to hall monitors.
Mr. Majewski said the monitors are called building monitors and are under object code 180.
Director Craig said he believes that in light of what is happening in schools around the country
today, if we are going to require our hall monitors to be the kinds of employees that we are
talking about things that they need to be able to do, we need to increase their salaries by at
least ten percent across the board and dedicate some money to give training to do the kinds of
things the district needs them to do. We need to start. He does not think paying hall monitors
to be quasi, and they are, quasi police officers, they need to be paid better. A way to start is
to increase that by about 10 percent per person, increase training this summer, and put them in
the halls of our secondary schools next year, better trained and better prepared. He knows that
is an added expenditure. He feels very strongly that the district needs to do that. It is about
$19,000 for those two new people. It would be about a $2,000 increase per hall monitor, a total
of about $40,000.
Mr. Majewski stated the hall monitors are part of a bargaining unit called noninstructional meet
and discuss. That would be through the negotiation process.
Director Craig questioned if the board cannot make a move to do anything with those staff persons
until that contract is up.
Dr. Lewis stated that, unilaterally, that would be a reopener.
Director Craig asked if they are part of meet and discuss.
Dr. Lewis replied, ÒYes.Ó
Director Craig asked when that agreement will be due.
Dr. Lewis replied that will be next year.
Director Craig asked if that is under contract.
Dr. Lewis and Mr. Gross said they are under an agreement. Mr. Gross said that next year is the
last year of their agreement.
Director Craig asked if the rest of the board feels strongly enough that this is something we
ought to be doing. He asked if it can be opened, now, if the employees agree to it.
Dr. Lewis explained that you have a meet and discuss group. The answer is that you can approach.
You need to be cautious. You want to respect the agreements. It is very delicate with the meet
and discuss groups because it is what it says. It is nonnegotiable from their end. It is meet
and discuss with the board through its agents. Dr. Lewis said he would prefer to wait until that
is open and then talk to their leadership.
Mr. Majewski stated it makes it very difficult for those who do negotiating to be publicly talking
about some of the terms. It would make more sense if this could be done as it would be with other
agreements and contracts.
Director Craig remarked that the issue of changing the amounts of money has been covered. He
asked if it is possible to somehow concentrate very hard on bringing these people in this summer
during a short period of time for training.
Dr. Lewis stated that it is already set up.
Director Craig said he wants to go on record. A year from now when it is time to discuss with
this meet and discuss group, he wants the board to consider raising their compensation. Ten
percent is not enough, but a good start.
Director Dexter said she would like to know about the athletic travel line on page 102 Ð $33,340.
She asked if that includes travel for the teams or if it is travel for athletic staff going to
conferences.
Mr. Majewski replied that it would include some travel to conferences. It could also include, for
students going some distance, a stipend for meals.
Director Dexter asked if that would include the rifle team.
Mr. Majewski said it would include whatever travel was necessary.
Director Dexter said she saw no projection in change there.
Dr. Lewis asked Mr. Himmelberger if he knows if that is the classification for team travel.
Mr. Majewski stated he knows it does not include all travel for athletics. A lot of that is meal
money.
Mr. Himmelberger stated that Mrs. Zimmerman has told him she thinks it includes the playoff
travel. It is not the day-to-day travel to and from events.
Director Dexter stated that she sees new line items on the information technology budget. One is
for salaries Ð professional, educational $12,000; the other is salaries Ð professional, other
$47,960. It looked as though there was no line for either of those last year, but the year before
$1,200 not $47,000. She would like to know about that.
Mrs. Lutcher stated that the first line Ð professional, educational, is for the webmasters. Prior
to this budget, it was taken out of a grant. We no longer have that grant. The $47,960 is for
staff in the summer, for technology integration specialists to come in and do training, work on
curriculum, work in the building. It is for the summer student workers. Those items also were
previously taken out of a grant. That grant no longer exists. Some substitute clerical work
helping with the laptop roll out and collection is included.
Director Dexter asked if money wouldnÕt still be in the budget even if it comes out of a grant.
There was no breakdown in the budget about what is grant, federal, etc.
Mr. Majewski said that we do. What is seen in the front is all general fund only.
Director Dexter asked what caused the reduction in rentals and lease on page 41.
Mrs. Lutcher stated that it is a movement from one category to the next but also a reduction in
that it is a lease and rental. We will not be renting the equipment that was needed this year.
Director Dexter explained that she saw a reduction on page 41 but on the data processing page an
increase in rentals of $8,000. She asked if that is the same item being moved from one category
to another.
Mrs. Lutcher said that is correct.
Director Dexter said that lines 610, 640 750. 760, and 780 all look like very substantial
increases. She asked for a line-by-line description.
Mrs. Lutcher replied that line 610, an increase to $65,000, is software for elementary level, for
business education departments, for library support, and additional software that is needed at the
Career Academy.
Mrs. Lutcher continued, stating that line 640 which is increased to $32,000 Ð administrative
software which is ARD Ð Apple Remote Desktop software Ð and operating administrative software. An
upgrade is going to be needed in the Macintosh Microsoft Office; a new version is coming out. The
new version is needed because of the conversions that will work with the eSchoolPlus and allow a
printing problem to be solved. Equipment Ð Original is for video conferencing equipment for the
high school and the academy, computers for the planetarium at Freedom High School Ð at $55,250.
The $99,000 equipment replacement is nursesÕ computers and administrator computer upgrades. Also
in the original equipment are probes for the science department.
Mrs. Lutcher continued. Line 760 Ð replacement Ð in prior years was included in a new lease. We
are not looking for a new lease.
Mrs. Lutcher explained that the infrastructure are switches, hubs, cables, service contracts, and
servers. As technology is used, there is more and more data to store. There is an unfunded
mandate from the federal government. That is the storage for electronic communication. A policy
is being put together for that which will be brought to the board. The district is out of
compliance now. This mandate came out earlier this school year. All of the school districts are
scrambling to comply with this. There was a webinar on this about a week ago. It is a very
complicated mandate. We need to archive email documents, any kind of messaging that is
electronic. It is not only a matter of archiving it, but a matter of being able to search and
retrieve that information in a reasonable amount of time if it is requested of the district. That
is going to mean more storage. The districtÕs email has increased tremendously. Storing only the
email that is coming in right now would mean that 4 terabytes of storage space are needed. That
does not include the spam. This is a huge mandate that is coming in. There are still some wiring
closets that are only running at 10 megabytes, not at 100 megabytes. The infrastructure is only
as good as the weakest link. Having a slow switch will slow down that traffic.
Director Williams asked Mrs. Lutcher if Òarchiving emailÓ is email in general.
Mrs. Lutcher replied, ÒYes.Ó It is for the entire district including the school board.
Director Williams asked if when she deletes her email, the emails are not actually deleted.
Mrs. Lutcher said they will have to keep them on the server. If they are asked in any kind of
litigation for copies of that, they must be able to search for it and retrieve it.
Director Heske asked why the attorney general doesnÕt have to do that.
Director Williams asked if other public bodies are required to do this.
Dr. Lewis said that the law applies to all agencies, governments, corporations, institutions of
higher learning and basic ed levels, anything that is a matter of public record. Now email is
classified as a matter, if called upon just like any other internal correspondence.
Director Williams remarked that this would make one cautious about using email. While we think
this is a great way for the public to communicate with the directors, they, too, may feel this is
a bit of an infringement on their individual rights, in a sense. She thinks it is a gross
overstepping of privacy.
Dr. Lewis said he is sure there will be some court challenges. The way it was explained at a
superintendentsÕ meeting was emails now have the same status as an interoffice memorandum. Unless
the correspondence is covered under Sunshine as confidential, it is an open document. Email is
now in that same classification and must be archived, including all the junk.
Director Dexter said she learned more about it at the conference in San Francisco. She will share
that with the board at another time.
Chairperson Koch asked if she is to understand that personal emails to family and friends will all
be saved.
Dr. Lewis replied that it will include anything to our addresses that are used.
Mrs. Lutcher stated that if you are using the address that has been given by the Bethlehem Area
School District those messages must be archived.
Dr. Lewis stated that there is still some time, right now, to delete everything.
Director Dexter said she disagrees based on what she heard.
Mrs. Lutcher said it is her understanding that as of December 1, 2006, we need to be making
copies.
Mrs. Lutcher commented that what they are charged with is that even though the boardÕs email
accounts are what are called POP accounts and downloads to the client on their computer, they must
retain a copy on the server so that if someone asks for that they can search their archives and
come up with it. When a message is sent, it goes to the email server and then downloads to the
computer. The server is like holding tank between the sender and the receiver.
Chairperson Koch said she is concerned about people looking into those things for their own
personal entertainment finding things that are private and none of their business.
Director Leeson said she thinks this is a very pertinent topic but she knows it is not really a
budget topic. She wondered if this can be put into committee for further discussion. She thinks
everyone is a little surprised and shocked by the whole thing. Maybe a little more information is
needed.
Mrs. Lutcher said that she is in the process of going through and preparing lots of information.
It was her intention to bring that to the board very soon.
Director Leeson asked Mrs. Lutcher if she could give the breakdown she was just outlining
concerning the information technologies additions in writing.
Mrs. Lutcher replied, ÒAbsolutely.Ó
Director Leeson said she hopes Mrs. Lutcher does not have to archive her 300 junk mails a day.
Director Craig said he had 1400 the other day.
Director Craig referred to page 46 Ð payments to other educational agencies, intersystem payments.
A four percent increase to Bethlehem Area Vo-Tech for our school district is listed. He asked the
directors who are members of the Vo-Tech board if that four percent increase has been passed by
the Vo-Tech board and if the members of that board are in agreement with a four percent increase
to our district.
Director Dexter said that the board passed the increase. It seemed to be a good budget.
Director Craig referred to the bottom of page 46. He noticed that the Lehigh Valley Regional
Charter School has gone up 20 percent, cyber schools 17 percent, 7 percent for private residential
rehabilitative institutions. He asked if those are all normal increases because of more students
being enrolled in these places or if the district is being ripped off again.
Mr. Majewski replied that the private residential rehabilitation institutions fluctuates depending
on the placements of the students. Right now, that needs to be increased. Payments for charter
schools has been accelerating faster than was budgeted. The budget this year is $3,700,000. He
is expecting to spend $4,200,000 or $4,300,000. Because they are adding additional students we
did not anticipate, that budget has been incrementally growing faster than we have been able to
keep up with it. Actual tuition, looking at next year, is probably going to increase for them
about two to three percent. The tuition is based upon our costs. The smallest increasing
component of the charter schools is the tuition calculated based on our per student increase. It
is primarily based upon increases in their enrollment. Even though the cyber school numbers are
not nearly as large as Lehigh Valley Academy, they have been growing, as a percentage, very
rapidly from, just a few years ago, 20 students to 80 students now and growing. Charter schools
are popping up all the time.
Director Craig commented that that number is a little misleading. The difference of 60 students
going to a cyber school doesnÕt mean 60 students left our school district and went to cyber
schools. That could have been private school students, home-students in which case he thinks many
were home-schooled students. Those are not necessarily disenfranchised students that left our
district to go and be cyber chartered.
Mr. Majewski stated that if you look at even the brick and mortar charter schools, many may not
have ever been in the Bethlehem Area School District.
Director Craig referred to page 51 Ð personnel: maintenance and custodial. He remarked that he
has been very involved at Freedom High SchoolÕs new facility because of all the playoffs and being
on the District 11 PIAA committee. He noticed that they were having a tough time keeping up with
keeping the facility spotless. When Freedom High School was expanded, he doesnÕt think much was
done concerning custodial personnel.
Mr. Majewski stated that one additional bargaining unit position was added and, be believes, also
two supplemental positions.
Director Craig said he was told that nobody is covering that area, basically. He has observed it
very carefully. It needs works. He thought it was a matter of manpower and planned to ask about
doing something about that. If it is not a matter of manpower, it does not belong in his
comments. He suggested looking into it.
Mr. Majewski told him that the money and positions are there. If there is a manpower issue, it
may be a temporary vacancy. We need to follow up on it.
Director Leeson stated she knows all of those charter school students were not in the Bethlehem
School District. She asked if, for those who were in our district, any exit interviews are done
and follow-up as to why they have chosen to leave our district and go to an alternate public
school.
Dr. Lewis said he did not know the answer to that.
Director Leeson said that perhaps it could be looked into doing some exit interviews and maybe
getting a report back to the board.
Director Leeson read from the highlights at the front of the budget: ÒFunds totaling $600,000 are
going to be used to upgrade and replace textbooksÓ and says Òin the subjects of mathematics,
reading, language arts, and science.Ó She recalls that we are, basically, reinstituting the
reading program from last year of K-2. If she is correct, the board approved some additional FOSS
kits for science. She asked what the other textbooks are for mathematics and language arts.
Mr. Agretto said he believes that when the ordering is taking place, all of the special education
students are being included in that number as per Claire Hogan in working with the curriculum and
instruction department. Curriculum is being paralleled more than ever in the district for special
education students.
Dr. Lewis asked if any of the elementary principals know about the math and language arts
purchases.
Debbie Roeder replied that it could be listed as language arts because in the reading program
language arts is included Ð reading, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. ItÕs all part of the
reading program.
Director Leeson said to Mrs. Roeder that she believes it is a K-2 program. She thinks that is
usually referred to as a reading program, not a language arts program.
Dr. Lewis stated it is both Ð ELA and reading.
Ms. Roeder stated that language arts is included in the reading program.
Dr. Lewis told Director Leeson administration will get that information to her.
Director Dexter referred to an increase of $300,000 in staffing substitute costs. She asked if we
are expecting an increase in the per diem rate.
Mr. Majewski replied, ÒNo.Ó We are looking at putting money in the budget that is appropriate for
what is being spent. We have been spending approximately $1,400,000. Certain assumptions had
been made about ability to reduce costs of substitutes. However, at this point, it needs to be
funded based upon the spending. It is not an increase in hourly rate or utilization. Basically,
$300,000 would put it at a level where the district has, historically, been spending on
substitutes.
Director Craig commented that one of the big issues the board dealt with concerning substitute
teachers was a benefit given to the professional staff to encourage teachers not to use as many
sick days. They were able to get health care when they retired. He asked if that is having any
effect.
Mr. Gross replied that it probably has had a modicum of effect. The expenditure history shows
2002-03 spending just under $1,000,000 for subs, 2003-04 about same, 2004-05 a little under, and
2005-06 topped $1,000,000 in sub costs. It has been about a million plus since 2005-06.
Director Craig said he thinks the staff is getting younger because of having a lot of retirees. We
are increasingly having a lot of newer teachers in their first five to seven years. It is probably
a lot easier to take a sick day when you are younger because you are so far from retirement and
not thinking in terms of saving those days to use when you do retire and get the benefit.
Mr. Gross said he thinks it is that. Also, Mr. Majewski mentioned earlier that we have had some
catastrophic illnesses over the past two to three years.
Dr. Lewis commented that if you look at the effect of just one of those illnesses, there is a
dramatic impact considering a couple of hundred additional sick leave days for one individual.
Mr. Majewski said that the district attempts to do quite a bit of inservice training for our
teaching staff. If that is done during a school day, that also contributes to substitute needs.
Mr. Gross said that is true, but that has been cut back. During 2005-06 that was substantial.
This year in mid-fall a lot of the school-day training was eliminated.
Director Heske stated conference attendance has always been a controversial issue. He would like
to see a 25 percent reduction in conference attendance costs and what the impact of that would be.
Dr. Lewis said that will be reviewed. On the basis of the current printout, the cost is about
$140,000. While that is not exorbitant in the scope of the total budget, that can be examined if
the board wishes. Many staff development components are tied into curriculum changes that are
embarked on. He would want to give this a really hard look.
Chairperson Koch asked if this is something that will require a great deal of time.
Dr. Lewis explained administration will need to look at every single conference.
Director Dexter said that last year Mr. Majewski prepared a printout for her which included
conference spending for the year. If he could do that for the next budget hearing, the board
could take a look at it from that printout.
Chairperson Koch asked Director Heske if that is what he is essentially looking for.
Director Heske said it was. He is concerned about reductions in the conference budgets because of
the need for continuous training and staff development. Both the funding and related impacts need
to be considered.
Chairperson Koch asked if Mr. Majewski prepares a list similar to last yearÕs, if the board would
not be able to see that in the list.
Mr. Majewski said that the list will be a breakdown by function showing the areas where there is
conference budget. It would not indicate the type of conference but would indicate how many
conferences were related to instruction, to student activities. It is a good starting point.
Chairperson Koch asked Director Heske if that information would meet his request.
Director Heske replied, ÒYes.Ó
Director Leeson, on the subject of conferences, thanked Director Heske. She said she has been
asking for that for the last couple of years. In talking about substitutes, she thinks it should
be understood that substitutes are also part of the cost of conference and travel. Reducing 25
percent of the conferences will also help to reduce some substitute costs.
Director Leeson said, since they are looking at cost-cutting measures, she thinks the board has
already talked about reviewing the Career Academy and conferences. One other area in which costs
have really increased over the last couple years is the cabinet and the cabinet structure. She
wondered if a closer look at the cabinet structure, perhaps in human resources, and see if it is
possible to slim down some of the personnel at that level. The curriculum and instruction office
would be one area. She knows that there will be openings in some administrative positions. She is
not talking about getting rid of anyone, but perhaps making some shifts.
Dr. Lewis explained that that is not a cabinet area.
Director Leeson suggested calling it Òthe Ed Center.Ó She is very concerned looking at a budget
where we will be taking $2,000,000 down to $2,500,000 in fund reserve. That is our rainy day
fund. For a district this size, we are getting dangerously close at $2,500,000. She is very
concerned that we are going into capital reserves to pay our general operating expenses. We need
to start looking at cost-cutting measures. Here are some areas in which she believes we can start
looking at some cost-cutting measures to, perhaps, long term, get into a healthier financial
situation.
Director Williams commented that, as she reads on the front page, this budget is coming in at 2.68
percent. She wondered if instead of taking from the fund balance Director Leeson would prefer
going to a four percent increase like the Vo-Tech budget.
Director Leeson replied that was not what she had in mind. What she had in mind is what she
suggested Ð cost cutting.
Director Craig referred to page 109 Ð staffing guidelines. He stated that these are the ideal
averages we look for at all our schools. These class sizes are what we prefer to stay with. In
reality, class sizes in some places are considerably higher; in some places lower. Some high
school classes have 31, 32, and 33 students. He asked if there is any way to get nonteaching
professional staff who are part of the BEA back in the classroom to help lower some of these class
sizes. An example is three educational support people are in special ed who are not working with
classes, who are working with special ed administrators and helping the special ed leadership,
which he is sure is much needed. But it is three teaching positions, if this is true, is there
any way those folks can be returned to a classroom to help with some class sizes in some of the
special ed classes? There are a couple others Ð literacy coaches, math coaches, welcome classroom
personnel. Those are people who are factored in as part of the bargaining unit. When he was
teaching, a lot of times they would take the population of a school; for example, a school
population of 2,000 having 100 professional staff, divide 100 into 2000 and say there are 20
students per class. There was a nurse, an athletic director, some helping in another area, so
that in reality positions were factored in that were not teaching positions although part of the
professional staff. He is not trying to embarrass anybody, just trying to find ways to get class
sizes down.
Dr. Lewis told Director Craig he is not embarrassing anybody. Our class sizes are calculated on
individuals in the classrooms. For example, there are x number of sections of English being
taught at Liberty High School. Those class sizes and those staff members are equated into the
ratio. Nurses and athletic directors and others in the union are not included. He has directed
Mr. Gross to identify those higher sections. He has a book with all sorts of notes, the course
selection guide of courses which he wanted that typically have had large class sizes and those
that have had very small class sizes and that the high school principals, where this issue is
predominantly, adjust and balance those schedules. We will see what that looks like now that we
have some student schedules to look at actual numbers.
Dr. Lewis addressed Director CraigÕs question. The educational consultants in special education,
for example, the math support people, reading specialists, all those positions are critical
positions. Administration is currently examining reading recovery, a program that is very costly
and very staff intensive. While it has a very high success rate, it is also a one-to-one program.
A study is being conducted on a three-to-one ratio with NYU. He would be very hesitant in a time
of high need for at-risk students to be pulling out our support positions.
Director Craig told Dr. Lewis he agrees. If that is the case, and there are some classes in some
secondary schools with 30, 31, 32, and 33 students; we need to hire some more teachers.
Dr. Lewis commented, ÒYes and no.Ó He has a difficult time supporting elective classes with 8,
12, 14 students year in and year out. He is not criticizing the fact that we offer electives; it
is wonderful. But he canÕt justify inordinate low class sizes in those areas and extremely high
class sizes in the core subject areas. That is what he has asked Mr. Gross and the high school
principals to address. We will try to do this through attrition. Some moves have been made
already.
Director Craig commented, as a former teacher, when sitting in a classroom and teaching general
math and having 34 students and he has a friend teaching geometry down the hall who is teaching a
class of 15, that is hard to stomach knowing the kinds of students he has in that general math
class. The only answer he sees to that is to add more help. He brought all this up just to bring
that to the table.
Dr. Lewis stated that he does not disagree.
Director Craig said it has to be done, somehow.
Director Dexter said she realizes that they are offering, for example, statistics at both high
schools. Sometimes the enrollment for statistics is not at an average class size. She asked if
that is the kind of course that would be deleted or if it would be more like jewelry making.
Dr. Lewis replied, ÒYes.Ó Supposing there was enrollment of six and four, ten is a reasonable
class size, so it could be taught at one campus or the other. Look at offering that elective, not
eliminating it.
Director Craig suggested distance learning between schools.
Dr. Lewis commented he gets in trouble when he says this. Art teachers call him the next day.
That is not his intention. He uses the example that we are not being judged on the quality our
ceramic ashtrays. But he canÕt justify 15 students in that ceramics class and 31 in an English
class. HeÕll teach ceramics, but we want more students in there and, therefore, less overall
sections offered so when that art teacher retires, we replace that art teacher with a core subject
teacher or part of a core subject area teacher. Mr. Gross has done that in both high schools.
Director Dexter commented that we must be careful to get that message out to the schools and
students so that, if mistakes are made in what is deleted, people understand that the purpose is
to really eliminate electives that donÕt have the strongest significance. Her daughter finished
calculus in her first semester of tenth grade and needed another credit or two of math to graduate
from high school. So, she asked for statistics and was informed that statistics will be
eliminated because only eight students signed up. This was in 2000. They wanted to require her
to take the business house math which was learning how to run your checkbook and that type of
thing in order to get her math credit. She already had 800 on her SATs in math and needed
something stimulating. Director Dexter said she had to fight for that. She does not want to hear
of that sort of thing going on in our schools.
Dr. Lewis offered reassurance that if there is a singleton out there, that will fly. What he is
talking about is three or four sections of an elective subscribed very lightly in each of the
sections would be consolidated.
Director Dexter said she understands that. She wants to make sure our message is very clear to
the schools. Her concern was straightened out. Lots of people donÕt know the channels to do
that. She does not want that kind of mistake.
Director Craig commented that these real class sizes are something he will be watching. He
re-emphasized that we must keep an eye on those real class sizes and do something about that.
Mr. Gross requested permission to make a statement. The misnomer of eliminating or deleting
nonacademic electives is, in fact, just that Ð a misnomer. This year they were able to combine
sections. Based upon student enrollment, they were able to acquire parts of teachers to make sure
the core courses, particularly language arts, ELA, and math class size ratios are well within the
guidelines. There is caution that in August, typically there will be a ground swell of enrollees.
They left a bit of room. Literally, courses were not eliminated that were enrolled with eight or
above. It was possible to retain and still do what was needed to be done. However, those are
being looked at with a much more cautious eye. It is important for our fine and practical arts
teachers to realize that administration is not looking to chop nonacademic electives. We are
trying to condense where possible.
Director Dexter referred to page four Ð classrooms for the future and questioned a $415,146 new
line. She understands the state has provided some new funds. She asked what this fund will be
used for.
Dr. Lewis stated that is contingent on the governorÕs budget being passed.
Mrs. Lutcher explained that we do not know how much the district will be getting in the 2007-08
budget. That will be used specifically for high school smart classrooms for the core subject
areas Ð mathematics, language arts, science, social studies, and associated staff development.
Smart classroom consists of a smartboard, a computer cart, 30 computers, computer for the teacher,
speakers, projector, printer, still digital camera, and a camcorder.
Director Dexter asked how many classrooms could be equipped with this $415,000.
Mrs. Lutcher replied if the district gets $415,000 nine classrooms could be equipped. At MondayÕs
board meeting, the board granted approval to apply. They are applying for $6,910,000.
Director Dexter asked about Tutoring in Pennsylvania. From time to time she has asked how we are
doing on spending our tutoring money. The last report showed we are doing very well in
elementary, a little less well but pretty good at middle, and horrible at the high school level.
She asked if anything has changed. She asked if this money could be used to develop a test
preparation course for high school students. The kind of test preparation relevant to most high
school students is SAT prep. Maybe PSSA and SAT have some overlap in content area. She asked if
test prep courses could be offered at times that would be attractive to students. She knows we
have SAT prep during the academic day, but is told enrollment is not that great. A lot of the
students who would be included to take SAT prep from an outside service are band and orchestra
members who donÕt have elective time in their schedule. The question is can this money be used to
develop after-school tutoring that would be called SAT prep. Could students report on Monday,
Wednesday, and Saturday to have their SAT prep with that tutoring money? She thinks their PSSAs
might benefit, too.
Dr. Lewis said he will defer to Mrs. Cintr—n on the first question. On the second question, you
canÕt call it an SAT tutor and use TIP money but you could call it passive tutoring; tutor algebra
and algebra 2.
Director Dexter stated that Director Leeson has just told her that it must be used only for basic
and below basic students. She asked if that is correct.
Mrs. Cintr—n said that is correct. She is correct about the expenditures; however, she thinks she
will see a difference in the spreadsheets that will be forthcoming for the last two months. Both
high schools gave a greater emphasis to tutoring in the second semester. That is not reflected
because it is always one month behind on payroll. The upcoming reports will show that more money
has been spent at the high schools than in the past.
Director Dexter asked if there are any tutoring funds from grants that could be used for SAT test
prep that would not be restricted to basic and below basic students.
Mrs. Cintr—n replied that she is currently working on that. There are some tutoring funds in
other grants. However, she thinks the only one that is unrestricted right now is ASPIRE Tutoring
Funds, 21st Century. The rest fall under the same guidelines because they are funded by the same
people. All tutoring is coming under the same umbrella at PDE. Even though under the 21st
Century funding or ASPIRE, that tutoring is not restricted, she anticipates that it will be for
2007-08 because of the trends she is seeing with the other grants. Another fact is that the
ASPIRE funding is only for our ASPIRE schools so that does not apply to our high schools.
Director Dexter stated that we have some general fund tutoring allocations. If there is ASPIRE
money and Tutoring in Pennsylvania money that is restricted to certain students, she asked if,
with the high school principals, it could be explored whether an SAT prep course scheduled in
evenings, weekends, or summer would be something that could be floated as a course offering, be
promoted, and see what the sign-ups are. She knows people that are paying $1200 for prep courses.
Maybe we can get into a contract with some of the people in the community who offer those and do
them at our high schools. She is thinking some of our scores will go up if we get the students
prepared. We need to look at our SAT average scores, not just PSSA. But PSSA scores should bump
up. More students should get into advanced, more from basic into the proficient level. She is
sure there would be some interest in that, if it is properly promoted.
Dr. Lewis said that he and Mr. Villani had that conversation yesterday. He thinks she suggested
the summer physical ed. He talked to him about an SAT prep and looking at perhaps one or two of
the core subject areas in a paid situation so, if a parent wants to send a child to an SAT prep,
they would pay that. He is meeting with Mr. Majewski to calculate average class size and how to
cover the payment to an instructor so that these would be budget neutral.
Director Williams asked if there were people in the audience who are not school district
employees, not press, not school board candidates, but just interested members of the public. She
requested a show of hands. (No such persons were in the audience.)
Director Dexter said her final question on page four concerns a $373,540 reduction of federal
money. She asked if there is anything that can be done, as a district, to obtain more federal
aid. She asked if we have been denied grants due to noncompliance with some federal regulations
or if there is just not that much federal money out there.
Dr. Lewis said he is most proud of Iris Cintr—n and her entire department. They donÕt miss a
deadline. He recalls her tracking him down at his fatherÕs apartment to get a signature one
Friday night because she needed to get it in the mail. She is extremely diligent. The grants the
board is looking at are grants that have run their course. One he has been trying to figure out
why it keeps getting softer is Safe and Drug Free Schools. The other one is Title II Part D Ð the
technology piece, also a reduction that was not anticipated. There was also the reduction in LEP
money.
Mrs. Cintr—n said the problem is that when budget is prepared, they can only go on the information
they have at the time. For example, she just returned from the federal program coordinators
conference where she learned, even though the district anticipated no additional funds in Safe and
Drug Free Schools, that there is a great possibility that those funds are going to be reinstated
at the federal level because of recent developments. The district was in the last years of some
of these grants and, therefore, did not put them in this budget. It is anticipated that new
grants will be applied for that are not there because they came after these budget pages were
prepared, such as Pennsylvania PreK Counts, a different kind of grant. She thinks it will grow.
Caution is taken not to put things in when funding is not certain.
Mr. Majewski pointed out that one of the categories on the monthly school board meeting agendas is
the federal, state, and local budget update. As monies come in or we are not getting funded for
things as may have been anticipated, the board is being made aware so that it can see the
successful grants that may have not been anticipated or reductions. Administration tries to
communicate that on a monthly basis.
Director Craig announced that this is his last question. Page 58 shows an increase of $96,000 for
resource officers. He wondered why there is such a large increase if we are not expanding the
number of officers.
Mr. Majewski replied that other than the raises of the existing officers, there were two positions
that crept up. Liberty High SchoolÕs resource officer was not part of the general operating
budget. There was some grant monies. However, this is a significant cost that was added. That
alone is almost $60,000. The 50 percent of the Career Academy school resource officer would add
approximately $22,000 to $23,000.
Director Craig said this is a point that has been driven and mentioned many times. He sees when
we get these kinds of things from grants and help for different programs, when they run out, they
were very worthwhile. Here is an example of one. We need to be very cognizant of that when
building a budget in the future and when programs are approved, that we may end up paying the
costs after the grant runs out.
Director Leeson referred to page 71 Ð secondary summer school shows a fairly large increase. She
noted in the budget update that $56,000 was budgeted but that was overspent by $142,000.
Mr. Majewski said that there is an advantage and disadvantage to having an earlier budget period
as well as a second. If you have to depend on the accuracy of the numbers for a budget you are
building in December, the trend is not very good. The fact of being forced to look at all of
these budgets twice a year means that everyone gets another opportunity to get scrutinized. It is
not that it has grown. It has been at that level. Because it was generating revenue, the cabinet
person who is responsible for that was saying we were at least breaking even. However, Mr.
Majewski pointed out that because the state requires the district to not spend more than the
budget, in total, that we needed to have a budget that reflected the actual spending. It is an
increase but not because the program is being expanded. It is because the budget is now coming up
to what historical spending was.
Director Leeson referred to page 27 Ð field trips, under curriculum enrichment. She asked if the
field trip policy has changed for the upcoming year.
Dr. Lewis replied that a pretty straight line on that has been maintained. This covers field
trips that are in the curriculum as required trips. There is probably just a little bit of wiggle
room for special events that principals might request. In discussion with some parent groups, it
was noted that because of the increasing cost of transportation and difficulty of acquiring
drivers many times, those special events might be tightened up a little bit.
Director Leeson asked if this includes the Six Flags field trip for the high school.
No one was able to answer. Dr. Lewis remarked that she sort of got him on this question.
Director Leeson commented that not everything is exactly curriculum oriented.
Director Craig said he remembers taking students to the Philadelphia Zoo in 1969 and a PhillyÕs
game.
Director Leeson asked what the criteria are for homebound instruction.
Dr. Lewis replied that there are two sets of criteria.
Mr. Washington explained that one is when a child canÕt come to school for medical reasons. A
second is when a child, for whatever reason, is waiting for an expulsion hearing and the district
has deemed that child to be too dangerous to be in school or a habitual offender who just wonÕt
stop, having reached the sixth suspension, waiting for their hearing, and continuing to be a
disruption to the environment.
Director Leeson stated, from expulsion hearings, they have seen some children with singular
incidents and some that, by the time the expulsion hearing is concluded, really are not having a
major problem. Yet, they have been on homebound instruction. She asked how a child is determined
to be dangerous.
Mr. Washington replied that it is conversation with the principals to try to determine if the
child will continue to be a disruption to the learning environment Ð depending on the seriousness
of the infraction, the history of the child, and the level of disrespect to adults in the
building.
Director Leeson suggested, perhaps, using our behavior analyst to assess some of these children,
as well. We might be able to bring down some of our costs in the homebound instruction area.
Chairperson Koch stated that she and Director Leeson do a lot of expulsion hearings together. That
has come up many times. There is a very special group of instructors who go to the homes of these
dangerous children. A brand new teacher is not sent out to something they are not prepared to
handle.
Mr. Washington stated that when they feel the child is completely dangerous, arrangements are made
for the child to meet in public, sometimes at a library. The teacher is not permitted to go into
the home unless there is a parent or other adult present.
Director Leeson referred to page 29 Ð debt service, other professional services Ð the line item is
going up considerably to $729,000. She asked what the other professional services are for the
debt service.
Mr. Majewski replied that the other professional services are the fees for the liquidity and
remarketing.
Director Leeson asked if he was referring to the bonds.
Mr. Majewski replied that she was correct.
Director Leeson asked if this was the refinancing of the bonds.
Mr. Majewski replied that with refinancing of the bonds, the financing method used employs a
requirement that the district have a remarketing of these bonds constantly because it is a
variable as opposed to the fixed rate bond and needs to be continually placed in the market to
accomplish the synthetic fixed rate cost applied to the school district. It has been found that
the overall cost of the way we have refinanced the bonds compared to traditional, where there
might be a higher interest rate, still provides lower overall costs. However, it is structured
differently, so the costs need to be shown because it is no longer under interest or principle.
Director Leeson asked for clarification. She asked if the district has ongoing service fees for
these bonds.
Mr. Majewski said that is correct.
Director Leeson questioned that instead of a once and done fee, the district has ongoing fees for
these bonds, to the tune of $729,000 a year.
Mr. Majewski stated it is a percentage of the outstanding balance. As the bond is paid off, it
becomes a percentage of a lower amount, but it is ongoing.
Director Dexter, on the issue of the bond fees, asked if attempts were made to negotiate those
fees downward.
Mr. Majewski explained that if the district would refinance the outstanding debt, there would no
longer be any issue because that would be the fees that are put into another bond issue. There
would not be a liquidity issue anymore, nor a need for remarketing. So the fees would go away.
The district would need to refinance those bonds in order to be able to have those disappear.
Director Leeson asked if there is a way to refinance without this kind of fee and if, overall, it
would be to the districtÕs benefit to refinance without using the middleman.
Mr. Majewski replied that the only other opportunity for financing is the traditional bond. You
donÕt have those type of fees but other costs are involved. You pay it all up front and pay
interest on the amount because you must finance that additional amount. If you were financing,
you would spend $800,000 in payments to the people who are selling the bonds. You need to
increase the amount of financing to pay for that. You are paying that off with payments but also
paying interest on the amount you are paying up front. ItÕs either pay it up front or over the
life of the outstanding issue. When administration makes a recommendation to the board, they look
at the current market conditions and try to determine, not just for the moment in time but overall
costs, what is going to be in the best interests of the school district. He monitors the market
on an ongoing basis for taking advantage of opportunities. Right now, it is not there.
Chairperson Koch remarked that the directors agreed at the beginning of the meeting to end at nine
oÕclock. She will allow about ten minutes more for questions to be followed by courtesy of the
floor.
Director Leeson requested a list of all lawsuits that are pending against the district for which
it has any financial exposure including any special education cases. On the list, she would like
to know if there is a deductible on the insurance and, if so, whether is has been paid or is
pending.
Mr. Majewski explained that assembling the information may take more time than the next meeting.
He will need to go to all the attorneys who are involved and get their assessments.
Director Leeson said she is not asking for the assessment of it, just the deductible.
Mr. Majewski pointed out that she wanted information to include financial exposure.
Director Leeson replied that he can tell whether the district has potential financial exposure, if
someone is suing for money, whether or not a judgment has been entered.
Director Leeson referred to page 108 Ð student allocation. She did not see any indication of RASA
or Career Academy receiving a student allocation. She asked if those schools get the student
allocation or if it goes to the studentsÕ home school. If it goes to the home school, she asked
if it is prorated by month or for the whole year.
Mr. Majewski replied that those students are tracked in the system based upon their home school.
RASA and the Career Academy are considered to be programs. The home school needs to be
identified. The calculation is based upon the student at a specific school under student
allocation. Funding for those students, once they are identified, would be transferred to the
program, itself.
Director Leeson asked if a Calypso student goes to RASA, if RASA or Calypso gets the money.
Mr. Majewski said there are two parts. The money is identified as going to Calypso. In reality,
it will be funneled to RASA.
Director Leeson stated that, at one point, the Career Academy told her that they did not have a
building allocation. She is not sure if the principal was not aware that there was one or if the
process had not been implemented to inform them.
Mr. Majewski stated that the principal, at the time, did not have any understanding about
budgeting.
Director Leeson commented that in a normal situation, the principal does not have to come to
administration saying he would like to have a speaker and request to spend $200 for that. She
asked if Career Academy has different rules.
Mr. Majewski replied that Career Academy does not have different rules. Monies are being put
aside. It was a principal issue at the time, not a budgeting issue.
Director Leeson questioned that the principal has that discretion.
Mr. Majewski replied that she does.
Director Leeson said that she sees zero under reserve for encumbrances. She understands that we
stopped buying early and asked if that is the reason for the zero.
Mr. Majewski replied that that is why it was removed. The hope was that because there was an
earlier cut off of purchase orders, all goods would be received by June 30.
Director Leeson referred to page 15 Ð assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction.
Professional educational services is shown at $52,000. She asked what it is.
Dr. Lewis replied that the largest piece of it is curriculum writing that occurs within the
district.
Director Leeson remarked that she thought there was another area for curriculum writing.
Mr. Majewski explained that there may be curriculum monies that are being used in some other
budget. This is the funding Mr. Villani would have for curriculum writing.
Director Leeson commented that it sounded like something the distinguished educators would
probably cover.
Dr. Lewis stated that is a different category.
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS
The following person addressed the Board of School Directors.
1. Irene Follweiler, 2222 Main Street, Bethlehem, remarked that she made the same observation
that Director Williams had made about the folks in the audience. This is her first meeting
and she has found it extremely interesting and informative. It is a shame that more of the
public does not attend. She can assume there are two possible reasons Ð apathy or awareness.
She will try to think that there isnÕt as much apathy but lack of awareness. She finds the
web site fantastic and easy for finding meetings. Perhaps some of the monies allocated
towards public relation could help to advertise the type of meeting more often.
Ms. Follweiler thanked Director Craig for the fabulous page numbering system.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD
After it was ascertained that no one else wanted to speak under courtesy of the floor, Chairperson
Koch again opened the meeting to board members.
Director Leeson said that page 3 shows that the department of instruction is the curriculum
development employee compensation. Therefore, she assumed that is where curriculum writing costs
were budgeted.
Director Craig pointed out to Dr. Lewis that also under assistant superintendent for curriculum
and instruction it says consulting for curricular initiative. Perhaps that is money to develop
the ideas and then the other area covers the actual writing.
Dr. Lewis said that the descriptors that are included in Mr. MajewskiÕs line cover all codes
listed under DT.
Director Leeson said it can be checked for the next time.
Mr. Majewski told Director Leeson she may be correct. He is taking a look at it and will check
with Mr. Villani. Some of that may be for consulting which is related to the curriculum
development.
Director Leeson said she has no more questions except for the administration. She is asking that
it find a way to add the rifle team and accommodate Director HeskeÕs concern about conference
spending. Perhaps conference spending can be cut by a fourth and the rifle teams added with the
savings.
Chairperson Koch asked if she wanted to poll the board about doing so.
Director Leeson said it can be proposed and decided at the next meeting when more directors are
present.
Director Craig said it has merit. He doesnÕt want to cut things out that students participate in
if it is feasible. He believes the board should have the input of the athletic directors who are
responsible to find out if it is feasible to still include.
Director Leeson said she likes that idea.
Chairperson Koch said she is noticing that this year no one is speaking from the rifle teams.
Director Leeson commented that they did come to the board at the earlier round of budget hearings.
Director Leeson proposed that the board look at some of the other programs and some additional
cuts at the next budget hearing in May after reviewing some of the programs they agreed to review.
Director Craig commented that that is what they normally do.
Director Leeson explained that they had asked to look at Career Academy and at ways of cost
cutting. She is suggesting that be looked at first and then propose cuts for the next meeting.
Chairperson Koch commented that this, then, is getting off into debate.
Director Craig said he is not debating.
Chairperson Koch told Director Craig he is out of order.
Director Craig said when he talked about the Career Academy he suggested talking about it at the
next committee meeting which would fit very nicely with the next budget meeting so that the board
would have input at the committee meeting, then come to the budget hearing, maybe, with some
recommendations or discussion from the board. That would solve what Director Leeson is looking to
do.
Director Leeson said that is exactly what she was suggesting, along with looking at cabinet or
Education Center restructuring, and some other programs.
Director Craig thanked the board for being so congenial tonight. Seriously, it was one of the
better budget hearings he attended in ten years.
ADJOURNMENT
Directors Leeson and Craig moved to adjourn the meeting which carried by voice vote. The meeting
adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Attest,
Stanley J. Majewski, Jr.
Board Secretary
:mg