School Board Budget Hearing/Meeting 1-5-25

001set. >> Hello. >> Finally, we'll call this meeting and we'll board to order. We'll begin the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> See that? >> Yes, I did. >> I call this >> still. All right. So, a bit of a just a housekeeping um point. We circulated a posting for the budget hearing again at 5:00 p.m. uh concurrent with the same time as the school board meeting on the 22nd of December. We did previous to that I had um circulated notice at the budget hearing would begin at 6. Unfortunately, the papers neither paper notice that we don't know whether they are in circulation for the notice notice that we have changed to

0025:00. So, we're going to make a motion here in a moment to move into budget hearing [snorts] and begin. Uh, but it may in fact be the case that we [clears throat] have some folks arriving with the expectation the budget hearing starting at 6 and so we'll deal with that as it happens if we're going to start budget. So with that I would look for a motion to move into the budget. So all those in favor I stayain motion carries 5. We've now begun our budget hearing. We'll ask superintendent to take it away. >> Thank you Matt. Okay, out of uh respect for everybody everybody's time because I think everybody in the room's heard this before, but I'll still go through it because we also have people that may be tuning in uh um via

003via the broadcast. So, I want to make sure that uh they have a full sense of our budget, what what we're proposing. Uh and then as part of this, we'll also be discussing a little bit an item that uh that uh has been front and center for a while or at least not front and center but discussed quite a bit that being open enrollment. We'll get into that in the later part of the latter part of the budget discussion. So I'll be I'll be giving a little bit of presentation. This is based on the presentations that were prepared by building principles and and uh in and directors of various departments in the school system. I'll ask any of you if I make a mistake anywhere in presenting what you put together to just let me

004know. I won't take offense to that. And certainly if anybody has questions uh that requires a more in-depth answer that I can give, people who put this together are here tonight to help with that. Okay, so here we go. Every year the board does budget philosophies and philosophy and priorities. And so that hasn't changed too much. As a matter of fact, this part of the this part of the uh philosophy and priorities is the same as last year. Um last year priority teacher and staff compensation uh again this year uh is is pri is the first on the list. What is a little bit different is is a priority number five. Ensure facil school facilities are safe for students and staff. They're fully utilized to uh pro provide an adequate learning and work environment. And

005then we listed the building because sometimes we kind of forget about we know about Lakeway, we know about this building, uh the academy, it's right here on the campus and the SAU office. But we do have a number of buildings uh that we do that we do uh support and make sure we do a good job keeping them in good shape. budget highlights. You know, we're we're going to bring a budget uh proposal that's a little over 400,000, a little more than $400,000 increase. Just to get to that number, though, we we made significant adjustments, reductions, and so on, as we'll see here in a moment. Uh but here's some of the things that are that led to a significant increase in the the budget as we first started working. Um, health insurance, uh, probably

006to nobody's surprise, health insurance has been going up and up and up, and so it is with us. Um, premiums next year. Um, around $43,931 increase. That's a little bit driven by who end up hiring at the end of the day, what kind of a policy and plan that they select, but that's what we have to budget for. Professional agreements. Last year, a new teacher agreement was voted on. uh pretty strongly by the town. We're thankful for that support of our teachers uh so that we can pay them well and give them good benefits and hopefully keep them keep them here because uh good teachers are difficult to find these days and support staff likewise. A couple years ago, the voters supported a support staff agreement that enhanced compensation for our support staff as well

007that do a really great job supporting our students. So that of those increases are in the budget. Out of out of district tuition, special education, uh a little bit of a rise there anticipated for next year, regular education. We do tuition tuition some students, uh regular students out. Uh so that has to be in the budget for next year as well for $100,000. So uh but the proposed budget 19,421,000 with the uh with the uh reserve fund deposits. Uh that brings it up to 499376 uh which is a increase of 2.64%. So to get to the 499 uh given what we just saw in the previous slide, we did some reorganizing. We actually started doing this at the end of last year, not filling some positions, which by the way is helping this year's budget,

008but also is helping next year's budget. So, some differences, some changes we made. Transition counselor, we didn't fill. Director of teaching learning, we didn't fill. One of our math teachers, middle school math, moved title one out out of the general fund. We had an ESOL position here at the high school. We we didn't fill. Uh it's covered now by a single teacher that were at both Lakeway and the high school. um uh science we did a a good job there by uh utilizing an individual who we had hired to teach CTE classes who was able part-time and with the opening in science were able to make that a full-time position instead instead of hiring had having to hire a full-time science teacher we only had to hire partial part-time science teacher because of that combo.

009Sad to say the residency program was something that uh that we the ministry leadership team uh given the given the budget conditions we have and just the general climate uh we determined not to put that into the budget that we presented to the board and budget committee. So reduced about 628,000. Okay. So now we get into the individual uh departments program section. operations and technology. Um we we hear this all the time. Uh we hear from the budget committee, we hear it from uh select. here. You know, take care take care of infrastructure as soon as sooner or later it'll bite you if you don't take care of it and keep things in good shape. You know, taxpayers have invested lots of money in our in our buildings. Uh most recently in the building we're

010standing in right here tonight meeting in. And I I think our our our budget it reflects that we we want to take good care of it. Uh we've done a great job with managing facilities, great job taking care of employees and hiring employees who really do a good job with it. Um so you see the the budget for uh for this is uh you know roughly it's a little bit lower than last year a little bit a little bit more than a couple years ago. You'll see one thing that helped us out going forward, a little bit of a savings in software licenses and contracted services. So the full budget you can see over over the three-year period, it's a 2.2% 2% increase over 2526 21% increase in supplies in disposable cost that that question

011came up at our last meeting from the budget committee. So what why does that so where where's the expenses coming up from that and and I think Dale indicated that everything we buy to uh repair to clean to maintain the buildings gets more and more and more expensive. I think everybody kind of understands that. But you can imagine what you sp spend in your house to take care of things and we have all those buildings. So there's there is an increase there because of those costs and then a detailed uh look at the uh at the operations technology operations budget. Okay. Mildred C. Lakeway Elementary budget. Uh again, the drivers for the budget see safety, supportive learning environment, culture of thinking. So a lot of things that have been that a lot of time and

012efforts been put into over the past few years supported again maintain appropriate class sizes that respond to enrollment trends. And we talked about that a little bit in the previous meetings of the budget committee, you know, and and we'll see that, you know, our our staffing is kind of in the middle in terms of class sizes, demographics, and student enrollment projection. I got to hate hate that I have to do this, but I do. Otherwise, I'll just be guessing at numbers here. So, uh, again, just kind of get a sense of the the class enrollments that we have. Uh, kindergarten 40, first grade 49, second grade 43, third grade 41, fourth grade 42, fifth grade 52, sixth grade 46. is some of the demographics. I think the one that the one that probably stands out

013the most is free and reduced lunch 62% at Lake Point which is uh pretty high. The uh the building budget itself though again the staffing aside uh but just the general running of the building budget is is the same. 100 bucks lower than a year ago. Okay. Now we move up to uh this building which houses uh the uh the career tech center uh the the uh middle school and the high school. And again the bud budget priorities implementation of comybased learning rigorous curriculum positive safe learning environment. See staffing numbers there are are current uh enrollment numbers. The budget, high school budget, uh does show an increase of about 100,000 and that is because of the students who are tuitioned out. It was in the earlier slide, the Hugh Hugh Gallon Career and Tech Center.

014Again, just looking at out of the enrollments, enrollment or proposed budgets, a little bit more than last year, a little little bit less than 2425. Out of district numbers, uh pretty good again, 79. So, we're getting we're getting back up to where we were pre-COVID. Uh a little a little bit better. Uh I think I think the fact we have 79 students out of district given the fact that there's a smaller pool of students to draw from because all these schools that that send students to CTC center are losing enrollment. So uh that's that's a good accomplishment. I do I do want to point out that uh Relle and the staff at the career tech center went out recruited visited schools. uh you know these things don't just happen uh by by accident. They happen

015because of hard work and dedication and some of that's paying off. Uh but we have a very robust uh CT protect center program. Um and it's it's diverse. You can go into health science. We still have some construction auto tech. Uh we're getting into a lot of technology related programming with rad. uh some health oriented very student centered programming with bike tech uh of course you know traditional uh business and uh and career careers and education teacher preparation so so it's a it's in dental assisting as well hope I didn't miss it either above the notch is a program we began several years back uh with with an eye toward providing students with choice. Um, and by choice, we literally mean they can kind of put together a customized program, high school age students, where

016they can take different ways, different career paths or different different pathways to eventually earn a high school diploma and uh and get credit for a number of things that they might do outside of the traditional school day. and a lot of their coursework actually is not in the traditional school day. We are budgeting some money in uh in that for 2627 uh due to the anticipated loss in state and federal funding for this program. But even so, it doesn't cost a tremendous amount to run the program. And we we produced a number of uh of graduates uh over the past few years as you can see. [clears throat] Speaking of grants, so we're looking at in 26 27 as current grants, but the adult ed grants going to go down quite a bit. [snorts] Uh

017so the some of the grants that we've received are going to be decreasing quite a bit and that's why in part that we need to put a little bit in the general. Okay. special education Littleton Academy. Littleton Academy is located on this campus across the street. Um, [clears throat] and looking at uh the budget, I said the increase a little a little over 100,000 130,000 over last year with a big kicker of course uh in increase in tuition and special education transportation. number of of identified students is 134 which is 24%. Uh some referrals in process that number is probably actually a little higher now given the fact that those were put together some some weeks ago but as of then we had 10 10 preschool uh students in special ed receiving services 59 at

018Lakeway 2 at Daisy Bronson and 38 at Littleton High School. Then by disability shows the different categories our students are providing or receiving services. By far the the largest one being a specific learning disability 55. Now we do have special programs for special ed students. This helps reduce the number of students who might otherwise be tuitioned out into other day programs and would would raise that out of district tuition number even larger if it didn't have these programs. Uh so we have the the lead program at Lakeway Elementary which is uh the primary grades and grade three uh choices uh grades three to six. again the self-contained um once again students uh you know come into that sometimes they they're able to go out of that depending on the progress they make then the little

019academy grades 7 to 12 with 26 enrolled uh students and we do have a life skills program here at the high school also which currently has four students enrolled and again as you can see at the the wording there at the bottom um cost to even to tuition out students who receive special ed services could be pretty high 100,000 up to as high as 300,000. the current staffing with a with a special education, special services programming. See right there number of teachers, pair professionals, related service providers. Then the SAU office budget budget for history there taking a bit of a dip in the uh in the budget for next year primarily because of some position specifically director of teaching and learning that wasn't filled some other changes but that's the big one a little bit

020lower. [clears throat] Okay. Any questions of any of that before Patty goes into the n that's a bold finances numbers and so Just a sec. Well, >> like maybe maybe to start discussion. Obviously, pretty much everyone here with maybe one exception has been in like eight discussions on this topic with us. [laughter] So, I guess maybe it makes sense to say certainly if anybody feels like they want Patty to do to walk through the handouts in front of you, we can do that. But I think perhaps what would be uh more surgical is if we talked about any open questions uh or topics that any member of the admin team budget committee or the public has. I've got one, but we'll start with yours. >> John, you're good for at least three, four. Well, I'll

021ask my question, but it's more to do with [clears throat] academic results. I think I saw on the I think I saw on the testing that we were kind of low on science whereas math had come up, which is good to see from where we were a few years back, but science was testing pretty low. And you mentioned there's a part-time instructor that's helping out in that, I think, Steve. Right. >> Yes. in the new budget. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's the idea of that. >> What you Yeah. Why what we did there? Um you we kind of it's kind of a it's it's a it's a tricky deal because Yeah. We we could we could try to hire a part-time science teacher. >> It's hard to hire a full-time science teacher. >> Yeah.

022But we got got a little lucky because we'd hired someone uh part-time to teach in the career tech center. And so by putting taking that part-time position and adding it to what turned out to be really a need for only a part-time position at the high school, we're able to just make a one full-time position that way. >> So we didn't cut any classes. We didn't cut any program. We wasn't anything about that. >> That's good. I like the fact you're responding to the, you know, the scores and the needs. >> Yeah. And, you know, I know this isn't any kind of excuse, but the science of all the state areas of science at a state level is the lowest of the three. And I don't know why that is exactly >> really state. >>

023Yeah. And the science the average science scores are in the 30s. Basically the state state isn't doing well as a whole science assessment. >> Well, >> I could just I could just add also that we're fortunate to have our math department fully employed and with that allows us some flexibility. So, >> yeah, good point. >> One of our math teachers has Okay. >> a lot of experience teaching science. So, she actually taught a physics class for us, which we didn't offer. And working with CTE, uh, the person that we did hire for health science is teaching [clears throat] biology and also anatomy and physiology. So, we didn't really lose anything. We just utilize people's uh skills. >> Yeah, that's good. And one and one of my most fun moments is watching classroom instruction was one

024day when that the the math teacher that Al mentioned who was teaching a science class had her class down in the uh the woodwork shop and they were they were using they were doing angles and figuring out rafters angles and all kinds of stuff. Uh, so that's a that's I think really healthy that integration of of course work and and programming. I think we've done a pretty good job with that and Michelle could talk to this further, but there's you know most of our career tech center teachers are teaching some some class within the outside of the career tech programming per se in addition that's been helpful. Oh, I just wanted to comment. At least when I went to high school, you didn't take science, you took biology, you took physics, you took chemistry, uh,

025and maybe earth science. So, I don't know what the state tests on. But if all of our students aren't taking all of the different things, you can't expect them to know all about physics if they're not taking physics. But, as I say, I don't know what the tests test. They tend to test all those things. >> Yeah. They they take an integrated science approach. >> Yeah. >> To the to the assessment. And so yeah, and and frankly most schools at this point are still in what you mentioned. It hasn't changed much. Biology, chemistry, physics, you know. So I think there's there's we'll see where that goes in the next few years. I know there's there's probably some things that will change with the state assessment system in the years coming up. I suspect. [clears throat]

026>> So, we still when we do go through the warrants, there's one big change there. We still want to talk about open enroll before we get to those two things. Other questions, comments, while you're thinking of some, I'm wondering if I can convince two other members of the board. So Travis and somebody else to without as a reminder, we're not going to vote on anything until we're back in the board session, but we're going to vote on our budget and our warrants in the board session. I would like to see us vote on an amended budget that adds to residency program backing. So right now it's a half a million dollar increase, which estimated tax impact is 31 cents per thousand. So adding the residency program can be a six cents per thousand increase. [clears

027throat] And just from a math standpoint, I still I get horrible in science, but I did okay with math. I still can't get past the fact that because of the matching funds, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, >> that $100,000 would get us essentially four full-time teachers, right? are four full-time inclassroom adults, >> helping with the education in general, human flourishing or students. And I think that that's a great bargain for the town mathematically. You know, we've talked a lot about evaluating the residency program on the basis of how many of its participants do we retain. I have always guarded against evaluating it that way because I think it's uh got more to about offer the students and the district than that. But I do think that is a part of it too. And it

028to me it's a very small price to pay to test out four folks a year, especially in an environment that's becoming increasingly competitive and difficult for us to find and retain qualified teachers, instructors, special education personnel, all the things that we've talked about tonight over the course of the last many years. But I'm just one dude and I can't even make the motion once we're back in the board session. The chair doesn't get to do those things. So, I'm trying to see if I can lean on I know I'm not going to be missing see if I can [laughter] somebody else to join with me in that that quest. >> I think it's generally been positive and I agree with the points that we had one resident this year. >> Is that correct? >> Two.

029Um, it seems like we had fewer each each year. Um, [clears throat] but of course if we if we budget for it, we don't risk >> and there was some sense that we thought that the low applicant pool was because of the timing of the >> circulation of the of the program to PSU students. Is that right? >> Yes, that's right. We can't do it. We're just talking now, right? >> Yeah, we're just talking. But you and I are the only ones talking. [laughter] [clears throat] >> We know too for sure. No, [laughter] >> Erica, you have any thoughts? No. >> So if we added it back in, it' still be less the default budget by like 29,000. >> Yes. >> Well, I understand your mathematical perspective. Um I've asked since the inception of this

030um program that we get valid data to show success, but I have yet to receive that. Um, and the fact that we're unable to retain any of these residents for any period of time is also discouraging. And I also believe, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that the um test scores are an issue at the upper levels and that's where we need the support and that's not where we're receiving our residents from. >> But that that Though that's become a standard practice, it doesn't have to be the way program. There's nothing about program suggested needs to be. >> No, but historically that's the way it's been. I don't foresee it being any. >> Is there a time I mean Mel, I don't want to put you on the spot,

031but Crystal's not here. Um, is there a time that we would So, I think originally, right, because I was on the personnel committee or still am, I suppose, and when we were in the process of the last couple LSSA agreements, two agreements ago, one of the things that we looked at is sort of rightsizing [snorts] the number of paras by not refilling retired para positions and leveraging the residency program to fill in some of that. void. Not that they were apples to apples, but there was some sort of comparison there. Is there a point where if the district decides to just [clears throat] fold the residency program, is there a point where Lakeway is going to come back and say, "Well, we need to be plus two, plus three, plus four from a from a

032staff perspective in order to fulfill our obligations and needs inside the classroom." >> For from Paris, do you mean? >> Yeah. [clears throat] I wouldn't be surprised. >> Yeah, >> it definitely has helped residents [clears throat] kind of fill those voids. Um, and if we don't have them and a student's IEP requires those services, then we may be looking to add additional hours. [clears throat] I think over the course of the um time that we've had the residency program we reduce six pair of positions through attrition like through retirements and things like that um because we have >> and a single pair of average salary full benefits what's the number on that >> well that's probably reaching close to 80,000 now with the um price of health insurance So, also to speak to um what

033Travis had said about um not having as many this year, um it was not promoted and advertised as um as well as it had been the previous years um for for the two residents that we have now. So, so our pool of applicants was smaller. >> Was that on our end or is that on PSU's end? It was well um uh >> maybe a combination >> I think plus the timing um I think the person that was kind of in charge of facilitating that was waiting I think the board hadn't made a decision um about whether or not to add that in until a little bit later. So then it kind of um >> but there was no proactive movement right to you know put things in place in case >> the board acted on

034it. So feel it's a little late to be having this conversation now I have all kinds of questions like we had a position before that solely focused on this program and promoting it. don't have that individual anymore or anybody to fill that role. It's not in the budget to have that role. So, are we expecting one of our current administrators to take on that role so that next year we do get the applicants that Travis is referring to that we didn't get this year based on lack of promotion on whoever's fault it is. And I I don't know like I get that there is a organization that's willing to you know match us but I just don't see the value right now if we're trying to be fiscally responsible for the last years and then

035we're asking to put in this money again for something that hasn't really shown data wise that it's a successful program. I get it's a body in the classroom. it's helpful to to the teachers and kids are able to have better access to more adult individuals, but I just don't know if it's, you know, it's we've always been told it's not a PAR position. It's more than that, but now we're talking about cars versus residents, which I think we're going to start confusing people that are actually paying attention. >> Well, I don't think it's confusing. First of all, the number of conversations we've had about the budget. We focused on the budget committee's questions uh to try to prioritize those are this is one of the times that the board has to deliberate the budget. That's

036bound to point and we're not allowed to deliberate other sessions, right? Whatever. So there's anything uncou about us having this discussion here. I agree that I think it's a good question, but a hard question to ask Steve a hard question here. hard question to ask label administration because they're only partially present to how that would get administered in their building. Hard to ask Melissa and now that question is half of that group will be here next year. [clears throat] But I think that let's assume that program will be overcome. I again mathematically I don't think the argument about fiscal responsibility holds up right because if we forego this program we built some momentum last year result PSC I concede to you that we've not received great quantitative data we received a lot of great qualitative

037commentary and that could be worth whatever value you assign to it if we forego this program we lose the matching funding from project mountain right who's giving us the 100,000 And then we have to be in a position where because of services that were legally mandated to provide whether we want to provide them or not from I for IUPs for students for the composition of the student body two years forward we don't know right could be more could be more could be less whatever the case may be if we don't have this program and we need to go plus two on Paris that's an additional $60,000 base of tax pay if is that so then if that's not on the budget now then evidently it's not alarming to them. They've already removed this out of

038the budget. >> They're removed out of the budget because we asked as close as they can to >> right but if they're concerned that they need additional support then you would think they would add that back in the budget. That would be an argument again three months ago or two months ago as to we can't remove this otherwise it's going to cost us x amount of dollars more than >> I'm not making I very clearly didn't make the case that it's costing us money now. I'm saying if we don't continue to build on this program, we could be in a position where we are now minus six from where we were when this program started. If right, that's what the number that somebody told me minus 6. If we're minus 6 plus minus two this

039year compared per residents plus minus4 compared to previous years, we're down 10 adults. The current needs of our students, let's keep focused on Lakeway for a moment, can be adequately met with what we have. But if [clears throat] the composition of the student body changes, then we don't have the luxury of having these highly qualified adults in the room for $25,000 a piece. Then we're looking at at future budget cycles of paying nearly 4x that right for parents, whatever the case may be, teachers or whatever whatever you want to go at. And [clears throat] I just think that that um to paint that as a fiscally responsible argument is is true for the moment until the moment it stops being true. It's 100% true with most, right? I'm not arguing otherwise, but it can very

040quickly become untrue. And I think in reality, arguments about fiscal responsibility aren't what the objections are about. The objections are about internal politics and people feeling like the residents get unequal treatment relative to the rest of the staff. It's not about the money at all because none of the five of us in our right minds argue that $25,000 is too much to pay for a full-time employee. I don't think anybody's prepared to make that argument. Correct. So, the real argument is that we feel like there's this cultural issue that we have where we're hearing, you know, whatever on the side or whatever. He's talked about this publicly a million times, concerns from people that the residency program is unfair to the existing teachers [laughter] and staff. But what we continuously hear from the teachers and

041staff will get feedback formally and continue to hear from the administrators. [clears throat] >> It's not that. >> Yes. >> How many years have you been doing the residency? Three. >> Four. Four. >> May [clears throat] I make a couple comments or is this just your >> We're just having fun. >> Okay. [laughter] Well, since we're all just having fun, I will make a couple comments. First, I think Matt's arguments make a whole lot of sense to me. Uh, secondly, I'm not sure that it's it's very it's very tempting to take a program and say, well, our our real goal is how many people are going to we're going to retain rather than what value we get from them while they're there. And then when we don't retain them, we go, oh, well, it's a

042big failure because nobody stays. But you have to look at what you get while they're there. And thirdly, uh I remember last year that uh your superintendent was very enthusiastic about the program and all the good that it was doing and it was almost like the centerpiece of several meetings. Um so I assume that it's still wonderful just with fewer fewer teachers than before. [clears throat] But those are my thoughts. So if I was on your table, I would be voting with that. >> Yes, sir. How long have you recognized this internal cultural issue? >> Since the inception of the program first I wasn't listening or I hadn't heard before >> we wouldn't hear it. Uh yeah, we would might have talked about it last second, but yeah, >> because I mean obviously that is

043a significant >> and something that really shouldn't exist and I'm not exactly sure how you get rid of it other than through leadership that you know tell people this isn't going to be the way it is. You're going to be here. This is the way it's going to work. There's nobody likes to feel unwelcome. you can tell some other town department stories that would reflect the same issue that were member addressed. I I sounds to me like you can't overcome that issue then it's not worth trying. on the other the other half of me says though that if if your principles and your superintendent can you in leadership positions are think it's a worthwhile effort I I tend to support it just based on I think anybody's going to drive it the other guys are

044going to do it and girls >> so to Erica's question I mean Steve Melanie Al Kelly if this were to be in the budget at the 11th hour, which looks very unlikely. Uh, [clears throat] how would it what would your preliminary reaction be to how it would be administered? >> Well, how would administer? >> Who would run it? >> Let the people who >> who's running it now? We haven't had that person in leadership this whole year. Well, that person's role originally was not to do the residency program that was that role. >> No, she was hired. We didn't have the residency program, but it morphed into that. Yes. But not because that's how the role was meant to be. So, since she that person is gone, I have a part of it. Crystal has

045a part of it. Dr. Nius has a part. We were part of the hiring process with Plymouth State. There's a Plymouth State is now sending somebody from Plymouth State to do the evaluations which that [snorts] employee that we had took that on as a contract through the state to do. Um so it's been divvied up between basically Superintendent Crystal and myself with um other leadership you know involved when necessary. And what was the what for any member of the admin team originally? You obviously elected to bring forward a budget that didn't include that. I'd like to say for the record I wasn't convinced of that at the time. Um what was the argument that the admin team made in favor of removing that from the budget? What was the reason? [clears throat] We were trying

046to get the budget reduced and we looked at all of the areas and knowing [clears throat] it was a battle last year to kind of keep that in the budget. We just looked at all the options and felt like that was probably the one thing that we could get rid of. Not that we wanted to, but um it was like the lesser of the evils, I guess. >> Yeah. I [clears throat] was once on a school board, so I know what you're facing. Um maybe maybe there's a compromise here that can be done. And I think you're talking about four people. Is that correct? >> The budget would be for four. We pay for two matching funds. We pay for two. >> Why don't we do two people? And Eric has got some valid questions

047about, well, I haven't heard back and I haven't heard evaluation of this. So I think that's pretty valid. I also have been familiar with this kind of program which was done also across the river when I was on my school board occasionally not a lot but I can see the the mathematics of it math I appreciate and do make some sense. So, you know, maybe if you're not prepared [snorts] in terms of how you're going to administer it, it would be a lot easier to administer with two and not four people and at least keep your or so that it could in subsequent years may be worthwhile again. So, anyway, that's a that's a non-school board member talking about a possible I won't be able to make a motion either way. We get it back

048in the regular session. you up to you to one of that. >> All right. Any other comments on this topic? We'll move on to Okay. Um I believe that it's as far as the physical aspect of it, it's it's really up to I don't I don't disagree with that whatsoever. Um my concern is is that our our children get benefit. Our school is about the kids first and foremost. um their education and if this program is helping those students out, I think we should it's well worth continuing going. Uh when we were first doing it was like all right, you know, this is going to be a great way to find teachers. We've had one. I look at it as a plus. We've had these people come through and decided this was not the school

049system for them. I don't want teachers that don't want to be here in the first place. So, if this is a way that it's a weeding out process, that's great. Or it could also be an introductory process that says these students, these teachers move on and several years down the road. They may come back to us when they're more mature, more seasoned, and they they want to be in the service. So, we don't know as far as the future goes. The only thing I can say that that I really I'm not crazy about is or I shouldn't say crazy just disconcerting is that I don't know what effect we're having on the students that's is it bettering our students. So, we know it's helping that these teachers that come in and spend a year here,

050it's helping them prepare for their future. That's great. I want to be able to help them, too. But number one, are we helping our students, making our schools better, making our students better, especially where we we struggle um with the standardized testing. That's why Well, it gets back here at the same time. We don't receive the same type of qualitative evaluation from other aspects of instruction or special education in the classroom aside from looking at the general metrics that we talk about test scores. So that not to suggest that that's a reason for not having evaluation discussions, you know, also I'll be an email then that absence is anecdotes well class I haven't served everybody in my class who has lucked. >> Yes, ma'am. Just one last comment. Um I can certainly understand how uh

051you get a a current of distant and that they get all kinds of special treatment that we don't get. I would urge you not to give into that and not to pursue. If if you think that something is a positive program and a positive thing that you want to do, I would urge you not to let the discontentedness of your other employees um destroy that. You know, that's something that needs to be dealt with in a management culture way, but you know, don't let them drag you down if that's what's if that's what's dragging you down. Well, I think I've specifically tonight I think we're gonna have to be open to all kinds of creative orthodox approaches. I mean, we're going to have an open enrollment discussion in a second. I hate significant aspects of

052it. I love other aspects of but it's it's unorthodox at least with the current status quo here. We are looking at the superintendent search committee, myself and Travis and Melanie and Patty. We're looking at how that we're ready to recommend them to the board for consideration. We're looking at some really horrible stuff, right? The SAU consolidation plan that the state is flirting with. That's as unorthodox as it gets, right? So, I think that whatever happens with this, our tolerance level, our appetite for these sorts of things have to help any other topic. Otherwise, we go to warrants and then double back warrants. >> Is that me? So, everyone has a copy of the proposed warrants to be discussed tonight. I do have a couple things I need to clarify with the board as we go

053down through them. on article one to elect school district officials. This will be our first election that all these positions will be for three years. That article passed last year. Um and so the treasurer, the district clerk, and the moderator will all be for three years. The operating budget, depending on what the board decides, that will come out. um the um budget total could change. What I do need to know from the board is two things. The new law requires school assessment results and cost per pupil to be published on article one on the budget article on the ballot. >> Okay. Oh, sure. >> On the ballot. >> Wow. >> This is my warrant that will be posted with my budget. This is not a ballot. >> I am not required by law to have

054this information [clears throat] on the warrant. What I'm afraid of is if people actually look at what's published, then they go and vote and it doesn't look the same. Will they question that? That's my only concern. The thing I'm more concerned about is historically if I look if it's on the screen now >> historically Greg you remember better than I but historically the estimated tax impact is the full amount of of the appropriated budget. >> This is showing the estimated increase. I'm fine with showing both but I think at the very least we need to we should show I don't think we should just say 31 cents. >> Well that was my other question. I hadn't gotten to that. >> So with 19 whatever what's the number? Uh 9 >> I had it. >> Yeah.

055>> 19 985 >> 95 >> 985 >> which includes a 31 increase. >> Yeah, I like I like that better. >> That's like increase 31 cents or whatever. >> Yep. And I'll do the 31 in. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But of course, I don't know what some of these acronyms mean here on your on your little >> Oh, neither do I. >> Oh, >> I just copy and pasted from the DOE. >> You don't know what you don't know what FAW means? >> No, I don't. I literally >> 1% 2% 3%. You don't know what any of that means either? He literally was the percentage of student like the level but they have to meet the 1% level 2%. I literally was guided to go to this section on the DOE [laughter] and this

056is what the information that's required. >> Yes. >> Oh yeah. >> I think inquiring minds might want to know what the what FA means. >> Full academic year. Oh, thank you. >> So, I I think if you're asking if you're back to question one, I don't think including the table on the ballot is necessary, >> but but I do think including both of the tax numbers is >> yes. >> So, not on the warrant, but only on the ballot where it's required. >> Wait, so it's required on the ballot? >> It's on the ballot. >> It's not required. >> I thought it was the other way around. >> No. No. At the ballot when they have no one to ask question. So then you better print them on both, >> right? Shouldn't we be consistent

057then? >> Everywhere. >> And my question is, are these the numbers that you're going to use for the ballot or are they going to change? Are they going to be different numbers? Because I read that email and it said that they'll be posting their number next month. So I'm assuming that meant January. >> Yeah, the cost per pupil will be 2425. I just put this on there so that we can see what it looked like because I just got that today. >> Okay. >> So I know I know the 2425 cost per pupil to the district. >> So that will change that will be one thing that changed before deliberative. So this is like our >> our trial run >> and then we'll finalize it for our deliberative. >> Okay. >> Yeah. How do you

058compute your cost per pupil? Is it as simple as gross budget by >> No. Okay. We're talking about New Hampshire Department of Education. Nothing is simple. Um it is what is spent divided by the number of kids. But there are several areas that are taken out like food service is not included, transportation is not included. So there are some things that are not >> the gross the gross cost operations reduced by certain items and then that amount is divided by average daily >> right and because we have a CTE here I have to wait till all the sending districts are finalized and then we calculate the grossest number of students. So this year with just under 14 because they only come right for a block, we get that percentage of that student. >> So we

059have to wait until everybody else is finalized and then the DOE will go out and adjust by high school cost per pupil based on Michelle's um CTE attendance outside of Littleton. So, there's a lot of different pieces to it. Um, but yes. Yes, that will be updated. >> Okay. So, do we want to I'm just sens clockwatching. Do we want to move on to >> I think three is a standard article, standard amount. >> Yep. >> Everything that you see is staying on plus we're adding the full tax number. in legally required that we >> do we have to include that table at the bottom. >> That's what they're saying. >> Yeah, there has to be the assessment. Yeah, >> the assessment results. The latest assessment results. >> Then I suggest that you make it

060like nicer. >> Nobody's going to know what that means. >> I don't even know what it means. I'm a finance person. I am not an they made it verbatim that way. They said this is the data is you go out to the [clears throat] DOE whatever that report thing is called >> I platform you click on this 25 results and that is that information is what should be on your >> but can you at least can you follow can you take the action to follow up with the ei to find out >> if we can do anything with the table or add a legend or add postnominal stuff that demystify the >> data >> so you can take that action. That would be lovely. >> Does everyone agree with the board agree with that? >>

061Yes. >> Even if you have to hand out a separate piece of paper along with each balance. Yeah. >> With an explanation on [clears throat] >> I think that's true. [laughter] >> But you're right. There can be questions. Yeah. >> We'll put a we'll put a a transfer stationation sticker on the back side. [laughter] >> Don't be the charge of $5. >> Yeah. Not me. Uh >> how two years >> two years two years >> we are we are doubling the school [clears throat] >> that's u okay so warrant three is standard article standard amount >> yes so yep >> and then >> that's for the district facility equipment capital reserve fund and these amounts are the numbers we discussed at the last board meeting >> and I'm just trying to move us on to

062four and five because four is returning for the first time in a while. Yes. And then five is a significant change from our last >> correct. >> So it might be worth talking about those for a moment unless anybody has pressing questions >> for article three. >> Ju just one quick one is the so article four the return after a while is due to what again? >> Yeah we want to talk about four or five. I'm just seeing if anybody's questions on three and then we'll move. >> Okay. So on four, Kelly, I know we talked a little bit about the notion of bringing this back with the fund balance uh transfer for special education. I don't know, Steve or Kelly, if you want to speak to that. You know, we talked about a bit

063with the budget. >> I mean, the bottom line was we've seen what some recent costs are. >> Okay. We only have 240,000 in this account. There's been no deposits since I've been here. There haven't been any deposits. Um, we've been very lucky every year to be able to cover within budget any of the changes, but as you know, we just added 110,000 to next year's budget just for, you know, tuition. >> Yeah. >> How long has it been since we've had this on the warrant? [clears throat] >> How many years has it spent on it? I It's been more than five, but I do you know I don't know. >> We used to add about 10,000 every year prior to that. We did. >> Um, so maybe it's been last. [clears throat] >> Can we

064just officially find out for the deliberatives so that we can talk about that when we present the warrant? I think it's good background. >> Yep. >> And then the last one is every year we [clears throat] raise and appropriate a certain amount. It's been slowly going up over the last few years. And at our recent facilities committee meeting, um, we had just talked about how we're not budgeting for projects. We're not asking the taxpayers within budget on article two. Um, that through our capital reserve plan, we're looking ahead at how much projects are going to cost in the future. So, Bill came up with a national standard of 1% of the value of your facilities. So, um that is that figure 500,000. And all of these capital reserves are up to and are coming from

065fund balance. So, we're not raising and appropriating from the taxpayer. It would come from the approved budget. If there's money left in this specific order that articles >> does not proper appropriation tax. [laughter] So because if that's the case then I would move it up to >> I think we talked about >> we talked about one whatever true 1% was >> actual appropriation >> not transfer from fund that's what I understood >> yes >> up to >> when I presented it that's what I was >> okay I did not get that >> it could be >> so [clears throat] >> that's number three >> that would change five and two Right. >> Go to I would go to um I would do it after operating budget. >> Okay. So that would move 52. >> Yeah.

066But then how do we when's our deadline for us to know and budget to go? >> I mean do that tonight. >> We don't have the number 1% of the true assessed value or the true value of the facility. Um, we we were going by what the insurance company I believe was different. That's not all. No, I was just >> I went by the town. >> You went by the town. >> I went by all the town's cards. >> Okay. >> Replacement cost. >> I don't know if I had that >> email about insurance. >> Yeah. cost. >> Well, sometimes sometimes Yeah, sometimes insurance will have a certain cost down also. >> Well, yeah. >> So, insurance. >> Yeah. So, >> you talk replacement. >> Um, >> no, we're not. >> How do you use

067market valuation? >> And Primex is building value. Primex is building value. Our insurance company values our properties at 57.4 million without content. With content, 64.1 million. Wow. So that is the replacement. [clears throat] >> So the 57 right because I'm assuming by contents would mean like >> soft stuff, chairs, table, books, chair, laptops, >> everything, >> but that would exclude boilers and stuff like that part that core infrastructure would be part of the building value itself. >> Correct. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So it probably makes more sense [clears throat] that 57 number, right? That 57 number Dale is private >> this building lakeway su >> academy >> Daisy Bronson. So then one a true 1% of that would be 578,000. Is that how that works? >> It's 57. >> Oh she had a fancy little three

068would look like an eight. >> Sorry. See that look? >> Yeah it does. >> So it would be 574,000. We're not saying >> we're not saying up to 1% just to be we're saying straight up we want to appropriate that would be an additional 31 32 cents whatever it is because it's essentially the same thing. So it's an additional increase. We're saying we want to put on the warrant specifically to appropriate not to not to retain potentially up to by fund balance. We want to [clears throat] specifically appropriate. Now there's a couple of reasons why. Yes there's a tax impact. And I want to go back to our discussion that we had. You all chime in where I get it wrong. A couple of reasons. One, we had a conversation with the budget committee in

069the last meeting. I think John Pay not here, but he was one of the ones talking [clears throat] about right now. As Patty mentioned in her opening comments, we tend to fund big infrastructure projects with year-end fund values. We're taking advantage of the money that we have from money that we expected to spend and didn't. Maybe we didn't fill a position that we budgeted forb. and therefore it was not a tax impact in the town. But what it does is it in a way unintentionally hides the true expense of maintenance from the taxpayer. It also if we aren't in a position to continue to have and retain a significant fund balance or every year it seems we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at the end of the year on projects because we can't. If

070for whatever reason we do fully spend our budget or we do get a big gap in federal funding or we do a bunch of students come in with a bunch of special needs and we have to all of a sudden ratchet up where we didn't expect to, they'll be brought into a position where like the sewer typically we we don't have anything to fall back on. So, should we get into better practice, especially given that we're foregoing Lakeway for a second year in a row, right, where we're trying to build up a fund and its balance for district facilities that we can tap into [clears throat] whenever we need to tap into it to to absorb those big expenses without going back to the taxpayer who's just going to keep get fleeced by this life

071force. So we careful, right? So we we we we also said, correct me if I'm wrong, that our our desire I'm just our desire to bring this forward this year doesn't mean we expect to establish this standard operating procedure because let's say we do this for three years and that fund balance isn't really touched and it sits at 1.8 million or whatever. That doesn't necessarily mean we got to go back every year. We may see four years from now, okay, we're feeling okay, we're going to bring that back or we had a major expense and we got to bring that up. But whatever it is, we're trying to say to the taxpayers, let's be more collaborative, transparent, and responsible and building up a bigger facilities kind of nest egg, not with the minds to, oh,

072someday we're going to save 50 million for a new school, right? so that we have enough to absorb any body loads that we're going to get from facilities issues that need to be remediated or upgrades that have to be made. Is that basically the nature of our conversation? >> Yep. So I I I have one object I can live with it if it said no amount to be raised from additional taxation in this in this year. But it does in the future there certainly is taxation. >> Well, no, we're saying that wording is wrong. Based on what we're saying, all that whole word change, that line would come out because there would be an amount raised from additional taxation this year. >> Okay. In this year, >> yeah. Yeah. So, that wording is based on

073a misunderstanding about what we were asking. >> Anything that comes from fund balance, if you would. >> Yeah. >> Right. That it should say when >> that's my point. >> Yeah. that it that putting the $50,000 aside this year has no tax impact, >> but it doesn't mean there's not a tax cut in the future >> and it's not additional taxation, but yes, it is use of taxation that otherwise would have gone back. >> Yeah, but the So, but hold on for a second and then we'll answer your question. So, the reason So, I want to clear up a couple things. What the board is now talking about would require us to totally rewrite that warrant. So it would no longer say what it says and it would be explicit with an explicit dollar amount.

074We are asking to appropriate this much money which has this much tax income. So that would change. Okay. [clears throat] The reason I don't necessarily agree with what I think John and Steve were trying to say about other articles like let's go to article 4 because that one's unlikely to change. It says the same thing. The reason I think what it's saying is correct is because if we are to retain $50,000 at the end of the year and put it into the special education capital reserve fund, it's not an additional appropriation because it's coming out of that 19 >> budget that's been that's being appropriated that is included in the language for for article two which will be explicit about how much the dollar amount is and how much the It would reduce the amount

075of money that the district could send back to buy down that rate, but retaining that $50,000 would not increase that rate beyond the n [laughter] the $9 whatever, right? >> And also, it would not de facto indicate that the tax impact would go up the next year, stop making the budget. Where we could stand to be more explicit is those negotiated [clears throat] contracts. Yes, >> because where multi-year negotiated contracts assume or contractually [clears throat] bind the district to a year one increase, a year two increase, a year three increase. Taxpayers effectively that March are only voting on that first year, but the vote in ratifying that contract for year one has binding tax implications for two and three. We don't have any negotiated uh contracts on the ballot this year, thank God. But I

076think when we do, I think that would be a good point for you you both to bring back up to keep us on the level there. >> I would agree >> to John's point, John. Okay, Matt's right obviously on that. I think in my mind, maybe your mind too, we're thinking like on the town side where they do a lease of a vehicle and first year, first payment on the lease has no tax impact. Okay. But that's only the first year, the second, third, fourth, fifth year of the lease does have a tax impact >> and that is Yeah. And and that's going correctly. Yes. On the on the contracts against it here that it is just this year and it's just that amount of money and there's no future increases tied to it. So

077>> hopefully it's changed on the town side too. will be also fusion moving forward on the tax impact for the taxpayers. So hopefully they'll correct that. So it's saying you won't have a tax impact this year but moving forward we won't see this much of a tax impact. Hopefully they'll correct that. >> We're very lucky we got a select person [clears throat] here. Uh you guys a lot about revolving funds and maybe put them into an unassigned fund. That way you can almost do away with your capital reserve to put it all into that [clears throat] and if you need some money you've got you're talking millions of dollars. >> We can't do that. >> We're only allowed to retain up to 5% of what is appropriated locally. >> What's our percentage? I cut that

078>> two years ago. >> Yeah. No, like five to five to eight. >> But their retention is different from the way we do it. [clears throat] Like you said, they're getting into um leasing instead of putting capital reserve and let the money sit here and start making any headway for this. But you need you needed something. you've got that unassigned funds to get you out of emergency. >> And we do we have a 5% it's called a 5% retention and >> what happen? >> Um it it's doesn't roll over. It's reset every July 1 >> based off the 5%. So I think we have 530,000 >> for emergencies for for face up and beyond. It's not just, oh, a sudden we just want to buy vehicles. That's not the purpose. Go over budget. You have

079to go over budget first. [clears throat] >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. So, uh still not taking votes because we're still in a budget hearing, but I'm hearing consensus from the board that we were thinking something different than what you were thinking. Yep. >> So, we're looking I just want to confirm because we will want to vote on some sort of warrant when we get into the board. We want an explicit warrant for a true 1% which comes out at the moment to 574,000 appropriate [cough and clears throat] not to be taken from fund balance. We'll move that to warrant three. So, two would be the budget. Three would be the 574. Four would be facility equipment at 50,000. Five would be special ed at 50,000. You guys following me so far? Not voting. Does

080that [laughter] sound right? Okay. And I think I've got three votes on the on the residency program. So [laughter] um Okay. So, we do want to maybe just talk very briefly then about open enrollment or do we want to talk about in the context of a board meeting? [laughter] >> I think we're well past six. >> Yeah. Well, I'm not concerned about whether we hit that threshold, but agenda. >> Um, >> we don't have a lot else much else to do. >> Do what? I thought there'd be more people here open. >> Okay. [snorts] So, let's talk about open enrollment for a second and then we'll move into >> there will be. >> Um, so >> we're not taking any voter action on open enrollment this evening. No budget implications for the current cycle. You

081correct me where I get this from. We do, the superintendent is encouraging us to host and have a hearing for an additional warrant on open enrollment that we can't vote on tonight because we didn't have a hearing with a posted an adequate duration of time. Right. So, we're not voting on that warrant tonight, but we're looking to see if we want to move forward with a potential hearing next Monday. >> next. >> No, Wednesday. >> Next Wednesday. >> 14. the 14th on open enrollment. If the board decides to have that hearing >> number one will go much smoother because I'll be in Texas [laughter] much less talking. >> You can fill me in. >> Uh no, I'm good. But uh I'll be very busy. But the the but the the issue I guess this is

082all kind of [clears throat and cough] by surprise. We haven't had a chance to discuss or deliberate it at all. But essentially the the warrant that's being proposed is being proposed in part by the Newampshire School Board administration in response to some legislative movement in conquer and [clears throat] some judicial action that's been taken um against the state I think right um and how some of that has played out >> and there are a number of towns including a number of towns in the north country that we anticipate will have a nearly identical warrant on the ballot. Yes. For them >> this cycle in March. >> The way the warrant is proposed to read, it essentially tends to establish two things. That we will establish this district as an open enrollment district which gives us

083the opportunity to receive students from sending districts to come I think specifically to this building. Steve, >> correct? Well, it could it could be could be K12. It could be Yeah. >> And and but it's that's part one. So part one is SA84 will welcome students from anywhere else in the state of New Hampshire to come here through the open enrollment process if it's pass etc etc. The second piece is that we will restrict the number of students residing in SAU 84 who can leverage open enrollment to go to another district within New Hampshire. And what is proposed is that number would be zero. So we would right Steve. >> So you can take the >> So we would we would establish this is what again this is not what the board is proposing. Just

084being clear, this is what the board is being asked to consider, which a bunch of boards are being asked to consider. The reason for that is because the way that the process is played out votedly in conquered and judicially throughout the state, school districts cannot restrict the number of their students who can participate in the open enrollment process unless they [clears throat] themselves as a district are willing to participate in open enrollment. So you have to make yourself eligible for open enrollment before you can have rules about how you can participate in it. Does that make sense so far? The argument, again, not the board's argument, not frankly, my argument for why we would want to restrict the number of Littleton students who participate in open enrollment to zero is because if the district doesn't

085protect itself in that way, then essentially its educational expenses get dictated by residents that by taxpayers who don't live in by taxpayers of other towns because the way the law is currently being considered, not passed. It would it it would require the sending district to pay 80% [clears throat] of the tuition rate set by the receiving district. Yes. >> Cost per people. Same basic, different number, but the same concept. >> That would be pretty significant. So in other words, if we have 15 kids who go to district A or district B or district C, we would be required to pay 80% of that district's cost per pupil, which we would have no >> of our own. >> Oh, of our own. I'm sorry. 80% of our >> 80% of the 27,000, >> right? And this

086this will cause well without getting too much into political education beyond it this will cause a absolute spiral for some districts. Can you see what happens? >> The more you start losing students as your cost per pupil going up. >> Yeah. >> So everyone that goes out it's going to cost you more and more and more. It's >> I'm sure I'm sure that's >> it's a death spiral. >> And I have so I have a question. I like familiar question. >> None of this is passed yet correct >> or it's not it's not all the way through. Well, no, but here's what's happened. The court the court in the case this is case of Pittsfield ruled that yes, you do have to pay tuition on these students who have left your district and gone to

087an open enrollment district that you did not have a warrant article saying that you are an open enrollment district and you you are restricting students from leaving your district. But the reason I asked the question is, isn't it possible or is it not possible that the state could pass a law, the governor could sign the law into effect that says every district is open enrollment whether they want to be or not, but here are the rules. >> Sure. >> Yeah, that's what they were trying to do last year. >> Sure. >> And but there's some elements that are still interested in pursuing, I think. >> Yes. Yes. They were trying to work out um special education costs and um transportation So trying to pursue a warrant article like this could end up being a short-term

088consideration because the the lawsuit could end in a different way. The law itself could end a different way. The the the concern that I have is I don't I don't love the idea of obviously our cost for people is >> on the high side. >> Right. >> It is. >> So we would taxpayers would have a significant burden to bear if people are are going out. That's one problem. The other problem is we talked a lot about some of the challenges that we have at this district. Trying to convince the taxpayers to vote maybe in favor of their financial interest but against their educational interests is a really complicated argument. To say to them, we want to basically opt into the open enrollment process so that we can opt your children out of it and

089they have to stay here. sort of defeat the idea in at least part of my brain for the whole value of local which is you kind of let the free market aside as it were which >> but it will protect us from the financial obligation. So >> it will protect us for now >> for now for now. So if our kids we say we don't rent a zero for outgoing for residential but if they choose to go to another district that is open enrollment our voters voted zero. So that means we h they can go but we are not financially obligated to pay that 80% of our cost for people. And does this have anything to do with the prior issue we discussed about school students with identified special needs if you would having the

090right to leave our district and that we had to pay intuition to go elsewhere. >> They they they could it's our understanding that that would fall under the parameters that charter schools and so on where they the district or residents would have to pay for the special education cost. Yes, a student, special needs student would go under open enrollment could go to a neighboring district. uh the sending district would have to pay tuition unless of course they had a done this uh but the uh but there it still has to pay for the the cost of [clears throat] you know they didn't get into Matt the issue that you identified in terms of the frustration of the board in terms of what you know don't know can't know yeah >> can't say can't do is

091that related to this at all is that a doesn't impact out of district placement so That was a that was a >> no it didn't affect >> manifest hardship different thing still stinks >> something I wanted to take up with the with the legislator >> this is based this is based on council recommendation uh the the the law firm that we use Barbara Lman specifically uh Gordon Graham wrote the document that I think has been shared out chair of the board and I think I asked Diane to share the budget committee that laid it out pretty succinctly. >> However, Barbara is on call if we want to bring her in to answer any question. >> Well, we can do that for the hearing itself that I mean >> but I think we should do it

092for the hearing itself on the war. >> I just I >> it's such a weird thing. >> Yes, it is. >> I It doesn't feel great. No, it feels horrible actually. >> Doesn't feel good. >> But does that limit you to schools in New Hampshire or did they choose a prep school? >> Not under enrollment. >> So, let me ask this question. If we pass this one, we are an open enrollment district. We won't pay for you to go outside and actually use open enrollment, which >> is insane. Say out loud. If a parent decides to let to send their kid to an open enrollment district anyway, we've passed this warrant. >> They have to pay tuition out of pocket. >> That's receiving district, >> right? >> I mean, >> well, we're say we're saying

093we're going to accept so many. We're going to say we accept so many. And if those students come from a district just like us that says zero actually to going out then we're going to accept them free of charge also. >> That's the back side of it. >> We do have to we do have to the war article say we will accept something. It has to be >> it has to be >> can't be zero and zero >> and you know that other towns are putting this on. It's not mandatory to put it on. >> No. >> But you know other towns are >> that's our understanding. >> Yeah. >> But But if you accept those students, >> you don't accept them at no charge. >> We would we would have to under under this

094assuming if they came from a district that passed a warrant like this. >> Yeah. Because they said it was zero. >> Another You can't the district can't keep a >> district can't keep their kids from going to another district. We we can't do that right now as long as the receiving district is okay with them >> going for nothing >> or the receiving district will charge you x amount >> pass this same legislation that we're talking about they pass the same thing the kid from little high school they go to white mountain and white mountain would charge them nothing >> and kid becomes little correct charge trade >> right so so you're just trading spots you're just staying on the annual year we'll we'll accept 10 kids from wherever but then there's got to be

095some pecking order in terms of academic performance uh financial need >> there's so if if we vote on the warrant if if warrant passes as proposed that's us saying we're an open enrollment district and we're not going to charge tuition >> up to the amount that we put in Yeah, >> we we can we can we can charge here. We can charge tuition to any district any district who doesn't have an open enrollment >> warrant article to pass like Pittsfield is. That's where Pittsfield is. Yeah, we we we could according to the court. That's what the court said. Yes, you can you can charge you can charge wishing because they don't have a they didn't have a warrant article that passed. They said that that we don't we don't allow >> but if if this

096warrant passes as proposed and we receive a student >> Yes. from a district ascending district who has also passed the same open enrollment warrant. >> Correct. >> We would have to accept them >> as long as it's underneath whatever cap they established [clears throat] without any tuition coming with. >> So >> that's correct. Is my understanding >> there's no limit on how many students can come out of another school. >> Yeah. >> Seems like the financial risk of accepting students is lower than the financial risk of sending students. Well, that was where I was going to get to. So, if it's if it's great point. So, if it's not required to be, we don't have to take up an article either way right now. It's been recommended that we do. We don't have to have

097one. If we do nothing, >> the risk according to how the two current court cases have been adjudicated is we have a kid from Littleton who leverages open enrollment to go to an open enrollment district and we would maybe be required to pay 80% of our cost for people based on >> how it's been handled right now, but it's I assume it's being appealed, etc., etc. >> Correct. At the moment, >> what's the nearest district as an open enrollment district? >> Prospect. >> Where's that at? >> Conquered area Lake Region area. Not that. Yeah. >> But we are anticipating that a number of North Country >> Oh, 127. >> Um, >> that's what the discussion has been. They haven't they haven't their boards haven't acted anything that I'm aware of. >> So we have to

098be careful. >> Be careful with that. But yeah, that is a whole idea. >> The north if everybody in the north country did this, this would make it in in in theory the bill kind of was in theory could could set up this scenario where district could say, "Yeah, we'll take a few years and you'll take a few of ours and change might benefit students." Some good could come of this under that scenario, by the way. Right. Just kind of offset. What we have to guard against and who knows what the legislation the courts will do going forward. We have to guard against it being just having no protection whatsoever uh for for students leaving and then using the tuition bill. >> That's yeah >> it's not. >> So it's not it's not elegant. So

099by skipping it and not putting it on it's a really >> if all these other districts are >> and if it passes right the board can vote to put it on but it doesn't right >> the public needs to understand what it means and vote >> the right way. >> Yeah. >> If not then >> and a lot of people don't understand the nuances of this still wrapping my head around different things that could I don't think anyone does even because again things change. Wow. I just can't believe that. It's a zero part. That's you could have 20 more kids coming in here, students. Okay. And the taxpayer is paying to educate those kids and we get nothing in that town. Oh, save 25,000 kids, >> right? >> That's not great. >> Well, it's a

100bad deal. >> Okay. So, we're going to talk about that in our meeting, I guess. But that's where we're at. But the even worse deal, well, not always worse, would be students leaving. >> Yeah. >> And us paying. Still paying. >> Yeah. Right. >> Let's face it. 20 kids come in. Does that raise our cost? >> Cost substantial. Probably not. It's the old argument we make all the time with declining enrollment does not equal one for one ratio declining expenses. Just like increasing enrollment does not does not imply one-on-one increasing expenses. >> That was my point. I mean, one reason one reason our our cost per pupil is so high is because we don't have as many pupils as our, you know, we could potentially support. So, uh, >> so that's why you had to

101put some >> put some limits on how many we will accept for that reason. We wouldn't want to just leave it open. It's not a one, >> but we have to we have to accept some or or else it's it's it's not legal. >> You can't you can't say zero here and zero here. >> Yeah. But our adequacy aid also is only based on um our residents. >> So even if a student comes here, >> they're enrolled. So that sending district still gets the accuracy, but they're not required to pay. >> It's conversely the same thing. And same here. >> Good point. >> That's why that's why it's 80 that's why it's 8020 roughly. >> Yeah. >> That 80% local funded and 20% state funded which we talk about is part of the state's inadequate

102[cough] education [clears throat] funding form. That wasn't I didn't mispronounce that. [laughter] I said inquacy. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But anyway. >> Wow. So, so Steve, is there any um [laughter] are there any conversations going on between superintendent that with ideas and how this would play out? And it's very it's very I don't know. It's almost like throwing spaghetti on the wall. >> It is. >> Yeah. >> I think [clears throat] it's very magical. Well, [laughter] I I think the bottom line is you you you you do something that protects you. We're not just we're not just going to open the floodgates and say we'll take anyone who wants to come, right? We have to like you said >> and at the same time said, "No, we're not going to pay tuition for anyone who

103leaves. You can leave, but we're just not going to we're not going to >> You're changing it from dollars to spots openings. >> Yeah. Spot. Yeah. Either percentage of students or or number is what is what Barbara has and have set forced to do. I think the struggle is and maybe this something to talk about with the legislative team when we have our quarterly session with all groups is I I love the idea of open enrollment conceptually as a parent as a as a conservative. I love the idea of saying you pay taxes. You shouldn't be held hostage to take those tax dollars and assign them to your district schools if you don't like or don't agree with or whatever the case is the education that this district is providing to your kids. I think

104it makes total sense, right? It makes total sense. The [clears throat] problem is, this might shock you. I have three kids that will be in the system code next year. I don't pay it $90,000 of property taxes. So when your cost per pupil is tw I don't think anyway. I got to check [laughter] when Car's not but so at $27,000 per right per kid. That's where it becomes totally out of balance, right? And that's where we we have the issue. So the concept isn't rotten, at least from my perspective. The concept is a really good one, but how we actually make it work where it gets interesting. I think anything we can do to protect ourselves is a good idea. >> Yeah. I'm kind of surprised we can do this. But since we can >>

105Yeah. >> But even that the even the can [laughter] we can do this is based on forgive me if I'm mistating this an interpretation of the way two specific court cases have played out so far and the way the state supreme court has ruled correct on a couple of those cases. But that could be overridden by future decisions. It could also be overridden or invalidated by future legislation. >> Right? Is that all correct? >> And we can have a vote in a future year, >> right? Or vote every year, right? Change it because we make these votes. I think we're going to find conference going to be big. [clears throat] >> So it's valid every year. >> Okay. So I have a procedural budget. We have to end the budget hearing and get into the

106school board meeting so we can vote on some stuff. >> The school board needs to vote on the budget. Well, the warrants because the warrant too is the budget, right? Essentially. >> Yes. You're going to vote on the warrant. >> Are we also expecting the budget committee here assembled to do their votes for the record while they're present or are you guys doing that separately? That's >> Yeah, we have a majority and we that's the plan. >> That's why we came tonight. >> Okay. After. >> So, >> but we have to stay in, >> you know, till you pick your vote. >> Okay. So, you're going to deliver. >> All right. We're going to do our meeting, close our meeting. >> It may make sense just because we're going to go into nonpublic at some

107point. So, may make sense maybe you take that opportunity. already voted to go assemble somewhere and and do your deliberations and put it there. Um, okay. So, if there are no further comments for the budget hearing itself, I would look then for a motion to move back into the regular board meeting. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? >> Opposed? Obstain. Motion carries 5. Now with that, I'll look for the board's permission to just let's take the warrant article votes right now and freshen our mind and then we'll get back to the rest of the agenda. Does that make sense? >> So we will be looking first. This is gonna get comic or [clears throat and cough] look for a motion to recommend article two either as written or amended. So a motion to do

108it as written would be without the residency program. Motion to do it amended would be with the resident program with other things without other things whatever we want to do. We want to add that little description or legend to understand the graph. Do you have to amend it in order to add that if there is such a thing? Am I on the right argument? Yeah, that's a good point. >> I mean, I think [clears throat] >> or can that be added just because that doesn't change >> what you're Yeah, I mean that's like a requirement like you don't vote on the estimated tax rate. You don't you're voting on the appropriation and then you won't you know what I mean? >> Yes. >> So I think that's a good point. I think the motion should

109be amended anyway. Either amended with the full tax amount only or amended with new numbers to reflect the residence program whatever. It's not it's not as well >> but Patty just said no we wouldn't need to do that. >> Okay. But I disagree with her. I agree with everything. >> Okay. >> Because as it's written, [laughter] as as it's written, [clears throat and cough] >> it just says the estimated tax impact, which isn't even true. That's the estimated tax increase. We all agreed that we wanted to show the estimated tax impact and the estimated tax increase. So I think whatever motion is made should be to recommend more article two >> with the following amendments. Whether we want to go how I would make the motion, and I'm not allowed to, which would include an

110extra 100 grand, that's up to y'all, but somebody's got to make some sort of motion. >> [cough and clears throat] >> Would you guys prefer to keep the residency program? >> Do you think it's been positive for the students? >> Who are you asking? I'm sorry. >> Know them. It has been positive with students in my opinion. >> We've only had one in the very first year, so hard for me to call. >> Oh, up top. How about you, M? >> I feel it's been positive. >> And if it's something we got added back in, would we avoid the mistakes of last year with the inappropriate advertising? >> Yeah, we need to we would need to know that like now. Yeah. That would have to start ASAP as soon as possible. >> The 100 right

111>> for that. Yeah. >> 108. [snorts] you can just do that. >> The administrators think it's been good for the students and largely because if there's no matching funds, I feel differently. But since we're getting the deal we're getting because of Crochet Mountain, um I'll make a motion to accept the budget adding the numbers we talked about and adding that. So, just to be [clears throat] clear, you're motioning to recommend article two with a $100,000 increase in the in the budget for the residency program with a corresponding increase in the estimated tax increase and then also a proper listing of the estimated tax. >> Correct. >> When you're adding the funds back into the budget, you're not you can't specify the program you're just adding. You're >> just I'm just clear what the vote is

112>> from there. the the leadership of the district does with the dollars what they will. >> No, correct. But I'm saying the reason he's making that recommendation is because he is supporting a budget that would have that as a specific even though he's the only thing in the water >> would be yeah 1949 [clears throat and cough] sorry 19371 and then the estimated tax impact would go up to something like 37 and change and that would be relabeled as the estimated tax increase and the estimated tax impact would come in at the nine, whatever it was. So motion's been made, not seconded. Mr. Procedural Roberts rules reminder. Somebody can second the motion, in which case we will have to vote on it. Somebody can motion to amend the motion because they don't like Travis's motion.

113It can be silent until midnight. There's so many options. [laughter] >> Okay. So motion been made and second. And I just want to give a pause if anybody wants a motion to amend the motion. Right. Okay. So, motion's been made and seconded. This motion is to basically add back the residency program, make changes to the article correspond. Going to give time for some people who might disagree with the program to motion to amend. Motion. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion not telling when what to do. That's what throws up. We've passed this we've crossed this bridge before where we've had to explain weird board votes that get published on ballots because we've had people objecting to 100,000 [clears throat] whatever million. Not my call. But if I'm on the losing side of

114this argument, I'm going to vote in favor of the budget if even if Travis's motion is amended so that it shows a more so that the vote report on the ballot is more reflective of the board's feeling towards the full budget and not reflective of objections to a particular omission or inclusion of the program. So if somebody wants to vote against the inclusion, my recommendation will be to motion to amend the motion. >> I'll make a motion to amend Travis's motion. Thank you. That's >> that 100,000 be added back into the budget with no specification as to how to be used. >> Beautiful. Does anybody want to second that motion? >> Second. >> Okay. So, now we're going to discuss and take a vote on a motion to change Travis's motion. Follow me. So if

115that vote succeeds with three or more votes, we are then going to vote on a budget that excludes residency program. If that motion fails to receive three votes, we are going to go back to voting on Travis's original motion, which includes 100,000. Make sense? So I'm going to call for a vote in a moment after we discuss. A yes vote on this motion is to continue to exclude. A no vote is stupid. Does that make sense? So it's backwards. Is that >> just make it easy? >> I have to follow the rules. [laughter] I'm making it easy. I'm explaining. So I'm going to call for a vote. If you're for the basically if you're for the residency program, vote no. If you're against the vote yet, does that make sense? >> He's trying to modify

116his motion. >> He could he could I'd modify my motion. >> It makes it way clear. >> Okay. So what are you modifying your motion to to not specifically say where the funds go? Well, that's not what they're saying. They're saying something different. >> Just said we're taking away. We just don't want to specify. >> It's just the budget. I'm going to resend my amendment to Travis. You >> have to have the second. I'll [laughter] >> So, you're now changing your motion? >> Yes. >> To what? to just add back the $100,000 to the >> to that specific it was never going to be specific in the warrant. >> We included in the language of the vote we're voting on. So when you're making the motion you're voting, >> but we have to give specific

117direction. Patty has to post the full budget, right? [clears throat] The itemized budget. >> Yeah. If somebody from the core at the deliberative says cut 500,000 or add 500,000 >> we don't they if they specify it still doesn't matter. >> I know I understand all that. >> So that's what we're doing. >> I understand that. But I'm saying as a practical matter we have to present a full budget. The dollar amount of that full budget is what has to go on this warrant. If we're saying we're adding a h 100red grand to the budget, what are we telling them to add it? I'm not saying it should read that way on the warrant. Nobody that can you do bottom line? Can you do 100,000 of the bottom line like a [clears throat] line item? >>

118Yeah. So basically you're voting right now that the um operating budget total will be 19,371,000 [clears throat] >> 19 million >> I mean 19 million >> 19,000 19,000 >> but I'm saying as a as a practical matter >> yes >> not to be in the warrant article itself to be clear >> where is that going >> we know >> you're saying it should be to the residency program. Are you not? >> No, we we're sending that. If you want five votes, >> okay, >> if you want a five vote, >> this is how if you want a five vote vote, >> then we are not talking about the residency program at all as part of his motion. >> But they would all like to increase the budget by a 100,000. Wink wink. >> Yeah, it's

119the wink wink that I don't like, but okay. I can't make a motion. >> Steve and I made a motion. >> Nevertheless, [clears throat] >> is that wink wink? Yeah. So, so it's a fair question. I just I want to follow up to my colleagues who are haranging me. >> So, let's keep it as a >> hold on. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's say the motion is seconded, which hasn't been yet, and it passes. >> We do the deliberative session. We present the budget typically um if if we're gonna have to have detail and if somebody says, "Hey, is that residency program thing still a thing in this budget?" What is our answer to that question? >> It'll be in the budget. >> Yeah. I have to update all of this. You add

120100,000. I have to update all >> That's what I'm saying. >> So, it can't just be unspecified. >> I know where it's going. You don't need to specify it. >> You don't specify the order. >> I know. I've never said that. >> So, he's made a [laughter] motion. I'm going to second that. You'll >> great motion debate and second. [clears throat] >> Okay. Motion's been made and second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I oppose. saying motion carries 32. >> Okay. So, >> so was approved >> to add 100 grand >> and to add the language so that we're clear about the estimated tax impact increase. >> Yep. >> That 100,000 is for the >> Yep. I've already marked it on mine. >> Okay. Now, it gets even more confusing. So, buckle

121up. >> Um, I will point you to I would point you to article five on your on your PowerPoint or on your document, which it which Patty is now proposing become article three, >> correct? >> And the language of that would change entirely >> to what? Shall the Littleton district vote to raise and appropriate $574 >> $4,000 to be added to the school district facilities maintenance capital reserve fund previously established blah blah blah. >> Yep. >> And then the the section with the sum to come from would be stricken. >> Yep. >> And it would list a >> tax impact of >> 43 cents. >> So let's consider that as what's being recommended, right? Right. So, if someone could make a motion to recommend the article as presented, we're now talking about article three, which

122again, transfer from fund balance to district facilities. Shallow Littleton School District vote to raise and appropriate $574,000 to be added to the school district facilities maintenance capital reserve fund. And then it would show, it was say majority vote required, I assume. Yes. And it would show an estimated tax impact of 43 cents. That is what's being >> voted on article two. >> Yes, we voted on to pass three. >> No, we he he made a motion to pass to recommend with an amendment [laughter] and it passed by >> a vote of >> 3 to2. >> So that vote pass both the $100,000 increase and >> yes >> and approve the new votes. No, because we hadn't previously voted on the budget. So, we were just voting on the budget [clears throat] with 100 grand. Okay.

123So, back to this new article 3 as read. So, a motion to recommend as presented would be a motion to recommend those all those changes. So, move. Is there a second? So, any discussion? All those in favor I opposed. Motion carries 5-0. We now go back to what is listed as article three which is now article four. So a motion to recommend this article as presented would be exactly as it appears except it would be article four. Everybody follow? >> This is for the fund balance for district equipment for $50,000. Is there a motion to recommend as presented? >> Is there a second? >> Any discussion? >> All is in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries 50. Now we're looking at article four, which will now be article five. It is being presented unchanged accepted

124now becomes article five. This is $50,000 for the district special education capital reserve fund. Is there a motion to recommend as presented? >> There a second. >> All those anymore. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Obstain. Motion carries. 5 seconds. So now we have voted on our five warrants. Well, we didn't vote on one because one were required to, right? We're going to vote on one. >> Yeah. >> So two [clears throat] pass three to two. >> Three pass three, four and five pass five, right? Everybody follow? >> All right. So, might as well talk about the one question. Yes, sir. And if and if the answer to this is we have to modify and revote on everything, then I just say forget my question. >> Okay. But like just take article three where

125it talks about with the sum that come from the June 30 fund ballots. Do we normally put the year >> no >> on that? We don't. >> No. Because the taxpayers are actually paying are voting on this in March. >> Y >> it's for that it's that year. >> That's what I'm saying. Like if that's clear to people that when you say June 30, it's not the because it's the 26 27 school budget. Mhm. >> Do they think it's coming June 30th of 27 or June 30th? >> I don't know how to explain this to you, but this is this comes from DRA. >> Okay. So, if this is the way it is everywhere, I just want to I just couldn't remember if we ever had years on this. >> Yes, there there is not.

126>> I see the question. So, we're >> all right. So, Greg, are you going to make any motions on that? So, let's talk about the proposed hearing on open enrollment just while it's fresh on our minds. So, has it already been posted? So, there is a a hearing on what would be a sixth warrant relative to open enrollment that would happen next Wednesday. The board would vote to recommend as part of the course of that hearing or not. So, the board [laughter] vote tonight. I just want to make sure the board still wants to have that hearing next Wednesday 5:00. >> 5:00 in this room in this room. >> Bill would share that discussion. >> Uh just to point out we um the budget committee is um having a meeting on the 14th at 5

127at the community house and we have some outside presenters coming. It's for petition articles. >> Could you do your Could you be up by six? is your thing at 6. >> But you like to start you guys. >> I'm not so early. >> Five right now. It's five. >> You can't change it. >> We had you within seven days. >> It always happens every year. There's there's two. >> So I guess the real question for the board that's unfortunate, but it's posted. Do we want to keep that or do you want to move it or change it? I won't be here either way. Well, what's the window like how like how >> when when the deadline for more articles? >> We we have we'd have to hold this hearing by no later than Friday. >>

128The 15th. >> You already posted it, so you can't change your >> uh in order in order in order to have it have it done 15 days before uh the delivery session. >> But I didn't think Friday be good because we have basketball games. Probably other people I put out the 14th. >> Yes. a while back or a week or so ago to the board >> and I know we I know you use the language that you know we're being told that other districts have done this but have any districts actually had their hearing yet approve this >> will any of them be having their hearing and approve this prior to our hearing >> probably not we're pretty early >> we're earlier than most by having this our budget hearing play this have the same

129deadline that we do next Friday next No, because it depends if that's driven by the delivery session date their delivery session date later. >> If they're going to if they're an SB2 town, we should all be about the same length, right? >> Um if they're not SB2, they're going to month off from us. You know what I mean? >> But I I would think so just a thought. The question here really is whether or not to have the hearing. It's not whether or not to recommend the article. >> I would think if we have the hearing, it would be important to do a couple of things. one have council present >> either virtually or ideally in person to answer some of the questions that they might come and the second is to ask Steve or

130to direct Steve to get as much intel as he can on other districts to to help form the board as they make that vote. But I think the risk is if we if we dive into all that again we're going to be in a 30-minut period happy to do it but I just think that's going to have to happen anyway. I think the real question here is do we keep the meeting? Do we keep the hearing or the saying we don't even want to take this up at all? >> It's been posted. Does anybody do three people feel strongly enough that we should not proceed with >> Okay. So, we have here. >> Don't you have a budget hearing for the public still? No. >> This is it. This is it. Then we'll have to

131deliver it. >> Okay. So, >> so forward we can we can change the date. Sheena sent it today, >> but we can we can change it to >> you know that before >> we can change it to Thursday. We can change it to Friday if the board is okay with that. >> Just keep it. >> If we have a deadline on Friday, I just keep >> the only the only issue is budget committee. Well, when I was talking with the town because originally I wanted to, you know, I suggested the day after what we got scheduled, then they said, "Oh, it's got to be that day, the 14th." >> Well, the 15th by budget, >> right? So, that's where we are in and that subsequent you got some outside presenters coming days. >> But I

132think this is a challenge with scheduling. We want to get Barbara up. I think the most prudent of course is for us to keep it and then if we can challenge Dan the budget committee any sort of um statements or opinions that they want to make sure are part of those proceedings to send them via email. I'm sure Bill will be willing to include those in the proceedings. I'm speaking for them. U you think you're going to be short. Well, we can we can >> Shea, can you change the time and still window? We normally do six o'clock anyway. >> So, we're going to keep the hearing behavior. >> Golly, does that work? >> Six. >> All right. Next Wednesday. So, in terms of two actions, Steve, you're going to see if Barbara can be

133here. >> Yep. >> And you're going to see what we what's cooking with other neighboring districts. >> So, you got that, Sheena? >> Y sex. Okay. Wow. >> We need to make sure this time they do it they put it in. Well, how can you make sure be nice if they put the right >> All right. Well, now two hours and eight minutes in, we're going to get back to our regular board meeting. Beginning with the Thank you everyone for being here. Welcome to stay as long as you'd like. Beginning with the consent agenda and we'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda which includes minutes from December 15th to 23rd school board meeting. Second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. Same. Motion carries. 5 Z. Business report. [clears throat]

134>> Everything I did in the budget hearing. So, I think I'm good. >> Um, just so Travis, Patty, Mel, I think we at this point we probably just communicate via email at this point. Yes. [laughter] Um, so nothing else for for the business report? >> No, I just have some documents for you guys to sign in case I don't see you or something. >> Okay. Well, maybe good word for that. Um, any other questions for Patty that? >> Okay. So, new business, we've already talked about open enrollment. Um, anything else to talk about and take up under new business? >> So, don't go away. Okay. And then we will look uh to move on to unfinished business. Any items to take up under unfinished? >> Okay, we'll move that to committee reports, negotiations. To my

135knowledge, we have none. Um facilities committee. >> Uh Steve, we're going to do policy committee. Do you have some Well, he's next anyway. So, okay. No committee discussions and no student representative report [clears throat] here. >> Al, do you have a student representative report in absentia? >> I do not. >> Okay. Very well. >> So, then we just got to get Steve for the superintendent. We can skip it. >> Uh yeah, great idea. We're going to table super tense report for a moment and we're going to move on to public input. >> Just point of order the stuff that's being passed around are the cover sheets for all the stuff we just >> Yeah, it's just the cover sheet, guys. I will rip it off and add it to the updated posting. >> Uh okay.

136Public input. Hearing none. Well, >> see, we're ready for your report. >> Oh, I have some public input. >> Oh, you do? >> Yeah. I think it I think it looks very bad for both only three to two in support of their total budget, but you've already had your vote. But that's my that's my public comment. >> Thank you. >> Y >> I got a comment. >> Yes. So, really when we put the stuff on the warrant, this is one of the problem. Um when we put stuff on the warrant that's in the vote. [clears throat] >> So when the taxpayer goes to vote if if it's all gas but the town's already done >> he did four right voted all four and that's what they look at because I I've seen taxpayer well Roger

137and Leman saying they voted for everything. Well, because we all recommended >> ICFC. Yeah, >> that's the way it can be done on on >> but of course we're required we're required by law to have both those votes and I agree with you. Obviously I was trying to avoid that, >> right? No, I know. And and I mean obviously the rest of the board uh didn't feel that way. I just am saying I think it looks I think it looks very bad to not support your $19 million budget over a semantic disagreement over $100,000. But that's just my personal opinion as a person with a mouth sitting here. >> Guys, can I just ask can I can I just ask if we're going to have separate conversations when we have them out there just because

138it's getting hard to follow the the bouncing ball here. Okay, so we're still at public input. Anything else with public input? >> Okay, we're gonna double back then to the superintendent to report >> after I don't I don't have I don't have anything to report because I knew tonight we'd be pretty pretty long. I was I was uh I will report this. I was just talking to the budget committee thinking that uh making sure that they include the other two members and weren't able to be here and I could see the change I think a little bit actually significantly from what those two individuals thought they' be voting on tonight. >> Yeah. So I I don't and Patty can find out when we have to have your vote, >> but I know >> it's not

139tonight. >> They're back there. >> They left you. So that would my report would be to encourage you to uh delay delay a vote but that that's tell you to make sure that Diane and John are well informed. >> Sure. >> All right. So then I think if there are no further questions from the superintendent, we'll look for a motion to enter nonpublic section. [clears throat] Just right now. Is >> there a second? >> Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Roll call, please. Travis. That motion 5. We're now non public. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.