CLAREMONT — Before it asks voters to approve the administration’s proposal to put additional state aid into three reserve funds, the School Board wants written confirmation from either legal counsel or the state Department of Education that its proposal is allowed under the state Senate bill that provided some cities and towns with more money.
At Wednesday’s School Board meeting, the board tabled a motion to ask voters at a special district meeting later this month to approve placing about $430,000 in two capital reserve funds for building repairs and transportation and establish an energy expendable trust fund to cover the higher electric and heating costs. There was also confusion on the exact amount the district will receive from increases in the district’s Adequate Education Grant. It could be closer to $490,000 and the board wants clarity on that as well.
Though the board appeared in support of the administration’s proposal, it decided, after hearing from several residents, that it should get a legal opinion before sending the question to voters.
“I want confirmation from legal counsel or the Department of Education that the warrant article is in compliance with the grant,” said board member Whitney Skillen.
Skillen and others referred to the wording in SB 420, Extraordinary Need Grants for Schools, which states, “in order to receive an extraordinary need grant, the eligible school district shall provide a plan to the Department of Education outlining how the district intends to use grant award funds to improve the educational achievement and growth of students.”
Skillen agreed the reserve fund proposal is a “good use of the money” but it does not follow the rules and she wants to be sure the district is not penalized later by the Department of Education.
Resident Arlene Hawkins said the primary goal of the grant is to improve student’s academic achievement, not build up capital reserve funds.
“It is very specific about how the money is to be allocated,” Hawkins said.
Another resident, former School Board member Candace Crawford, said the warrant article does not meet the needs identified in the bill.
SAU 6 Business Administrator Richard Seaman said the Department of Education and the Department of Revenue Administration had told him that the use of the money is unrestricted.
Seaman did agree to get confirmation from the DOE that the district can use the money for whatever it wants.
At the beginning of the public hearing on the warrant article, which was to be sent to a vote at a special school district meeting on Oct. 20 but now that date is uncertain, board member Steve Horsky said building capital reserves means the district won’t have to come back to the taxpayers with separate warrant articles at the annual school meeting in addition to seeking budget approval.
“This gives us an opportunity to have money set aside if the district has something fail,” Horsky said, adding that with the turbulent times in energy, it is a good idea to have money set aside rather than have to find it in the budget in other areas. “We are trying to build a safety net for the district that hasn’t been there.”
The board said that indirectly the money is supporting student achievement because if there is a roof failure or some other capital need, the money has to come from within the budget.
“Historically, cuts have to be made because the board has to find the money and children suffer,” board Vice Chairwoman Heather Whitney said. “This is fiscally responsible and responsible to our students.”
Toward the end of the nearly 90-minute public hearing, another former School Board member, David Putnam, said he does not have a problem with the reserve fund proposal but the administration needs clarification.
“You should get a legal opinion to make sure you are doing the right thing so we can support it,” Putnam said.
No date was set for when the article would come back before the board or when the special district meeting vote would be held.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
