A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the intricacies of the budget process, particularly amid ongoing negotiations with various union contracts, such as those for fire, Department of Public Works (DPW), and clerical staff. The preliminary budget was set to be postponed due to scheduling conflicts, with school presentations being delayed by a week. This shift necessitated adjustments to the overall timeline, sparking concern among members who emphasized the need for sufficient time to analyze new budget information. One member recalled last year’s experience of receiving critical budget documents just before the meeting, which hindered adequate preparation.

Health insurance costs emerged as a issue, with an increase of 8.85% reported. This rise was attributed in part to changes in service coverage, notably the elimination of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss. The committee underscored the need to understand these cost implications as they continued to shape the budget.

The committee also focused on the school budget and its presentation process, expressing the importance of receiving budget documents in advance. Members critiqued previous presentations, noting they had not met expectations compared to when a full-time business manager and HR director were involved. A proposal was made to align the FY27 budget with previous years’ presentations, emphasizing the inclusion of full-time equivalent (FTE) figures to enhance transparency. Additionally, the need for a comprehensive athletic department budget, accounting for revolving account expenses, was highlighted to prevent confusion over transportation costs.

Concerns were raised about the discrepancies between budget figures presented during public hearings and those finalized after town meetings, with the school budget subject to change until June 29. To address this, a formal request was suggested to outline the committee’s expectations for the school budget presentation.

The discussion then shifted to a potential Proposition 2½ override for FY27. Members emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the level of service required and additional requests, advocating for transparency in the financial implications of any proposed overrides. There was caution against merging different service levels into a singular override figure. The committee planned to reconvene as a tri-board once preliminary budgets were presented, facilitating a discussion on proposed overrides.

Furthermore, the committee deliberated on the feasibility of producing a comprehensive finance report for the town warrant, given the tight schedule. A suggestion arose to include a high-level summary in the mailed warrant, directing voters to a detailed report via a QR code post-public hearings. This approach aimed to address the numerous unknowns that complicated the timely completion of the report.

The structuring of potential overrides was also scrutinized. Members highlighted the need for flexibility in presenting options to voters, expressing concerns over past decisions by the school committee and select board regarding overrides. A member articulated discomfort with a particular department’s budget, referencing disparities between service offerings and student performance, while emphasizing the necessity for flexibility and honesty about financial needs.

In a separate matter, the capital planning committee’s recent discussions on a turf field replacement project were questioned. A member expressed confusion over why this project was being considered, as it had not been ranked or prioritized by the school committee. The concern was that the capital planning committee was overstepping its purview by engaging in discussions about a project that did not follow the prescribed ranking process. This highlighted the need for clear communication and adherence to established procedures to avoid misunderstandings regarding project approvals.