Good morning everyone. Um, I would like to call to order the April 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Milton Budget Coordination Committee. Friday edition. Um so we our agenda today we're following
on um with some of the items that we've been discussing um the five-year financial forecast um the cross departmental um town budgeting schedule
um annual calendar um and some perspectives on override planning Um, so we will get an update first on the FY27 budget.
I think that should be pretty quick. And then we will um discuss the master schedule and override items. >> Good morning. >> On the fiscal 27 budget, I don't know that there's much to report other than
that the warrant committee has also approved um the budget articles. The warrant is in final stages of being drafted and sent out to town meeting um in the next week, I'd say. Um and one of the kind of moving pieces was
what to do with money for school reserves and the warrant committee did vote to recommend that half a million be appropriate to spend stabilization fund. Um so the warrant is complete. The budget article is complete. I don't know if there's anything Jay you'd like to
add beyond that. Uh, no nothing. I guess uh to clarify that there was a the last time maybe you presented it to the or to this group there was an extra $150,000.
So I think we decided to not allocate it. We with your significant assist input not allocate it. So, we're taking $150,000 approximately less out of the operating budget stabilization fund than
than previously planned. >> That's it from my perspective. >> Okay. Thanks. And thanks to everybody who helped us get to the point that we're at today headed into town meeting. Um, so there are a number of documents
that were circulated that we we will run through. Um the first is the five-year outlook. Um so this I I will turn it over to uh Mr. Walker in just a second. Um but
some these documents taken together are kind of like a higher level 10,000 foot view across some of the uh materials we've been discussing over the past few weeks. Um,
so again, thank you to um Nick and Amy for producing the town forecast. Thank you to Katie and John and the school committee for producing the schools forecast.
Um, now that we have digested those materials, we can have some higher level strategic conversations to provide some perspective on um what the what the next five years can
look like. So, I'm going to kick it over to Loy. >> Thank you, >> to walk us through. And I would add thank you to Jay for his >> extensive and diligent work on >> financial forecast and ideas about
what that should look like along with Nick and Amy. And more importantly and and what I would like to use these documents for is to frame a discussion about what the presentation at town meeting should look like. So I preface
that uh Mr. chair of the Martin committee by saying as chair of the Martin committee you are perfectly uh able to do whatever presentation you want at town meeting. My hope is that um as we work through these two documents
that we will create a a front-end introduction to the financial forecasting for town meeting that helps them to understand um two things. one the the key drivers and the key decision
points that the town faces. Uh I'm less I'm less inclined to think that we should get into too much detail about the forecast itself because I think what we should say to them is it's available welcome to jump in and take a look at
it. But um here here are the kind of um guidepost and uh introductions that will be helpful to you as you look at uh the forecast as it as it exists in its present form. And it should help you to have an informed
opinion about whether you think uh the assumptions that we've made and the decisions that we've made sense. may not agree with everyone but but he kind of here's the framework that we need to to make these decisions. So
that's the introduction. Can you put the document up Nick? Uh the five year outlook >> without Yeah. without a second override >> because I think and and I'll kind of as we go through introduce my own editorial
comments about how we should introduce this and what we should and shouldn't do. But those are um not the views of management. They're just the views of um >> yeah, >> Loy. Well, the way that I'm interpreting
this document too, um, for folks who haven't seen it yet, these these seem to me to just be facts of >> right >> if we So, originally that forecast that
we viewed from the very beginning, it's premised on going five years from going out to 2030 without an override. And this is just unpacking
or asking or answering part of the question or underpinning how long like how long can we go under the current conditions. >> That's exactly right. >> So it's pretty objective. It's not >> here the facts and we hopefully
collectively have agreed on these facts. So town meeting uh this is this is our framework for how we uh made these forecasts and how we've made drawn the conclusions for that. So uh revenue is going to grow approximately
>> 3%. Expenditures are going to grow approximately 5%. That creates a 2% gap which cumulatively it's about 30 to 35 million.
Maybe, maybe not. And um maybe correct me on that if you need to adjust that slightly, but the point is there's a gap and here's the the relative size of the gap in millions of dollars. So we our objective obviously is to
extend the period as long as we can before we ask you as town meeting and you as taxpayers to consider another override override. Here's how we do that. So annually the budget that's town and schools has to grow at roughly 2.5
to 3%. Consistent with how revenue is growing. That means that the school budget will be constrained that growth will be constrained below historical trends. And thank you Brian for uh your work on that. Hopefully
we'll dive into that at >> either the next meeting or the meeting after >> interesting. But uh the point is it can't it can't continue at the 5% 6% 7% level. Uh public safety sta staffing is going to be flat. Overtime is going to
be tightly capped. That's a little controversial for police and fire but that's a reality. I think we need um Nick some a similar growth fact about public works. I know we just lost our public works director, but something similar to
those school budget and public safety comments to insert there. And then in general, the other thing that we don't talk about a lot, but is is going to become increasingly important as our um town facilities age is what about deferred
maintenance and and and for this purposes of this discussion, what are the implications of for deferred maintenance as we tighten the budget? >> This is deferred maintenance on all all of our assets. >> Yeah, exactly.
Council's facilities systems fleet. Exactly. Oh, >> it's >> I think this is comprehensive but yeah. >> Yeah. Um I mean I guess one thought is that the difference between the revenue
growth and the uh expenditure growth is what the operating budget stabilization fund is supposed to at least partially address. >> Correct. >> So I don't know how that fits into here. Well, I I think I think so. I think structurally we have a model where
that's supposed to happen, but currently with um $700,000 in recurring revenue that that really it's not going to make a big enough it it's not going to bridge that gap. So, yes, >> sure, >> that's available, but uh in it in its current form, I think we need to
acknowledge that it's it's a good model if we can increase the percentage of current place into the fund and then withdraw from the fund. But right now it's a good idea without sufficient funding. I would say
>> also too we we are not likely to Yeah. It's just we're not likely to continue to have that free cash to contribute. >> Right. Um I am not
very bullish on free cash due to or at least in the next year due to um snow and ice and also I am wondering about continued growth in
motor vehicle excise tax and also So overall new growth um since the 40bs are feel to be peing to me but maybe I am
off in that regard. >> I think I I I agree with Jay's point. I would also just add that I think it's it's probably worth having a little bit
of an explanation to say that on both sides in terms of revenues and expenses of where is their upside and where is their downside. So on the revenue front where is there upside? There's upside that if new growth exceeds upside if local receipts stay strong and the upside is
the use and draw down of the operation stabilization fund that'll take that revenue growth beyond the 3%. Um so I think it's I would obviously be I think it's a good approach to keep it at this conservative and explain it why
it's 3% annually but also say here are the other factors that might shift that up in a positive way. um to Jay's point because that is a significant uh resource that is available um and will be available in the next you
know for the next couple of years ahead of an override. I I certainly don't think we'd want to go into an override with that operating budget stabilization fund having millions of dollars in it. So I think you know a draw down of that obviously is logical um and it can support um costs to an extent. So I
think that I I think I hear I agree with you broadly in terms of how do you roll that in and at least if we're not going to show it if we're going to keep revenue growth at 3%. Then I think we just at least have to have a further context in terms of where there is upside and I mean or where there's downside but I think the upside piece is
important. >> Yes. I just want to make a comment um to piggyback on Megan. As far as the free cash goes, the tighter we get year after year with trying to stay within the
revenue limitations, the tighter the departmental spending within budget is going to get. So there's less likely to be turnbacks which would result in less free cash and just overall
just I I have to I've probably said this over a hundred times in my career here. There's no free cash until it's certified by the Department of Revenue. So no forecast should rely on rolling that in. It's something you could highlight that said in the event there's
some I think this um there was a comment in one of your documents that you sent out. >> Right. That's that's the coming attraction. >> Yeah. In the event there is some this is how >> exact until it's certified it doesn't exist. >> Right. >> I guess >> I agree with the first thing you said
about tighter budgets lead to lower free cash. I disagree with the second thing and that's what I was sort of going to get to. It's what I think of as a difference between a budget and a forecast. A multi-year forecast. A budget needs to be conservative. Needs to assume a not absolute worst case, but
a fairly pessimistic case, you're ready for the next year. But if you're looking at a multi-year forecast, if you take a more middle of the road assumption, whether that's about free cash or that's about anything else, you're going to be better than that in some years, you're going to be worse than that in some
years. And that's I think reasonable for multi-year forecast in a way that's not for a one-year budget planning. And I sort of feel the same way about um free cash. If I'm looking at the budget forecast that Nick provides me and there's zero free cash and there's zero
spent on capital in coming years, I think that doesn't look neither one of those looks realistic to me. So for some purposes, there's no free cash until it's approved. But for planning purposes, I mean, we the select board
passed a policy this year that says we're aiming for free cash what between 1 and 3% of the budget or 2 and 4% of the budget. So, we're aiming to have free cash every year. We might not, but I just think for a multi-year forecast,
my opinion is that it's different. >> Okay, we can agree to disagree because I'll always stay strong on that comment. I just don't think it's a good idea to project it. But >> can I >> Sorry, Henry. Can I jump in? Is that all right?
>> Yes, please. Sorry, we can't see. >> No, no, I I understand. That's why I rudely just interjected myself. Apologies. Um, yeah, I again appreciate the discussion. I I tend to agree with Jay. I mean, I understand free cash doesn't exist till it exists, but you know, that's true for any department
budget. there's no money for DPW until town meeting votes on it every year. Um, but we can make assumptions that some things will exist. And then so I think again within a 5-year forecast, we want to make these kind of reasonable assumptions. And I don't think there's any reasonable assumption that there's
been a year of zero dollars of free cash in the last, you know, 5 10 years. Um, so again, what is that assumption is obviously a piece we can somewhat disagree on, but I think that should be included. I also include agree with the point Nick made earlier where if we're
not going to include some assumption here on the use of the operating stabilization fund. I think we need to name that very clearly that you know this these guidelines does not assume any use of the operating stabilization fund and so you know use of some of it
will obviously mitigate some of these impacts. And then the last thing is I I think we are this document somewhat uh frames the two to three% operating budget uh in not a kind of concerning
enough light I guess is the phrase right school budget growth constrained below historical trends. Same thing for the other. Like I think what we need to say there is if we are trying to get through a 5-year period with only a 3% growth, what we're saying is we're going to need to cut positions.
That is the only way that that is going to be possible. And so we don't we're not stating stating that clearly here and I I guess I can understand why. But I also think if this is something we are trying to share with the town to say this is a reasonable like assumptions
around how we make it 5 years without an override and this assumption is not utilizing anything within operating stabilization fund then in my view it's not a reasonable document without kind of stating that you know positions will
need to be shed across departments. >> Okay. I Oh, sorry. >> There there's a lot to unpack there. So, let me do the um the accolades first. I think that because of the leadership
that we've had this year from select board member, select board member, we we are talking about a budget discipline that we have not experienced before. What I mean by that is we're
actually talking about a 2.5 to 3% growth rate and thanks to Nick and Amy as well, but I but I think I need to acknowledge that leadership. That said, I I agree with Jay that we should say or
assume something about free cash, but I agree with Amy that if if we're um doing this, if we're creating tighter budgets, then less free cash is going to be available. with regard to how we talk about the
implications that that's really not the purpose of this document and I would argue that's not the purpose at this stage of the discussion with town meeting because I think we we would have said this year well you know if we
asked the schools to to meet a 3% or 3.2% 2% uh growth rate then the sky is going to fall. But actually the superintendent did an extraordinary job of creating uh
a plan to meet the growth target or or more accurately meet the reduction target without any significant impacts either on staffing or on teaching and learning. So I really don't want to talk about I I think in the current year
where we say um this is the target the schools needs to meet. I I think it's entirely appropriate for the schools the the school leadership and the school committee to say okay so in order to meet that that target here is our best judgment about what needs to happen and
in that particular year it may well be we need to eliminate this number of positions and those positions have these impacts. I get it. But for the purposes of this discussion where we're saying to town meeting, here's what it's going to take to avoid another override in
general. These are the things we're going to have to do. And we'll be back to you in any given year about what the specific plan is for that year. But I I I don't agree and I don't I don't want to use the tactic of scaring people
about uh not about one about budget discipline and two about deferring an override. That's that's the objective here. So um that's that's what I have to say about that. So um
my so my take on this document and this conversation is also that you know we're we're just looking at facts here, right? And the question that this document answers for
me is what did we get with a $9.5 million override for five years? And I think we have to have a real conversation,
not necessarily right now. Th this is all like an education process too with every with the voters how our budget works. >> Absolutely right. >> We do we we should be open to all
conversations. One of those conversations is, was this override enough to cover five years with
the teacher contract that we have and will continue to have because I don't think there's going to be major changes in the salary schedule. But is five years enough? But that's not the
conversation for today in what this is. >> Like we we can have that conversation. And I don't know, Mark, if that's what you're kind of getting at, but this does prompt there's a difference between two
and a half to 3% and what the salary schedule in the contract, which drives the school budget brings us to. But I also do want I I think it's important to highlight that, but I think
it's also important to put that conversation in the parking lot. That's just what I personally think. >> Yeah. Can I have just quickly respond and I know we probably have other things we want to get on. Um certainly I I don't believe the statement that in
order to maintain 3% annual budget increases, positions will be lost as fear-mongering. I I think as you said this is a statement of facts and that alone is a statement of fact like and I just think we need to be clear on that if we're not
clear on that as this group that that just is and again maybe that is what the town determines needs to happen but like that that is what will need to happen and I think if we are presenting facts to the town meeting not to scare them
but as educated individuals who oversee kind of the functioning of our town. I think that can be stated. I I don't think we can give numbers, right? I'm not I don't want to do like an FTE count any of that stuff. I just like that is likely what will need to happen. I mean,
this year we had a 3.76% increase and had to still cut positions, right? A 3% 2 and 1.5%. The town had a 3.74% increase to maintain positions. Um so like I I also I don't think this is just
a school side piece either. I I think it's true for all departments. Uh which again I think maybe gets us a little bit back to in my mind why would we not be projecting something within the operating stabilization fund usage over this time as kind of Jay has
created uh in in prior prior models. But I yeah, I just I think without saying something on like what are the the effects cuz just what is the difference between a 3% and a 5% growth for folks is not always that clear.
So I think the on the on the school budget growth bullet mark I I think it would be fine to say school budget growth constraint below historical trends will will likely result in
1 to 2% % reduction of total FTEEs per year because you guys said it's that that's about six to 12 positions a year. I think that I think I'm I'm fine if we say that.
>> I'd like to see more of what you have to present. >> Yeah, >> I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves if >> we might be. Can we just back on that the last bullet point can we have like what if you saving money either two things like class cutting programs which
isn't really always talked about and the other thing would be if you got grants I mean use the use of grants maybe we can be more aggressive on that >> to get income. >> Yeah we we went down that road and it was a disaster. So I I don't I don't want to introduce that that possibility again. That's how we got here. remember
>> uh or cost cutting programs or something. That would be what I think wouldn't be a bad bullet point at the end. >> Um I I'd call them efficiency and effectiveness initiatives rather than Yeah. >> Yeah. Sure.
>> Sure. That's better. Thank you. >> All right. We can work on that. Let's go to the next. This would be the budget development one. So the assumptions Okay, let me um run through this quickly
and then I put the most controversial one at the top so you can jump on that right away. Uh but again this is trying to frame for a town meeting uh what our some of our guiding principles are and how how we
what assumptions that what the assumptions are and and kind of how we how we got there. So 69% 31% ratio for addressing revenue allocation and revenue shortfalls. The the thought there is, well, Nick
could probably talk about this more articulately, but but my thought of what the plan there was is to cap the growth of the school's budget so it doesn't as the school budget continues to grow or with the trends that we finally slowed
down this year. If those had continued, then increasingly the school budget would have been a larger and larger percentage of the town budget and therefore um would have made it increasingly more difficult for all the other town departments but specifically
prominently public safety public works to to get the growth or the attention or the resources that they needed. So one thought is maintaining that that ratio. Um forecasting is based on
certifi certified free cash in hand only. Uh free cash should be used to fund one-time expenses allocate to reserves or stabilization funds or for other nonrecurring expense uses. Free cash may be used to fund the
operating stabilization fund but only in conjunction with the Walker amortization report. Yes, I named it after myself. >> I was wondering that. >> Yeah, but um the the point there my idea was a had had two important and directly
linked premises. One was if you allocate a certain amount of free cash over a specific amount of time. We think that's okay if and only if you have an override date that that you've committed to because otherwise again in smaller
pieces but we're committing the same sin that that we committed previously where we used grant or one-time money to fund recurring revenue that is to fund positions. So the two have to go together in my mind. Uh next, the forecast anticipates
anticipates yearly with uh withdrawals. So I I think it's important to say that, but I I don't think it's wise and I don't think it's it's very possible with any precision to say what those outyear withdrawals will be. Uh to the point
that that Mark made earlier again, I think on the other document, it's also fine to say we think we're going to withdraw the entire $700,000 of recurring revenue that's in the operating budget stabilization fund every year if we want to. I think that's
fine. But that that's all that's available. And as I said before, that's that's not going to bridge multi-million dollar gaps. So I don't want to give people false hope there. Um, and then the forecast identifies override years
and I raised the question of whether it's wise to predict what those override years are or should we simply say here are the conditions that that we think in US town meeting will be asked to
consider uh when we think an override is required and that's going to be when that the revenue expense gap gets so big that we think we have to um you've got to raise your taxes because otherwise
it's going to be either significant layoffs or significant service reductions or both across all the departments. But that that's that's when we'll that's when we'll come to you with an override request. But I I'm not sure as as a
strategic um thought I'm not sure that I would say I'm sure it's wise to say and it's going to be in 2030. >> Scrolling Nick, >> didn't didn't you just say a few bullet points earlier if we're putting money into the operating budget stabilization
fund, we have to pull it out on a certain pattern and that requires us having it agreed upon over a year. >> Yes. Yes. So you can only do one. So that is if you're going to use free cash as part of your strategy for addressing
recurring expenses, then you have to say then we think the override is going to be this year. But but I'm suggesting that we not do that right now. So therefore, we don't do the Walker amortization approach anymore. We did it this year, but I'm I'm I'm backing off
of that because we haven't identified an override here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just a thought. Can I So I guess if there's know after this year there's going to be $3.1 million of free cash in that fund.
So, how do we want to talk through? Are we going to just say we'll draw that down on an annual basis kind of as a kind of ad hoc approach or because that's that I think this discussion is about if new money goes in, it's got to
come out on a certain four-year basis, 5year basis with a certain date. But we have $3.1 million that was $2 million free cash last year, a million dollar free cash this year. So what would be the plan on how to draw that down or how do we want to think about putting a plan in place to how to draw that?
>> So I would say that that is a perfect opportunity to talk about um high priority capital expenses that we haven't been able to address or one time other one-time expenses that we haven't been able to address. Um, I'll say
again, Winston said months ago, you know, you guys should I'm I'm giving you guys license to take um to buy some new technology that gets us into the 21st century. Um, so it it's great to have that in the
operating budget reserve and the there are certain one-time expenses in the operating budget reserve operating budget that may arise. >> Yeah, I'll I'll just say briefly, we can get into this or not, that I disagree. We have a capital stabilization fund
that we can use for things like that. I think this is specifically a fund for the operating budget >> ongoing expenses and I think >> I mean you're right it's all dependent on it's all dependent on each other including one thing is picking a year
for an override >> and then we can draw down the $3 million over a reasonable period over that to that override date we can draw down the anything. So I disagree we don't have to get into it right now but I just want to put that on the record. Well, we don't really disagree. This is this is just a
question of of whether the select board is comfortable identifying an override year out in the out here >> and they're not. >> Okay. >> Well, then but I can >> I don't know. >> And I I wouldn't say that we're not. I think this practice that we're going to is figuring out which one of these processes.
>> This is laid out right now for >> five years no override. I take your point and I take my point as well that if it's just in writing, it doesn't really display the impact >> of what that means. If you say just one
to two% of the schools to not put um the people in the positions that may not be here or may need to be reduced don't really show the impact of no override um or no increase.
So, I think that is the piece that's a a part to me that's like not truly here yet. I don't think the select board is against showing it over here. I think it's to show what all of this means and why we may have it over. you've done a lot of work on this with
where we're talking about sort of the ammonization plan of spending the OBSAP uh funds over the next three to four years and we have you know some folks are going to say what if we don't right so I think this is also part of saying that if we don't this is what that looks like and this is the true impact of it
so I think it's a conversation about both but we have we have certainly not said that we're not against naving over idea I think it hasn't been the practice and it may cause us to say we need to look at this year as our override year because we don't want to get caught on the back foot as we see so many towns
around the Commonwealth in that position now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> There's um a lot of people in this town like to talk about transparency,
right? Hear a lot about transparency. This here is transparency, open conversation, grown-up conversation about the facts, the figures.
This is this is what it is whether you like it or not. And I will say if we can continue to have conversations
like this. We can appropriately plan for these things so that they will not be surprises to people. It will not be as emotional as it sometimes gets and people can have it. It puts
more in all of our hands to dictate our own destiny. um and to be brave and say this is when we should have an override or we don't
need one right now. But the big thing here is having a conversation based in fact and not conjecture or this is we are anchoring ourselves. If we anchor ourselves,
I for one will not be afraid to say my thoughts on whether or not there needs to be an override. >> Okay, Amy. >> Yeah. So, I think Megan pretty much expressed what I was going to say, but I think it's really important. I think
everyone around the table or in this committee knows we're talking about an override in the next five years or so. So I think we need to be really clear with the public and that might mean we have to specifically say we are looking
at an override sometime within the next five years or else I feel like we've been criticized over the last probably since I started there's always been a conversation of we can't sustain for more than four to five years
and then we stretch it right and then people are surprised when we come out and say we need this massive override. >> So maybe you don't say a year, but we have to put it in plain English for people that haven't been in these meetings that
>> this means there will be one within or likely to be one within. >> Yeah. >> Just think that >> they don't always hear what they don't want to hear. It's a general It's not like uncommon for municipalities in Massachusetts
to go on like a three to five year schedule. Am I wrong? I mean, that's my understanding. >> Yeah. I mean, >> can we share that data with town meeting? >> I'm serious. >> I don't see why not. I mean, Arlington had one two years ago. They had one last week and they had they plan to have
another one for fiscal 30. So, >> I think I honestly think our town's problem is we don't like to talk about it. We don't like to have conversations and dig into data, >> right? >> We push things out and then it becomes a gigantic figure and everyone loses their
mind over it. >> And we can't have that. That's no way to run. It's no way to run an enterprise. >> I've got a comment, but I know Mark, >> I I need to get through this stuff. >> Yeah, please do. >> Um Mark, you had your hand up, but quickly.
>> No, you Yeah, you can keep going. >> All right. Thanks. Keep scrolling Nick. Sorry. Uh so revenue revenue and expenditure assumption recommendations and questions together. Um salaries forecast should
reflect the actual 5-year growth history. It's going to require a weighted average of town and schools including collective bargaining settlements and arbitrator decisions which which have been a factor in increasing some of our cost on those
settlements that we need to acknowledge. Um it's really a question for Nick. Should we include addon street as excluded debt? Um, is it reasonable to assume increases in chapter 70 funding after 2027?
Because I think um, something happened. I I'm not sure they've authorized the current um, approvals that they have for increasing the chapter 70 funding after 2027. So that's why that's a question.
Um, this is just a a strategic question. Is it wise to show collective bargaining set aside? Because if you show the collective bargaining set aside, then the union says, "Okay, well that's our floor." They don't say, "Oh, that's the budget." They say, "That's the floor."
And move on from there up. And then how do we how do we make sure we have accurately assessed what the set aside is, including some of the history about the binding arbitration decisions.
So those are the question. Nick, you want to add that street has excluded that? Yes. No. >> It's one of those where it's it's kind of a wash, but I think um whether it's in there or not, it has no impact on a
deficit or a surplus. I think now that we're, you know, it's clearly moving forward and, you know, town meeting will be asked to spend more money on it. I think it would make sense to just incorporate it so people can, you can see that are um it's factored and it's included and
it's going to the other piece of it is it's going to not be paid from the debt stabilization fund. It's going to be an additional levy on taxpayers unlike the other two projects. So I think at that point it's worth pulling in to show how the excluded debt service is going to creep up because of that project.
>> Agreed, Jay. >> No, you're okay. Um, chapter 70 funding. What's your thought on that? I mean, I think what we've always showed is just the for anything beyond the current year, we just keep it at a $35
per pupil minimum aid increase, which is I think that's I think that's reasonable to keep it at that for the out years and then obviously adjust as we approach each budget year with more kind of data. But I think keeping at that kind of minimum increase should be conservative enough.
>> Cody, you spent some time on the Hill recently. What's your thought? I would I would agree with Nick. >> Uh collective bargaining set aides. Why do why do we why are we that's an area where I don't think we should be transparent. Why transparent
because it needs to go to the town meeting as a separate reserve for salary. So we have to reveal that number when it's required for that budget year. Um I'm going to reveal a trade secret. Um,
so when I was on the school committee, we included it in a reserve, but not as collective bargaining set aside and headlines. >> We can think about other strategies around it with with council. >> All right. In the meantime, but
>> okay. Um, all right. I think that's it. Scroll down. Is that the bottom? >> Can I just ask? >> Sure. >> One thing that I just feel like I have to say. >> Okay. Um depending upon the timing of a new
school, if it happens, we have to keep that in our sights. >> Absolutely. That's going to affect this. >> Absolutely. Um good point. >> Should we have like a carve out or a call out for
items like a school that are like actively under consideration? >> Yes. that may have impact >> on operating a capital. >> And the other thing that we haven't really done is sit down and actually say exactly when we would expect under the
MSBA process, which is probably the slowest process that you know vote expected by X date, financial impact on the budget from a debt perspect perspective by date Y, and then operating budget impact by another date.
So, we can work with the school building committee to at least map out that because some of these some of those costs associated might be outside of the 5-year window. >> Yeah. >> Uh but at least I think putting it on people's radar with you know anticipated debt dates. So again, speak to the
operating over that it doesn't come as a surprise and um it might have fallen off people's radars that this process is ongoing but it remains ongoing. So we can map out the like the three critical dates would be dates for a vote, dates for debt service to start impacting the budget, and then the date where the
operating budget would be affected to staff and the utilities for a new school. >> Yeah. >> And and what concerns me is if we're looking at a projected override date
in one year and then the school comes online a couple years later and we can't afford it. So >> yeah, >> you'd have to maybe try to incorporate that somehow a little bit earlier or plan it correctly to incorporate that so
that we're not facing it a year or two later when it comes online. >> You're you're right. I just wonder if there might be another way to do it is that you know a couple years ahead of myself, but the ballot goes in front of the people saying do you want a new school? And there could be two questions
on that ballot. A, do you want a new school and to borrow to pay for it? And B, do you want three years from now when the school goes online to add $2 million to your tax revenue because to pay for the new school so that the voters could vote all in one chunk. Yeah, we want to
build it. Yeah, we want to pay for the operations. That might be different than a normal operating override. That's how I've been thinking of it, but that's multiple years away. >> It's an interesting question. Can we >> do it? >> Can we do it that way? It's worth asking. I don't know the answer. So, we'll we'll chase that down in the meantime because that would be a good
way to put it together. >> Say that again, Jay. >> Um, so that you put in front of the voters at one time on one ballot, I'm imagining one question that says, do you want to pay to build a new school? And a second question on that same ballot, do you want an operating override to pay
for the operations of that new school? Maybe the operating override would kick in a couple years later. So that we're not saying yes, we vote to have a new school and then a year later, no, we vote to not pay for the staff in that new school. >> Well, what if you get a yes and a no and
>> on the same ballot? >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> it runs an interesting risk, but >> you could get no to the new school, but yes to additional money. So, >> it can't be one question that much. I know >> it's a good it's an interesting idea. We
can map out whether it would even be possible to ask and then >> the boards can decide what is the right approach. So you or can talk with town council about the construction of whether that is possible?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I feel like we got something done. Um, well, we have a lull. Can I rewind to something I said a few minutes ago? >> Yes. >> When I said the select board's not going to approve a whatever. I was being too gl and I apologize.
>> What I should have said was I'm aware there are probably only two select board meetings between now and town meeting, maybe three, and that we'll have two new select board members. So, what I've been preparing for in my mind was standing up in front of town meeting and saying,
"Here's a possible way to do this. Here's a possible policy. here's a possible plan for an override year. I'm preparing mentally to do it even if the select board has not said yes, thou shalt have a override in the year 20
whatever. Um if if they do say that that's that's great. But uh what was I saying? I'm saying I'm prepared to present to town meeting. Here's a forecast. Here's a plan for using the operating budget stabilization
fund. Now, it's in the select boards court or it's in a future select board's court. So, the advice I would offer is twofold. one um
try, this is just my advice, try not to get too far ahead of the select board. It's the first piece of advice. And the second is try not to convey to town meeting a a false pre a false level of precision that doesn't
exist. That is to say that that okay so we've got this forecast and that means this this this got this forecast and this is a tool that we use to guide us in our thinking
about how we how we close revenue expense gaps and and whether or not and when we might need to ask for overrides. But that's all it is. It's not it's not always it's
a forecast. >> Can I also just add something too because I think Loy brought up an important concept in the false level of precision that introduces it's it's tricky, right? False level of precision
can introduce a level of risk that that's not great. But I think also too, you know, if I if I can also just kind of reference earlier statements that I made, I also think that we're
we're doing a really good thing here, but we're kind of like in the crawl phase of the crawl, walk, run. I think we're collectively like building our competency at this like as like the boards. I think the town has it. I don't
want to say that like I I think as a as a town looking at this like we're we're new to looking at it collectively in this way that you know as we get better we may be able to have more precision
and be better at making these political decisions effectively. But we have to we have to kind of like take it slow and not lock ourselves too tightly into things. >> We're working together in a way we never
have. >> That's a good thing. >> Yeah, I agree. >> It's a really good thing. And I don't >> slow and steady wins. >> I don't want to blow it and then everybody say, "Oh, this didn't work." >> Right. >> Because it does work. >> Yeah.
>> I guess one thought you talk about false precision. I mean, I'm an actuary. Presenting forecasts is is sort of in my wheelhouse. >> And yeah, I've never loved presenting one forecast, but if you do present one forecast and the next year, >> you can track against that forecast.
>> We thought health insurance was going to be 10 million. It's 10 and a half million. Okay, that's half million off of our forecast. Where what other line items did we miss our forecast and why? >> Yeah, this being I don't know if a forecast has been presented by the warrant
committee at town meeting for is it your intent to update that forecast periodically at town meeting because I think to the precision piece >> when folks see this um will the expectation be we will come back and we will update this is the crawl phase or
folks are going to say we're just going to see it once assume this is going to be adopted and then we'll come back through the end of the budget cycle >> you said is it my intent that is my intent I think it would have to live somewhat in the town administrator's office because warrant committee chairs
come and go and town administrators are locked here forever. >> No, I'm serious. I think it should. >> Yes. >> So live in the town administrator's office. >> You just got make a lifetime contract position. >> Well, Nick should be Nick should be in
charge of the numbers. Is that or Yeah. >> Yeah. So then that would need to be some version of an joint agreement between all of us that we are presenting forecasts at at least one of the town meetings, >> right? With some update whether it's
your version or the town's version. So maybe that informs the way we move forward in this town meeting so that it is something that can be updated and shared if that's going to be the expectation. I
I'm advocating this time we we present the concept of a forecast, the guiding principles and revenue and expense assumptions that we're using and some general conclusions that causes us to
reach. We I I think for town meeting as a first time I think trying to go through the the forecast itself um I I think people's eyes are going to glaze over but then even as I say um doing this
consistently or having this not just be one time 80% of forecast and it's never heard from Again, how do we coordinate this with Nick, Amy, Joanna, the folks that are going to be right >> looking at the money coming in and act
and know the actuals, >> right? >> You know, >> what does that report look like? So, are we I understand why the forecast of town meeting, but are we opening something up that we're not going to be able to
continuously deliver on? It's a good point. >> Yeah. >> Right. And I my my parallel concern is that Nick Nick asked whether the budget coordination committee wanted to say a few words at town meeting and having
conferred with my chair. But I think probably the answer is yes. But but we don't we certainly don't want to be in a position where where we're not able to say and we thoroughly support what the war committee just just presented. that that's where I'd like to be. I don't
want to be in a position where we say, "Well, you know, um not quite in agreement on uh what you just heard or worse, um it's not exactly where we are or where the town is. I think I think it's a good thing. This is an education
process for town meeting and I think it's worth doing, but I just think we we need to to to use Megan's characterization. I think we need to remember we're this is going to be a crawl stage for the for town meeting. It is for us and it is for town meeting. So
I just think we we want to present this in a way one that that as you point out this is really the town's um responsibility and Nick and Amy have have exercised that responsibility quite well. as as the warrant committee, we
understand how important this is. And this is why we're kind of pre previewing for you what what Nick and Amy and the town have been doing and what the budget coordination committee has been uh doing. But again, I think trying to to
immerse them in the actual detail, I think that's a that's a tall order for I think you get as much time as you need, but even if you had 45 minutes, >> not sure that's the way I'd use it because because I think you also have to
do the um the the the obligatory pie chart and here's how here's where the town's money goes. And I think that's an important part of the presentation as well. throw out all your I'm sorry for throw all your assumptions out there. >> Yeah, >> this is assuming inflation is this. This is assuming
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the Roy said >> earlier like make that public but maybe don't show it in the I don't know that that'll be a balancing act to what I literally show. >> So So we are at the top of the hour and we do have two other um folks um that I
want to give equal access to air time. So, um I think I think we'll hear from Maggie and Mark and then wrap up with next steps. >> Oh, thanks. Um thanks for everyone's
hard work. One conversation I think that we should um have is to let people know that voting for over overrides makes the town more unaffordable for some people. I know for me personally, five years ago, I had to downsize my house because
I saw the writing on the wall and I had to move my family from one house to another house because of the tax increases. So, I just want to be clear that residents and we all know that raising taxes will make the town more
unaffordable for people. So, we have competing interests. you know, we're trying to increase the affordability of certain projects in town for people, but raising taxes um is can be problematic
for many residents. And so, what are the effects of raising taxes on the average um taxpayer? Also, um I want to be clear with residents that an increase in our commercial will not really move the
needle too much. Um, I believe there's a lot of conversations happening, especially at the planning board, about increasing our commercial districts, and as you know, commercial only brings in $3 million um a year. So, even if we
double that, which is a high high hurdle to clear to double the commercial tax base, we're only bringing in an additional $3 million. And also I've heard from people around town that they don't quite understand
that a business only pays um property tax. So our property tax for commercials is a little bit higher than our residential rates. But for some reason I thought people were under the assumption that businesses contribute more like we
contribute a percentage of our profits to the town and that doesn't happen. So, I just want to make clear that to residents that the only increase is property tax. If it's a a restaurant, then we get an increase in a meals tax.
Um or if we ever go cannabis, you get an increase in uh fees from cannabis. But all other commercial, there's not any other additional um um money that the town brings in. So, I just feel like I've heard that confusion around town.
Um, so I just wanted to clarify that. So, thank you. >> Thanks, Maggie. Uh, Mark, do you wanna >> Uh, I mean, I think we're as if as as long as this is kind of an ongoing working document, uh, then I can just hold my comment for, you know, future
meeting where we'll continue to talk about this document. >> Okay. >> Joanna, have you handled >> Atlanta? >> Hi. >> Good morning. I just I've been listening in, but I just wanted to just um chime
in very quickly on a comment that Maggie just made. One of the one of the additional sources of revenue that we see from commercial businesses is also personal property tax. Um so I don't want to um you know just kind of dance
over that too. They do pay the commercial real estate taxes, but there's also a personal property tax that is associated with the assets of the business. >> Excise tax. >> It is actually a personal property tax,
>> right? On motor vehicles. >> Yeah. Like I pay on every computer I have or my Bobcats or my trucks. So, yes. Well, there is additional, but I don't What is that amount that the personal property tax brings in?
>> Uh, $4 million a year in personal property taxes, 3.4 million in commercial taxes. So, it's it's, you know, really closer to 7.47.5 million a year. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I just I'm looking at it. I just
>> Okay. So, um we always have such good discussions. Um so, for next for next meeting, which is in two weeks, correct? >> So, how how about if we if we ask um
>> Jay to have a draft presentation? >> Yeah, >> I think I'll have to. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. That would be great. >> So, we're we're slightly right. So, if Jay can have a draft presentation, >> you can circulate before the meeting sometime.
>> We'll continue to provide comments and work on these documents. Um, Nick, where are we at in terms of meeting cadence? >> We had we're in a little bit of a >> fluctuation. off our flow.
>> And I know Leroy had sent some suggested dates. I was just trying to double check those. I think April 13th was one of them, right? >> Yeah. >> So, April 13th, >> Memorial Day, which I listed as a meeting date and that's not possible.
>> I think should be okay. I can I can check with I'll I'll check you and you and I can confer on that. >> Okay. So, April 13th is a Monday morning, 8 at 8 a.m., right? >> All right. So, we'll we'll shoot for
April 13th as our next meeting date. >> Great. Um, I will at this time I will take a motion to adjourn. >> Uh, anyone second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. The eyes have it. Thank you
everyone. have a happy uh happy holidays, Passover, Easter to everyone who celebrates. Thanks.