Budget Hearing - May 14, 2007
Minutes
BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING AND SPRING BUDGET HEARING #2
MAY 14, 2007
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING AND SPRING BUDGET HEARING #2
The second spring 2007-2008 budget hearing of the Board of School Directors of the Bethlehem Area
School District was held on Monday, May 14, 2007, beginning at 8:03 p.m., in the Auditorium of
East Hills Middle School, 2005 Chester Road, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Members present: Directors Amato, Craig, Dexter, Haytmanek, Heske, Leeson, Rowe, and Koch - 8.
Members absent: Director Williams Š 1.
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.
Chairperson Koch chaired the meeting.
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. The following persons addressed the Board of School Directors:
1. Charlene Sullivan, 3775 Barlow Place, Bethlehem, parent of three children in the Bethlehem
Area School District, urged the board and administration to keep the drivers education program
in the budget. The statistics regarding teenage crashes are staggering. Car crashes continue
to rank as the leading cause of death in teenagers ages 15 to 19. From 2001 to 2005, 65
teenagers were killed in the Lehigh Valley alone. As all know just from reading the paper
every day, those numbers keep going up. The importance of drivers education should not need
to be debated every year. It should be earmarked in the budget to assure its continuity. It
is the school districtÕs obligation to the taxpaying citizens of Bethlehem to provide every
student who is interested in taking drivers education the opportunity to do so. Drivers
education is a matter of public safety and should not be negotiated. Cutting the program
could save $80,000. Her sonÕs life is priceless.
Director Amato stated he will stay until nine oÕclock. He had bilateral knee surgery and cannot
sit for a three-hour period.
Chairperson Koch commented that she hopes the rest of the board will be inclined to stop the
meeting around that time.
TAX EXONERATIONS
Mr. Majewski stated he received two tax exoneration requests he would like to have placed on the
May 21 agenda. One is from the Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical School. Vo-Tech purchased
property about a year ago. Even though they are a tax exempt organization, initially, the
property is placed on the rolls as taxable property. They are required to file an appeal to have
that status changed. However, because of the timing, the property was still considered to be
taxable at the time bills were generated from the Bethlehem Area School District and they received
a real estate tax bill. Subsequently, they have requested because they are tax exempt that the
board take action to exonerate the school from payment of the 2006-2007 real estate taxes. The
other exoneration matter refers to the trailer park that was on Freemansburg Avenue. Those
trailers have been removed. There were units having delinquent real estate taxes in past years.
Northampton County has contacted the district requesting the board to consider exonerating the
delinquent real estate taxes on those properties because they have no recourse. There is no
property there to sell under sheriffÕs sale. In order to be able to remove their requirement to
try to collect this delinquent tax, the county has requested that they be exonerated to be
removed. They can, then, take that off their books. These items will be placed on the May 21,
2007, regular meeting agenda for board action.
Chairperson Koch announced that the board is ready to start the budget hearing.
DR. LEWIS
Dr. Lewis stated that the administration provided information as requested at the prior budget
hearing. Mr. Majewski, Mr. Gilliland, Mr. Villani, Mr. Washington, Mrs. Lutcher and he put
together information on several items.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD
Director Leeson said she thought the board was going to receive a breakdown of the contingency
from the superintendentÕs office. She does not recall seeing it. Mr. Majewski told Director
Leeson she is correct. He will have that put together this week and make sure it is included in
the boardÕs packet.
Director Dexter questioned receiving payment for legal matters. She did not see finance or bond
fees that were paid to attorneys.
Director Dexter stated she sees fairly large numbers for student expulsions and special education
matters totaling over $100,000 in legal fees. She said she wonders if the time has come for us to
consider having a staff attorney to handle such matters as student expulsions.
Director Dexter asked why finance and bond fees are not listed as attorney fees.
Mr. Majewski replied that the fees do not appear there because the school district has not paid
any finance or bond counsel fees directly with any taxpayer dollars or check from the Bethlehem
Area School District.
Director Leeson asked what the district paid those with.
Mr. Majewski replied those were not paid with anything. With the refinancing, if there was any
payment to counsel, it was the responsibility of the counterparty to make those payments.
Therefore, there was no payment made by the school district. In the financing arrangement used
recently with firms such as Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan, the company who was responsible for that
financing at the time made those payments directly. That would have been negotiated with the
counsel. The district was really removed from that process.
Director Dexter remarked that it looks like the district paid $70,321 up until now on student
expulsions. Many more expulsion hearings are coming. It is very common in the legal profession
to develop specialty areas for such matters as that, maybe not necessarily in a school district as
small as ours. We could consider having a staff attorney, at least a part-time position, so that
counsel could be available and the district wouldnÕt be subject to an hourly fee. Perhaps the
hearings could be scheduled on set days of each month to accommodate schedules. She asked if that
is something we might think about.
Dr. Lewis replied that he would like an opportunity to review that with Mr. Majewski and Mr.
Washington. Ours is the sixth largest district in the state. The districts of Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, and possibly Scranton are now employing in-house attorneys for certain things.
ScrantonÕs is not on a full-time basis. Philadelphia has three. Administration will look into
it.
Director Dexter stated that some districts as small as ours and sometimes even smaller have
employed part-time positions where the district is not necessarily even obligated to pay benefits
or retirement but sometimes private contract. You pay a set amount. Then that attorney is
available certain days of the week or a certain number of hours per month. It is often a cost
savings. Some other schools districts the same size as ours are exploring it.
Director Leeson said she supports the idea of looking at the attorney fees and, perhaps, coming up
with some creative ways approaching. She supports Director DexterÕs suggestion as one
alternative. She would also like to see if the district could put out requests for proposals from
attorneys and ask for their creative ways of addressing some of our standard issues such as
expulsions. They may be able to give some creative alternatives that would be less expensive than
what we currently have.
Mr. Majewski asked for clarification. He asked about her suggestion to put out requests for
proposals.
Director Leeson said she thinks this is probably something to be set aside for discussion at
another meeting. She agrees with Director Dexter, seeing the $70,000 attorney fees for
expulsions, and thinks it is possible that the district could have an attorney that just did the
expulsions, using local counsel that might be willing to either do a part-time or per-expulsion
plan. They might be more creative than she is in coming up with a proposal. She suggested the
board might look at this as an issue and discuss it.
Chairperson Koch asked if this is a topic for which they should get a board consensus.
Dr. Lewis stated administration has no problem looking for some options in these areas. He
pointed out that anything the district seeks from attorneys relative, for example, to student
expulsions will contain an hourly rate for some of the extended proceedings that the district gets
involved in; i.e., challenges, special ed manifestation, determination, contacts that are required
when a student also has counsel. Administration will look into it if that is the will of the
board.
Chairperson Koch remarked that this would require some specialized training for the kind of
expulsion hearings the district has. We are dealing with special education issues.
Dr. Lewis stated that a lot of the times these are intertwined. There was a case today that he
met with Mr. Agretto, Therese Myers, and counsel where it didnÕt hurt that we had a law firm that
did our expulsions and also a division of that law firm that did the special ed law.
Mr. Agretto said that many times dealings with families do not start out requiring counsel but
evolve into a legal issue. This year, more than any other year, there has been a lot of that. A
child is in regular education where the special education flag has been waved or depression or
something else that may be associated to a mental health illness was brought into the discussion
after the fact. We have been ordered to do some things because of that. That, therefore, has
brought in our special piece to many of the due process hearings this year, especially at the high
school level. The district has seen an increase in that area.
Chairperson Koch polled the board asking if the directors desire to look further into alternatives
for handling legal fees. Director Amato was the only director not in favor of pursuing the
matter.
Comments during the polling were:
- Director Amato commented that the district already has had counsel. He asked why we donÕt tell
them if we think they charging us too much, we will go out and look for others.
- Director Craig commented that we must be careful. If the point is reached deciding we want to
do something like this, we may get into situations of getting someone who is going to handle an
expulsion hearing and all of a sudden it becomes contentious with special ed problems. All of a
sudden we have an attorney who isnÕt prepared to handle all those kinds of contingencies. Even
though it may sound like we can save some money in some areas, it can also burn us. We must be
very careful. He thinks it is worth looking into.
- President Haytmanek said he agrees with Director Craig. Attorneys love to talk about conflict.
He hopes we donÕt run into conflict with this. It doesnÕt hurt to explore the issue.
- Chairperson Koch said she agrees that it deserves an opportunity to look into it further. She
is not ready, by any means, to throw out our present attorneys. If means can be found of cutting
costs, that might be worth looking into.
Director Leeson said that they talked about adding guidance counselors. She thinks they received
a note about where the counselors are going. She asked for a review of the guidance counselor
placements.
Mr. Washington stated that of the four guidance counselors budgeted 1.5 will be at the high school
level, one at Liberty for grade 11 and the .5 rounding out the at-risk counselor at Freedom. The
ratios at Nitschmann and East Hills Middle Schools will be evaluated for assignment of one
counselor. The elementary level would gain 1.5 counselors for schools such as Hanover and James
Buchanan where there is one counselor, but when you combine them, they are handling a ratio of 500
students.
Director Leeson asked if all schools have one counselor to 500 students.
Mr. Washington replied that only some of the schools have such ratios. Governor Wolf has a ratio
of about one to 450 students.
Director Leeson said she sees the need for guidance counselors more significantly at the high
school level right now, even getting into some of our specialty areas. She understands the need
when there are 500 students and she can see adding a half a person at that level. She thinks the
most significant and major problems need to be addressed which are at the high school level. She
doesnÕt disagree with putting counselors at the middle and elementary level. If we only have four
counselors, she would like to see more of those resources going to the high schools.
Director Craig recommended increasing the guidance counselors by two added at the high schools. If
we truly think it is that important, costing about $128,000, maybe it is worth spending.
Director Leeson asked Director Craig where he would cut.
Director Craig said he does not know that he would. He might go from a 2.68 percent mill increase
to 2.7.
Dr. Lewis clarified that adding two counselors would cost about $110,000.
Director Craig asked Mr. Majewski how much of a percentage increase that would result in. No time
was provided for a response.
Chairperson Koch commented that the test will be, if this is added in, when the board votes, who
will actually vote for it.
Director Craig said he understands.
Dr. Lewis stated that Director Craig is talking about four hundredths of a mill. There may be
some other adjustments by the time of a final vote.
Director Craig said that is great. If those can be reduced and add two guidance counselors, he
thinks that is the best thing the district can do.
Dr. Lewis stated, if it is the will of the board, administration has no trouble in adding those
counselors and directing those to the secondary schools. For tonightÕs purpose, administration
will probably not adjust on the expenditures.
Director Craig said he is prepared to recommend it at the budget meeting when the board adopts the
budget, if he needs to.
Dr. Lewis stated that if Chairperson Koch gets a consensus, administration will make that
adjustment and bring it forward.
Chairperson Koch polled the directorsÕ desire to add two additional guidance counselors at the
secondary level. The board agreed to include the two positions in the budget.
Comments during the polling were:
- Director Leeson stated that she would like those two guidance counselors to be the specialists.
- Director Craig stated that when he said add two guidance counselors, he had not thought what
building they would be in, what room they would be in, and what their specific job would be. The
idea of the special guidance counselors was talked about.
Dr. Lewis said there is an opportunity to work through that.
Director Craig said he thinks it should be kept in mind that that is where he is leaning with it.
Dr. Lewis said administration understands that.
- Director Leeson said she would still like to see some movement, as well. She supports the two
additional positions but would also like to see cuts to accommodate those guidance counselors. Her
priorities are guidance counselors and not other things.
Director Craig asked Director Leeson if administration can make it a wash and keep it at the
present staffing if she is ok with that.
Director Leeson replied that they must go even further. She supports the two.
- Director Dexter said she very much advocates for the addition of two guidance counselors at high
schools. She feels strongly that they should be used as college specialist counselors as
discussed at the last curriculum meeting. She agrees that they need to make some cuts. One thing
suggested by Director Heske at the last meeting is to consider taking 25 percent of the conference
spending. She thinks that is one place to start.
Chairperson Koch commented that for right now the discussion is to center on a consensus of the
additional two guidance counselors.
Director Craig remarked that everyone knows there is a consensus of the board to put driver
education back into the budget. He asked if the $87,000 allocated for driver education is
adequate for every student needing on-the-road training through the IU or if students must be
turned away.
Mr. Majewski replied that he has worked directly with the IU. The budget set at $87,500 was the
number that was placed in there because we have not turned students away. It has been adequate to
pay for those having an interest in driver training.
Director Leeson asked if driver education is being scheduled now or if that is being delayed until
the budget is passed to make sure driver ed is included.
Mr. Villani asked if she means for the classroom training.
Director Leeson explained she was asking if, for next year, students are being scheduled for
driver ed now.
Mr. Villani confirmed that classroom scheduling is being done.
Director Leeson questioned the scheduling of on-the-road training.
Dr. Lewis said that he informed Jackie Walsh at the last SAC meeting that it was recommended for
placement back into the budget. She is pursuing the scheduling.
Director Leeson, regarding textbooks, asked if additional money wasnÕt to be added for the high
school reading program.
Mr. Villani said that it is part of new program in the literacy framework.
Director Leeson stated that they had talked about the need to fully fund this. This funds ninth
and tenth grades. She asked about eleventh and twelfth grades.
Mr. Villani stated that the plan was to follow up with that in the next budget cycle, knowing that
the Macmillan K-2 had to be completed and bringing it in at that cost. Nine and ten will be done
in the coming year; next year the eleventh grade will be involved.
Director Leeson asked if the middle school wasnÕt also kind a little bit of Swiss cheese, having
holes in the middle schools with this program.
Mr. Villani said that the middle schools, presently, are going to be looking at and revising the
eligible content, the anchors. For now, they have the materials. As curriculum is realigned
again, they will be looking at whether or not additional materials need to be purchased for them.
Through some additional funding through EETT, hopefully, Read 180 will be expanded, upgrading to
the Enterprise Systems.
Director Leeson asked if the Holt Rinehart is not Read 180.
Mr. Villani replied that it is not.
Director Leeson said that Read 180 is what she was referencing. She questioned that Mr. Villani
is saying it will not be funded through the budget, at all.
Mr. Villani replied that it is going to be through grant funding. Mrs. Lutcher has secured some
through the EETT. Title funding will also be explored as in the past. It is hoped to support
expansion of that through the funding that has been applied for.
Director Leeson asked, by expansion, what it is hoped to be able to cover next year in the Read
180 program and if the district will be able to fully fund the Read 180 program for the middle
school and the high school next year.
Mr. Villani replied that, again, they could use more site licenses at the high school level for
additional. They want it fully implemented in special education. Our ESL is pretty well funded.
They can always utilize more funding for that. They are trying to look at alternate funding
sources for that rather than the general budget.
Director Leeson asked what it would cost to fully fund the Read 180 program.
Mr. Villani said that they found some additional funding of about $30,000 for the upgrades for
Broughal and Northeast.
Mrs. Lutcher commented that it is not just the software. Computers will be needed to run it.
There are not computers to run the expansion at all of the schools.
Chairperson Koch requested a slight break in board questioning so that administration could
present an item.
MULTIPLE COUNTY REBALANCING REQUIREMENTS
Dr. Lewis told the directors that Mr. Majewski needed to inform them about multiple county
rebalancing requirements of the district. Our neighboring school district to the east had an
issue with that with two different counties: Bucks and Northampton. It is a requirement that Mr.
Majewski explain this in full public view and address this.
Mr. Majewski stated that the Bethlehem Area School District includes five municipalities and both
Lehigh and Northampton Counties. In taking a look at the prescribed calculations when determining
what the appropriate millage rate is by county using the state tax utilization boardÕs
information, as well as the assessed value information coming from both counties, it will appear,
based on his calculation, that when the board approves the budget for 2007-08 there is a
requirement to have a different millage rate for the Northampton County portion of the Bethlehem
Area School District and the Lehigh County portion of the Bethlehem Area School District, even
though both counties have a 50 percent assessed to market value calculation for taxes. The
difference in market values between the counties caused the district to have to recalculate the
amount of taxes to be assessed on a property. If you had a $200,000 home in Northampton County
and $200,000 home in Lehigh County, because the market values in those areas may affect their
values differently, you can take a look at the $200,000 home assessed at $100,000 in Northampton
County and that same home in Lehigh County, because it had, maybe, a change in the market value at
a differing rate, you may find that the taxable assessed value there is going to be the same
$100,000 but it has a value on the market of, maybe, $190,000. So a calculation is needed to try
to more equitably put the tax burden on the taxpayers between the two counties. We were talking
about a .98 mill increase or a 37.56 millage rate. However, what is going to be required with the
multicounty rebalancing would be a millage rate in Northampton County of 37.28 and a millage rate
in Lehigh County of 38.74. That translates into a 1.9 percent increase in Northampton County and a
5.9 percent increase in Lehigh County. This is something the Bethlehem Area School District has
never done. The district is required to do this and will need to implement the different millage
rates by county.
Director Craig asked if that means that Mr. and Mrs. Smith who are going to live in Lehigh County
will be getting a much larger tax increase this coming year than the people in Northampton County.
Mr. Majewski replied that Ņmuch largerÓ is a relative term. He would rather indicate that their
millage rate will be different and higher than in Northampton County.
Director Craig asked what it means in dollars.
Mr. Majewski said that in dollars to people, it varies. It has everything to do with market to
assessed value. Neither county has done a county-wide reassessment since 1991. However, the
market value of their property has increased so, if you were to look at the difference in the same
$100,000 property with an assessed value of $50,000, and since the millage rate difference between
the two would be 1.46, a $73 difference in Lehigh versus Northampton County.
Director Craig commented that if Mr. and Mrs. Jones paid $2,000 in property taxes to the school
district last yearÉ
Mr. Majewski interjected that they would be looking at a 5.9 percent increase.
Director Craig commented that this is not good for people that live in Lehigh County in our school
district.
Director Leeson asked Mr. Majewski how the referendum impacts the situation.
Mr. Majewski said that is why we need to move in this direction. The index ultimately does take a
look at the increases of the millage rates within the county. In order to get the conversion to
where we are, millage rates were converted that are currently being applied to what they should be
this year and then apply the 1.4 percent index to that. They will be under the index. The
maximum millage rate that could be charged based on a 4.1 percent index in Northampton County is
37.80 mills. In Lehigh County the maximum allowable is 39.27 mills, before the district would
need to go to referendum. Instead of going to referendum, what that requires because you canÕt be
in referendum in Lehigh County and not in Northampton, we would need to look at what the dollar
amount is that would be needed to reduce the budget to bring both counties under the index. An
example is the Easton School District. Their issue with Riegelsville had everything to do with
converting over to Act 72 which is now the same type of calculation under Act 1. That is now
affecting our district, as well. They were over by $40,000 in the Riegelsville component. But,
because of the size of Riegelsville to the rest of the budget, they would have had to cut several
hundred thousand dollars out of their budget in order to bring Riegelsville under the index. For
example, if the Lehigh County component of our budget goes over the index, that must be thrown
into the calculation. Lehigh County is about 20 percent of our property. The amount of money you
would need to reduce it is four times larger than just what that Lehigh County component would be.
If we were over by $20,000, it would be a $100,000 reduction in the budget so that both counties
would be reduced. You wouldnÕt be going to referendum, but it would force the district to reduce
the budget and more significantly than just the Lehigh County portion or the Northampton County
portion. It depends on the one that is higher. This could vary from year to year. The Lehigh
County amount could be higher this year. Depending on the information coming from the state tax
equalization board, the following year Northampton County could be a larger increase and Lehigh
County could be a lower increase. In extreme situations, one county could have an increase and
the other county have a decrease depending on the market conditions within those counties compared
to the assessed values. What will really get difficult in that calculation is having one county
that reassesses and that bringing their common level ratio back in line and the other one would
not, you would see a considerable difference in what will happen to the millage rates between the
two counties.
Director Craig said that if this is reality, we better do our best to make sure that this is
understood by everyone who lives in Lehigh County who is within our school district.
Mr. Majewski stated that this is very new in the Bethlehem Area School District. Administration
will do its very best to try to explain it. It is something that is going to be very difficult to
explain to folks because most folks have never heard of a state tax equalization board and what
they do.
Director Craig commented that this is like an unfunded mandate.
Dr. Lewis stated that this disequalization between the two counties occurred over time. They were
so close for so long there was no requirement to delineate. Market values are shifting.
Mr. Majewski said the intent is to try to be fair to the individuals who own property in both
counties. It becomes difficult to accept when you are living in the county that has the higher
increase. It appears to be unfair. When you look long term, if the counties are keeping their
assessed values where they need to be, you find that the difference between the two counties is
going to be negligible or nonexistent.
Director Craig questioned if there is nothing in the law that allows the district to tax both
counties the same even though they are in different counties, as a district. He added that he is
trying to make this clear for our friends in the press so that they understand totally what is
happening. Mr. Majewski stated that the district is bound by law to take a look at the fairness
between the counties.
Mr. Majewski stated there is one other issue that is timely. Tomorrow is May 15 and there is a
ballot question that the voters of many school districts across the commonwealth are going to be
trying to respond to having to do with Act 1 and whether or not there is going to be an increase
in the EIT or PIT and a reduction of real estate tax. Up to this point, estimates were made.
There was no idea of the number of folks that would get homestead or farmstead approvals. That
information is now available. It is subject to change because some are still under review. It is
not going to change much from where it is at right now. Currently in our school district in
Northampton County 20,098 and in Lehigh County 5,333 homesteads have been approved and five
farmsteads in Northampton County. With that information and looking at estimated income that
would be generated from the one percent earned income tax increase in the Bethlehem Area School
District, he will try to refine the numbers. Most of the districts in the area are assuming a
first-year 70 percent collectibility. The reason they are doing that is the first half of the
year is brand new; employers will be struggling to try to come up with a change in time. However,
when individuals file their earned income tax forms in the early part of the year, they will be
caught up for that first year. The second half of the year, you will be getting collections, but
again this has become a nightmare for employers. If there are affirmative votes in some districts
and not in others, even if there are affirmative votes in all districts, as an employer he would
ask what would need to be deducted in earned income tax, because it could range from the usual 1.1
percent now to 1 1/2 percent. The employer will pick a number and let the employees deal with the
difference. So, the collectibility is not going to be 100 percent, especially in the first year.
Many of his colleagues are assuming 70 percent collectibility, one 80 percent. Mr. Majewski said
he is split in the middle and waiting to see what happens. What that means for taxpayers for
dollars and cents and a break-even point: in the first year, if there is an affirmative, we are
looking at a reduction in real estate taxes of anywhere between $589 and $673, more likely
somewhere in between. If a person needs a number to make a decision as to a break-even point, a
household who has earned income of about $64,000 is going to break even. He is anticipating there
will be a real estate tax reduction for the approved homestead/farmsteads of about $640. If you
have income greater, you will pay more taxes. If earned income is less, you will pay less taxes.
If you are a renter, you have no savings.
Director Dexter said that some people brought to her attention from the charts printed in the
newspaper that most other school districts show a greater savings in year two than in year one.
Bethlehem shows a greater year one savings than in year two. She asked if we are using a
different formula when calculating expected savings.
Mr. Majewski replied that we are looking at different assumptions. Early on, he was assuming a
certain number of responses in homesteads/farmsteads. Other school districts were probably
assuming a higher percentage of return. If he had a lower approval rate for homestead/farmstead,
it would create a higher amount in the first year. Mr. Majewski said his assumption is by the
second year more folks who did not respond would apply and that would, therefore, shrink the
amount of savings. He is very pleased with the response received from the community in filling
out the applications and getting them to the counties. That is what has made the difference
between our estimates and what may have been seen in other school districts. Our district, with
the type of response he has seen, is more likely to have an increase in the second year. The
increase in the second year, because there will probably be more approvals, will have everything
to do with employers being on board and a higher level of collectibility so that we will be
getting closer to the 100 percent of the money anticipated.
Director Dexter asked if the break-even income is expected to change in the second year.
Mr. Majewski replied that in the second year he is expecting the break-even point will be slightly
higher than the $64,000 because he is anticipating that employers will get a better feeling for
what they really need to be deducting.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD
President Haytmanek asked if anyone was present who is not a Bethlehem Area School District
employee or with the press. It was confirmed that there was not.
Director Dexter referred to the page in the boardÕs packet about conference breakdown. She
noticed some differences. Building allocations seem to vary widely. NortheastÕs building
allocation for conference spending is $5,000. She saw nothing for Nitschmann, Broughal, East
Hills $1,000. She asked why there is such a wide variety of budgets for the same level of
educational training.
Mr. Majewski replied that those are principal-allocated. They will have a plan in the beginning
of the year of what they anticipate using the money for. Some principals might put larger amounts
into training. The reality for them is when they start seeing the costs in the beginning of the
year, they may hold on those costs and reallocate throughout the year. This is their initial
budget plan.
Director Dexter asked where budgets would be listed, for example, for conferences for science
professional development of teachers Š building allocation or district allocation.
Mr. Villani stated that the ŅScience ItÕs ElementaryÓ handout shows that that funding was all
grant funded. A majority of the funds used for science training was not district allocated funds,
but grant funding. The amounts on top are what principals would allocate. Under the Department
of Instruction there is $8,565. That is a $500 stipend put in for the principals on a yearly
basis to attend conferences if they so choose. Not all do. In addition, in the curriculum
department, there is a $500 stipend put in for staff for the same kinds of conferences. Unless a
principal allocates specific funds to send teachers, there isnÕt a lot in the general funding for
that. A lot of grant funds through Mrs. Cintr—nÕs office support staff development through those
initiatives.
Director Dexter asked if the money where she sees $5,250 for Northeast allocated for conferences
comes out of the building allocation per student fund.
Mr. Villani replied it does not come from their per student fund. Each school gets a budgeted
amount. They take that money from their budgeted school amount and put so much towards the
conferences.
Director Dexter asked where that money comes from.
Dr. Lewis said he believes thatÕs the allocation. He told Mr. Villani and Director Dexter that
they both were talking about the same thing.
Director Dexter stated there is a $92 per student allocation. For example, if you take Calypso,
you would multiply the $92 by the number of students.
Mr. Villani stated that they use that total figure of their budget and will put so much for
conferences.
Director Dexter said that Northeast would have $5,250. Nitschmann and Broughal have zero money.
She asked if anyone in our district is asking Northeast where these people are going, why they are
not traveling under grant funds, and what they are getting, or if it is totally up to the
principal of each building.
Dr. Lewis replied that Mr. Villani screens all conferences. Then, the requests come to his
attention. If the request involves a different division, it could be Mr. Washington, depending on
the actual conference. The conference requests are screened and charted.
Mr. Villani added, for example, Northeast is presently a PDS school involved and will also be
involved in PBIS. There is grant funding for that but some principals will vigorously pursue
specific conferences and staff development opportunities for their staff based on what they might
be doing for their buildings.
Director Leeson asked if the conference allocation includes the substitutes.
Mr. Villani replied that it does not include subs.
Director Dexter said that under superintendent conferences she sees $1,456. She knows the board
has approved more than that in funds that Dr. Lewis can approve without coming to the board of a
$400 limit per conference. She asked where that money is shown on the list.
Dr. Lewis replied that the conferences are either funded from this stream Š for example, if
Freemansburg allocates a thousand but has a $200 non overnight conference, administration would
approve that and it would appear on that list. Likewise, a grant-supported conference of $400
and/or overnight would come to the board for approval.
Director Dexter said she thinks the board has approved way more than $1,456. She is wondering
where that money comes from.
Dr. Lewis replied that it either comes from the conference budget or grants. Those are the only
two sources used for conferences. The board sees all the conference approvals because
administration provides that as a monthly report.
Director Leeson said she had the same question on the superintendentÕs conferences; $1,456 doesnÕt
seem like enough. She thinks the conference spending has been much higher than that.
Dr. Lewis stated that is the amount that is budgeted right now. He believes he was allocated in
the school board segment for this as a tenth member of the board for that particular conference.
ItÕs not much higher than that.
Director Leeson said she noted in the statement of expenditures that $59,447 was actually spent in
2005-06 for conferences and travel under the superintendentÕs office. That is not all Dr. LewisÕ
travel. We have $14,200 budgeted there.
Dr. Lewis stated what falls into that would be all conferences associated with the contractual
obligation of $500 per administrator in that group.
Mr. Majewski stated he will be providing a detail of the superintendentÕs account, as requested by
the board, by the end of this week.
Chairperson Koch said she would like to know what the feeling is of the board. The meeting is
running kind of late because of a late start. An executive session is scheduled for after this
budget hearing. She asked if a time limit should be set so that the board can also go for its
executive session.
Director Heske suggested that on some of these smaller points, if some board members have
questions, they can remain afterwards to discuss this with administration. The discussion is
about a $1,400 item in a budget of over $130,000,000. He does not feel it is worth the boardÕs
time to pry into the last dollar and fifty cents of this business.
Director Craig asked if any other budget hearings are scheduled.
Mr. Majewski stated that on May 21 the district will be required to have tentative approval of the
budget. Approval on this date will allow the school district to fulfill the legally required
public advertising statute. There is no additional budget hearing that has been scheduled. After
the tentative adoption, the next time the board and administration would be reviewing budget would
be for final adoption on June 25.
Director Leeson said she would be just as happy to wrap things up a little bit earlier, but so far
all that has been addressed are questions on the papers the board has received. They have not
really started to talk about the budget itself.
Director Heske said he will guarantee that they wonÕt talk about it until eleven oÕclock tonight.
Director Leeson said she is just pointing out that this is a budget hearing. As a budget hearing,
discussion really hasnÕt gotten to the budget yet.
Chairperson Koch said it does bother her that the meetings get started so late. They seem to keep
putting finance off until nine oÕclock at night. The board will be here until the wee hours of
the morning unless some kind of decision is made to, hopefully, have more opportunity to discuss
this. People still have questions.
Director Leeson stated that the board is supposed to adopt a tentative budget, basically, in one
week. She asked if there was any way to move the tentative budget. She thinks that needs to be
the first question in order to give the board an additional opportunity to discuss the budget.
Dr. Lewis suggested that the board may add another hearing. The board may tentatively adopt and
still conduct a hearing on June 11 at which time it may revise, change, and recommend adjustments
on either side of the budget. That is set for Liberty. A room could be set up that would
accommodate everybody and conduct, as part of the finance committee meeting that evening, a
further budget hearing.
Director Leeson said, since there continues to be problems with the lateness of the evening, that
the budget hearing should take precedence over anything else that evening, if it does the budget
hearing.
Chairperson Koch stated she has requested that occasionally the two committee meetings be
flip-flopped, having the finance committee meeting first.
Dr. Lewis suggested giving the board a quick tour of Liberty and at six oÕclock starting the
finance committee meeting which will incorporate a budget hearing, and, time permitting, deal with
any last minute facility issues. The bulk of the facility work was done this evening with the
summer projects and bid opening.
The board agreed to that schedule.
ADDITIONAL BUDGET HEARING JUNE 11, 2007
Dr. Lewis confirmed that on June 11, 2007, at six oÕclock, a board finance committee meeting will
be held with the primary item being a budget hearing. Immediately following, around seven, the
facilities committee meeting will begin.
COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS
Chairperson Koch stated that open forum is listed on the agenda. She asked that persons try to
hold those comments until June 11, unless it is an absolutely extremely important open forum item.
There were no objections.
ADJOURNMENT
Directors Heske and Craig moved to adjourn the meeting which carried by voice vote. The meeting
adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Attest,
Stanley J. Majewski, Jr.
Board Secretary
:mg