The school budget was a central topic, with a proposed increase of 16 to 18 percent driven by a projected $897,000 deficit necessary to maintain level services. This deficit is largely attributed to rising special education costs, staffing increases, and central office expenses. The introduction of a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) to replace outsourced services is part of the budget.

Concerns were raised about the potential severity of the budget increase, which consolidates several years’ worth of hikes into one year. The school committee is constrained by contractual obligations, limiting their ability to propose cuts without impacting essential services. Approximately $330,000 of the budget increase is tied to contractual obligations, with an estimated $179,000 allocated for out-of-district placements required by Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The district anticipates receiving around $155,311 from the state’s circuit breaker program to offset some special education costs.

In addition to education, the meeting addressed the town’s overall budgetary challenges, notably a significant 20% increase in insurance costs and rising pension contributions. These increases add pressure to an already strained budget, with health insurance costs described as particularly burdensome. The necessity for a more informed decision-making process for future fiscal years was emphasized, with suggestions to explore alternative insurance arrangements or refinancing existing debt to alleviate cost pressures.

Another crucial discussion involved the potential $3.2 million debt exclusion for a new public safety building. The board debated whether to advance this question for the May 20th town election or delay it to a special election in the fall. The urgency of adhering to legal timelines for ballot questions was stressed, alongside the importance of preparing clear educational materials for voters. Concerns were expressed about the risk of presenting both the public safety and school override votes simultaneously, fearing it might overwhelm or confuse voters, potentially jeopardizing the passage of both.

The public safety building project was deemed a high priority, with supporters believing it would receive broad community backing. However, there was contention over the timing and strategy of the votes, with some advocating for separating the public safety question from other issues to maintain transparency. If the $3.2 million proposal failed now, it could create challenges for future votes.

Logistics for the upcoming town meeting and ballot election were also discussed, setting the town meeting for May 6th and the election for May 20th. The board weighed the merits of single-issue overrides versus those involving multiple departments, with a preference for the former due to their clarity. Scott suggested a streamlined approach for presenting the override at the town meeting.

The board acknowledged the importance of clear communication with the public about budgetary implications and the need for transparency in the voting process. Discussions highlighted the challenges of maintaining voter engagement and ensuring an informed electorate amid complex fiscal decisions.