Milton school officials expressed sharp concern Wednesday morning regarding early revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year, warning that the town’s current guidance might not cover the actual cost of maintaining existing services. During a meeting of the School Committee’s budget subcommittee, Acting Chair Mark Loring questioned the feasibility of a 2.9 percent revenue increase currently being discussed at Town Hall, suggesting such a figure would likely result in a shortfall rather than a stable "level service" budget.

My concern is the percentage increase they were projecting was not aligned to what that number will be, Loring noted during a review of the FY27 timeline. They were showing 2.9 percent, which feels low—more like a cut budget than level service. I don't want to waste time on budget scenarios that are garbage if the town says they aren't realistic. This friction comes as the district attempts to move toward a three-year sustainable financial plan following the depletion of several revolving accounts in recent years.

Interim Superintendent John Phelan and the committee also moved to refine the district’s budget priorities document before presenting it to the full School Committee. The subcommittee reached a consensus to strip specific examples—such as the potential purchase of one or two new buses—from the public-facing document to avoid confusion. Member Nathan David Hutto argued that providing hypotheticals could lead to unmet expectations among residents. Even if you note they are examples, people can get tethered to specific ideas, Hutto said. If we're not prepared to commit yet, we might as well take them out.

Director of Finance Katie Blake shared a more optimistic update regarding the current year’s financial management, reporting that the district has significantly improved its ability to track and earmark funds. According to the first quarter financial report, the district has already encumbered 78 percent of its general expenses, a substantial increase from the 60 percent recorded at the same time last year. Blake explained that this "earmarking" process—which covers everything from yellow bus contracts to copy paper—prevents department heads from accidentally spending the same budget line twice.

This gives us the ability to manage the budget and push back if department heads don't have money for certain things, Blake said. While roughly $500,000 in general operating funds remains uncommitted, Blake and Phelan emphasized a conservative approach. Phelan highlighted the precarious state of the district’s revolving funds, noting that the Special Education Circuit Breaker account currently holds only about $8,000. This is a far cry from the district's long-term goal of rebuilding that reserve to $3.1 million.

We are sitting with $8,000 in that account and are already overextended, Phelan said. The depletion of revolving accounts in FY24 and FY25 put us in a hard position. We need to incrementally deposit money for three years to reach healthy balances. This is why we are being so financially conservative despite the override.

Looking ahead, the committee discussed new strategies originating from the Tucker School to assist students who are not meeting MCAS benchmarks. Phelan noted that while most of the proposed interventions involve rearranging staff and schedules at no cost, there may be future requests for extra boosts of support that would require small expenditures. The subcommittee is scheduled to meet with the town’s Warrant Committee on November 3 to further align school expense forecasts with town-wide revenue projections.