Committee reiterates support for override and debates formal guidance for revolving accounts

Committee members used the May 6 meeting to urge residents to vote on a separate ballot question tied to the municipal override and to clarify the difference between the ballot question (a tax override) and Town Meeting Article 3 (which would specify how override funds could be spent).

Members explained that both steps — a ballot approval to raise the levy and a town‑meeting article to authorize spending — are necessary for the district to use override revenue. The committee emphasized that a favorable ballot result could permit a special town meeting this summer to place a spending article before voters; without the ballot approval the district could not collect the higher levy.

The committee described how override proceeds would expand the district’s operating flexibility for fiscal year 2026 and could be used to restore programs and student services cut in recent budgets. Members said the approved Town Meeting warrant omitted one article on spending (Article 3 failed at the town meeting) and urged residents to vote in the upcoming ballot election.

Committee members also debated how the district should manage and oversee revolving accounts used to fund activities such as Little Hornets and school‑choice programs. One member urged a formal policy setting parameters (floors/ceilings, guidance on using funds for staffing vs. one‑time capital) to avoid ad hoc decisions; others favored using the budget subcommittee and refined reporting formats to provide transparency while maintaining administrative flexibility. The committee agreed to continue the discussion in budget subcommittee and to provide more detailed revolving‑account reporting to finance liaisons and the full committee.