All right, we're now going to start uh we will call the meeting school committee finance committee meeting to order here at 810 a.m. Apologies for the late start here. Uh our first item of business is discussion with the town
administrator uh and the select board finance committee on SW budgets something new screen share. Uh, sure. Thank you. And I had um shared a some materials last night and belatedly
slightly. Um, so I pulled together a couple of things on slide deck just to talk through where things stand. So I will um do kind of a high level on the revenue side of where stand and then
talk about where that leads the overall budget based on area west. Um the level of detail I'll defer to folks in the room. Um I don't know how much you want to hear or not
where our revenue projections are. Talked about them in a few different forums but not necessarily this one. Um so um so here is a summary level of where the um revenue outlook is today. Um
I would focus on the sum total line that shows a $4.9 million increase year-over-year 3.42% as kind of what is available for spending for fiscal 27. I'll talk about two by two line why in a moment. Um again just at a high level this just
pulls in where property taxes are under le 2 and a half that assumes um we raise the max that we can under the levy limit which is the 2 and 12% increase over last year's levy plus new growth growth we have estimated a million dollars
local receipts this is all of our um fees and taxes that we collect locally um and I have a little bit more detail on those we had initially had a 1% increase over fiscal 26 we revised that upwards by another percent. So we're at about 1045
million of receipts. The next kind of um checkin on that will be once our um January motor vehicle excise commitment is prepared and ready um we'll re-evaluate that forecast to see if we build a little bit further upwards revision. We don't expect them down
provisions. Any of these estimates at this time and there are cost is a small amount that's um payments paid from the enterprise funds to the general fund for costs that we finance in the general fund. State aid we've kept um where we've talked about u pretty much all
year long. Um there's really no um major indication to be on state aid in the next um kind of touch point on that will be when the governor releases the fiscal 27 state budget which we expect in a couple of weeks. Generally the locally a information comes out around MMA um the
massive association conference which is >> 22nd 2 24th I think. So that's a couple weeks away. So we'll provide an update um that is out publicly. So once that information is in we'll rely on
again hopefully um revising it upwards. Lastly and and this is a little bit of a change just think about looking at the budget I have shown here and contribution from the operating budget stabilization fund. So the fiscal separate budget and just because looking at the numbers
without it it's it's an ominous number. It's an ominous number with or without it, but I felt um it was important to show what that would look like with the withdrawal from that fund. And just as a reminder on that fund, um this $700,000 was included in the override. So that's a recurring amount on the tax levy um up
to the select board to raise it by up to 2 and each year. So anything over and above a $700,000 contribution from the operating budget stabilization fund would mean now we're pulling from nonrecurrent revenue sources. Um so I've used that as kind of an initial metric
um so just to facilitate um a budget that is a little bit more workable and then other funds um that's a it's a release from it's not a significant amount. So the bottom line is the the first time we talked about this in October I think we're showing like a
$4.2 $2 million estimate year-over-year or about a 3% increase with the additional funding resources from the operating budget stabilization fund that I feel to make recommendation on that brings a year-over-year increase to about a 3.4 right around a $5 million.
The lion share obviously is the $3.8 million tax. Um, while we, as I mentioned, do expect some tweaks to this over the next month, I think we're talking a scale of a couple hundred,000 on a scale of millions. So, just to kind
of set expectations, any upward revisions, I wouldn't expect to be anywhere more than a,000 or $200,000. So, I feel that this is a pretty much set stone. Um, and that any any revisions can be upwards rather than
downwards. Um the next couple of slides that I threw together just show this in a little bit more detail. I didn't pause there if there any questions. For example, this is just to further summarize the property tax changes. As
you can see there, the $2.8 million is from um it's the allowable two and a half two and a half% increase from last year's le. New growth is at a million. Um this is another place I should I should note
that we will revisit um in the next month based on so new growth is captured this fiscal year for fiscal 27th. So the work that's being built right now will feed into the fiscal 2017 growth figure and the assessors feel comfortable at a
million dollar estimate but we'll check back in that office in the next month or two to get an updated sense as to where they expect that to land. uh we've kept that forecast in the million dollars range. Last year we significantly exceeded it and this I've shown this
slide. This just shows on history. Um as you can see the last three or four years we've been over a million dollars really over 1.2 million but the history and um what is going on right now is if you're driving around town the ice house
on Blue House Parkway is officially online. that's basically fully captured but then subsequent new growth additions and renovations folks are building um there's a new daycare being built on lab and then the 40 piece under construction um five under construction at this time
and then 440 randed out is all under construction so that will be driving the growth for the next couple of years till those streets are fully 100% occupied rented out or soon they are yeah can I just
um in terms of that so to speak new growth pipeline, right? Which I know is not like a thing, but I'm going to call it that for a minute just to kind of get some perspective on what to see in these future years. So, those other projects, the other 40s
you're speaking of, are those going to be captured in new growth in the in the out years or um are they just going to roll back into the standard property tax base? So for
27 for 2016 growth of a bunch of that is due to the ice house project. So that's one >> fully in that's it >> and it won't show up that won't show up in new growth anymore. It'll it's just now part of base >> for 26 and beyond or for next year and beyond.
It's going to be 936 Brushville Road and 7-Eleven Rand are the two post along the way. So those will be a big portion that we use for fiscal 27 and then the less for 28 but
then 582 out and east projects um little billing for 28 and then kind of anticipated. So I think from 27 to 28 we should have some growth no matter what else happens just through those products that we constructed. Um but you know a
third of our new growth on an basis is the utility growth from national grid based on the work they do. So if that pipeline slows down it was a great conversation to get it going elsewhere that that thing just the trend of renovating um homes and building
additions if the economy starts to get more challenging and that slows down. So while the large projects are a contributor, they're not the sole contributor. And while we can rely on them for a year or two, um there are other aspects that we don't um have
100%. >> And we don't have a strong pipeline, so to speak, of these types of projects coming in. >> No, that's correct. >> And there's risk because of the like potential recession. >> Correct. And these large projects, which
if you go didn't talk about local receipts, you'll see it in the building permit revenue aware. The last couple years, building permits have been extremely high. But again, after the last large project that is not fully that doesn't have building permit, it's not 100% of the move to go forward with
the 640 62. So that's a large 168 project. But everything else is permitted from a building permit perspective. Those permit fees have been paid. And then from a new growth perspective, we start to capture a little bit of 26 and then 27 28 will be
US and then after that it's really not a significant project as of today in the pipeline. So I just wanted to make sure we were highlighting that so you can understand the risk and outs. Um the good thing is for 26 as an
example we had kept that forecast at a million dollars came in $5 million. So that all that means is now rather than a base of million dollars each year that's 1.5 that's another half million that we have forever in terms of um
tax tax. I alluded to the local receipts a bit so we revised that projection upwards. Um you can see the history going back, excuse me, fiscal 20 here. Um motor vehicle. So there are a lot of outliers in terms of the past couple of years. Um
I'll draw attention to motor vehicle excise building permits and then interest or investment income. Uh we spent you know a decent amount of time talking about this with the budget coordination committee. Um, and the reluctance that we have to push these forecasts too much is because we we
attribute a lot of the $13.5 million that was brought in last year to onetime expenses. Motor vehicle, if you look at the monthly revenue for vehicle excess tax, fiscal every every month was significantly above prior years. and in
and talking to the treasurer um she was working with our deputy collector to make sure that the work that um we need to do to capture those new size um has done. So we we think a significant amount of that is just to um getting
back on track of collection penalties and interest. You can see a spike there in fiscal 25. There was a number of redemptions on property tax um longstanding outstanding property tax bills. I think it was upwards of $900,000 was being fiscal 25 that have
been older um payments. Um so that contributes to a spike in penalties and interest. We talk we talk about building products already. Um you can see where the large projects coming by 82 which was permitted this year. So it's a fiscal 26 revenue. It's an 84 unit
project was upwards of $300,000. So those um single permits will have a significant impact on the year's revenue. Um the other one just to note that has Josh was the trash and recycling fees in 25
and we did increase the trash fee by a dollar to $4 a week. Um was about $4. So we feel comfortable with revising that projection uploads based on the new kind of baseline um revenue expectations there. As I noted, we expect to revisit
this once we have the next large commitment on vehicle X size. Um I wouldn't expect significant swings in this upwards but maybe a further addition um from local Nick is the the column recap is that
like a reforcast of what we expect for this year? Is that what that means? >> Yeah, sorry. Uh so that matches what was what we used for the fiscal 25 budget. Recap means what we submitted to the department of revenue uh before the tax rate said. So it just that means that's
locked in as our final revenue forecast, but it matches what we we want for fiscal 2016 budget. Uh sliding over to expense. I don't have a state slide only because I think that's it's out of our hands really and um we'll have more information coming in
the next couple weeks on that. But we're not sorry >> before we go before we leave revenue. So is all the revenue that you we are seeing right now revenue that you anticipated in when you were back in March, April, May, June when you were getting those um and what we were in and
the town was projecting into 26. Did so what we're seeing right now is this what you thought it would be? I >> like the budget to actual and revenue for fiscal 25 or
>> so we're about to talk about expenses but before we talk about expenses I just wonder like when I was when we were when people were together talking about 26 and 27 >> in an override being voted >> was was this the ballpark of where we
thought we would be with other revenue >> uh in addition to what the contribution would be for the old work? >> Yes. So this this $10.25 million that get included in the budget was our baseline revenue expectation. We didn't have a higher number at all when we were
forecasting out the next 5 years. On the property tax front, the only thing that's different in terms of how we talked about fuel red was um no this was the baseline expectations. State aid is higher than than we had
budgeted at. um we had higher than anticipated state aid in 2026 then we included in those projections at the first go around and then when we talked about what the next several years would look like we expected fully withdrawing the $2.7 million or
I'm sorry fully utilizing the operating budget stabilization fund I think this was 27 28 29 and 30 to get through the next couple of fiscal years at around a 3% expense grow so if budget came in between 2 and a half and
3% with full utilization of the operating stabilization fund. We felt that was manageable for the next several fiscal years. And so that that's the 7 >> that's $700,000. And in our initial um I look back at our initial take on that is
fiscal said we anticipated about a $860,000 withdrawal rather than a $700,000 withdrawal. for this conversation I've kept to that what is recurring um rather than anything that would be kind of further onetime fee out of that
fund. Nick, I have one other revenue question. Sure. The state aid is at a 1% increase forecasted increase for of 1% for by 27. You said it was more than that between in the jump from 25 to 26. I'm assuming
historically a 1% increase in state aid is low. Like can you just provide some context there? >> Yes and no. I I so after the student opportunity act I meant Milton So when
the student opportunity act was put in place the state also put additional resources into chapter 70. So Milton benefited significantly in a couple of years. I don't have it here but we do have a slide that shows there were a couple of spike years like 21 22 where
state a jump significantly. Um, but I think the historic trend is it's more in the 1 to 3% range. The other thing to think about too is while we do get this show just shows the receipts, we do have assessments that we owe the state. So we really try to talk about it more on the
net state aid perspective. Um, our assessments can jump um from year to year. Um so when you think about it more in the net state aid, I think netting out we're netting out a 1 to 2% gain each year. Um the Mass Association has
put out a couple of um research papers around Prop 2 and a half and other issues and this they've tagged state aid as a place where they're going to exert try to exert some additional legislative pressure because you if you go all the way back to like 2008 2009 after the financial crisis,
state aid was deeply cut and we've never really gotten back to those levels. Um, so it's it's not been there have been years where it's been a significant revenue increase for the town. Um, but we don't expect it to be in the near term anymore unless uh some of that
calculation changes. And there's not an expectation for a major increase or like no discussion at this time that there's going to be some special actor. >> Not that I'm aware of
>> that I've heard anything of. Um like I said, usually it's the announcement around the May annual conference. I think we're all a little concerned about the state budget generally as federal impacts um >> will are are being felt. Um, so I think I
>> I wouldn't even say I'm cautiously optimistic. I think we're just hopeful for um >> one day. >> Yeah, at least an increase at least a 1% that I I expect will happen and anything above that. >> And then I thinking out beyond fiscal
27, as we start to see the cuts to Medicaid that aren't in effect yet, but will be in effect in future years that ex even greater pressure on the state. So beyond 27 out state budget will be let's go. Okay. So um what we have used for so
just style back so 15916 643 number is what we're using as the revenue available for 27. Um I noted that below the line a free cash special purpose debt stabilization fund. While that was revenue that we used in 26, we're not contemplating, we're not
including right now any free cash in the budget as a revenue source or we have we funded any items in the expense side of the budget free cash yet. So the budget now doesn't have funding also um haven't brought in free cash to fund any one time items that might be in the budgets
elsewhere that would alleviate um some pressure development. Uh there was three cash appropriations last year to stabilization funds for capital. Um that's why that it just looks a little funky. So I want to flag that on bottom line just the 15916. If we bring in any
free cash budget if there are onetime costs that we can attribute um to um the revenue would increase um that free cash. So well with that comment, are we saying that it's already decided that free cash will not be used to support ongoing
operating budgets given the 2.1 reduction to the schools? >> We have a financial policy that has recently been adopted that would say that free cash will not be used for recurring sources. Um you know what we talked about in those meetings was we
have the weather stabilization fund. So if more then if more is withdrawn from that free cash could be used to replenish that for use in future use. Um and if you know we put in place the spend stabilization fund last year at town meeting and adopted that statute. We didn't put any funding into it. So
free cash could be used to um put money into that. So there are there are places we could use free cash to that wouldn't go directly into the budget that might support in mitigating tax. Um so this shows um a summary of our costs
for fiscal 27 based on um town and school departmental um level service requests as well as where our shared costs are. Um town departments are in 3.65 yearover-year. Um Blue Hills is just an estimate and a placeholder. So
if that number is less then is you know that's cost savings. If the enrollment has jumped then uses more than we have to make that up elsewhere. Um and we we just got to work to to finalize that forecast with host. They usually don't provide the information until late
February. Um health insurance is has been a um significant cost pressure. Uh last year the premium increase was 14%. The overall health insurance budget in fiscal 26 went up 20%. Um yeah that's what we said for increased enrollment
last year. So far for this year, enrollment has been the total enrollment number has been flat. We're seeing more family plans and individual plans than we anticipated. So a little bit of a pressure there, but uh by and large enrollment has been flat. Um so the
pressure the most of the pressure on the insurance budget for premium increases. We're anticipating a 10% premium increase at this point. uh that premium increase would be higher but there been changes of the market to what the carriers are covering um that would drop coverage um for certain
pharmaceuticals that would bring our anticipate down to 10%. I will note that that's based on year to date through November. So it's early to nail down a health insurance number. um if claims trend better than they're tracking the
number could be less but if trends if claims trend worse look at coming back to say that 10% needs to be higher um so I just I'd caution where that stands um and it's a such a big cost item every 1%
increase is about $40,000 of additional cost so to go even from a 10% to a 12% that's $300,000 we need to Um, >> when does that number get locked in, Nick? >> Generally, we try to hold off until
really February or March. We try to get like seven or eight months of claims if we can, claims information in um Milton is selfinsured. So, um, we pay the claims based on rates set by Blue Cross and Harbor Roof. So in years of low
claim or low utilization and low cost, we do really well and we should have a very minimal increase. But with sky skyrocketing cost and higher utilization that puts direct pressure on on the health trust that was financed by the
town budget um uh the other shared cost, I'll just run through those. Um pension, our retirement system is fully funded, so minimal decreases year-over-year there. OPED that's in keeping with our oped policy um to invest two and a half
that keeps with our OPED policy. I can describe that in more detail if folks would like debt service. We have a spike in debt service. Um and I I think I talked about this here in October. A lot of our projects that have been financed or approved by town meeting several years ago, there's just been delays and
delays. So rather than this kind of these projects coming online um gradually we're seeing a place where we could have um several million dollars worth of significant projects that were approved by town meeting in 22 and 23 that are in the 27 budget um a ladder
truck fire engine and then the the large project of Cunningham um Florida space library. It is a place where we are working to further refine that and maybe we can um
extract some savings out of. Um but that should be like the high water market debt service. Uh the rest are pretty straightforward. Um and so where that leaves us is um with the revenue projection that I mentioned about a $2.5
million gap to make up in fiscal 27. Um, so what I then also did is just, you know, what does a balance budget look like from where we're sitting today? Um, so if town schools go up 2.38%.
Um, with the revenue that we have, um, that's how we get to a balanced budget of $1,600 left over. So that's $2 million reduction on the school requests are, $414,000 reduction town requests are. Um
so that's the um you know the mitigation the only other mitigation would be if we're able to revise revenues further we're able to drive down any of these shared costs expenses um and then um last just know kind of
what our next steps are. So, we're working with departments of department head and meeting um at 10:00 today where we'll be um talking with department heads about um what we're asking them to go do in terms of trying to identify some reductions. I already have and and
I've already talked about basically where we feel um some budgets can take some reductions. Um we're going to work to do a final revenue forecast later this month um early February just to wrap in final growth um review those local receipts one last time and then
incorporate the state numbers from the governor's budget. Discussion points will include how we're going to use free cash. There are onetime costs in our budgets that whether school budget or town budget that can be financed with free cash to um offset pressure on that's not that
aren't recurring. Um that would open up tax levy any other support for those recurring costs. And then um we have $4.5 million in free cash. You've appropriated almost 60,000 of it so far for the special election.
So how we're going to put that free cash use right now we're earmarking $1 million to $1.2 million for the capital budget as we have been doing the last couple years. We need to make a contribution to the general stabilization fund um to meet um our
policy of 5% of the budget being in the general stabilization fund. That's going to be about depending on how that fund does this year and the market anywhere between $500,000 to $700,000. I would expect that appropriation fee to be um
and then um the rest of it would be um available for appropriation from there. Um and other options would be into the operating budget stabilization fund for future years to the sped stabilization fund to support special you know outstanding special education and
transportation cost. Um and then lastly we're just going to continue to track how the insurance is going and um hopefully um things stay kind of on trend uh where they've been year to date. But it's that's just a big variable that I would worry about um in
terms of the budget. Everything else I feel like is decently locked in and and adjustments would be to the benefit rather than to the detriment of this. >> Yeah. Can I ask a question about free cash? >> Yeah. >> So 4.5 minus the amount from the
election minus 1.2 for capital minus 600 for general stabilization. Is it is it the select board and your intention do you have to expend the whole 4.5 and put it into certain buckets or does it stay you? >> No. part. Um we don't have a free cash
policy that dictates how free cash is used necessarily. Um the we the financial policy um sets aside 10% of free cash as well to just remain unappropriated. So that's that's the only kind of real um change that's been
dictated by the financial policy. So $450,000 would leave free cash for for next year. Um but otherwise the what usually I was correct and there's no other additional kind of requirements on how it be used beyond that. >> So if it wasn't put in uh the operating
uh the stabilization fund for operating or special education it would sit somewhere. >> Correct. It would just be unappropriate at that point. Um I I we have onetime costs in the fiscal 27 budget for example that you know we have some onetime employee costs that we could but
should free cash um and feel comfortable that that's you know a onetime expense rather so like that would be um the other place at the top of mind um and then the one thing I'll just mention is we have um
a little but our fiscal 26 budget includes cost of collective bargaining agreements. >> Mhm. >> If we don't reach agreements with the unions, then we won't pay out that money. So, we could have a significant amount of money that is unspent in fiscal 26 that would generate free cash
for fiscal 27. Um, but what that would mean is then we're going to have a one-time payment in 27 for payments. So, I might need to we might need to set aside some of the free cash depending on the progress we make with collective bargaining, which has been slow on our
end. And I know it's more typical for the schools to to have those done on time. Ours have lags and and then the last cycle. We had to do that in one fiscal year because we didn't reach it within um that first year. So all of our agreements expired on June 30th of 25.
So all of the unions are in negotiations at this time. >> Just to carry on John's point. So doing that math of cash 4.5 million in the account. John laid down more additional $450 the policy lays out leaves about out $2
million additional free cash to figure out how to use that to medicate and again find another police system impact. So this might be about the projection for that by tax. >> And also the um we spent a lot of time
this fall talking about revenue and um it it really never was clear to me until recently that the the assumption back in the spring and then through the summer was that that that this was all predicated on a 3% increase in in
expenses. So with that information being brought to our attention, you know, recently, um, do we all feel like that's a reasonable framework to move forward from for the school department or other departments to only grow at 3%. Is that
a reasonable pathway that fiscally mean educationally we can talk about the damage that can be put in place, but fiscally do we actually think that's a reasonable framework? I think we can debate the definition of
reasonable and what is just the situation that we're in. >> So with 3% $2 million, we'll reduce 26 staff members by the end of this year. >> Yeah. >> And we and then when we come back the
following year and we have to meet a 3% expectation, we will reduce another 15 to 20. And then the following year, we'll we'll finally get to that point where we're small enough to be able to try to navigate a 3%
budget when our steps and lanes for a reduced amount of folks will be a less number. that will we, you know, it'll be very hard for a school department to get to a 3% annual expectation given how 81% of our budget is
structured around union employees that already have structures in place that just just steps in and lanes alone is almost 2 something%. So, so I really would like to be a thought partner in this discussion of this annual 3% model
and how if that if that is the model that we're holding true and there's no more revenue coming in, right? >> There's no override coming for another 7 years. So, I understand that. Um but I the reason why I asked the question earlier about did did we understand this
to be our total revenue package walking into the fiscal year with the potential of now knowing understanding that this is based on a 3% increase um that framework will result in reductions to the school for the next 3 to 5 years
and I don't know if that's exactly what people were thinking for >> yeah just to can I just add to that because I don't think it was it's not just that you had kind of understood the three >> that was not communicated to the school committee to the community
>> and we talked about the the need to be sustainable with the you know >> sustainable within our limits I was >> to arrive at the number that would allow us to sustain the operations and then the school committee you know has been working hard to stay within
what was approved right so I just think this is a very important point >> that we'll need to >> have a lot of care and attention in communicating. >> Yeah, >> it is a reality. So there's no change in the reality of what the numbers are.
>> So that's the point I was trying to make the definition of reasonable. I mean around this table, right? Like I have a daughter right now sitting in the first grade classroom at Tucker, the French immersion program. There are 28 kids
with just one teacher, right? Like I get how what we're talking about the assumption will make all of that worse for kids who have far more needs than my kid has. Right. But just to
we we do need partner thought partnership to try to understand where we can go given the extreme cir I I think these are extreme circumstances that we've all been put into. Um, and quite honestly
when when we were all running last spring, I mean this is the the the the dollar figure for the override that was set. You know, I was greatly concerned that this was bubble service because, you know, there is natural growth that
has been baked in there. Everything was already to the bone, right? that and given the national climate like this is what I was afraid of is starting to to come to fruition and that we would
need to have strong collaboration to creatively problem solve in in a sustainable way because we can't or we need several years before we can go back out again um and ask the taxpayers for
for more funds. >> Agreed. >> And we are in an incredibly I mean I think everyone at this table right now is bearing the brunt of decisions made before we were all in leadership positions that we don't really have
sustainable revenue sources and you know we're we're in we're in the constraint of the the property tax levy that we're in. >> Yeah. So that's my long awaited way of saying like I
I feel the same um I feel the same sense of concern that everyone else here feels. So am I in my thinking is that over that given this is where we are and
given that this this number is a substantial number for the schools to to approach any one year. >> Yeah. >> Our budget philosophy as a school committee and a school department was to be f fiscally sustainable. >> Yeah. >> And responsible like we we are
partnering with you in that mode of we need to really be careful about how we grow or how we utilize our resources and how we we actually didn't put in any growth. We just the 5.2 to during the roll. It was that was what was asked. So that's all we did >> and we actually reduced positions this year in order to make sure that we could
fund our own >> absolutely >> special education stabilization within the district. So >> but within that partnership >> of trying to find out where the sustainable >> uh sweet spot is. >> Yeah. for the schools. Um, we're going
to have to use a pretty blunt instrument to get up to par with this and then then whatever that leaves for the fiscal 28, fiscal 29. So, I'm always looking back one fiscal, two fiscal years and looking ahead two, three, >> I'm just trying to figure out how how
many years it will take us to get to the point of sustainability. >> Yeah. And also now that it's January, the the instrument that we're going to have to use is pretty blunt in order to get calibrated for this fiscal 27. So my my my hope is that while we're
being uh thoughtful about it, is there any way to kind of sand down the edges to this to to know that for the next two or three fiscal years we are going to probably have to reduce and can we do it in a more thoughtful way? I'm not because I'm I'm acknowledging the reality of there is a
>> you know whether to to to next point there is only there's a small standard of deviation between how much your revenue is going to increase over the day there's not that much more revenue coming in >> and we have so the the what I'm concerned about and I feel like I'm doing a lot of the time feel free to
jump in the I I am concerned about year overyear how long we can level service plus risk that we have with health insurance
with state aid and there are few other factors but um >> but this is level service this is this is not level service >> but right now this is not >> so what was what was the expectation
when the discussions were having spring I know John and I know you sent this for that the schools had grown at about 9 to 10% the last few years. You had been mindful of having this initial ask being about 5% which is less than the 9% that happened the last few years was the
expectation that expenditures would grow at 5% after the override. >> What what was the >> I I don't know I I we came we we collectively said that we were going to do level service. We rolled the budget
over a global service. 5.2 is in the normal range of what public schools would do. Anywhere between four to five is normal. Um and uh so we dedicated our work to coming in at that number. Uh that that in in and I did not um uh I
did expect some sort of a struggle to get to that. you know, mitigating some expenses certain places, uh, knowing that we had already did not fill vacancies in order to anticipate that we might need to carry some of that over into fiscal 27. But I I I don't want to ignore the reality of this is just what
the money is. So that that's the first thing we all have to acknowledge that. I'm just trying to to I'm looking at this through a process lens. >> I'm also looking at this through a cortical lens. You know, we uh this is an interesting
dynamic to present to the public after rallying the folks. And I can say that I've never been prouder to live in a town that actually took care of business financially and living in this town where a lot of towns didn't. I mean, this is exactly what good towns do. You know what I mean?
>> Um, but I want to make sure that the town understands the realities that we have in addition to the fact that they stepped up >> uh and what that actually looks like now moving forward for the next 3 to 5 years. And I and I think that that picture is that movie that this the
beginning of that movie is going to be hard for them to understand. >> I think what we're trying to understand too is also at this 2.3% the impacts is in you know if you can share with us your idea of level service and that there were I think about 15 roles somewhere
around there that were not build that are included to be build in the original uh 5% s 3.8 Right. So our thinking was if those roles were filled at a less at a lower level would that what what are the needs for the schools right now? But in
hearing that 26 cuts I don't think any of us would be really happy to have that happen or we have to go back to our parents and say it's not that we're not filling these roles for another year. It's that we're actually going to be >> cutting 26
um educators or you know folks that have roles in the schools. So I think we're also trying to find out what the real impact of scenario is for the schools, right? >> Yeah. Well, just like Nick, I mean Nick is going to have that high with Amy that high conversation with department today at 10:00. We have the same meeting at
11:00. Uh we have also as Nick and Amy have done some pre-work to kind of speak about what that looks like. So we can put in front of the principal state at 11. And I can tell you that we've already got up to about 1.6 6 million and that's about 22 people and that's that's inclusive of not filling the
vacancies that we had and adding to that list. >> 15 vacancies are unfilled. Plus, >> it's not 15. It was only about 89. >> 8 to N. And then on top of that, people would actually need to be cut. >> That's correct. And we >> Yeah, we're not there yet. And that's fine. We'll get
>> Just think about it in terms of just >> Yeah. And then then you know then >> to be fair on our end like we don't know the practical we we're just learning about the practical implications of all of this. >> Yeah. I mean to go back to like uh process timing
in in the political expectation I want to make sure that we're >> we we think together and go out together with a similar this is where we are. This is you know we we should do that in a way that's helpful. Uh but given it's January 7,
this will be a bluntter instrument than normal to get to this budget in term in time for to meeting. And then in my brain, I'm using this as a 2-year window to try to rightsize the ship for the Milton public schools in order to be as aligned as possible with the town
revenue. That's the reality in order to make sure that for FY29 that we have, you know, we have I I have two budgets left. I have this budget in FY28 >> in order to make some alignments and reductions in a way that's good for kids. >> Yeah.
>> And that that fits within the the revenue expectations of the town. I I just want to push back on one element of this in terms of we'll leave a lot aside for but when I came here in October I said our expectation is in fiscal 27 the
budget's going to increase $4.2 million to 2.9%. So I I appreciate frustration at what the impacts might be but I just want to be clear that that was the message we delivered in October. deliver that message at the municipal uh
the budget coordination committee that what now that the override is done if we're going to increase that 3% a year >> based on what our revenue realities are >> um I feel like that's a pretty consistent message that we worked on and
ladies and gentlemen how it's delivered to this group on how to share that we sat in this room in October and I gave an overview and the change that we're talking from then to now was minimal. So we were we were right on at that that back conversation. The caveat that I
left in at that time was this does not include the $4.2 million million does not include any money from the operating state position fund. So I >> so the the number today was uh >> it's 4.9 with the 700 >> no yeah the 700 million is already uh
>> now it's included >> conception right? >> Yeah. So, and I think you know what I just wanted to make sure I stated that piece of fair. >> Um, and then >> what would be helpful for us and you're
kind of outlining this is what >> 5.2% budget cannot afford that. So where could the school committee come into or the school department come in at and in kind of resetting edge and knowing that
the level of services can happen? You know, what are numbers that mitigate some of these impacts that you've raised and and that we can talk about maybe some strategies we can employ um to assist in that um as we move forward.
So, so, um, just just for the average, the 9-year average of the increase in schools was about 5.9 and there's been some pretty heavy years there. So, that's offset. >> Um, >> that was going to be the question I was going to ask. seems like there's
perhaps um some history, some expectation on percent increases for MPS, like how has that traditionally aligned with percent increases
or the the town departments and the town budget as a whole that um that that maybe folks may be on different pages with what um with what's the the reasonable
year-over-year increase like if we're at if we're constrained now at 3% increases due to the override on the macro level like what is actually it seems like the conversation hasn't yet been had on what is the reasonable
increase for MPS the the rate increase year-over-year in this new environment because it's been different in given the prior environment. >> I guess that would be my question like and to John's point, the number is what
it is. We fully understand. >> Yeah. And there have been years that have been high um and we've all like this, you know, there's been a lot of effort to reduce that to cut to to be very thoughtful with the budget to be like actually less than level service
given the positions. I think where I'm not understanding or maybe I missed something is when we were talking about the 9.5. I'm not sure that we were clear on the on the assumptions that were being made about
the levels the percent increase or the funding uh what the expectation was for that 9.5. So, and now hearing that the N that that 9.5 was was using either a 2 and a
half or a 3% increase uh to schools. I think that that I think where you're saying Nick coming in in October saying that I don't think any of us had that understanding of that's where that was. So doing a lot of work to come in lower
than we have like you know being very cognizant of being fiscally responsible in the budget. I think that 2 and a half% to even 54% is a big leap. So I think it's just I think where what you're hearing from us is like that
wasn't understood. So given that I think your question you know I think it is you know what is reasonable moving forward how do we do that? I think it's just that's >> well it means responsible and I think responsible is is a is a big word for me in what I'm hearing
>> some point would it be help like it sounds like I don't I'm not sure yeah >> would you is part of what you're looking for to better understand what are the drivers of a school budget that increases in the range of four to 5%.
like and why is that is that what you're is that part of like what you're looking to understand because I'm sure that you know maybe not right now but that could be helpful information to share so that you understand what makes a school's department budget a little bit different
from another town department >> the same everybody has grades everybody has steps we all have personnel you know police and fire and 90% people it's in the share of that you know the school department has the town hall staff is
people it's not any other expense it's just our cost as employees DBW budget is the only non kind of people based budget which is you know trash collection trash disposal recycle collection recycle disposal everything else I think they're very similar so
>> there are variables transportation like there are other things that the schools deal with that the other department >> the uh I I think and I and I appreciate Nick's offer to he's said this a couple times and I really want to thank him for
it and also emphasizes that where we are is that there needs to be belt tightening in in the reality of having a fiscally sound town in schools is to make sure that we're not using one-time revenue to pay for operating ongoing expenses.
So, where can we utilize some of those one-time expense chunks like special education reserve fund and other places in order to support uh the the other costs that we're we're dealing with. Uh I I do believe uh and the reason why vacancies weren't filled in the schools
this year is that that I did feel like those accounts needed to have a balance in them to be a responsibly organization around. We know that those expenses will be incurred over the course of the year. balances in those revolving accounts from transportation
to um uh special education to athletics. Those are all variable things and having healthy revolving accounts. So, we were working on that on our own. We weren't seeking talent support. We were trying to we embedded that into our 5.2 to fix
those problems over time ourselves in order not to ask for any big chunks of money to go in. So, uh, I'm thinking right now about what our one time supports we could get into it to support those parts of the budget that we're worried about that do impact the general budget cuz if those accounts are emptied
in the middle of a year, then you're reducing books and because you have to be balanced by June 30th. So, so we were going to we were we incorporated all those reestablishing those accounts within our 5.2. Uh so that's an area of support
that that could provide support in or we could think about uh and uh and I guess my my thinking is from a practical standpoint is uh we we will and we will make reductions uh they may they'll be more challenging to do in the timeline
that we have in terms of being surgical versus a little bit. I I think this is a 2-year at least a 2-year conversation and and I do not believe uh that during that 2-year period I think it would be helpful for the for us together
collectively to talk about a reasonable percentage increase for a public school system that has 4,100 students that has an expectation to service as many students as they can in a way that's a high level. Um I think because those
expectations are high in and um you know reducing 30 to 50 people over the next 3 years will be in the opposite direction of what we reducing some of them is going to be you know we I I I have a list I already have
a list that list is not nice but it's a list that I think we can move through and still meet the needs of students anything past that list I think would be detrimental until high functioning expectation that have so I I'm I am fully aware and fully um
partnering in this work of trying to be fiscally responsible and I just want to make sure that as to your point Winston we will be meeting today we'll be probably have three meetings with our leaders to come up with the impact of the the reductions and the impact of those reductions and
then that that's where people will have a better understanding I think this is the first meeting that we've had together to have this kind conversation. I don't know if we're a final >> Yeah. But we're this is just this is the beginning of it, right? That's why you say like
we're in a bad situation >> because even you know >> but no final decision free cash balance were to throw that into the schools that would leave us with zero to next year, right? then we'd be right back at the table >> having those conversations again. So I
think we're trying to talk about sustainability, the impacts and what are the mitigations that we have at our disposal not just for this year but the upcoming years >> and I think we do have also again your point about messaging and what we say to
the town. As tough as that override was >> for us to talk about cuts >> is a really difficult conversation for us to have with our not just our parents but also our educators. Mhm. >> Um so hopeful I and I think the spirit of us sitting here is that all of us
want to work this out >> and make this work for the schools in which we are all incredibly invested. >> Yep. >> So um I don't take this as the the final um conversation. >> Yeah. It's it is in my opinion my
sentiment this is just this is just the first conversation and nothing is said about >> what's the notification >> April >> so first conversation but like I I feel
your sense of urgency like this this has to move extremely quick >> yeah I think that for on the school side first of all I agree this is one of many meetings that we have around the complications of not just the school's budget, but a half a million on the town side is a half a
million on the town side. That's not uh that's that's substantial in and of itself as well. So, this is not just a school thing, but um but we we will I have a journey management meeting tomorrow with the union. I'll be letting them know exactly what's happening. Uh we are in the middle of a negotiation
year. Uh we will need to be very and I will be very transparent with our families and our staff that this is our situation as of right now. This is what we're trying to work through. Uh this needs to be a very public conversation about where we are. It should be no surprises. Uh the public deserves to
know exactly what's happening and what the timing is and what efforts that we're making to partner on all this. But um this is where we're at. This is what we're starting to work towards and people need to know. uh the sooner the later information is power for them to
understand their own situation and what it means and I think that we they deserve to understand what's happening you know and this is work that we'll work through and I think that that we will work through it and I have no doubt that this will not end and it's sustainable for us over time but um but
I I think this will you know the two two almost $2.1 million um to reduce uh starting around January and having done by the end of March, February. Um, we'll take some quick
decisions to make it more thoughtful, but and I appreciate the partnering and I appreciate the onetime funding pieces that we can add and I don't want to contribute to using one-time money to continue to pour into an operating budget. Yeah, >> that just pushes this whole discussion
down the road. I understand that from a financial perspective, but there might be years where you need to do a little bit of that to sand down the edges that you're trying to work towards more responsible. You mean every once in a while you might be a bump to make things palatable for
the community in order to hopefully pick something up on the other side. And you have our assurances on our end that we will work with town administrator to find we will leave no stone left unturned that we can contribute to
narrowing that gap. >> I I appreciate >> but we do we all share a fiduciary responsibility in the out years as well to >> agree. I mean, we have to get out of the cycle that we're in somehow. I don't know how on earth it's possible given
our given the composition of land use in our tax base. >> Like I just we are so politically constrained and I mean that's a different conversation for a different time >> but you know we all share the burden of
minimizing risk in these out years as well. Yeah, >> because we don't want to we we talking about sustainability. It's also like how do we optimize the staffing to student ratio in the out years as well
so that we don't go too hard this year and end up having to lay off people in the out years who >> are not what are the out years the years we're not having an overreach. Yeah. >> Or if almost here though,
>> right? >> I mean the out we're in the first out here and we're >> Yeah. So, so for me, you know, I think there are many towns in the Commonwealth that are on sort of a cycle. It's understood that, you know, it's 3 to 5
years and then you just automatically have an override and everybody understands, you know, we are we are not that type of town. And every time or you know overrides are risk like we are not guaranteed
um that the electorate will will support that. Um and I would say even it was great that people came out and supported this override but I personally don't know that it was um the right number right given the
situation that we're in right now. So, um, you know, I don't want to be on my soap box, but I, um, for me, this is about this is about making sure that we're also not in
another terrible situation in in a few years. >> I I guess I agree with you that it wasn't the right number. It's clearly not the right number. Um, >> we said that at the time. Yeah, you did say it at the time. Yeah, >> I also >> I just want to note that the request for
a higher number was for a higher number to spend fiscal 26. That was a $12 million that had money being spent on Priscilla in 26. It wasn't a $12 million override of $3 million not being spent for three years. Like >> that's not true. We we specifically had the conversation of the operating I mean
even the term the operating budget stabilization fund was to stabilize it is to stabilize the budget over the period before the next override. This is mitigating the impacts of budget cuts on an annual basis, but not it's not stabilizing anything. 26 cuts next year
is not stable for students. And so if that number had been larger in terms of what was invested within the operating stabilization fund so that we could decision from the school committee on and putting $700,000 into the operating budget stabilization in the first place because it meant a reduction in the
fiscal 26 budget for the school department. The $12 million override was $3 million more of expenses. It wasn't a $9.5 million override or $3 million being sent aside to support budgets future years. And I I don't want to
sound offensive. I we advise SU board that if the $95 million for $700,000 used over the next several years at a 2 and 12 to 3% cost ratio with 7% health insurance, that is what we saw as as manageable. That's what the select word
wanted. If that was wrong, I'll I'll eat that. But I don't want us to kind of backtrack to a scenario where the conversation was a $9.5 million override or a $12 million override that we're setting aside some significant recurring amount of money for future years. That
was not ever raised as an idea from any groups. It probably was our override to fund wants and needs and budgets, which that was it's a different conversation. and also not the alternative that you're asking here for is not even structurally
allowed under props to have either. So >> yeah, but that's not true. I was in your office, we talked about it, could we increase the amount in order to invest more in roads in year one and then you reduce that over time, right? You invest more in capital improvements in SY 26 so
that then you reduce that 5 million amount whatever it is to 3 million the next year because that money needs to now move into operating stabilization. There are other ways in which and again that decision is beyond us. I know that decisions were not fully yours. It was the select words. We had conversations with select word at the time. The thing
we asked from the school submitt committee side was things we're very clear on is like we need to be able to stabilize this. We can't have 26 cuts in a year if it's a 3% increase. And that was the assumption of what would be a
sustainable budget for the schools. That was a bad assumption. It's apparently a bad assumption for the town too, right? The town eating 3.56%. So like that is not sustainable. It is where it is. I don't know how we get to a place but the only mechanism I can see
that that ultimately gets us to a place where we're not cutting on an annual basis and creating significant disruption to our school system if not also to other talent departments is to have these mechanisms within the operating stabilization fund or within
capital improvement that then draws down over time that allows you to push more funds and have increases that are greater than 2.3%. I mean, our transportation increase on annual basis is 10%. Because that's what the one bidder put through. A 2.3% increase for
special education, you don't see that anywhere. Like that's not that's not sustainable. And again, I'm sure there are situations like this on the town side as well. So, you know, I I do think to John's point of may maybe this is a multi-year thing, but like how do we
figure out a way in which we can not have to come in on an annual basis with cuts in the warrant committee conversations are like what do you need from the police? Like let's talk to these folks on like I don't think they have a sense that there's just no chance of any ads over the next 5 years. It's
just going to be not even just level service, but significant cuts for 5 years until we can get to another override amount. That is a really daunting I think um task for for the town as a whole, much less again the impact this is going to have on kids.
So, um I I think a lot of this is tied into the work we're trying to do on the long-term budget um projections so that we can see what it is and we can figure out mechanisms that help us sustain a percent increase that is greater than again I know this is a little bit of an
outlier because of health insurance this year but again a 3% is going to be a cut budget on an annual basis for kids. But in the conversations that you're saying that were had, I'm hearing a really big number in growth year-over-year, but we know our revenue is not growing at that.
So, in the conversations leading up to the override, you're saying it's special education is increasing at 10%. Um 5% is like baseline standard for schools. You know, our revenue is not increasing at that level. So, we knew at some point that this was not going to match, right?
If we're already at a minimum 9 and a half behind in need of the in need of an override, we were not going to have and even looking at the numbers, there is been a huge jump in revenue in the last 3 years and even with that and Nick saying that that was that was factored
as 7%. And of health insurance increase we're looking at a minimum of 10 this year which possibility coming into this. We're thinking it might be 14 or 16%. >> Those are massive jumps for us. So we knew revenue was never even at baseline
revenue was never going to get to relief for the schools. So where was the disconnect in that in that conversation to impact? I think what we're trying to do right now is connect some of our sins of the past. >> And unfortunately what we're all trying to do is not make sure make sure that all the kids in the schools right now are not the ones that bear the
brotherhood. >> Listen, I think what I'm hearing is I don't think a lot of people around this table thought the overwriting was okay. I just don't think we thought it would show up like this in year one. I mean, I don't know. I wasn't in a conversation, but like that's what we did those projections. I I think Nick in in the
presentation there were the projections of if we are here at 9.5, this is where and I think it was around 28 was when we sort of um were going to struggle >> four years. >> Four years, right? And that's the 7% increase which we're saying now is going to be a little higher. So even at 12, we
were going to put that into the schools right away. And whatever disagreement is there, it just seems that Mark, to your point, like we are where we are. >> Yeah. >> And I think what we're all trying to walk away from this table is okay,
what do we do to lessen the impact and to John's point about operationally putting into what the schools know about our revenue projections and what we can have and do in the next few years. >> Yeah. I just think it's not this is like both SY27 and the impacts, but also
>> we we just can't be here again cutting another 20 people in SY28. And so like what do we need to cut in SY27 >> to then put more money in the operating stabilization fund to be able to have a larger percent projected increase on an annual basis that's above 2.3%.
Like what is the system in which we can do where we can get a 3.5% a 4% increase um targeted for the schools on annual basis. So we can sustain right whatever that level of program is one >> right like that's what we want like we
want predictability for our staff and for our families and for our kids on this is the level of program that we can sustain in Milton public schools >> again unless some economic situation comes up and we understand like health insurance comes up and that means that
we're going to have to cut a little bit like that's not that's on an annual basis those are conversations we can have a $2 million the cost driver here of $2 million cut to the schools is not caused solely by health insurance, right? That is like that is a systemic issue in how we are projecting and uh
dealing with kind of revenue forecast. And so I think for me it's again just how do we fix this both for FY27 but also for long term so we're not over the next 5 years needing to cut cut 12 15 20 people every year in order to get down
to this 2.5%. I would rather I don't want to cut anybody, but again I think it it would be better for the system. John said this before is we don't need an A+ budget every year. We need like a B budget. And so like let's what is the number that we need to cut to to get to a B budget where we know from Katie's
projections that we need at least 4%. And so if we can get there and we can put extra money into operating stabilization or some other mechanism that then that will allow us to sustain over the next 5 years till our next operating budget uh or um override a 4% increase like
>> to me that is the ideal of how we get out of here. >> I agree with you by the way. So I think that um this is this is a new conversation in some ways because usually I know Leroy been working together since 2000 1990s around stuff
like this within the town of Milton. It has always been the experience that the override has normally been able to push over into the revenue to the point where we were looking at sustaining and maybe potentially adding a couple more people and doing what the schools need or what
the time needs. This is kind of the first time where an override's been exercised and accomplished in the first year. It's been a result of being in the red in the first year out. So, a lot of what we're talking about is the same conversations we've had for 25 years.
>> That every town that's a suburban town with limited tax base that has quality schools that uh have high high impact expenses related to being around the city of Fost etc. This is the same conversation that's probably happening in Westwood right now, Indian right now. I know it's happening in Brooklyn, you
know, I mean, so these conversations are relatively historically kind of the the the push and pull of what's good for schools, what's good for kids, how can the town afford it? Uh, usually it means it's all about FTEES, sustaining a level that's acceptable to producing uh a
product for for our families. Um, and so uh but what is what is so we can work around that. What is different is that that in year one there's such a big gap in order to kind of that that this just didn't connect in a way that I think people the general public would think that it would cuz it always has
connected this the override always did connect the budget back to a sustainable >> so um if if if in fact that means that the school needs to reduce uh which it will uh over time to Mark's point it
would be nice to be able to what I would call kind of approach that in a in a thoughtful two or threeyear way as opposed to a heavy-handed one-year way. >> Yeah. >> And I guess that's my way of saying that anything we can do to make that 2.1 go
to 1.6 or 1.8 eight of 1.5 so we can because I think next year we will be in this spot but we'll have one more year's worth of experience of fine-tuning and realigning resources in a way that we think best serves the kids and um and just do it in a more thoughtful way over
time as opposed to in any one year having to like last year was a nightmare circumstance 72 people >> big big blunt instrument you know what I mean our goal on the school side is to be able to leads the district in a way
that's fiscally sustainable because we can't plan strategically for what's good for students in teaching and learning unless we know we have the funding in order to operate the level of staffing program that we need in order to deliver. So there is no long range planning without long
>> there's no long range planning with less than adequate level service funding. So right now we're working on year to year what's best with the funds that we have and I think that over the next three fiscal years we we're going to need to be able to rightsize the district and
convince the public that that right sizing still presents a good part of children >> that will be that that will be the high five uh while we rightize. So um and also we have to be a balance between fiscally responsible to the people at the table and also advocates for
teaching and learning and for our kids and our families. >> The people that went out and voted for the 9.5 were probably 87% families of students in the time. >> Um so there's a balance here that we have to strike. I think that we we will
do it and I appreciate the the thoughtful partnership with this but um this will be an interesting spring. >> Okay, we're getting to time here. Um other questions. So, do we have any So, what's the next
step as far as getting to um when I'm, you know, looking at ways that we can, as John just said, um lessen the impact using maybe like using time funds
for either stabilization funds or capital like where what's the process? I think it'll be helpful to know we know the budget is including trying to build back your reserves. So, >> you know, what is the actual number that
you're leaning on in 27 to help build back your reserves and there are other sources that we can use to support that effort because we're doing it on the side. We're putting 700 grand as the general stabilization for the dire economic crisis situation that we hope
never happens. But you know I would look at free cash in a similar way. If it helps build up reserves then it should build up reserves whether that's town or schooling. Um I think um a a broader policy discussion is some
others is that offering budget stabilization fund. While I am recommending and you're comfortable using $700,000 does should that number be higher? um is are folks comfortable with that with a greater withdrawal just means that
essentially less money available for 28 and beyond. Um >> but you know the obvious corlary there is is this free cash going to offset some of that u so if it's $900,000 this year and put in $600,000 so the
operating stabilization fund to make that last a couple more years. So I think those two conversations um would be helpful and then you know some of these other elements are just allow a little bit out of our control timing. So um finalizing some of the stuff over the next couple weeks. Um so I think those
are the three kind of points is you know from a building back reserves perspective what's happening there or are there other you know oneoff costs in your budget and we're doing the same on our budget. um the broader operating budget stipulation fund compensation
cost. So it's just what happens with some of our revenue and like I think there might be a couple places where we're able to tweak some of these shared costs. We're not talking savings maybe,000 at most. So and maybe post $100,000. So
I it's that's what we're going to revisit on um next couple weeks. I should probably provide another update or a check-in in two weeks if that would be helpful and then we can do some work offline and
>> then they can have a um clear picture of impacts for the students we would state at this time. >> So So what what So I I agree. So, we'll we'll start today with the uh mark of about $2 million of deductions and we'll try to put that over the next three
weeks in a prioritized order. Um and um and we will work with Nick and Amy and Ron. What are some of the one time pieces that can uh suggest that might be helpful to put aside i.e. mainly special stabilization fund would be very helpful for us to have that uh funds those funds
in that town account just in case something happened. That would be a break the class thing. when being using operations would be kind of a a security blanket that we would have so we wouldn't have to put as much into those revolving funds as we normally would. So, uh but we'll we'll come up with $2
million worth of protections. We'll let that community know what the impact is and we'll also let them know that we're all working together to try to minimize that um over the next two months. I think the same thing that you think Katie, did you have any add? I just want
to clarify too for the specialized stabilization even if that even if there isn't fund the intent of the fund is really to just offset onetime costs that were unreed
that come up during the fiscal year but those costs don't go away those costs for students and so that cost offset one time but then it has going forward Yes. So by by shifting it
and it's certainly a mechanism that we can use, but it really is just shifting it to offset that one time cost and then in the next fiscal year we'll see things. So if we're cutting the budget, but have fun
in the um in the kind of like years out. So I just want to make sure that you know and to shine a little bit brighter light on that that account we started the FY26 going to be a $8,000 account that by
state guidance should be 3.1. So the reason why we did not fill vacancies was to bring out our own um security and balance into that account in order to win the worst in hope for the best. So we're not starting
with the average revolving account number that we feel comfortable with kind of jockeying with a little bit up and down. Jimmy was starting with a very substantial deficit that we're internally trying to to benefit by. But to Kane's point, once it gets into the
system, it's a reoccurring expense and that money in that account would require both. It wouldn't be for us to use operational under certain circumstances. But we are starting we that's why we have prioritized our accounts this year. We
are trying to cultivate our own security and our own fiscal stability within the school budget as part of the budget measure of being budget. So to end this question, but I know we're meeting finance meeting next week. You will be meeting say internally this
week ongoing. We anticipate you can get together in two weeks and three weeks. So you know internal stuff I'm available would be helpful. So
I we don't have here now. >> Yeah, I'm available. I wonder what it means to be to talk about this. And and I also want to just say out loud that um >> well between legal principles and this is a pretty open this is an open dialogue now. >> This is what it is. So I'll be letting my leadership team know that we're going
to be working towards this the larger leadership team >> and I I my my uh my strategy to to you also to let our staff know that this is a discussion and we should know that this is a discussion. So, I'm not sure
um everyone else's comfortability with that, but I I plan on sending something out to the staff tomorrow uh as well as to the community that, you know, our physical situation has been shifted and that we're able to do this work, but this is the gap. I I just think it
benefits everybody to be in there. >> I would agree. >> Great. I don't I say that openly so I don't feel like I'm doing I'm letting my the families know and you say why did you say that to me before I left that meeting on Wednesday. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. >> I just want to be open about how we strategically should approach this in a
way that is open and transparent and uh that's what we try to do this year. Yeah. Um, are we sending this out? Is that a joint dispatch or is this something? We can probably talk about it at our
meeting next week. I appreciate the partnership. I appreciate the priority um goals. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thanks for having us. um just for us and next week next
Wednesday 14 same place we had the 21st down conversation on policy budget back
>> we'll have both those Yeah, we'll do the Q2. So, >> Q2 is looking good, by the way. Good news. >> Uh, sorry. Any other business to discuss for
we'll take a motion to second. All in favor? Thank you.