Annual District Meeting Minutes

2000 ORCSD 46th Annual Report
[<-Previous page] [Next page->]

OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

ANNUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING
February 2 and March 9, 1999

Session I - February 2, 1999

Moderator Swanson began the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and introduced the Oyster River School District Warrant for Durham, Lee, and Madbury. He noted no smoking was permitted, where exits could be found, where voters should register and designated registration areas. He covered secret ballots and secret ballot procedure and pointed out locations of microphones. He added the official ballot voting would take place March 9, 1999. Mr. Swanson asked participants to identify themselves and their community before addressing their issues. He asked that questions be directed through him, the moderator. He added he does not strictly adhere to Robert's Rules but would like us to exercise courtesy and consideration. We are here to deliberate, learn about and affirm or modify language on the ballot presented to voters on March 9. He finally invited everyone to view the plans and drawings of the new facility before introducing Joan Valentine.

Joan Valentine presented the Distinguished Service Award to Mr. John J. Lowy. Mr. Lowy came forward and plaque was presented. Mr. Lowy was acknowledged as Mast Way's principal for 24 years, an interim principal at Oyster River Middle School, administrative consultant to the Oyster River District, volunteer and stable presence for Mast Way students. Shirley Thompson presented a Teddy Bear with love and respect and went on to acknowledge all the wonderful things John Lowy has done. Mr. Lowy gave a brief acceptance/thank you statement.

Ms. Valentine then acknowledged Michael Parsons, the Student Representative to the School Board, and spoke in recognition of his fine work and contribution to the School Board. Ms. Thompson also acknowledged Mr. Parsons and then presented him with a Teddy Bear. Mr. Parsons stood and thanked the Board, district, and students for electing him and acknowledged he had a great time.

ARTICLE 3

Moderator Swanson then reviewed the voter information, introducing Article 3 regarding the high school renovation and the bond. He reminded us that on March 9 it would take a two-thirds majority to adopt this.

Drew Christie then spoke about Article 3, providing the framework. He described the plan as carefully researched, well designed and cost effective. We will have 770-775 students in the next five years and the population will continue to grow. Ten modular classrooms are all the high school site can accommodate. We need to meet state accreditation. He described the process of creating the plan as very open. There was a committee to review and refine the plan. Mr. Christie invited people to contact the administration office at 868-5100, visit the web site (www.hawking.unh.edu), or participate in on-line discussion group by contacting the editor David Taylor (editor@orol.mv.com).

Mr. Christie went on to state that they had found renovation to be the best option after other options had been covered. As for modulars, it was determined that there was not enough room at the high school to add any more. A new high school was determined to be too expensive. School on a year-round basis was met with resistance. Renovation was found to be our best possible option educationally and financially. Mr. Christie added this is a more compact design, better designed to close off parts of the school and the parking is improved. He explained that Dan Bisson, the principal architect who worked with us to reach this plan, is familiar with our school and the Somersworth school (which was built the same time Oyster River High School was built) and is familiar with the Somersworth school's renovation. The Somersworth school is very similar to ours.

Baybutt is well known and regarded for their experience and work in our area. Covering the cost effectiveness of this plan, Mr. Christie stated that reconstruction is financially and environmentally more sound and economical. He also cited construction costs are rising and the interest rates on bonds are the lowest they have been in years. We check the price by reviewing other projects in the area. He then reviewed what is going on with other school construction in our area, comparing cost per square foot to our plan's cost per square foot.

Oyster River	$97.75 per square foot
Exeter Middle	$95.00 per square foot
(proposed) Litchfield	$104.00 per square foot
Marshwood	$127.00 per square foot
Noble	$139.00 per square foot
Dover Middle	$95.00-$100.00 per square foot

The cost of our project is found to be comparative among the other projects in the area and not unusually costly. Mr. Christie welcomed discussion as to why other schools may cost less. Covering some financial details, he spoke of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) as not rock solid but a firm estimate of the cost of this project. The reason why we chose this route was because we closely collaborated with the builders and architect to get as accurate a price as possible and also because the voters wanted us to do it this way.

He covered the safeguards we have in place to ensure that we are not being taken, and they are the following:

Everything is going out to competitive bid (100-200 parts of the project are to be bid separately);
experts within the district have been consulted;
this is a highly visible bid, the plan has been well disclosed;
the past records of the construction manager and architect are excellent.

Regarding the 20 year bond, the state will cover 45%. Next year's tax rate will hold the largest payment on the bond. By law, we must use the money as we lay it out here.

John Collins challenged the voters to become more informed on this topic and invited voters to take a look at the plans and model. He went on to note there are coffees regarding the bond that voters may want to participate in. He also encouraged the voters to talk to teachers and administrators about this plan. He noted that 2/3 of the vote is needed to pass this bond. The more people we inform and the more people we convince of the need, the better chance we have. Mr. Collins encouraged voters to become informed and to inform others and campaign for this bond as it may be the only way we get it to pass.

Moderator Swanson then asked for questions and comments regarding this article.

Peter Steer of Durham asked what where the board's thoughts on splitting the district since the Town of Lee has been "unhelpful." He stated let Durham and Madbury have a district and let Lee do what they want. Mr. Collins answered no, the board has not discussed splitting the district and deferred to wait until Article 9 was covered and suggested brining up that topic then. He stated he believes in the advantages we have with this cooperative school district.

Linsday Thompson, a student of the Oyster River High School Class of 1999, addressed the bond issue, voiced her support and asked for our help in supporting education. She went on to ask that we carefully consider and support the bond.

Malcolm McNeil of Durham voiced that the tax impact was never covered in Mr. Christie's presentation. He asked what is the cost to taxpayers and communities and how are we reaching these conclusions with the uncertainty of state funding? Have we used this particular information in Article 9 in assessing the cost? Mr. Taylor addressed Mr. McNeil's question and reviewed the tax figures for the three towns in the district, stating the first year would be the lowest payment as it covers only one-half of the year. He also noted these are current calculations and that the Claremont decision will change these numbers. These are the best figures we have in this uncertain environment. Figures to be noted:

	Durham	Lee	Madbury
First year's cost	$0.81	$0.93	$1.03
Second year's cost	$2.22	$2.56	$2.85
Final year	$0.87	$1.11	$1.00

Mr. McNeil then asked if we should consider waiting until the state finalizes the Claremont decision. Mr. Collins said there is no reason to wait any longer. Waiting last year made this project more expensive and no argument could be made to wait another year. He quoted a line in Ms. Thompson's statement regarding doing something and doing something now. He also said our property values are good because of the quality of the schools in this district, vote for this bond and maintain those values. Mr. Taylor went on to say we must solve this high school issue. Every year we wait the cost increases several million dollars to remedy the situation. The cheapest way to solve this is to vote in favor this year.

David Penniman of Madbury stood and spoke, first noting he was a member of both aforementioned committees and a former member of the school board. He informed everyone that he whole heartedly supported this project. He noted that this project was based on the total needs of a high school. Reviewing cost and demand he noted it will never be cheaper in the future to fix this school. He pointed out that this project will give us a new school, once again stating that this project will never be cheaper and it does meet the high school's needs. Support this bond and pass it this year.

Art Guidano of Durham posed three questions: 1) What is the difference in cost per square foot when comparing new construction vs renovation? 2) Are all the subcontract costs put out to bid or what percentage is not? 3) Is $20 million the actual maximum cost, and what plans are in place if the cost is over the $20 million figure? Mr. Taylor answered Mr. Guidano's third question stating there is a $1.5 million contingency built into the bond that will cover anything extraordinary or unforeseen. He went on to say that the GMP is preliminary and in August or September we will have a solid number. He added the administration may have answers to Mr. Guidano's first two questions. Reading from a recent issue of SPAN he noted: 132,000 square feet is new construction (about 65%); 73,000 square feet is renovation (about 35%). John Collins answered Mr. Guidano's second question, stating the construction manager's portion and cost related to cleaning up the site is about 5%. Ninety-five percent will go out to competitive bid. He went on to say the school board in consultation with people who are familiar with the construction industry will make the final decision. David Taylor made the point that Mr. Christie's presentation did not cover new construction vs. renovation, but went on to say our costs were about the same as building a middle school and we are saving money over constructing a new building.

Emily Wrenchler, an Oyster River High School student and Student Senate member, addressed the high school space issue. Among other things she cited the condition of the building, the effect it is having on their education, cafeteria issues, the $75,000 per year it cots to rent modulars, and mentioned how costly and ineffective they are. She also noted the library is too small, there are too few parking spaces, and that the students deserve better. We are not meeting high standards of education. It is important to pass the bond.

Mike Parsons then explained how proud he was to attend Oyster River High School. He went on to tell us about a tour of the high school he gave to a gentleman from Pittsburgh who was thinking about moving to the area. Despite the fact the Mike expressed the quality of education and the richness of Oyster River's programs, the gentleman clearly only saw the building in its poor condition and Mike felt he probably would not move to our district. He went on to express the need to fix this building.

Jeff Savage, who described himself as a 34 year resident of Durham, commended the school board for putting forth a good plan. He cited the cost to build has increased over the past 39 years by tenfold. He lectured that the basis of a good country is good education. It is time we paid up. If you want kids to think school is important, give them a school that looks important. He went on to note that the school buildings don't look very important and teachers are not viewed as very important. He finally stated this has got to be done.

Gail Kelly of Durham called to our attention that 2.5% of the total cost of the project goes into Baybutt Construction/Mr. Wiggin's pocket and quoted a figure of $492,500.

Moderator Swanson asked if there were any other questions or comments at this time.

John Collins corrected Mrs. Kelly's quote by stating the 2.5% figure she mentioned applies to the construction cost only, not the total cost. Therefore, the number is not as large as she portrayed.

Moderator Swanson then requested someone move their car.

Kelly Lawson, Senior Class Senator, spoke in support of the bond. Ms. Lawson went on to ask us to imagine this building without the renovations, noting an unaccredited school equals a failing community.

Ron Grondin questioned the language in Article 3 regarding the "sum in additions" statement and asked for clarification. Counselor Loughman, consulting legal counsel for the school district, responded that it was legal language the bond attorneys insist we use. The school board can only spend the amount specified in the bond and no more.

Shirley Thompson spoke of educating our children and making education a top priority. We must come through for our children.

Peter MacDonald of Lee made statements of caution, noting this is something we should not rush into. Guaranteed maximum price estimate does not sound right. He further warned we should be wary of unforeseen costs. Be wary of getting a lesser building. The core area lockers lead to congestion in the halls. The auditorium in this plan only seats one-half of the students when it is complete. Mr. MacDonald also stated we should not rush to spend $21 million on a mistake. We have no final design. The school board is misleading us with the GMP estimate. He further stated the building plan was inad equate, improper and a safety problem. John Collins responded to Mr. MacDonald's statement noting that the school board has well established the GMP and that arriving at a more precise GMP would need to be further researched and would cost more money.

Jonas Zoler of Durham was recognized. He defined himself as a 1976 graduate of Durham who has seven children whom he home schools. He stated he is not against the future, children or education, but a large tax increase may cause him to move. The whole community needs to be responsible and to have respect for the money we are spending.

Joan Valentine addressed Mr. MacDonald's statement about the lockers. She noted that there are 365 lockers in the halls now with 680 students sharing them. There would be 850 lockers in the new building with several clusters of lockers on each floor. She further noted they had visited a school with this locker design and it works well, decreases crowding, and improves traffic flow.

Eileen Sahagian of Durham stated that after this article, she would like to move directly to Article 9. Moderator Swanson responded he would prefer to affirm the language we are working on now and then invited Ms. Sahagian to introduce the motion later.

Kevin Shenefiel of Lee noted these maintenance issues are the same issues we had 30 years ago. This building has been neglected and mixing the neglect of the school with the bond issue is misleading.

Allan Dennis of Lee asked if Baybutt had a contract and has there been a check and balance system to the bid? Is this actually what we should be paying? Dr. Carroll addressed the question, referring to the triangulation process used here to establish if a price is reasonable: a) They referred to the Means Book; b) worked with subcontractors; and c) worked with an estimator who has 30 years experience.

Dr. Carroll then reviewed similar projects and their increases, noting Keene's project started at approximately $13 million and has been bumped up to $17 million. That is an increase of the same magnitude as ours. He also added that the Merrimack district bonded a project two years ago and now they are three million over their expected costs. We believe our estimate is reasonable.

Tony Fetturer of Durham was recognized and described himself as a 34 year resident of Durham and Lee. He noted that this was a population growth issue. He suggested we do everything we can to stop population growth in Durham, Lee, Madbury, New Hampshire, the United States, and the world, to the crowd's laughter.

Jean Parsons of Durham called to our attention that the $21 million figure Peter MacDonald had mentioned was incorrect. She then went on to say we have deferred maintenance to keep total costs down and now we are going to pay for it.

Moderator Swanson asked for any other questions or comments.

John Collins called to our attention that if we vote yes on the bond, in January the classroom wing will be done, in 2001 the project will be done and the problem will be gone. If we vote no, the school board will go back to work and we won't come back with a $7-8 million plan. It will be more expensive. That is just a fact.

Moderator Swanson then called for affirmation of the wording of Article 3 to be put on the ballot. He then called the vote and affirming the language of Article 3 was accepted.

Moderator Swanson then called to move on to Article 4.

ARTICLE 4

Eileen Sahagian of Durham made a motion to move directly to Article 9. The motion was seconded. Moderator Swanson acknowledged the motion and looked to the legislative body for guidance and invited discussion. Dr. Carroll stood and requested the voters discuss Article 4, which is really tied to the project, before we move to Article 9. Moderator Swanson called to vote covering Article 9 at this time. The vote was taken and the motion to move to Article 9 was carried.

ARTICLE 9

Moderator Swanson read Article 9 and discussion ensued.

Jere Beckman of Lee was recognized. Mr. Beckman noted that he had been a resident of Lee since 1964. He stated that in Article 9 there was a striking difference in tax allocation for the towns in the school district. He discussed the "western part of the state" issue and specifically noted the ADM was not constitutional. Their case was dismissed, appealed and reconsidered in light of the Claremont II decision. Mr. Beckman then read a bit of that decision: "The court found Claremont II was in favor of the petitioners and the statute was unconstitutional," adding the remedy will be stayed until Claremont II is resolved. Mr. Beckman then went on to say that in his opinion we are not going to resolve Article 9 tonight because using ADM in our formula may be found to be unconstitutional and if it is we would have to use the equalized property value. This could cost Durham residents much more money. Because we have an unknown, Mr. Beckman cautioned committing ourselves to larger debts until this is resolved. He doesn't expect the article to pass and that eventually Durham residents in particular would be seeing higher taxes than they realize. In light of what is going on in Concord we may see an even larger increase. He went on to comment if you are frugal you might not vote yourself into debt until this is resolved.

Bob Kennedy of Durham noted the per student cost is higher in Durham than for the other two towns, quoting these numbers: Durham's cost is now $9,500 per student, Lee $6,500 and Madbury $6,500. If Article 9 is implemented as it is the cost to Durham would be twice that of the other towns. Bob Kennedy presented these numbers: Durham's cost would increase to $10,800 per student, Lee $5,300 and Madbury $5,800. Bob Kennedy asked that we bring cost and benefits into closer balance, proposed Article 9 be amended and read his suggested language aloud. He then requested this be taken by secret ballot. Moderator Swanson appointed Counselor Loughman to address Bob Kennedy's motion to amend Article 9 and to clarify what can be presented.

Counselor Loughman had the opinion that Bob Kennedy's amendment would be contrary to the statute that provides for two apportionment formulas plus another formula, and she went on to explain all three: Formula 1 is 100% on the basis of equalized valuation; Formula 2 is half equalized valuation and half average daily membership; and Formula 3 is some other formula offered by the cooperative school board and with the board's recommendations. She went on to say that our options are 1, 2, and 3, but not 3 as Bob Kennedy proposed.

Mr. Kennedy said a similar situation had occurred last year and the decision was upheld. Moderator Swanson explained to him that based on Counselor Loughman's statement he could not accept his amendment as he presented it. Bob Kennedy then asked what could be accepted. Moderator Swanson said one of the options legal counsel had just described, one of those three options within the framework of this statute.

Vi McNeill, a Durham town councilor, stated she and town councilors from Lee and Madbury met with the school board in May, knowing this would be an issue because of Claremont. She did not want to rush into a change because an RSA, she noted, states that we cannot make another change for five more years. Ms. McNeill then motioned to amend Article 9 as follows: "Shall the school board, subsequent to the adoption of the Education Funding Plan by the State of New Hampshire, study all three funding formulas for apportioning the capital outlay and operations of the cooperative school district pursuant to RSA 195:7, including under option 3 that all costs be apportioned on a per student basis, and then hold a public hearing to discuss its findings and to seek public response." (Submitted in writing by Vi McNeill.) The motion to amend was immediately seconded. Moderator Swanson acknowledged legal counsel could accept motion to amend and invited discussion.

Jere Beckman objected to the attempt to amend Article 9. He noted we are operating under 40:13, the official ballot. He then read from section 4 "warrant articles may be amended at the first session subject to the following limitations, questions the wording of which is described shall not be amended." He added he was taking it right out of the statute and as Ms. Loughman stated, this is formula 1. How can people change this around? It is language and wording put there by the legislature. The way it reads it is not amendable. If it is amended it is challengeable beyond this group. Mr. Beckman reminded us of last year's Article 11 regarding citizens voting in their own towns. There was an attempt to amend the article to commingle ballots. He then quoted, "Moderator Swanson ruled that this was legally proper and would mandate the procedure already in place." He went on to say that Gordon Graham advised that this article as described by Senate Bill 2 (RSA 40:13) could not be amended and any amendment would not be legally binding. Moderator Swanson then ruled the motion to amend was not appropriate." Mr. Beckman added like last year and this year it is a legal language issue and amending it is improper.

Counselor Loughman disagreed with Jere Beckman's statement and in her opinion it could certainly be amended. She added when Senate Bill 2 speaks about not amending warrant articles the wording of which is prescribed by law, they are talking about something specific that occurs in the statutes. Often a statute will say "the question to be placed on warrant or ballot shall read as follows." When you have a question that requires specific wording to adopt that article, the wording itself cannot be changed. The reapportionment formula statute talks about two formulas but the statute does not specify the language that has to be used in the warrant and it clearly can be amended. She went on to say the situation J. Beckman is talking about that occurred last year is under RSA:15. There is a particular procedure prescribed and the meeting does not have the authority to amend that article, to change the procedure that will be followed for disbursed voting. She referred to the article 11 comparison as apples and oranges and it is not the same issue as we have tonight. Mr. Beckman stood once more and stated that he disagreed and said if it was amended that he would take this further.

Richard England of Durham noted Article 9 cuts taxes in Lee and increases taxes in Durham and that it is not fair. This would cause loss of resale value on homes in Durham and if this goes through we may have to look for remedies at the state and local levels. He suggested people contact local and state politicians and urge them to steer clear of local property taxes and statewide property taxes as they would have a devastating affect on the seacoast economy. He added the town councilors may need to manage the expansion of Lee.

Moderator Swanson directed the discussion back to amending the language of Article 9.

Ernst Fleming of Durham asked why Bob Kennedy's motion was not accepted. The Moderator deferred to legal counsel. Counselor Loughman defined option 3 as some other formula that must be approved and recommended by the school board. If you do not go with options 1 or 2, the only other legally valid formula you could adopt would have to be recommended and approved by the school board. Bob Kennedy's was not. Mr. Flemming then asked if it was the 20% total cost and the 80% per student cost that was illegal? Counselor Loughman responded it was illegal because it did not meet the third option and it could be done if the correct procedure was followed. Mr. Flemming then pointed out that the school board was right here. Would the school board approve the formula? Counselor Loughman then reviewed the three formulas again. Mr. Flemming spoke once more, asking if he could convince the school board at this time. Moderator Swanson brought the focus back to the motion to amend that was before us, this is what we need to address at this time.

Jere Beckman added that he ran this question by the Deputy Secretary of State and his opinion was that Jere Beckman's "unamendable" position was probably correct. He said if he heard the amendment correctly, it really changes the article's whole meaning, and he believed there was something in the statute that would not allow that. He asked if Ms. Loughman would comment on that. Counselor Loughman first stated Attorney Gordon Graham, a law partner in her office, spoke to Deputy Secretary of State Ambrose about his conversation with Mr. Beckman regarding amending warrant articles and believed there was a misunderstanding. The Deputy Secretary of State had not given the opinion that this warrant article could not be amended because this warrant article's wording is not prescribed by law. Regarding the scope of amendments, courts generally take a very liberal view of amending warrant articles provided the subject matter is one about which the voters were warned. The voters here were warned about this article. She went on to say this amendment is permissible because the authority to amend warrant articles under Senate Bill 2 is the same authority as under the traditional town meeting form of government. Mr. Beckman then stated, to keep the record straight, when he spoke to Deputy Secretary of State Ambrose he read him the warrant article and that this was exactly what they had discussed. Despite what Counselor Loughman had just said, what he told us is exactly what Deputy Secretary of State and he discussed. Please get that on the record.

An unidentified gentleman asked for clarification of the motion before us. Moderator Swanson again read the motion, the amendment to Article 9. The unidentified gentleman asked if this was not the intent of the previous petitioner? Moderator Swanson said no, this motion is to conduct a study after the adoption of the funding plan by the state. The other motion to amend the unidentified man was asking about was to change the language to come up with an option 3. But as counsel has described, option 3 cannot be generated by the legislative body, it must come through the school board with recommendations. The unidentified gentleman asked wouldn't that eventually happen in the course of this current motion? He went on to say in reviewing the whole matter this would be one thing the school board reviews and could make a recommendation on, if they agree. Moderator Swanson anticipated that would be a mission statement for the school board. He listed actions they may take as: conducting a study, then a public hearing so they can review the options after the state funding issue has been resolved and then work on what they would present to the legislative body. The unidentified gentleman asked isn't this what has to happen anyway? Moderator Swanson answered no. This motion to amend will happen, the article that was before us will not.

Jean Parsons moved to restrict reconsideration on Articles 3 and 9, pursuant to RSA 40:10. Al Porsche seconded the motion. Ms. Kelley stated that she wants to reconsider Article 3 and opposes the present motion. Richard Raymond then moves the question. Moderator Swanson called the question to vote. The motion to restrict reconsideration on Articles 3 and 9 was voted on and adopted.

ARTICLE 4

Moderator Swanson moved on to Article 4, reading aloud the article regarding the Bagdad Road property purchase.

Shirley Thompson spoke about the article and the benefits this land adds to the high school's site. She noted that the sale of the Orchard Drive property will offset taxes and the school board recommends this article. She also explained that the land purchase must be separate from bonds according to state law.

Suzy Loder of Durham stated she wanted to remove the second sentence in regard to the sale of the Orchard Drive property. She noted our need for another school in the near future. Recognizing the difficulty of finding property for another school, we need to acknowledge that the Orchard Drive property may be good for that purpose and it should not be sold. She also spoke about the access to this site. Ms. Thompson responded that Orchard Drive is inappropriate for a school and that the sale has already been authorized by a district vote at last year's school district meeting. Ms. Loder responded she would like her statement to be reconsidered and then made a motion to amend Article 4 to remove the second sentence regarding the sale of the Orchard Drive property. Moderator Swanson, after consulting with legal counsel, confirmed that Ms. Loder's amendment was permissible. Lorraine Marrong of Madbury seconded Ms. Loder's motion.

Moderator Swanson read Article 4 for motion to amend, removing the second sentence. Ms. Marrong discussed the Orchard Drive property noting that we don't have to sell it. That it costs us nothing to hold onto it and we will not have to spend money to find land for use in the long run. Dan Bergeron stated that he supported the amendment and sees no need to connect the Orchard Drive sale and the Coe Drive purchase. Peter Smith of Durham also supported striking the sentence and he wanted legal counsel to confirm this sentence is not really a sentence.

Joe Murdock noted a couple of problems with developing the 25 acre Orchard Drive site. He said that buses cannot negotiate Foss Farm Road and that we could keep the land but it would be costly to develop. Eleanor Taylor of Durham asked where will the money come from if not from the sale of Orchard Drive? Ms. Thompson, after asking the business manager, answered that it would be part of the appropriation and raise our taxes. Ms. Taylor asked if this would impact the timing, would you get this land in time for the construction? Dr. Carroll answered no, the funding would not impact the purchaseof the land. We would purchase Bagdad either by Orchard Drive sale proceeds or by tax proceeds.

Ed McKay of Durham asked if we could find $15,000 somewhere else and purchase the property? Ms. Thompson answered no. Mr. McKay then asked if the fund used to purchase this land would impact taxes next year? Dr. Carroll answered at length that it would come from taxes. Bob Russell asked where would the excess funds from the sale of Orchard Drive go? Dr. Carroll explained it would go in a capital reserve fund used for further expansion of the district as stated in Article 7. Mr. Russell made a few comments then seconded the motion not to sell the Orchard Drive property. He added we should take the land out of circulation just to prevent development on that site. Mr. Hall of Durham informed us that the town council voted to put in a northern connector on that property and a southern connector eventually and said we should hold on to it.

Mr. McConnell then moved the question on the motion to amend. Moderator Swanson called to vote to move the question. It was moved. Moderator Swanson read the modified Article 4 and called it to vote. Article 4 with modified language was voted on and accepted. He then asked for questions and comments.

Winthrop Skullman of Durham asked where the property was located on Bagdad Road and where the access to the high school will be. Dr. Carroll showed the site sketch on the overhead projector and located the property for him. Mr. Steer asked if $15,000 was the sum and total cost of the Bagdad Road property. Is there any more cost down the road? It sounds cheap. Dr. Carroll answered that it was inexpensive because much of the land is not usable. Bill Cote of Durham asked what costs are associated in developing the Bagdad property and is it incorporated into the bond. Dr. Carroll responded that the site work cost is worked into the bond article and that the estimate on the development of the total high school site is $975,000, but that we have not broken out the cost of developing this lot specifically.

Moderator Swanson asked if there were any other questions or comments on the amended article. He then called to vote affirming the language of Article 4 as amended, and it was accepted.

ARTICLE 5

Moderator Swanson then moved to Article 5 regarding teachers' increase in salary and benefits and read it aloud.

Patrice Gray, a member of the school board and chair of the negotiations committee, discussed Article 5 at length, describing the negotiations in this article as a two year effort on the part of the school board and teachers' guild. She outlined the contract, noting features such as the five year length, cost of living increases that will be no less than 2.5% and no more than 5%, among other items.

Kevin Shenefiel of Lee noted there was a wide disparity in teachers' salaries. He questioned the method of "self-evaluation," observation lasting only 30 minutes and occurring only every two years, finally commenting that this was very little supervision. Ms. Gray asked Mr. Shenefiel to clarify his question, and he commented in a round-about way on cost association of poor teacher performance. Ms. Gray asked him to clarify his question again. Mr. Shenefiel asked a question relating to the teachers' self-evaluation and 30 minute observations. Ms. Gray clarified that teachers are currently supervised more than the evaluations Mr. Shenefield noted, and that he was quoting from only one part of required evaluations. Mr. Shenefiel then asked if a teacher can go two consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance before there is a pay penalty. Ms. Gray stated performance issues are separate from the pay steps mandated by contract. Dr. Carroll addressed Mr. Shenefiel's question, stating it does not have to take two years of poor performance to withhold a step in pay. Mr. Flemming then asked for clarification on the cost of living increase. If it is based on CPI-U, how does that differ from CPI? Dr. Carroll responded that the cost of living increase is based on the "Portsmouth Metropolitan Area" which is our area according to the New Hampshire Department of Labor. Mr. Flemming asked if these were specific numbers for this area. Dr. Carroll said they were. Mr. Flemming then asked if the 2.5% increase was varied or fixed. Ms. Gray answered they were fixed.

Dick Ward wanted clarification, asking if the $450,000 figure is tied to the 2.5% or is the 2.5% part of the $7.6 million figure. Ms. Gray stated $450,000 includes the increase of 2.5% and the cost of two steps. She then went on to urge us to support our teachers as they need our support to continue to do their fine work.

Moderator Swanson called to vote affirming the language of Article 5 for the ballot. The language was affirmed.

ARTICLE 6

Moderator Swanson then moved on to Article 6 and read aloud the article regarding the special education fund. Ms. Thompson spoke to Article 6 and noted that the article does not require raising any additional taxes. Moderator Swanson asked for comments.

Jean Parsons noted that it is likely this extra, unpredictable cost will continue. Is there any way we can invest these funds? Dr. Carroll answered no, we cannot invest the funds from the taxpayers because there is risk involved. It sits in a trust fund and accrues interest. Ms. Parsons added that investing seemed like a prudent thing to do.

Gary Weisman of Durham called the question. Moderator Swanson called to vote moving the question. The question was moved. Moderator Swanson then called to vote affirmation of the Article 6 language. Article 6 was affirmed as amended for the March 9 ballot.

ARTICLE 7

Moderator Swanson moved on to Article 7, reading regarding the facilities development capital reserve fund. Bob LaMont of the school board addressed Article 7 and spoke of the Orchard Drive sale proceeds going to this fund. This fund may be used to develop playing fields and testing sites for their suitability to build. Use of the funds would have to have 2/3 majority vote of the legislative body.

Ms. Morrang of Madbuy motioned to amend Article 7 by removing the final line of the first paragraph which referred to funds generated by the sale of the Orchard Drive property. Moderator Swanson clarified the words to be struck from Article 7. Ms. Loder seconded the motion.

Ms. Morrang described the Orchard Drive property as a trust fund in itself. Jerry Neidal of Durham voiced his fear of taxes going up by deleting the sale of Orchard Drive statement. Dr. Carroll addressed his concern, noting that our "designated funds" would provide $125,000 of this fund after the special education funds are taken out. Ed Grout of Lee elaborated on the original Orchard Drive sale discussion, noting wetland issues and wondering if it is really suitable for building a school. Mike Everngam, business administrator, noted other problems with Orchard Drive. In order to access the land we would have to build a costly bridge to put a road in. He also commented on the wetlands, that they will be a significant obstacle for building and developing that land. He finally stated this does not mean we could not build on it, but it may be expensive to use for that purpose. Mr. Ward of Durham suggested the land be used for purposes other than a school. Mr. Flemming asked exactly what we were discussing. Moderator Swanson answered we are amending Article 7 to delete language.

Mr. Shenefiel noted there could be a potential source of timber revenue from Orchard Drive. He also went on to say we would not have much luck finding a better site for a school. It would be wise to hold on to this land. Ms. Morrang suggested the school board put together a committee immediately to find elementary school land. She also voiced her opinion of modulars. Mr. Russell of Durham then stated that the wording that binds the board to sell the land is foolish. Since there has been a change in the status of this property with the connectors, it would be prudent to strike the words that bind the school board to sell it. Anne Marie Harris, who is on the Master Plan Committee, stated the committee was reviewing a northern and southern connector for Orchard Drive. She also said now we have a piece of land in our hands and if the 25 acres are sold we will only have money. She also suggested that the 25 acres could possibly be traded for another parcel. Mr. Weisman of Durham added if he were a land speculator he'd sit on it.

Jackie Palmetier of Durham asked now that we know how many people do not want the school board to sell the land, what is to prevent them from selling it? Counselor Loughman answered that amending this article does not take the board's authorization it received last year to sell the land. You would have to submit a warrant article to do that and it is too late for that this year. She added that they don't have to sell it. Ms. Palmetier asked how can we keep the school board from selling it now that they know how we feel. Could they consider waiting? Dr. Carroll stated that Article 7 was originally meant to capture the proceeds from this sale and not lose it to the undesignated fund. Unless there is a really strong reason to sell the land, the board will most likely act on the sense of the community. Mr. Smith of Durham reasonably voiced that the proposed amendments should let the board know we don't want it sold.

Edward MacNib of Durham called the question. Moderator Swanson called the question to vote. The vote was taken and accepted. Moderator Swanson then called to vote adopting to amend Article 7 striking the words "said...meeting." Article 7 was accepted as amended.

Ken Holtgraph of Durham asked if the reserve fund caps at $125,000, and Dr. Carroll answered that $125,000 was an upper limit, a reasonable amount to start off with. Mr. Flemming then asked if Articles 6 and 7 were in conflict. Are we limiting Article 6? Dr. Carroll addressed Mr. Flemming's question, stating each year we have two sources of revenue that go into the unexpected funds budget. One is money in the budget ($50,000-$60,000) and the second is a larger pool of unanticipated revenues (last year it held $329,000) and this is the fund we may use to offset Articles 6 and 7.

Mr. Flemming then asked if the cap on the unexpected balance is $50,000 and Dr. Carroll answered no, it just says we can only put $50,000 in that fund. It is not all you can use. Mr. Flemming then asked if the deficit appropriation came from the unexpected balance and Dr. Carroll answered yes, but it has to be a separate article. Previous warrants have had a deficit appropriation article. That does not come out of the unreserved fund balance, it is actually additional money that is raised in taxes for the next year. Mr. Flemming asked why don't we just allocate these funds to special education and get rid of the deficit appropriation. Dr. Carroll answered we have no deficit appropriation this year. We don't need to do that. Mr. Flemming asked if we were setting Article 7 up for now and into the future, do we really want to do that? Dr. Carroll explained that every year we must have a new article addressing this issue that has to be approved by the voters. Mr. Flemming asked if these were for a one time use and Dr. Carroll said yes.

Mr. McKay of Durham asked if the $125,000 is not met can the school board expend more money without further articles? Dr. Carroll answered no, they would need a separate article. Mr. McKay wondered about the wording, asking if the school board can spend no more money than this without consulting the district and noting the article does not read like that. Dr. Carroll acknowledged the wording was odd, but the school board can spend money without coming back.

Mr. McKay asked if purchasing land with the reserve fund was allowed and Dr. Carroll answered no, the legislative body has to vote on that. Mr. McKay asked if we have a capital reserve fund now, Dr. Carroll answered $53,000 to $54,000 and it is only for maintenance.

Ms. Marrong commented that the over budgeted funds should go back to the voters for a little tax relief. Jerry Neidel asked if the wording in Article 7 is a mistake. Is the intent for the board to come back to the district to make expenditures? Mr. Neidel then moved to strike those words or amend it to correct wording. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Neidel to restate his question. He reiterated his question, asking if we need an amendment? Is it a mistake in the wording or narrative? Joan Valentine felt the intent was to come back for a vote. Mr. Neidel asked the school board to change it before we vote on it. Counselor Loughman identified the line to strike to rid Article 7 of the confusing words to be "and to....fund." Mr. Neidel moved to strike the words. The motion was seconded.

Moderator Swanson added that this would further amend the article by deleting the described line read as "and...fund," and then invited discussion on this motion to amend. Mr. McKay objected, stating he'd rather give the school board the flexibility to take care of facility issues as they arise. He added we should grant the school board the discretion with a cap of $125,000. Mr. Neidel wanted the board's input on how they would like this wording. Ms. Valentine said the board would like to go back to the body for a decision.

Moderator Swanson made a motion to strike the line in question. Dan Bergeron stated that this is not an emergency fund and it should be voted on before funds are expended. John Parsons asked about the wording and does it indicate that if we vote to expend funds the school board can decline to do so? Counselor Loughman noted that wording will not bind the school board to spend money in a warrant article. John Parsons asked what if we direct the school board to spend the money and they refuse to. Counselor Loughman stated the school board does not have to spend the money. When you are authorizing them to spend on any article there is no difference in authorizing or directing the school board.

Moderator Swanson put motion to amend to vote. Motion to amend was adopted. The Moderator again read Article 7 as it had been amended. Ken Holtgraph asked if this will only apply once and only this year, 1999? Joan Valentine answered the warrant establishes the fund with a cap of $125,000 and another warrant article would need to be added next year to increase the money. Mr. Russell asked if we really meant 2000, not 1999? Ms. Valentine identified the funds as 1999's budget surplus.

Moderator Swanson asked for questions or comments on Article 7. There were none so he put it to vote affirming the language of Article 7. The language of Article 7 was affirmed for the March 9 ballot.

ARTICLE 8

Moderator Swanson then read Article 8 regarding a $10,000 track fund.

Rob Drewman of Madbury spoke about FORT (Friends of Oyster River Track) and why we should build a track. He let us know that FORT has raised close to $13,000 by their own fund-raising activities. He explained that FORT has obtained "tax exempt" status from the IRS and what a benefit that is to FORT. He went on to explain how we need to show district support in order to receive funds from potential sponsors. He further stated the tax impact would be about $1 per individual in the district. Moderator Swanson asked for questions and comments regarding Article 8. There were none. Affirming the language of Article 8 was put to vote and affirmed for the March 9 ballot.

ARTICLE 10

Moderator Swanson then read Article 10 regarding the operating budget. Joan Valentine highlighted the budget, presenting many overhead graphics. She explained increases in the budget and that some of the increases are attributed to: new full and part-time employees; guidance counselors; librarians; an athletic director; special education; regular programs; an ESL coordinator; a technology coordinator; a personnel specialist; modular classrooms; transportation; and other special education costs. Ms. Valentine also covered revenues, projections and tax impact. She covered apportionment and its imbalances in the three communities. She reviewed the "default budget" that we would use if the bond does not pass and all the cuts the budget would suffer in that case.

Mr. Shenefiel asked why haven't we considered redistricting to better balance the schools' populations and better deal with the illogical transportation routes. Ms. Valentine responded that the board had considered that but believed the difference in the schools' populations would balance out eventually. Redistricting is a difficult proposal, but they would consider it if the bond does not pass. Roni Pekins of Durham acknowledged the modulars scheduled for Moharimet School to accommodate more kindergarten students and asked what we have done about hiring more kindergarten teachers. Ms. Valentine stated that a Mast Way teacher would be relocated to the Moharimet kindergarten modulars. Joe Murdock stated that we was against modulars and that he likes how kindergarten has been handled. His children went through this and now his grandchildren have transitioned through our kindergarten plan wonderfully. He believes it can work and work better than modulars. Ms. Valentine stated that we are trying to minimize the traumatic affect of the Mast Way - Moharimet kindergarten issue. She went on to say the modulars are a temporary measure. Dr. Carroll spoke about the length of time youngsters spend on the bus going from Mast Way to Moharimet and then home. Some children are on the bus for 1.5 hours a day for a half-day program; plus the number of buses we need to run to accommodate this plan is costly. Dick Burkholder of Lee wanted the question mark taken off the second sentence as that line is declarative.

Moderator Swanson put forth vote adopting the language of Article 10. It was adopted and the language of Article 10 will be presented on the March 9 ballot. The moderator went on to remind voters of the second session to be held March 9, 1999, where Articles 1 through 10 would be voted on. He also thanked everyone for participating and thanked Attorney Barbara Loughman for her wise counsel.

Meeting was adjourned.

Kim Starbranch