FY2026 Budget Workshop

Note: Transcripts are generated from video auto-captions. While highly accurate, they are non-official and do not meet State Archivist record-keeping requirements.

• 0:00
  Call to Order and Roll Call

  The meeting is called to order, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a roll call of board members.
• 0:02
  Athletic Complex Update (Mr. Matheney)

  The Superintendent provides an update on the athletic complex referendum. He explains that the costs in the action item have been revised upwards from the February 24th meeting to account for missed line items like general conditions and contractor overhead, as well as changes in earthwork costs.
• 0:09
  Board Clarifying Questions

  Board members ask clarifying questions about the procedural implications of the vote, including what a 'no' vote would mean and the reasoning for the order of the questions in the motion.
• 0:17
  Discussion with Bond Counsel (Jim Safian)

  The board engages in a detailed discussion with the city's bond counsel, Jim Safian, regarding the structure of the referendum.

  • 0:17 DeAngelis
    Ms. DeAngelis questions the need for a 'default' or 'primary' question, citing the city charter which explicitly states that in the case of two conflicting ordinances, the one receiving the highest number of votes shall prevail. She argues for sending two conflicting questions to let the voters decide.
  • 0:24 Wertheimer
    Mr. Wertheimer asks why the options can't be presented as a single question with three choices (Option A, Option B, or No on both). Mr. Safian explains that state law requires referendum questions to be yes/no propositions.
  • 0:28 Rauscher
    Ms. Rauscher raises concerns about making the ballot questions clear to voters, asking if key terms like 'natural grass' and 'synthetic turf' can be bolded or underlined to prevent confusion. Mr. Safian notes there are limitations but that the questions can be titled to improve clarity.
  • 0:33 DeAngelis
    Ms. DeAngelis questions a state statute mentioned by counsel that seems to require the board to make a formal recommendation (approve/disapprove) on the ballot for each question, which she argues contradicts the board's intent to remain neutral and let the public decide.
• 0:46
  Board Discussion on Referendum Path

  Board members discuss their preference for how to structure the referendum questions before hearing public comment.

  • 0:47 DeAngelis
    Ms. DeAngelis reiterates her position that the board's original intent was to have two conflicting questions go before the voters, with the winner being the one that receives the most 'yes' votes, as outlined in the city charter.
  • 0:49 Dowling
    Mr. Dowling states he would prefer the order of the questions to be as random as possible to avoid any appearance of the board favoring one option over the other.
  • 0:50 Rauscher
    Ms. Rauscher agrees with the approach of using two conflicting questions, believing it is the most reasonable and unbiased way to proceed.
• 0:51
  Public Comment

  Citizens, staff, and a student representative address the board regarding the athletic complex referendum, the budget, and procedural fairness.

  • 0:53 Nicholas Boggs
    An Ed Tech and parent, Mr. Boggs argues that now is not the time to ask for money for a new field, given the large budget deficit. He states the school's main job is education and sports are extracurricular.
  • 0:54 Priscilla Draymond
    A resident, Ms. Draymond thanks the board for honoring the democratic process at the previous meeting. She expresses support for the simple 'one or the other' approach that was decided.
  • 0:55 Susan Tompkins
    A resident, Ms. Tompkins acknowledges the budget pressures but argues that the athletic track issue has been kicked down the road for too long. She advocates for letting the citizens of the town decide the matter.
  • 0:56 Scott Ardi
    A resident, Mr. Ardi expresses confusion about the voting process, questioning if it's possible for both options to be voted down or if one is guaranteed to pass, which he feels would not be democratic.
  • 0:57 Beth Meyers
    A resident, Ms. Meyers thanks the board for their diligence in designing a new referendum that is inclusive and clear. She urges them to continue to allow the public to vote according to their values, whether it be playability, health, or affordability.
  • 1:00 Howard Sa Forme
    A senior at the high school, Howard argues that the district should not be spending millions on an athletic complex when it is facing a budget crisis that threatens teachers' jobs and support for programs like ESOL and music.
  • 1:02 Sarah Leman
    A resident, Ms. Leman voices her support for a turf field and letting voters decide. She argues that sports are an important part of a full education and that the field bond is a separate issue from the operational budget for teacher salaries.
  • 1:04 Janna Grant
    A resident, Ms. Grant urges the board to focus on the data in front of them now, not future hypotheticals. She stresses the importance of athletics and pleads with the board to make the ballot questions extremely clear to avoid confusing voters.
  • 1:06 Bob Foster
    A resident and former educator, Mr. Foster expresses concern about spending millions on athletics while vital student support positions are being cut. He finds the conflicting questions proposal clear and straightforward for voters, unlike a primary/secondary structure.
  • 1:09 Elliot Wertheimer
    Speaking as a citizen, Student Representative Wertheimer expresses that the board voted on this without full knowledge of the severe budget situation. He notes the inequity of cutting music positions while asking for millions for athletics, stating it's not the board's place to prioritize one over the other.
  • 1:11 Mary Lineman
    A resident, Ms. Lineman thanks the board for their tenacity and applauds the decision to send two options to the voters. She believes that given the financial situation, it is truly up to the voters to decide what is the right thing to do.
• 1:12
  Superintendent's Response to Public Comment

  Mr. Matheney clarifies points from public comment, confirming that voters can vote down both proposals and that the board can still choose to rescind its prior action entirely.
• 1:15
  Action Item: Athletic Complex Referendum

  The board takes up the main action item to rescind the February 24th vote and approve a new recommendation to the City Council. The motion is moved and seconded, opening it for discussion and amendment.
• 1:15
  Amendment to the Motion

  Ms. DeAngelis proposes an amendment to the motion to change the language from 'first question' and 'second question' to 'one question' and 'another question' to formally establish them as conflicting rather than sequential.
• 1:21
  Vote on the Amendment

  The board votes on the amendment to establish two conflicting questions. The amendment passes 5-1.
• 1:21
  Discussion and Vote on Main Motion as Amended

  After brief final comments, the board votes on the main motion as amended. The motion passes 5-1, officially recommending two conflicting referendum questions to the City Council.
• 1:24
  Random Drawing for Ballot Order

  To ensure fairness, the board conducts a random drawing to determine which of the two conflicting questions will appear first on the ballot. A volunteer from the audience draws a card, which reads 'Grass'.
• 1:25
  Action Item: Vote on Ballot Order

  Following the random drawing, the board formally moves to recommend that the natural grass option be listed as the first question. The motion passes unanimously.
• 1:26
  Recess

  The board votes to take a 10-minute recess before continuing with the rest of their agenda.