Milton School Committee approves level‑service budget, submits non‑override budget and OKs fee changes amid debate over cuts

Milton School Committee on March 5 approved a proposed FY26 level‑service budget of $73,573,914 and voted unanimously to submit a $68,233,608 non‑override budget to the town as the committee prepares for an upcoming override campaign.

The votes came after a public budget hearing and a long finance subcommittee discussion that laid out the district’s budget methodology, identified reductions and additions inside the level‑service request, and reviewed a list of specific cuts that would take effect if the community does not approve additional funding. Committee members also approved several time‑sensitive fees, among them a $50 per‑family late transportation registration fee, and voted to approve vendor warrants.

Why it matters: The committee framed the level‑service request to reflect actual FY24 expenditures and a set of required and mandated needs (English language learner staffing, curriculum work, special‑education reserves). The non‑override budget submitted to the town represents the smaller set of services and positions the district would operate under if the town does not adopt override funding; school leaders said those cuts would materially change offerings and staffing across Milton Public Schools.

Summary of discussion and key points

- Public comment: Two residents spoke in the budget hearing. Cara Moon, a long‑time Milton resident, raised concerns about past deficits, line‑item clarity, and said school staff reductions were being presented in a way she described as threatening; she said reserves had been used and questioned several line items. Mike Zulu, another resident and former finance committee participant, urged accuracy in how prior budget decisions were described and said he expected the town to pass an override this year. (Public comments: Cara Moon; Mike Zulu.)

- Finance subcommittee briefing: Committee members and staff (including Katie Blake, assistant superintendent of finance and operations) said the FY26 level‑service budget was reworked to align many line items with FY24 actuals, add a small number of required positions (for ELL compliance and curriculum work) and capture reductions (for example, a redesign of the NEC/NECC contracted program and an unfilled family liaison post). Katie Blake described the approach as a line‑by‑line review that adjusted previously carried‑forward numbers to better reflect recent actuals.

- Mandates and cost drivers discussed: Out‑of‑district special‑education tuition (set by the Operational Services Division), Chapter 70 state aid, and the circuit‑breaker reimbursement program were cited as major drivers. Staff said circuit‑breaker reserves were being rebuilt in FY26 to avoid using one‑time funds to cover recurring special‑education costs.

- Potential service impacts if non‑override budget is enacted: Staff explained that the non‑override package would eliminate or reduce many positions and programs (examples discussed included middle‑school team staffing reductions that would raise class sizes, reductions to elementary preschool staffing, elimination of some library positions, reductions to clubs/athletics stipends, and the redesign/elimination of contracted NEC support). Committee members repeatedly emphasized the projected student‑level impacts and described the non‑override list as an attempt to minimize harm while recognizing that substantial reductions would be required.

Votes at a glance

- Level‑service budget (motion to approve): Approved. Motion to approve level‑service budget in the amount of $73,573,914 (mover: not specified in transcript; second: not specified). Outcome: approved. - Non‑override budget (motion to submit): Motion to submit the FY26 non‑override budget of $68,233,608 to the town (mover: not specified; second: not specified). Vote: unanimous in favor. Outcome: submitted for warrant/warrant‑committee review. - FY26 fee schedule (time‑sensitive fees): Committee approved proposed FY26 fees as presented, including a new $50 per‑family late fee for late registration for district transportation (estimated additional revenue roughly $7,500). Outcome: approved. - Vendor warrants: Committee approved vendor warrant 33 ($597,264.66 payable 02/27/25) and vendor warrant 31 ($652,972.45 payable 02/13/25). Outcome: approved.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: Committee and staff spent substantial time explaining why the level‑service budget rose (reconciliation to FY24 actuals, contractual increases, special‑education tuition increases) and why certain programmatic changes were proposed (NEC/NECC redesign, family liaison decentralization, ELL staffing). Members pressed for clarity on which cuts would affect student services and on how one‑time funds had been used in prior years.

- Direction/assignment: Staff were urged to continue publishing clear budget materials and FAQs on the district website and to finalize the detailed list of positions and estimated student impacts to support public outreach around the override.

- Formal action: The committee approved the level‑service budget, submitted the non‑override budget to the town, approved the FY26 fee schedule items discussed, and voted to approve the vendor warrants listed above.

Clarifying details (recorded in the meeting)

- Level‑service budget total: $73,573,914 (approved). - FY26 non‑override budget submitted: $68,233,608 (submitted to town/warrant committee). - Override ask discussed at town level: $9,500,000 (town‑level figure discussed as part of townwide calculations and percent impact). - Transportation late fee proposed: $50 per family (estimated additional revenue ~$7,500). - Transportation revenue offset built into the budget: about $290,000 (not covering full transportation contract cost of ~ $1,000,000+). - Capital budget recommended by CIP (townwide) referenced later in meeting: $5,143,500 total; $875,500 for bonded items (see separate CIP update in meeting).

Speakers (attributed in this article)

[{"name":"Cara Moon","role_title":"Resident / Public commenter","affiliation_type":"citizen"},{"name":"Mike Zulu","role_title":"Resident / Public commenter","affiliation_type":"citizen"},{"name":"Katie Blake","role_title":"Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Mark","role_title":"School Committee member","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Anna","role_title":"School Committee member","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Amanda","role_title":"School Committee member","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Selena","role_title":"School Committee member","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Peter","role_title":"District staff member","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Stephanie O'Keefe","role_title":"Communications lead, Milton Public Schools","affiliation_type":"government"},{"name":"Martha Sandoval","role_title":"Director, Community Schools","affiliation_type":"government"}]

Authorities cited in discussion

[{"type":"statute","name":"Chapter 70 (Massachusetts school finance statute)","referenced_by":["mps-budget-and-fees-2025-03-05"]},{"type":"other","name":"DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)","referenced_by":["mps-budget-and-fees-2025-03-05"]},{"type":"policy","name":"MIAA guidance on participation and federal law (Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association)","referenced_by":["mps-budget-and-fees-2025-03-05"]},{"type":"other","name":"Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents / Massachusetts Association of School Committees / Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials joint statement","referenced_by":["mps-budget-and-fees-2025-03-05"]},{"type":"regulation","name":"Operational Services Division tuition rates (state set special‑education tuition)","referenced_by":["mps-budget-and-fees-2025-03-05"]}]

Provenance (transcript evidence)

{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"51.695","local_start":0,"local_end":347,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay, thank you. Good evening everybody. Thank you for your patience. We are calling to order the Milton School Committee's budget hearing for, today, 03/05/2025. We did experience and are experiencing a slight technical glitch.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"10083.74","local_start":0,"local_end":86,"evidence_excerpt":"All in favor? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}