January 11, 2010 Joint Board Meeting
MINUTES OF JOINT BOARD MEETING
C & M/ANITA COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARDS
JANUARY 11, 2010
The C & M and Anita Boards of Education met for a whole grade sharing session on January 11, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Commons of the Middle School in Massena. The two boards meet twice a year as agreed upon in the whole grade sharing agreement.
The meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were C & M Directors Gary Dinkla, Jennifer Holste, Todd McKee, and Sean South, Superintendent Steve Pelzer, and Board Secretary Linda Edwards. Director Rob Ticknor was absent.
Present from Anita were Directors Jeff Gregersen, Nick Kauffman, Chuck Kinzie, Randall J. Rabe, and Julie Williamson, Superintendent John Brazell and High School Principal Dominic Giegerich. 57 visitors signed the guest log.
AGENDA: President Gary Dinkla read the C & M Mission Statement and a motion to approve the agenda by the C & M Board was made by Jennifer Holste, seconded by Sean South. A motion to approve the agenda by the Anita Board was made by Chuck Kinzie, seconded by Nick Kauffman. Motion carried unanimously by both boards. The new Anita Directors, Chuck Kinzie and Nick Kauffman, introduced themselves and spoke briefly about themselves and their families.
DISCUSSION was held on the following sharing topics: Reorganization/Sharing, Future Joint Meeting Dates, and Preschool Grant.
REORGANIZATION/SHARING: This item was divided into seven different areas. The first was District Finances. Mr. Brazell spoke about Anita’s financial situation. He said that Anita, at this time, is a little better off financially than C & M because of its unspent balance but with the cuts this year and last year of approximately $218,000, Anita is also slowly depleting its unspent balance. The ARRA funds have provided backfills to state aid but that will not be available next year. He discussed the major funds used by the districts: General Fund, PPEL, SILO, AND PERL. The C & M District does not have the PERL Fund.
Mr. Pelzer reported on C & M’s financial situation. Unspent balance has been an issue for quite a while in the C & M District. It has declined from $254,000 at the end of fiscal year 2006 to $82,000 at the end of fiscal year 2009. At one time the district had a cash balance of only $31,000. It began levying cash reserves to build the cash balance back up.
Mr. Pelzer said that we were predicted by the Des Moines Register to have a negative unspent balance at the end of fiscal year 2009 but because of the closing of the Cumberland building, among other cost saving measures, the unspent balance at that time was $82,000. The PPEL levy can be reduced to keep tax rates even and levy cash reserves. The Phase I cut last spring cost the District almost $40,000 and this fall’s 10% across the board cut was $95,000. Several funding streams that have been used in the past were able to be used for most general fund expenses but these categorical funds are now being held more accountable. Drop-out Prevention and At Risk funds now can only been used for those areas.
If allowable growth for FY2011 is 2%, even with the increase in enrollment C & M had this year, this would amount to only $14,000 in new money for the District. Predictions of large insurance rate increases and talk of 0% or even negative allowable growth would greatly impact the District.
Todd McKee asked what Larry Sigel, school finance expert, was predicting. Mr. Pelzer replied that the next two years would be even worse than this year. Even though it is affecting all districts, small schools have fewer options to make cuts.
Incentives: Gary Dinkla commented that this is one of the reasons the Boards are looking into this at this time. Mr. Brazell said there are incentives to share. There is a six-year window that closes July 1, 2014. Districts can apply for three years of incentive money. We have applied for two years which has generated about $50,000 per year for the two districts. The last year of incentives can only be collected in the year before reorganization. If reorganized, the Districts would receive incentives for three more years which would be approximately $200,000.
There are incentives for property owners with reorganization. There would be a $1 reduction on local property tax the first year, a 50 cent reduction the second year and a 25 cent reduction the third. Mr. Pelzer said that with reorganization, all assets would be combined, including unspent balances. Even in a reorganized district, a lot of cost cutting measures would have to be made. There would be one board and one administration. Gary Dinkla commented that targeted funds could be better utilized.
Mr. Pelzer reported on the stimulus money the Districts receive. It is difficult to spend with all the restrictions. The C & M District has purchased a lot of materials for the Title I program, updating its library.
Future Funding: Mr. Brazell reported that the outlook is bleak. Mr. Pelzer said that all we know is that it is not good. A 2% allowable growth might not be fully funded.
Timeline: Gary Dinkla said that part of the whole grade sharing process must include discussion on reorganization. Initially, thoughts were to organize a petition for a December 2010 election and begin as a reorganized district in the 2012-2013 school year. As all the cuts came along, it was decided to speed up the process. With a vote this September, reorganization could start a year sooner.
Randy Rabe commented that we just need to get it started and do it. Gary Dinkla said that this year’s senior class were sixth graders when whole grade sharing started so they are the first class to be shared all the way through the process. The big issues have already been decided: name, colors, mascot.
Mr. Pelzer said that whole grade sharing was a board decision but to reorganize is a voter decision. We are trying to be proactive. We feel we would have been in a much worse situation without sharing.
April McAfee asked if we would lose funding. Mr. Pelzer said that the last year of whole grade sharing monies would be received the first year of consolidation, plus three years of reorganization incentives.
It was asked what would happen with each district if this doesn’t go through. Didn’t want to see county-wide school. Gary Dinkla said that neither school district can survive on its own. Todd McKee said we could continue with whole grade sharing until it became a bankruptcy issue and then the state takes over. He said that we want to decide our own fate.
Mr. Pelzer: C & M is one of the fifteen lowest sized schools in Iowa. Some of the districts with lowest enrollment have only elementary schools. We can’t stay status quo. His prediction is that at the end of the next school year, we will have to go before the School Budget Review Committee and have a workout plan. At this point, cutting staff means cutting programs.
Gary Dinkla: When we talked about closing the Cumberland building, we didn’t want to impact student education. Our responsibility is to educate all students K-12.
Teresa Stender: What are enrollment numbers?
C & M fall of 2008 200.6
fall of 2009 204.3
Anita fall of 2007 259
fall of 2008 271
fall of 2009 273
Preschool numbers are stable.
Todd McKee: His philosophy is to take the next step to keep local control. It saved us money to close the Cumberland building but things happened fast—state cuts, poor economy. Take small steps to hang on as long as we can and not skip a step.
Mr. Brazell: We want to do this on our own terms. We don’t want the State telling us what we have to do.
Mr. Pelzer: Eventually even a reorganized district will need another partner. One reorganized district would be a better partner to share with rather than three boards working together.
Margo Chester: How will it impact our elementaries?
Gary Dinkla: This is not the current boards’ decision. From my personal standpoint, there might be a change to which attendance center they go to if they live near the current borders. The current boards cannot make decisions for a reorganized board.
Tracy Daugherty: How is the new board decided?
Gary Dinkla discussed the petition process at this point. The districts need to hire an attorney to represent both districts. This has been done. The next step is that the public has to bring a petition. The petition would include the boundaries of the new district and the method of election of the new board. Currently Anita has no director districts and C & M has four districts and one director elected at-large. A possible new board would consist of two board members from each current district and one elected at-large. One thing that is a challenge is getting people to run for the school board. The interim board would consist of board members from the current board.
Julie Aupperle: It can be a 5 or 7 member board?
Gary Dinkla: Yes, that would be part of the petition.
Tracy Daugherty: It would be the same petition in both districts?
Gary Dinkla: Yes.
Currently Anita has 57% of the population and C & M has 43%. Director districts are based on population.
Randy Rabe: There is a part of the petition that specifies how boundaries/districts are formed.
Richard Chester: Would each director district vote on their representative?
Mr. Pelzer: For a five-person board, all residents can vote for all directors. On a seven-member board, one option is that directors can be voted on by only residents in director districts.
Gary Dinkla: From 2011-2013, elections would be held to elect new board members if the current boards appoint the interim board.
Mr. Brazell: Some duties of the new board would include combining board policy, getting teachers on the same salary schedule, and hiring administration for the consolidated district.
Tracy Daugherty: What happens with the pay scale discrepancies?
Mr. Brazell: One district would have a pay increase to bring salaries in line with the other district.
Question on loss to open enrollment? Shane Smith commented that he feels most open enrollment is a matter of convenience for the parents.
Mr. Pelzer: There will not be a huge savings to reorganize. Assets will be put together and we will try to improve on what we have.
Kevin McCunn: Would we still need three top level administrators?
Gary Dinkla: There would be one superintendent and it would be up to the new superintendent how they felt the buildings need to be staffed.
Todd McKee: The decision on administration would be a decision of the interim board.
Traci Daugherty: We now have a quality staff and want to retain them. Can we keep them?
Gary Dinkla: Most of our expenditures are salaries.
Mr. Pelzer: More job security depends on enrollment. A reorganized district would have less of a chance to cut staff and programs.
Randy Rabe: There would be more flexibility in scheduling.
Mike Cormack: There would be a bigger pool for insurance. We would be able to negotiate better rates. Right now teachers work side by side under two different contracts. C & M teachers took a pay cut and Anita teachers got a raise. This is demoralizing to staff.
Mr. Pelzer: I want to add a disclaimer. Phase I money was lost and had to be renegotiated according to the Master Contract. The district lost spending authority.
Teresa Stender: How will it affect kids?
Gary Dinkla: Kids probably won’t see any difference.,
Mr. Pelzer: It will allow us to carry on with what we are doing,
Mr. Brazell: There might not be an immediate effect but there will be continuity in curriculum when we come together.
Jolene Hensley: This is not a financial solution by any means. But right now we feel that the local boards don’t have a say in their students if they are educated in the other district. A reorganized board would have a say in all students’ education. It would be a benefit for our kids. We’d have more of a voice.
Mr. Pelzer: This is an important point. We would truly have a K-12 district with the same people making decisions for all students.
Chuck Kinzie: The question is: Do we as a public want to make a decision to control the ball in our court?
Randy Rabe: Things would change.
Chuck Kinzie: We have had CAM Cougar Pride for almost 20 years. Kids seem themselves as Cougars.
AEA’s role: Glenn Grove spoke on this topic at our joint board meeting a year ago. AEA takes care of the administrative side of things. It makes the decision on any land that is petitioned out. Mr. Grove said that this doesn’t happen very often.
Other questions and comments:
Todd McKee: What about the property tax rates? These will be determined when the new district begins. The interim board will approve the budget.
Petition process:
Gary Dinkla: 20% of eligible voters or 400 electors, whichever is less needs to sign the petition.
C & M would need 200 signatures and Anita would need 260 signatures to get this on the ballot. He then listed the items needed on the petition.
Mr. Pelzer: It will be very important to have as equal representation as possible in the beginning.
Mr. Brazell: The vote would be held on September 14, 2010.
Mr. Pelzer: The petitions have to be sponsored by the people, not the boards.
Gary Dinkla: We need volunteers to work through the process. The cost of the attorney will be paid by the districts. The districts can only provide information, they can’t advertise for the petition.
Mr. Brazell: We hope that a group of people will step forward to form a committee.
Mr. Pelzer: If the group plans to spend money, see one of the superintendents to make sure all rules are followed. The attorney will write the petitions the way the Boards want them and we can make as many copies as we need. Signers don’t have to be registered votes, they need to be eligible voters. The petitions will need to be
signed by the end of March to meet the timelines.
Discussion was held on how to select the interim board. No selection will made until after an approved vote. There will be three separate boards with interim board representation from both current boards.
Shane Smith: My kids have flourished under whole grade sharing. If it weren’t for C & M, Anita would have a graduating class this year of 15. It has been very positive. The kids think of themselves as CAM.
Todd McKee: Some of us have the same fears as you. We’d also like to know what’s going to happen eight years down the road.
Gary Dinkla: I don’t feel you would see a lot change if I were on the interim board.
Todd McKee: I wouldn’t change a thing unless the budget made me.
Randy Rabe: Nobody wants to change anything unless we have to.
FUTURE JOINT MEETING DATES: It was agreed to meet on the second Monday of each month for a while, alternative sites. The next meeting will be held in Anita on February 8 at 7 p.m. There will be community meetings held.
The question was asked about when petitions would be ready. The answer was in a couple of weeks. The attorney the districts have chosen in familiar with the process.
PRESCHOOL GRANT: This is the last year to apply for the four-year-old public preschool grant. A meeting to discuss this was held in December. One advantage of this is that students with special needs will be required to be taught by a certified teacher and right now, we are unable to do this. The two districts are working together to submit a consortium grant to have a four-year-old public preschool. Each district on its own could not afford to have a certified preschool teacher, but through the grant could hire a teacher to travel between the two districts.
The grant provides for the first year of funding. Students are counted as .6 FTE on certified enrollment. Funding for the grant is provided by the State Department of Education. It could be written into the grant that a five-year-old could attend but preference would be given to four-year-olds.
ADJOURNMENT: Sean South moved, seconded by Jennifer Holste, to adjourn the C & M portion of the joint board meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. President Randall J. Rabe adjourned the meeting of the Anita board. The joint meeting of the Anita and C & M Boards was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
