The Milton School Committee’s budget subcommittee is overhauling its communication strategy ahead of high-stakes meetings with the Town Warrant Committee. During an October 29 session, members scrutinized a draft presentation for the FY26 budget cycle, ultimately deciding to remove a standalone slide focused on Special Education (SpEd) costs to avoid what Superintendent John Burrows described as a negative framing of student needs. The decision marks a shift in how the district presents its financial drivers, moving toward a model that integrates mandated costs into a broader discussion of educational requirements.

Assistant Superintendent Katie DeSimone initially presented a breakdown of SpEd as a primary budget driver, highlighting state and federal funding offsets. However, the subcommittee expressed concern that isolating these expenses could inadvertently scapegoat a specific student population. We're all walking the balance of trying not to identify any one group of folks and then connecting them to this budget expense in a way that some folks see as negative, Burrows explained, adding that he would rather educate the small group so when bigger meetings happen they don't ask those questions that no one wants to ask. Chair Amanda Serio agreed, suggesting that pulling SpEd out as a completely separate outlier feels weird and recommended grouping it under mandated expenses alongside transportation and utilities.

Beyond the data itself, the subcommittee wrestled with how to manage its relationship with the Warrant Committee, which has historically shown interest in the district's high-level spending. Member Elizabeth Carroll recalled past friction regarding the committee's involvement, noting, I remember last year there were meetings where we had attendance but not participation. She questioned where the Warrant Committee’s role fits within the scope of budget development versus final approval. Member Nathan Hutto cautioned against the school department overstepping its bounds when defining those roles. I do just worry about the tenor of us coming in and telling the warrant committee what their job is, Hutto said. I think that is on the chair of the warrant committee to wrangle his crew.

The financial planning comes as the district continues to navigate the fallout from a $2.4 million structural deficit rooted in FY24 revolving fund over-expenditures. To prevent a recurrence, DeSimone introduced the need for a formalized policy on retaining revolving fund balances—such as those for athletics, transportation, and community schools—which will guide the development of the FY27 budget. That practice will drive what is built into the budget for fiscal year 27, DeSimone noted. Serio requested a framework on allowable costs for the subcommittee’s November 12 meeting, where the district plans to deep-dive into the sustainability of its Big Five revolving accounts. My thought on this would be calling attention to when we expect to have a budget to be able to present to them, Serio added regarding the upcoming Warrant Committee presentation.

Looking toward capital needs, Burrows announced that Facilities Director Tom McCarthy would present requests on November 5. The Superintendent also signaled that upcoming FY26 budget shifts would aim to align spending with recent student achievement data. The session concluded with the approval of several months of meeting minutes. Motion Made by A. Serio to approve meeting minutes for September 3, September 17, October 1, October 8, and October 15, 2025. Motion Passed (5-0). A second motion was required for the October 22 minutes to allow for a member's absence. Motion Made by A. Serio to approve meeting minutes for October 22, 2025. Motion Passed (4-0-1), with Member E. Carroll abstaining. Members Mark Loring and Annamma Varghese also participated in the unanimous votes for the earlier minutes.