Members of the Warrant Committee Finance Subcommittee met March 10 to review Milton Public Schools’ FY26 budget request, pressing district staff for details about a structural deficit, out-of-district special-education costs, positions added since the last override and possible fee increases for extracurricular programs as the district prepares for a proposed override vote.

The subcommittee—meeting in advance of a full warrant-committee presentation on March 18—heard from district staff that the FY26 “level service” request has been reworked to reflect actual costs rather than carry-forward budget assumptions. Katie, a district staff member working on the budget, said, “the budget document, we bridle out every single line that makes up the entire school department budget,” and that the exhibits show full-time equivalents and the line-item costs used to build the FY26 request.

Why it matters: the district seeks to address what officials described as a roughly $2.3 million structural deficit tied largely to special-education, transportation, utilities and substitute coverage. Committee members were told that about $800,000 of the FY26 request is intended to rebuild a circuit-breaker reserve for special-education reimbursements; together with other adjustments, staff said the net program and sustainability changes account for most of the requested increase.

Subcommittee members pressed staff on several specifics. Julia Maxwell and others asked whether the district has analyzed which in-district programs or additional positions would let the district bring students back from costly out-of-district placements. Amanda (district staff) said each student’s needs differ and recommended first identifying commonalities among students placed out of district to determine whether a program could be developed to meet those needs in-house. Mark and other committee members noted space constraints and the need to hire specialized staff (for example, nursing or therapeutic staff) to support medically complex students.

The group also sought a list of positions added since the last override and the funding sources for those roles. Katie said the district is assembling a roster of positions added since the last override, and that some were funded by ARPA/ESSER grants while others were not. A spreadsheet discussed in the meeting included roles such as special-education teachers, interventionists, school nurses, BCBAs, adjustment counselors and language teachers; staff said they planned to post the full list on the budget web page.

On fees and access, members discussed whether raising fees for athletics, prekindergarten and after-school care could reduce the need for cuts if the override fails. Steve Rines and Julia voiced support for maintaining access while exploring sliding scales or targeted charges; district staff said fee changes are under study and would need to balance cost recovery with equitable access. The meeting clarified that the after-school community schools program operates on a separate budget and that fee adjustments there affect that program’s staffing directly.

The committee also discussed the timing of the override ballot. Select Board members had raised the possibility of moving the vote later; school officials said the Select Board—not the school committee—had proposed that, and the school committee had not requested a date change. Several committee members warned that delaying the vote could increase uncertainty for staff and complicate negotiations with employee unions.

Union negotiations were raised as a budget risk. Committee members were told Milton’s collective bargaining agreements—with the Milton Educators Association (MEA) and AFSCME for support staff—are not settled; staff said the budget uses projections for salaries because contracts have not been finalized. Katie said salaries account for roughly 81% of the district budget and that unsettled bargaining introduces projection uncertainty.

Members emphasized public communication. New warrant-committee members urged clearer outreach explaining why the district overspent in prior years, what steps the district has taken to address the causes and why the current request differs from historical “level service” numbers. District staff and committee members agreed to publish position lists and budget exhibits and to add explanatory language on the budget web page about why the FY26 level-service request is different than past years’ level-service figures.

Formal action: the subcommittee adjourned by motion at 9:20 a.m.; the motion carried on a roll-call vote with Steve Rines, Allison Gagnon, Peter Monn and Laurie Conley recorded as voting yes; one member (Julia Maxwell) was recorded as absent.

The subcommittee asked staff to bring detailed position lists, line-item clarifications and materials explaining the structural adjustments to the full warrant-committee meeting on March 18.

Ending: District staff said they would post the positions list and supporting exhibits on the budget page and circulate them to committee members before the next meeting; committee members urged continued outreach to voters on why the FY26 request differs from past budgets and on the potential consequences if an override fails.