BOE revisits gap-closing info, crowd wants more details

PINE PLAINS — The Pine Plains Board of Education (BOE) met on Wednesday, March 21, at Cold Spring Early Learning Center to further discuss gap - closing strategies for the 2012-13 budget.Superintendent Linda Kaumeyer presented a revised version of her gap-closing strategies PowerPoint presentation as new information had been made available since the original presentation in February.Six teachers will be retiring and only three of those positions will be filled.Kaumeyer wrote in her Superintendent’s Reflections, “these three unfilled positions, together with the savings from replacement of three positions, yield savings of over $430,000.”This was a new assumption of savings that was not in the original presentation in February as only one teacher was known to be retiring.Under the updated assumptions, including the new personnel information, $253,456 is needed in further reductions.Kaumeyer then went section by section to show where each part of the budget could contribute to the reductions.Changes to gap-closing strategiesThe presentation suggests that a total reduction of $97,700 could be cut from administration. This is mainly comprised of a $75,000 savings by creating an acting middle school principal from current staff, if necessary.The only impact listed for this change would be the costs for consultant time for staff observations and evaluations.A total of $115,172 is proposed to be cut from programs, including $25,654 in .5 aide services and $18,830 from the loss of two part-time aides.The impact for both items was listed in the presentation as “coverage absorbed by current staff.”The capital and transportation portion of the budget could be seeing a total reduction of $50,000 broken up into two overarching portions titled “capital and transportation budget reductions” and “transfer to capital,” each contributing $25,000.This was the same number proposed in February.Kaumeyer then presented a summary of the gap-closing strategies which took the total from each category and added them together for a total savings of $698,296.“As you can see, the gap would be completely closed,” she said.Looking aheadKaumeyer then presented early assumptions for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 budgets.“I know it seems like it’s very early for this and we’ve seen a lot of numbers already, but we can look into the future a little and see what we can expect,” she said.Based on current estimates, at least $800,000 in additional reductions will need to be made for 2013-14 as well as for 2014-15.“This will have to happen to maintain the 2 percent tax levy increase,” she said.Kaumeyer also noted that these numbers assume a flat rate for New York state aid and no additional grant funds.Kaumeyer also presented a list of alternative gap-closing strategies to the board.“Some of these were in the February presentation but we’ve been able to take them out with this new information. They are still on the table if the board would like to discuss them further, but with this new proposal they are not needed as they were in February,” she said.The list includes $20,000 saved from the cancellation of the Ashokan trip; $25,000 to reduce the athletic program to the basic program; $25,000 in further reductions in the transfer to capital; .6 full-time employment (FTE) art for $40,360; $12,000 in the elimination of other field trips; and $252,000 to $360,000 by closing Cold Spring Early Education Center; and moving the faculty to Seymour Smith.The issue of closing one of the elementary schools has been heavily discussed at prior meetings, and this was the first time a number was presented to show how much it could save.Kaumeyer did point out that moving would be a huge stress on the faculty.“The have very in-depth reports to do. Packing boxes and moving classrooms would be a huge undertaking on top of the work load they already have,” she said.Kaumeyer also stressed that while the budget could be done without the elimination of any of those items, they weren’t off the table if the board wished to revisit any of those options.“These are all the options you have to look at. As you can see though we’ve taken much of the programming reductions off the table,” she said.Kaumeyer then presented that if the budget is defeated twice and the district is forced to a zero percent tax levy increase, an additional $400,000 in program and personnel cuts would have to be made.Crowd reactions Cold Spring teacher Nelson Zayas spoke up to voice his concerns over the administration’s retirement.“I don’t know if the district has to contribute to an administrative retirement system, but if they do, I would appreciate it if that would be included in that line [of the budget dealing with retirements],” he said.Kaumeyer responded, “There is no separate line for so-called ‘administrative retirement.’ Depending on the administrator in question, each retire under different guidelines and it depends on their particular position.”The next person to speak was local resident Kate Osofsky who inquired about screenings for kindergartners.“Are there any numbers from that, has it happened, do we know what enrollment will look like for next year?” she asked.Kaumeyer responded that the screenings have not happened.Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Instruction and Pupil Personnel Services Catherine Parsons confirmed there were no firm numbers, just estimates based off the registration.Rick Osofsky, Kate’s father and a local lawyer, was concerned about the lack of detail in the evening’s presentation.“There should be a bit more detail on some of these items,” he said.Osofsky posed another question, “What happens next year if the budget goes down?”Kaumeyer answered, “This year, although we were not in a contingency budget, the board did not go to a basic athletic program for this year, as was their option. The contingency budget in 2008-09 and that Board of Education did decide to go to what is called a basic athletic program. So this year we ran a full athletic program with the tournaments, non-league games and all the associated transportation.”Osofsky was unsure as to whether the board was permitted to make that decision.Board President Bruce Kimball assured him that years ago it was not permitted, but recent law changes currently permit the action.Former school board member and ongoing board watchdog Karen Orton stood up to comment on several notes she had taken throughout the presentation.“I thought tonight there was going to be a line item budget available to the public. I thought that’s what we were told. I’m very disappointed there isn’t a line item budget available tonight for the public. Will that be on the website anytime soon?” she asked.Kaumeyer responded that the public will “absolutely” see a line item budget before it is adopted.“When will we see that?” asked Orton.Kaumeyer responded, “As soon as it’s prepared. Once we hear from the Board of Education on any adjustments they want I would imagine that it would be ready certainly before the meeting on April 11, and if it can be prepared ahead of time so we can put it on the website, we’re going to make every effort to do so.”Orton pointed out that the evening’s presentation was not a budget presentation but an overview of savings.There were also concerns over which positions from the six retirees would be replaced.“We won’t have a decision on that tonight, but what I can tell you tonight is of the three special education teachers, two will be replaced and one will not,” Kaumeyer said.Orton also brought up what many considered to be the “elephant in the room.”“The final thing that I would like to address is that I haven’t heard anything about the superintendent’s salary reduction or what’s going to happen with that. It’s a major issue if you want the budget to pass,” she said.Board member Gary Griffen stepped up to respond to the criticism.“I’m new on the board, but her salary was part of her contract signed with the board,” he said.Orton expressed that the public already knew that information.Griffen, growing frustrated, said, “Well then you have all the answers then. Let me explain, it’s a part of her contract,” he said.Orton said, “We don’t need to discuss this, we already know it. Any contract can be reopened.”Orton, along with several other parents and teachers, spoke out against the closing of Cold Spring.Kimball noted the incongruity with what they had heard in the past and noted the change in venue for the meeting may have played a part in that.Several options have been brought forth, including closing Seymour Smith instead, adding on to Cold Spring to accommodate all the students there and sticking with the option of closing Cold Spring.None of those solutions appear to be seriously considered by the board for this upcoming school year.Kaumeyer wrote in her reflections, “There are a variety of options, pro and con, about keeping one or more elementary buildings open. Cold Spring will probably not close next year.”