Welcome to the special April 30th, 2025 meeting of the Sharon School Committee.

This meeting will be conducted remotely over Zoom and attendance by board or committee members will be remote and remote attendance shall count towards a quorum.

The meeting will be broadcast live and recorded by Sharon TV. If you elect to make your webcam, your image and background may be broadcast with or without sound.

So this is a special meeting.

I know that I thought I saw a hand before.

We actually don't have public comment on the agenda tonight.

This was originally intended to be a procedural meeting to just deal with one topic.

A second topic, excuse me, was added, but I think that will largely be perfunctory.

So with that, the first item of business is discussion and vote on clarification of the March 5th, 2025 budget or budget vote that appears in Article 18 of the town meeting.

So that was actually the reason why we called this meeting was the express purpose was to clarify the FY26 school committee vote to adopt the budget that passed on March 5th. As stated in the warrant for the annual town meeting in Article 18, page 42, on March 5th, 2025, the committee voted to approve a budget in the total amount of $56,183,477.

And while there was discussion of possible options to reduce the total amount, the committee's vote as stated in the warrant complies with the requirement that it adopt a final budget by following the required process in Chapter 71 of state law.

The final budget is then submitted to the town for vote at town meeting.

There have been some questions raised about exactly what that vote entailed or what the kind of intended budget amount for the school committee was.

And so the vote discussion and vote tonight is to clarify and eliminate any confusion at town meeting regarding the vote of the school committee's budget.

So I hope that makes sense.

And with that, I will open the floor for discussion.

Yeah, Jeremy.

Yes.

So two things I'd like to call out. I think that we should re-vote because there was confusion about the ask.

The specific wording of the motion was that the additional cuts are in the list that we are voting on. If you go to the transcript, it says in the list.

The additional cuts are in the list.

So that would imply that the full list of cuts was what was being voted on.

Last meeting, there was also confusion about whether we had voted on one budget or two budgets. So I would suggest that for clarity purposes, we vote on the two budget numbers so that everyone has a clear understanding of where everyone stands.

And I'll wait for more discussion, but I'll introduce a motion to have that vote later. Thank you.

So one thing that I do want to clarify, and I think maybe your discussion point kind of falls within this realm, but we got very explicit guidance from council that we are not re-voting a budget tonight.

And so we're clarifying the budget that we voted. We have to vote a single budget or, you know, submit a single bottom line number to the town.

So it may be that that is the lower number or maybe the higher number.

But I think we need to vote on a single number so that there is clarification or clarity kind of in the town and in the town meeting.

Jeremy, I'll go back to you if you would just have a thought. I would like to understand that under the advice of council because I wasn't included in that advice.

I can share that we're not allowed to or if we were to reopen discussion and kind of re-vote a meeting, we would need to hold additional budget hearings, et cetera.

And I'm glad we're using school committee money to push this silly cause by paying the town council.

Town meeting is on Monday.

We were given explicit guidance in tonight's agenda item.

We can discuss or kind of put an agenda item in the future about how we discuss.

That's fine. I understand.

I think we should re-vote it to be clear.

And I'm glad that you're burning the town's money on litigating this.

I appreciate your concern.

We want to make sure that town meeting is doing things appropriately and that we don't have to spend a lot of money by having town meeting invalidated because we followed an invalid budget process.

So the goal of tonight, as stated, is to clarify what the final number was voted on, like what the final number of the budget is from that March 5th meeting.

Yeah, Avi.

Thanks, Adam. So I just wanted to clarify.

I've got some egg on my face. And so I just want to acknowledge something.

So last meeting, I honestly stated that I had believed we were voting both versions of the budget.

And to be frank, if I'm just being, again, completely honest, my biggest, the biggest factor in my feeling that was I was aware.

I think Jeremy had articulated correctly throughout this whole process that he did not support the 4% allocation.

I saw the list of cuts similarly to what he saw, and then he voted in the affirmative.

So to me, it was understood that both versions.

I did go back and look at what was presented to us. And again, just mea culpa, the superintendent pretty clearly listed on what was presented and voted on above those cuts. And again, Jeremy and I might have missed it.

The following cuts are not currently proposed by the superintendent.

And so from my perspective, certainly I think I've made it clear all along I was in favor of the 4% allocation.

It's not a secret that I'm one of the two school committee members that voted on priorities for that.

Four priorities committee members voted for that. That's why that allocation is the initial proposed budget.

So again, just to clarify, I do think while I'm happy to vote to clarify tonight, I actually do believe, given that in the minutes which we've approved, I believe all of us voted to approve those minutes.

I certainly did.

It is pretty clear that we voted a 4% budget in those minutes.

So that's a second vote that we did already clarify, that 4%. Also, Dr. Botello's proposal to us, which was on screen, pretty clear, and was in all of our drives, pretty clearly.

And again, I acknowledge that in last week's conversation, probably because I was always in support of 4%, I had missed that it's pretty clearly stated right there in the middle of the page, highlighted in orange, the following cuts are not currently proposed by the superintendent.

So to say that we voted that budget, I think is, at the very least, a misunderstanding.

Because again, what we were voting at that moment was the presented budget, which very clearly stated those cuts were not being proposed.

So I think that, why don't we pull up the meeting minutes and look at them, rather than saying, here's what we said.

I have them right here.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So it says here, first, the first, budget option B, it's clearly labeled 4%. But budget option 1C is also clearly labeled at 4%. The next cuts that are not being currently proposed by the superintendent are represented as FinCom cuts.

And we had previously discussed that we would kind of package these together.

But we were not proposing these cuts.

It was just to save time on the back end, which didn't happen. So there talked about what was going on.

And we sort of went through option 1C, 1B, whatever.

And then we voted on option 1C, option 1B. And we were voting it as a package.

But these cuts were not being proposed by the superintendent.

And the motion was not to accept the superintendent's proposal.

The motion you made explicitly said that we are including the additional cuts.

We can pull up that transcript if you want to see it. And the notes... I don't know where the transcript came from, Jeremy. Well, I mean, it's unfair on TV. So why don't we just all sit and watch it for a sec? Here, I'll pull it up. Okay.

Jeremy, throughout the entire meeting, I kept saying, emphasized several times that we were looking at the 4% budget.

And I believe the rest of the committee members can say yay or nay.

But I think it was very clear that the FinCom cuts were being labeled as the FinCom cuts to match the FinCom budget number that they recommend.

There is no time... You can go back and see what your motion was. Hey, Jeremy, Jeremy, did we at any time say we want all of those cuts?

No, we did not.

Let me read the motion you introduced.

You said...

You put the motion on the screen?

This should be in the minutes.

It is right here. Yeah. Pull the motion up in the notes because it doesn't say... It says that we voted to recommend two budgets.

So scroll down.

There you are.

There we are. Okay.

Option 1B, both at 4% and 3.54%.

Right.

That's what's in the minutes.

Yes. That is what we approved.

The minutes did not say we approved the superintendent budget.

Jeremy. The minutes did not say we approved the board. The minutes...

It was very...

It should have been in the... You're right, Jeremy.

It should have been in the motion.

Gavel.

Gavel. You had them.

So you had the chance...

My point is on. When we reviewed the minutes to correct that, and you did not. Okay, Jeremy, I think everybody but you understood that the 4% was the superintendent's recommended budget.

It's a little bit silly. You're the only person who didn't get this. And you voted for these minutes. Julie, please pause. Yes, because they said we recommended two budgets. Jeremy, please pause. No, we didn't.

Julie, please pause. Look at the minutes. Jeremy, please pause.

I think if you read the minutes, it is not clear.

We have a single budget that must be presented at town meeting.

The goal of tonight's meeting is to clarify what that budget was.

So we can argue back and forth about whether it was clear or wasn't clear.

It was this. It was that. The entire reason we're having the meeting tonight is to clarify what the intention of the committee was.

It's the intention, not what we actually voted on.

I mean, what we think we voted on, but what our budget was. All right, I'll pull up the transcript.

Here we go.

Adam?

Yeah, sorry, Avi.

It's okay. I do want to reaffirm what I said last week.

Jeremy, I appreciate you pulling those minutes. I do think, as I did last meeting, that, again, being honest, my intent at that moment was to vote both options.

I do think it's meaningful to see that transcript and to see what those minutes say.

I acknowledge that I wasn't fully focusing on the not proposed in the cuts.

And so, to me, I accept that my vote was for something different, perhaps, than I had intended.

But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I didn't intend the same thing that Jeremy views him as attending.

And what I don't want to see happen here, and I think I tried to state this motivation last meeting, and I want to state it again, is I think that while it's clear, obviously, from conversations like the one we're having right now, we don't see eye to eye on certain things. Some members don't.

And that's okay. That's good. That's why people vote, right?

But I don't think it's right to bait and switch collegial.

Let me say this right away.

Jeremy voted in the affirmative on that budget. I don't think it's right for us to change what it is that he voted. I knew in that moment that Jeremy did not support.

I think he made it clear to our group all through the process he did not support a 4% budget.

I don't think any of us – I mean, I shouldn't speak for everybody.

I did not expect or think in that moment, oh, wow, Jeremy just supported a 4% budget.

I knew that he was accepting the same list of things I was, that I wanted that to land at 4%, and that he was supporting that at 3-5-4.

I don't want us to – again, I can't speak for everyone else.

I can't sit here and pretend that that's not how I viewed it. That is how I viewed it. And so it is clear that I think under advice of counsel, we need one budget to propose.

There's a – you know, Massachusetts law is actually clear that the school committee has to propose the budget.

No other – no one else.

Certainly it is well within FinCon's authority and responsibility to make a recommendation on that. And in this case, that's exactly how that's going to go.

When that's being followed correctly, which is how that pre-town meeting was made clear it's going to be followed correctly, I think we should affirm one of the two budgets that we voted here tonight, not reopening the budget process.

And we should move forward. But I do think that we should sit here and acknowledge that the way that we went about it, at least two members, Jeremy and I, believed that we were putting forward both versions.

In fact, in the minutes it does say – I understand it does not say at town meeting. It says at finance committee.

But it does say that we were going to present both versions of the budget at finance committee.

And at the very least, that is – that has to be accepted as misleading.

And not just to the members of this committee, which obviously matters, right? These are seven votes.

But also to the public. Like, let's acknowledge that if you're a member of the public and you see two versions of a school committee budget being presented to the finance committee, there is the belief that the school committee is presenting two budgets.

So let's clarify that by agreeing on one budget to present by way of vote. And let's try to move forward to town meeting where, again, this can be debated by all of us as private citizens.

And that's what we're there for.

And the people in this town ultimately get to decide. If the school committee budget was in line with the proposed allocation, it could get voted up or down. If it was four times the proposed allocation, it could get voted up and down.

That's the beautiful thing about town meeting government is that the number belongs to the community.

And I think we need to just be clear what the budget that's going forward is.

FinCom has made it clear in their meetings and at pre-town meeting what their recommendation is going to be.

I think Jeremy has been clear. I think other members – Adam, I think you've been very clear. Julie, I think you're very clear.

Let's move forward with clarity here. I don't know that arguing with each other is going to change anyone's stances at this point.

And I don't think that making folks feel like they voted for something that they don't believe they voted for is a productive use of our time or the town's time.

Thank you. I do want to pull up the transcript.

This was the motion. Does everybody know what they're voting for in terms of 1B and 1C and the fact that the additional cuts are on the list?

That says they are on the list we voted for.

We can watch the video together.

That was the motion. I think that would actually be good bonding time at this point.

But I trust your transcript.

And again, being honest, I think at least you and I, two-seventh of this committee, understood – I mean, we have to be honest here, guys. If we thought that we were voting only the 4-0 – and, Jeremy, I'm not trying to make light of this.

I think my point is that you made your stance very clear.

Would none of us then have been surprised by Jeremy's vote? I mean, I think – I understood when Jeremy placed his vote that his vote included the cuts.

I mean, I understood that in real time.

So I think the – again, the point of confusion, which is what we're here to clarify today, is the reading – or not reading, but like the interpretation of that line. And I can share my own personal interpretation in the meeting was we were voting the 4.0 budget with a set of contingency cuts.

And that we were clear about the cuts that were included if we were not – if we had to reduce the budget to the 3.54 level.

That was my understanding.

That may not have been everyone's understanding.

But I think that – the fact that we have two different reads, A, demonstrates that we should have been much clearer in the March 5th meeting.

But B, indicates that we need to clarify this, and that's what we're here to do tonight.

Yeah, Sean. I mean, I guess the question is, do you dispute the intent of that motion that was introduced by Julie, where it says the fact that the additional cuts are on the list?

I'm saying I think the motion was vague.

Like, we could have used a clearer motion, and I think that's why we have a resultant point of confusion, where different people have different interpretations.

It says the additional cuts are on the list that we just voted. Correct.

Correct.

And I think they were on the list as contingency plans.

This is the contingency plan if we were to arrive at a lower budget number at town meeting.

That was my understanding, as opposed to kind of including a different set of cuts.

But again, I'm speaking for myself, and that was my understanding in the meeting.

This is just highlighting why we need to clarify this tonight.

Yeah, Shauna.

All right. If I can just jump in here, it's obvious that we have seven different interpretations of this motion, which means that we, as a collective unit, this isn't anyone to blame here, right?

We are all working on behalf of our kids, all right?

We're all neighbors, and we all want to make sure that we're getting what's best for our kids.

We obviously didn't do a good job, okay? We weren't clear enough.

We weren't succinct. We didn't understand what we were voting on.

And that falls on everyone.

Okay?

We're here now, okay?

We need to do the work that we need to do. We need to figure out what we are doing very clearly, very efficiently, and move on. We have learned plenty from this, and things will be different next year.

But at this point, going back and forth between the seven of us isn't fruitful.

It's not helping the cause, okay? We're not making toward moves.

So I would like to see us please stop the bicker, okay, and get back to the fact that we need to figure out what we voted on and what we're doing on Monday.

That's it. Thank you, Shauna.

Julie. Oh, Julie.

I think you're muted. Okay.

I take responsibility for the fact that this was not clear. I think if these words are looked at in isolation, they mean one thing. I think if they're looked at in the context of the entire discussion and the entire couple of months discussion, it would have been very clear that of which budget I supported and which everyone else supported.

And my question is, did everybody think that we were all voting for?

Jeremy, did you think literally everyone on the committee was voting for the lower number?

Did you really think that?

All right.

So.

I just want to know before I make the motion. I thought we were voting to send two to priorities and that.

And then looking back.

Priorities. Tell me that the wording was we voted for the lower one and we would make.

And make it clear that these are the additional cuts we'd make if we had to go lower.

Right.

But we weren't saying that we supported 3.54 percent budget.

We were saying. I don't know what else to go on.

The words that were said. In the motion.

Did you did you read the entire transcript or are you just giving. I watched it. I mean, you guys did. OK, never mind.

I'm not.

I can tell that this is a waste of time and I'm going to side with Shauna.

Thank you. I'm going to make a motion.

May I make a motion? I was going to make a motion.

Motion.

Can I make a motion first? I had my hand up. Yeah.

I'll be happy with you. OK, I'd like to make a motion.

To send the 3.54

percent budget to town meeting.

Second.

Friendly amendment.

Can we know this is the.

A fifty five million nine hundred forty six thousand three hundred ninety eight dollars, which represents the 3.54 number.

I'd just like to include that in the motion.

Again, I just want to be very clear about what we're sending.

Yes, please.

Amendment accepted. Friendly amendment accepted.

I'm going to make a second friendly amendment.

OK, go ahead.

You do yours. And then I'm going to read a final motion before you guys vote so that everyone agrees on what I've got.

That's going to go in minutes, if that's OK. Thank you, Jane.

I'd like to make a second friendly amendment to show what we are doing.

OK, I'd like to pull it up on the screen so that there are there's no confusion here.

We are voting what we see, not what we think we see, what we see. So to be clear, Shauna, to be clear, I'm going to reject that friendly amendment.

But I because it's not no disrespect here. I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's not an amendment or part of the vote. But I think that's a very fair ask. And I support us doing that.

I can't accept that. Sorry, I didn't know which way to get it. No, no, it's OK. I just I I didn't want to I'm not trying to step on you here.

It's all good.

I see the emotion.

Do I hear a second?

Yes, Jeremy seconded.

So let me read the motion, please.

Can I read it? The motion is to send the five the three point five four percent budget representing fifty five million nine hundred and forty six thousand or nine hundred and forty six three ninety eight to town meeting.

That's the motion.

Is that correct?

Is that the motion?

I need to find the exact number. It wasn't.

I'm trying to find it. It sounds right.

Can I pull up the meeting minutes?

Should I pull up the meeting minutes? Because I think I had Peter's presentation in the minutes.

Should I do that?

It's in the warrant, which is in front of that. Yeah. OK.

That's as long as it's that the number that I think was in the mailed out one.

Right.

Yeah.

And I'm actually should I add that to the motion as in the warrant?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

So I didn't know I was unmuted.

Motion to send the three point five four percent budget.

At fifty five nine forty six three ninety eight as in the town meeting warrant to town meeting.

Is that accurate for everybody?

Yeah.

Yeah. I just looked.

Yeah. OK. So Avi was the the made the motion.

Jeremy seconded it and became that full motion because of Adams friendly amendment, which was accepted.

All right.

I am going to call the roll.

Avi.

Point of order.

Oh, yes.

And we we've been kind of lax in terms of Robert's rules this meeting in terms of like people having the floor and getting called on by the chair. But we gave some leeway to get to this point for the vote.

I think it's really important that we get back to Robert's rules of order.

First, generally, you have a motion in the second.

Then you have discussion of the motion. So we haven't discussed the motion yet.

Then we would have.

So I my ask is that we have discussion of the motion.

Yes. And then have the vote and then there'll be no discussion of the.

Of the motion during the vote, just straight.

Yes. No problem at all.

All right. Thank you.

All right. So the floor is now open for discussion on the motion.

The chair recognizes Alan.

Before we vote, I believe we had already just discussed that people had wanted to see the list of cuts on the screen.

So we're going to do that.

So I think we can put the list of cuts back on the screen.

They were in the minutes.

We should be clear that what we are sending is the final budget number.

So what is on the screen is kind of for our purposes.

And we certainly voted this option on March 5th.

But for the purposes of the motion, we are voting just kind of the single number.

Excuse me.

And does everybody agree that what's on the screen right this minute is what we're talking about?

I don't know. I want to make sure that.

That's the 4% option.

If you scroll up, you'll see the 4%.

Like, yeah.

So this is the FinCom cut list at 3.5%.

That is the marginal cuts that goes with option 1B of the 4% budget.

So what this motion is for is for the upper box and this box where it says FinCom cut.

So it includes the FinCom cuts.

Thank you. Do I still have the floor?

Oh, I'm sorry. I interrupted.

That's okay. I appreciate the clarification. I'm just asking if I still have the floor.

Yes.

You can keep the floor.

I'm going to vote no on this budget.

I want to say that there were comments made earlier by other members that suggested that not everyone on the committee knew what they were voting for or that all seven of us didn't know what we were voting for.

I think I know what I was voting for then. I know what I'm voting for now. And it hasn't changed.

So thanks for the opportunity to share where I stand.

Thank you.

And let's keep this to discussion as opposed to the votes.

But Avi.

Yes. I just for purpose of discussion want to say I think I've been clear about what budget I intend to support at town meeting, what budget I always intended to support at town meeting. I think it is important and fair in a scenario where I believed.

And to clarify, I don't think Alan was directing that at me, but I do want to just clarify, I've been clear that at least two of us, Jeremy and I, viewed it differently.

And I think logic would then show, to Shauna's point, then it exists.

The point was there was a discrepancy between, and I think Shauna said, we had different views of what we were voting. Certainly, Alan, that could mean that some were right and some were wrong.

I acknowledge at the start that I'm open to the idea that had I paid more attention to the orange does not include proposed cuts, that's on me.

But I do just, I guess, for the purpose of this discussion, I want, I'm trying to stay away, Adam, from casting a vote.

I think it's a fair ask here.

But I intend to vote.

I intend to support the same budget I always intended to support. I believe that it's only right in a scenario where we believe we voted two to give an opportunity for either of those to pass.

So my motion is based on that logic and that feeling.

And I want the group to understand that. So I support the lower budget number.

The higher budget number would be the third largest percent increase in the school budget since 2010.

The FinCom number is hardly stingy.

It would be the fourth largest increase in the school budget since 2010. If I look at other towns, if I look at the top 25 suburban towns, the data Dr. Botello shared with us was based on 2023.

After 2023, we had the largest budget increase since 2020.

I'm sorry, since 2010. So his metrics were, yes, they were right for 2023.

But we're in the middle of top districts in the state on per pupil spending.

We are the highest in tax rate.

And that's unsustainable.

We can't keep raising taxes.

We need to cost control.

If other districts can make do with what we're spending per pupil, we should be able to, too.

And I feel like the administration has not been acting in a cost-controlled manner.

They spent $15,000 to rewrite a survey that we already had.

And yes, maybe there's some benefit in the new version.

But it looked a lot like the one that they gave last year. And that was $15,000. So to me, this isn't a funding issue.

Our funding is in line with other districts.

And we can't push tax rates higher.

And we certainly can't do it using excess levy capacity, which leads to long-term financial harm for the district.

The higher our tax rates go, the more people without kids will leave town and leave us with a higher ratio of students to citizens.

Right now, we have the seventh worst ratio.

We have very few taxpayers and a lot of kids.

If we keep raising taxes, that's going to get worse.

If we tap excess levy, it's going to hurt the town's credit rating.

And that's going to be worse. Part of the reason that we were able to have the fourth largest budget increase planned since 2010 was we had a lower borrowing cost this year. And a key contributing factor to that was excess levy capacity growing so large.

So unless it's an emergency, we should not be tapping that.

To me, we need to get better at controlling costs. Yes, these cuts are never fun.

But some of them are right-sizing our class sizes. But in general, I just think that there's not a culture of cost management within the school district.

So I'm voting to send this lower budget to town meeting.

Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy.

Dan.

Thanks.

I have a question about the motion.

So the motion is to send that number to town meeting.

I just want to make sure we all agree first that this is within the context of a clarification of what we already voted at the May 5th meeting.

And that by sending, this would be the school committee's budget.

Are both of those understandings accurate?

Yes, that is my understanding.

Okay.

Thank you.

Shauna. I'm going to ask one more time.

Sorry.

I know I'm being annoying about this. But as long as we're talking about the budget, I'd like to make sure that everyone sees what we're talking about. If we could please have it up on the screen.

We have people who are joining throughout this process that I want to make sure that they see what we're talking about.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Thank you.

I'm just going to kind of keep scrolling then because it's really in two portions.

The 1B at 4% and then the 1B additional cuts.

They're not together because they weren't presented that way.

Or they're just not together.

So I'll just kind of keep scrolling back and forth.

Thank you, Jane. And can I also, and this might be a procedural change.

So we, and I asked for the friendly amendment to just reflect the dollar amount that's in the warrant.

That is slightly different.

The warrant is slightly higher than the budget option that I believe is presented on the screen.

Right.

If you scroll down to the reductions.

Right. I think it's listed at.

55 million.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

Oh, Oh, sorry. No, that that's the extent of the cuts. I'm sorry. I was, I was confusing myself. I wanted to make sure that, that the numbers were accurate, but that, that wasn't intended to match the warrant.

So we have the number that matches the warrant.

I just want to make sure that the 1B option didn't have a bottom line number, which is like, this is one of our problems that we didn't have a bottom line number.

That there was an alignment.

So I, I think we're good.

Apologies.

Avi.

Oh, actually, Avi, can I ask you to hold for a second? I see Fred is on the line and has his hand up.

That's fine, Adam. That's fine, Adam.

All right. So I just want to go to Fred for a second.

Sure.

Oh.

I normally wouldn't jump in, but I just want to help you with a clarification, Adam.

The number that's in the warrant is the priorities committee number. The number, I believe 1B is about a nine.

You see at the bottom, it's a $9,000 difference.

So whatever that comes to your 55 point, whatever million, that's the difference in the number.

So you should make sure you clarify, are you going for the priorities number that's printed in the warrant that the FinCom recommended?

These cuts were very specific.

So they didn't quite add up to the penny, to the priorities number. There's a $9,600 discrepancy, and you guys can resolve which one you want to submit.

So I think that you're referencing the top line number, which was the 3.98,

as opposed to the 4.0.

I think that's the $9,600 discrepancy.

Okay.

Okay.

So we, so thank you, Fred.

And I think because we are clarifying the budgets that we submitted, we should be careful to make sure that we have the right number. Is the 56,183,477 number.

That's the, that's the 3.98% increase.

So I think that should be reflective of the fact that, that this is slightly below the priorities recommendation.

And again, I'm just reading from the warrant. So I think at least in terms of that number, we're, we're good.

And then I, I believe the, I don't know how close the 3.54 number was, uh, to these cuts made, but I think certainly, uh, well, so we can, maybe we can try to clarify that a second.

Ellen, do you know if you can, uh, kind of clarify that while discussion is ongoing?

I think the spirit of what we're trying to do is the same, but we should make sure we have the right numbers.

Sorry, Ellen, can you just clarify that you're, you're good. I don't know if you had to step away.

Oh, Oh, here I am.

I'm actually sitting in my car in traffic. Um, I was on my way home from the office, so I don't, I'm on my device in my car right now.

Um, let me see what I can look up and I will be right back.

Okay.

Thank you. I sense we still have additional ongoing discussion.

So, um, we'll have some time.

All right.

Avi.

Thanks Adam.

Um, all right.

I just wanted to clarify a few things to, to be clear.

Uh, if, if we put a 4% budget forward, I mean, finance committee has been very communicative and honest that they're going to file. Uh, they're going to make an amendment at town meeting.

And when that happens, um, there will be a, um, there's an opportunity for the people at town, at the town of our town at town meeting to make the decision between these two versions.

So to me, you know, that, that factors in here. I think that it would be unfortunate to raise the fees that raised in the lower, I, in the lower recommended number.

I think it would be unfortunate to cut those positions.

I also think that our school district will move forward.

Still.

I think we'll continue to deliver great education.

And so, you know, for me, uh, this is a matter left up to the people to make their decision.

I did just want to give some information because I think there's been some misinformation in there, uh, like out there. I think some of this stuff can be very confusing.

We sometimes forget what we have come to understand over time and folks may not. So for example, like I, I've actually had the question from, from smart people who I, who I respect, um, about whether or not taxes increase either way. So I think it is really important to be clear that both recommend, both the school committee proposed budget and the FinCom recommended allocation raise our taxes.

Uh, I actually have some numbers.

So our current tax rate is $17 and 48 cents per 1000 full disclosure.

I think tax rate is very misleading.

Um, it's, it's a, a derivative number that has to do with house values.

So, uh, at the end of the day, if our house values of our assessed house values were doubled, our tax rate would cut in half. I think tax bill matters perhaps more importantly.

Um, but I, I, I, our tax bill is very high as well.

And would I think rank similarly to where Jeremy's numbers were showing us ranking.

Um, so I'm not looking to dispute that taxes and sharing are very high. Sharing, sharing taxes are very high. And there's a lot of factors in that. In particular, um, you know, we, we passed an override for our high school that is responsible for, uh, a large portion of the percentage above two and a half that we start at as a baseline here. So the four, seven, seven percent that we would be raising, uh, taxes.

If, if the FinCom recommended number goes up versus the 5.1%, uh, the tax bills would be increased by under our proposed budget. Theoretically, if the four goes forward, um, those are both impacted heavily by the high school number and the library. So with that said, we're at $17 and 48 cents per thousand dollars.

Uh, the average tax bill, I, I shouldn't say average tax bill, a tax bill based on an $810,000 house in Sharon would be $14,200 a year.

I think we can all agree. That's a lot of money.

Uh, that's a big tax bill.

Uh, the FinCom number would roughly raise that to $18 and 41 cents, which would be $14,912.

And the school committee recommended budget would raise that to $18 and 47 cents approximately raising the overall tax bill to $14,960.

Again, these are numbers that I, I ran quickly before this meeting. Um, and I confirmed a few things with our town administrator and on a Fred salon.

He could confirm this or not. Um, a, uh, excess levy capacity being used, like the amount that we'd be talking about using will have no effect on our borrowing, um, whatsoever.

Uh, that being said, also there exists.

And I think this is important for people to understand the real possibility that it, that less excess levy capacity will be used in the number that's being thrown about. Uh, and possibly it is possible that we wouldn't have to use excess levy capacity to still get to that 5.1% increase.

Uh, for example, the house, uh, ways and means committee, which Julie and I drove out to Amherst to, to participate as spectators and advocates, uh, already has proposed an increase from the $105 that Sharon used to be clear.

Our town administrator, our FinCom, our selector were very kind to our sector in already preemptively increasing that number under the understanding and belief that house and Senate will increase that number. That number has already been proposed by the house ways and means to go to one 50. That would be about $62,000 more for our budget.

So already, or for our revenue sources as a town that would already reduce almost a quarter of that excess levy capacity. We'd be talking about using, um, if other local taxes come in higher, et cetera, other funding sources, other grant sources, there is the re there is the possibility that excess levy would not have to be used, but it certainly has to be prepared for that. It would be.

Um, but again, I do just want to point out that if, if the FinCom recommended number were to be approved at town meeting, that does not mean that there will not be a substantial tax increase.

There's their number is a substantial tax increase of $712 for someone with a, with a home value to $810,000 and, or assess that $810,000.

We'd be talking about a $48 larger increase under the school committee budget and act like $48 isn't anything I think would be disrespectful to folks, uh, to all folks in our town, but in particular folks with, um, fixed incomes.

So I just think those numbers are really important for people to understand.

Lastly, I do just want to point out that there's a number or, uh, uh, an item, a ratio that Jeremy keeps bringing up, which I think in a lot of ways is perhaps the single most important ratio for us all to be considering.

And I think people at the time meeting to consider, uh, and I didn't verify these numbers.

I, I think Jeremy has proven over time to be accurate with these numbers. And for me, I trust these numbers.

Jeremy's pointed out that we have a ratio of about five taxpayers to every student.

And in most towns on average, that's seven to one. And feel free to correct me if I misquote this, Jeremy, I think that's incredibly impactful because the reality is that in layman's terms, every time we raise taxes, we drive folks with fixed incomes out. I remember when the high school was passed, I was standing out there, um, on that day for not, for not promoting that one way or the other, but I was there. And there were parents of friends that I grew up with coming there in tears and, and saying to me, I'm, my house is up for sale.

This is going to pass and I'm going to sell my house. The reality is when those folks sell their homes, we all know what, what Sharon attracts.

We attract folks that want their kids to go to our schools, right? At the end of the day, we have good schools. And I don't think anyone's arguing against that. Every time a home with no children in it sells to a home, a family with children in it. And that's a beautiful thing.

Obviously we want people moving to Sharon to the schools, but it does hurt that ratio that Jeremy's already pointing out is, is not in our favor. And it increases our costs and it put the tax burden on all taxpayers.

So I don't think $48 is a number that is not a value for the four things that we'd be talking about. But I also think we need to be really transparent and honest that it's not only $48. It's $48 this year. It's $48 plus whatever percentages increased the next year. And, and that, that continues to just grow that way. And it won't be $48 this year.