Laserfiche WebLink
292 <br /> <br />found to have reserve funds. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Seaman, School Board member, noted that a <br />fourth alternative for dealing with the fund balance issue <br />would be to maintain the status quo which she understood <br />would,mean that the school would keep grants funds. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council and the School Board <br />to approve the first three recommendations listed above which <br />were agreed to by Mr. Hendrix and Dr. McGeehan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that philosophically he did not <br />think the School Board should maintain a reserve fund but <br />since other Councilors appeared to favor a reserve fund he <br />felt the issue was whether the School Board should be allowed <br />to keep an unlimited reserve or whether the reserve should be <br />capped. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he would not favor having any <br />reserve funds in the Grants account revert back to the City. <br /> <br /> Following a discussion of the alternatives, Ms. <br />Slaughter made a motion to approve the following: 1) funds <br />in the Grants Administration and Computers/Capital Funds that <br />exceed $250,000 would be returned to the City each year; and <br />2) Surplus operating funds, up to $200,000 at the end of each <br />fiscal year, would be equally shared between the school <br />division and the City up to $200,000, and 100% of excess <br />funds over $200,000 would revert to the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano seconded the motion and added that he felt <br />the schools should maintain accurate accounting so the effect <br />on the school budget could be determined. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter's motion was approved by the following <br />vote. Ayes: Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Vandever. <br />Noes: Mr. Toscano. Absent for the vote: Rev. Edwards. <br /> <br />WORK SESSION: SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked what the rationale had been for the <br />School Board not funding the Child Assault Prevention (CAP) <br />Program, Project Discovery, and the Summer Reading Program, <br />and whether any evaluation of these programs had been done by <br />the schools. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mary-Susan Payne, School Board member, stated that <br />the School Board's priorities were to increase teacher <br />salaries and maintain instructional assistants and little <br />funds remained after doing so. <br /> <br /> Ms. Seaman stated that while the programs mentioned by <br />Mr. Toscano were good programs they were considered external <br />to the school system. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cliff Bennett, School Board member, stated that he <br />felt the Summer Reading Program and Project Discovery were <br />good programs. <br /> <br /> Dr. McGeehan stated that while he felt the CAP program <br />was a fine program, many of the activities involved in that <br />program are part of the Family Life Curriculum, and it ~was <br />felt that the Project Discovery objectives could be handled <br />with an additional counselor. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty nOted that the CAP program coordinators <br />have gained expertise in the field and stated that she would <br />like to have the School Board prioritize the list of unfunded <br />programs or items. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter recommended that the School Board consider <br />if there are different ways of managing the school system <br />which would address the needs of students and yet be more <br /> <br /> <br />