first_imgby Alicia Freese February 28, 2013 Three House committees ‘ Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Education ‘ met Thursday to try to drill down into what is driving up school spending and how they can ‘ bend the cost curve.’But two superintendents, testifying about their school budgets, they warned lawmakers that they wouldn’ t find ‘ low-hanging fruit’ when looking for cost-cutting measures.For the most part, lawmakers threw out surprisingly concise three-or four-word solutions to the vexing issue of rising school costs ‘ and property taxes. The most common suggestion was to negotiate teacher contracts at a statewide level instead of at the local school board level.Townshend Elementary SchoolMultiple lawmakers also expressed a hankering to do away with so-called small schools support grants, which provide assistance for low-enrollment schools where the two-year average enrollment is less than 100 or where class size averages are 20 or fewer.Many of the ideas tossed around at the session were time-worn concepts that have consistently met with a frosty reception in local school districts, such as the calls for consolidation of supervisory unions and administrative costs, and recalibrating student-teacher ratios. There was also one suggestion to revamp the state’ s complex education finance system.Earlier in the afternoon, lawmakers had heard from the superintendents and the finance directors from two supervisory unions, Lamoille South and Rutland Northeast, who walked them through their budgets and discouraged them from pursuing school consolidation or doing away with grants that assist small schools with very few students.Rep. Peter Peltz, D-Woodbury, asked John Castle, the superintendent of Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, if the district had contemplated consolidation when Act. 153, which provided consolidation incentives, was passed by the Legislature in 2009.‘ We had about a ten-minute conversation and we were done,’ Castle replied.Elmore, located in Lamoille South, runs a 20-student, one-room school for grades 1-3. It receives a small-school grant of about $40,000. At one point Rep. Martha Heath, chair of the Appropriations Committee, asked the superintendent, Tracy Wrend, which would be more cost-effective: keeping the school open or paying tuition for students to attend school at another location.Wrend said it was cheaper to keep the school open.Heath persisted, asking, ‘ If your small-school grant was taken, would it still be financially better?’‘ Yes,’ Wrend responded.John Pike, the finance director at Lamoille South, said increases in tuition rates to send students to adjacent schools and growing special education costs have fueled spending in the region, and declining enrollment is exacerbating the problem.Brenda Fleming, the business manager for Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, said salaries and benefits increases ‘ and in particular the spike in health care premiums (now expected to rise 10.5 percent) ‘ along with growing special education costs are driving their spending.Both Castle and Wrend cautioned against legislation that will increase their costs. Castle pointed to Gov. Shumlin’ s proposal to make algebra and geometry mandatory for ninth and tenth graders; Wrend said agency fee bills, childcare unionization and pre-K bills will raise costs in her region.last_img read more

first_imgSubscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community To continue enjoying, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe now for unlimited access Get your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletterslast_img read more

first_imgWhile in the US Barack Obama continues to struggle to achieve reforms in immigration and healthcare, in the UK some members of the construction industry think the new construction (design and management) regulations 2015, or CDM 2015, will make fundamental, confusing and costly changes to health and safety. That’s not what the HSE says. They believe that the new regulations will streamline health and safety in practice to benefit all, particularly SMEs. Is CDM 2015 change we can believe in?It is now common knowledge that the role of the CDM co-ordinator will be replaced. Slightly cumbersome transitional provisions mean existing CDM co-ordinators will retain certain responsibilities until 6 October. This final deadline to remove the one person who has had responsibility for health and safety does seem at odds with the objective of the legislation. Surely it would be better to leave the CDM co-ordinator in place until the end of the project?As the CDM co-ordinators pack their bags, cue finger pointing and vacant looks from the design team. The incoming principal designer is required to be someone who prepares or modifies a design. This design capability requirement probably excludes an employer’s agent or project manager, as well as most CDM co-ordinators. Not to mention smaller or specialised architects who have provided designs, but do not have the organisational capacity to become a principal designer. The change may represent an opportunity for architects and engineers to expand their capabilities into this area, but will health and safety really be enhanced by embedding responsibility for it in the design team, or would clients prefer to discharge their duties under CDM 2015 by relying on a tried and tested independent health and safety adviser?If a client decides to appoint both a CDM co-ordinator (who will have no official role under CDM 2015) and a principal designer, where is the cost saving in that?While previously the appointments of the CDM co-ordinator and principal contractor depended on whether a project was notifiable, those of the principal designer and principal contractor are now triggered on projects where there is more than one contractor, arguably a lower threshold. Practically, this is unlikely to make a difference to larger projects. But what about routine smaller maintenance contracts carried out by a contractor who uses self-employed labour?If a client decides to appoint both a CDM co-ordinator (who will have no official role under CDM 2015) and a principal designer, where is the cost saving in that?The threshold for notification has been raised, but only slightly. Notification is now required where there are 20 workers working simultaneously at any point in the project and the project has a duration of longer than 30 working days, or where the project has a duration in excess of 500 person days. In practical terms there is no change here as regards larger projects. However, the key point is that the obligation to notify is now on the client. Whilst in practice the client may still engage someone to carry out its responsibilities, prosecutions remain a risk which cannot be reallocated contractually.The responsibility for the health and safety file, and its transfer from the principal designer to the principal contractor and then to the client, could certainly be clearer. Where the principal designer’s role comes to a conclusion before the end of the project, the principal designer must pass the health and safety file to the principal contractor. But what constitutes an end to the principal designer’s role? The regulations are ambiguous and building contracts and appointments will need to address this point to give clarity for the client.The Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) will be withdrawn and replaced by guidance aimed at SMEs. So again, not a huge change except that the guidance will not have the same legal status as the ACoP. Will the parties be able to rely on it if found to be in breach? Of what practical use will it be if they cannot do so?It appears that, overall, the obligations in CDM 2015 are not dramatically different (technical standards are largely unchanged) from the previous regime for larger organisations, who are likely to have the internal resources to absorb these changes. However, a noticeable shift in responsibility, particularly onto the client, will have a greater impact on smaller projects. This does not seem to be at all what the legislation intended. Nevertheless, the most important question remains: will this make a difference where it really counts – on site? And is there any chance of a change of heart before the regulations come into force on 6 April?Stephanie Canham is national head of projects and construction at law firm Trowers & Hamlinslast_img read more

first_imgBy BEN CAMERON 30 years to 1985: PREMIER John Cain will officially open the Labor Party’s campaign in Cockatoo. The…[To read the rest of this story Subscribe or Login to the Gazette Access Pass] Thanks for reading the Pakenham Berwick Gazette. Subscribe or Login to read the rest of this content with the Gazette Digital Access Pass subscription.last_img