The meeting opened with public comments, where a local resident, Sarah Fox, raised alarms about a significant drop in school enrollment from 2,727 to 2,511 students within six months. Fox emphasized the unprecedented nature of this decline in her decade-long experience in the community and called for the committee to clearly communicate how these changes might affect staffing and budget allocations. She noted the absence of corresponding staff reductions despite the enrollment drop, urging the committee to prepare transparent messaging for the community in light of these demographic shifts.

Following the public comments, the committee delved into the FY27 budget planning, examining detailed financial allocations across various departments, including athletics, student services, and technology. Detailed budget breakdowns included allocations for instructional staff, highlighting the roles and salaries of teachers across different grade levels and support staff, such as substitutes and instructional assistants.

Special education services were a focal point, with discussions on the need to manage rising costs, particularly out-of-district tuition expenses. It was noted that special education costs made up approximately 25% of total salary expenses, excluding transportation. The committee acknowledged the need to build in-district programs to mitigate high tuition costs over time, emphasizing the importance of understanding the ratio of special education students to total enrollment.

The conversation also touched on operational challenges, such as staffing discrepancies between schools and the need for accurate reporting of expenditures. Concerns about the adequacy of guidance and counseling services were raised, with discrepancies noted in staffing levels across different schools. The necessity of maintaining essential services without compromising quality was underscored, along with the potential for budgetary adjustments that do not negatively impact educational outcomes.

Another topic was the role of instructional coaches in curriculum development and teacher support. The committee discussed the evolution of curriculum roles, moving from a model of district-wide curriculum directors to one focused on instructional coaches and lead teachers. This shift aimed at a more collaborative approach to curriculum implementation and teacher assistance, though concerns about transparency and clarity in the roles of various positions were expressed.

The meeting also explored the complexities of transportation services, particularly under the Unit A contract. The committee discussed the categorization of transportation costs between special education and general education, with a rough estimate suggesting an even split of approximately $150,000 each. The obligations under the McKinney-Vento Act for transporting homeless students were also clarified, emphasizing contracted transportation services.

Concerns were raised about the maintenance of school facilities, including the need for strategic oversight of large capital projects. The committee highlighted the disconnect between the Department of Public Works and the school department, noting past inadequacies in facility maintenance. Suggestions were made for a permanent committee to oversee capital projects.

Finally, the committee addressed the funding and budgeting for athletics and extracurricular activities. A proposal was made to establish clear budgets to track expenses, such as coaches’ salaries and equipment purchases.