Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
March 29, 2006 <br />best attempt to estimate costs. There was a discussion about whether the larger <br />Reserve Fund now would have the increased funding specifically earmarked for <br />SPED purposes. Also discussed were the implications on the use of the Reserve <br />Fund if not all parts of the override passed. R. Addelson stated that this is a <br />transitional solution meant only for FY2007, and that the issue of SPED <br />contingency funding would be revisited for the FY2008 budget. A straw poll of <br />the committee found it 8-0 in favor of the School Committee’s proposal. <br /> <br />4. Article Updates: <br />a) Article 17 - DB and AL to work on the municipal writeup <br />b) Article 18 – EM to talk to Karen Simmons <br />c) Article 19, 20, 21, 22 – Voted to approve 8-0 <br />d) Article 29, 30, 31, 32 – Voted to approve 8-0 <br /> <br />Recessed – 7:28 <br />Reconvened – 9:50 – Selectmen’s Meeting Room with the Board of Selectmen, School <br />Committee and Capital Expenditures Committee <br /> <br />1. School Committee’s SPED Contingency Proposal presented by Carl Valente and <br />then discussed. <br />JB asked would the $200,000 Free Cash be appropriated at a STM or at the ATM <br />– answer: ATM. <br />DK asked was the $100,000 additional Reserve Fund money to be earmarked for <br />SPED – answer: The decision was left up to the AC. It was then asked that the <br />ongoing School Department execution reports be forwarded to the AC. <br />RE asked where “surplus” school department budgets may emerge – answer: <br />energy and/or Sal Diff. <br />PH asked if it would be more appropriate to use a supplemental appropriation <br />instead of a reserve fund transfer. He also asked if SPED Reserve Fund transfers <br />would be asked for mid year or at the last moment. <br /> <br />AC voted 8-0 to support the SPED Contingency Proposal. <br /> <br />2. DB made a presentation of her memo. The purpose of the memo was to induce a <br />discussion of the revenue/expense gap and demonstrate the 2-year planning option <br />and options that existed to affect that gap. No action was taken on the memo. <br /> <br />3. Next Summit - Monday 8 pm. <br /> <br />4. Article Update – Article 32A will be indefinitely postponed; the Capital <br />Expenditures Committee recommends approval of $400,000 for Article 32H. <br /> <br />The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 . <br />PM <br /> <br />Eric Michelson <br /> <br />Approved June 26, 2006 <br /> 2 <br />