Board Meeting Agenda/Minutes 9-9-13


The approved minutes are posted below the agenda. All attachments are PDFs.
 
Agenda
September 9, 2013 Regular Board Meeting
7:00 pm – Board Room
131 W. Nittany Avenue
State College, PA 16801

I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

II. COMMUNICATIONS

III. PUBLIC COMMENT
(Each individual will be limited to comments of five (5) minutes as time permits for items on this agenda or related to Board business.)

IV. ROUTINE APPROVALS
A motion to approve the listing of Routine Approvals as presented.
A. August 26, 2013 Meeting Minutes (attachment IV-A)
B. Financial and Treasurer’s Report for July 2013 (attachment IV-B)
C. District Bills for August 2013 (attachment IV-C)
D. Fall Interscholastic Athletics Booster Clubs for 2013-14 school year (attachment IV-D)
E. Human Resource Recommendations (attachment IV-E)

V. ACTION ITEMS
A. A motion to continue with Concept B for further consideration for the high school project. (attachment V-A)
B. A motion to continue with Concept D for further consideration for the high school project. (attachment V-B)
C. A motion to establish the Referendum Election date of May 20, 2014 for the high school project. (attachment V-C)
D. A motion to approve the High School Project Budget total in an amount not to exceed $115,000,000. (attachment V-D)
E. A motion to approve the Student Expulsion Waiver Agreement 2013-14-1 with student and parent as presented.

VI. INFORMATION / DISCUSSION
A. Revised / New Policies: (attachment VI-A)
      Revised Policy 819.1 - Suicide and Self Harming Prevention Policy
      Policy 218.2 - Threat Assessment (New)
      Policy 915 - School Related Groups / Boosters / Support / Parent Organizations (New)
B. District Goal Category: Fiscal Stewardship
      Substitute Employees Proposal (attachment VI-B1)
      Planning update regarding fundraising proposal - Sale of bricks for Fraser Street walkway (attachment VI-B2)
      Proposed process for selecting consultants as part of district financial planning for facilities (attachment VI-B3)
C. District Goal Category: Facilities - High School Project
      Proposed Process for Educational Specifications (attachment VI-C)
D. PSBA Officer (materials previously distributed)

VII. FUTURE AGENDA PLANNING
September 11 - Community Forum
   Facilities: High School Project
     Community Forum

September 16 - Board Work Session
   Proposed Development/Fundraiser for Memorial Field Sidewalk
   Facilities: High School Project
     Additional information for Educational Specifications
     Proposed Educational Model

September 23 - Regular Meeting
**Action Items
   Change Order for Memorial Field
   Approve PSBA Officer
**Information/Discussion
   Revised/New Policies for consideration:
     Revised Policy 246 - Wellness Policy for Physical Education, Physical Activity and Nutrition. Changed name and content to Coordinated School Health Policy
     Policy 822 Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) New
     Revised Policy 114 - Gifted Education
   Comprehensive Planning: Update
   High School Project: option development

October 14 - Regular Meeting
**Action Items
   Approval of High School Project Construction Manager (pre-referendum)
   Second Reading and Approval of Revised/New Policies:
     Revised Policy 819.1 - Suicide and Self Harming Prevention Policy
     Policy 218.2 - Threat Assessment (New)
     Policy 915 - School Related Groups / Boosters / Support / Parent Organizations (New)
   High School Project: Adopt draft Educational Specifications
**Information/Discussion
   High School Project
     Referendum Timeline
     Option Development
   Revised/New Policies for consideration:
     Policy 702.1 - Memorials (New)
     Remove Policy 819 Management of Traumatic Events
     Policy 805 - All Hazards Planning (New)
 
October 21 - Work Session
High School Project: Option Development
 
October 28 - Regular Meeting
**Action Items
   Second Reading and Approval of Revised/New Policies:
     Revised Policy 246 - Wellness Policy for Physical Education, Physical Activity and Nutrition. Changed name and content to Coordinated School Health Policy
     Policy 822 Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) New
     Revised Policy 114 - Gifted Education
**Information/Discussion

VIII. ADJOURNMENT
 
MINUTES

September 9, 2013 Regular Board Meeting
7:00 pm – Board Room
131 W. Nittany Avenue
State College, PA 16801
 
I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Penni Fishbaine, board president, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. She welcomed and thanked all in attendance and those viewing from home. Ms, Fishbaine announced the Board had an executive session on August 26 on legal and personnel matters. With the agenda before them, she asked board members if anyone had any changes; there were no changes.
 
A copy of all materials distributed to board members for discussion and/or action is included with the official minutes, unless otherwise indicated.
Board members present: Amber Concepcion, Penni Fishbaine, David Hutchinson, Jim Leous, Ann McGlaughlin, Jim Pawelczyk, Gowen Roper, Dorothea Stahl, Laurel Zydney (arrived 7:06)
Board members absent:
Board Secretary: Mary Jenn Dorman
Solicitor: Scott Etter
Superintendent: Robert O’Donnell
District Personnel: Randy Brown, Scott DeShong, Linda Eggebeen, Sandy Emerich, Jeanne Knouse, Julie Miller, Peg Pennepacker, Jason Perrin, Ed Poprik, Wilda Stanfield, Donna Watson
Guests: John Beddia, Rich Brown, Sharon Brown, Scott Fozard, Mark Higgins, W B Ingram, Matt Morgan, Ken Walsh

II. COMMUNICATIONS
Dr. O’Donnell noted that a Community Forum would be held this Wednesday, in the High School South cafeteria and the focus would be on work that is done this evening, the Educational Model, and Education Specifications. There will be one tour leaving the High School South cafeteria at 5:30p.m. Parking for this event will be at the High School North building due to the marching band practicing in the south parking lot. Staff will be helping to direct traffic to the appropriate parking areas.
 
III. ROUTINE APPROVALS
A motion to approve the listing of Routine Approvals as presented.
-August 26, 2013 Meeting Minutes
-Financial and Treasurer’s Report for July 2013
-District Bills for August 2013
                              2012-2013           2013-2014        Total
--General Fund:    $550,186.08     $5,654,119.50   $6,204,305.58
Checks 1007037 through 1007480 and V102433 through V102469
--Food Service Fund: $                  $ 82,318.02      $ 82,318.02
Checks 60815 through 60843
--Athletics Fund: $                          $ 38,716.90      $ 38,716.90
Checks 46432 and 46532
--Activities Fund: $                         $ 3,472.72        $ 3,472.72
Checks 90392 through 90395
--Purchasing Cards: $                    $ 47,126.87      $ 47,126.87
June 2013 Checks 779, 6967, 413, 176
--Total All Funds $550,186.08        $5,825,754.01   $6,375,940.09
-Fall Interscholastic Athletics Booster Clubs for 2013-14 school year
-Human Resource Recommendations (please refer to attachment IV-E)

Ms. Concepcion moved and Dr. Pawelczyk seconded to approve the Routine Approvals as listed. All board members present voted aye on a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. CONCEPT B for FURTHER CONSIDERATION
A motion to continue with Concept B for further consideration for the high school project. Ms. Concepcion moved and Mr. Hutchinson seconded to approve the motion. Ms. Fishbaine asked each board member to share his/her outcome from doing the evaluation matrix for Concept B and Concept D and as they went around the table comments were: B scored lower than D, good exercise going through the process, one heavily weighted toward the Ed Model, the bridge as a structure to fix the problem of the parking lot issue, being separated by a road does not allow you to be together as a high school, the larger the footprint the harder to meet your goals, looked at Ed Model and safety and security closely, B has three buildings and complicates things, the process was very helpful and showed substantial differences, B would not meet the needs, a lot of cost for the bridge, would rather use the money in the educational design, Concept B really fell short to Concept D, thanked all the many people for the work
that has been done to get the Board to this point, information is tough to know based on how much that has not been answered, 20 years from now the Ed Model will probably be different, flexibility will be important, likes having two buildings, important to have less access points, with B there could still be flooding issues, even closer to the street with the bridge, and feels D provides more flexibility than B.
 
The following audience member addressed the board:
--Ken Walsh spoke to the board on the ultimate issue that the community will agree to fund the project, and in 2005-06 the community wanted to renovate buildings on both sides and bridges were and are not necessary. This Board is facing a grand distinction from then to now because the public will be in control and in charge of how much money for the project. He believes Option B is the best option to pursue, no bridge, and clean and lighten the facility for education would be fine. Concept D is not an appropriate decision. People are not hearing justifications for the project and what is the cost. The community will have its time at the voting polls.
 
With the motion moved and seconded to continue with Concept B for further consideration for the high school project, no board members present voted aye and all board members present voted nay on a roll call vote. The motion failed unanimously.
 
V. CONCEPT D for FURTHER CONSIDERATION
A motion to continue with Concept D for further consideration for the high school project. Dr. Pawelczyk moved and Dr. Roper seconded to approve the motion. Ms. Fishbaine followed the same process for board members to share outcomes for Option D and comments were: Option D is more on one side of the street, helps with time getting to one class to another, appreciated comments from audience member and heard what was said, community will have an important say with voting on the referendum, wants the best way to use property on Westerly Parkway, have a
different Ed Model but also be flexible, safety and security is a big issue and want community to know children are safe, D in 2013 is the best answer, Concept D is the right decision for the next 50 years, best for our resources, fewer access points, a more compact footprint, only one bus drop-off and many more efficiencies, the value of being compact, with using small schools this does provide the best option, this high school of two buildings was not originally designed this way, North building was a high school and South building was a Junior High, do what is in
the best interest to have one high school, this process has been good, many people in the community may not use this as a high school but will be able to access the building, an asset for the entire community, and best for next generations of students. The community aspect weighed very heavy, bus drop-off, accommodates DELTA and other programs, Community will decide what is important to them, North side is very sketchy at this point, and many things still need determined. Concept C that remodeled both schools and nothing else came in at 26%, D might not be first choice for some but can be the best possible project and provide best educational choices for students.

With the motion moved and seconded to continue with Concept D for further consideration for the high school project, all board members present voted aye on a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously.
 
VI. ESTABLISH REFERENDUM DATE for HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
A motion to establish the Referendum Election date of May 20, 2014 for the high school project. Ms. Stahl moved and Dr. Roper seconded the motion. Board members discussed: choices and the timeline for February vs. May bid, bonding considerations, the financial side of fall 2014 vs. May of 2015, too far out to predict, project running two months longer with a May Referendum, and the advantages to mid-year with a mid-semester move. Dr. O’Donnell explained with a February Referendum the question would need to be set in December and the May Referendum would allow more time to engage people, address concerns raised, save the $60,000 expense of a special election, and not rush challenges for the design team. In February people might not show up due to weather or not really known, people will show up at the polls for May, did come forward with the February date, realize time concern and crunch to have people understand, need to be more efficient between February and May, understands questions and concerns but there should be more participation in the primary election, we want the most participation as possible, comfortable with May and doing a better job getting the word out, not sure this can be compressed for February, the need to be ready, and also be the right time - May seems better. Having the Referendum in February instead of May is a change and would need to be sold, construction concern, do not need to wait to be done to occupy, the schedule has changed a few times, many things could change the schedule but it will not be a dramatic change, thinks May is the right way to go, and the need to have the time to educate people and have the right design.
 
With the motion and second above to establish the Referendum Election date of May 20, 2014 for the high school project, and with all board members present, eight members voted aye, one nay (Dr. Pawelczyk) on a roll call vote.
 
The motion passed eight to one.
 
VII. HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL
A motion to approve the High School Project Budget total in an amount not to exceed $115,000,000. Ms. Stahl moved and Dr. Roper seconded to approve the motion. Board members discussed: The amount will not exceed this and may come in below; this number is the cap, and not the referendum amount but the project amount.
 
Board member had a problem with this motion and has felt a budget needs established, and we need a reconciliation of revenues and expenses.
Mr. Brown provided finance scenarios for board members to review prior to the meeting. Dr. Pawelczyk moved and Ms. McGlaughlin seconded to amend the original motion using Finance Scenario #4 with $115 M cap Project Cost, $73 M Referendum Borrowing, $10 M District Cash, and $32 M District Funded Borrowing. Board members discussed: Amending the motion makes more sense, not being comfortable with the district contributing $10 M, locking into financing at this time does not make sense, information from the survey was used to amend the motion, the difference between Scenario 3 and 4, the fund balance would still grow with Scenario 3, not only need to fund the high school but also looking at capital needs for the district, and what projects need done over the next ten years. Mr. Brown would feel less comfortable to be able to do elementary projects with Scenario 4. The cost and the referendum question is different, there are a number of different ways to go, confident in the 10-year data that was given, there is still more to learn, chose the May date to educate ourselves as well as the community, should not tie hands of future boards, the discussion is about what we can afford, how are we going to pay for a $115 M project, understood but reluctant to tie us to any funding scenario right now, based on the vote this does not slow down moving forward, and the original motion is not an endorsement to spend $115 M but the cap. With the amended motion moved and seconded above for using Finance Scenario #4 and all board members present, two board members voted aye, seven voted nay (Ms. Stahl, Ms. Zydney, Ms. Concepcion, Ms. Fishbaine, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Leous, and Dr. Roper) on a roll call vote. The motion failed with a 2 to 7 vote.
 
Board members further discussed the range of 2.5% above and below the target, keeping more of the North, all the options and where they may fall, North side as a separate project, all construction on the South side vs. the North side and referred to April 18 meeting with the range of $109 to $114 M that included Delta, just narrowed down to a concept, many other questions, need to get a better sense of what we get, and locking in does not make sense.
 
Mr. Leous moved and Ms. Zydney seconded to postpone the vote for the original motion. Board members commented on what will be known in two weeks that we do not know now, the amended motion for the specific scenario, can vote on the original motion, no consultant until October, need to study what we want on the North side and the cost, D Option is committed to, need to bring Matt Harlow back, need to hear administrators’ needs, need clear definition of what these things are, do not have a plan or process to complete discussion on finance, come up with ideas and
community has been told we are working on a high school project, not using the big North building so what is going to be there, not looking to add to the project, what other uses does the north provide for other things in the district, how to begin to fit all the pieces together, and not just the high school project but Master Planning.
 
With the motion and seconded above to postpone the vote of the original motion and all board members present, two board members voted aye and seven nay (Ms. Concepcion, Ms. Fishbaine, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. McGlaughlin, Dr. Pawelczyk, Dr. Roper, and Ms. Stahl) on a roll call vote. The motion failed with a 2 to 7 vote.
 
With the original motion to approve the High School Project Budget total in an amount not to exceed $115,000,000 moved and seconded and all board members present, five members voted aye and four members voted nay (Mr. Leous, Ms. McGlaughlin, Dr. Pawelczyk, and Ms. Zydney) on a roll call vote. The motion passed with a 5 to 4 vote.
 
VIII. STUDENT EXPULSION WAIVER AGREEMENT
A motion to approve the Student Expulsion Waiver Agreement 2013-14-1 with student and parent as presented.
Ms. Stahl moved and Dr. Roper seconded to approve the motion. There was no discussion. All board members present voted aye on a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously.
 
Board members took a Break from 9:25 p.m. to 9:33 p.m.
 
Dr. Etter left the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
 
IX. REVISED and NEW POLICIES for CONSIDERATION
Revised / New Policies
● Revised Policy 819.1 - Suicide and Self Harming Prevention Policy
Jeanne Knouse explained this is the first reading and there has been an increase of self-harming over the last couple of years. She confirmed who has already reviewed this policy. Board member asked what the district does to try to prevent and Ms. Knouse responded.
● Policy 218.2 - Threat Assessment (New)
Ms. Knouse stated that this policy is new and resulted from administrative training and collaboration with Rebecca Bywater, PSU Manager of Threat Assessment Community Education. This is much more specific for the building level staff when there are concerns.
● Policy 915 - School Related Groups / Boosters / Support / Parent Organizations (New)
Ms. Pennepacker noted this was the first reading for this policy and recommended by PDE due to the signing of Act 82 last spring. The district needs to report participation numbers and financial information and needs a booster club policy to guide parents. There are four states that have voted this in, it is Title 9 driven, and like Right-to-Know it is a reporting law. Title is not a sport law; it is a school education law. Board members discussed: Booster Clubs overseen by building principals, wants to see all treated equally, this is for public schools - no private schools, who all
was involved in drafting this, there was no booster club input, Dr. Etter did work with Peg on this policy, it is a change for many but is based on the law, and Title 9 does not prohibit boosters to contribute.

X. DISTRICT GOAL CATEGORY: FISCAL STEWARDSHIP
Substitute Employees Proposal
Ms. Emerich noted that the Substitute Services would be provided by a third party, the third party has a little more leeway than we do when it comes to providing Healthcare down the line, this will assist district since they will be responsible for taxes, PSERS, certification issues, and unemployment compensation. Board members discussed:
still use the state application or do they have their own, hidden costs, the estimate of savings by doing this, STS (Substitute Teachers Service) is cost effective and most widely used in the state, possible complications and it does not work out, service fits the district, spoke on PTS and Day-to-Day, this was thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Etter, would this change the process we have now, the process does not change for teachers, there will be no differences, the page where the costs were addressed, what exactly is the cost analysis, this will need to be brought back,
educational piece fits better than the business side, and it would be good to have answers and a better understanding financially. This will be brought back to the board for more discussion.
 
Planning update regarding fundraising proposal - Sale of bricks for Fraser Street walkway
Mr. Brown noted that there has been connection with Affinity. Ms. Concepcion and Ms. McGlaughlin along with Mr. Brown and Dr. O’Donnell have met with Greg Woodman regarding a campaign for the brick sale for the Fraser Street walkway. The brick sidewalk does require a Borough zoning variance because it is considered a sign. Ms. Watson was attending the Borough meeting tonight due to another request that we would be able to follow the process and prepare what is needed. Board members discussed: providing dollar amounts for the campaign, this will need board
approval, inside concourse is not brick, the brick sidewalk being our property or the borough’s property, we own the sidewalk and the sidewalk is our responsibility.
 
The board will be receiving the proposal at its September 16 work session and this item will be brought back on September 23 as an action item for approval.
 
Proposed process for selecting consultants as part of district financial planning for facilities Mr. Brown explained that they are continuing to work on looking for the best possible financial plan. We would like to evaluate alternatives with an underwriter joining our team to add a second set of eyes. He spoke on bond sales, the high school project and other projects, CAC for Finance helping with selection processes, and recommended
giving the CAC for Finance in collaboration with administration and the Board the charge to recommend an underwriter for the district. He spoke to bond counsel and she recommended looking into this. Board members discussed: The function of an underwriter, advisory, could be an opportunity for conflict - underwriter working with financial advisor, they make their money in different ways, need to know where and how they get paid, need to
understand better why we would do this, financial advisor gets paid with a bond issue, suggested going back and talking with CAC and come back with a recommendation from them, and this is an added step and could be delaying this a little longer. Ms. Fishbaine noted that the wait of two weeks would be worth it to do this right.
 
XI. DISTRICT GOAL CATEGORY: FACILITIES - HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
Proposed Process for Educational Specifications
Dr. O’Donnell reviewed the memo regarding the Draft Educational Specifications Document. He noted that the Board is scheduled to consider approval of the document this fall and reviewed a proposed timeline to suggest how to work toward an updated version of the Educational Specifications that the Board would support moving forward. He also suggested the possibility of the Board providing a charge for an advisory committee and/or a board subcommittee to assist with aspects of this planning effort. There were no questions.
 
XII. PSBA OFFICER
Mr. Hutchinson noted that there is a different procedure for this year and it is the first time the voting process has been handled this way. He explained the process for getting leadership capacity and looking for where the endorsements are. There is one exception and that is for the Treasurer. Due to this candidate having a little more experience in finance, he recommended Otto Voit. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out the candidates that were endorsed and Ms. Fishbaine noted that board members would vote on the slate that is recommended since Mr. Hutchinson is familiar and knows most of them. Ms. Fishbaine thanked Mr. Hutchinson and noted this item would be brought back on the September 23 meeting agenda for action.

XIII. FUTURE AGENDA PLANNING
Board will need the following at some point soon:
A timeline for how we work through finance piece.
A timeline for how we work through the planning for the North side
A timeline for communications - an expanded plan
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Stahl moved and Ms. McGlaughlin seconded to adjourn the meeting. All board members present voted aye with a voice vote. The motion passed. Ms. Fishbaine adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. to an executive session on student discipline matters.
 
Submitted by,
Mary Jenn Dorman
Board Secretary