Sunday, January 30, 2011

EAC Union Leader's Remarks on NHR

There's a short video clip of an interview with the Education Association of Cheshire union president Beverly Jurkiewicz on NHR's article of Thurday's budget vote.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Reminder: Tonight's Special BOE Meeting 7:30pm Town Council Chambers

It's been confirmed that tonight's special BOE meeting is still on for 7:30pm. The only topic on the agenda is the 2011-2012 BOE Budget. This a meeting of the BOE as a whole and I expect a vote to take place on adopting a 2011-2012 Budget.

Tony Perugini

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

1/25 7:30pm BOE Meeting - Budget

A friendly reminder that tonight's BOE Finance Committee meeting is 7:30pm at Dodd Middle School. This meeting is a Public Informational Meeting/Board Members response to the Superintendent's Budget recommendation.

Public comments are welcome and encouraged.

The BOE Finance Committee will vote on a budget to move forward to the full BOE for it's Thurs business meeting.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

1/20/2011 BOE Business Meeting 7:30pm, TC Chambers

There is no budget vote scheduled for tonight's BOE meeting. By law/by-laws, the Finance Committee must vote and move a budget forward to the BOE. Since Tuesday's Finance Committee meeting was cancelled, there was no vote, obviously.

The Finance Committee will meeting Tuesday (1/25) 7:30pm at Dodd Middle School to hear BOE member input and public input on the budget as well as vote on a budget to send to the full BOE.

The BOE will meet Thursday (1/28) to discuss and vote on the budget.

In speaking with our Chairman, we are planning on hearing public input on the budget tonight. I encourage you to attend tonight, and/or Tuesday and/or Thursday.

1/20/2011 BOE Business Meeting

1. Call to Order – 7:30 p.m.
A. Roll Call for Quorum
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
C. Student Representatives

2. Presentations
A. Cheshire High School Student Recognition
B. School Partnership Awards

3. Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of Minutes of Board of Education (Business) Meeting Held December 2, 2010
B. Approval of Minutes of Board of Education (Budget) Meeting Held January 6, 2011

4. Correspondence

5. Superintendent’s Report

6. Reports of Standing Committees
A. Curriculum
I. Report on Meeting Held January 10, 2010

B. Finance
I. Financial Report – December 31, 2010
II. Report and Possible Action on 2011/12 Budget
III. Independent Accountant’s Report on Procedures Performed Relating to Cheshire
Public School Grant Data

C. Planning Committee
I. Report on Meeting held January 14, 2011

D. Policy Committee
I. Report on Meetings Held December 13, 2010 and January 10, 2011

E. Other Standing Committees
I. Calendar Committee
i. Formation of the Calendar Committee
II. Liaison Committee
ii. Report on Meeting Held December 15, 2010.
7. Audience

8. Old Business

9. New Business

10. Adjournment

Monday, January 17, 2011


At the first account review meeting an audience member asked about Mandates that the school district must comply with (be it funded, un-funded or partially funded). Dr. Florio put together this document in response to the question.

It also doesn't include Race To The Top mandates. Yes, even though CT was not awarded any funding for RTTP participation, we're still obligated by some it's mandates. Although this list outlines would be helpful if they were defined and, ultimately, dollars assigned to each mandate. The latter could be a challenge to identify and track but could be worth the effort.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Special Education Costs / Outplacements / Surplus

I've uploaded two additional documents to the budget library. The first document referenced here is the Special Education Tuition Outplacement Expenditures for 2010-2011. Includes tuition & transportation costs by facility. There's a ~$500K shortfall in this year's budget due to last minute out-placements by DCF.

The second document is the Special Education Cost Fact sheet.  Worth reading as it describes the formula that Hartford uses to reimburse Cheshire Special Education Costs. The formula uses the LEA (per pupil cost) calculated by Hartford. This is the annual "We spend in the bottom 15% but score in the top 15%" argument used every year.  The PPC for 2010-2011 is $11,761. This number is garbage. The PPC is garbage but I will discuss PPC in a separate topic. Just know that Hartford calculates it and it's the basis of reimbursement for Cheshire.

Interesting thing here is that, in some years, BOE's have eaten Special Ed cost overruns from it's operating budget while TC's used the reimbursement to prop up the rainy day fund to the tune of $516K ($512,850 over the last 5 years):

I find it ironic that this year, the Special Ed shortfall is ~$500K which is almost the amount of 'surplus' the Town has socked away from reimbursements over the years.

I was told that by law, special education reimbursements are supposed to go to the BOE. I'm certain this will get resolved as the BOE/TC discusses the Special Ed issue soon.
So. here's a situation where the BOE is helpless (it's a terrible feeling considering the wrong-doing going on at Hartford).  DCF decides to outplace students at the start of the school year causing the BOE to fall short $500K in the current budget. And...Hartford is not following through on it's own Statutory Reimbursement of 100%. If it did, then this years reimbursement would be $900K. Question is: With a $3.5B shortfall and funding limits placed on Special Ed by the State Legislature...$900k will not happen.

Then, there's the situation whereby TC's have taken reimbursements from Hartford to prop up "Surplus" but don't use it cover the special education shortfalls in BOE Special Ed accounts. This is not necessarily a malicious thing but I think it goes to show that there's no such thing as "free" money especially when it comes to grants.

What is the ACTUAL Recommended Budget Increase before credits? 6.7%

Someone asked me if the $3.07, 5.09% increase includes the $540,000 Teacher Stimulus money. Yes, it does account for it but there are few other items that are accounted for in this budget request:

Budget Increase:    $3,070,424
                               +     540,000    (Federal Teacher Stimulus)
                               +     225,000    (Allocation from Medical Trust Fund Balance)
                               +     232,009*    (Underfunding claims @105% vs 110%)
                                 $4,067,433    Actual budget increase

In essence, this budget recommendation is actually a $4M increase. I think the fact that our budget is being helped by grants/stimulus sometimes goes unnoticed.

That being said, since the Federal Teacher Stimulus is a one-time deal, it will be gone at the end of the 2011-2012 school year. Which means, that unless something is done to supplant this grant, the 2012-2012 Budget recommendation will most likely start off with at least a $540K increase. But that's neither here or there at the moment. The point here is that an additional $1M increase in the operating budget is getting lost in the translation in the current budget proposal because it's being "accounted" for by a grant, medical trust fund and underfunding.

* I have to verify this number, I am basing it on Page 7 of the Medical Benefits section in the budget workbook. This could be an additional $232K but I will confirm the actual number by Tuesday.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

My Position on the Superintendent's Budget Proposal

I assume most of the members are in favor of the superintendent's budget recommendation but until individual BOE member's chime in this is purely speculation on my part. I believe some are having a difficult time trying to figure out where we can achieve cost savings that won't undermine education. As Dr. Florio stated, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Most of the reduction options presented in the Superintendent's budget proposal require serious analysis and I believe that more data is needed on these options let alone the time needed to thoroughly weigh the options. 

To many on the BOE, including myself, this is not as easy as simply eliminating XX headcount. It's not something we wish to undertake. We're faced with many obstacles particularly around physical classroom space, a slowly-declining enrollment, increased state and federal education mandates as well as costs that are simply beyond the BOE's control such as Special Education, contracted salary increases and sky-rocketing medical costs.

To make myself clear, I have concerns with the budget recommendation knowing that it's highly unlike the TC is going to support this increase. But. I'm also not in favor of a zero percent budget increase because it's not feasible given the constraints that the BOE has to operate in. For starters, the $3.07M increase is a very hard pill for Cheshire taxpayers to swallow when they (we) have already been contributing our fair share of taxes to education. To be hit with such a large increase just to maintain status is not sitting well with many in Town. I do believe most understand that items such as Special Education, Contractual increases are beyond the BOE's control...but to these folks it doesn't matter, it's still expensive in this economy especially when not everyone has come to the table to help. Naturally, there are some in town that believes we cannot possibly spend enough on education....we should have an unlimited education budget and exceed it.

Some are going to argue that my possible areas of reduction are considered anti-education and I can only laugh at that. Being fiscally responsible and being for education are not mutually exclusive. As a BOE member I have to find middle ground between delivering a high quality education that is also affordable by the Cheshire taxpayers. Let's not forget that another trainwreck is coming at us regarding ECS under-funding and the State's $3.5B deficit...

Potential Areas of Reduction:
Before I look at any potential budget changes that impact learning within the classroom, I'm first looking at non-mandated items in the budget.
  • EIC (or the B-3) program is not mandated by Harford but is fully reimbursed by Hartford. It provides an incredible benefit to the B-3 students at no cost to the town. Perhaps the biggest benefit of this program is by intervening early (B-3) these children have been able to adopt and enjoy a positive learning experience as they progress through K-12. I'd also argue that by having this program in place, it's helped keep special education costs down for these students that have started in the B-3 program and have been able to stay within the Cheshire School at a lower cost to the taxpayer as opposed to placing them outside of the district at a greater cost to Cheshire. I support this program and don't propose eliminating it at this time.
  • I am considering raising the participation fee for ALL extra-curricular activites as opposed to eliminating some of them, if possible. Sports and clubs are not mandated by State/Federal and while these programs helped some students perform better in the classroom I don't believe it's a necessity or takes higher priority than the classrom. I'm not willing to sacrifice classroom instruction over extra-curricular activities. I am willing, however, to find a compromise that keeps some or all extra-curricular activities in place by off-setting the costs with participation fees. However, I cannot rule out that some programs may be eliminated entirely. Currently, the finance committee does not have data that breaks down the costs to run each sports/activity but Dr. Florio gave us an estimate of $300,000.
  • I am considering eliminating the money that the BOE contributes towards the Cheshire marching band, color guard, winter guard other other club-based activities.
  • I am considering eliminating the $75,000 allocated for teachers who are expected to earn advanced degrees and will attain a new level of pay. I don't believe that attaining an advanced degree automatically entitles one to a pay increase unless, of course, it leads to a measurable improvement in classroom instruction and/or teaching more classes.
    • However, the BOE may be contractually obligated to provide this increas per the EAC contract. I will get an answer on this tonight
  • I am considering eliminating stipends given to department heads at Cheshire High School.
  • $431,025 is being requested for Rentals & Leases. This amount includes Swimming Pool Rental, Hockey Rink rental, postage/copy machines. It's unclear how much we're paying for Swimming Pool rental and Hockey Rink. But *if* Hockey is eliminated, for example, there should be a cost savings towards rink rental OR if the rink rental can be funded by an increase in participation would be ideal to know what the rental cost is.
  • I am considering increasing class sizes. I do not believe that increasing some classes another 4-5 students is going to degrade quality of eduction but, if this is undertaken, it must done with precision at this point. As I mentioned in another post, this is driven by the paricular needs of any given class. I do believe a class size of 25-30 students can function well if (a.) the teacher is capable of handling the class size and (b.) the teacher can allocate adequate one-one time with each student. (b) is determined by the needs of each student.
    • I propose that we make teaching assistants available to teacher with larger classes so that adequate one-one time can be achieved.
    • I base my recommendation on the experience we've had with substitute teachers used to fill a short-term vacancy. We've had great success with graduate student teachers both with instruction and cost.
    • I think it's possible that we can, for example, eliminate 6 elementary teachers while will result in larger classes but offsetting those class sizes by having 2-3 TA's available either on a full-time or part-time basis to assist teachers in the classroom in larger classes.
      • The TA's could be scheduled to rotate between the larger classes within an elementary school or across several schools.
      • I believe that the cost of an IA is much less than an FTE contracted teacher.
        • The cost of 2-3 TA's, may be equal to 1 FTE contracted teacher
          • Data and analysis are needed to confirm this.
      • Currently, many schools utilize parent volunteers in the classroom to help teacher's with various reading, writing and math workshops.
        • This has been beneficial in that it frees up the teacher to spend more one-one time with students while the workshop is assisted by a parent.
    • I propose increasing class sizes knowing that my 6 and 8 year old daughters at Highland may be impacted by my decision.
  • I am not in favor of closing a school during the 2011-2012 school year simply because spreading 324+ students across our elementary schools poses a space constraint issue and there are costs associated with making more space available in existing schools to address a bigger student population and/or retrofitting space to be ADA compliant.
    • I do, however, believe we need to reconsider this for the 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 school year when the slowly declining enrollment begins to make a dent in our student population and possibly frees up space within our schools to accomodate a closure of one of our smalller elementary schools.
    • Darcey was listed as a possible consolidation in the 2020 Committee report in the next few years. However, there has been no cost-analysis performed (or requested) on doing so.
    • It's unclear how much can be saved by closing Darcey vs. how much money needs to be invested to make one or more elementary schools kindergarten acceptable.
    • Detailed analysis needs to be performed here.
  • My position on redistricting is neutral. Redistricting may be an option forced on the BOE depending on what the final budget number is from the TC. As Dr. Florio stated last week, a $1.5M reduction may jumpstart the school consolidation process.
    • But the 2020 report states that Redistricting is not an option at this point due to enrollment/space.
    • The 2020 committee also did not run any what-if data analysis scenarios around re-drawing school district lines.
    • The lack of a study, with finding and cost analysis (including impact, if any, on student learning) is problematic at this point.
  • I want to see employees contribute more to the $8M in health care costs we're facing in 2011-2012. Unfortunately, we have to wait for the next round contract discussions to open that can of worms but it must be on the table and it must be fair.
  • Eliminating AP Classes/Electives at CHS. My position on this is neutral at this time. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have any detailed analysis at this time that either supports or rejects this option. But the AP program has been beneficial for students going on to college that put in the work ethic to undertake AP courses and AP testing.
    • I do take Dr. Florio's statement about increased students in study halls as a result of elimination courses at face value. I don't question his integrity but I think it would be fair to see the actual courses offered, number of students enrolled, number of seats available to the BOE.
    • Eliminating an elective/class may not necessarily eliminate a headcount. More than likely, an instructor for an elective also teacher's more than one class
    • More data and analysis is needed for CHS course consolidation options, if any.
These are simply ideas. These, and the options given by Dr. Florio are not simple ones. My concern, at this point, is whether or not the BOE has enough data and time to give these options the proper analysis needed before the BOE adopts a budget (2/15). I'd rather not come up with an arbitrary number to reduce the budget without knowing the impact and hard estimates of savings.

Yes, I believe the budget is tight and we must be careful not to make cuts that will undermine our education system.

I hope this provides you with an idea of where I stand on this budget, at this time.

1/13/2010 BOE Public Budget Preview Meeting #2

Reminder that tonight at 7:30pm at Dodd Middle School, the BOE will review the following budget items:
  • Instructional Expense
  • Support Services
  • Maintenance & Operations
Regarding Tuesday's meeting attendance was minimal, I counted 30-35 people in the audience. I don't know if the weather was a factor preventing folks from attending the meeting but I was surprised at the low turnout. Facing a very possible $1.5M budget reduction, I hope we have a better turnout tonight and throughout the remainder of the budget process.

The Cheshire Patch publshed a story on Tuesday's meeting. which can read here. Small Turnout for Big Budget.

Monday, January 10, 2011

1/11/2010 BOE Public Budget Preview Meeting #1

A friendly reminder that the BOE Finance Committee will kick off the 2011/2012 Public Budget review meeting tomorrow night at 7:30pm in the Dodd Middle School auditorium. I hope you'll attend and participate in the discussion. As I stated elsewhere, we're looking for ideas and suggestions from the public. I've received several here so far, thank you.  While we take questions/suggestions via the microphone I will also make index cards available so that questions/ideas can be submitted on paper. You do not have to stand at the microphone.

Upcoming Budget Meetings

1/6/2011 Town Council Chambers – 7:30 p.m. 
1/11/2011 Dodd Middle School – 7:30 p.m. Public Budget Review #1
1/13/2011 Dodd Middle School – 7:30 p.m. Public Budget Review #2
1/20/2011 Town Council Chambers – 7:30 p.m. Public Information Meeting/BOE Member Responses to Superintendent's Budget/Adoption of a BOE Budget, if possible
1/25/2011 (if necessary) Special Meeting of the BOE to Adopt a BOE Budget
2/15/2011 Approved BOE Budget Request Transmitted to Town Manager
April 2011 (Date to be determined)  Town Budget Hearing
April 15, 2011 Town Council Adoption of a Town Budget
June 30, 2011 Final Budget Must be Approved by BOE

2020 Committee Report & 2011-2012 Budget Impact

In the spring of 2010, Dr. Florio put together a community-based committee to evaluate the Cheshire Public Schools' facility needs for the next decade. The committee was designated the 2020 Committee and representatives to the committee included members of the Board of Education, Town Council, parent groups, school staff and the business community. The committee began its work in the Spring of 2010 and continued working through the Fall of 2010. The full report can, and should be, viewed here.

The reason this advisory committee was formed was to evaluate facility options for Cheshire Public Schools through 2020. Last year, there was talk about possibly closing Chapman School due to declining enrollment and potential for cost savings. The committee was tasked with researching three options:
  • Facility Consolidation (i.e. school closure)
  • Grade-Level Restructuring
  • Redistricting
Executive Summary:
  • There are no immediate (near-term 2-3 years) adjustments to school configuration, grade structure, redistricting that would be recommended at this time.
  • Closure of a facility is not an option in the near term.
  • The enrollment trend for the study period is downward over 10 years.
  • NESDC estimates for the next eight years project a drop of over 500 students (K-12) by the year 2018 compared to current enrollment.
  • Enrollment is declining in the course of the decade. While the decline is significant at theelementary level over 8-10 years, it is not significant in the near term to consider closure of a facility or restructuring.
  • The downward trend in enrollment does allow the opportunity to return elementary classsizes to pre-2008 levels and reverse a trend in increasing class size at many grade levels across the district. 
  • The 2020 Committee places high value on the instructional benefit of dedicated scienceclassrooms for instruction at the elementary level. While these rooms could be used as regular classrooms in a period of increasing enrollment, the rooms where not considered part of classroom inventory in the capacity analysis.
  • In the next decade, balancing elementary school enrollment could be required through redistricting. However based on current student distribution it appears that this would require movement of multiple district lines, not just the line between two schools.
  • Projected Middle School enrollment will not decline to a level that would allow an additional grade to be added to Dodd Middle School. There will be a modest amount of excess capacity at Dodd through the middle and latter part of the decade.
  • There are no options presented for change to the Cheshire High School program as it relates to the recommendations in this report. The Board of Education will however have to consider the implementation of the recently enacted Connecticut School Reform Law (PA111) including increased graduation requirements and its potential impact on the facilities requirements of Cheshire High School.
  • The committee did express the importance of technology in our schools and the need to provide an environment rich in opportunities for students to learn using current technology options available.
  • The committee also acknowledges that the rapid pace of technological change may impact school facilities in the coming years. The committee however was not charged with, nor had the time, to fully weigh the impact of technology on the educational process and the requirements technology may have on school space needs.
  • The 2020 Committee recommends that Cheshire Board of Education monitor and assess enrollment in the coming years as the steady decline could make some of the scenarios regarding restructure or closure of a facility educationally feasible and merit consideration.
  • The most viable option for closure would be to relocate Darcey early intervention program and restore the kindergarten program to neighborhood schools. This would however require a capital investment for the movement of the EIC program.
In summary, the committee recommended no near-term (2 year) solutions. However, Dr. Florio noted that a budget reduction of $1.5M could force a school closure to achieve that level of reduction.

Report is available in the budget library.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Superintendent Budget Recommendation Part IIIa - Employee Benefits (Medical)

Employee Benefits:
  • $652,182 - Medical Benefits.
    • These are costs for medicial insurance for covered personnel (and their dependents) and eligible retirees.
    • Also included are costs for Blue Care HMO as well as employee waiver payments.
    • The budget assumes use of $225,000 from the medical trust fund in 2010/2011 to offset some cost increases and budgets the self-funded portion of the insurance liability at 105% of expected claim levels. *The town and BOE are liable for up to 110% of claims in a given year.
I've scanned the remaining pages from the budget workbooks that highlights cost containment measures, and plans by employee group with costs details. Click to expand:

Teacher's Medical Plan Cost Details

Administrator's Medical Plan Cost Details

Superintendent Budget Recommendation Part II Non-Certified Salaries

Non-Certified Salaries:
  • $30,789 is for Instructional Assistants.  IA's are classified staff used by Special Education and remedial needs.
    • The IAT union contract calls for a 2% wage increase in 2011/2012, 0% in 2012-2013. This was negotiated this past summer. Thank you IATs!
    • FYI, as a result of the State Supreme Court decision in the PJ Case, the district is required to assure that on average, special ed students receive instructional services with their non-disable peers for 80% of the time. As such, I don't see elimination of IAT as a viable option for this budget.
  • -$49,101 for Managers/Supervisors
    • These supervisory positions don't require state certification and are included in this account:
      • Systems Manager, Systems Associate, Supervisor of Fiscal & Transportation Services, Custodial Supervisor, Facilities Manager and Transportation Coordinator.
    • This section will be detailed in later parts.
  • $46,647 for Secretarial/Clerical account.
    • This contains salaries for both full and part-time clerks. Both union and non-union positions are funded by this account.
  • $27,705 for Custodians/Maintenance
    • Custodian ($44,769) and Maintenance (-$17,064) represents this account.
    • The reduction is a result of reductions to staff at CHS that has beend assigned to a contractor service.
    • The contract for the custodial employee calls for a 2% was increase in 2011 and 0% in 2012.

$3.07M Increase (5.09%) Superintendent's Budget Recommendation Part I - Certified Salaries

During last night's BOE Business meeting, Dr. Florio presented his 2011-2012 Budget Recommendation of $63,448,229 or an increase over the current 2010-2011 Budget ($60,377,875) of $3,070,424. This represents a 5.09% requested increase...The full presentation from last night can be viewed here. This post will be the first in a series that will break down the budget into more detail and, hopefully, will foster a constructive dialogue throughout the budget process.

Part I breaks down the accounts representing the 5.09% increase:
The account summary above is from the presentation last night. However, it doesn't show the true picture as it doesn't include the $540,000 one-time Federal Teacher Stimulus grant that will be used in 2011-2012. Without the grant, the increase would be $3,610,424 or 6% increase. This grant will expire, be used up, at the end of the 2011-2012 school year. Where appropriate, I'll highlight the impacts grants have on our finance throughout the series.

Let's break down the summary above into the it's corresponding budget accounts taken from BM-1 in the 2011-2012 Budget Workbook:

Certified Salaries:
This line item increase of $1,237,053 includes:
  • $120,099 in Administrative Salaries (Administration, Directors/Supervisors/Principals/Asst Principals)
    • $90,793 of which is due to the loss off Federial Stimulus Funding under the ARRA program. A portion of the Director of Pupil Services salary was paid under this grant in 2009/10 and 2010/11.
  • $1,083,524 in Teacher's contracted salary increases.
  • $11,760 in Homebound Teachers
  • $21,670 for Student Activities & Adult Education
    • Salaries for sports coaches and faculty advisors for extra-curricular activities at the High School and Middle School are included here. The Education Association of Cheshire contract calls for a 2.4% increase in these stipends.
In Part II, we'll break down the Non-Certified salaries & Employee Benefits.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

1/6 Superintendent's 2011-2012 Budget Presentation & Budget Schedule

The Superintendent is scheduled to deliver his budget presentation on 1/6 at 7:30pm in the Town Council chambers. As was discussed during the 12/2/2010 BOE Business meeting, unlike prior budget presentations Dr. Florio will also list specific areas of reduction that may be visited based on funding scenarios. Perhaps the biggest complaint I received during the last budget process was about the specific details surrounding reductions were not made available until it was too late. Bucking the trend, we decided to make this information available upfront in the budget process because it's important for everyone to know what could be impacted based on the level of funding approved by the BOE and ultimately the TC.

In discussing the upcoming budget with Dr. Florio, I assume the following accounts will represent the majority of the budget increase over 2010-2011. Yes, I fully expect the budget request to be significantly greater for 2010-2011 for the following reasons:

- Contracted Salary Increases (est 4.6%)
- 10-13% (est) Increase in Medical Benefits Costs
- Funding/Catch Up Contribution to Retirement Plan
- Special Education Cost Uncertainty
- Transportation Cost Increases (due in large part to the special ed account)
- Potential loss of $1.2M in federal stimulus money

I will be posting 2011-2012 budget information, some of which, may be scattered among several or more topics. In attempt to try and organize this information, I've added a 2011-2012 Budget Library link to the home page. The idea is to try and index 2011-2012 budget content.

TPL Surpasses 3,500 Page Views

Happy New Year! I want to thank those of you that choose to read my blog. Since I launched the BLOG in Nov, I've had 3,500+ page views. I expect this number to grow starting this week as the Superintendent presents his 2011-2012 Budget recommendation.

Thank you for your support!

Tony Perugini