WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=XlDL3vjF0gQ

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: XlDL3vjF0gQ):
- 00:00:06: Meeting Begins: Sped Stabilization Fund Policy Discussion
- 00:05:45: Sped Fund Overfunding Scenario: Katie's Insightful Perspective
- 00:15:52: Consensus on 2% Funding Ceiling; Policy Language Refinement
- 00:19:07: Circuit Breaker Reserve Fund Policy: Goals and Updates
- 00:19:39: Circuit Breaker Reimbursement: Supplemental Budget and Advocacy
- 00:23:39: Policy Walk-Through: Funding Ceilings, Restrictions, and Reporting
- 00:26:05: Managing Funds Exceeding Ceiling: Reimbursement and Budgeting
- 00:32:12: Policy Benefits and Editorial Comments: Transparency Improvement
- 00:34:19: Joint Policy Adoption: Select Board Timeline and Recommendations
- 00:38:36: Stabilization Account Funding: Policy Approval and Timing
- 00:41:13: FY27 Budget Presentation: Town Meeting Strategy and Goals
- 00:42:38: Detailed Budget Information Access and Moderator Support
- 00:46:28: Highlights at Town Meeting: District Scale and Finances
- 00:51:10: Postsecondary Impact Data: College and Career Readiness
- 00:53:06: Action Items & Upcoming Meetings: Budget Slides and Minutes
- 00:57:07: Meeting Adjourned: Roll Call Vote Concludes Discussion


Part: 1

1
00:00:06.550 --> 00:00:32.320
[music] I will call the meeting to order here at 8:06 a.m. Uh we got a few things to discuss. Um, first one is jumping in with the sped stabilization

2
00:00:32.320 --> 00:00:50.000
fund policy. Our goal is that we'll have something to share tonight at school committee for the first reading and then we can um hopefully do a second reading on the um April 29th meeting in three weeks. So, I sent over yesterday because

3
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:06.560
I we just hadn't connected with Megan Winston, Katie, John, and me. Just trying to talk about the draft policy that this group put together previously. I sent over what is essentially a working document that had like a bunch of Winston's comments and edits. I had

4
00:01:06.560 --> 00:01:22.240
already accepted some of those that were pretty like fine and standard. I kept the ones I think we're still having conversation on. I sent over that same document to Winston and Megan. yesterday because Katie and John and I were just, you know, making sure we were aligned on what we wanted to share with Winston.

5
00:01:22.240 --> 00:01:39.360
Um, I let Winston and Megan both know we're talking about this today. Um, again, Winston's comments are in here. Megan sent an email. Her only comment was really on the target funding ceiling and like where did the 750 number come from? And so I answer I think I answered

6
00:01:39.360 --> 00:01:56.079
that through the comment. Obviously Winston's I think big comment is thinking we should remove that number and just use the um the kind of um MGL cap of 2%. I think based upon what this group

7
00:01:56.079 --> 00:02:12.480
talked about last time of like that's a pretty high number and likely not a number that a we're going to be able to get to anytime reasonably and um without significant influxes of free cash from the town. uh and b that given kind of where we're at with building circuit breaker, we

8
00:02:12.480 --> 00:02:29.920
didn't think that was necessary. That was a necessary investment for the town. So I think I I tried to share that within the comment back to him. Um and so I think that's a place that we will might might continue to discuss, but I don't assume the um select board will

9
00:02:29.920 --> 00:02:45.440
have an issue of us saying we don't need more than 750 and forcing us to have a number higher than that. But maybe maybe he will for other reasons. So I think that's the one place that we have some ongoing conversation

10
00:02:45.440 --> 00:03:02.640
uh and disagreement. Um everything else I think is generally fine. Um again like they added in something of they wanted a minimum withdrawal amount to be listed is what what I should say they Winston proposed a minimum withdrawal amount of $50,000

11
00:03:02.640 --> 00:03:17.760
that we wouldn't come to them for something less than that. Uh, and I thought that seemed fine and reasonable. Um, uh, and then that's, uh, they changed language to say instead of periodically, annually, which again I

12
00:03:17.760 --> 00:03:33.760
think is what we had already talked about. So I think that was just an oversight on our our side, not using that phrase. Everything else I think we are pretty aligned on. So it's just cashing out that target funding ceiling number is my sense. Um, Katie, you've been doing some nodding, so I appreciate

13
00:03:33.760 --> 00:03:50.080
that. Anything else you think I missed based upon your reading of their notes? >> No, I think you captured it all. >> Okay. And I think just like the the super important like emphasis on the um

14
00:03:50.080 --> 00:04:05.840
reviewing the policy annually >> cuz even if right because we're talking about it so it's kind of like hypothetical right now because we haven't operationalized it yet here and so I think having the ability to change

15
00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:22.320
it during that annual review is going to be really important because if there's anything if any of the language we feel like is restrictive now, it just gives us that opportunity to make modifications in the future. So,

16
00:04:22.320 --> 00:04:40.160
>> yeah. >> Um, so Nathan, I know we shared this late. I don't know if you've had a chance to look over it or if you have any other thoughts, questions. >> Um, not not really. Um I'm I I take it

17
00:04:40.160 --> 00:04:55.440
you and Winston haven't really chatted about the removal of the target fund ceiling. I was just curious if you had a sense of was he was he vetoing that out because or strike striking it out because he felt that it was just redundant of what

18
00:04:55.440 --> 00:05:12.400
the law is or does he think there needs to be a higher target ceiling? >> Yeah, I'm I'm not sure. Um, so I I had intended to kind of reach back out to him before this meeting and connect, but um, John, Katie, and I just weren't able to connect to make sure. I just want to make sure the three of us were at least

19
00:05:12.400 --> 00:05:28.800
aligned before given I I know I couldn't talk to you and Amanda about this until this meeting. Um Um, so I again sent it over to him yesterday. I expect to be able to get that. My hope is that I can talk to him today. Uh, and I was going to send him a text to see if he's available and we can have some

20
00:05:28.800 --> 00:05:45.600
information going into the first reading tonight just to share with all members. >> Okay, >> here's Amanda. >> Katie, have you um have you ever seen a situation where the sped stabilization fund is overfunded? And what happens in those situations?

21
00:05:45.600 --> 00:06:00.880
Like let's say we remove this and just for whatever reason we end up with more than $750,000. We end up with a million dollars in there which may be more than what we think is useful. Like just >> you ever seen that situation come up?

22
00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:18.880
So, the um districts that I was in, the funding ceiling, we did use Mass General Law, the 2% of net school spending, which is typically significantly higher than the 750,000 that we had as a funding ceiling. Um, and we were never

23
00:06:18.880 --> 00:06:32.880
in a situation where we got to that point where we were at the ceiling. So, um, but I do know I do believe that we did or there was language that was put into the policy that said, um, that we

24
00:06:32.880 --> 00:06:49.680
would not continue to contribute to the stabilization fund by ways of um the surplus at the end of the year being certified as free cash and then put into the fund if we felt like we were nearing that funding

25
00:06:49.680 --> 00:07:07.199
ceiling. So, um, but I've never I've never had two funding sailings. It's always just been kind of the, um, the modification that Winston talked about, just using that 2% of net school spending, which for our purposes would

26
00:07:07.199 --> 00:07:26.000
be closer to $1.5 million and not the 750,000. Well, so maybe we should just because I mean would your recommendation Katie be that the policy the the funding ceiling be the the legal I think we landed on

27
00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:43.360
750 through some sort of calculations on our part. >> Mhm. >> But is that like I don't I don't know. I don't know how to feel about this. I guess >> yeah I think it's totally reasonable to just have one to not have like a number.

28
00:07:43.360 --> 00:07:58.800
um not have a number that we're determining and just and let it be kind of that legal limit. I think that's totally reasonable. I know, you know, it seems like the thought process was just being like really mindful of um the fact

29
00:07:58.800 --> 00:08:16.000
that we also have the circuit breaker fund that we're trying to build up the balance. Um, but I think to just streamline it and operationally just having that one funding ceiling, um, it ties to Mass General Law and then you're only really monitoring like that one

30
00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:34.560
number. Um, again, I think that that totally makes sense. >> Okay. I guess my concern with with the higher number is, you know, ultimately what that'll mean is we want to have about about 3

31
00:08:34.560 --> 00:08:51.360
million, like $2.7 million within circuit breaker. We're going to have 1.5 like if we build this up and actually reach 1.5, which I don't know if we will. Um just that's just a lot of you know that at that point you're at what you know four over $4 million

32
00:08:51.360 --> 00:09:08.320
um kind of sitting in in some reserve accounts for the the schools which based upon the current school is like about what 5% of the you know it's a $70 million budget. Um, so $4 million if we were fully funded kind of proportionally to our current budget. That that that to

33
00:09:08.320 --> 00:09:24.399
me feels feels a little high, especially given that those are not those are not like general reserve funds. Those are funds that both in both cases can only be used for special education, which is in of itself 40% of that $70 million, right? And so now you're it becomes a a

34
00:09:24.399 --> 00:09:40.640
very big fund. Um, and I think that in my mind the benefit of the lower number was really from a [clears throat] kind of savings goal perspective as we were talking about like we you know if

35
00:09:40.640 --> 00:09:56.240
the school department is under budget uh at the end of the year like right now we're projected to be about $28,000 under budget 26,000 that money would automatically kind of be you know certified as free cash and then be allocated to this account through the

36
00:09:56.240 --> 00:10:12.720
kind abnormal processes. Um, and so is that something we just want to happen annually in perpetuity until we hit that $ 1.5 million number, which in and of itself is going to continue to grow at whatever rate the school budget

37
00:10:12.720 --> 00:10:27.120
grows. So, if the school budget's growing at 4%, that means that has to grow at 4%. Um, which means we need to invest more than 4% into the account in order to grow it at a similar rate. it just it becomes a I think a math issue in my mind of getting to a place where

38
00:10:27.120 --> 00:10:43.519
it's a really large number. Um and then we don't really have a sense of you know are we actually trying to fill the fund to the the ceiling? Is that is that the goal? And maybe that's not the goal and we just name that of like we're not anticipating but if so the only

39
00:10:43.519 --> 00:10:58.480
other number we state is the floor and I think we know we we definitely want need to be above the floor because $100,000 is not much of an account. Um, so I don't know if that means we should actually raise the floor and the floor is like really the number we're trying to target to and anything above the

40
00:10:58.480 --> 00:11:20.399
floor is like gravy. But then I I don't know. Those are the challenges that are kind of in my mind is it just feels like slightly unreasonable number that we're going to be able to get to. I think that it does feel like a big number, but I think that that's okay.

41
00:11:20.399 --> 00:11:36.640
like I truly do. Um and I think that um when we think about having fully funded stabilization, fully funded circuit breaker, like that's the goal, right? That's the financial stability.

42
00:11:36.640 --> 00:11:54.560
That's that truly is the goal of um of where I think ultimately I would love to see us be. Um, I think in reality, if we looked at the percentage increase of how much our special education costs are

43
00:11:54.560 --> 00:12:08.880
increasing year-over-year, um, that becomes the goal because those costs increase so much. And I just don't think I mean, I think that we could get to that funding ceiling and have fully funded circuit breaker, but it's going

44
00:12:08.880 --> 00:12:26.720
to take time. And um like I hear all of the those concerns, but I think that there are I have so many concerns kind of on the other side of saying there is the real situation where we're we may

45
00:12:26.720 --> 00:12:42.560
have to use that money because we don't we aren't fully funded in circuit breaker. We know our costs, the special education costs are growing exponentially, more so than inflation and some of the other um cost increases

46
00:12:42.560 --> 00:13:00.320
that we see in the school department. So, um I totally like like I hear those concerns, but I just think from kind of like uh when I look think about the history of the expenses and kind of like the um ultimately the goal of having

47
00:13:00.320 --> 00:13:16.560
those two accounts, I think it's okay to really shoot for that higher number knowing that in reality we may not get there for a number of years, if ever, because our our um overall spending number as a school department is going

48
00:13:16.560 --> 00:13:34.959
to continue to grow year-over-year as well. So that target that 2% is going to continue to increase. Yeah, I think my um it feels a little better. Like I hear what you're saying, Mark, and I think it

49
00:13:34.959 --> 00:13:51.120
is a big number, but the 750 sort of to Katie's point, if if costs increase, the 750 feels sort of arbitrary. I mean, I know how we got there, but then does that become does that number

50
00:13:51.120 --> 00:14:08.880
become less relevant in future years or do you re like is it then that you're revisiting that number year over year versus if that that cap is that um that percentage um then you don't have to do that like

51
00:14:08.880 --> 00:14:23.839
you don't have to revisit what the number is and does it is it a relevant number. So, um I think I'm okay with having just that one and then knowing and then it's also not

52
00:14:23.839 --> 00:14:39.920
it's not necessarily up for discussion every year if that's the right number as opposed to like that's sort of the set number that's the ceiling already based on you know mass general law. So I'm but I don't feel like I don't feel passionately about it one way or the

53
00:14:39.920 --> 00:14:58.880
other. It just seems like a good measure. It's a good it's a good number just because it's it's already established I guess is the way. >> Mhm. >> And we will revisit it every year anyway because the policy says we have to revisit it every year. And so I think

54
00:14:58.880 --> 00:15:15.519
and that's to me this is the most important part of this policy. So it if we feel like the target funding ceiling is not right or or we need a different number, we can we can always do that. >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. I guess I just meant more

55
00:15:15.519 --> 00:15:31.199
in the sense of revisiting it every year, but it just doesn't I think if you have sort of that number, it's less um a little bit less not up for debate, but sort of like you don't have to get into the all of the weeds about the why

56
00:15:31.199 --> 00:15:47.720
750 versus 500 versus 900. Do you know what I mean? I mean, you can still do that, but I just feel like it gives you a good [snorts] ceiling. But again, definitely needs to be revisited.

57
00:15:52.320 --> 00:16:09.440
>> Okay. Well, then it sounds like the the group agrees with kind of Winston's note here. So, I can make that change to say the target funding ceiling for the sponge shall not exceed 2% of the annual or should I say shall be 2%. >> We should talk about it at school

58
00:16:09.440 --> 00:16:28.000
committee tonight, too. Yeah. Yeah. Well, obviously, but I think bringing this forward um what the current language is, I think the do we still want to Oh, this was another piece that Winston added was he

59
00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:43.600
um if the fund balance drops below the TF the floor, the town and school shall formulate a plan to restore the fund to identify target funding. See, this is where he says target funding ceiling within two budget cycles, which again, it's just if the target funding ceiling is 1.5, that's not possible. Sounds like

60
00:16:43.600 --> 00:17:16.640
it'll do that. Um, >> be above the target funding floor within two budget cycles. >> Uh, yes, we can do that. Take two. Um the other one is do we want to make the

61
00:17:16.640 --> 00:17:31.840
language here more explicit that what we're saying is that the standard practices the town would allocate again that what we are proposing I think this is what we talked about but what we are proposing is that the standard practices any leftover funds any surplus plus

62
00:17:31.840 --> 00:17:46.799
within the school budget the standard practice followed by schools select board and therefore you know we'd have to talk through warrant committee and town meeting it goes through those pieces but that that would transfer from into free cash and from free cash into

63
00:17:46.799 --> 00:18:10.720
this account >> okay so I think maybe I might make this I mean I don't we can't mandate it within the policy obviously it's going to be you know select board discretion I guess but we could I can try and write something that just makes

64
00:18:10.720 --> 00:18:30.240
that slightly more clear I left that in a note to Winston over here um but I will clean that up we agreed okay so I will clean up this language a little bit I'll send an updated version I'll drop school committee folder night

65
00:18:30.240 --> 00:18:46.640
for everybody for first reading. Um, and I'll email out the group to let them know that I've done that. And then I'll also send it back over to Winston and Megan with the updates. Uh, and just highlight kind of the one piece that um, we just want to make sure we

66
00:18:46.640 --> 00:19:07.200
finish aligning on. >> Great. Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Katie. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions folks have on this? Thank you, Katie. Uh, next up, circuit breaker reserve fund policy. So, this

67
00:19:07.200 --> 00:19:23.760
has been in the folder for a little bit. Uh, it was drafted just to somewhat mimic the sped stabilization fund. So, hopefully the formatting looks pretty similar. Um, so I don't know if folks have had the opportunity to kind of read this over or if it'd be helpful to kind of read

68
00:19:23.760 --> 00:19:40.160
through this collectively. right now. >> I >> Yeah, Katie, >> I had a brief. Go ahead. I look Go ahead, kid. Katie, >> sorry. >> Um, I just wanted to, if it's okay, just provide a quick update on circuit breaker. Just kind of the circuit

69
00:19:40.160 --> 00:19:57.360
breaker reimbursement program to Mark. Is that okay? >> Uh, yeah, sure. We can do that now. >> Okay. So, um there is um a supplemental budget for fiscal year 26

70
00:19:57.360 --> 00:20:12.960
that is working its way um through the state. Um and so they are there's an additional $32 million that is being allocated to the fiscal year 26 budget

71
00:20:12.960 --> 00:20:30.559
for circuit breaker. And the goal of that is to increase the transportation reimbursement. So right now it's at 61% for this year and um the goal is to be at 75%. So the supplemental budget is just $32

72
00:20:30.559 --> 00:20:48.640
million that um would allow the state to increase that reimbursement to be essentially fully funded at the 75%. What that means for us is that we could potentially be receiving $259,000

73
00:20:48.640 --> 00:21:03.600
additional in circuit breaker reimbursement for fiscal year 26. That's similar to the process that happened last year, too. If you remember, there was a supplemental um budget at the state level that worked

74
00:21:03.600 --> 00:21:20.320
its way through and that payment came to us in July and that actually that payment was larger last year. It was closer to 450,000 and that um enabled us to close a portion of the deficit that we had for last year. So that was really

75
00:21:20.320 --> 00:21:38.240
important to us. Um, so I just wanted to let you all know that there I kind of just found out about that recently and it seems to be kind of moving its way similar um with a similar timeline as last year. So I think it's just important cuz it's just more money that

76
00:21:38.240 --> 00:21:55.200
we could potentially have. Um, and then there's also just some advocacy to increase the circuit breaker reimbursement to 90% for next year. So again, that would just increase the amount of money um that we would be reimbursed and that would be coming back

77
00:21:55.200 --> 00:22:11.760
to us to help offset some of those costs. So that sorry Mark, that's just kind of a high level. I just wanted to mention that too because I know we've talked about circuit breaker and the circuit breaker utilization so much this year.

78
00:22:11.760 --> 00:22:28.960
Um and so anytime there's any changes, I just want to make sure that everyone is totally aware of it. so that if we do receive the $260,000 in July that it's not a surprise. >> That's great. >> Yeah. Great news.

79
00:22:28.960 --> 00:22:44.320
>> Great surprise. >> Katie, can you remind me? I just don't have it right in front. What's the What's the current circuit breaker? Is it 75%. >> Um, currently the goal is 75%. >> Yeah. Uh tuition this year is funded at

80
00:22:44.320 --> 00:23:02.000
75% but transportation was only 61%. And that's what that extra $32 million will allow the state to get to the 75%. >> Yeah. But the only one they're trying to get to 90% from 75. >> Yes. For next year. Yeah.

81
00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:21.360
>> Great. >> Any other questions folks have on that update? >> No. [sighs] Great. Um, thank you, Katie. >> Sorry. >> Uh, um, Amanda, I think you were gonna jump in with a a question.

82
00:23:21.360 --> 00:23:38.440
>> Um, >> no. >> No. Okay. Sorry. >> I think my my question was, uh, would it be helpful to kind of walk through this um, collectively or did folks read over and they just have specific things they wanted to talk about?

83
00:23:39.120 --> 00:23:54.080
>> Um, we do it collectively. I wouldn't mind. I didn't have a ton of time to go over it. >> Yeah, no problem. So, um the obviously again this tries to really mimic in terms of the sections uh what you all

84
00:23:54.080 --> 00:24:09.520
already saw in the sp stabilization fund what the objective of the uh account is. Um and then what is our goal uh minimum rollover balance within circuit breaker fund to provide financial assistance. So we talked about like why why we are

85
00:24:09.520 --> 00:24:26.880
developing this kind of um fund funding reserve funding within the circuit breaker account. We talked about the target funding ceiling shall be 100% of the reimbursements based upon mass journal law. Um might be helpful Kate the mass

86
00:24:26.880 --> 00:24:40.880
journal law like we did in the other ones. >> Yeah. And then we talk about in this case the floor is the 75% number that uh John and Katie previously kind of presented. So that is the minimum level

87
00:24:40.880 --> 00:25:00.080
we want to keep the circuit breaker at. Um transfers out. So we talk about like the restrictions around what the funds can be used for. Uh again based upon master law and the reporting process which is

88
00:25:00.080 --> 00:25:15.120
pretty similar to [clears throat] the other um account and then this is the withdrawal procedure. School department determines the need to withdraw funds. Uh it will be uh beyond what was originally presented during the budget process.

89
00:25:15.120 --> 00:25:29.360
They must receive authorization through a vote of the finance subcommittee and the full school committee. Um, if the requested withdrawal pulls the funding level below the floor, the school department must present a plan showing how they will get the funding

90
00:25:29.360 --> 00:25:48.000
level above the floor in future years. Uh, and then also each year the school department will report on the circuit breaker utilization and projections to the finance committee and the full commit school committee as part of the annual budget process. just trying to institutionalize those

91
00:25:48.000 --> 00:26:05.440
those norms which we've started to do and then this is just um similar kind of confidentiality note given that this still similar to the other account relates to special education. Uh yes, Nathan. >> So uh I know I know this is a

92
00:26:05.440 --> 00:26:21.039
hypothetical in at least in the near term, but I could imagine a scenario in which through a confluence of circumstances, we have let's say in a few years we've we've uh hit our target funding floor

93
00:26:21.039 --> 00:26:36.400
and maybe we're somewhere in between the floor and the ceiling. Um, and through a confluence of circumstances, we are somehow on track to like exceed the ceiling like expenditures are lower than expected, I guess, in a in a given year. >> Mhm.

94
00:26:36.400 --> 00:26:52.159
>> Um, like how how likely is that? Is that is that is that an absurd scenario? And do we um do we I I know we try to probably manage against that during the budgeting

95
00:26:52.159 --> 00:27:07.200
process, but if there are lower than expected costs in a given year, um it's not exactly clear to me how we how we how we manage around that. Is that question clear? Yeah, you're asking just what if we

96
00:27:07.200 --> 00:27:24.320
again what what is the process if we're projecting that we're going to go above the ceiling, right? Because if we go above the ceiling, my understanding is we have to give money back to the state, right? The state will not allow us to carry it over for an additional fiscal year. So, we have to kind of reimburse them. I I my reading of this in this

97
00:27:24.320 --> 00:27:39.440
scenario is that in that case we would want to withdraw if there are funds available to kind of pull because circuit breaker is only a reimbursement of a certain amount, right? That we there's usually within a given year more than what we got

98
00:27:39.440 --> 00:27:54.480
reimbursed from circuit breaker the prior year. So my sense would be that the school department in that case would come to the school committee say hey here's the scenario. we might be above the ceiling target and so we need to withdraw additional funds from circuit breaker in order to stay below that

99
00:27:54.480 --> 00:28:10.799
which should be a boom that we haven't had the the luxury of having recently. uh this is we want to withdraw an extra 200,000 to stay below that ceiling and then based upon this again because that's an allocation beyond what was presented within the

100
00:28:10.799 --> 00:28:25.520
budget process finance and school part 18 vote on that to approve that which I assume they would um because otherwise we're just losing that money that that is my read of that of that scenario I mean there could be a situation where

101
00:28:25.520 --> 00:28:43.679
the our reimbursement last year and our expenditure within the current year are so disconnected that we and we're already at that 100% kind of cap that we just can't find the costs associated. And in that really unlikely scenario, we

102
00:28:43.679 --> 00:28:58.399
would just have to send money back, but we would still be at the 100% um cap for the circuit breaker account and there would no be no negative effects to the school budget in that scenario. It's just there it would be

103
00:28:58.399 --> 00:29:14.640
funding that the town didn't utilize in other ways. But Katie, please correct me and um jump in your thoughts. >> So if we um go over the one year, if we carry more than one year of

104
00:29:14.640 --> 00:29:32.240
reimbursement and circuit breaker, the um whatever the excess is that we're carrying gets closed out to the general fund of the town. So it doesn't go back to the state. We keep the money within the town. It just gets closed out to the

105
00:29:32.240 --> 00:29:47.760
general fund budget. So it essentially would be it becomes like it would go to free cash and then the town would certify it as free cash. So the town would essentially record it as miscellaneous revenue on their side and

106
00:29:47.760 --> 00:30:03.679
then it just so it almost acts as if we had a um we had a turn back in our operating budget. That's what would happen on the circuit breaker side if you had more revenue at the end of the year more than the one year of a

107
00:30:03.679 --> 00:30:19.600
carryover. And that's something where I actually had that happen and it it was like $30,000. it just gets um turned back to the general fund of the town. So, it's um the other way that we could

108
00:30:19.600 --> 00:30:34.640
handle it is if we knew that we were going to have more than um the one year in reimbursement, you can just use whatever you need to for circuit breaker and then you would be carrying that balance in your

109
00:30:34.640 --> 00:30:51.120
operating budget and then that essentially would get rolled back to the town as end ofear surplus. And then because we have this bed stabilization fund policy, if that is memorialized,

110
00:30:51.120 --> 00:31:07.679
then that endofear surplus would be certified as free cash and then that would go into our our sped stabilization fund. So, it's a good pro. It would be like a good

111
00:31:07.679 --> 00:31:23.679
thing to have the money would just go back to the town and then it would go into another stabilization fund which would be special ed stabilization in accordance to our other policy.

112
00:31:23.679 --> 00:31:40.240
>> Got it. Okay. And that is all very that should all be very predictable and that should all be something that you would know by you should know by March. Um, hey, our expenses are trending lower than

113
00:31:40.240 --> 00:31:56.960
anticipated. We have the we're fully funded in circuit breaker. we may not necessarily need to use it if the state has another supplemental budget and we are already fully funded and we said like oh we may not need that money um it

114
00:31:56.960 --> 00:32:12.159
can either be turned back to the town and it becomes free cash or you use it you leave the balance in operating that money gets turned back to the town and then that money goes into stabilization got it

115
00:32:12.159 --> 00:32:40.159
>> that's better than I Great. Perfect. Thank you both. >> Any other questions or feedback on this policy? >> Um, I just have a couple Oh, go ahead, Amanda. >> Sorry. I just wanted to say one thing. I do appreciate um sort of memorializing the policy, like

116
00:32:40.159 --> 00:32:57.440
having it written. You know, I know that in the past maybe there's been less clarity around the process for for this. And I think or maybe not maybe that's not the right way to put it, but I do think that having it established that if

117
00:32:57.440 --> 00:33:13.440
money is being used from from it that um I think just having this vote in place talking about the process by which the school committee gets involved. Um I think it adds a greater level of transparency uh which I think you know

118
00:33:13.440 --> 00:33:28.640
everyone would appreciate. Um, so I'm glad that we're doing this and that it's it's um that we have a a written policy around it. I think that's really helpful. Sorry, that was a Go ahead, Nathan. >> No, I I I think that's great. I agree

119
00:33:28.640 --> 00:33:45.279
with that. I have two just personnikity editorial comments. Um, one, and take them early, Mark and Katie, like whatever you want to do. the second paragraph under objective. Uh I just think like this should we should

120
00:33:45.279 --> 00:34:03.519
just eliminate all that extra language and just say this policy establishes requirements blah blah blah. >> Um I agree that it's in alignment with best practices but I don't know if we really need to say that. And then um transfers out I think only be used could

121
00:34:03.519 --> 00:34:19.119
be all just regular case. Um unless we feel like we need to say it out loud un unless we feel like we need to yell it. [laughter] Um those are those are it. Otherwise I I think this is this is great and extremely useful. I'm glad we have it.

122
00:34:19.119 --> 00:34:35.359
>> Great sound like reasonable edits to make. So thank you. Um all right. Uh those were um the two policies we want to look over. >> Mark, is the idea we talk about this tonight as well?

123
00:34:35.359 --> 00:34:51.520
>> Yeah, the idea would be that we uh I will add this one also to the folder. Uh it's not already obviously and then um I'll email everybody policies and we'll do I think they're both listed as first readings for tonight. Is that right, Amanda?

124
00:34:51.520 --> 00:35:07.200
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question about that? And And you guys might have talked about this and sorry I I couldn't my my Google stuff wasn't connecting so I couldn't connect to the meeting earlier but with respect to the special ed stabilization

125
00:35:07.200 --> 00:35:23.599
fund policy how so is this a I want to make sure I'm asking right is this a um policy for both the school committee and the select board or is this a select board

126
00:35:23.599 --> 00:35:40.079
policy that we have taken the initiative to develop and they need to adopt it. >> It's a joint policy. So it's by both of us because we also have to vote on this. >> Okay. >> So given that there is purview for this work under school committee, I think it

127
00:35:40.079 --> 00:35:56.320
is also a school committee policy. It's not something that is solely held at the select board level. So both >> because the fund is jointly managed, it needs to be a joint policy. So we'll again present it. We'll talk about it tonight. I'm still not clear from the emails and I don't think I asked

128
00:35:56.320 --> 00:36:10.560
directly so it's more on me of like what their anticipated timeline is. There's no way they're going to have this developed by um you know the the turnover in their board and they're obviously having more turnover in their board with two members

129
00:36:10.560 --> 00:36:27.920
not not returning. Um so I'm not sure what the timeline is on this. Obviously Winston and Megan are who we've worked with, they are coming back. So, I think the goal is that they will continue to drive towards getting something hopefully what what needs to be the same policy uh which is why we're working

130
00:36:27.920 --> 00:36:43.280
with them on the development of it um voted on and institutionalized within the select board relatively soon into the next term. But that that's another piece I got to work with them on. Could there be a

131
00:36:43.280 --> 00:36:58.800
recommendation that this be done prior to the fall like if there's a fall town meeting just knowing that in that case like I I just think and and and obviously it will happen in the timeline that it happens but I just think

132
00:36:58.800 --> 00:37:16.079
recognizing that um we're talking about funding it and just I don't know not having it I don't know if there is a town meeting or if there are special town meeting in the fall. I know often times there is, but um just so that it doesn't fall to the

133
00:37:16.079 --> 00:37:31.680
wayside and recognizing that we're talking about for the next fiscal how it would imply, you know, how free cash would be impacted by it. So doubtful that they would have it done prior to this town meeting. Um >> yeah, I mean I can talk to them about

134
00:37:31.680 --> 00:37:47.680
what what their timeline is. I I I don't actually know what their policy development time like if they also need two readings like we do. And so if it could be done quicker, um my hope is they could get something done before they leave for a summer break. But >> yeah, >> um certainly I agree with you like

135
00:37:47.680 --> 00:38:03.839
trying to help nail them down and support them in in getting this done at by a certain date and you know, working with them to identify what is that reasonable date for them. Um because it definitely won't be that helpful of a policy. I mean, it'll help us still, but

136
00:38:03.839 --> 00:38:20.160
it it doesn't really help the process if they don't have something if we're not aligned on exactly what this is going to look like once it leaves us and then goes to them for any withdrawal requests. >> And does something like this typically go to Nick as well or do they share it with Nick? >> I I have Nick has been CCed on every

137
00:38:20.160 --> 00:38:36.079
version of this that I've sent to them. Uh so, yeah. So, he's been he has looked at this. >> Okay, perfect. Thanks. >> So, okay, this is helpful to know. So, the warrant committee is recommending $500,000 go into the stabilization account. There's going to be an article for that and we're going to ask town

138
00:38:36.079 --> 00:38:51.800
meeting they're going to ask town meeting to vote on it at the end of the month >> or in May. >> Yeah. >> We won't have a policy in place. >> Well, the goal is the school committee will. >> Okay.

139
00:38:52.079 --> 00:39:08.320
Well, what does that mean? like >> so we we'll vote on a policy uh if select board hasn't adopted the policy the policy sort of isn't >> again it guides our work it's then it's that handoff piece that then becomes

140
00:39:08.320 --> 00:39:23.920
muddled which having a joint policy makes it clear but a certain point we again we have to separately as separate boards vote on the policy >> in any scenario and so I think we're just trying to do it at a little bit more rapid pace u because we can and we

141
00:39:23.920 --> 00:39:39.520
have some urgency on this. Um, and then also I think us passing it and for my perspective should hopefully push put some emphasis on them to say, "Okay, the school committee's done their part. We got to finish wrapping this up on our side." Uh, and hopefully gives them some

142
00:39:39.520 --> 00:39:57.200
momentum. Katie, >> so if this I believe if this um if the warn article is going to town meeting and it is in regular town meeting, I believe that the funds aren't appropriated until July 1st.

143
00:39:57.200 --> 00:40:15.119
>> And so that gives you time at least because the funds aren't appropriated until July. So it's not like the funds are going to be available to us in May. If it w if there was a special town meeting where the funds were

144
00:40:15.119 --> 00:40:30.720
appropriated in the special, then they become available to you immediately. So in future years if there's a situation where our expenses have gone crazy, right? And we need we need that money

145
00:40:30.720 --> 00:40:48.640
and we need another appropriation to the fund. It can be put in the special because then the funds become immediately available and you can use them right away right after a town meeting. Um but in this scenario, it's a July one effective date. So

146
00:40:48.640 --> 00:41:13.760
you would essentially have the time until July one to have the policy finalized. >> Okay. Right. >> Um okay. Other questions on that process? >> All right. Um,

147
00:41:13.760 --> 00:41:27.440
I'll jump back real quick on the budget development, uh, on the FY27 budget stuff. Um, we obviously are basically wrapped with that with the exception of a presentation at town meeting on May

148
00:41:27.440 --> 00:41:47.599
7th. May 6th, is that the first day? >> Whatever those first days are, I can't remember if it's a Wednesday or Thursday this year. Um the I think what we'd like to do is put together a draft of some slides similar

149
00:41:47.599 --> 00:42:03.440
to maybe what we presented to warrant committee but um especially as it relates to like the stuff Nathan suggested which is or maybe was Jay actually suggested like the highlights at the start and then kind of hit on it at a high level. Um, so I can start

150
00:42:03.440 --> 00:42:20.960
trying to pull some stuff together. I don't know if there are other things that again, Nathan, Amanda, you have thoughts on that we should like definitely hit on or you think we definitely shouldn't hit on because it's too in the weeds based on kind of what we've shared previously. Like just a general thoughts on

151
00:42:20.960 --> 00:42:38.640
goals for the presentation to town meeting on the school budget. I don't have a thought initi I I just wanted to share one thing I know in the past and I'm trying to remember to what what level of detail

152
00:42:38.640 --> 00:42:53.440
>> you make available so you know I I'm thinking about questions that have come up at prior town meetings um there have been like way past where it's so high level and people are sort of like where can I get into the weeds

153
00:42:53.440 --> 00:43:08.319
of it um and so are will We share that maybe on the website or someplace where or two town meeting like is there a place where people prior to it can access

154
00:43:08.319 --> 00:43:26.400
the f the the the budget um beyond like I remember question maybe around like how many students do we have out of district and it might not be like that level of detail but it's like they can go and see the like there's a page where they could see the out of district

155
00:43:26.400 --> 00:43:41.520
tuition, etc. Cuz I don't know. I'm just And I I don't think it was last year that we did it, but I know like a year or two before that, a couple years before that, it was so high level and people were like, "Wait, I need a little bit more." So, I think trying to find that balance of

156
00:43:41.520 --> 00:43:58.880
um maybe it's not in the meeting, but also being able to point to town meeting where they can go prior to it if to kind of dig into it. Does that am I making sense? >> Yeah, it does. I mean, we obviously have the the budget page on the website which has a lot. Uh, again, Katie and John

157
00:43:58.880 --> 00:44:14.319
really appreciate >> all y'all done for that. I look at the the town side and >> I don't think they've updated it recently. Um, but again, I love what you all done with the school budget page. That's been such a huge improvement. I think the point is a good one, Amanda. I wonder if that's something that we

158
00:44:14.319 --> 00:44:30.800
should flag for the moderator. >> Yeah. And if that can be sent within the moderator's like email to say, you know, as she like >> or her letter, whatever it is to say, if you have questions about town budget stuff, here's the town page. School budget stuff, here's the school page.

159
00:44:30.800 --> 00:44:46.560
Lots of resources to look into these things. >> Yeah. >> And maybe even like specifically FY, you know, if there's if there's like specific links that we want, you know, because you can also sort of there is a lot of great information, but it's like specifically look here because

160
00:44:46.560 --> 00:45:03.680
I I think that that would also um help uh it would facilitate the conversation as the budget is coming up that people people have had the opportunity to do a deeper dive into it more so than you could get necessarily in the warrant.

161
00:45:03.680 --> 00:45:19.839
>> You know, I just think that that would be helpful. >> I think you're right. I I almost wonder if then what we're asking moderator shares is like the recording of because the most recent budget presentation is the one we did in the warrant committee, right? And so that that is at the top of the FY27 budget documents on there on

162
00:45:19.839 --> 00:45:37.200
the town schools page. Um >> so maybe it's a matter of also like asking the moderator to share the recording of the recent warrant committee meeting because then folks can watch that full presentation with the questions. I mean, that's as detailed as

163
00:45:37.200 --> 00:45:52.640
it gets as it relates to our budget information. >> Um, >> maybe we just look at the budget page and like just with fresh eyes as people who assuming you're looking at it for the first time,

164
00:45:52.640 --> 00:46:09.359
>> right? And figuring out what would be most helpful to ask the moderator to share. Um, it might be that link. Is there like even just specifically pointing to I don't have the page up, but uh, you know, the proposed FY27

165
00:46:09.359 --> 00:46:28.800
budget, you know, that like I just I'm just thinking of past presentations where it's like literally a screen with with top lines, but if they want to get more into it, um, >> I ju just a a contribution here. I think

166
00:46:28.800 --> 00:46:44.880
at the meeting um at town meeting I think we should share a good chunk of what was at what what was at warrant committee >> um the highlights the yeah okay

167
00:46:44.880 --> 00:47:01.839
um I don't know if the budget maybe I forget what's in every slide but you know I don't think we want to I don't think we we we obviously don't need to do all of this but we could condense like the highlights down to a slide or Um it probably people don't need an

168
00:47:01.839 --> 00:47:17.359
orientation to like school finances but then in Katie I forget the words but like basically the sort of break down the 78 million into big chunks including like >> labor

169
00:47:17.359 --> 00:47:33.280
um operating expenses out of district tuition transportation you know whatever you know few things so that we can break it down for Um, talk about circuit breaker. I think that's important.

170
00:47:33.280 --> 00:47:49.280
Um, and then maybe be prepared. And uh, another thing, Mark, like what about just like a district profile? Like how many students do we have? How many staff do we have? Um, like remind people of

171
00:47:49.280 --> 00:48:04.880
the scale of the district. It's not like the biggest district in Massachusetts, but like we're not we're not some little rural district either. Mhm. >> Um >> like we have hundreds of employees and thousands of students and um I think that that's just a helpful reminder for

172
00:48:04.880 --> 00:48:20.000
folks who are less tied to the school system on a day-to-day basis. Um and then yeah, I don't those are some initial thoughts and I can I can think more about it as well. I think that would be helpful

173
00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:37.680
>> maybe some like in an appendix be I don't know how easy this data is to pull but like you know if we just had our had an appendix slide with like per people pup people expenditure across all the dart district all of our dart districts um that might be a question we

174
00:48:37.680 --> 00:48:52.880
get um you know how do we compare to benchmark districts in terms of expenditures >> yeah I think we'll have a need to have a very robust appendix as I typically love love to have. Um >> Okay. All right. >> That's just to

175
00:48:52.880 --> 00:49:08.559
>> I know you have your data set, but you're always >> any questions. Uh no, but that's I think that type of stuff is is helpful of like what what are the possible questions we can anticipate because let's throw it in there and if we don't need it, we don't need it. Great. Um yeah, I do think there was

176
00:49:08.559 --> 00:49:24.720
Amanda, you had the question you mentioned before. I I think it was Linda Lee last year asked like how many out of district placement students? Maybe I'll have to watch that again. But then she >> it was somebody else, but there was question about the number. Yeah, >> there was a question about the

177
00:49:24.720 --> 00:49:43.359
percentage of special education students >> and potentially percentages of I don't know if it was expenditures or students or um >> Yeah, >> I definitely I think that there were a lot of questions about like percentage

178
00:49:43.359 --> 00:50:01.839
of potential different student demographics. >> Yeah. And I think that number I you know again not not creating a lot of extra work but I think we do have it that I think there was there have been numbers in the past

179
00:50:01.839 --> 00:50:19.520
that talk about sort of the the percentage change and growth of um students on an IEP or a 504. >> Um yeah probably more so the IEP because I think that's more where you're getting the services as opposed to the 504. But

180
00:50:19.520 --> 00:50:36.079
>> but sort of knowing that there was like pre precoid covid then they kind of have come down a bit and tapered off but there still you know it's right around I think it's like 18 to 20% of the students in the district are on an IEP and I think that's a helpful number to think about when you're talking about as

181
00:50:36.079 --> 00:50:53.280
you're considering a big portion that percentage portion of the budget. So again, don't need to go into the weeds of it, but if some but having that accessible to say, yeah, 18 to 20% of the students in the district are on an IEP, that points to why the special education, you know, even in district

182
00:50:53.280 --> 00:51:10.240
costs are what they are. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. No, I think that that we definitely have those charts. So because we shared those at the warrant committee, so that's that's good. Um, >> Mark, could I share one other thought just highlights? Um it's it's it's sort

183
00:51:10.240 --> 00:51:27.599
of a a blend between highlights and district impact. What is there uh what what what postsecary impact data could we include like college enrollment um you know percentage of students going to IVS? Um

184
00:51:27.599 --> 00:51:44.319
but I I don't know what's available, but I think like we obviously um have strong performance in those areas and I think it would be great to highlight that it's a big human capital impact of the of the district. >> Yeah, I think like a graduating class highlight kind of

185
00:51:44.319 --> 00:52:01.200
>> where are Yeah. [clears throat] >> Where are our current seniors going because it's really about like what has happened in the last year at the schools, >> right? >> Can I say that one with a caveat? I just conscious of the fact that there are we do get a lot of feedback about making

186
00:52:01.200 --> 00:52:17.920
sure that we're representing or sharing that college is not necessarily the path for all um and so that we aren't so that we are recognizing the different paths that different students take. So

187
00:52:17.920 --> 00:52:34.000
if there is a if if it's they're going and they're going on to a trade school, they're going on into the service, they're going on to just they're moving on to just a vocation or a professional career, you know, a job right after. So I think just

188
00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:50.880
I recognize like a big goal is to to help the goal is to help the kids move on to their next path. >> I'm not disregarding it. I just want to be conscious of the way that it's presented. >> Totally. We could talk about it as like,

189
00:52:50.880 --> 00:53:06.319
you know, I assume the data will prove this out, but um you know, Milton is preparing students for college and career, >> making them college and career ready. Here's some data points around that and we can sort of look at it holistically. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm going to move us along. I know

190
00:53:06.319 --> 00:53:22.000
Katie has to go in just a a second here. Um so I just want to make sure Katie, any other thoughts or things you want to add? We can obviously vote and wrap up after you depart. But >> um >> can can you talk to I think that's a a

191
00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:36.960
great idea. Nathan Amanda. Um Katie, can you talk to John and I assume Stephanie as well who helped put together those other slides. Uh although Charlene did a lot of that work too. Um, but if Stephanie can relook over those at least those like warrant committee highlight

192
00:53:36.960 --> 00:53:53.920
slides as a starting point and then also poking for is there some um highlights overview summit of data uh on the graduating class and what what they're going to be doing. Um I agree. I think that would be great. >> Sure. >> Then I can start pulling together just a

193
00:53:53.920 --> 00:54:11.680
draft for everything else. Um um our next meeting I think we have we're back on the weekly cadence. I don't think we have a conflict with next week finance. We obviously have the 15th. The 22nd is school break. So we

194
00:54:11.680 --> 00:54:27.520
won't do that. And then the 29th is we'll just have an election. And so I think we we'll have to do a reorganization meeting. We'll be losing Amanda on the 29th. So 15th will be our last meeting with Amanda unfortunately. Although you can keep coming in the Zoom, Amanda,

195
00:54:27.520 --> 00:54:42.880
>> we'll zoom in. >> Yeah. Um uh but yeah, so the 15th is our next meeting. So I think my hope would be I'll put together some draft slides. Maybe we can just talk through those slides next week. Another goal we had

196
00:54:42.880 --> 00:54:59.680
was the revolved like the other revolving funds account policy. I just think we're we're going to have to push that to the next um the next finance board um committee. We'll have to keep carrying that forward. But we can on the agenda just talk about the town meeting slides and we can talk

197
00:54:59.680 --> 00:55:15.359
about the uh any updates from the first reading, the feedback we've gotten from other school committee members on the two policies as well as if there's anything that comes back on special ed from um the select board. Does that sound right,

198
00:55:15.359 --> 00:55:30.960
Katie? Quarter three budget uh quarter three budget report. >> Yep. So, um I believe John and I talked about potentially just doing a quick update. I know the 29th is the Rior meeting, but >> yeah,

199
00:55:30.960 --> 00:55:47.359
>> we said maybe we could just do just a quick review on the 29th. So, >> does that have the full school committee? >> Um when we talked about it, it was for a full school committee. We didn't talk about the finance subcommittee piece. So,

200
00:55:47.359 --> 00:56:03.520
>> well, if you're not going to have it by the 15th, we're not going to have a meeting to the 29th. So, again, assuming that it's all fine news and we're still on for the 20 um you know, right on budget, I should say. >> To me, that makes sense. We can just

201
00:56:03.520 --> 00:56:19.440
pull it to the full school committee to have that conversation there. And then if there are any questions, we could obviously on the whoever's on the finance committee in May could bring it back and have further discussion of it. wouldn't stop them from doing that. >> Sounds good. >> Does that make sense, Nathan? Amanda, to y'all?

202
00:56:19.440 --> 00:56:33.680
>> Does. Yep. >> Okay. All right. Uh I think those are Oh, the last thing on the 15th, I will be sending y'all over a bunch of meeting minutes here in the next week. Uh just

203
00:56:33.680 --> 00:56:51.040
so we are caught up and kind of done. Um so Amanda can help vote on these meeting minutes and we get them all closed out before the board turns over. So, that is on my list to do before next well by the weekend so that you'll have some time to look over before next Wednesday and we can vote on it.

204
00:56:51.040 --> 00:57:07.599
Um, I think that is everything on the agenda. Anything else folks wanted to discuss or have questions on? >> All right. If not, I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Is there a second?

205
00:57:07.599 --> 00:57:20.440
>> Second. >> Uh, we'll do a roll call vote. Amanda, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Na, yes. Thank you all so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.