I will go ahead and call the meeting to order here at 8:11 a.m. Uh, couple of things. this old business discussion of FY27 budget. Just want to provide the update here through this forum that the warrant committee had a meeting on Monday night. They voted
unanimously to approve the FY27 budget request from the school department. So that is been approved now by us and by the warrant committee and um will be going to town meeting. Uh the other article they discussed was the $500,000
free cash allocation to the special ed stabilization fund that was also approved unanimously war committee. Uh so that um that is a select board policy or warrant article I should say select board approved and the war committee has
approved and that is moving forward to town meeting. So all the warn articles associated with the schools other than the capital uh budget which they haven't voted on just yet but I think voting on tomorrow um all the other ones have been approved
by the war. So that was that update. Uh we are here to talk through um some policies. Uh, so we have kind of the primary policy we want to start with is the special ed stabilization fund because now we're going to have money put into it and we
should have a policy around what we're trying to do with that, how we withdraw funds and what the target balances are. Katie within the folder put some uh a draft policy she typed up and some sample policy she had actually shared prior week. Um, we can turn it over to
you. Is there any kind of framing you want to walk through? >> Sure. I'm just sorry just the builder now. Um >> so start with the special ed stabilization
financial policy. Um Okay. So, um what I did to create the draft for this policy was I did very much look at um some of the policies that I could find
from other districts. Um and then I tried to just modify it for what I thought um made sense for Milton. Um there are definitely a few pieces that I
think um we would have to discuss um mainly around the funding ceiling and the funding floor. Um and then also I think that it would be valuable to have a conversation
um about um the funding mechanism for transfers into the stabilization fund. Um so just starting at the top the overall objective it just um makes reference to the mass general law which
allows us to establish the stabilization funds. Um and just um there's just a note there saying kind of the intent of the stabilization fund is to provide proactive strategic approach for unforeseeable unbudgeted special
education costs and um truly to provide stability in the current fiscal year um in the delivery of education that could otherwise be impacted. Um the purpose again is to provide for payment of
unbudgeted and unforeseen um expenses without forcing cuts to other school services. Um then the policy further goes into the process for transfers in. Um so typically in these policies you do
see language around the funding ceiling which is kind of the most that can be um the highest balance that can be retained in the fund and then the targeted funding floor um which is the minimum balance. And really once you get to that
minimum balance that should really trigger the conversation. If there isn't already an established funding mechanism, that should then trigger the conversation of yes, we can utilize the funds that are in the stabilization account, but we really do need to
formulate a plan to be able to restore the funds just in case something does happen in the future that would cause us to have to um utilize the stabilization fund again. So one of the um funding
mechanisms is mentioned in the transfer in language and that's undesated fund balance which is free cash. Free cash is held on the town side. It is not controlled by the school department. The school department can contribute to free
cash by the way of having excess operating budget funds at the end of fiscal year. Um but the town and the select board um control and the town administrator by way the town administrator
um would need to have free cash available that could be transferred into the stabilization fund and the timing around that I don't know if I put in language around the timing that's typically would be a warn article at
town meeting to be able to um fund or transfer funds into stabilization the balance this language um is specifically written in mass general law so that's something that there is not
any flexibility the only flexibility comes in the fact that um net school spending will fluctuate and it generally will increase um but the balance in the reserve fund cannot exceed 2% of annual net school
spending the school district. And so I did pull in the um last available net school spending numbers that have been um certified by the state was fiscal year 24. So you can see that 72 million
dollar. So the 2% of that is about 1.4 million and that would be um that would be the overall total amount that we could have in the account. Of course. >> Just only when I was reading this
paragraph, it was a little confusing. >> Yeah. >> So, should we and I think it says the target funding ceiling shall be 500,000. Then we go down and talk about this 1.49. So, do we need to be even more explicit or somehow say what you just
said that >> like what you're talking about there, the balance reserve shall not that's general law. Yes. versus this is our >> policy. >> Policy. >> Yeah. >> I just think somehow just distingu
putting some line in there like just say that would be helpful just to clarify. So yeah, >> we're not saying maybe even reversing like just putting
the balance as like the first line. Um, I've worked in districts where our funding ceiling was just the 2% of net school spending. We didn't we didn't um have a number in the policy that was
500,000 600,000. So, um, we do have some flexibility there that we can truly in our policy or in the policy just determine what we want that um, funding ceiling to be.
>> Nathan, >> Katie, that was kind of my question. I was wondering if the 500,000 target funding ceiling is a placeholder or a recommendation from you and if the latter just to hear a little bit more about that. >> Yeah, of course. So it is a
recommendation I was I kind of took the examples and put everything in and didn't necessarily um so so it's kind of one of one or the other when you look at the funding
ceiling and the 500,000 was just a reference to the amount that is going to be deposited into the fund. But it's totally up to, you know, the committee's discretion whether we want to keep the 500,000 or we could just use the 2% of
net school spending as that funding ceiling. And that again is a target. But I think that that if that is the mechanism that um is chosen then it will put importance on defining what the funding source is
going to be because you're never we won't be able to get to that funding ceiling um if we don't have a way to provide funds to the stabilization account. >> Yep, that makes sense.
Yeah, I'm struggling with exactly how we determine like what that like number should be had in your two examples. One had 500,000, one had 950 drives, those two those two numbers and obviously how this coordinates with the funding balance we
have within circuit breaker. So we are populating keeping some rollover funds in circuit breaker is our goal. the amount within this fund not need to be quite as robust. If we had 2.7 million in S, then maybe we don't need 1.5 in
this. Um, >> so I I don't know how to have those two things necessarily like >> speak to each other um kind of a clear mathematical way. Um, >> yeah. I feel like in the in some meeting
we had recently, I don't know if it was the last finance committee meeting, we were we were talking about this and someone asked just for like examples of of of when of case use cases of when we might use these funds. I wonder if
that's the best sort of starting point and you know eventually after a few years of use we might actually have some actuals out of this fund that would tell us what the appropriate target ceiling is >> and I think further down in the policy there is language that says that the
policy should be reviewed annually >> and that's a really important part of it so even if we even if it was decided that um the funding ceiling is going to be 500 00,000. You can always review it
every year and make changes to it. If um we haven't used the 500,000, then um you it there's just flexibility and it should be kind of an iterative process. It's not a policy that would be
set because there are numbers referenced to it that would be set and then it's just good forever. Um, so I think that there's definitely an ability to say, okay, we're going to set it at this amount for now, see if it's utilized in
the upcoming year, kind of what the overall utilization is, and if we have to increase or decrease it, that can happen. is there for the the floor to me seems like the the more important of the two
in that we want to make sure we have a robust um amount that you know stays in that account um it's planned to get back to that for that is there something around again what y'all are seeing around average
kind of unanticipated out just replacement cost kind of things are vary a lot very wildly here, but like an amount that in your mind, I know the 100,000 came from like another town's policy, but is there an amount
that feels like kind of going below that really limits our flexibility to accommodate for kind of those unexpected costs? I think it's just having the floor is just calling to the fact that you don't want to be dependent on the
stabilization fund. If you do have those expenses come up to the point that you're depleting the fund year over year because if you're doing that then um that's when you should look at kind of the overall funding sources and say maybe we need to concentrate on um on
yes contracted services or looking at what our balances in circuit breaker. So I think that's why um with stabilization funds and it's I think it would be similar on the town side. they never want to have a stabilization fund have the utilization draw that to zero. Um so
that's why I do think the funding floor is important. >> I'm not um >> I think that there can be flexibility around the amount. Doesn't necessarily have to be 100,000. It could be 50,000.
Um, but again, it's just I think the important piece is just going to be looking at the utilization and how much you have to and how often you have to use the stabilization. >> Yeah, the two examples that bird had 200,000 cohass that are the numbers
match the cohass samples. >> Yeah, I was not thinking lowering that number. more it's about 200 200 >> and then yeah the other thing I I did have which I didn't see any of the other like sample policies but to your point
of like these are set numbers and then they need probably need to be adjusted over time especially rise budget rises is there some just uh metric we put in to say shall be 500,000 for fiscal year
27 and shall increase 2% annual increase sometimes seems a little strange I don't know something that helps keep the amount more evergreen >> or those that annual review of that's
that do you know what I mean because then if you are not utilizable and you've got the 500 staying there do you you know do you look at that I think having it reviewed
annually and reviewed in the usage that as opposed to putting percentage that might not be might be like well that doesn't >> that makes sense. >> Um >> yeah, sorry. >> No, no, no, no. You're good. I was
processing live. Um, were you sorry I just want to check and see if I missed this cuz your conversation is making me think of this. I'm thinking about the town the uh consultants report recommendations on circuit breaker. Um, was that part of
Did I miss is that part of this conversation here >> that you all were just having? >> No, we we hadn't referenced it yet. Um, it's I was just thinking about the balance and it it kind of made me think of that report and I know the the report was saying that our circuit breaker
balance should be um relative to the growth in um circuit breaker expenditures year-over-year, something along those lines. Um, and if, and Katie, correct me if I'm
if I'm if I'm getting any of this sort of conceptually wrong, but if a circuit breaker balance is meant to provide a reserve to account for sort of medium-term growth in high-cost special
education expenditures. The special education stabilization fund is meant to account for one-time in-year like economic shocks. Could we could we think about a balance that is equivalent to
one-year growth in circuit breaker? Like I I would think I might think that one year one typical one-year growth in circuit breaker might be a function of both cost increases and
um just new expenditures like new student needs or new students that um require certain services. I wonder if is that does that make sense at all? >> I think it does. Um, it definitely makes
sense to me, but I'm just more concerned about the fact that we don't necessarily control how the account is funded. And so we could put a whole a number of different parameters or calculations in place to
define what we think the funding ceiling should be, but it's going to be up to the town to say if they're going to be able to allocate free cash to that account every single year. >> And so I just worry more about that, I
think. Um, and so just to kind of talk through how this has been done before, um, in my experience, the funding ceiling was just the cap that was sent set by Mass
General loss. So that was the 2% of net school spending, which is 1.4 million. That's just saying that's the most that we can have in the account at any given time. The funding mechanism that we used is any surplus funds in the school's
operating budget at the end of the year get would be turned back to the town as it should be in as every municipality um operates in every department and then whatever that balance is is certified as free cash and then goes into the
stabilization fund. So, we knew as we were managing the budget, there may be some years where there's no balance and so there's no contribution um at least from the year- end balances. But then on certain years, we knew that
we if we had $50,000 or $100,000 or whatever the number is at the end of the fiscal year that that would be certified as free cash and then that was the contribution into the account. Um, so at least we knew what that mechanism was
and we tried to utilize other funding sources before we used the stabilization fund so we could continue to kind of grow that balance. In this example, we know we're getting the 500,000. So that's the reference in the policy. We know that we want to set
a funding floor because you don't want to just be wiping out back to zero every single year. Um, I think it's just how if how and if the fund is going to have some mechanism to contribute to it
year-over-year that's going to drive kind of what we can have as the ceiling and what we should be looking at as the floor. >> Can I ask a question? So because the mechanism for funding it is done by the town not by the school
it's it's like to put it's not within our it's not in our hands. So to say 1% 2% whatever the percentage is or the amount we can put it in there. Yes. But because we are not the ones weighing in or determining
the policy or contributing preach to that account policy is somewhat arbitrary. >> Yes, >> Lizzie. >> Thanks. Um, so I remember at the last meeting with
members of the select board finance subcommittee, there was sort of conversation about collaborating to um sort of move this forward. And my question is, first of all, Katie, as you look at
other model communities that have set this up, well, is there sort of an accompanying policy at the select board um that mirrors the school committee's policy for the special ed reserve
account? And I definitely may have missed it because I haven't been up on everything, but is this like a twin policy or would that be a a path to explore?
>> I think we talked about we were going to create like a draft is actually we were going to create sort of a draft, move it forward and then share it back with them. Is that what we talked about? Because to me that's sort of the part about yes it's not in our control but it
is in our control to work with them to help them set a similar policy that at least states it goals of a ceiling and a floor. Yeah, I can answer the second part of that which is of I think you you understand well it's my understanding is
we we're crafting a policy that hopefully well not hopefully will need to be adopted by both the schools in the town because this is a joint account funds cannot be withdrawn from the account without both school committee vote and a select board vote. So both of
the entities need a policy around this. Again, funding mechanism is more driven by the town as is all funding within the town. It's driven by the select board more so than us. But um but yeah, the goal is to create a draft here that we feel good about and we pass it over to
select board and hopefully they feel good about it and we both vote to adopt it as one of our fiscal policies. So I agree with you, Lizzie. think we could have um language and I put this like some of the other policies had had that
language within it. Uh and think we should try and make that clear for the select board that this is what we are proposing as the avenue for funding it which removes free cash from them from their ability to kind of control moving
forward. So like they may have feelings about that, but right if we have $50,000 left and that goes to them then in a normal year the town determines what are they going to do with that $50,000 they put where are they putting it and we would want to have it in this policy that >> no that 50,000 we all agree that 50,000
that comes from the school is going to go into this stabilization fund. I think that does link to like up until what point, right? Is it are we going to continually fund this through those kind of small we assume they're going to be small deposits year over
year until we hit 1.44 and that number will only grow. We'll probably grow at a rate that's faster than we can contribute to the policy. So like are we just kind of always going to be slowly funding and building up the pol the fund or is there some lower level that we are funding it to and
saying hey it's 500,000 and so we wouldn't put in any additional funds in the the account until the fund balance falls below 500,000 slowly add up. So that's why I think like whatever this
target funding ceiling is is important to say that you know I don't think we should have a fund that just constantly >> builds up. Um I don't think we think we need that right now. And again maybe we change that in the future but
>> I don't know 500,000 is the right maximum or not or not. Great starting. Um I think part it's they're so intertwined like this and a circuit breaker like what the policy around the amount that we hold in reserves in circuit breaker
is and so if we have a policy that said you know where we have agreed to the amount that carry that circuit breaker and then like like this feels like the back stop right this is that's depleted, that's we've done that,
then we're going here. >> Um, and if we have a number that we feel is, you know, where we've landed, where we're saying, you know, that it's that it's a robust number, that's a strong number, it's it's it's then that then I
feel like 500 here is a a c like 500 feels like plenty. like I I feel like looking at that um 2% feels very high for this knowing that the goal really is to have the the circuit broker be a robust fund.
And so, you know, I think and and I'm not saying you picked an arbitrary number, Katie, but it was sort of like 500 because that's what we know we're getting and that's the the one set amount. And then B, we look at it after that and and have the and have make sure
that we're very clear and that we feel like we have the right number for circuit breaker first and then this and then we revisit this 500 year toyear based on the need to dip into it based on the
reserves that we have. sense >> because I feel like like this is very important for me circuit breaker policy feel really like that that >> it's such a bigger number >> so that's just where I am
>> to Nathan's question of like uh the growth in circuit breaker is potential metric it um it really jumps >> right >> uh the average Katie provided us kind of that chart with the numbers previously and I did like the the change year over year. The average change is an increase
of about 174,000, but we had a year where we dropped 477,000, a year where it went up 800,000. Um so like with the median it's median's like around 100,000
in terms like annual change uh increase. So if that is a mechanism, then 500,000 is, you know, two and a half years kind of worth of circuit breaker change. It's kind of on the the higher end of, you
know, a big jump up in circuit breaker. $100,000 is about kind of the median amount that we've seen changed. So the only piece that I want to add to is thinking about kind of the language
around if the balance of the fund drops below the funding floor, the town town will formulate a plan to restore the fund. Um, and so thinking about that, if we're
setting the ceiling at 500,000 and the floor is a h 100,000, there truly is 400,000 that we can utilize. >> 400,000 when we're talking about these unanticipated
expenses. >> Yeah. Um because I'm thinking of the placement that is um kind of significant a significant expense. 400,000 it could be potentially one placement
and so it's just not a lot. And so that could happen in one year and we could be you could essentially be back to the drawing board next year and having to talk about a plan to restore the fund. And I would just never want that to
prohibit being able to utilize the funding when you need it. Um, and so I don't know if it makes sense to maybe potentially give just a little bit more of a cushion of the range thinking about what we would want the utilization to be
and thinking about being able to utilize it multiple times. I think if the funding ceiling was say $750,000 then the utilization range is $650,000 and and there isn't a placement that is
that I know of that wouldn't be you know that would potentially be multiple instances of having to use the fund. Um and that to me just seems a little bit more realistic.
Um, and just gives that cushion and the timing to be able to say, "Okay, now we used it. Now we need to go back and potentially talk about how we're going to fund it again." >> So, you're using the scenario of
essentially the highest out of district placement cost that you >> know of plus, >> do you know what I like plus other what might be another lesser expense on contracted services or transportation. >> Correct.
>> Yeah. Just to not wipe the entire fund balance out within >> one instance. Right. >> So what's the highest that we've ever seen? Is it six? >> So we've had $600,000 chunks. So in my head I was using the same number. So if
you use that all scoop you're still not exhausting it below 100. >> Yeah. So 87. M >> yeah just makes sense. I think only giving ourselves 400,000 to
use that that to me is like >> could potentially be gone in one year is alum so it's just not >> okay. Um, so given that the target funding ceiling will be above
what is going to be allocated obviously this year, I think it probably makes sense to try and put in some language around the transfer related to you talked about and kind of what is in the single policy of surplus from the urban budget. Obviously again
like board might not push back concern about that but I think that gives us a mechanism that is within our control to fund that fund the fund over time gives us an incentive to
>> yeah definitely that you would think that that's like one of the towns that would look at that as an incentive incentive approach for us to be more more thoughtful about we're not just waiting for them that we're we're contributing to to to know. Um
and I and I I guess I apologize in the beginning of the meeting, but are we looking at this fund as only a backs stop? This is only just in case. This is only the unpredictable one. Mhm. >> We're not looking for this to replace a breaker piece because I think some folks
>> on the town side when I think when they raised the idea, well, what does what does it look like in Welsley and it was like 3 million in the Wy that they were actually supplanting the circuit breaker mechanism that we have within our budget with that fund. >> And and Katie, I think you and I agree
we do not want to do that. We want to keep that all in our hands. This is just the break glass one. Two kids came in with a 300 and a 300 or one that that was our experience this year came in in July at a 600 and we just even in even
if we were well positioned >> with a with a a circuit breaker being at a healthy amount, we wouldn't we would have a hard time absorbing 600. >> Uh I think So then putting to your point then putting in language that if the school
like whatever the ex what ex the funding like if there was the schools >> that would be your
return. I do like um the reason that I put that last sentence of the fund balance may be transferred into the stabilization fund is I think it provides flexibility in the fact that
it's generic and it's not just on the school department. It it does say to the town if there is a year that um that chapter 70 so the school aid from the state increases and that and it wasn't
budgeted for that then becomes free cash and that could then go into the stabilization fund. >> Yeah. So, I did just like how generic it was because um it provides flexibility on the town side to um do
more than just what the surplus number is. >> Um >> yeah, I just I worry that the generic there are just so many demands on pre-cash within the town on Capital and a lot of other needs. Um >> absolutely. And so I I think without
something that is more this will be agreed upon by the select board but is more kind of clearly stating like this is what we're expecting to your point we can't we can't even directly allocate our unused resources into the fund like we need we would still need the select board and the town meeting to approve recommend
and approve those things and so I think like stating that clearly within the policy to say >> that way we can go in front of town meeting and say this is why this $23,000 is going especially right stabilization fund. This is part of the policy. We haven't met the 7050,000
schools were under budget last year and so we're just going to put this in this kind of rainy day fund. Um >> I think that in my mind is helpful for all those conversations just to like take away kind of the guesswork and the negotiation around it uh in future.
Uh do you want to jump down and talk about the transfer out process? >> Sure. So transfer out of the fund. the school department will provide the report um comparing the aggregate expenses um
and it will compare actual expenses versus the original budgeted line item amounts. And so the expenses that you could potentially um allocate to the reserve fund would be out of district tuitions, special
education transportation, special education contracted services, then also special special education legal settlements. Um, and I also provided a
um copy of the report that shows the budget for these line items. Um, there's a copy of that in the folder as well. So, you can kind of just get a sense of like, okay, this is a report. This is the information that we have. And then
during the course of the year, we just have to run an an expense report to be able to show that our expenses are in excess of what was budgeted. Um, but those are the four major areas where
um you could have expenses that are um paid for by the stabilization. And then just um talking about the withdrawal procedures. Again, the school
committee has um creates the budget for each of the line items and that is the example that I put in the folder. Um, if the school committee determines that a withdrawal from the fund is necessary,
we'll make a request by majority vote and then um, school committee will prepare a budget report that will be shared with the finance committee. So, I wasn't sure that language doesn't
make sense to me. I don't know if that would if like the kind of the process would be the school committee would would prepare a budget report to the select board finance committee and then they would present to the select board or if we
could just cut out kind of that reference to finance committee and it would just be the school committee would prepare the budget report. seems to me. >> And again, the select board would have to approve any transfer out request by a
majority vote. It needs to be approved by both boards before we can allocate the expense to it's a really important part. So, we can pay the bill and process it through the word process
until those approvals are Can I ask you exactly what question and I don't know if this is in the actual law itself. Is it a majority of vote of the members of the school committee and the select board at the same time which
would be six versus five or is it a >> a vote of the school committee and then comma a vote of the select >> a vote of the school committee and then a vote of the select board. So it first goes to school committee. It needs to be
approved by a majority before it can then go to >> um only question I had on this is I I think I know the answer to this. Oh, but the each of these lines are already laid out within that annual budget document like
within this cycle you already provided us right. So this is something just from a process perspective though this is not >> new work that you all create or something we need to like track this is incorporated within the annual budget
that's make sure that makes sense to me Nathan >> same this is very helpful Katie um it you know the the stabilization fund is for expenditures in the current year we did
not anticipate. So a question that I would I would want to confirm or that the select board might want to confirm is like when we're looking at the at this um report describing these expenditures which would which would show our
expenditures in are in excess of what we budgeted. I think I would want to know, okay, is are expenditures in excess of what we budgeted because there are extraordinary and unanticipated expenses that came in
this year or is it because we did not budget the correct amount when we created the budget? Now, this assumes it's the former, not the latter. I would expect it to be the former, not the latter. But is there additional information
um that we should provide to confirm that like these were truly unanticipated expenditures? I I don't know ju just to just to nip that question in the bud in the in the report
>> that you went into the so and that's a really good question. It really does speak to um so the way that the budget is created. We really do create the um tuition budget and the
transportation budget. It's really done at a very granular level, but it's also done um looking at individual students and we just need to make sure that we are maintaining confidentiality of the
students. And so, um, we want to be able to provide information, but we can't. And thinking about like the process of what we're providing,
we just have to be careful about how much information we're providing and what information that we're providing. Um, you could do it at the level of like say for example is out of district tuition.
It could be here's where we knew like whatever a million dollars. I'm just going to throw it. I know it's the right number, but we anticipated a million dollars and that's what we had budgeted for. And then you can show like could it be like in May
unanticipated cost you know $150,000 of new but you don't have to go into the school the person a piece like is there that level you could I but I I >> beyond that you do get into >> I do right
>> and I totally understand the concern too just thinking about um just so many of the conversations that we've had just about some of the budget history. So I I hear that concern. I can totally validate that
concern. Um, and but I think from thinking about the confidentiality, we really could only keep it at a high level of saying here's the budget, here's what the current
expenditures are, here's what um is new or anticipated for the rest of the year, there's a gap, >> and um we're using the stabilization fund as a mechanism to close the gap for this year and then it's really going to
be up to the school department and the school committee to figure out how to fund it moving forward whether it be circuit breaker operating budget um or some other mechanism. So, um, it really is it's definitely
you want to make sure that you're budgeting appropriately because it it helps smooth some of that um year-to-year fluctuations when it comes to the when it comes to the operating budget to add to that.
>> Yeah. Um, so the confidentiality piece and how we describe the need to be one thing that Katie just explained very well, but the other part of this is let's take this year for an example. We started the year with $8,700 in the account.
The whole expense line was unbudgeted. And so I anticipate questions like to to um that if in fact the circuit breaker money moving forward isn't used isn't funded well or they don't want to fund
our budget, we can't build that um to a to the level that we think it needs to be. Uh the coin on that is two-sided. One coin might be well we we know we don't have enough money to fund these things. We didn't budget wrong. this is all the
money that you gave to us. Do you mean >> and and then the other side will be, well, you just didn't budget enough for that. Like this, there's going to be room for Nathan's argument because I've watched it happen in my other and people would just kind of look at it through their own lens of, well, you just didn't budget well enough. You should have anticipated that. Well, why don't you
build in two people? >> Why don't you build in two out of district tuitions a year into your regular budget? Well, because we don't have enough money because you haven't given enough money to build in that. So there's going to be this natural, you know, potential healthy or unhealthy
tension around that. >> Um, so just just to be prepared, like we're not going to work on every scenario. These are the big building blocks that we just need to put in place, but it's definitely to your point, Nathan. >> Yeah. >> Someone's going to have a separate opinion or view on whether you should have anticipated that or not, right? Or
whether why why don't you always budget three people >> more like three choices more because we don't have you haven't even let us build up our circuit breaks to the point where we even have that capacity. So, and and I bring it up only because we're actually in that spot right now. We're in the building phase. >> Yeah. >> And to Katie's point, we'll most
districts are able to smooth these things out as they come and go with a healthy circuit breaker balance. >> So, when we get to the 3.5 mark and we're moving from that comfort level, we we could absorb something like that and and move that and make it work. Uh but there are going to be there could be a
year where we, you know, someone says, "Well, you shouldn't have that much money in there. Why why do we have 3.1? I want that to go down to two. That might happen to be the end when two children move in and all of a sudden it it breaks the bank of our abilities internally, isn't that? So, it's it's
just not as um >> Do you think that there's value >> black and white? You know what I mean? Do you think that there's value in like what because as we said like this is sort of our first pass at it and then we would go to the select board because
it's a combined policy and recognizing there are so many nuances and scenarios to that that when we meet with the select board to go through this and and talk about the circuit breaker policy there is these there is that conversation around almost like I don't
know if you lay out different scenarios but to your point where you said some districts build this in this allows them to do this. Mhm. >> It's talking about sort of what a healthy circuit breaker balance allows for what
I would call an unhealthy circuit breaker balance >> creates like the scenario so that you kind of talk about you know you've used the word levers before which I think is helpful that sort of allows you to pull different levers and then I I think just I think we've talked about this sort of
in isolation and then as we're talking about it and that's why Even talking about this one before talking about circuit breakers a little hard for me because what are what are our assumptions based on? Our assumptions are based on a healthy circuit break. >> So without that this conversation is
sort of >> y >> half told Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And so I guess I'm just thinking about the conversation and how we lay it out and talk about it and do you talk about circuit breaker and here's where we are, here's what it means. There's a question about well do you need that much? Well okay if we didn't this is what that
looks like. if we do this is what it looks like and then you move into stabilization because I think it's really hard to understand all of the moving pieces and make a decision on this without having an understanding of that. So Nathan, I think your point is
is well taken. Um so I'm just trying to think think through like the the the conversation with the select board and how you lay it out. So I know Nathan has standards, but to work backwards from it might be helpful as one way to unpack it as a group with everybody having a
different a varying amount understanding of what this all looks like and the complexity of it in a perfect scenario working backwards from a perfect scenario what in what we're building ourselves towards with our circuit breaker policy. If and when we get to a
circuit breaker balance that meets the circuit breaker policy that we're all trying to forward of roughly 75% of the balance being in hand when we get there. This this will then be utilized in a certain way because we're going to have
two healthy funds working in partnership with each other to back each other up when these things go by. We're not there yet. So we're working to get there. We should vote on this policy knowing that it should be based on an agreeable uh understanding that our
circum breaker fund should be at a balance at a at a certain level that we've described. That's a school committee uh policy, not a select board policy. >> And that when that when those assumptions are are realistic in reality happening, this is how this this is how this will work over here at the
stabilization. Does that make sense? Because we're in the middle of it. So it's it's hard to describe. We we spent like a month and a half describing what you're talking about these things like we already have that money. We're still getting debt. You know what I mean? Um so we have to just maybe working
backwards from that would be helpful. Nathan, >> yeah, this conversation is helpful and I I'm I have a couple of things. I I wonder if there's a way to to codify these principles or this this discussion
somewhere. I don't think it's in this policy or in the circuit breaker policy, but somewhere. And I can um you know, I'm just thinking about like we have a stabilization fund policy, we have a circuit breaker policy, we're using them, and over the years,
you know, as as people in these chairs change, this conversation that we're having today becomes vagger and vagger in people's memories. I can understand in other towns why they don't have, you know, we talked about some other there's
there's some other towns in Massachusetts who just use this this bed stabilization fund because it simplifies this discussion, right? There's like one fund serving one common purpose. Um, it just reduces complexity. I'm not arguing that we do that. I don't think
we should do that, but I do understand the appeal of that given given the the nuance conversation we're having today. Um, one uh just to go back to my original question, like I was trying to find a way to like have a like
trust but verify mechanism here. Um, it sounds like that's challenging and I get that and I I do I I do see the FURPA confidentiality statement. I saw that in the other policies. I wonder if there's a way to just make this that confidentiality statement a little bit
more on the nose like um it says oh thanks Mark. Um uh you know we acknowledge the need to m to maintain confidentiality per law blah blah blah. Therefore
um I'll just I'm just riffing. I'm not saying this has to be the language. Therefore, the school department is will not be able to share the drivers of these budget changes with
the school committee or select board or something that way we just clarify like what what are we actually saying um by bringing up this confidentiality clause. I feel like I feel like the point is a little vague as currently written.
>> Specific Yeah, sure. specific specific. Yeah. >> And and and so um a friendly amendment may be therefore the school department will have a limited ability to share. >> Yeah. >> You say not it it feels like a you know
it feels like a wall but limited ability to share. Um because I think you're right that sentence Nathan provides some reason why confidentiality is important >> because someone will ask you know >> why like what's going on like what is
this expenditure about >> um you know even if it's an innocuous request and they don't really you know they aren't they aren't craving actual specific data like this just clarifies >> because you also don't want that to be kind of new debate correct
Can we um can we just look at the spreadsheet that I included? I just um I think that those are all really good points, but I also just you know the black and white in me just wants to we
have a budget, >> right? We have a budget. Everyone knows what the budget is. We have line items. There's a lot of conversation around the budget. like there are numbers and there are um there there is backup for every single
one of the numbers in the budget and so um >> is what you meant >> yes so I feel like a lot of those questions may come up but they're all kind of like they're hypothetical in a way and this is like this is what the
budget is we can see 25 expend expenditures, the original budget from this year, the adjusted budget that we've talked about through the quarterly reports and the adjustments have been approved by the committee. The revenue offsets which are
all those revolving funds, grants, circuit breaker, those amounts are built in that we've talked about the progress of, you know, building up those circuit breaker accounts. That's for this year and then you can see the number for next
year. So, all of the detail is there. All of like I just feel like this is really concrete and this is all of the backup for all of the conversations that we're having. Um, and so I would hope
that it would be as simple as saying, you know, for legal settlements for next year, we know that we have these number of settlements that equal $290,000. We had one more settlement that we had to agree to in the amount of $30,000.
That's what the overage is. That's what we need to cover from the stabilization fund and that's it. I know I'm oversimplifying it, but I just think it's really important to like >> there's lots of conversations. The budget is >> Yeah,
>> the budget is what it is. Those are the numbers. That's the backup. So, um, and that's why the report is important because we want to be able to confidently say, um, you know, this is based off of a lot of information, um,
but it's accurate, it's up todate, and if anything that is unexpected comes in, that's when we're going to need the help from the stabilization. >> Yeah, I agree with that, Katie. Thank you. Yeah, I think from my perspective, this is in a good enough place that we
can share this with the select board and maybe they come back and say, "Oh, here are other things we'd like to ask you all to provide to us so we can have a further conversation." Uh, but I agree. I mean, I think that type of budget is is helpful is what they would need. And
to your point, I think even with that, like there are going to be situations where you'll will come up to select board members who will still have questions and say, "Well, why didn't you do this or that happens like that?" >> Monday morning quarterbacking happens all the time with the budget process. >> Rooting it in the budget numbers, I
think it's a great idea. That's exactly what that's where you have to start. >> And the budget is the policy document and it's that's what driving the work. So, >> um, does this committee feel like the
document is in a good enough place that we could forward it over to Megan and Winston like we're finance to eyes on it? >> Yeah, I I I I I do. And I also think
that um we it this may come this may need to come along with an appropriate context setting conversation for those folks whenever that's the right whenever the right time is for that. Um so when they read that they might have questions and we might want to be able to serve them at some point in time the context
all the conversations that we're having right now would be helpful for them to understand why >> why the language is what is >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. So why 750? >> Yeah. Yeah. So there's nuances that we want to make sure they understand and they because why would they understand it if they haven't sat through meetings
like this goes to the work I mean it's it's a very it's a very unique >> feature of the budget. >> Yeah. >> That has a lot of nuances that it really provides context is really important. >> Yeah. >> I can also share a copy of this. >> Yeah. when when we send it over, but I I
think definitely at some point before we finalize this, we'll have another meeting and talk through. Um, okay. So, I will send that over. Uh, that somewhat brings us the next couple things on our agenda.
Uh, I know we're at 909, so kind of just probably need to start wrapping. Um Katie provided uh kind of within the folder the revolving accounts policy which is kind of still the draft version help
change circuit breaker amount to kind of 75%. Just one thing I wanted to maybe propose as I was reading through this is would it make sense to just try and create a separate pull circuit figure out of that document. Right? because
every other line account within there is a fee driven account. So I'm going to say it's a three policy special ed stabilization circuit breaker which can look maybe more like what we just had. >> Okay. Uh Nathan, does that sound right
to you? And I maybe we next time work on that. I did start drafting. I just made a copy of the SP stabilization policy and we'll put in >> um
started just trying to type something up for a circuit breaker policy. Um it's not finalized but started that. Could you look at that prior to our next meeting and just make any additional
updates and then at our next meeting we can talk about this policy. >> Uh our next meeting will uh to jump further in our agenda. Um we can't meet next week. We need the time for negotiation prep session. So the first
we will not have a finance meeting. Um you'll be so sad not to have this uh every week. So, we'll be back together on the 8th. My proposal is we would meet and talk about the circuit breaker policy on the 8th and then potentially
on the 15th maybe we try and get together with uh the select board finance committee talk about the policy on the 15th. >> So on the 8th >> I know you can be here but >> I can't be on the eth because I'll be doing the negotiation again.
>> Yeah on that. So I I can meet with them somewhere else and we can we'll uh meet uh we'll need a good two hours that day and I cannot meet him. >> Uh I think the ETH I think we can meet without John. Yeah. Maybe find a different date.
>> Um and the ETH I think we can meet u remotely. So we don't have to use this. >> Yeah. We can just meet them on the week. >> Does do we know does um slept with finance have a particular day?
>> I don't they don't be quite as regularly so I'm not sure but I can ask them >> and I mean and I think that one if it's easier could be that if we're trying to get that >> for the So you're saying on the ETH
we'll talk about the circuit breaker policy. >> Yeah. Do you I'm just thinking about our last meeting what what some meeting previously where we talked about the overlap between this committee and the policy committee.
Do we want to crossosted to policy or do we want to treat that as a working session and maybe have a couple of meetings where we work with them on it? >> Well, it's already crossosted with full school committee which is the committee. Um so all these are crossosted. I think
what we we ran that by Anna the this statement was again we we would work on it we can't do anything with it without full script committee approval right but we share that with them so I think >> um what we can do is
yeah so I think we should meet on the 8th we should create kind of a draft policy that this group agrees about and then send that to the full committee and then we can have discussion at a future school committee meeting where we've talked through the stabilization fund circuit breaker fund hopefully the revolving accounts policy
as well uh and vote and adopt those kind of at full school committee level. So, >> got it. Okay. >> Great. >> Are we looking for a meeting? Do we think it's a good idea to have a meeting with the uh when you send over the draft
today with the with the um clip uh for the video of the meeting? Do we want a meeting with just Megan and Winston to go over this with them and invite them to one of these meetings or do we want to go to one of their meetings? How do we want to introduce that to them to warm the plate of the conversation
before clos >> Yeah, I mean I definitely think I we should talk to Megan um that going through that finance committee. That's what we've been doing that continues to make sense. >> Okay. Um, so I can ask them, I think to your point, when when do they meet?
What's their availability? They generally been available on Wednesday morning. So the Wednesdays are getting tight. We we could push the circuit conversation on the 8th to the 15th and try and have the meeting with them on
the 8th. Um, one of the other time pressures here is obviously the election and then the board turnover uh that is going to happen. on post whatever that date is, the 28th or whatever. Um, and our last school
committee meeting is is the 8th. Is that right? >> Or do we have one on the >> 22nd? So that was >> like that was just what I was if >> if there's a way to do a first reading
of any of this on the 8th, it would allow a second reading on the 22nd. Are you sure we have the meeting on the 22nd? >> Oh, wait. That's vacation. Never mind. >> 8 28. I mean 8 and 29. 29.
>> Yeah. So, the 8th is our last meeting before the turn in the committee. So, we're not going to make that date. Um. >> Okay. I guess my other question though about the policy, tell me if I'm overthinking it, is
do we need to have a conversation about circuit breaker at the at the same time? Like do we need to have talked about our circuit breaker policy prior to the stabilization or does it not matter? >> Do you think? I mean I would like to I
mean to your point I think we should oh with the select board >> with the sign select sign >> so they don't control that. >> No I know I just didn't know if from the standpoint of or do we talk about it to your point in the context context of
best sort of here's where we are here's where we'd like to be >> because I think that in informs the why of the number and how you use it. I I don't but but if that pushes things back >> I just think the I think we've talked
and shared the idea of the 75% uh kind of number with them. I think that's been shared a number of times with them. I think we still kind of have continued disagreement on vision for circuit breaker but again that isn't necessarily under their their purview. This one is I think if it informs our conversation and
then as we're having a conversation with them we can buy to your point the rationale and how Christian ties to circuit breaker and maybe that changes or doesn't change how the court sees about this this policy. Um I don't think we need to have an established circuit breaker policy from the school committee
prior to that conversation. I I think we generally have alignment on you know the the percent number that's generally been talked about and we there I think other aspects of that policy that are school committee specific that really don't affect the select board. I think one
piece the select board is what is the level of funding level we're trying to get to policy that's that's how I think about it. Um, Lizzie, >> back to the timing piece. I just would like to encourage us to, even if we
can't have a second reading on any of this before your term ends, Amanda, I do believe we should have a robust discussion at the full school committee on April 8th of whatever we are prepared to discuss. I'm not advocating brushing
any of this, but I feel like it's really important to put stakes in the ground on this conversation um at that full school committee level before the committee is reorganized. >> Yeah.
>> Um even if we're not able to bring it full circle with you, you know, with us, Amanda. Um so just putting like a just advocating for that. Um I I think it should involve the conversation about the circuit breaker piece and then
>> whomever joins the school committee um following the election can fold into the conversation, you know, and that's fine. >> Lizzy, and just a quick process question, can there be changes between the first reading and a second reading
of a policy or does it need to then go back to a first reading? No, I think that's that's intended as part of the process would be that the discussion that occurs during and the first reading >> and in turn lead to changes
so that the second reading um you know reflects what has been discussed. >> Yeah. But I just don't want to wait to like start that process until we have at the table someone who by definition like
will not have been part of any of this work of these many months. Um meanwhile not allowing Amanda to participate in it when this has been something she's >> put much work into. Nathan,
>> Lizzie, I just wanted to confirm you're talking about the circuit breaker policy in all of those comments, right? >> I'm talking about both. Um, okay. >> Circuit breaker and special ed reserve. You know, this this is one of the awkward things about the timing of our
elections in regard to like it's just uh we're not going to be able to sort of complete this scope of work as the full committee that has been working on it all year. And and
so that's that is what it is. Um, but I think that we should just um put something in place that's in that is like in process. That's what and because the policy process is designed to, you
know, spread out over um at least those two full school committee meetings. That's that's really all I'm talking about. So, you know, arguably the special ed reserve policy would be even more of a priority to
>> to move ahead because we're we seem to be kind of that's what's we've been focusing on here, for example. >> So, that's that's why I asked. I I think I'm I'm more I feel like we will end up having to prioritize here. I I am more concerned with the sped stabilization
fund policy. Um I think in uh in discussions we we've wanted to get that I ideally I would like that policy to be finalized in time for town meeting so that when town meeting is asked to vote on it they understand the policy that's going to control those funds and
>> agree >> just depending on I don't know what the cadence of meetings are if select board's going to if the select board's going to review this policy and ask us to weigh in again I don't know I could just see a I could just see it taking a little bit longer than we effect. Um,
and you know, I I I don't think we should um feel obligated to I think we should try to get the circuit breaker policy across the finish line. And if we can do that before the election, that's great.
Um, but I don't think that I don't know. I just I I want to get the sped stabilization policy complete. And if that delays the circuit breaker policy vote um because of the calendar, then I sort of
feel like so be it. Um I as as the rookie on the committee uh you know, you have to come in and start taking votes and get up to speed very quickly and that's just how it goes. And so that's what a new person will have to do. >> Yeah. I mean, I'd really like to get both of them done, but like from so from
a timeline perspective, we we have the ETH. We have the ETH for the school full school committee meeting. I think if on the ETH we can talk about a circuit breaker reserve policy and essentially do what we did today with the state bed stabilization
that you know we can get a policy draft to a place that you know we feel good about then we can take a vote through the ETH to recommend the stabilization fund policy and the circuit breaker policy to the full school committee and then the
night of the 8th we can read both those policies for the first time and talk them through to Lizz's point. So the you know I think we my understanding of the conversation is we feel in a good place where the current sped stabilization fund policy the piece that is necessary
is moving in select board. So I think if the again we just we might need to schedule a separate meeting with select board then uh with the finance committee. time and then I have no idea what their timeline is because the policy doesn't really matter if we have
it and select board doesn't have it. Um, and so why don't I try and talk to Megan and Winston, try and see if we can I send the draft and again they're recording this meeting as soon as it's ready, but I'll reach out to them today.
See if we can schedule time if they want time to talk through it tomorrow. Maybe they look at it and they're like, "Yeah, this looks totally fine." Because it's very much like the ones we've already shared, the draft versions with them. They've already reviewed those. Uh, but I think I'll be trying to schedule a meeting with them either next week or
the week of the 6th. Sometimes separate from, you know, it'll probably need to be the sixth or the 7th just to get their input before conversation the eth. That's like a narrow window. But in any situation, one of the driving factors there is how we coordinate with the select board on this bed stabilization
fund policy. Is is there any reason why I mean we could switch the date if it's important and we're crunched for time and we want to discuss circuit breaker and we feel like that we're trying to cram a lot into the eth that week that we could find a
different day next week or find a time to meet >> and then offer the eth or the slide board >> or I mean we could do I guess I'm just saying both. Is there a reason why we couldn't meet next week if we want if there's a lot that we want to get done prior to the eight and we won't have a
conversation about I mean because this took a lot of time for >> this so I imagine the other one >> um and I and I know that I keep hammering it and I and I completely understand they're two different policies but I do feel like having an
understanding of the full context of special education reserve funding whether you're calling it circuit breaker or you're calling it sped stabilization. Yes. I I find it very hard to have two different conversations about a policy when one is so informing
the other. And so I I just if we had the opportunity to talk more about it um >> as this committee or with >> as this committee. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This finance committee. >> Yes. Yeah. So is could I just say isn't this finance committee
um comfortable with the circuit breaker policy in general in the step sped stabilization fund policy in general? >> We don't have a circuit breaker fund policy in general. >> Well in general saying 75% >> 75%. >> Yeah. >> And um >> am I over no I don't know. I'm just
trying to unpack. So if we all feel comfortable, I think the two the the missing piece for my eyes within the school committee um the work is Anna and B and their current role as policy folks. What what is the way to expedite both of these
through their policy group into getting into full? I'm not sure if there's any technical measures there, but if we need, you know, they they should come if we want to meet like next Thursday, for example, >> and do this again. Uh, and they actually
have Winston and uh, Megan here as an example and go through this just try to get as many people involved in cross um, poster meetings as full school committee, finance and policy. >> Like let's just get it all moving and we're all the same people. for all the
same information and that that can be I'm just trying to I'm just trying to >> create a a cleaner workflow of the types of meetings that we have to have uh by statute in order to get the work done by somewhere around the 8th as much as we can.
>> Yeah. I just don't know if this needs to go through. See, >> if it doesn't, then that would be great because if it's a full school committee to full school committee, um, someone asked that question. I I don't know the answer to that question. If it doesn't, then great because we can just vote it as finance subcommittee
votes the recommendation school committee votes the new financial. >> Yeah, I think it still would need to follow the policy approval process at the level of the two readings. I I don't know if there's anything I I've seen
within school says it has to go through policy to get there. >> There's no way of approving a policy unless it goes through tech school. So, >> so then it's >> So, I think your point on Yeah, I think your point on trying to find a time next week makes sense. I think it really
depends on the select board. >> It's like said they can only meet on Wednesday morning and so the ETH is it? Then I think to your point, this group should try and find a time to meet on a different morning next week or a different time next week um to
to have the bigger conversations so we can try and have both those conversations because again I agree that I think they're aligned and I I just getting to Lizz's point both the first reading is kind of done by the 8th. We can just kind of really have a nail in the coffin here right after the
election. Um, the reward meeting would be great, Nathan. Sorry, I know you went off camera. Your hand I don't know if that hand's new or what's up. >> Oh, it's not new. Sorry. >> No problem. >> Um, all right. Uh, so I will reach out
to Winston and Megan uh and see what they want to do about a meeting and try and schedule that for next week or at least prior to the 8th. Um, thank you. Really appreciate a lot of work. We're we met. It's crazy
that we have met every week like the entire year and it still feels like we don't have enough time. >> I know. >> Uh, it's just nuts. So, thank y'all. Uh, anything else that we should discuss? If not, I will take a motion to adjurnn.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh, all in favor? Roll call. Uh, Nathan, >> yes. >> Uh, Amanda, >> yes. >> I am a yes. Great. All right. >> I'll be in touch. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone.