like to call the meeting to order of the North Middle Sex Regional School District Finance Subcommittee at 9:02 a.m. on April 3rd, 2026. Um, roll call of members. Lisa Martin
>> here. >> Mike Labosier >> here. >> Keenan Francois >> here. >> And I am Kim Craraven. So, we have all the members present um from the administration. We have um
Superintendent Morgan, uh Kevin Cormier, and Nancy Haynes, and of course, Robin Ivy. Um if we could um take a look at the February 26th and then the March 5th minutes. um if we
could do them together as one vote if every after everyone's had a chance to look and see if they're okay to proceed. >> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes dates, please. Oh. Oh, no. I'm gonna have to flip back.
>> I can I can I can do it if you want. >> You go ahead. >> All right. I I move that we accept the February 25th, 2026 and March 5th, 2026 minutes. >> I have a second for Mike's motion. Thank you Lisa.
>> Sorry. >> So, roll call vote. Um um if we could just note that Jeremy Hammond did join at 9:03. Um so roll call. Lisa Martin, yes. >> Michaelier,
>> yes. >> Francois, >> yes. >> Kim Craraven, I am a yes as well. Um do we have anything for the public comment? >> No, I don't have anyone signed up and I
I I don't have any attendees. Okay. So, let's move into the old business and let's take a look at the FY26 budget. Um the spending to date and any information that we have related to the FY26 budget.
Um Superintendent, do you want to take the lead on that or do you want um Kevin and Nancy to do so? >> Um Kevin and Nancy can start off on that part. >> Um so, I'll start I guess. Um so in the packet is the latest expenditure report
and uh it also includes a transfer uh a request for a transfer between uh the lines and it's a pretty simple transfer. There's really an um I was able to do some shuff shuffling of lines. Um
earlier in the year we thought we would need to move a fair amount of money into the out of district uh assessments line. Um, but because the the tuitions have come in lower than anticipated, I didn't need to do that.
So, I'm leaving that uh as is, which means that really there's a a number of changes. If you look at the detail line of the column that is the budget transfer line um between lines but ultimately it boils down to moving
177,373 from the instructional area lines to um operations and maintenance for and and I'm sort of designating that mainly as a utility hold and snow and ice related costs and that's 140,392
and then the the other transfer amount was 36,981 to the debt service interest line. And typically we don't have to do that, but um as one of our notes has the option or has the um the plan of using a
premium that came in with that with that note to offset the interest and that um was supposed to be in that line item when we did the budget but didn't get put in there. So I'm I'm adding that now. Essentially, it doesn't come out of um towns
uh debt service lines. It comes out of a different location, but I wanted to cover it so it looks so they understand that we're we're planning on spending that. Um so that's the 36,981. Um that's really that's that's kind of it. It's a simple transfer. I don't u
believe we'll need another one before the end of the year. Sometimes things come in at the end of the year fast and furious. Um, I'm hoping we won't need to do it again, but um, that's asking if the committee would consider these transfers um, per this FY26-1
transfer report. >> And you're muted. makes it better if I you can hear me. Um, so thank you for explaining what the transfer is for. Um, did any committee members have any additional questions on the transfer request?
>> I have no questions. Seems pretty straightforward. >> No. >> How do you want the motion read? Do we have to read all the numbers in this one? I know we have to do it in the school committee meeting, but in this one, can we just say approve the
transfer? >> Yeah, I think you could say approve uh support the transfer or recommend the transfer 26 FY26-1 the full committee. Something like that. >> Yeah, maybe just say as proposed, Lisa,
and then we're covered. >> As proposed, um I will make a motion to accept the transfer and recommend it to the full school committee. >> Second.
>> Have a roll call. We've got a motion by Lisa and a second by Mike. So, roll call. Lisa Martin. >> Yes. >> Mike Labosier. >> Yes. >> Kina Francois. >> Yes. >> And I'm Kim Craraven and I am a yes as well.
>> Thank you. Uh so like to talk a little bit more about um the FY 20 six um budget
and the current um sheet that you had given us for the one uh FY26 by appropriation category. the one that shows um all of the remaining balances, the anticipated expenditures, I should
say unencumbered, the anticipated expenditures and then the remaining balances. Um and it's the weight um on the right is the blue column for the transfers. So I know at a previous meeting we had
talked that um you know this was earlier as um you were tracking the budget that there might be a little bit less in the remaining balances um with your transfer. Sounds like you've got a buffer for for snow and ice and
utility in the line item as needed. Um, but is there anything else unexpected that you feel might come in? I know you have anticipated, but is there anything else out there that you're thinking about that we might be facing between
now and the end of the year? I from my perspective I think uh we're going to be meeting on capital so I'm assuming my anticipated expenditures will cover most of that um for our capital projects that might
get designated before the end of the year. Um the only areas that I may you know would potentially maybe want to touch base with is uh special education. make sure that I have all the purchase orders for all the placements.
And I think uh Kevin maybe had spoken to Erin this week. >> Yeah, we went through all the open purchase orders for uh non tuition items and were able to clean up a lot of those. So, we we we think we have a pretty good sense of what's left there.
Um as Nancy mentioned, there's we'll have a capital meeting. Um, we also are meeting a I'm meeting with Dave uh later on this morning about um some of the uh supplemental funds that we got for you
know paving and other projects. So, I mean there's always the possibility that in all of that sort of surveying and and and laying out a scope of service, we we may run into something that we we hadn't really looked at yet. But I think we're keeping it pretty high level uh you know
with a with a paving project that there shouldn't be too many areas where a major issue would pop up. But I guess you know it's it's better to be safe than sorry and just kind of anticipate that you know if there's a if there's a place where something may arise that
could be it. But other than that I think um I think we've done a pretty good job um calibrating where we expect to be. And then we've also are kind of put out to department heads and buildings to um be proactive with their end of end of
year spending and not kind of hit us with a lot of orders in like mid June. So, you know, we have a better idea of of what that looks like, you know, maybe by June 1 about, you know, classroom supplies, you know, uh replenishments, things of that that nature.
um for the paving project um if I'm remembering this correctly, the um sticker assessment for the students for their parking. Would that be partially used for that as well? >> It could be. This this is the the money that was voted in as a supplemental
budgets 150,000 for for the Varnum and 250 for for Townsen. And so we're trying to figure out how we can make it one big project that we could put out to bid at once. Um so that would just be from that state money and if you know if it goes over like parking could be in place. Um but you know we'll we'll we'll have to
see what what the what would apply. >> Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any other questions about the FY26 budget with the appropriations and the remaining balance?
Uh if I could be, it's not really a question about that, but kind of piggybacking on your previous question. Uh I think we're fine for this year and similar to the paving question, um just feels like I should give the
committee a heads up. I am seeing some fluctuation that I'm trying to navigate for some technology related costs uh particularly in the areas of any devices that require uh memory or RAM. Uh those
costs are going up significantly and having an impact. Uh thus far I'm trying to get ahead of some of our summer refresh uh and working with vendors I've worked with for a while. They're trying to find where they can get me deals to
get around that. But that is an area that is currently unstable. As well as some of our licensing costs. Uh can't quite explain why, but some of those licensing costs seems to seem to be fluctuating. I'm trying to navigate
that. So right now, I don't see an immediate issue and I don't think that's going to impact this year's budget. uh but it is something that I am starting to watch closely and I want to give a heads up just because it could have an impact. Uh for now I think it's a matter
of you know quantities that I order that type of thing so I'll be able to stay within budget. Uh but it could be an issue somewhere down the line. uh paving. I spoke with Dave and yeah, Dave's getting a quote for um a larger scope that will be prioritized so we can
stay within budget by essentially or very close to by essentially following a priority list of what gets paved. >> Any other questions or comments? >> I just have a question for Jeremy. When you say fluctuate,
how big a percentage is are we fluctuating? >> Um, so it varies and some of the scarier numbers I've seen weren't even necessarily with memory. Uh, unfortunately in the markets, very uncertain about things like tax cuz a
lot of technology comes from overseas. Uh right now I'm not seeing it on other hardware, but I've seen fluctuations even on like projectors of up to 30% increases. Uh so fortunately, I've been able to
navigate those. Uh and sometimes it changes week to week. Uh a lot of my technology vendors right now are only willing to commit to a price that they quote me for a week at most because things are fluctuating so much.
Uh, and I'm just I've been working with a lot of these people for a while, so I just kind of keep an eye on it and um managing it where I can. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> And I saw you had your hand up, but it
went away. Did you >> still have asked uh what I what I was going to ask. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um, well, I I have a thought um if folks
don't mind me pushing this idea forward. Um I know maybe two meetings ago we were talking about what the balance might look like and I know you no one has that crystal ball but we were projecting
potentially around 1.6 six um in the remaining balance area and right now we're tracking and looking at uh 2.188. So I was extremely comfortable
um with ending the year with 1.6 there. When I look at this, I see a potential opportunity for the district. Um I don't know how others would see it. So, um, poke holes in it if if you think it's needed, um, or we can talk about a
little bit more. But I see there's a delta from what we had talked about of about $588,000. And when I look at some of the tech line items, you know, one is 270, another one is 170 plus or minus. Um,
I'd I'd love to float the idea that we provide the administration the flexibility to purchase some technology out of FY26 um that then if you whatever whatever
that number is um but say it's 300 um or or 350 that the administration can take a look at things you know know that you tightened their belt in FY25. Um you that they didn't have the opportunity to purchase some things that
they might want to before that if we purchase those now under FY26 and and I'll just use numbers. I'm not set on any just a concept um that that we give them three or 350,000 um to pre- purchase.
It would not change the budget that we voted on, but then we could give um a reduced assessment to the municipalities of say 250 to give them a little bit of breathing room, but it also would give the administration some breathing room
in the FY27 budget. And I'm not saying that we had to go down to that 1.6 just because I was comfortable with that number, but I'd love to see what other committee members think about. So the concept is purchasing some of the technology, you know, the the hard costs
in this budget year so that they don't have to be purchased in FY27. Give a little more breathing room to the municipalities, but also give some breathing room to the administration because that that purchase would be gone
and off the table. Is that how does that sound, Mike? I see your hand out. >> Yep. I I agree with uh with with doing that. I think especially given the you know fluctuations which really you know increases we can just say increases in
price of everything related to technology right now which you know largely can be attributed to our you know the AI boom and all of the memory and storage devices and stuff that are currently being bought up by you know all of these AI data centers so that the
prices of everything goes up for everything for consumers which is just you know very very frustrating. trading as an as an individual who occasionally likes to purchase, you know, various technology things, I see I see these prices going up as well. So, if we can try to get
ahead of that a little bit by buying as much of this stuff as we reasonably can within the budget um as early as we can, I think that is a good thing for us to do cuz it'll it'll I I don't see the prices of any of this stuff going down
anytime in the next ever ever basically. So, if we can get ahead of the increases a little bit by by purchasing some of this stuff now, that would be a good thing in my opinion. >> I Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ke.
>> No, go ahead. I need to collect my thoughts. So, I was just going to say I I do think that as far as prepaying for anything at this point, I I do think we should move in the direction wherever possible
because we don't know what's going on in the world. Um, and with regard to how that's going to impact everything, certainly know that, you know, oil and gas are going up, but those types of things are going are going to have and have already started to have a negative
impact on other goods and services. And if it continues, it could get to a point where it is becomes unaffordable. So I I do think that if we are able to prepay for technology, we're probably
going to get it at a low point or the lowest point it will be at right now for a while unless something drastically changes. >> Thank you, Superintendent. Um >> I know Kenan was was gathering thoughts.
Um Lisa, do you have any thoughts? I'm still gathering my thoughts as well. >> Okay. So, I I'll gather them quickly though. >> Okay. >> If you want me to jump in, I could explain kind of um Kim, what I think you're saying and and what would the process would be?
>> Yes, >> certainly the the prepaid concept is uh possible for especially for some of the purchases like technology that we need to make. Anyway, I just want to uh talk about the 27 budget. If we're hoping to uh give something back to the towns,
then we would need to revote the 27 budget um to take out those line items or adjust them and uh so that the towns can have a new assessment. It it doesn't have to happen immediately, but the question would be, does this something that we wanted to
have happen before town meeting or are we going to just wait till a fall meeting to adjust? Um and and also just to put this in out there another possibility is uh in the area of uh tuitions and circuit breaker because we
have funding available there. we can swing, you know, especially if we're talking a couple hundred thousand, 250, 300,000 to circuit breaker. We could charge more of those cost in the circuit breaker account for FY27, therefore reducing the budget. But again, that
budget would go down whether it goes down by technology costs or whether it goes down by um circuit breaker or some other line items um that it would have to get revoted in order to give the towns a new assessment. So,
I I'm not asking necessarily for the budget, the FY27 budget to change. It's a shift and then the reduction. So, what that looks like on your end, you're
the pro at that. Um, so it it would be some money spent now, say $10, right? So, we're going to spend $10 now um of what you would have spent
for next year. But I'm not proposing that we go down in the budget by $10. I think there's a a a happy meeting in place. So, it's it's not a one for one that if if we
pre-spend $10 now, have the budget go down $6, not the whole 10. Does that make more sense? Cuz I want Yeah. I want I want you to use the money now. Leave a good budget on the table.
And of that my my opinion only others might have a different number to reduce the assessment by by 250. And so my my thought would be to give you the latitude and again this is just my number want the committee to do a number
that they're comfortable with. I was very comfortable when you had said that it it would be coming out of the year with 1.6. So giving you that latitude of spending up to that number. So it would be what? 588,000
out of FY26. But that all my request would be to change the assessment to the towns would be 250,000. So it it would leave whatever that difference is. So if you guys decide the magic number is 500, it leaves more
flexibility of that 250. So municipalities get 250, your FY27 budget gets relief of 250. so that you have in that FY27 budget a little bit more flexibility for
fluctuations of multitude of things that could come down the line for FY27. So, >> okay, I understand. >> Okay, I see
Kevin and Jeremy with hands up. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of add to just that, you know, not to pile on to possible um you know, thoughts about the fall into prepayment and fluctuating prices. We did we haven't had a chance as a team to talk about this yet because
it just came in with the last couple of days. Um but Vanpool has given us a hint of what is coming. Um, essentially if we are to keep the two 4% increases over the next two years that we've sort of
agreed to, the FY29 increase could be 18%. Or we could enter a new contract that spreads that increase out over the next three years and it's not as drastic 2 years from now. And that's 18% today. I mean, again, with gas prices and you,
you know, uh, so on and so forth, could be, you know, upwards in 20 25% like, who knows? Um, so that would just be another option that the committee might want to think about is, you know, as allocating, you know, for those anticipated, unanticipated increases, like there's another area that we're
going to have to have a conversation about. So, that just might be something that we wanted to put on your radar as well. >> Thank you. Yeah, that I can't imagine um gas coming down anytime soon. Um, it just goes higher and higher. So
>> I would just add too that uh the van pool isn't just gas. They are they shared with us that they gave a significant pay increase to their drivers um in order to keep them. So unfortunately Vanpool has really been
for us much like Deepus the only business in town when it comes to special education transportation. Um that does not have to go out to bid but nonetheless they're still essentially the only one that we have been able to depend on. um to get our special education students both in and out of
district um to and from their locations on a daily basis. >> Jeremy, >> uh so first of all, I love the idea of trying to purchase what we can. As I said, prices I'm getting lucky where I
can so far, but um technology costs are looking like they're going to go up in the short term. Uh so I would love to frontload that and take advantage where I can. I'm a little concerned about the other end of it of reducing
technology budget even for next year's as a result on two fronts. One is because the prices are going up and I didn't anticipate that in October November when putting together my budget request. Uh, so with prices going up and
my budget being slim, cut as slim as I could, I don't know that there's a lot of wiggle room there to even I'm trying to frontload what I can just to make sure that next year's budget still covers. Um,
the other piece is I've always tried to budget and plan out technology refreshes in a way that I can be as consistent with my ask possible. And I'm a little concerned about if in the next budget cycle because we've
reduced if we reduce the FY27 further uh for the technology lines and then for FY28 I have to increase to both make up the difference to continue refresh process but also make up the difference
for increased costs for license and hardware technology. it's going to be too much sticker shock uh for us to be able to maintain those budgets where they need to be. So, I just want to caution a little bit that I I don't want
to lose that consistency and suddenly hit the committee with massive increase requests. I'd rather try to stay consistent where I can. >> Understood. I I I hear your concern. Um, and it's a valid one, but I don't want
to um worry everyone that the budget would be affected in a in the exact amount that you're going to spend. It's just to reduce the assessment by 250 and it doesn't while
we're spending it out of technology and curriculum and supplies, I think it can be spread across all of those line items, right? So you're you're taking some out of a few buckets um to pre-spend and then however it's
reflected in the administration's mind um to be the best line item to have it reflected out of I'm comfortable with. Right? And then at the end of the year if we have to transfer something in from somewhere else um cuz you're going to have more
budget in FY27, right? without asking for a full reduction of what you spend now. >> Uh, right. But my f I I think my FY27's already lower than my FY26
>> because I was trying to cut back. Uh, however, I hear your general point where it's not necessarily purely a technology thing. >> U, that's well taken. >> So, thank you. >> And for this juncture, um, and Ken, I see you have your your hand up. What I
would say is we don't make any decisions today other than an amount like you can go up to but I would not be prescriptive to say where I would just be descriptive
of like hey I'm comfortable with the administration using X amount out of FY26 and whatever whatever that is. um like 250 of it to be a reduced assessment and
whatever the numbers come back on like if it's in a different category I'm comfortable with that right you we've had another month to look at it and I would say that what what we would do is float it by the rest of the committee on
t Tuesday or next Tuesday a week from this coming Tuesday right >> the yeah so not this week coming up at the week after we float it by the committee a number and then
before town meeting. So the last week in April we would need to have another finance committee meeting and another school committee meeting with just that agenda item on it is what I would suggest. But Kenan's had his hand
up for a long time. So let let me get to Kenan. or doing that meeting. Um, you have to consider that there's like a lame duck time in there because of elections because like no one's been appointed to
the finance committee because elections are on the 27th. >> So, we would have to do it by the 26th. >> Yes. >> Okay. Kanan. >> Yeah. After um hearing all the points demonstrated here, I I would definitely
be in favor of doing um a a sort of prepaid thing up to whatever amount that we agree on, whether that be 588, whether that be 250, 300, whatever. Um
I I do share Jeremy's um concerns where I wouldn't I would have severe hesitation reducing any of our budget um like with that 250 figures that we say to in order to reduce the assessment to give back to
the town. Um even if it's coming from multiple buckets um just from the technology point of view um obviously everything is going up at a substantial amount um you know in enterprise and you
know business you know it's a lot easier to manage when you're buying in in bulk but you know individual components like for consumers of you know are up easily 200%. Um now
we are we've already beaten the dead horse where it is you know or technology has taken a taken the hit year after year and you know ass have been reduced and you know refreshes haven't happened
or projects have been delayed but um I don't think that's sustainable and I If we also we still have the question of whether we can fit another technician into Jeremy's budget for 28.
I believe we said 28 27. I'm I'm not I'm sorry. I don't particularly remember, but I don't think it's I don't think it would be prudent to reduce our budget in any way. um given, you know, the constraints that
he's already under. Um I just I don't think that would be a smart decision. Yeah, I I I tend to agree that like I think that you know again the the prepaying idea is a good one, but I I do
think that rather than using rather than reducing the assessment for FY27, I think it would basically I think it would give us a little bit more sort of buffer to absorb those unanticipated increases in
costs which I think you know the specific increases are unanticipated, but I think it's pretty easy to say that like costs are going to increase in the near future and that having a little extra buffer to account for that isn't a bad thing and I think is is actually the
more sort of I I think is the responsible thing to do in this case is that we you know we we can take the sort of somewhat unanticipated extra you know not extra but like the the le you know
the more available to spend for this for this FY I think you know spending it now is is a good thing but because if just for my own information that the whatever is left over at the end that's that's our END right like that that goes into
the excess and deficiency >> okay so right now the the the anticipation is that that amount would be that 2.1 as opposed to the original like 1.6 So like bringing that back down closer to that original 1.6 I think is a good
is fine and and good. But I don't think that we should reduce the the FY27 budget. At least not not anytime soon. I think that like if we get into next year and it's looking like things are actually more stable than we expected
then um I mean I guess at that point it's too late to reduce the budget or or is it No, it's not too late. >> No, you could you could do that. uh you can take a vote on that budget and uh the only issue would be that if the
towns are wanting this for FY27 for to balance their budget, >> they would end up having to I guess I don't know maybe wait with their balance budget or make an adjustment and hold and then they would have to do a fall town meeting and take advantage of the
new the reduced budget at that time. So, it's doable. just a matter of how we how we're all feeling, how the committee wants to proceed with that. >> Yeah. My my personal opinion is would be to not change the FY27 budget just because there's so much there's so much
that could potentially cause us to need more money for more than we anticipate that like again having that slight extra buffer um you know wouldn't be a bad thing. So I will say that the not not the sole
reason but the driver for me to bring this forward um in analyzing the budget was to to help out all right so would be helping the school budget because they would have more money than they do now
right so if if I hadn't brought this forward the budget would have stood as it is everything would be spent out of FY27 If we give the flexibility to spend out of FY26, that alleviates the pressure point on
the FY27 budget for the school. Um, I would not feel comfortable doing that without giving back to the towns as well. Lisa, I see your hand. and then superintendent and then Kenan.
>> Um I'm kind of on the fence because I see it both ways, but but the like things that are unknown always pop up and or have been popping up more frequently now in our school budget.
So giving the assessments to a lower assessment to the towns I'm not comfortable with at this time. Um but you know again cuz PPE did last year go into an
unsettled budget until the fall. Um, they had approved the school budget and like Nancy said, we can revote the budget to go lower for their assessments if our towns feel they need this. And so
that's kind of my thought right now, but I do believe in the pre-spending to get ahead of the costs that are coming. So, I don't know. Just my thoughts right now. Superintendent
I >> and again ju just want the the finance committee to know I I think that you already do know this but we will certainly do whatever we can to help the towns when we're able to do so. Um I I do just want to add and you know
certainly willing to look into this if the committee would like us to do that as well. the the concerns that I have um are that when I first started eight years ago, uh we always had, you know, in the range of, you know, a couple
hundred,000 in contingency money that was just kind of earmarked for what could be special education overages that we weren't expecting. Things moveins, um DCF placements, surprise out of district placement, things of that
nature. We do not have that money in the budget anymore. So, we don't have a contingency line. Um, I think everyone knows that we're pretty committed at this point to um to hire an additional um technician for the technology department. I think we need to do that
in order to keep up with the work that needs to be done in the district. And then the other thing that has come up which you know is a surprise to a point is that now that the high school scheduling is done it does appear as though we have a problem in grade 10 in
two of our humanities classes uh being English and social studies where we have a couple of sections that are eclipsing uh 30 um and those are in college prep classes uh which would have you know a good amount of special educate ation
students in them as well. Um, in addition to being uh English and history classes, the correcting in those classes due to the amount of writing is substantial. So, we want to make sure that the teachers um have manageable
class sizes. So, we would be looking at the potential of fractions of English of possibly a 2 or even a point 4 English 2.4 for social studies to address um that issue in grade 10. That being said,
um you know, and you'll hear on the 14th, the high school is proposing 10 school choice students in grade 9, 10, and 11, which if filled, which you know, filling them all would be a stretch, um could give us additional money to help
fund those additional um fractions of positions. So what what I was originally proposing was that you would have this is what I would have would have proposed is that you have up to 588,000
to pre-spend preuse in FY 26 um for things that you might want to do in FY27 with the contingency that 250 go back to the municipalities. So, I was if with
that number it gave you a $338,000 contingency would that would have been my proposal. Kenan, I think um Superintendent Morgan uh
articulated it uh quite well. Um, I think over the years we have done our very best. Um, and sometimes doing our very best means that we as the schools have undoubtedly fallen on the sword, so
to speak. Um, and I don't um I don't support and I don't perpetuate the the us versus them, town, schools versus town kind of motto here. But we in creating this budget, we took great
effort to make it work for all three towns to make sure that everyone got what they asked for. Um and even in that case um there were you know disproportionately assessment from one from you know ashby to pep roll
is like 4% difference um and there's nothing that we can do about that um and while I wish that we were in a position where we could further support the
municip the municipalities and and give back, you know, say 250 as proposed. I just don't think that we are given the volatility of just literally everything right now. Um, I don't think anyone here could have
predicted that we would be back in the Middle East. Um, and probably will be staying in the Middle East for another decade. I don't think anyone here could have predicted a global energy crisis, literally anything or a silicon shortage, RAM
shortage, whatever. Um, and I think, you know, as said, we've lost a lot of our contingency funds. Um, so if we can just use this as an opportunity to just try to get back a
little bit more stable on the horse, then I think it's an opportunity that we should take. And um, yeah, I think we should just take it and be okay with not giving anything back.
So >> yeah. Um, I mean, the school district, we've stripped things out of our budget the last, I don't know, probably 3 years trying to make things work. And so maybe
maybe we take a little bit of relief and do a restore method to some of the stuff that we've taken away and put back. Um, and I know that Jeremy is drowning in the technology side. Um, and everyone is like they've taken on extra roles and
everything. So, and I know that towns are challenging too, but we do need to have a little bit of a buffer. And I think this might be the year that we just take that. And again, we can lower it in
the fall if the towns are having difficulty. We can come back and reassess the budget. >> Yeah. I I I I I really do think I think we just need to take the win. Um we this
was a hard cycle and we came out of it in a pretty good position I think um after year over year of struggle. So I
I don't think anyone could articulate a compelling argument uh at least for me to convince me that we are somehow doing an injustice or being selfish quote unquote by
trying to maintain the well-being of the school district. Um so yeah. Yeah. I have a question on the FY27 budget and the proposals that are going on with the
supplemental funds. Um should those um amendments that Representative Scarsdale supported with the transportation and the special education? Um, how much more is that
going to give us in our budget? I know there was a uh earmark in there that looks like it was 30,000, but there was talk about an amendment to that. So, I'm not sure what the total numbers will be for our district specifically from that supplemental should it go forward.
It sounds like they're looking at special education. I think they're looking potentially at transportation. Uh, one thing that could help um without really changing any budget would be if they do give us more transportation in FY26,
my recommendation probably would be to uh we we established a regional transportation uh fund quite a few years ago. And the only use for that would be to if there's e additional chapter 71 money that comes in, if there's
additional transportation money above what we budgeted, uh we can put it in that account and that would have to be spent into FY27. So, I think if that could happen, that would also that would be another step towards um and that would be like I mean
make everyone happy, I think, because we'd be able to use that for FY27. No budget change. Um but I don't know those numbers yet. I think um there's amendments due. Is it true? I think on Monday or something like that I read. Yeah. So, I think
there definitely this would be a way to to go forward with this this idea here. Um if there's additional circuit breaker money that could also work. Um so I think that would be really great actually and the 30,000 I believe is was
cons being considered for the Spalding um electrical work. So it's really not a particularly a budget related thing but that would certainly helpful. >> Might be a little bit of a wait and see that's all. Kim, are you talking about
the supplementary like with transportation and some of those areas >> that they got through? >> Um, what I'd heard it was around 50,000, >> but I'm not sure that that's that's besides the 30,000 that they've
done for the Spalding project. >> Yeah. Sometimes you don't hear like we I don't always get the the numbers of how it's going to roll down. depends on if they amend it again and um change something, but 50,000 would be really a good step towards that. It's great.
>> Well, and I don't know if that 50,000 has totally been approved. >> Did it go through the Senate yet? >> No. So, >> it's not final yet. >> Yeah. And that one didn't like last year we didn't get they kept saying that it was going to be the end of April we'd hear about it and that one didn't come
through till the end of June, that supplemental budget. So, so it's a hard planning for that if you know. Um, so I guess I'll leave it to to y'all to figure out if there's a motion or
not. Um, because I wouldn't be suggesting a motion at this point. Just to um clarify, we left the last meeting with comfortable with 1.6 in END um for
next year coming in. I just want to make sure that I have that correct in my head. >> That's what we had talked about and that's what the notes reflect. Yes. >> Okay. Um and if we're what's the exact number we're coming we're estimating
now? 2.188. >> Yeah. >> Yes. So um gi given the discussion that I think we've exemplified here and also um our previous discussions at previous
meetings I I would be comfortable just making it even at five or authorizing a $500,000 uh repayment of whatever the whatever the administration
's discretion is in reference to technology um with no um give back to the towns if that's amanable to everyone. >> Is that a motion?
Does it have to I >> does it do we need a motion on it or because >> yeah able to spend the money >> from >> from my perspective. Um
it is the administration's budget to spend. Um I brought it forward as as a thought. Um, and again, I had let you guys put all your thoughts on the table before I brought it up. And could they spend,
they can spend their budget however they want. They could come back to us with $200,000 in it. Nothing we can do because we approved that budget. Um
my thought process behind bringing it forward was to support the administration um alleviate their FY27 budget but also the municipalities. So while it was a concept I brought
forward uh I won't support it um without something going back to the towns but it doesn't matter cuz the administration can spend their money how they want. Uh so it was while a concept
they don't need our permission to spend their budget. Um this was just something as a way to try to make our entire district and all the communities whole. So no there doesn't have to be um a motion
to bring it forward to the whole school committee in order for the administration to spend their money. that we've already told them that that's their money, right? So, we don't have to say, you know, just because this paper says
anticipated um anticipated expenditures in a remaining balance, they could come to us next month and say "Oh our anticipated expenditures were higher."
And that's totally allowable. It's it's their budget. So So saying that we're giving them permission, no, they already had permission last February to spend that amount. It was knowingly providing an offset um
in a handoff to the towns. So we lost Keenan because he's having another conversation. So then do we just move forward without any motion? >> Well, Kan, so don't know what to do, but it's it's
up to >> Sorry, I'm in a I'm in a public place and I got approached. >> Um Kenan, you're fine with just moving forward. We don't need a motion as >> if >> we don't >> we don't need
>> if it's not required then that's fine. >> I think we it I think it was it was a it was a good discussion to have though. I think it's worth talking about some something like this to to sort of just hash it out and get the ideas out. So but if we don't need a motion then I think we can just move on.
The motion part Keenan was only to give a recommendation to the whole committee if this body was willing to reduce the assessment. That's the only thing that would be acted on by the whole board spending the budget. They don't need
permission. >> All right. Next item on there. I know we have the fiscal reserve policy. I don't have anything to discuss on that. Um I know well I shouldn't say that. At the
our last full committee meeting there was discussion about formally waving the policy but I don't think that's a finance committee decision. That has to be a full um school committee decision cuz it there was one member that wanted
it formally noted that we were not following the policy, but the policy doesn't say shall. So >> yeah, >> that's that's a let that's yours to deal with, not not mine here as chair of this subcommittee, but you as chair of the
school committee, that's on yours. Um, but I am interested um to learn what's transpired on the solar panels for Ashb. Um, I know Nancy, you were making some initial calls. I don't know if you have an update for us on that.
Yeah, I did uh reach out to both our attorney and to the town of Ashb uh administration and uh I think what the general approach again I'm kind of waiting for response from Ashby on that but the general approach will be to have our attorney
and the Ashb uh attorney work together to draft a proposal of a transfer to the solar company. Um, so I think we're kind of that's the the general direction it's heading. We we we haven't linked the two
attorneys yet, but I believe that should be in the next week or two that should happen. Um, our attorney is going to be away for a bit, so it may not be till the end of April, but we do have time to to craft this and propose it and um have both sides be okay with the transfer
language and then uh submit to the solar company. Again, I think this should be in place before the end of before the October uh timeline. So, there is time for for this, but um that's really I I didn't get a a response one way or the other whether it was absolutely the only
option, but uh it sounds like Ashb would be a minimal to potentially um looking at it at least right now. That's update I have. All right. Um anyone have any questions for Nancy on that topic?
>> Nope. Okay. Um, has anyone um public comment is not this next one. It's future meetings. Um, when should our next meeting be? >> Do we need one before the school
committee meeting? The >> 14th. Does the admin believe we need one? >> I don't think so. I don't think anything's coming in before that time, right, Nancy? There's no extra numbing numbers or
any unknown. >> As far as uh as far as the state budget, I believe the House is the next budget to be released that may come in before the 14th, but I suspect it'll be later than that. Might be like the week after. So, that'll be interesting to see what they propose,
but I don't think it's necessary before the next school committee. I'm I'm not sure we'll have I'm not 100% sure we'll have it by then. >> So, how about the 24th? >> Just in case there something that we need to do before the election. Is that
is that the last date that we would be able to >> It's that Friday, right? The 24th. >> That would be the last date. I'm It is school vacation week, but I am around on the 24th. >> Yeah. I I just would feel uncomfortable
not having one before the change in case something was needed by the administration, you know, another transfer or anything, whatever it might be. Um, I'd just like to have it on the books, even if it's just five or 10 minutes to check in. Is that okay with everybody?
>> Okay, perfect. Um, >> what time do you want to do? >> Do you guys want to do eight or nine? I'm fine with either. >> Oh, nine's fine. >> Yeah, yeah, nine's a little easier just because uh dropping off kiddo at school.
>> It's school vacation. >> School vacation. That's right. Oh, yeah. Actually, 8 a.m., right? Um 8 a.m. would be fine then. If that if that's easier for for >> Let's Let's do eight. >> Keen, does eight work for you? >> It's not school vacation week for me,
but I >> That's okay. and and Kenan, if it's just a 5 10 minute check-in, we'll know like what the meeting agenda is going to be by that time. So, >> you would not have to come because we would have a quorum. >> Yeah, >> I can do eight.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, Kenan. >> Um Okay, fantastic. Um has anyone joined us um and requested public comment, Robin? >> No. All right. So, I will entertain um
motion to adjurnn. >> So, move. >> Second. >> All right. Uh roll call. Um well, we've got a a motion by uh Kenan and a second by Mike. Uh roll call. Lisa Martin. >> We didn't hear you, Lisa.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Um Michael Boser. >> Yes. Keenan Francois. >> Yes, >> I'm Kim Craven. I'm Yes, too. Um, all right. >> Have a good week. We'll see you. Well,
we'll see you on the school committee and then we'll see you on the 24th. >> Yeah. All right. Take care. Bye.