GENTRY — Corrected information was sent by e-mail last week to the members of the Gentry School Board regarding SubTeach USA, a company the district is contemplating using to supply its substitute teachers during the 2012-2013 school year.
Information supplied board members by e-mail from Gentry superintendent Randy Barrett indicated the cost to the districtper placement each day was $70 in pay plus 35 percent of that pay, or a total of $94.50. This amounts to $9.62 per substitute, per day, above the district’s current cost rather than $4.25 as indicated at the May 21 board meeting.
Barrett told board members by e-mail that he is still recommending the district try the service but would not sign a contract with SubTeach until the board had opportunity to review the corrected information and vote on the matter at the June 18 board meeting.
He said he was recommending the service because it is worth the small additional cost to the district. Reasons cited in the corrected cost analysis prepared by Renee Bradshaw, Barrett’s administrative assistant, included better training of substitute teachers, reduced liability to the district, relieving the district of workman’s compensation and unemployment claims for substitute teachers, no additional cost to the district for recruiting and maintaining an adequate pool of professionally trained substitute teachers, removal of conflict of interest when a board member has an immediate family member who serves as a substitute teacher, reduction in paperwork and staff hours to handle payroll, annual background checks at no additional cost to the district rather than a one-time check on each substitute, and the district will have access to reports and benefits of the Aesop system without the cost of purchasing the service from Aesop (a substitute teacherscheduling tool that also provides statistical information and placement information that can be used by campuses to track absentee patterns and costs per teacher).
“There would be no savings to the district in actual, ‘up front’ dollars, as we would pay SubTeach the same amount for matching benefits as we do now for teacher retirement and FICA (14 percent for ATRs and 7.065 percent for FICA),” Barrettwrote by e-mail. “I still believe, and I think after Renee's analysis you will as well, that it is a good deal for both the district and for the substitutes themselves. Using some calculations from APSCN, had we used SubTeach this year, the ‘on-paper’ cost, not taking out the incidental savings, would have been about $14,000. Taking out the calculated incidental savings would reduce that by roughly $4,000. I'd like to try it for a year, as I believe it is worth the money. However, I will not sign a contract until you all have an opportunity to discuss it at our next board meeting.”
Barrett also shared information with board members from Dennis Hunt of Stephen's, Inc., regarding financing of a multi-purpose building. According to Barrett, Hunt continues to believe that, with voter approved restructuring of some outstanding bond issues, the school district can generate the $3 million amount discussed as the price tag for the athletic facility. Barrett said that Mark Haguewood, the school's architect from Hight-Jackson, will come to the June 18 meeting and begin general discussions on design.
In a letter provided to board members, Hunt wrote: “Attached please find a Proposed Budget of Expenditures for the FiscalYear 2013-2014 (the ‘Budget’) and a Resolution authorizing approval of the Budget. This Resolution and Budget contemplate that at the annual school election on September 18, 2012, voters will consider the issuance of $3,600,000 in bonds to refund the District’s outstanding Series 2002 Bonds and provide approximately $3,000,000 in project funds. These bonds will be secured with the District’s existing debt service necessary for the issuance of the proposed bonds.”
Barrett also informed the board members that eight bids were received on the Gentry Middle School roof replacement within a range of $637,787 to $332,570. He said that theschool district’s architect will research the apparent low bidder's qualifications before he (Barrett), acting as the board’s agent, awards the bid.
The board authorized Barrett to award the roofing contract to the low bidder at the May 21 meeting in order to expedite the completion of the roofing project over the summer months before classes begin.
A discussed option to try to combine roofing projects at the middle school and high school in an effort to get a lower bid was abandoned because it would have pushed a completion date for the roofing project into the middle of September, a month after classes resume.
News, Pages 1 on 06/06/2012