001Uh, I will call the meeting to order here at 8:06 a.m. uh we will look at the agenda. I thought we'd start first with the fees discussion since we need to vote on that uh and that affects kind of the overall budget and then we jump into the uh review of kind of from the slides in the presentation. I can share some of the questions that we've gotten from the war committee which um hopefully we're I think already addressing some of those in the slides and can talk about some other ones in the slides. Uh, all right. So, I will share my screen to share the fee memo. Um, Katie, I think it might be helpful if just as a starting place you want to provide kind of high level and then also think you
002kind of you pretty much capture it in the memo, but just say like what is the department's recommendation related to the at least the like 75,000. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So there are um recommendations for modifications for three of the fees. It includes the transportation fee. So that is the fee that we charge our families. It's a per student fee and there is a family cap um and that is the fee that we charge the riders um that were not legally obligated to transport to school. So, the state mandates that we transport students in grades K through six that live 2 miles or further um from their house to the school. And so the fee that we're charging is for the students that um are in grade 7 through 12 or live within the
0032 miles. So again, the current fee being 325, family cap of 650. Um there is a $50 late fee that is charged per family if a student registers after the deadline that was just instituted last year. Um and so we also um kind of in addition to the fee, we have put a recommendation of um adding back one bus into the operating budget for fiscal year 27. And so a piece of when we were looking at the fees and how much to charge also incorporated the fact that we would have additional ridership that we could um potentially offer a slot to because um we would be adding that bus staff. And so that was part of the analysis knowing that um for that bus it could potentially only be like an additional 40 students that
004be feebased. Um >> and so if you look at um the grid it just shows the current number of students um that had paid and this is all data that are for the 20 by 26 school year. the current price that we're charging and the revenue um that we receive for those students paying that fee. And then you can just see each tier of increasing it by $25 making the assumption that we will increase capacity by 50 students and that's 50 feebased riders. Um, and if you increase the price by $25 per student, which would also increase the family cap, um, and you can see the additional revenue that we would be making kind of at each level. Um, the recommendation um, or what we built into that budget as increase revenue was $75,000 total.
005Yeah. And so um for transportation that would be just increasing it by um or increasing it by $25 and that's with that additional bus. >> Um the second fee is the student activity fee for um for the high school. And so we actually um reviewed this last year and discussed it last year as well, but we wanted to bring it up again. Um, the current fee for high school student activities is $25 a club with a $50 per student maximum. And then once the students hit that maximum, they can participate in as many clubs as they want. So they could participate in 10 clubs and it would be $50. Um, the current revenue received is about $22,000. Um the impact of increasing the cost per club for the high school is shown in that grid.
006Um and again we built in 75,000 overall as a fee increase into the budget. So it's going to be a combination of the three um increases. So it's uh the 40,000 from transportation, 17,000 from student activities. So that would be increasing >> what we're using um by the 17,000. So I just one note is um initially in the budget we had said that we were going to use $7,500 from the revenue received to offset the expenses in the budget. But you can see that the current revenue received is $22,000. And so there's actually more revenue that we're bringing in that we could use to offset the budget at the current fee. Does that make sense? So excuse me. So right now we are saying for next year that we were only going to use $7,500
007of the revenue received to offset the expenses in the operating budget. And the expenses that we would offset is that money essentially is going to pay for the stipens >> for the advisors that are are helping out with the club. >> And then as we started to look at the data this year, the high school has done a really nice job at making sure um coming up with a system to track the fees and to track the collections. So, we've increased the revenue that we received kind of above and beyond what we've received historically for student activities. >> So, instead of just thinking that we were going to get $7,500 in revenue, we've actually got $22,000 in revenue. So that is the money that we could use as an offset in the operating budget without
008even having to touch the fees just because that is what is coming into it the account that's the revenue that we're receiving. So that's that's a pretty significant change if we did want to increase the clubs just even by 510 $15 per club. And so that would also increase that overall um cap for each one of the students. Um it would bring in some additional revenue that we could use to kind of offset the expenses. And we were saying in total um we built in $17,000 into the budget. So, I think we would, my recommendation would be that we could either increase um by $5 a club or $10 a club and we would still have enough revenue to be able to um to meet the the revenue received that we had built into the
009budget. And the other thing I want to note too is right now we charge a different amount for the middle school than we do for the high school. And I I think by increasing the high school, that's kind of just an effort to get us to the point where they're >> um and then the last one is building use. So building use is um building use is the fee that we're charging individuals to use the schools kind of outside of school hours. That's the um the fields, the auditorium, some instances the cafeteria. Um it applies to all of the schools. Um and we charge a different rate for nonprofits than we do for um individual like forprofit organizations. the fee hasn't increased in I mean I think the last increase for some of these fees
010were 10 15 years ago. Um so this is just one of those areas. >> This is just one of those areas where we said okay we haven't changed the fees um in a number of years. the facilities are used. Our facilities are running, you know, they're not they don't run 7 to 3 Monday through Friday. They are pretty much like 24/7 365 operations. Um, and so we just thought it was appropriate to increase those fees. Um, so the fee proposal is just a 10% overall increase. I will say there just a slight error on the year change for because we changed last year um the Brooks Field uh and the auditorium rentals which you can I think seeing that by years jump from 24 25. Oh, >> so I think this this last year increase
011just for for those is is wrong. >> Oh, we Okay, so that was before. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. I will update that. >> So that was in fiscal year 24. Yeah, in fiscal year 24 um where they >> increase just a couple of these but not all >> questions folks have. >> Yes, Nathan. >> Thanks Mark. Uh thank you Katie for walking through. Sorry did Should I hold questions? I didn't know Katie if you were wrapped up walking through this. Um, no. I'm I'm pretty much done. >> Yes. Questions? >> Anything? >> Okay. All right. Great. Um, this is helpful. Um, I think I I had a couple of things. I think I'm not sure maybe overall or at least within these three fee areas kind of what our philosophy is around fees um
012and how we pair those to actual costs. So transportation seems like maybe the easiest one where we have a legal mandate to provide transportation. uh the costs of the transportation will probably never match what we take in in fees overall. Um that seems pretty straightforward in terms of the structural um gap that that creates on student fees on activity fees. If I heard you right, I think I heard that we are taking in more fees than it costs to run the club. No, we're taking in. So, the revenue is exceeding what our original projection is. >> Okay. >> So, our original projection of of what we would be able to utilize from revenue received was $7,500 and we're actually bringing in $22,000. Um, but the expense assoc associated with student activities is $300,000 a year.
013So, this is just a really small fraction of >> um the overall expense to run the clubs. >> Got it. That makes much more sense. Okay, great. And then um on building use, do we I have two questions here. Do we know what it actual what the fully loaded costs are for I I assume these are singleuse fees. So someone rents the fieldhouse um and it's going to cost them next year for one time $275 $275. Um do we know what the fully loaded cost is of that rental for the school district? And then I'll just ask my second question or or just an observation which is and I guess this gets to the philosophy which is do we do we view our um fee structure as something that we sort of try to keep
014as low as humanly possible and adjust only when necessary or do we view it as an offset that needs to keep pace with costs? Um and you know like the fieldhouse was last uh the fee was last updated 12 years ago. If we just you know if we just uh every year increase you know slightly increase the fee that would probably bring us in FY27 to something like $325 $350 per use. So really different than where we're at now. Um, so just wondering if we if we have an opinion on that collectively. >> I can share my opinion. Um, again I I think to your point transportation is a harder one because we have a mandated portion of it. we have an optional portion of it and the mandated portion of it by itself creates
015opportunity for the optional portion of it. So like you know it wouldn't make sense to just stop offering it because we have the seats on the bus. Um so I don't think there's a a clear line of saying hey we want to charge exactly this because this is exactly what it would it cost us for the optional portion of transportation because there that those two things are so so linked. I think generally my thought would be that you know to your kind of two scenarios that we try and have this increase in budget pressure times that we have fees increase at rates that are associated with the increased costs. So for example, transportation costs next year are going up 8% for the contract for these kinds of services. um if we were in better situations,
016I think John's talked about this before, we might not need uh to increase those fees and put that on the backs of families. Um because I do think some of this is like what is the obligation for us as as a town collectively versus what is the obligation of the individual family member and that those are like larger societal questions and my perspective there's more of like what we owe our kids and families as a community um versus like what we should expect them to just kind of take on. Uh and so I'm more on the that we should offer this to everybody u for as low cost as possible. Um again similar to the activities and fees I think that same kind of idea of only increasing it when there are financial pressures to
017do so to try and increase pace with what the increases are for building use. I think of this as difference in that I think we need to keep pace with cost but more than that it's not just the cost of the of how much it is to use the building for that window of time during the day right the custodial cost the the cleaning cost after the fact that just utilities are turning on lights it's also the how are we building up financial um how are we building up revenue systems that allow us to to have accounts that can help with the, you know, um, maintenance and rehabilitation of these spaces, like replacing the field lights at the brooks. Like, if we are renting it out for use of the fields, we should be generating
018some revenue, I think, within those users to then have a pile of money at the end of the lifespan of the field to help replace it, if not fully replace it, at least offset that somewhat. I that could be different than how the town thinks about this as a whole and maybe that requires some coordination with the consolidated facilities and talking to Tom and that that would be something I'd be interested in as it relates to kind of our discussion of what is our revolving account policy specifically for building use but like what what is the the number we need to be generating above and beyond just paying off um paying off custodians and paying off for um kind of utility costs for for the schools, offsetting utility costs for the schools that allows us
019to generate some revenue to again have these larger capital improvements. So, we're not fully reliant on or putting all the pressure on um the town capital um revenue streams which we know are are limited and we're not able to get as we've saw kind of this year with the capital requests of the field of lights which weren't able to be funded. Um my that's my long answer. No, I was in a in a similar camp, especially with the building use. I mean, we were just looking at facilities meeting yesterday and just thinking about a lot of the carryover needs year to year, like the capital improvements, things around the book, things on the track, like all of those things. And so if there are ways to um have re you know to generate some revenue
020that can help offset or help support some of those the maintenance and and you know then in some cases the improvements that need to be made because of the use. I think that that piece would be important. Um so that's I I I'm I'm in agreement on the use piece. The only other thing I'll say to that is I don't know if a 10% increase gets us to that goal. I I think there's two things in my mind is the short-term answer of what are we doing to address the FY27 budget and present something to the full school committee where we have this kind of placeholder number within the budget plan of the 75,000 and how do we between these three streams kind of fix that um or tell them we need to reduce that.
021Right? That's obviously something we could do as well. Um, but then I I do think there's a broader discussion of taking these fees back and talking to Tom, talking to Katie and John about, you know, what what would a longer term kind of building use revolving account policy look like and what would be the fees necessary to start building up that account because we know that account was also one that was depleted in FY24. it's not in a place that it could accomplish the goals that you know we were just talking about. What are your thoughts? >> So all that makes sense. Um so it sounds like the way to think about this today is the the goal of the FA the I mean I I know this I'm just saying it out loud. The
022goal of the fee increases today is to help close the budget gap not to create the best fees. like just if we think about the facilities use not to create the fee structure that is ideally matched to the cost of the facilities rentals. Um so that's fine and it would be good to um it'd be good as you said Mark to work on that in the future. And the one um the one thing I might say just as a little bit of a rebuttal to something you said is I like I agree with you in principle that keeping fees low and only raising them when we have to is good. Uh but my guess would be I don't have any evidence for this but my guess would be that when we are in a budget
023crunch as a district and are backed into a corner and have to raise fees that is probably also happening at the same time that families are more likely to be in a budget crunch and are looking at increased costs. And so I I I would be comfortable with regularly ra way raising fees even if it's small like we don't have to say 3 or 5% every year we could say 1% or something but so that when we in in years when we are in a budget crunch um there's not such an economic shock uh to families especially families at the lower end of the earning spectrum. It's just a proportionally higher um it's it's proportionately greater um share of their income. >> I think that's a a fine point. I think some of the things
024we've talked about in prior years with these is also how do you we talked about like hey we we should create kind of some ideal fee pattern of we're going to look at these types of fees in this cycle and then the next year this type of fee and then just and have like a three or fouryear cycle of that every so often because as you see some fees haven't been changed in a decade more than a decade and so that does feel like we are just kind of digging ourselves a gap, a hole, and then having to really raise it. So I don't even know if we need to raise them every single year at a smaller increment. But even if we just raise them at, you know, at an increment every two or
025three years. Um because we were just talking about, you know, families who use before and after school, who have kids in sports, right? Who have kids in the middle school in clubs, like you know, increasing all those fees simultaneously also feels like a lot and a big impact on families versus having trying to figure out how you have pockets. But it's definitely not something I I think we have >> solved uh and fully hit on over the last few years. >> I think my other question would be as a followup, you know, in the same way that we were talking about say with say for example there's a a policy that we have around talking about like circuit breaker that we would carry x% year to year. Do we have a policy or a philosophy
026or however we got policy that the fees will will account for x% of of the cost of running programs. And so otherwise it feels a little arbitrary. Yeah. >> Um and so if we're saying so to that point like if the cost of running a program doesn't increase every year then why would we increase the fee every year versus >> um if the stipend increases, right? there's something like that then it's tied to what the stipen is and then we know that that pivoting it's more expensive to run that program because to your point I think part of it part of the thing about school is like it's the way we're getting you know for some kids you know coming because they get to play lacrosse is what's getting through the door and it's it's
027the life I was think about like the life of the school and that's the life of the school so if there are things that we can do to just recognize that that's a benefit of going to And we're not trying to obviously we can't fully cover the cost and that wouldn't be the goal but I think to have a goal of okay we will look to cover 3 whatever it is you know and have that number then it feels then it's tied to an increase and a why and I think then it's easier for people to understand the increase as opposed to >> just randomly every couple of years or whatever. So um and I think similarly I would say similarly with the bus um what is our goal like recognizing I think it would
028be you know cost prohibitive people have it's just you know if you're old like me we didn't have to pay for the bus to get to school so like of course you get a free bus and so I recognize times are different but again is there >> if we were offering it if we're adding a us then what's the per what's the portion of that cost that we our goal is to cover >> um so I just think as long as we have numbers in then every year it doesn't become >> a qu like a a policy then it doesn't become a question of like feels like this you know right >> yeah it does it would make the process more straightforward if there was a policy that was driving the decision making so I
029think when when I think about the fees. It's important to note that we almost have two different categories when we look at the revolving funds and some of the programs that we're charging fees for, we have programs that the intent is for them to be self- sustaining. And so as much as we may not want to increase the fee that we're charging, we may have to because the costs are increasing at a level where you have to increase the fees to um have that program remain self- sustaining. And so an example of that would be community schools when we talk about that fee increase. And then there's that other portion of fees where we're um charging the fee and potentially increasing the fee, but it's only offsetting a portion of what the overall expense is.
030And the intent of charging the fee and increasing the fee is just to alleviate some of the pressure of the expense increase that we're seeing in the operating budget. Um, I just wanted to mention we talked last year a lot about the fees as well and it was also difficult because we were doing so at the same time that the community was um being asked to support an override or to consider an override. And so we tried to be, you know, I think from my perspective trying to just be mindful of the fact that there were going to be impact to a household in kind of a variety of different ways. Um, and so last year we increased athletics, we increased uh summer enrichment, we increased a a number, and we instituted that late fee
031for transportation. A part of that process was doing an analysis of comp districts. And so there is um some information on what other um communities close to us are charging. So that's a Nathan to your question that's kind of a part of when we're looking at what fee we're charging. We do look at comp districts in order to say like you know we don't we don't want to be charging the most but we also don't want to be charging the least amount. We're trying to make sure that it's somewhere kind of that's reasonable and makes sense for this district. Um, so there is information on that. I can reshare that. Um, and that again is specific to transportation for community use. There is a school committee policy. um that is just around community use of
032school facilities and it just it says it's the school committee's desire that maximum use of school property be enjoyed by the town's people and so whenever I've thought of school facilities and facilities rentals I don't know that the intent is to charge the user kind of for the total cost of using that facility or it's more of we'll take some of that revenue and is offset a portion cost. >> Um because it is in some instances we've had and not specific to being here, but some >> uh a basketball program may come in and break a backboard and it cost us $10,000 and we're only charging 200 to use the facility. So there are, you know, def definitely variations in how much that's actually costing us. Um, and I wouldn't be able to kind of
033provide a number on how much that expense is to the budget, how much it would cost us to like have a community come in and use a certain facility. I'm not I haven't done the analysis on that. Um, and then there are other I know that I don't know that MS MASC provides a sample policy on revolving accounts, but there is a school committee policy on student fees, fines, and charges. So that may be an appropriate place if there is, you know, a consistent policy to put into place for the future that that could be an an amendment to an existing policy that then could just be used when we when we update the fees going forward. >> Yeah, I think this goes hand inhand a bit with our our revolving accounts. So these generate
034the revenue that goes into their bonding accounts. And so what is the balance we want to have in their bonding accounts? How do these you know connect to that that too? >> Um >> and we always take into account if a family has an inability um to pay that is always taken into account. We never want to make the fees um prevent a student from being able to participate. So I think that's a very important intervention. So I want to be mindful of time um because we want to try and talk about the slides uh in terms of the be the recommendations of the fees. So just to try and restate it in terms of what the department's recommendation is in order to get that 75,000. It's a a $25 increase to transportation fees. It's
035uh about a $5 increase to club fees because we'll also can increase revenue >> usage revenue usage. >> I don't know if you're >> Yeah. Is that right? Okay. Uh and then a 10% increase for uh all building fees or Yeah. I Anybody have questions, concerns about that recommendation? >> No. Uh, thanks for the discussion. I I'm happy to support this. >> I was wondering like just Only thing in my mind just to share and I'm not sure exactly written on it is uh $25 increase on the 325 is obviously less than 10%. It's the lowest percentage increase kind of of the fees we are discussing. uh while at the same time I know the we are increasing the bus usage and even beyond that we are increasing the cost of transportation for the contract
036is an 8% increase not just next year but also the following year and then >> I think 10% increase if we stay the same company the following year after that so it's kind of a and transportation costs are increasing more significantly so so I need to generate all of this though. Um, >> are you saying then do we look at a do we look at a higher increase for transportation? >> I guess what yeah might maybe what I'm saying is um not increasing club fees um and then increase transportation fees by 10% like 30 maybe it's $35 to get a round number there. Um that's 360. >> Mhm. >> Um so that' be just over be just over the 10% but that that generates more money than I think we we initially need and or
037more than the the 75,000 I should say. Um so I don't know if that is just kind of muddling things up by making that suggestion. That that's a piece that just sits at my head of the percentage increases lower than the rest and lower than what the actual cost of transportation is going up next year. >> What was the fee increase on buses last year? >> We didn't increase fees for buses. We implemented the $25 late charge. >> Yeah. >> Um but we didn't increase the baseline fee. Winter storms. Yes. And then >> transportation. The last time we increased transportation was um FY23. We increased them by $50 and $100. $50 per student, $100 family max. And so Mark, you're you're suggesting um modestly increase the fee a little bit further and eliminate the fee
038on fee increase on clubs. Yeah. I mean given we already also you know drastically increase the revenue in a in a given year. Um, obviously again that is not associated with the the actual cost of running the program, but we've already the the families participating in clubs, you would say increase their contribution by $15,000, which is a 150% increase uh 200% increase um in a given year just based on the collections. Again, the feeds didn't pull up. So maybe that's a some poor math I'm doing there. Yes, I'm sorry I'm rambling a little bit. I think that would be my my thought is increasing the transportation fee by $35 by 10, you know, or we could even say $30, make it 355. Just increase it by a little bit more and then that would allow
039us to not have to increase club fees. I like that idea. It's creative. Is there anything um It's kind of a funny question. Is there anything that we would expect to be different between the students who take buses and the students who participate in clubs? And I'm trying to understand if this fee increase disproportionately hits a different subset of the student body. Seems like maybe not, but but I just don't know. >> Well, it would it would be more middle school and high school kids. >> Mhm. There are elementary school kids who pay the the ride. >> Correct. >> The breakdown. I don't know if you know that off the top of your head. >> I don't. >> Um yeah, I mean the club fees are only associated with the high school. So they don't
040affect any middle school or elementary kids to your point. um the transportation fee most I won't say most but obviously we are mandated to drive kids K through um six uh who live within a certain mileage away from schools. Um so it would be anybody who's under that threshold uh in K through six and then any 7th through 12th grader who utilizes the bus which there are. Okay. So, if anything, my potential worry >> Mhm. It goes in the opposite. This potent I mean there's no way to know this probably, but it potentially spreads out fees more evenly across the district rather than concentrating them in sort of disproportionately in one group. >> Uh yeah, the 5,000 revenue and I my rough math is that increasing this by an additional $5 generates about $7,800 of
041revenue. I just took this number divided by 25. >> Yeah. >> Multiplied that by five. So, um >> Okay. >> Just So, yeah. So, that $5 extra would cover for this. And yes, this this group that's covering the $5,000 is a smaller number of students um than this group. And it's a more concentrated group of students given they're all high schoolers. Group Um, I was trying to pull it up again. >> I think my my question about the transportation is >> and I and I'm not so I feel like there are more kind of factors going into this one too. So we're increasing writership. We're incre because we're increasing a bus but we are also in the second year we'll be in the >> third year >> second year of a new contract which >>
042incre it's got it's it's not they're not small increases correct >> with that >> so I guess my my question would be >> and looking at some of the comparable districts we are still below I mean I think we're some of them they were in that 800 to 850 family cap Um, and we're still significantly below that some of them. So, you know, I would be and, you know, I know this isn't like a menu where we're picking and choosing, but I do sort of feel like for me the the the clubs and fees if they didn't have to go up and the club fees didn't have to go up. um recognizing that you know can where we are with revenue I would I just transportation is always a big cost and we've seen that
043be an impact and I almost wonder if it's if you go to the increase of the $50 >> if because I just I worry what it's going to look like next year we're still that's still a 750 cap per family um >> another piece of it too for transfer transportation. It's not as significant as the cost per bus, but we were also charged a fuel s charge and that is based off of um there's a calculation that's written into the contract that the bus company does and then they um pass the cost on to the school district for the fuel. And I think just looking at the market, kind of looking at what's happening, I can't imagine um that those fees will be decreasing. So that's another piece to kind of consider um is the
044increase to that fuel search charge as well. And so um I just want to mention that too if that kind of helps with some of the context around transportation. Um, >> yeah, it's a good kitty. >> Yeah, I mean I I think we we might have to have a conversation about increasing views again next year just just because of again that and also the thing I keep referencing the like 8% but just ongoing percent increase that you know maintaining these things is is going to the pressures it will put on our budget. Um yeah, I worry a bit about just again the scale of increases to anybody. And so I I think my thought of like the $35 to try to go a bit beyond this but maybe kind of meet in the middle. So
045move all the way up. Yeah. I don't. So, are you proposing a $50 increase? >> Nathan, what are your thoughts on that? >> But with a but with no student, no increase to student activity fees. >> Okay. So, your proposal is $50 increase transportation, no increase to club fees, and the recommended 10% increase to building usage. Okay. I will I take that as a motion just for the purpose of see discussion. I will second that motion. make it discussed. Um, Nathan, any any further thoughts, questions on that push back? I I'm not trying to rush the process here, but >> No. So, Mark, your initial proposal was to move it to more like a $30 increase. Now, we're talking about potential $50 increase. >> Yeah. My initial proposal was, yeah, 30 or $35 again around
046that kind of 10% mark. Um, 8 to 10% mark. Does that sorry just does that generate too much does that generate more fee revenue than KDU anticipated in the budget or you are you sort of saying okay it'll generate a little bit more revenue we expected but it will help offset the fuel s charge >> correct yes >> it would be good to I mean I think that's smart um I've seen estimates of fuel increases over the course of the next 12 months looking like 30% % increases our current fuel car costs. Um, so that's probably a knowable estimate that might be good to to bring to school committee just depending on what um what the fuel search charge starting point is. Um, yeah, I guess I'm I'm I'm comfortable with it. I Yeah. It's
047a big jump. >> Yeah, I agree. Can I make a friendly amendment and just say 40 like trying to bring it down a little bit because again I I think that generates more than what the 75,000 that then provides us a little buffer for the fuel search charge. Um >> that is a bit unknown. It's not trying to go quite so high and that then keeps it under 365. Would you be open to that? 40. Would you be open to that, Nathan? >> Yeah. Yeah, I think so. >> So, the the increases we're proposing is $40 for transportation, no dollars for student fees, and 10% on all building use fees. Is this sorry just one thing I should make clear the 10% is just for the other it's not for the because we have the
048the town and nonprofit um rate we have the parks and wreck rate and then we have the other rate >> correct >> this is just the other rate correct >> and that other category tends to be the largest I know the fees are higher but that tends to be our largest group of for like the revenue generation >> really. Okay. Yeah. I just want to make that clear. >> All right. Uh well, we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion on this recommendation to school? >> Right. Um then um Nathan, >> Yes. Right. We will share that with school committee tonight. Thank you for the discussion. um the run uh I do think maybe point out if there's any data around field this year and what would this look like that would
049>> absolutely >> frame that revenue discussion >> uh all right committee budget presentation >> do we have oh you're right because we did not actually vote on Sorry. Um, sorry about this. Uh, all right. I will make a motion to approve the FY27 fee increases presented last week uh by Milton for the Milton Community Schools. >> Uh any further discussion questions from that discussion from last week? >> No. >> Right. Then we'll go to vote. Uh Nathan, >> yes. Amanda, >> yes. Uh, all right. >> 9:20. All right. Uh, Amanda has a a hard stop here at around 9:15, 9:20. So, we got going to try and move through these slides. Um, shared them in advance. Obviously, we cannot unfortunately work on them uh simultaneously. um some open meeting lost stuff. We'll try and go
050through them and then I think what we what you can do is you can send me your notes offline or send Katie your notes offline. trying to do that. Sorry, I don't know why me. >> Sorry, Mark. Are you saying we can't work on them together right now? >> No, we can work on them right now because we're in a public meeting. It's forunate that we're going to we're somewhat already on um no fault of any buttons but uh all right so sorry for the technological trouble trying to do a lot here okay here is the agenda um generally I shared this agenda uh with the Warren Committee chair just generally trying to make sure we were uh some based on some of the feedback y'all had on that we were aligned on what we
051were trying to accomplish here there obviously I think again Nathan your point where I was like we should just take John's prior presentation the school committee I think Jay was in agreement with your point that that's not really there the audiences there are quite different I think what we're trying to do walking through families through kind of conversations around the the position cuts is not actually kind of the purview of the warrant committee and that you know we decide positions but rather that like how are we having a sustainable budget what is the what are the budget increases what are some of the cost drivers broadly speaking those types of things so that was like a general conversation we had and so that that framed some of this budget agenda Katie also had the good
052idea of trying to start the conversation by pulling in some of the um slides from the presentation we did the warrant committee back in the fall and that presentation's also in the folder for today. Um, so that that's just some of that. >> Yeah, >> work. Um, and so we walk through the timelines. I also have the timelines I think later on. >> Yep. >> Yeah. The these were from John's thing, so I think we could figure out how to maybe consolidate some of this. I think this slide is a good one to kind of remind them of what you know best budgeting practices are that we are trying to follow the philosophy and the priority statements that is something also that kind of down here in our budget philosophy. So agreeing with them, bring
053that Katie bring that up and talk about those philosophies. Um the roles and responsibilities just the different roles of the committee versus the department that we presented previously. >> Back to the next roles and responsibilities. Oh yes. Um I feel like there's one piece that maybe is helpful um around policy sort of because it it you know I know one of the there had been a question around policy. Okay, you did it. Never mind. I missed the policy word >> because it's not bold. I wonder if it can work that. >> Yes, I think it's important because we do set the policy around this >> is the role of the school. >> Mhm. >> Great. Um so the components of the operating budget we'll get to a little bit later on to cost drivers quick
054overview of education funding. There's a good fit slide here. It looks like >> the one thing I was wondering about with this one and it might just be a um voice over where I thought it was really helpful last meeting when John talked about when those funds could be you used like so some have to be used within the fiscal year some can be carried like I think having an understanding of why there's flexibility within one of them within them or when the funds have to be expended might be just useful to know because then it's because then it does talk to like why it's important to put them if it's in a re you know in one place versus another. So I think that I felt like that piece was important talking about circuit
055breaker >> as well. Um >> so funding sources to support the schools come from multiple sources at varying time >> right >> or like or or um to be >> well varying times is it maybe for utilization or for expenditure something because I think it's that like what can you hold what can you carry >> yes >> is a public use Yes, >> that's great. I think we we talking about the length of the presentation here too, but uh because I tried to pull some of the slides yet on the >> Yeah. And so we we then I think to your point come back here when we try and talk about circuit breaker which we anticipate being a conversation flexibility this time. So we can >> yeah go through if that would be like a
056if that's more of a an appendix this is item versus >> yeah I think that's yeah we need to talk about >> okay um everybody generally agree with that kind of as a starting place >> again I think we have some of the stuff here within the timeline ration these are just the three slides there that we can just kind of consolidate those with these at the top. So we can apologize the weren't made for the timeline being all all messed up but uh then we had a section on highlights past uh achievements of the past year just there's something we want to do to kind of now there's a lot of work that goes into the schools that schools do and so I think just we're there's no way we're going to be able
057to hit on all of it but just are there things we want to >> kind of share and be able to talk about with positives of the school. But I think if we also have end up having a presentation for town meeting, it's also something that we start to put together to like share to >> celebrate our kids and staff and all the awesome things they do. So, >> um, >> Mark, I just just second that. I think it's so great to to include this both for more committee and thinking about town meeting and just to it it takes um it takes our budget out of abstraction right like this money pays for stuff learning activities experience joy all of that so I think it's really great to to highlight where this goes both and
058we should include some photos if we can as well >> should we start with that is that something I think that's okay. >> Yeah, I think in the original um >> yeah and then >> agenda I said highlights and then yeah and move to kind of timeline goals properties. So I think what we could >> just start >> yeah maybe move this down here and you would say like hey >> we're excited we've so much this year >> let's start with this and then say all right now let's re here's here's kind of what we discussed with you all budget wise and Paul >> I think if yeah I mean every meeting I'm in what I do we start with the student do you know what I mean so it's like just to ground like
059this is what we're talking about the kids their achievements Um, I wish that we could have the student reps come back and talk about the highlights and achievements. I think >> the best part of sometimes up the school committee meetings is listening to the students and what they find joy in. >> It's not our conversation. And then well I do I do enjoy that as well but I do think that the students just hearing from them and their voice and their perspective is >> it's pretty awesome. So maybe just >> get Stephanie O'Keefe to produce five minute video here by by Tuesday >> or even even for town meeting just saying like you know look like when you're at town meeting it's a auditorium full of adults and >> it's a lot different when it's
060an auditorium full of >> students. So >> uh right uh keep moving. So again this part will consolidate but generally again timeline and priority philosophy u we want to make sure we start with that framing. Uh so then it's the kind of discussion of the allocation that we've received from the town. >> Um and then kind of the less than level service that this is a cut budget because we're going to be talking about something that will will be cut 3.76%. Uh this is a I think if not all mostly a slide taken kind of from John's um prior slides. I left in this piece because I think it's just important to note and to make sure is on the warrant committee's radar. um this is is a concern from us from a long-term um
061sustainability perspective given that they are long-term financial stewards and then trying to put uh as we've done in the past the this year's increase in context with what the town has done >> is the SL I feel like I don't know that if it's the is it the one where we said that this is like the fit >> does the fit increase >> because I I just feel like at that point it does I don't know that that means a lot. I think what I'm trying to do is I think anytime we go in front of the warrant committee there are voices around questioning what is the school's increase the schools increases is too high that you know we've gotten questions of like if school increase above inflation why like why would it possibly be
062in above inflation even 3.76% is above inflation >> and so it's certainly above like the prop two and a half and so why is school possibly increasing that much so I think My point of adding this is just the context of what a 3.76% increase means. I was also part of the context when we're saying you know 5.2% increase budget level service trying to put that into context as well and say that's that's actually not an outlier of what the town has done for the schools. All of this is really in line and the 3.76 is actually on the lower end. It's in the bottom third of like what we've done the last year. >> Mark a comment. Sorry. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> Oh, no. No. I was wrapping up.
063Yeah. >> Just um I don't I don't know if this maybe having a slide like this would be a little pedantic so we can not but I'll just raise it. I I think there is you hear people reasonably ask Amanda or you or Amanda just talked about it in the context of the warrant committee like why are costs outpacing inflation and if we were if the if a school department was purchasing a market basket of goods we would expect it to peg to inflation right like eggs and cars. Um but we buy some of the most expensive things you can possibly buy. Um, and I I wonder if it would just be and I don't know if it's here in the slides, but just to highlight um the key cost drivers and how they are
064different than the typical drivers of inflation. Um, just a just to and you know those are obviously special education costs, transportation costs, fuel costs, and a couple of other things. Um it might it might be worth just level setting around that. >> Yeah, I think uh I agree with you. I think we have down here kind of a section trying to highlight on cost drivers and I think we'll we can talk about it. >> Okay. All right. >> Question of again the the inflation question is and you know that residential homeowner inflation is not the same as kind of state government contract inflation and things like that. thing, another potential point that we might want to add a slide on or get into. Um, I'm for the sake of like the length of this, I
065I'm not opposed to potentially just moving this into the appendix and >> I'm trying to move through this a little bit more quickly and then if folks say >> yeah, 3.76 is high, we can pull this up within the appendix to say it's not high, this is kind of where it is, right? So, I'll make a note that might might because I do think we're going to need to cut on some of these slides. Um, so I think this one we can maybe delete. Um, all right. NPS cost drivers. So, this is where we talk about salaries. Overall salary line is increasing by 3.72%. Um, it's reduced due to position cuts. I think that's important to say. We were level service funded. This would not be it. Um, so that's I tried to put that
066in there just because I want to make sure we're building context for any future budget asks. Uh and then Katie had this nice slide on the breakdown. This is from the um from that work budget workbook that has been shared with the Warren Committee. So hopefully they've looked at it and this isn't different but sharing that pie chart with kind of what the breakdown is. The first three being kind of salaries, the next three being operating costs for that context. What what are the drivers? What are the pieces of the budget? It's the exact same. >> Um, and then trying to get a bit more into we've had the questions from it's come up kind of consistently um at least one war committee member on the uh teacher salaries and just why are they going
067up higher than 2.5%. Um, and so kind of walk through what that means. This is the place where I'm not 100% sure um if you want to say this is appendix or not, but >> so I tried to I changed the slide. I think I actually moved your original down further into the appendix just to >> almost like simplify it and I used historical data just because I think we just need to be careful talking about it because we're in a negotiation here. Um, and so we can, but the original is still here. So if you'd rather use the original, um, but this is the one. >> Yeah, this is the one I put in. It's just an example of a new teacher starting, you would start, you know, the new teacher starting at step
068one and then moving to step two. And it's not just the cost of living increase of whatever percentage. It's actually the cost of the staff and the cola which is in this example which happened um in 22 and 23 is 8.132%. >> Mhm. >> So yeah I I'll disagree with this. I think the um put the context in. I'll maybe say this before I put it on the screen, but I did I took the current year's table and then again we are negotiating with the union so there's nothing set for next year. Yeah. Um, I think I was trying to use the current one because obviously that is most connected to our budget for next year, but I >> I totally hear you, Katie. And so, you know, maybe that is um good context as
069essentially trying to show just what the this is what the table looks like and this is kind of what what happens. And yes, similar like just used a couple different examples of fourth year person. What what is their I made some assumptions with the COLA adjustment. I just I put in 2.5% because that is a flation adjustment that you know again has been referenced previously by the member of the war committee and so and obviously that's linked to about two and a half so that it's not connected at all with any uh financial discussion. So I don't know if it also I was thinking like maybe makes sense to pull a teacher contract outside of Milton like as an example um to again not to Katie's point not kind of muddle it with the the
070negotiations and the contracts. Um there's like two different examples of you're just moving down your um moving down the steps and then moving down the step and moving over a lane. What is the the impact? Uh and what is the impact even if there's no hole? So then another one I did was let's try to do like what is the percent increase at each each step. I don't know if this is too much but like mo mostly trying to get to this point like there's never a world in which we would do I would advocate for no cola adjustment for uh teachers and so I don't think there's a world in which the union would would accept that. So that's not a a situation, but even if you weren't had that just moving down the
071steps, uh so 3.3% increase into your overall salaries, >> I feel like we get into the weeds to become philosophical, but it becomes a discussion about >> negotiations and why they are what they are versus >> I kind of like the example Katie gave which takes the past and just says This is this gives you an example of what it looks like and and how we get to the profession the salary line we have and like people can disagree with it but it's the reality of what it is you know it's the reality of negotiations I just worry if we get too much into a lot of examples then it's like then you're in the weeds of the chart and you know could then especially noting that you're negotiation year does it into like a
072discussion around feedback around what it should look like versus this just explains for a lot of people if you don't know what a step is, you don't know what the lane is, this is how it this is how it goes. Do we um just on that point like is our assumption that the warrant committee that a critical mass of the warrant committee members may not know how the step in lane function works because I do I am kind of feeling what Amanda is feeling like I'm wondering if this is a bit much and it might be worth just saying and Mark and Katie correct me if I'm wrong 99% of teacher contracts in Massachusetts are constructed this way. We're not doing anything different and we are competing with districts that are adjacent to us that
073pay higher base salaries. So, um the the structure of our compensation is both uh standard and meant to compete to attract high quality teachers. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I agree with that. I think my only hesitation if I think it in some aspects it's valuable to show this is just that the point has been brought up multiple times um and and we keep on explaining this and I just think we have to be consistent in explaining it and pro providing the information um because the question just continues to be asked. Yeah, I think um the feedback's heard though I think you know Katie your point of and they they're probably going to ask using old data and we can just say that we're doing this because we're >> this is hard contract. We have
074no hard contract for next year that's negotiated. So we don't we're not going to get into that historical example. I do think even a second example >> you know showing kind of the >> lane change. >> Sure. Um >> yes, >> just try and move through those quickly, but generally show that the effect of those things on the the budget. Um, >> could I suggest that we have the example of a main change in the effects as opposed to going through I just if it or if it's you know >> Yeah, I don't I don't I'm with you in that. I don't want to spend too much time on it. I just think like again a step change itself is 8 8% a lane change is going to be 11%. And so I I think
075just saying like the >> you know we're talking about an average salary increase next year 3.76% like that certain salaries are going up more that's just how that works >> and then trying to move move through it quickly but I do think we consistently kind of got push back on the salary increasing by this amount kind of with level service that's like way too high. So just trying to show them some examples of like >> I guess I just also want to be conscious one person versus whole committee. >> Yeah, sure. I want to take the appropriate time. >> Yeah, I hear that. Um uh I do think maybe to your point we could say uh Nathan I like some of the language you were using um of just like high level sal the salary
076structure within Milton is like all other kind of districts and um you know aim to be competitive in terms of rates that's all handled with negotiations. I could try and add some additional language to that one kind of related to your points. Uh and then we have cost drivers non salaries. Uh so just starting out trying to talk about the things based on that budget workbook um that Katie shared that are right on the higher end of the percent increases. So transportation budget increasing by 8%. Um was foster care transportation which is mandated special education services contracts. This is one also I just made note of >> if you should include >> those are the ones I I pulled out based on that kind of budget workbook. I don't know if there are other things
077Katy that you felt were things we should highlight or there things in you think we should highlight uh do we need the bullets? to me like I don't know I feel um feel like I don't really need that one the increase like I think is contracted it just feels funny calling those out just the one below it the homeless >> I was mostly trying to share the percent increases similar to uh this of just like what are the percent >> yeah but I think the bullet about also I think we've talked a lot about transportation. I think there's so many contributing factors. Um, and we're talking about contractual requirements. So, those are just two of many. So, it just feels kind of funny calling out foster care transportation. Um, and then I guess my question
078would be this would not that it shouldn't be in there, but I think we should just be prepared for what like what does that mean? Spend contracted services increase 12.2% 2% by employ. And then I think recognizing or just pointing out that sped out of district tuition is that's u driven by the state um sets the >> the rate for tuition. So that's not us. That's just we >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Again, we have we obviously have more time. >> Yeah. >> And can provide again some feedback um a one-on-one so go. >> Was there any I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention to time. Were there any other slides if you >> No, it was the the early ones. I think it's to your point like >> I don't want to lose them. So
079I think as much as we can I think it's really important to your point start with the student like this is what we're doing all of this for and here are the gains the great work that's be being done and then as much as we could do it tell the story build the budget but then if there we're getting more if there are more detailed things having it in the appendix so that we're prepared to talk about it but not go through it but I but that Do you do you think Sure thought that this kind of section as a whole should be moved to the >> I think it will depend the one slide above was the one right below the one that one no the one the one right below this section the
080number 29 39 started. >> Um I think that this points to why the reserves um were depleted and to go back. >> Um but I think if we get too much I don't want to feel defensive. I don't think that we need to be defensive. I think this is we there's a rationale for the way the budget is set. If I think then just me person, you basic can disagree that um if there are questions and they're saying well we believe it should be here versus here or something to that effect then this can come up. Um, but I think I just want to I feel like if there's a balance between rationale and an explanation of why, but if we go too much into it, then it just feels defensive and I just don't
081think we need to be and I don't and there might be we might have given them enough and you know Yeah. Yeah. So your thought would be maybe moving 39 in that case I think also 40 but these were from kind of John's slides um down to the appendix we can reference them >> then if we need you and then just talking about I think that piece would be important. >> Yeah. So here >> less I just think yeah just like not not too many. >> Yeah. And here's our overall goal was kind of our plan on it. This is why I'm sorry. >> No, I know. Um, I'll go and clean up the next weigh individual. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry. Um, >> sorry. >> No, no problem. Thank Thank you. Really appreciate that.
082Um, all right. Uh, Nathan, any thoughts you have on the non salaries cost driver slide? >> No. I'm comfortable with this that nothing else. Uh the proposed budgets try this is the framing slide again from kind of John's slides. Um just prioritized cuts talking kind of through >> on slide 33. Um, I wonder, and I'm happy to give this some thought offline so it's not all on you. I wonder if there's a way to frame this as, you know, we're we're we are spending 70s something million dollars to deliver amazing teaching and learning services to our students. And I think we should start like I I think we should balance this with both a strength-based and a deficit-based perspective. Um, the budget is meant to achieve a whole many many important goals and I think
083we should just we could talk about this and talk about that at the same time. You know what I mean? Yeah. So is it not within this not focusing on just the cut like this to your point I think this is deficit based and that it's focusing on the positions that we are cutting how we are kind of working to meet the $1,49,000 revenue gap but rather than framing this as a way to meet that gap framing it as what are we doing with the howunit the 2 million uh plus dollar kind of additional contribution. >> Yeah, I Yeah, exactly. I mean, maybe it's just starting with I mean, in my head, I think of, you know, and I'm imagining Katie, like various versions of those sort of topline budget tables you've built that show
084where costs are going. And you know, we we haven't gotten to talking about goals for next year, but I assume that they will be an incremental continuation of what we've been working on this year. And so that that allocation plus the 3 and 12% increase um or 3.7% increase are going to further our progress towards those goals. It's going to be maybe slower than what we would have done otherwise or or a little bit um you know, it's like two steps forward, one step back because we're not um we're not uh we're not going to be spending the amount of money we anticipated to spend to get to those goals. So that's that's kind of like where I'm thinking. So, it could be just helpful to and sorry if this is somewhere else in the
085deck, but just to outline like where that how that budget will be allocated and maybe remind people I know you do earlier, but just remind people of the goals that we're trying to achieve with that budget. >> Yeah, I I like that. >> And Mark, were we I couldn't tell from earlier in the conversation. Did we want to get into a conversation with the warrant committee about the specific about what's on 35 and 30 34 and 35? >> I think I assume they are going to want to know. They're going to ask of like what is what is the change in the the stuff. I think you your point is a good one I think Nathan. Um, and so I think we could again potentially just leave this in as kind of a general framing,
086add some other ones that again talk about how we are allocating 3.76 um kind of in a more um positive framing rather than deficit framing. And we potentially can move these three things to the appendix to say if have questions on what we are cutting, we will we can move these down and share them. But the discussion more than here is on again what are we what are we trying to sustain and and add to or um move forward next year with the 3.76% allocation. >> Yeah. Is that understanding you right? >> Yeah, I think so. I mean I guess um yeah that that's right. Maybe it's worth just you're probably I mean you've had more conversations with Jay on this than than anyone else. So you know what they're looking for if you feel
087like we should just directly speak to these and you know that especially the slide on the green does speak to uh the slide with the green table sorry does speak to some specific goals we're trying to achieve around um building up our human capital practices building up our teaching and learning practices um getting kids to school on time um and thereby strengthening culture um strengthening our financial financial position with the circuit breaker So, I think there is um I I think it I think it all works together, but it's just without the strengthbased view, you're you're sort of only getting one half of the story. >> Yeah. No, I I think that's really good. I to be clear, I don't think we should go line by line explain each of these cuts. >> Yeah. >>
088Um I don't think that is a good use of time. I think they'll share like here are some positions that will be will be lost or adjusted next year um in order to help meet our budget allocation. So just really just talk my my thought was talk about that at a high level but have that there share with them similar these are some other reallocations I think it's right but this maybe is a slide we talk about more just given it's it's the places we are working to invest in and tying those investments back to kind of our our priorities. Um so I think all those points are are right and then maybe again from a deficit based perspective we actually remove this slide and just say here's the difference budget application um of that.
089So that I think is good feedback for this section we can work on. >> Um the only thought I had was I don't know if it would be helpful because we're trying to talk about it in totality showing like we had that grid that we had shared originally showing the cumulative increases for level service. I just don't know if it would be helpful to almost like show that and then show reallocations and like reductions and reallocations and then it just gives that overall number of what the budget will be in that percentage increase. >> Yeah. Within that table. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. As that table that table hasn't been >> I think it may potentially be in the appendix right now. I'm not sure. Um let me double check. Oh yeah, this one. >> Yeah.
090And then just at the bottom put budget reductions and then budget realignments and then show the new total. >> I don't know if that's if that would be helpful or not, but just a suggestion. Yeah, I think having that um Yeah, I think having all that within that updated table, you can update that bottom section of that document. Sure. >> Okay. >> Um great. >> Uh great. And then again, we kind of talked a bit about the revolving accounts, but um we're saying again how this just ties to our our budget goal. So long-term strategy around why we utilizing circuit breaker. I don't know if we actually want to change this title. It's not really revolving counts overview. It's really specifically circuit breakation. Um then that's it. Um brings us to about 40 slides although
091we're going to cut a number at the top or consolidate a number at the top. So I think we'll do around kind of 30 to 35 slides which is about 40 minute presentation. Um so not not short but I think walks through uh I know we have some war committee members on the call so I they're still on here. Uh hopefully if they have thoughts on the agenda, things we're missing, certainly would appreciate their um or things we get into that they think unnecessary. Um, appreciate your your emails and your thoughts. Anything else we think is missing from this? >> I don't think so. All right. Uh, well, we'll continue to work on it, refine it, let you know when we make some some updates to it. Um, and then yeah, I I don't think
092a little bit to John's question on what the Monday meeting will look like. I don't I guess Amanda is not here. Nathan, I don't know your thoughts, but my thought is I don't think it makes sense to kind of walk through these slides with the full school committee. None of this is new information. And obviously when we update it, I think I'll I will definitely share this with the full school committee before we go in front of warrant committee in case they have thoughts they want to share, concerns they want to share. We've done that previously. Um but we don't need to walk through the slides and have a working conversation with school. >> Yeah, I think that sounds right. So Monday the school committee is meeting to vote on the budget. >> Yes. And
093Tuesday we're meeting with warrant committee. >> Yes. 7 o'clock. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. Um well then let's we at a little bit beyond time so apologize and appreciate your time Nathan. Um yeah. >> Next item is is just discussion of next meetings. Um next meeting obviously our next Wednesday is the 18th. uh that will be after warrant committee so we can debrief that bit then we I don't think we have any other work on the budget unless something comes up at the warrant committee that is pretty big but typically like they might have some follow-up questions that we need to answer send them some replies back to but don't necessarily need to um have that be the focal point of the meeting on Wednesday I think my my hope would be
094maybe on Wednesday we can try and pivot back to the revolving accounts policy discussion >> that kind of draft document we put together in the past. Um I don't know though Katie if you're going to I think the I think the action step on that was you and John were going to meet look at that make maybe some suggested updates to it for our conversation at the next school committee meeting. I don't know if you'll have the opportunity to do that already. And if not, I don't know you're going to have time between now and next Wednesday to do that. >> Um, so I I guess the question to you is, do you think you will have time? And if not, should we really just cancel next Wednesday's meeting or not cancel, but not hold
095a meeting next Wednesday and instead schedule for the 25th where we can have a conversation on um the policy? >> Sure. Um, I would have to check with Joan on his schedule. I know I had made some edits after our original conversation. Um, but we didn't have an opportunity to meet and discuss them. So, I think we would potentially need a little time um to do some work. And I do think that a part of the conversation may the conversation that happens at the meetings next week at night may kind of um help some of the conversations that we have with the revolving fund discussion. So it might make sense um just to maybe bump it to the 25th. But I would have to I can check with John and um see what he went
096from. >> Great. In my mind, the the things we have left as we approaching the end of the budget cycle, just to kind of name this, is for this year is the revolving accounts policies. Trying to kind of nail that down. We're obviously going to lose Amanda on the end of April. So, I think it would be good to have her involved in some of those conversations. Um and then we'll need to have some discussion of presentation to tell meeting of the budget and you know we want to get together some slides typically there's some questions that come up in some sense that again further discussion school >> budget so I think we'll need to have time to do that before that town meeting of May. Um, and then I I do think we should
097talk I'm starting to kind of update the budget timeline for next year and hoping we can talk about that. Um uh again essentially just try and talk through the drafts so we can share that really with budget coordination committee uh and the town administrator and things like that to try and get that better like we are in a healthier place before things start back in September um because I don't think a whole lot will happen over the summer with some of those groups >> if we are talking about financial policy in the revolving fun policy and then it is going to become school committee policy. Would that have to go to policy subcommittee as well? >> Oh no, it's a good question. I can ask Amanda and I mean it's a finan Yeah, it's a
098financial policy at two points. That's kind of in that little space between so I think we can talk with um Amanda and Lizzie and Anna if they if they want to review it. I mean at that point I don't necessarily think it needs to go through both committees because then at that point it's going from the entire school committee. Correct. So I my thought would be we just kind of draft something. >> I think we've told them we're working on this and so it's not like it's unknown to them. Yes. >> Bring it to full school committee and I >> as a recommendation makes sense. >> Um >> I was just trying to think about the timing too because knowing that the frequency of their meetings is a little bit different than um finance. >>
099Yeah. Okay. Um, so what I might suggest is we retain the meeting next week and maybe next week we at least just debrief a bit the warrant committee and then can start the conversation on what we think how we might adjust the presentation for town meeting just so we can move that forward and then we can try and leave as much time as possible in the month of April for um the last week in March and the month of April for trying to wrap up some of this policy um revolving accounts policy work so we can accomplish lish that this year. >> Does that make sense to you, Nathan? >> It does. Yep. >> Um, okay. Uh, anything else we should on the agenda or >> Okay, then I will make a motion to adjurnn.
100Uh, is there a second? >> Second. Uh, all in favor, Nathan. >> Yes. Ry, yes. Thank you, Nathan. >> Thanks, Mark. Thank you, Katie. >> No problem. Have a good day.