001from someone else. I'm tall. Perfect. I love Neil. Neil's like my mentor. >> Are you sure? last the best. >> Hello. Thank you. Although I know she was Washington financial crisis. So I don't really got to play one thing too. I watch the [clears throat] hockey in Chicago freezing to death right plays with us outside unless it's 10 and it's only what he was like the coach doesn't >> he's a newer teacher he was a public school teacher and it was So >> cool. >> Sorry, I have to update something. >> I know I haven't. >> All right, I'm going to take about two minutes here. summer and hard to win this First batch of course. That's the environment. allows you to because Mr. Okay, I'm sorry. I need to update some stuff everyone just
002because otherwise we can't present what's going on here. Jacob said, [clears throat] are you looking at the same? >> I was looking at something >> on this one here. Is this solid? this scenario for us like that's not what >> maybe I don't have the right like everybody. Yeah. Just wait. That'susational. So anyway, Right. >> I looked and there was nothing there. >> So yeah, we have got it now. to help you. Sure. What is your adjusted? >> Yeah, we decided not >> 19042 divided by 884. That's what >> yesterday? I'm sure it's funny This is wonderful. Yeah. So they're trying to figure out betteration. >> So that's the Okay. Thank you. I think the best. >> It's so hard to tell the chairman. Today it was this day. >> So anyway, it might be
003worth living in them because there was like the budget doesn't reflect what I remember if that makes sense. >> How's the hospital going? >> Yeah. Sorry. 650. Uh, anything for agenda review? >> Not heard. Do we have any public comment? May address the board. Okay. Public comment. Um, [clears throat] Dr. Arnold or Frederick Ar. Um, so I understand that the 2627 budget you're voting on tonight includes the funding of two classrooms of 3 to 5 year old preschoolers, which is of course good news to me. So I had previously commented publicly funded prek has provided numerous academic benefits to my child who will be entering kindergarten next year. Undoubtedly, there's research that argues that because achievement gaps start before formal schooling begins, prek programs may be a tool to address academic inequality before all day
004calling. But my gratitude for the publicly financed prek program at MCS is that it expands the degree to which the north community takes responsibility for each of its members. It deepens our collective commitment to ensuring the well-being of everyone who lives here. A publicly financed prek program overseen by qualified and unionized educators and integrated with the offering of a public school is a social and political decision we should be most proud of in Norwich. Um like universal K through2 education. Every preK child should have a safe warm and well nurturing place to go during conventional working hours regardless of who is raising them and whether their guardian or guardians work or not. These programs should not be means tested in any way. Every child should have the ability to attend the publicly financed prek program
005regardless of their socioeconomic background. Indeed, H76 passed in 2023 stated that full-time prek would be available to all four year olds in Vermont by 2026. Though, thanks to many of Vermont's progressive policies, including universal healthcare, the lack of financing plan were to be realized. At the June 7th meeting, it was clarified that the MCF program is not truly universal and accessible because a sizable weight list exists. In the coming months, I implore each of you to serve as advocates for universal and accessible prek and mortgage. I do not believe a universal inaccessible program comes in the form of themes tested in charge charging. I also believe that though provocative, prek should not be seen as revenue opportunities for other educational obligations or programming or to free up a system. Um, a possible compromise may be
006that all second-year children, those who are four, attend a universal, excessively publicly financed program, but first year students are subject to tuitioning. Many parents face impossible choices to give up their career in order to raise young children and lose that source of income and potentially self-actualization depending on what your job is or spend potentially huge amounts of money on childare in order to work a job that may or may not make financial sense given the cost of care. Incomes of all levels are strapped. The tuition charge of $6,000 is 83% of my first bill per year. Nor must lead and done prek in ways that are universal, accessible, and affordable to the extent possible to collectivize the incredible workload and cost of raising a child. This is any other public comments. >> Yes. Can I
007ask a question before I if something is later on in the the budget hearing adoption, is it appropriate to speak then or >> I would say this question um addressed me. I think either or the agenda item is going to be the ELA or the budget hearing. So So we can comment, you can give a public input now. >> Sure, please. >> Yes. Uh Matt Box 64 Carpenter Street and I shared this with board members earlier but I also just want general public to also hear um I'm here to speak on behalf uh the last meeting I was there and I just didn't get a chance to speak but it's about the reduction of the point4 tech integration and um so I just want to share for that point4 tech integration reduction from a safety
008standpoint the elimination really just does not make sense to me. Um, schools need this position with professionally trained and certified person to integrate tech with teachers and students that hardware web-based subscriptions all while ensuring that student safety and security is ensured eliminating a certified teaching position that is dedicated to engaging with students, teachers, and understanding the privacy agreements, DPAs, COPA standards, ISTY, uh, seems more than necessary at the state age in education. just what our district comes under attack on a regular basis. I think somebody needs to be here for that. So, um that's my concern especially because these are tech and the accounts anywhere from four year olds to 12 year olds. there's a different level of necessity with them. And I just I just think it's so important and I'm speaking without her
009knowing on behalf of my daughter that I have really serious concerns for if she's signing up on a typing something or and if that company is not vetted, are they selling her information with her first and last name and whatever it might be? Like those are really serious things for her personal safety in our family. So, um, I just see it appropriate that this position should not leave. I don't want it to jeopardize the safety of an entire community of children and teachers, you know, for that. So, I I didn't get to say it last, but that's what I would share. Thanks. Thank you. [clears throat] >> All right. Any other comments? >> Is anyone online? Sorry, I'm not online. [clears throat] Although Jim, do you see anybody online? And >> not with their hands
010up. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Okay. With that, we'll move on to our uh public hearing. I'm sorry. Was there anything we had to do as far as opening or closing this meeting differently than our regular meeting based on what I saw? >> No, we're just going to open the public hearing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the two items, well, the three are the first one is the ELA programs. You may recall last week we opted to defer that to tonight. Um I don't think there's anything really much to discuss. We've discussed it obviously a few meetings ago went into a lot of detail thanks to all Lauren's help and preparation. We talked about the budget, what's in the budget, and we've all agreed that what's the lineup in the budget is how we're going to
011deliver this program. And then last week uh yeah, last Wednesday Lauren had that great uh Q&A all prepped too. So, if we have any other comments, questions on that and we moved it to tonight just because it's obviously a line item budget and I think it we all agree that it was we just all to approve that along with the not in advance of the budget but along with the budget. Okay. Nothing else on that. We'll move on to our next one which is the 2026 budget hearing and adoption. Um Teresa, do you want to go as far as files go? So I've actually what I was thinking about so the way we structured this meeting is is we've taken a lot of time over the past >> G. Um I think probably what we
012want to do is um take a vote on that ELA program now. Um because it's a curricular change, right? >> Oh, okay. >> So if we take a vote on now, approve it, then we know that we're going into the budget discussion that it is going to be included in the budget. Got it. Okay. I'm sorry because this is slightly different media. I thought we were given the pull out. Okay. All right. So do I have a motion to approve the ELA program as presented? Gina, >> I move to approve the ELA program as presented. >> A second from Lisa. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. That is unanimous. Okay. So, the ELA program has been officially approved. All right. Thank you for that, Neil. We'll now move on to the budget
013adoption hearing. Uh the way we work we're gonna run this obviously. So theres I don't know if you want to just go through maybe just make sure everyone here and in the audience understands what all these files are. We don't need to go through them one on one but maybe we just zip through all of them and you can just say you know six is this 5.1's this 4.1 is this. What I what we have prepared is is we have prepared then a couple slides which I'll bring up that hopefully will drive this discussion and enable the board to zero in and what we're going to be doing is we're going to be starting with the budget as presented and then there are four or five items which we've been discussing at the last meeting
014and this meeting and our budget meeting. Um really they're add they would be add backs and we'll go through that in a few different slides. So Teresa maybe you do want to start and just >> yeah just um one and two are just >> I can bring stuff up too on the screen just let me know. But if there's anything >> um yeah just mentioning just um one and two were basically just again the same things going back to enrollment and then staffing. Um 3A is listing the proposed budget where you're going to see the appropriations and the revenues. Um 3B then takes all takes it breaks it down with the articles. Um and at the bottom section is a tax breaking calculation. Um four is again the um we've been looking at where it's
015uh the proposed appropriations report in a little more detail broken down more by functions. And then um >> I'm sorry. That's right. So this one here, what's the difference between what's this is where this 3B and this 3B? Um, I don't know why there's two three B's >> cuz this here actually looks >> Yeah, the the three Sorry, I don't know why it still says two, but at the top >> of the depths in my spreadsheets here >> on the tab it said 3D on the document itself. It said >> Yeah, it did. It said 380 3D on the document. So, might even typo on my label. But still got a 3 and 3. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. What's this in 3B and 3A then? Um the 3A is actually the um listing out the
016appropriations and the revenues to the net assessment at the bottom of the page. And then 3B again takes um with your warrant articles and everything else in there. And then um on the bottom section is your tax calculations with the CLA and all that. The difference there too. It's the um for some reason the PDF name is called Jes. >> Yeah. >> And then why is so Mary cross school is 8274 for last year. Here it's 8064. >> Yeah. Look, I'm not sure why because I didn't change those numbers >> and both those are slightly different because it should be 7946 from last year. >> Yeah. And I didn't Look at that real quick because >> I'm sorry. 8274. Okay. So, this one's right. 8274 and this one. >> Okay. So, 3A. Sorry, I was
017going to hear prior 3A. This is good. Okay. >> Yeah. >> 3B. [clears throat] These things seem to be something's a little wonky here. >> Maybe it didn't carry the formula like it should have carried down forward. Um I can update that 200. >> Okay. And then the net assessment revenues are denied anyways because 3A unfortunately doesn't go down to the tax rate like this one does. >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah, 3 goes to net assessment. 3B goes to tax rate. So, we don't have the actual revenues because obviously that little add back for these these revenues are correct. The 1943, >> you know, >> so these numbers here just need to be changed. You maybe want to just work on that Teresa and then we can reload it and then it should match over
018a second here. Okay. [clears throat] Okay. So, why not with that being said, so what we're and maybe I'll take my slides in a little bit of reverse order here. unfortunately it's a yeah, so it's going to be harder to uh >> you know what I'll bring up on this and then go like that. >> So these aren't on the agenda >> yeah refresh up here >> for those people participating. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So they can pull up this. So this is the PDF that's in there. Um, so what we're starting with and actually sorry if I just sorry I'm thinking through this real time here about how to so what we're working with here is the the top line for the Marian cross budget. So we went through the Dresden budget last night.
019So this is our Dresden assessment. So this has been fixed and it's obviously decided by the Dresdston folks for the Dresdston board. The Norwich budget here is what we're deciding on tonight. So it's this number here. This is not actually. Let's just go back out here. Oops. Just get rid of this. There's that. There we go. So, these are the numbers. I'm going to go flip back and forth because obviously this is not the what we're doing here. So, this this number here is really not. So, let's just let's call this the 6.15 budget. So this is the budget that we're working with. This, as we discussed at our last meeting, it includes preK, it includes the art teacher, but it doesn't include the four or five items that we've been talking about, which is
020the point4 tech integrationist, the point4 math person, and a few other things. We'll go through those in detail on my next slide here. So what we're going to go what I what I prepared was is basically something that shows the changes that we can look at tonight if we want to change this number and increase it from the 6.15% and we can do the calculations live if we want to add any items back that have been taken out. Now, just to replay the tape, we have spent a lot of time over in the Dresen uh budget meeting earlier this week. If people may remember, both the middle school and the high school, we spent uh quite a bit of time in that meeting making some fairly difficult decisions as far as trying to really keep
021that budget in that kind of 6% increase. Um there are some cuts to both the RMS as well as the high school um that were done. Julie Lson actually very kindly had taken a few more cuts at the high school to try to save a couple things at RMS that were even born to keep the entire Dresden budget at basically uh between six and 7% increase otherwise it was going to go higher than that. Um we can do the same tonight. I think what we should all keep in mind is is even though the tax rate implication is going to be fairly nominal and the idea might be to let's just pile on as much as we can in this budget because it's not going to have a big tax rate implication. I think we
022need to remember that the Norwich residents have had fairly large tax rate increases 17% a couple years ago not so much last year but what we approve in this budget is going to carry forward into their future budgets as well. Um and that was really one of the big discussions on the other side of the river that we were trying to make sure that you know we weren't setting ourselves up for failure next year because as people probably know that tax rate discount which we can get into in a second or calculation will be going away one more it'll be getting even lower next year. Um for example if you remove the tax rate discount this year instead of having a flat tax rate have about a five or six% increase on that. So, it's
023going to be going that would be going away in um being reduced further next year and going away the following year. Um so, I think we just have to be cognizant that we're not just approving, you know, a large increase to this budget for future years. Does anyone have any comments or thoughts on that? >> Michael, um in looking at slide three in your presentation, um many of these items were discussed at length in the previous meeting. >> Correct. Um, I hear you about trying to balance the needs of the school with the concerns of the taxpayers and the fact that the tax rate is artificially low right now and none of us has great insight into what's going to happen at Mont Pillar this year or in future years. Um, ju just to sort
024of get to the point when I take a look at these and think about what could or should be added back in. Um, I think people have been very persuasive about the need for more technical support in the tech integration specialist. If we were going to make an investment, I would say, um, that should be at the 0.8 FTE level. Um, and and that's not I'm not commenting on the individual who presently has that job. I just mean from a dedication of resources that it would make sense to me to invest more in that. Um the rest of the things I I felt like Sean conveyed to us that hey we've thought about this. We can live with this. We've figured out how to overlay our budget. Um and and so I would not be
025open to any other change. With the exception of I just had one quick question about site improvements. I think if you have a tax relief mechanism that sunsets over time that does provide an incentive to make one-time investments, right, that aren't going to repeat in the future. So, I know that our facility staff deem that $18,000 not critical, but it would seem to me to make sense to make that one-time uh investment now while you have the cover of the tax rate. Um, and then you won't have to do it in a future year where we might be in a a less favorable tax environment. And so, I wanted to learn more before making some sort of motion to add back in that $18,000. I'm not 100% certain the view of the administration on those
026on those funds. Great. So, Michael took us right into where we're going tonight, which is a um item by item discussion of each one of these items. So, let's just go right to the deck that we have prepared. Um again, so these are basically the these are basically where we're starting today. We'll call it the 6% budget. Okay, these are the items that have been removed to get to that 6% budget. Um, in these early items tonight, as Michael just pointed out that we are discussing whether we want any or all of them to be added back in these two slides, we can talk about what they actually are now and then we can get into an actual dollar amount and tax rate and budget implication and taxification number on the next slide which is
027all where all the calculations have done all comparing to the 6% budget. I'll go through these first Sean and then maybe the next part is is that survey and kind of talking about the items. So again the first item is the FTE kindergarten teacher that teacher has been eliminated next year due to a smaller class size that teacher has and again what we have decided what we the option that we have could do is we could we were evaluating originally when the budget went to 9% of whether we wanted to retain that position and make it a second building sub to aliviate some of the substitute teaching needs. We have at this point decided to keep it out but there's a way to to eliminate one FTE without reducing the without changing impact on classes.
028Then we have any questions on that one. What I'll do after is I'll go over to Sean too and get his thoughts. But that's that one here. The 6ft FTE is a special ed. Again, that was basically eliminated because that special ed resource is no longer needed at MCS. And I've got some notes over here because there's a little bit of complexity and what happens to these FTEEs. So, this 6 has been combined with a 04 if they decide to eliminate that to maintain a 1.0 equivalent position for the school. Okay. So it's and to keep me honest here Sean if that's what we've done. Okay. So when you're looking at the FTE sheet and you're like well we're only reducing by it looks like we're reducing a lot on more than we are. That's
029what's happening to these positions. Here's the point4 tech integration specialist. Again we can we're going to go through and mesh on each one of these that tonight we're going to evaluate whether we want to add keep the point4. So basically add it back in to retain the current position. There's also been the discussions to add increase it to a 0.8 FTD. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. I have a question on I don't need to answer now, but I don't want to lose it. I'm a little confused because on exhibit 5.2, there's a technology integrator, which is this position, but then there's a technology assistant, >> which was not filled this year, but is budgeted to be filled next year. And I'm con I don't know what the difference between those two positions is and whether that
030would address some of the concerns that we keep hearing from parents and the public about the safety of um the technology here in the building. So I just I I'm it confusing to me that there seem to be two positions and one of them wasn't filled this year and one of them was filled this year and then next year we're saying one of them won't be filled and the other one will be filled and so I just >> Yeah. Thank you. Again, I don't know if like you want I don't know how wants to handle it, but I just >> Let's do it now. That's confusing and that's my vote. You didn't ask me about So, that position is filled. Both positions are filled. Um, one >> Why is it a zero budget? >> A
031Terresa question, but I can tell you people in the building, both of them are filled. One is the person who fixes our machines, takes care of our network. The other is the person who works with um teachers, works with vetting um software and works with kids. >> So the technology assistant which is staying is the one that takes care of the machines and the other one Okay, thank you. >> I I was confused because it was zero and I just Yeah, >> the I think the tech the other one's labeled as a um the technician. >> Yeah, computer technician. Yeah, >> it's basically a difference between it and like somebody [clears throat] does tech versus >> No, I I understand the difference between that, but I'm confused about the the money >> and and how
032it shows up this year, last year, etc. So, >> Michael, >> ju just I know there are some people trying to follow along. Um Lisa, I just want to make sure that understand in the exhibit that you're looking at 5.2 two. When I look at page four, you see near the top technology integrator, >> right? >> And then underneath it, technology assistant. Um, >> right. >> And you see the zero and the 2425 actual expenditures. >> Correct. >> But then there's a positive number in the 2526 approved budget. >> Right. And then there's the support specialist below that as well. So, is that not >> is that So, there's not three people in the bill. I I guess that's what I'm confused by. >> I'm suspecting just from looking at this and I think Teresa
033would have a better answer, is that the the position that's in is 53,110 under technology support specialist is the position that we have this year filled. And then maybe it got a title changed for next year to technology assistant. >> Is that what it is? Okay. It just Yeah, there's it appears that there's three people people that could be in the building and could not be in the building depending on how you look at the chart. >> Actually, there there are two people. >> Okay, thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Um and we'll we'll hit each one of these in a minute. Um so the point4 math coach, >> again, at this point, this is being combined with the 6 to maintain the 1.0. Again, the decision tonight is
034what we're going to call option four, which is whether to add that back and retain it. And again, I put that note there that reinstating this means that we're probably adding another point4 FTB to help Sean maintain the math gets a little funky when you start doing the FTDs, but we can discuss that. And then we've got the four dollar amount items. Again, we have I put these all under option five if Michael already, you know, made a case for one of them. If we want to take all of them, we'll have Sean go through each one of these as well. So, why don't we So, really the next slide, which we don't have to go to yet, is really evaluating option one, two, three, four, and then five. And we look at the the
035tax rate implications for each one of these. But I think before we do this, it might be good to have Sean just go through for two things. Sean went through and spent some time and actually um asked the staff for opinions as well and how this is going to be perceived each one and then maybe Sean if you want to go through at least yeah I don't think we have to talk too much about again yeah why don't you go through them and kind of we can talk about them individually all right so I'll just go in order of this list so um I did ask the staff if they would just do a quick survey for each these items to say whether the item was essential for our program. Um, right to have but
036not essential and we will be okay without this position just to get a feel because not everyone comes to the meetings and I don't voice out loud but survey seems like a safe way. though I did that the kindergarten teacher position had 14% of staff that said it was essential to our program which makes sense because right now it it's not we have we don't have the numbers to justify it. So to me that's an easy that's pretty easy. We probably would have done that whether we have budget issues or not. Um, second item, the special education position. Um, as a staff that was essential, 32% of our staff said that was an essential position. Um, something for you to know about that is the person that does that work is not leaving is getting
037repositioned. So if we were to have an influx of students who had special education needs, it would be pretty easy to shift around a little bit. So um reducing that for next year's budget still allows us to have the expertise of the person in the building. So if we needed it, we would have less intervention services and more special services if that came about. um the tech integration specialist. So I asked in two ways. I asked first just to keep it the way it is at point4 and 27% of our staff said it was essential to keep at the point 4 and then I asked if we were to increase it to 8. 19% of the staff said it was essential to our program at the8 FTE. I think I talked at the budget committee
038meeting that that I think this is a good test of our federation model at um SAU70 because we could access resources from across the SAU. John, on that point, maybe again, I want to take you off your um track here on the survey results, but since we're on the tech integrationist, can you maybe just make sure that all of us as board members understand what are the tech resources in the building? And then to Matt's concern, which I think is frankly all the board's concern a little bit about, are we really risking child safety? Who's going to like take over that role? was really leading people to bed wolves as far as the internet goes and lack of education. >> Yes. So we in our building right now we have the one person who is
039designated to fix computers who can do work on our network who can do fix any of our devices that sort of work. >> That's one full that's a full time full time in the building. in the building. Um, we also have one person who is here on Mondays and Fridays who is it represents this position the tech integration at point4 and that person's role is to help staff. So if they need help with using their devices um she assists with that also to help with all the vetting. So any apps that we have, she goes through with the Federation Council of other integrations and looks at those apps and make sure that they're safe. There's also a several step process that they have to go through. She used to before this year work with kids
040[clears throat] from our technology department with safety this year. So she has dedicated most all of her time to to that appeting piece this year worked with staff son. So if we were to move this position to point eight we would be adding back in the component which is having this person work with kids. the the person who feeds the child with teachers would work with the vetting piece and would have time to work with kids that have internet stage digital citizenship. It is a little bit of a risk to to do away with the position. Um it's a test like I said of our bigger model. It could be that we try this model and we say, "Wow, this is something that just doesn't work and next year we add this position back in."
041That's about all I can say about it. I don't know as a new tech director you have any more to say, but so the just to be clear, I think the apps as I recall are actually all vetted by the SA new technology. Do I remember um sorry >> absurd vetted it's >> there's a there's a committee of um tech integrationists one from each of the schools they come together so the in-house person does a little work on the flowchart to vet an app and then they bring it to this larger committee they do more work to make sure that it fits all the categories and then they bring it back to us >> but you can't use an app that hasn't embedded by the skin, right? For kind of >> that's what yes to
042>> we're moving to not being before it was just basically people got apps and it wasn't really a vetting process. So now we put a vetting process into place. >> I know that was a big focus of the last the tech team over the past year or two is basically saying like we got to stop this. This is like not good practice. do more. >> I would say a concern that I would have about not having somebody in each of the buildings is is situated in that is that in each of the buildings a staff member can go to the integrationist in the building and say, "Can I use this app? Is it on the list? I'm thinking about using this app." And like in real time, the person can say, "Yes, it's allowable." Or,
043"No, it's not allowable." Or, "Wait, you're using it anyway? Now I'm going to block it, right? or I'm going to bring this to the federation council to consult um and then I bring that back. So it does feel like a liaison to position um between what's happening at the SAU and what's happening in each of the schools. >> So right now the the kids as far as the education like internet safety person that doesn't no one's doing that right now because the point 4 is really doing the app betting and the helping with teachers on the Monday Friday. There's just there is no time for kids to give them internet safety. Is that correct? >> Right. And my recommendation with this is if we're going to keep the position then I would move it to
044the point8 because if we're going to have it, it might as well be useful and it's more useful to have someone who works with kids and works with teachers that does the whole package. I think one of the hard parts now is when you have somebody who's here just two days a week and half of one of those days is spent at the SAU in the tech meeting. it's hard to accomplish a whole lot. So, I think if if the board wanted to consider this position, I I would go against what this said and say that um if it's going to be useful, a point8 is what it should be. That's that would be my recommendation. I do wonder too um if staff may not know the potential of a position because they just haven't
045experienced that part of it yet. So it would be a little less easy to envision and prioritize adding that back in when you look at these other things that we currently have in the school and we know what that's about and we know the value that it adds. >> Okay. [clears throat] All right. Let's keep going there. So, the the math coach position, uh, I talked about that before, but again, I'll say that that's a was a position that was grant funded. Uh, it has been a great position. The person in it has done some amazing things, has been super helpful, started our math night that's been popular with everyone. Um, it was on the list because of two things. one, we didn't intend for it when we put this position in to be a
046lifelong position. It was meant to come in, help with the math program, get people up and going and give that support. Two, with our literacy program, we are going to be grant funding a person who will be a literacy coach to come in and help with that part. So, I think we also have to look at capacity with staff. Um, it's a position that if you put it back in, you would be working with 35% of the staff that said it was essential to have. Um, and I I think it's a it's a great position. It's just sort of if we're going to be looking at reductions, this is one that could sunset because the intent was for it to to do that. >> Sure. Y and again that individual is being combined with another
047with the with the special ed as far as in our math of FT goes. Correct. So that individual is of one FTU now in a classroom position. >> Right. So the individual in the position would be moved to a classroom position. >> Right. So the the other ones are um technology equipment is something that I would suggest we keep on our list to learn just because we have some grant funding that's going to pay for a bunch of that this year. >> Okay. >> And that that seems to be okay. >> Field trips. Um I think that our PTO would help us with that piece. Um I think that's an okay thing if we're looking for places to reduce assemblies the same. I think we could look for outside resources um to fund that site
048improvements was interestingly the staff had 60% who said that was essential to our program to take care of our girls and maintain that. So I agree with Michael that if that's something that's not going to continue year to year, it might be something to slide in this year, take advantage of that and get a few paints done. Just to give you the percentages on the other, the technology equipment 19% of people said it was essential assemblies 24% and field trips 19%. >> All right. So, I think again when we asked Sean to look at the budget and how to tighten it up, I think you can tell he's, you know, he's got a pretty good bead, at least from my perspective, on the staff and their feelings as well. I would be more shocked if
049we end up with a bunch of people saying these are critical and I toate that. Okay. As far as the sighting improvements, one thing, Teresa, so I'm a little bit as far as what those are. I thought originally that our facilities director had determined that these we could still we could still use the money then for this year. >> Yes, >> that would definitely be missed. It would just be like if we had to tighten things up. These are things that we don't need to necessarily do, but it would probably mean that we need to do it next year. >> Yeah. And originally we didn't decrease the budget like like that 18,000 pulling that out didn't decrease the budget. Basically put us back at status. We had actually added some in with the hopes of
050doing a couple more projects or something. But if it didn't happen and we had to cut the budgets then, you know, it was one of those things. >> Okay. Okay. Michael, >> I guess my question then Teresa is what would we be buying with that $18,000 to the extent the tax environment might be somewhat more favorable this year than in future years, >> right? And I can tell you I can look at the facilities document that we have and um and tell you how we get out of that. >> So T is looking that up. did upload sorry I did upload a a revised for those two numbers >> and I just labeled it 3A and 3B so it's one continuous document >> okay it's not matching you do I can figure out some other
051scenario so I got back >> okay so what we've done here is is moving from that slide to this slide and what Sean's saying is we put this up here so everyone pretty much very quickly assess what the expenditure implications are and then all the way down to the tax rate. So again, just so everyone understands, Mary and Cross, this is our budget. So this is what we're talking time of. This is what it was last year. This is what it was this year. Again, this is our baseline what we've been calling a 60% budget. So it's got an increase of six 6.15. The dress assessment we just updated. This is what was approved uh on Tuesday night over in Dresden. So again, this was after some cuts uh that was made to keep that
052and again that's the overall budget's actually pretty much in line there. What's it up now? But what's the whole Dresden budget up? It would have been just over 6%. Just over 6%. And obviously the assessment is our piece of it because we we base it on how many kids we have going over the river. So it changes a little bit here, but this is based on our percentage of students that are used that are over there. So again, that's our total education or you know expenditures on the two schools or on the three schools. Then we've got our revenues prior year fund balance is this number here. Again, that went up quite a bit because of we had a increase in epic block grant. Then that number so the 1795 minus your revenues is what
053we call our education spending. Then we've got the long-term ADM number. Again, this jumped quite a bit this year. Um because we believe either there's any we don't want to get into too much, but this is really helping us this year. It's unclear if this is going to stay like this. This number could go back down again next year. So, that's another thing that I think is in weighing on all us in the back of our heads that's um heavily geared towards again we don't have 800 kids in the system. is based on the waitings based on poverty um English language learners and our rural nature of our town which is very rural compared to the rest of Vermont. >> Um that education spending by the ADM that's your per people spending so 4% and
054we've got the equalized homestead tax rate. So again sorry divide that number by your yield that gives you your tax rate. So the yield comes from the Department of Education. That's in the letter. That's our tax rate. Again, this here is the scent discount. This is what's going to be going down again next year and down one more year and eventually to zero. So that's why if you're to zero this out, our tax rate would actually be up, I think, five or 6%. Not just by one uh not just by sorry, the 3%. >> Um then you divide it by your CLA. Again, a little bit of not changes the state to make things even more confusing. They've divided by a statewide adjustment because people were thinking that the 65% CLA the whole basically I
055think the whole state was underassessed. So they're trying to make people that like I really think what they did there was they were trying to dampen the impact that local CLA would have in fluctuating the tax rate. So by bringing in this statewide adjustment, it just makes those swings locally less volatile. Okay? So you divide your equalized homestead by your statewide by your CLA because again all the state is based on your property values and they try to do you want to equalize [snorts] Norwich's property who we were just reassessed with someone that may not have been assessed, right? So that's how you get the that's how you get the overall tax rate that contributes to the state ed fund. So our nominal tax rate is going to go down by about percent. So again
056these are the things that I've worked with Teresa to add in. These are the costs here. So the added cost of that building sub would be 74. We would basically add about a percent. Tech integration obviously would add about half a percent. 08 would obviously be about twice that amount. The math coach is that amount. This is the sum of the other expenses, but you can see we can do whatever we want. And then we've done a sample here of just $100,000 increase in aggregate would go from, you know, a 6% increase to a 7.3% increase. It's still just, you know, pretty much a flat tax rate. Um, and these are the these are the resulting increases actually. So actually, let's start the math here. So you're talking the difference again between the 704 and
057the 615 is basically 0.9% or obviously 74,000. This is the increase in the tax rate be a half a percent change tax. So these are the these are the differences down below. So, Gina, >> I liked Michael's idea or second idea, but I' I'd like to propose that we approve the8 tech integrator plus another 10,00 like that $100,000 column. And the $10,000 extra either goes to facilities or it's used to sub increase what we pay substitutes. So, we have more support from the substitute angle, but without having to hire a second building person. Um, like I mean, what I'm hearing is we have a demand and for subs that is not being met and we probably need to pay more to get more people in the building and so maybe you get creative and use
058the money that way. Um, but I I'm very uh invested in making sure we have tech in support in the school and comes from my personal experience of supervising an IT team at a technology company and the problems and issues around apps that you described were hard to manage in a technology company. And so here I think that the risk of not having that for our kids is greater and not something we want to be dealing with as a board or as school or putting our teachers in. And so that's my vote. Like I I mean I feel like we've discussed this a lot so I don't personally have to discuss a lot more. I'm um so I'll put that out there. >> Good. And again I think we you know the reason we're having
059this seems like kind of small numbers and the overall implication of tax rates fairly small. I think what we're really concerned about though is keeping this increase and keeping this baseline number. I mean again if you look at just the overall level of spending right I mean it's some you know every year a 6% increase although might not be a lot. I mean, that's an extra that's another million dollars, right, that we're adding on here. And that's going to be that that's really why we're doing this in Dresdston as well. And that's why >> as hard as it were, as easy as it would have been just to be like, you know what, let's just spend over there. There was some really hard discussions and the board actually took some fairly, you know, hard made
060some hard decisions. I guess the way I just stop I'll stop after this is $90,000 or another additional 50 for the tech or 40 whatever 43,000 if we had an issue that's going to cover the legal costs. I mean and then some like I just I think that we'd be pennywise and pound foolish to not like in a a environment where AI and technology is continuing to grow and grow and grow. I would be disappointed if we didn't invest in that for our kids. That's okay. Anybody else have any >> answer the question now on the facilities? It was basically um there were circuits that they wanted to install and stuff like that. So we kind of put that in there that maybe we can get it done because there was certain things but then
061when we discussed you know when we were trying to reduce the budget and there was other things that had to do with like carpeting and flooring and stuff. So, we were going to take advantage if we could, but they weren't something that were going to be um critical in the sense of we couldn't we had to reduce it. They were not going to be detrimental to the education and the safety of the things like that. >> I just want to say thank you for the explanation. Um I I I don't think we're the only school district um who who should be thinking about deferred maintenance. I mean, Vermont's as a matter of public policy at the state level doesn't do building aid. So, it kind of makes at least for the time being all of
062us responsible for this. Um, and the tab comes due. It's just when when you want to pay for it. >> Um, I'm sensitive about keeping the tax rate low. I'm sensitive about keeping budget in check. Um, something I agree with that that Rogers brought up the last two weeks in public comment is there's got to be a time to advocate and fight like heck for your schools. So, I want to do that and be able to say to people in Montilier, we we are responsible when it comes to the budget. I just think that we got to be really careful with maintenance because if you end up having to do it at a time, not of your choosing, >> right? >> You really end up in a gym. And I won't repeat everything Gina said
063about tech integrationist but I wholeheartedly agree >> and I think the I think the only thing and again from my perspective I was kind of looking at this I'm like well I mean just add all back like the tax rate is not really going up but I think that's just a bad idea because again when you start having this number up top increase too much don't forget this yield number came from the state based on some assumptions about what we're all spending. So even though our tax rate is kind of flat, if we're like, you know, we could technically probably have a 5% tax rate increase and increase our budget by 15%. I think if we did that and everyone in the state did that, this number will probably come back to us and change
064because everyone's [clears throat] spending more than they should be. I look into a little bit here, but that's the risk about just going on wild here and just because this number here is not really bothering us too much. Because again, these are this these can these this can change between now and when the tax bills come out. This is just an estimate based on what the E e thinks all the towns are going to spend on their budgets. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um [clears throat] Yeah. >> Yeah. just to I mean so that we can kind of move along to a vote. Um I'm for the tech integrationist and I definitely think we should add take advantage of the facilities and the onetime spending. Um as long as I've been on the board, we
065keep talking about the fact that we don't spend enough to fix things and it was a huge part of the strategic plan that we kind of keep ignoring and kicking down the road. So I'm fine with that. >> Yeah. >> All right. Do we have any other board comments before my role? >> Well, just very briefly, I mean, I think Garrett is right, the chair is right to bring up risks and I guess the the two risk questions I have are um the ADM number scares me because like >> others mentioned last week my faith in the agency of education is not as high as one would wish. Um, and a surprise on the EDM. They came back and said, "Oops, we were wrong about this." By 30 weighted students would be a huge problem.
066So, I'm just looking from the administration. Hey, how solid do you think that number is? And then, um, we've had a lot of changes in the business office. So, I just want to know like your level of confidence in the numbers as they're put up there, which that's not meant as a criticism. It's just like, hey, things a budget is a plan. The only thing we know about it is that it won't be exactly right when we see actuals next year. And so I guess on those two issues, I'm just trying to assess the risk to the budget as constructed. >> So I know as far as like the straight up ADM for uh the preK to 12 numbers, I vetted those hours over hours going back. I mean, literally pulling up every student record
067in our school for the kids that live in Norwich um to to make sure that they line up. Now, our numbers that were presented and sent to the state October 1st, but that's the number obviously they're that should have been imported. Um so now when I go into power school and I compare it even a meal time for what we have for students, um you know, it was off like one or two or so. Well, we know that some students come and go since since October 1st. So other than that, um, pretty much my numbers were right on with theirs finally. Um, before, I mean, we started out with no numbers and then finally version 10 finally had numbers, but the number that still concerned me over and over. Um, and again, the let me
068back up the ELLL numbers, those seem to match up. And that was a number like that came in at 10. the number that was striking is going from about 35 kids to about 54 for um the federal poverty level. So, that's the one that kind of concerned me and that's the one that I've gone back over and over and over. Um, and and based on the number of students that are um um flagged as being reduced in Norwich, I'll say here in Cross is um about 24 students and then at the high school middle school level, we've got another 20 something students um like 23. So when I started putting those two numbers together, I'm like, okay, I I can buy into the 54 and again we're talking about numbers that were um those particular
069numbers, believe it or not, they are provided by the state. We don't provide them that number that is from the direct search list and everything. So and them doing the calculation too on on the poverty level. um whether it's I mean I I still have a level of uneasy with that number but at the same time if you look back two years ago I think the number was 828 last year dropped to 816 and now we're back to 834 >> so I still question and I know that Jamie over and over and still question and probably still will that's whether or not last year's number was correct >> and that was the year that we were below 2% % each level. >> So, and I've gone through I have certified both of these numbers, the
070ADM, the OTW. >> Um, and I've looked through everything with our data specialists. We've gone through all the numbers. I'd looked at all the work that Teresa did and I charts that they sent us. Um, so it's I mean it seems like everything is as accurate as it could be, but the state has been notoriously not great about this stuff. And I think, you know, last year Jay wrote a letter basically protesting the numbers that we had. So, >> but we've definitely had an increase in bring reduced lunch numbers from the year before. So, we're receiving our title one again, >> but um yeah, let's and tracer gone back and forth with the person at the state and and then I also again with vetting just even just the student number. Um I too was
071working with our IT department and stuff like that because those numbers are presented and given to the state but like I said when I was like with in one or two and I know that since October we've had movement with students as like you know and I had some where they're right on um student count didn't change from what I have and what the state has but um yeah it's >> we talked with John too just about the numbers of the school 32. >> The national unemployment rate has gone up in the last 12 to 18 months. It is within reason to think that it's impacting Norwich families as much as it's impacting otheries. >> That's just my guess. seven. >> Okay, Neil. >> Yeah, I will say so I mean for starters that um
072whether the 834.92 number is right or wrong, it is the number that's the final number from the AO. So that's the number that we will be using this year for calculating the tax rate, right? >> Um I guess when I look at this like there's two there's two ways to look at this. One is um the tax rate impact and you know under normal circumstances we sometimes refer to this as tax capacity, right? Do we think that we've got the capacity to add additional um expenditures in because the resulting tax rate seems like it's palatable. The other way to look at this is the future look of things as to what's coming down the road. Um and Garrett, you had mentioned a little bit about this before, right? So under the existing formula, we're seeing
073a declining cent discount on our tax rate in future years. Um so we know that that's heading in the other direction and you know the future us could be sitting here next year having another discussion about what reductions we think we need to make because that scent discount is going down. the other and on top of that when we see um even small fluctuations in the percentage of Norwich versus Hammer kids that go to Dresden that affects our net assessment from Dresden and I believe that the graduating sixth grade class from here is a fairly large class and that's likely to just ever so slightly monkey with that percentage number and shift more of that burden over to Norwich for next year's budget. Um, I I really like Michael's idea of um considering some one-time
074money in uh capital expenditures, building um maintenance costs. I'm less inclined to support um adding to the budget that would be recurring um costs only because that establishes a new baseline for next year that we all have to work from. Um and I will let you all know. So, here's the Yeah, the my doom and moon role, right? That's the one that I play sometimes here. Um so, uh I was just recently Rebecca had just reached out to me um a day ago. So, there's uh you know, a lot of uncertainty around redistricting in the state of Vermont right now, but um one thing is for certain is that the governor and even some Democratic leadership are pushing hard to keep going with Act 73. The way that act 73 was designed was that if
075you didn't take care of the redistricting part, then all of the other pieces after that that came wouldn't get implemented. But the other pieces that came after that was a change in the in the funding formula. And so there's this big push this session, I think, to get that redistricting piece done so they can move on to the funding formula that change. The funding formula change switches us from deciding locally on how much we want to spend here and the state basically giving us a pot of money and saying you figure it out. There are actually numbers in act 73 that you can use to do some forecasting. And that number is the per people spending number. And so the number that we see here right this 19,11 well so that's the second building. So
076yeah 19,024 the number that is in act 73 is $15,33. >> Mhm. If you calculate that out, which I did recently, uh, against the FY 26 budget, so the one we're working on right now, that would be a reduction of just about $4.6 million for us. Let me let that sink in for a second. $4.6 million. Now, if there's a good news story, we don't get hit with all of that at once. they like the cents discount, they spread it out over a period of five years. Um but in year one, we would look at reductions of just over um $900,000. So just shy of a million, [clears throat] right? And so I'm very cautious because I, you know, I think something's going to happen in ed reform this year. Um the governor has already
077said that he's going to hold the general fun the general budget. um and any approval of that yield number hostage unless lawmakers come forward with some change in education reform. So things are going to get I think a little heated little nasty even probably before we the end of the session. All this to say that I am in support of the 18,000 addition for facilities improvements, but I would not support any of the remaining increases. >> Gina, [clears throat] I hear the doom and gloom. And instead of piloting 0.8 8 tech integrator for a year. What if we pilot 8 tech integrator and make it a one-year position? And then the other thing I'd say is if we're in the position that you just described, we're going to have a bigger problem than a $90,000
078thing. If we have to cut a million dollars from the budget, that's like all things come back on the table. And I I just I I'm really struggling to see us cut back technology resources at the school given what we've heard from teachers, parents, and my own experience. And I think we're putting ourselves at risk and we have a different discussion to have. But I appreciate what you're saying. You've been saying it and but they we've been hearing this and then that you know things haven't happened. So maybe something will change too. We don't know. Um I guess I feel like if our responsibility is we're talking about next year, would you be open to a pilot like one year term or I don't know you call it in education. That's what we call it
079like a one-year, you know, position where you try it, see how it works. Then it's not guaranteed. It's like the grant position that you talked about, the math coach where it was 6 and it was only a year. I'm a little worried. We only our assistant principal or whatever your assistant superintendent is also like we are we are spread so thin like I just I don't know. But that's my Michael. >> Yeah, I guess um and I I won't add much other than um I appreciate Neil's perspective. Um I think you can look at it in terms of what tax capacity is there. Um you can look at it in terms of hey having a responsible budget. But you can look at it in terms of hey is Mont Pillar going to um dismember our
080school district because the kind of cuts [snorts] that $4 million would entail would would dismember our school district and presumably we would have a response to that. Um, I actually am proposing this these two items because while I don't know what the future of education is and I'm not a professional educator in all versions of the future that I can think of, we need to deal with deferred maintenance and technology will be a bigger deal than not a smaller deal. And so I just think strategically you put it in this year and if the state requires you to blast a million dollars out of your school budget at some point, you deal with that at that point in time. Um there are a lot of unknowns. Uh when I went and worked on education finance
081in tax policy in my pillar 15 years ago, one legislator commented to me that 5% school budget increases have been unsustainable for all 30 years people voting for those. >> Um I know the governor is very serious about this. Um but you know, I think our job is to craft the best budget we can for next year. And I don't take think taking 18 or 50 or $100,000 is an effective hedge against$1 to4 million in risk in the future. >> Um that's it. I mean I think it's we're a board I'm reminded by a better board member than me that individually we have no power. We vote and then you know we go from there. Um and so I guess I would am persuaded to try to keep those two items in and move along.
082And Michael, the only thing I would say is so persuaded to add those tip bends back, right? >> Yes. I I'm persuaded to stay where I started the conversation, which is 28 tech integrationist and a modest um increase in one time facilities investments. >> What that results in basically I just did it, but obviously it would be taking this 90 plus another 18. This number here actually becomes 108 62. This number here would basically be 7.46%. So another tenth of a percent. And this number here is basically point it goes up by basically instead of 1457 it's 1466. So it's basically minus.21%. So it's pretty. So [clears throat] yeah this you're basically going from 6% to 74 six it's 7.4. So is what that is. So the ill overall would basically said 6.99 would be
083that number there. >> I guess a point of clarification I have for the chair is do we add these do we make a decision on these two items by voting on them or um or just reaching consensus what we normally there's a budget as presented and then these two items are out. >> I think we'd be approving a budget tonight for this 78. So basically the budget would be 8891377 which would be this number here plus that plus 18. >> Yes. [clears throat] I'm asking so I understand it procedurally and then um you know to Neil's comments who is in support of one piece of that but not another. And so to vote, I would propose them separately and so as to not tie the two of them together because they don't necessarily need to
084be >> tied together as >> I guess we could vote fairly separately. [clears throat] Um uh yes, but I would do it in reverse order. So I would I would take a vote on um adding the tech integrator. You would take a vote on adding the building facility amount and then based on what of those two things add that amount the total expendit and then take that vote. >> Yeah. So there three votes >> potentially. Yeah. >> Oh, we have to wait. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> All right. Any other comments from the board or questions from the board? Just a point of clarification because I thought I heard Gina s suggest a $10,000 raise instead of an 18. >> I'm okay to let that go. Just wanted to be creative. >> Okay. Thank you.
085>> And just where that came from. I'm sure no over in Dresden. There wasn't talk about just putting in a dollar amount versus there was very detailed spreadsheets with little tiny cuts and the board decided there is just >> making 25 instead of two plus two plus four. Okay. >> Um All right. They have been boring members from the public comments. >> Um yeah, Roger just one comment. I so to reference gloom and doom. I do think gloom and doom can very quickly become righteous anger which is a very useful emotion and advocacy can go from activism. Um and I do think there's like a lot of political education that needs to happen in our community and specifically political education not you know just education. Um, so I the the role of the board or
086PTO or any other organization to do that I would hope would materialize. Um, for the second building sub I just I'm trying my just comment generally is I know it's off the table. Um, I just I'm trying to understand from the perspective of labor how you could, you know, be an educator, a qualified educator. Um, [clears throat] be perhaps one of the best in the environing elementary school and then, you know, three students, four students can move or, you know, get the enrollments that you have tracked and they could lose their livelihood um, from one year to the next. So, um I have I guess my rhetorical comment would be I have a hard time reconciling how um someone's livelihood can be made so volatile in this climate. I'm shocked there's not the union that
087would have something to say about that. Um certainly would. Um but so just my thought would be it's it's a shame [clears throat] that you know we're not able to retain that position from one year to the next in this instance um just from that from the perspective of labor and so much job not so much a good budget decision which is clear that it is >> so thank you for that >> just yeah I'm sorry just a point of clarification the second building sub is not a current position is an addition. So there's no volatility. >> It was proposed as a solution at one point that you would be losing effectively from what I understand. >> Unfortunately, that also would probably not be the same person either necessarily, right? So be retiring for >>
088the whole system is affected consequentially. >> Um the question relate back in immigration. I think this question might be more for Sean and Lauren if you guys don't mind but it your vote my question if it goes if if um it does not pass of adding in the 08 tech integration and we're at zero I know there's I mean you have a administrative overall and in house will this does the ticketing system and the SAU have the capacity and the ability to absorb of not having anyone else. That's my concern. >> Two different things. So the other position, the current 1.0, the person that's fixing the machines and doing the tech, that is the person that is directly responsible for the ticketing. >> Okay. >> So um this does not impact ticketing. So I do
089put in a ticket if I can't use my viewboard for example. >> There are some tickets that are related to staff interaction with technology and the ticket right now. Um, yeah. And depending who that goes to, I mean, yeah, it can go to the person who's the 1.0 now or it can go to the person who is the point. 4 now. >> Um, the tickets can be directed right the way that they need to be directed. >> I would assert that perhaps that is not the correct workflow that should be happening. So if we eliminated all the T tickets, it would go to the 1.0 because that would be the only price available. >> Yeah. >> Any other comments? >> Hearing not. Okay. Um I guess at this point then we'll move on to voting.
090Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I would make a motion to add $18,000 to this budget for one time maintenance and facilities expenses. >> Do you have to do the warning articles first? >> I think that's after we have >> after that's not part of the budget. >> It's after >> the end result. >> Okay. >> I think with this one we do. >> Okay. Do you need me to add items to this agenda live now to make this happen or can they be added later? >> Yeah, we don't need to. I'll add them. >> All right. Do I have a second to that? Right. Is that all those in favor? >> I All right. So, the 18,000 will be added back in. Do a motion regarding the 8 integrator. We make a motion to add a
091point8 tech integrator to the FY2627 budget. >> All right. Have a second. Gina, point of clarification, dollar amount associated with that. >> Oh, yes. Um, let me look at um with gratitude to the budget committee for their well-dressed spreadsheet containing all that. I make a motion to add $90,682 to the budget in service of appointing FTE tech integration desk. Right? Second. >> I'll second it. >> Be consistent. I'm going to note. >> All right. All those in favor? All right. Those opposed. All right. So, that will also pass. Um, right. As far as the overall budget, >> that's a total addition of 108682. >> The actual number. >> Yeah. 77. 88 91377 37 377 889 377 >> All right. 46% >> 1.4 or or 6%. Exactly. And you have a tax rate of 14066, Teresa.
092>> Um, >> correct. >> Yeah. The rounding is a little off, but it could be mine. >> Okay. >> I think it should be 1.466. >> Yeah, it's the same thing I'm getting. >> Okay. Okay. So, do I have a motion for a budget 8891377 for the Marian Cross 2026 27 budget? >> So, moved. >> Seconded. >> Second. All those in favor. >> All right. All right. Those are tough decisions. The numbers weren't particularly big. I appreciate everyone's work on this. I appreciate everyone's opinion on this. I know was it was a tough one to to um yeah to decide on. I appreciate all Sean's work, the administration's work and remind the public that a lot of these hard decisions are at the request of the board. So we are asking the administration to go
093through and come up with stuff. So this is by no means any of these things that are changes or things that they would necessarily like or want to do. Um, okay. We'll move on. I should make change my screen here. There. All right. So, on to that we'll do the warning articles. The war articles, sorry. upload a refresh since we just changed that number. >> Yeah. And before you do that, can I ask one question? So Teresa, did the the number in the in the warrant article package um should be the the Norwich budget minus the full salser. And so what I know is if that amount >> did that include the board salary that's export salary >> that one that one did include the same as how we did it through the other districts
094where that particular number did include it even though it's on the warrant articles. >> Yeah. So I think guys for them for the purposes of the warrant articles that we approve tonight we need to do that minus $2500 to get to the amount that's going to show up in the war article for the expend. [clears throat] >> So, eight 8887. >> I like that. >> 88878. >> Yeah. >> Your school budget brought to you by the Rehood Casino. I can hear Wes's face's voice from the Vermont right now in my head like >> Thank you. Eric, I will um move to approve the 26 27 war articles um with an adjustment article five for the uh school board um budget to expend of 8,888,877. >> I second that. Um I don't know whether this matters
095but on the draft it says 2024 2025 articles >> at the top. >> Oh so just >> I changed that. I don't know sometimes it seems like >> well as someone whose name was left off of the ballot once I kind of cost a town a couple >> they didn't change $1,000. It looks like there are a couple different references to the >> across the board 2026 2027, right? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, that just needs to be cleaned up. Yeah. >> All right. So, we had a um motion and a second. All those in favor of the morning articles as amended. >> I >> That is also unanimous. Okay. Um I don't think there's a need to move into executive session tonight. All right. So our agenda topics for the next
096meeting presuming we don't need to get reconvened right now. I think anything changes anyways. We don't need to date we just approve it in March one. Um so yes for our next meeting any agenda topics you may have at this point. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Can I can I ask a question before we adjourn? Sure. >> Just because it appears we adjourned incorrectly for the last two budget meetings. That was only because we had a warrant article. Okay. I just want to make sure we don't just because we had a service >> agreement warrant article but it has been read. >> Okay. Okay. >> Just again we don't have to proceed. I didn't mean to interrupt the interrupt the club, but >> uh I would move to adjourn the meeting at
0978 or 9 p.m. Uh with gratitude to Neil and Garrett for all their work in the budget for the 2026 2025th >> and her first year board members >> one other seconded by Gene. All those in favor. We are now adjourned at 8:10 p.m.