Brookline Select Board Meeting - March 24, 2026

9:42 Heat. Heat.

18:29 of real property may have a detrimental

18:31 effect on the bargaining position of the

18:34 town and the chair so declares an

18:37 executive session therefore to be

18:39 necessary. All in favor please indicate

18:41 by saying I. John Vensoyette I

18:43 Paul Warren I

18:44 David Pearlman I

18:45 Michael Rubenstein

18:46 I chair votes I. We'll be back after our

18:49 executive session meeting.

18:56 Recording stopped.

21:16 Hey,

21:28 hey, hey.

31:56 Hey.

36:48 Heat. Heat.

37:17 Hey. Hey. Hey.

38:16 Heat. Heat.

50:50 Oh yeah.

56:15 Hey.

58:37 Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair

58:39 of the Brooklyn Select Board, and this

58:40 is the regular meeting of the Select

58:42 Board for March 24th, 2026.

58:49 Let's start off with announcements from

58:50 the select board. Uh any announcements,

58:54 Michael?

58:56 The MBTA is holding an open house on

59:00 Monday, March 30th about the MBTA C

59:04 branch station accessibility project.

59:07 This project will upgrade several

59:09 stations along the C branch to make them

59:11 compliant with the Americans with

59:13 Disabilities Act. The MBTA will share

59:16 information with the public and to

59:18 answer questions about the

59:19 constructions, impacts of the

59:22 construction, etc. And the meeting will

59:25 be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Town

59:28 Hall in room 103. If you have further

59:32 questions, you can also contact the MPTA

59:34 at public engagement mbta.com.

59:45 Okay. Thank you, Michael. Any other

59:47 announcements or updates from the slide

59:49 board?

59:52 Okay.

59:54 Um, next public comment.

59:57 Melony, please uh read the rules and we

1:00:00 can start on public comment. Not for the

1:00:03 override.

1:00:04 No.

1:00:04 Okay. Which will be a hearing later on

1:00:07 in the meeting.

1:00:09 Thank you for joining us for public

1:00:10 comment. This is an opportunity for us

1:00:12 to hear your perspective on the issues

1:00:14 in Brooklyn that matter to you. Each

1:00:16 person speaking tonight is limited to

1:00:18 three minutes. You don't need to use the

1:00:20 entire time, but you may if you like.

1:00:22 Once 15 minutes has been met, there is

1:00:24 an opportunity at the conclusion of the

1:00:26 select board's business for additional

1:00:28 comments. Members of the public

1:00:30 sometimes raise questions during public

1:00:32 comment. We may be able to provide a

1:00:34 quick answer to a question, but are more

1:00:36 likely to work with staff to get a more

1:00:37 thorough answer and respond over email.

1:00:40 The onscreen timer will flash orange

1:00:43 when you have 30 seconds remaining and

1:00:45 red when your time is nearly up. Please

1:00:47 conclude your remarks at that time. If

1:00:49 you have more to say, you are welcome to

1:00:51 send an email to board members

1:00:52 expressing your thoughts in greater

1:00:54 detail. Any person wishing to speak must

1:00:57 begin their comment by identifying

1:00:58 themselves with their full name, either

1:01:01 their Brookline precinct number or

1:01:02 street address, and the specific topic

1:01:04 on which they wish to speak. The board

1:01:06 encourages but not does not require that

1:01:08 remote users turn their video on while

1:01:11 when commenting.

1:01:15 We didn't have anybody signed up prior.

1:01:18 Okay. Okay. Is there anyone in the

1:01:19 audience who'd like to speak on matters

1:01:22 not including the override?

1:01:27 Seeing none, we'll move on to the next

1:01:29 item on our agenda, which is

1:01:31 presentation of citation to Kin Liss of

1:01:34 the Brookline Historical Society. I

1:01:37 don't believe he's in the Oh,

1:01:39 he's here. All right.

1:01:41 Okay.

1:01:42 Oh, you're cut off. You're you're

1:01:46 obstructing the view of Kim Liz.

1:01:48 Okay.

1:01:56 So, what I'd like to do is to read the

1:01:58 citation because people should know

1:02:00 about your contributions to our

1:02:02 community and this is a great place to

1:02:05 let the public uh know that. Um, and

1:02:08 then I'll give you the citation.

1:02:11 Brookline Select Board expressing its

1:02:13 appreciation to Kenneth Ken Liss for his

1:02:17 exemplary service and scholarship in

1:02:20 preserving and sharing the history of

1:02:22 Brooklyn. Whereas the Brooklyn Select

1:02:25 Board rightfully honors those exemplary

1:02:28 Brooklyn residents whose civic work,

1:02:30 scholarship, and leadership have

1:02:33 enriched the cultural and civic life of

1:02:35 our town. And whereas Kenneth Kin Liss

1:02:40 has served for many years as president

1:02:42 of the Brooklyn Historical Society,

1:02:45 leading the organization in its mission

1:02:47 to preserve, interpret, and promote

1:02:49 Brooklyn's heritage. And whereas under

1:02:52 the leadership of Ken List, the

1:02:54 historical society has maintained and

1:02:56 interpreted Brookline's historic

1:02:59 properties, including the Edward

1:03:00 Devotion House, one of the town's Otis

1:03:03 colonial era structures and headquarters

1:03:06 of the society, as well as the Widow

1:03:09 Harris House and the Putterham School at

1:03:12 Lars Anderson Park, thereby preserving

1:03:16 tangible links to Brookline's colonial

1:03:18 and early history. And whereas Kin Liss

1:03:21 has developed and led walking tours and

1:03:24 virtual tours of Brooklyn neighborhoods

1:03:26 and commercial corridors such as a

1:03:29 century and a half of shopping in

1:03:32 Koolage Corner, bringing to life the

1:03:34 stories of the people and places that

1:03:36 have shaped our community.

1:03:39 And whereas Kin List has overseen the

1:03:42 historical society's expansion of online

1:03:45 resources, making Brookline's history

1:03:47 widely accessible through digital

1:03:49 archives, photo collections,

1:03:52 neighborhood histories, and innovated

1:03:54 then and now features. Whereas Ken List

1:03:58 has contributed important research on

1:04:00 topics of civic and social significance

1:04:03 including the study of Brooklyn's

1:04:05 racially restrictive covenants published

1:04:08 as Thomas Aspenwald Davis, Amos Lawrence

1:04:12 and Brooklyn racial covenants which have

1:04:14 helped the town and its residents

1:04:17 confront difficult aspects of our past

1:04:19 with honesty and rigor. And whereas Ken

1:04:23 List has worked with other local public

1:04:25 historians and educators to provide

1:04:28 historical details and documentation for

1:04:31 their projects such as Hidden Brookline,

1:04:34 which provides walking tours and

1:04:36 uncovers and educates the public about

1:04:38 the history of enslaved people in the

1:04:41 town and the efforts of town residents

1:04:44 to undermine and abolish slavery. And

1:04:47 whereas Kim Lists has served as an

1:04:49 important and vital public historian,

1:04:52 giving lectures, writing extensively for

1:04:54 the historical society's website, and

1:04:56 contributing articles and commentary to

1:04:58 Brookline News and other local outlets

1:05:02 where his Brookline past and present

1:05:04 features have illuminated the historical

1:05:07 context of contemporary issues. And

1:05:10 whereas Kin List has worked in

1:05:11 partnership with town officials,

1:05:13 schools, civic groups, and cultural

1:05:16 institutions such as the public library

1:05:19 of Brooklyn using history to strengthen

1:05:22 community connections

1:05:24 and inform public discourse. And whereas

1:05:27 through these many many contributions,

1:05:29 Kin List has helped generations of

1:05:31 residents and students engage more fully

1:05:34 with Brooklyn's unique past, deepened

1:05:37 civic understanding of the town's

1:05:39 development, and inspired appreciation

1:05:42 for the role of history in shaping our

1:05:44 collective identity. Now therefore in

1:05:49 consideration of the foregoing on this

1:05:53 well we s we we we voted this a couple

1:05:57 weeks ago. Okay. So, I'll say on this

1:05:59 sixth day of January 2026, the Brooklyn

1:06:03 Select Board on behalf of the residents

1:06:05 of Brooklyn hereby acknowledges,

1:06:07 commends, and thanks Kenneth Ken Liss

1:06:11 for his outstanding and sustained

1:06:13 contributions to the town of Brooklyn's

1:06:15 historical preservation, public

1:06:17 education, and civic life, and expresses

1:06:20 its deepest gratitude for his

1:06:22 scholarship, stewardship, and

1:06:25 leadership.

1:06:26 So, Congratulations.

1:06:44 Congratulations.

1:06:55 To the podium.

1:06:56 Podium. Can

1:07:02 Um when I when I was uh asked in uh

1:07:07 eight years ago to uh take the position

1:07:09 as head of the Brooklyn Historical

1:07:11 Society, um I reluctantly agreed uh to

1:07:15 um take that position actually just to

1:07:18 join the board and three years later to

1:07:21 take the role of president. And I

1:07:23 thought I'll I'll do that shortly. And

1:07:28 six, seven years, one uh later, more

1:07:31 more than that, um I uh became the

1:07:34 president and I'm still the president.

1:07:36 Um and uh that that kind of surprises me

1:07:38 and and uh allows me to uh enjoy the

1:07:43 what what I really love about history

1:07:44 about telling stories um all kinds of

1:07:48 stories uh to many kinds of people. I've

1:07:50 been having some uh injuries that have

1:07:53 limited what I can do, but um I I really

1:07:56 love Brooklyn. Uh I love telling stories

1:08:00 and I love telling stories about

1:08:01 Brooklyn and uh I continue to be the

1:08:04 head of the Brooklyn Historical Society,

1:08:06 which uh surprises me, but um that I

1:08:09 really enjoy uh telling stories,

1:08:11 learning more uh about about this town

1:08:14 that that we all love. So, thank you

1:08:16 very much.

1:08:27 Thank you.

1:08:27 Thank you, Ken.

1:08:37 So, it's important to know about the

1:08:40 hidden gems in Brooklyn. um people who

1:08:43 provide in Ken Liss's case um stories

1:08:47 about our town that are both interesting

1:08:50 as well as important for us to

1:08:52 understand our past so we can go forward

1:08:55 into our future uh knowingly as opposed

1:08:58 to blindly. So thank you Kim.

1:09:02 So

1:09:07 okay uh miscellaneous calendar uh first

1:09:11 uh we have acknowledgment of March 31st

1:09:14 2026 as trans excuse me transgender day

1:09:19 of visibility and Michael is going to

1:09:22 read a a proclamation.

1:09:24 Okay. This is a proclamation from the

1:09:27 Brooklyn Select Board on International

1:09:30 Transgender Day of Visibility, March

1:09:33 31st, 2026.

1:09:37 Whereas in November 2025, town meeting

1:09:40 urged the select board to proclaim March

1:09:43 31st, 2026 and this date thereafter as

1:09:48 transgender day of visibility.

1:09:50 And whereas the town of Brooklyn is

1:09:53 committed to honoring the dignity,

1:09:55 resilience, and vital contributions of

1:09:58 transgender residents, workers,

1:10:00 students, and community members. And

1:10:03 whereas yearly on March 31st, many

1:10:07 around the world observe transgender day

1:10:10 of visibility to celebrate the lives and

1:10:13 many contributions of transgender

1:10:15 individuals globally and to bring

1:10:18 awareness to the challenges the

1:10:20 community faces such as discrimination,

1:10:23 poverty, and violence at

1:10:25 disproportionate levels. And whereas

1:10:28 national advocacy organizations

1:10:31 highlight the importance of uplifting

1:10:33 transgender voices, sharing stories that

1:10:36 foster understanding and encourage

1:10:39 communities to stand firmly against

1:10:41 prejudice in all forms. And whereas

1:10:45 communities across the country

1:10:47 commemorate this day through visible

1:10:49 demonstrations of support, including

1:10:51 educational programming, community

1:10:54 gatherings, and symbolic activities such

1:10:57 as flag raisings to create space,

1:10:59 affirmation, and a sense of belonging

1:11:02 for transgender people. And now

1:11:05 therefore, the Select Board of the Town

1:11:07 of Brooklyn hereby proclaims March 31st,

1:11:11 2026 as International Transgender Day of

1:11:15 Visibility, and encourages all Brooklyn

1:11:18 residents to promote inclusion,

1:11:21 challenge discrimination, uplift

1:11:23 transgender voices, and ensure that

1:11:26 Brooklyn remains a welcoming, affirming,

1:11:29 and safe community for all. signed by

1:11:32 the five members of the Brookline Select

1:11:35 Board.

1:11:36 Thank you, Michael.

1:11:43 Okay. Next, I will go to our

1:11:45 miscellaneous calendar and uh first

1:11:48 question of approving the following me

1:11:51 uh meeting minutes March 10, 2026 and

1:11:55 March 17, 2026, which was our workshop

1:11:59 last week. Uh, any corrections to those

1:12:01 minutes?

1:12:03 So, I had submitted some corrections.

1:12:05 Did you get them

1:12:06 to Kate?

1:12:08 I'm sorry. I thought I'd submitted them

1:12:10 to you and Kate.

1:12:12 Okay. Were they nonsubstantive?

1:12:14 Uh,

1:12:20 uh, I think there was one that was that

1:12:21 was substantive.

1:12:24 We'll trust you.

1:12:25 Okay. So, I move approval as amended of

1:12:30 the minutes for March 10 and March 17,

1:12:33 2026,

1:12:34 unless there are objections. Um, I move

1:12:37 approval. All in favor? John Vancoyak.

1:12:39 I.

1:12:40 Paul Warren.

1:12:40 Hi.

1:12:41 David Pearlman.

1:12:42 I.

1:12:42 Michael Rubenstein.

1:12:43 I. Jer votes. I.

1:12:45 Next. I'd like to take items 6C

1:12:49 through 6 in omnibus fashion unless

1:12:52 someone would like to pull one of those

1:12:54 out for further discussion. Any uh any

1:12:57 takers on that? No. Okay. On um

1:13:00 Excuse me.

1:13:00 Yes.

1:13:01 Do we also have to approve 6A?

1:13:05 Oh,

1:13:07 I guess we do.

1:13:08 Okay.

1:13:09 Thank you.

1:13:10 Good point.

1:13:11 Okay. Um I move approval of the um was

1:13:15 it called a petition or proclamation?

1:13:17 Proclamation. I move approval of the

1:13:19 proclamation acknowledging March 31st,

1:13:23 2026 as transgender day of visibility.

1:13:26 All in favor, please indicate by saying

1:13:28 I. John Vancoyak,

1:13:30 I.

1:13:30 Paul Warren,

1:13:31 I.

1:13:31 David Pearlman,

1:13:32 I.

1:13:32 Michael Rubenstein,

1:13:33 I.

1:13:34 And chair votes I.

1:13:35 Thank you. Overlooked that. Okay. Okay.

1:13:38 So, we're back to uh items 6 C through

1:13:41 6, which I'd like to take in omnibus

1:13:44 fashion unless someone wants to pull

1:13:46 something out for a deeper discussion.

1:13:49 Um, seeing none, I move approval of

1:13:51 items 6C through 60. All in favor,

1:13:54 please indicate by saying I. John

1:13:56 Vancoyak,

1:13:57 I.

1:13:58 Paul Warren,

1:13:58 I.

1:13:59 David Pearlman,

1:14:00 I.

1:14:00 Michael Rubenstein,

1:14:01 I.

1:14:02 And chair votes I. Let's go to our main

1:14:05 calendar. First item, police chief

1:14:08 contract question of approving and

1:14:11 executing a successor agreement with

1:14:13 chief of police Jennifer Pastard. You

1:14:16 want to uh talk about that?

1:14:17 Sure. I just want to say thank you very

1:14:18 much to the chief for her ongoing

1:14:20 excellent work with the department. Um

1:14:22 her leadership has really just been

1:14:24 stellar. Um we're very grateful um for

1:14:27 the steady hand that she's provided um

1:14:29 the work that she's done um since

1:14:31 becoming chief. She has uh ensured that

1:14:33 the department has been um staffed, that

1:14:36 policies and procedures have been

1:14:37 updated, that the finances have been

1:14:39 updated. Um that the command staff is

1:14:41 fully is is fully engaged. Um it's just

1:14:45 a a really um it's been a really

1:14:48 wonderful past three years. Uh it's hard

1:14:50 to believe it's been three years. Um but

1:14:53 um I just want to say how grateful we

1:14:55 are for the chief's work. Uh and

1:14:57 wonderful it is that she's agreed to uh

1:14:59 stay on with us for another another

1:15:00 three years. Um the contract language is

1:15:03 contained within. It's been reviewed by

1:15:05 HR and by town council. It's been signed

1:15:07 off on. Um and um we're very excited to

1:15:10 continue our work with Chief Pastor.

1:15:13 Thank you. And as some of us know, Chief

1:15:16 Pastor came into uh the position during

1:15:19 very very rough times and she's really

1:15:22 taken hold of the police department and

1:15:24 given it direction and done all the

1:15:27 little details that Chaz mentioned that

1:15:29 are that are essential to a successful

1:15:32 and effective uh police department. So I

1:15:36 thank her uh for for that. I'm sure

1:15:38 other board members uh agree. So

1:15:41 and the chief is online. If Chief, if

1:15:42 you want to say anything, you don't have

1:15:43 to. Uh when they renewed my contract, I

1:15:45 didn't say anything.

1:15:49 But you didn't come in on during such

1:15:52 troubled times.

1:15:53 No, that's true.

1:15:54 But you I will

1:15:57 go I I wasn't planning on it, but I will

1:16:00 just um be brief and thank you all for

1:16:02 your ongoing support um and leadership.

1:16:05 And I um it is a position held by just

1:16:08 one person, but I've never felt alone.

1:16:10 And um I it hasn't always been the case,

1:16:13 but uh for me I have always felt truly

1:16:15 supported. So thank you.

1:16:17 Thank you. So I move approval of the uh

1:16:21 um police chief's contract. U all in

1:16:24 favor please indicate by saying I. John

1:16:26 Vancoyak

1:16:27 I.

1:16:27 Paul Warren

1:16:28 I.

1:16:29 David Pearlman

1:16:30 I.

1:16:30 Michael Rubenstein

1:16:31 I.

1:16:31 And chair votes I. Thank you.

1:16:35 Next

1:16:37 we're g uh this will be a quick

1:16:39 discussion. We're going to have an

1:16:41 override uh discussion and hearing.

1:16:44 Um

1:16:44 you skipped something.

1:16:45 Did I miss something?

1:16:46 Yeah. Yeah. Number nine.

1:16:48 Yeah.

1:16:49 Sorry.

1:16:55 Oh, okay.

1:16:58 Uh this is license violations, a public

1:17:00 hearing.

1:17:01 Yes. a continuation of the licensing

1:17:03 panel hearing on alleged license

1:17:05 violation by Steven or seven subs. Um,

1:17:10 no renewal application was submitted and

1:17:14 continuation of the license panel

1:17:16 hearing on alleged license violations by

1:17:19 Maruchi Select who failed the fire

1:17:22 department inspection. So, who's going

1:17:24 to present that?

1:17:25 Well, first let's talk about Seven Subs.

1:17:27 Is there a representative here from

1:17:28 Seven Subs? business. Seven subs, if

1:17:31 you're online, you can use the raise

1:17:33 hand feature.

1:17:38 Okay. Um, seven subs unfortunately did

1:17:40 not submit a renewal of their

1:17:41 application. We had a public hearing on

1:17:43 this last Wednesday. They did not

1:17:44 appear. Um, we continued that hearing to

1:17:47 this meeting in order for you to render

1:17:49 a final decision. Um, since they didn't

1:17:52 submit a renewal of the application, my

1:17:53 recommendation is that you deem them

1:17:55 closed and that if we see them

1:17:56 operating, we'll have to close for now

1:17:58 and we'll have to and we'll move on from

1:18:00 there.

1:18:00 Okay. So, uh, deem them closed, also

1:18:03 cancelling the license.

1:18:04 Well, their license, they haven't

1:18:05 renewed the license, so technically they

1:18:07 have no license to cancel. Um, but we,

1:18:09 you know, given that they have been an

1:18:10 operating business, we've made several

1:18:12 efforts to contact them. Melanie has

1:18:14 reached out. We, we reached out to

1:18:15 someone who said they knew the owner.

1:18:17 We've been trying every which way we can

1:18:19 to get in touch with them, but they have

1:18:20 not responded. So Paul had a question.

1:18:23 Yeah, Paul.

1:18:23 Uh that was going to be my question that

1:18:25 are they open still or

1:18:27 our understanding is that they are

1:18:28 currently open. Um but that the owner

1:18:30 has we've you know we've tried every

1:18:32 address we have. We've tried you know we

1:18:35 heard we heard we heard from a from

1:18:37 another business owner that they may be

1:18:39 out of state. We reached out to them. We

1:18:40 tried to tried to get in touch. We have

1:18:42 not been successful in locating them.

1:18:44 Um, unfortunately we have we have no

1:18:46 other option at this point. Um, but my

1:18:48 hope is that if they do still want to

1:18:50 continue operating and we tell them that

1:18:51 they need to close that they'll come

1:18:53 back to us in short order.

1:18:54 Okay. So they they still have that

1:18:55 opportunity.

1:18:55 Yes. Yes.

1:18:57 Okay. So they're operating without

1:18:58 authority now.

1:19:00 So we will after the if with the board's

1:19:02 approval I'd like to authorize us to

1:19:04 just tell them that they're operating

1:19:06 without a license and close them down.

1:19:07 Okay. Um, any other questions? Well, for

1:19:11 people who are wondering, uh, where is

1:19:14 this one located? I I think I I see an

1:19:16 address. 1665 Beacon Street. Is is that

1:19:19 it? Yeah. Okay.

1:19:21 Something like Washington Square area

1:19:23 maybe or Yeah. Okay.

1:19:26 Okay. Um,

1:19:28 I move uh that we declare the business

1:19:33 seven subs to be closed.

1:19:37 Um, and um I guess we don't have to

1:19:40 anything more than that?

1:19:41 No. But again, they can they can apply

1:19:42 to renew. We will we will do everything

1:19:44 we can to keep them keep them in in in

1:19:46 our, you know, in our wheelhouse, but

1:19:49 they need to get it back to us.

1:19:50 So, all in favor of that declaration,

1:19:52 please indicate by saying I. John

1:19:53 Vancoyak,

1:19:54 I.

1:19:54 Paul Warren,

1:19:55 I.

1:19:56 David Pearlman,

1:19:56 I.

1:19:57 Michael Rubenstein,

1:19:58 I.

1:19:58 Chair votes I. Next, we have

1:20:01 continuation of licensing panel hearing

1:20:03 on alleged license violation by

1:20:05 Maruchcci select. And I see we have a

1:20:09 representative from the fire department.

1:20:10 Yes, sir. Uh, Deputy Chief Todd Caner. I

1:20:14 run the fire prevention office for the

1:20:15 fire department.

1:20:16 Could you speak directly into the

1:20:17 Oh, sorry. Uh, Deputy Chief Todd Caner.

1:20:20 I run the fire prevention office for the

1:20:22 fire department. Okay.

1:20:23 Thanks for coming, Chief. Um, can you

1:20:25 first off, do we have a representative

1:20:26 from March Select here?

1:20:27 Yes.

1:20:28 Hi. Good afternoon or good evening.

1:20:30 Thank you. Um, hold on one second. So,

1:20:32 um, Chief, could you tell us a little

1:20:34 bit about, um, the the failed the

1:20:36 inspection here?

1:20:37 Absolutely. As as part of our, um,

1:20:40 licensing inspections, we initially

1:20:42 visited Aruchi on November 20th. The

1:20:45 inspector found that their hood

1:20:47 suppression system was in a

1:20:50 non-compliant

1:20:51 status. He continually went there for, I

1:20:56 believe, four more occasions and most

1:20:59 recently on

1:21:01 March 4th, it still was in a

1:21:03 non-compliant status and

1:21:07 it's it shouldn't be being used at this

1:21:09 point. So, okay.

1:21:11 We couldn't approve.

1:21:12 Um, can we hear from the business if

1:21:13 that's okay?

1:21:14 Yep.

1:21:14 Um, if you'd like to if you just like to

1:21:16 come up to the microphone and tell us a

1:21:17 little bit about your efforts to be in

1:21:20 compliance with this.

1:21:29 Um I'm here on the

1:21:34 on behalf of the owner of the business

1:21:35 once again. Uh my name is

1:21:37 speak directly into the mic so that yes

1:21:39 you can pick up on our

1:21:40 so the balry issue has been resolved. Uh

1:21:43 we had a technician came out. I have all

1:21:45 the documentation over here. Um we hired

1:21:49 the um company called Impact Fire and

1:21:52 then they came in 5:03 in the morning

1:21:56 and then took 2 hours and 45 minutes to

1:21:59 correct the a um

1:22:02 fire extinguisher. So we have all the

1:22:04 work sheet over here. So this will

1:22:06 probably resolve the uh issue.

1:22:08 Okay.

1:22:09 And if you like to uh exam this report

1:22:11 and then I can hand it over to you. So I

1:22:14 I would assume that that the fire chief

1:22:16 has to go back and inspect again.

1:22:18 Yeah.

1:22:18 Before we can make any determinations.

1:22:21 But if you would if you Chief Cander, is

1:22:23 that all right if if they give you the

1:22:25 the the paperwork and we'll reinspect.

1:22:27 Does that sound all right to you?

1:22:29 Well, could I I just I'd like to ask

1:22:30 just a quick question. So, uh, to deputy

1:22:32 chief, and you don't have, you can stay

1:22:33 at the podium, too, because my question

1:22:35 is going to be to you, but it sounds

1:22:36 like there was multiple visits

1:22:39 highlighting this problem, and they were

1:22:40 notified since November that there was a

1:22:42 problem.

1:22:43 On each occasion, my inspector notified

1:22:46 whoever was the manager on duty.

1:22:48 I'm just I know businesses are very busy

1:22:50 when they're trying to, but it took two

1:22:52 and a half hours to fix the problem. Why

1:22:54 did it take five months or six months to

1:22:56 fix the problem?

1:22:57 You need to come to the microphone.

1:23:00 Again

1:23:03 I I don't work directly to the store so

1:23:05 uh I don't have the timeline exactly but

1:23:08 uh since last uh August 2025 management

1:23:12 uh did it change quite often the vice

1:23:15 president left uh the company middle of

1:23:18 the August I mean August uh since then

1:23:21 there's a several people came and go so

1:23:24 um I think um they overlooked I'm not

1:23:28 quite sure but uh Um I came here last

1:23:31 Wednesday for the first hearing and then

1:23:33 I myself I I visit the uh store and then

1:23:37 know notice that there's a tag on the

1:23:39 pipe right next to uh uh this issue. So

1:23:45 um I probably think that they missed

1:23:48 that tag. I'm not quite sure but um we

1:23:51 are taking a quick action as we speak

1:23:53 and then I'm working with the uh the

1:23:55 business owner closely

1:23:58 uh she's in Japan right now so I cannot

1:24:01 sit down and talk to her face to face

1:24:04 but

1:24:04 okay yes

1:24:05 okay thank you answer my question

1:24:07 any other questions

1:24:09 okay so I assume that it goes back to

1:24:11 the licensing hearing uh committee and

1:24:15 uh it'll come back to us and we can make

1:24:18 our decision at that point and as the

1:24:20 licensing hearing committee, you're

1:24:22 going to be uh in a position or be asked

1:24:25 to explain the the time it took for this

1:24:29 to be resolved as you know Paul asked.

1:24:31 And just a a couple of things to follow

1:24:34 up here. One, thank you. Um just uh make

1:24:36 sure you have the paperwork and submit

1:24:38 it to the fire department so that we can

1:24:39 get a reinspected as soon as possible.

1:24:41 Um the other thing is you mentioned that

1:24:43 there's been a lot of change in

1:24:45 ownership and management. That's got to

1:24:46 be recorded too. Whenever there's a

1:24:48 change in ownership interest, the town

1:24:50 needs to be updated on that so we know

1:24:51 who to get in touch with so we don't

1:24:53 have issues like this. So please make

1:24:54 sure the ownership knows that in

1:24:56 addition to calling for an inspection,

1:24:58 you need to update the corporate um the

1:25:01 the corporate Yeah. the managers of

1:25:03 record and the corporate entity of

1:25:05 record um for the town so we know who to

1:25:07 call when if something like this comes

1:25:08 up again. Um and then yes, so what we'll

1:25:11 do if with the board's permission is

1:25:13 we'll continue this hearing to April. um

1:25:16 we'll tell you it'll be a Wednesday

1:25:18 morning like last time. We'll check in

1:25:20 with you then if the inspection clears

1:25:22 it and this is resolved and this matter

1:25:24 will be resolved and you can keep

1:25:25 working. But then I would just ask make

1:25:27 sure that you get that sub you know make

1:25:29 sure the business gets that submission

1:25:30 in for the change in corporate um

1:25:33 structure so that we know who we're

1:25:34 talking to and how to deal with that.

1:25:38 All right. Yep. Thank you.

1:25:39 And I assume that they

1:25:42 can continue operating.

1:25:45 So the

1:25:45 between now and when

1:25:47 the caveat I would add is that if you

1:25:49 know if the fire department says that

1:25:50 it's not fixed then we will have to

1:25:52 close you down until the issue the

1:25:54 problem is fixed. So with the department

1:25:56 can inspect and if the chief if you if

1:25:58 your team gives them the all clear great

1:26:01 if not let us know and we'll need to

1:26:03 shut until we fix it.

1:26:04 I do I have one other question uh for

1:26:05 the deputy

1:26:08 So, this was a a fire safety issue with

1:26:11 a hood. Was that hood related for

1:26:13 cooking?

1:26:14 Yes.

1:26:14 And are they are you continuing to cook

1:26:17 uh without or have you stopped cooking?

1:26:20 You stopped cooking. Okay. So, they're

1:26:22 not going to use the hood or this area

1:26:24 until such time that inspection

1:26:26 complete.

1:26:26 Yeah.

1:26:27 Okay. Thank you.

1:26:29 Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much.

1:26:32 Thanks, Chief. Thank you.

1:26:34 Okay. Next, uh, we're five minutes early

1:26:38 on the hearing. Um, but I guess we can

1:26:41 start.

1:26:42 So, you Yeah, the public hearing does

1:26:44 the public hearing doesn't have to

1:26:45 start, but the presentations can start.

1:26:46 Yeah.

1:26:47 So, I'd like to say a few words. Um, so

1:26:50 we have until 11:59

1:26:53 p.m. on March 31st to do this. Uh,

1:26:57 hopefully we can do it uh earlier.

1:27:01 Tonight we will hear first from the town

1:27:03 administrator about our options for the

1:27:06 B ball ballot questions for an override,

1:27:09 a draft of the explanation

1:27:11 that will be prepared by town council

1:27:13 and is in a summary and explanation that

1:27:16 the town clerk sends to all Brookline

1:27:18 households and is available at the

1:27:21 polling uh sites. And this document will

1:27:24 be very important because it explains

1:27:26 the questions on the ballot including uh

1:27:30 possibility of uh explaining the

1:27:32 front-loaded option uh which is kind of

1:27:35 complex and it's going to be important

1:27:37 that that explanation be clear uh and um

1:27:40 and accurate. And finally uh a term

1:27:44 sheet. I think you're going to uh uh

1:27:46 talk about a term sheet for anou with

1:27:48 the schools to ensure that steps are

1:27:51 taken to reduce certain costs and

1:27:54 increase certain revenues that are

1:27:55 within the control of the schools. So we

1:27:58 will uh then hear a presentation by the

1:28:02 schools and I've given them 20 minutes

1:28:05 and we have had an opportunity to study

1:28:07 their slide deck and their PSB budget

1:28:10 summary documents actually slide decks

1:28:14 since uh an updated one came in this

1:28:17 afternoon. Uh next uh we will hear from

1:28:21 two key unions uh the Brooklyn Educators

1:28:24 Union and Brooklyn Local 950 of the

1:28:26 International Association of

1:28:28 Firefighters uh who both uh have an

1:28:31 interest in the outcome of this

1:28:34 discussion and each of them will have 10

1:28:36 minutes.

1:28:38 Next we'll have a public hearing and uh

1:28:41 people in the audience and online can

1:28:44 have their say at that point. And

1:28:46 finally, the select board will

1:28:47 deliberate and try to reach agreement on

1:28:49 an override that we can send to the town

1:28:52 clerk sometime soon, way before 11:59 on

1:28:58 March 31st. That's my hope. I mean, I we

1:29:01 may not do it, okay? But that's my hope.

1:29:03 Um, and am I correct in in um my

1:29:07 understanding that we do have agreement

1:29:09 on two things? Uh, putting an override

1:29:12 on the ballot. Okay, I think we have

1:29:14 agreement on that. and second making it

1:29:16 a tiered override uh with the top tier

1:29:19 equaling the total ask of the town and

1:29:22 school of 23

1:29:24 $25 million.

1:29:26 That's my recollection from our

1:29:28 workshop. So we we agree on two things.

1:29:31 Okay. Um that makes it a little easier.

1:29:34 And now we have to after the public

1:29:37 hearing uh have a discussion of um uh as

1:29:42 I understand it three things. the number

1:29:44 of tiers,

1:29:46 uh the amount of the lower tier or

1:29:48 tiers, and whether the tiers will be

1:29:51 structured as a traditional incremental

1:29:54 levy or a front-loaded uh levy. Michael,

1:29:59 I think I would say, at least on my own

1:30:01 behalf,

1:30:02 that it isn't clear to me completely

1:30:06 whether the number of tiers will be

1:30:08 greater than one. It might just be one.

1:30:11 Okay, good point. Yeah, thank you. Okay,

1:30:16 so with that summary of where we're

1:30:18 going or road mapap, uh let's start off

1:30:21 with um Chaz.

1:30:23 Thank you, Chair Green and members of

1:30:26 the board. Um Melanie, can I share my

1:30:27 screen? Is that all right? Thank you.

1:30:34 Sure.

1:30:36 All right. Should be good to go.

1:30:37 Okay. Thanks,

1:30:45 Okay,

1:30:48 there we go. Um, good evening everyone.

1:30:50 Um,

1:30:53 so we are talking here about

1:30:56 I think give me one second here.

1:30:58 Actually, I think this is an older

1:31:00 version.

1:31:03 Sorry, one second.

1:31:05 Our version control is very important.

1:31:07 Um,

1:31:12 Give us the right numbers, Jess.

1:31:13 I am I am not going to play games with

1:31:18 that. All right, hold on. Here we go.

1:31:46 There we go.

1:31:48 All right.

1:31:50 So, we're going to talk a little bit

1:31:51 about where we are um potential next

1:31:53 steps here based on your conversation

1:31:57 um from the 17th.

1:31:59 Um, so, um,

1:32:03 historically, Brookline, as you know,

1:32:04 but the public may not know, um, has

1:32:07 structured overrides in sort of a

1:32:08 three-year cycle, or that is not always,

1:32:11 not always a three-year cycle, but

1:32:13 historically Brooklyn has said when it

1:32:14 passes an override, it does so with the

1:32:17 promise that it doesn't want to go back

1:32:19 to the voters for at least a three-year

1:32:20 period. Um, so that the ask on the

1:32:22 ballot is for the next three fiscal

1:32:26 years. Brooklyn's fiscal year begins in

1:32:28 July and ends uh on June 30th of the

1:32:31 subsequent year. Um there are a number

1:32:33 of assumptions that go into these

1:32:35 numbers that are important to keep in

1:32:37 mind because they talk they are

1:32:38 important to think about your policies

1:32:41 during this period when there is a

1:32:43 potential override being implemented and

1:32:45 after an override is being implemented.

1:32:47 That's really the crucial question here

1:32:49 is where do we wind up in this when that

1:32:52 threeyear cycle is over. So here are

1:32:54 some key assumptions that are being made

1:32:56 as we think about these numbers. Right

1:32:58 now the health care costs, our projected

1:33:01 healthcare costs have gone down slightly

1:33:03 in FY27. Whereas before we were

1:33:05 projecting a 12% increase since our

1:33:08 health care provider has cut coverage

1:33:10 for GLP1 drugs for weight loss, which I

1:33:13 think is a tough decision to make.

1:33:15 Unfortunately, they've they've they have

1:33:16 made it for us. We're in the GIC. We

1:33:18 don't have a say in what they do and

1:33:20 don't cover because it's a consortium.

1:33:22 um um with those those costs are going

1:33:26 down. Um they're still increasing, but

1:33:28 they are increasing at a more modest

1:33:30 amount. They have however uh kept

1:33:32 co-pays and other payments steady at the

1:33:35 request of the governor as opposed to

1:33:37 raising them, which was an ask, which

1:33:39 means that the healthcare costs did not

1:33:40 go down by quite as much as they could

1:33:42 have. So, we're still looking at an 8 to

1:33:44 10% increase in this coming fiscal year.

1:33:47 And we do think that that 12% number is

1:33:49 going to creep back up in 28 and 29. For

1:33:51 one thing, if we especially if we

1:33:53 continue to hold co-pays steady, the

1:33:55 cost is the cost to the um provider and

1:33:59 therefore us will continue to rise. Um

1:34:01 we can't assume that the brief relief

1:34:02 from cutting GLP1s will carry forward.

1:34:04 The state has said that they did this to

1:34:06 force companies to the table. Um so our

1:34:09 hope is that the coverage for those

1:34:10 drugs will resume, but that does mean

1:34:12 that the cost will likely resume as

1:34:13 well. Um for the capital improvement

1:34:15 plan um the revenue funded portion of

1:34:18 the CIP will be limited to 6% for FY27

1:34:21 and 20 through 29 which is what it's um

1:34:24 that's important because your policies

1:34:26 currently say 6.6%.

1:34:28 6% is really the minimum you need in

1:34:32 order to do the things that we do every

1:34:34 year in the CIP. Roads, sidewalks, you

1:34:37 know, the the big ticket items that

1:34:39 people expect when they think of capital

1:34:40 projects. Once you dip below that

1:34:42 number, you are basically saying that

1:34:44 you are relying on free cash in order to

1:34:46 meet obligations that you know you meet

1:34:48 every year. So that's really the danger

1:34:50 zone. Could you go below 6%?

1:34:53 Theoretically, yes, you could. Um, our

1:34:55 free cash has been sufficient to meet

1:34:58 and exceed the CIP uh percentage every

1:35:01 year. This year, for example, it's 10%

1:35:03 of the prior year's revenues being sent

1:35:05 spent in capital improvement thanks to

1:35:07 robust free cash numbers. But again, if

1:35:11 you when you think about it from this

1:35:12 perspective, you don't want that number

1:35:14 to go down below 6% if you can avoid it.

1:35:17 Your other post-employment benefits,

1:35:19 your health care uh liabilities to

1:35:21 retirees, those contributions are held

1:35:23 stable in FY27 and 29 rather than

1:35:25 increased, which means it is likely that

1:35:27 that um that liability will increase

1:35:30 significantly um over the course of

1:35:33 those years. um your policies that focus

1:35:37 on revenue. Like for example, every year

1:35:39 we say we're going to contribute to the

1:35:40 reserve fund so that it meets 1% of the

1:35:42 prior year's revenue. Um the um the the

1:35:48 current version of the overrides that

1:35:49 we're recommending or proposing um

1:35:52 basically holds the override amounts out

1:35:54 from that. So that you would be

1:35:56 calculating the reserve fund and so

1:35:58 forth for the next three years on a

1:36:01 non-override scenario and that override

1:36:03 money would flow directly to the town

1:36:04 and the schools rather than being held

1:36:07 out um and and um uh spent on those

1:36:11 things as well. that has the benefit of

1:36:13 keeping the overall override dollars

1:36:15 down. It does mean that there's a

1:36:17 reckoning at the end of this. If those

1:36:18 policies kick back in, then there is a

1:36:22 gap that naturally arises. It's not a

1:36:24 huge gap, but it is a gap. It is, you

1:36:26 know, more than a million dollars on

1:36:28 both the town and the school side in

1:36:29 terms of um if if once again those those

1:36:33 tax revenues are factored into what

1:36:37 percent you know our financial policies

1:36:40 and then healthcare. Um we the all of

1:36:44 this operates on the assumption that the

1:36:45 current 8317 healthcare split holds um

1:36:49 throughout and that's because we can't

1:36:51 change it without the consent of the

1:36:52 people that we're working with. We don't

1:36:54 want to bank on something and then have

1:36:56 it not happen. I will say that the

1:36:58 superintendent and I and we'll talk

1:36:59 about this are committed to negotiating

1:37:02 that in good faith with our our union

1:37:04 partners and making something happen

1:37:06 there. Um so we are we want to negotiate

1:37:09 that. We want to get to yes on that, but

1:37:12 until we do, we don't want to assume

1:37:14 that it's going to happen.

1:37:19 This is the current townside override

1:37:21 proposal. Not very much has changed. Um

1:37:24 most of it is in um how it's phased in.

1:37:27 um this rather as before we were able to

1:37:30 um I will say that the uh PSBO and

1:37:33 Charlie Young and the team have managed

1:37:35 to um lower the projected cost of adding

1:37:37 officers back in from $600,000 to

1:37:40 $510,000 which is good. Ends the hiring

1:37:43 freeze in order to ensure that we can

1:37:45 maintain that. We would phase those

1:37:46 positions in a year over the course of

1:37:48 the override. We've had to reduce some

1:37:50 of the software budget on the police

1:37:52 side. Unfortunately, it's difficult, but

1:37:55 we we still think we'll be able to use

1:37:57 that money effectively. Um, continuity

1:37:59 of service uh contribution has increased

1:38:02 to buffer the reserve. Um, we've see

1:38:05 some volatility in the outy years that

1:38:07 we want to cover if in the because

1:38:08 remember the town's proposal is designed

1:38:11 to take this money up front and invest

1:38:12 it, keep it in a reserve fund. And this

1:38:15 cuts slightly deeper the town clerk's

1:38:17 budget. The town clerk's budget has a

1:38:18 surplus right now in his elections fund.

1:38:21 that money waxes and waines depending on

1:38:23 how many elections a year that we get

1:38:24 reimbursed from the state for some of

1:38:26 our election costs. We think it's worth

1:38:28 cutting that a little deeper. We know

1:38:30 it's difficult on the town clerk side.

1:38:31 We know it's difficult on all department

1:38:33 sides, but this is a situation where

1:38:35 we've got to make every pot of money

1:38:37 available and so that that's where we're

1:38:39 going there. Um, but this still keeps it

1:38:41 at 55.31 million, which again when

1:38:44 adjusted for inflation is slightly lower

1:38:46 than the amount that was asked for in

1:38:47 the 2023 override on the town side.

1:38:51 So this is the tier one style override.

1:38:55 This is the highest dollar number that

1:38:57 we've talked about. Um this phases in

1:39:01 the levy uh impact um over time by

1:39:05 phasing in the amount of money the

1:39:07 schools get every year. Whereas the town

1:39:09 takes their money up front and puts it

1:39:11 in a stabilization fund in order to

1:39:13 cover in the outy years. The school side

1:39:16 takes the money and pays it as it goes.

1:39:17 You can see here on FY27 the levy goes

1:39:20 up 4.5 million or the the the amount

1:39:23 that is taken out of the levy goes out

1:39:25 4.5 million and the schools spend 4.5

1:39:27 million goes up an additional 5.5

1:39:30 million in 2828 and an additional seven

1:39:34 and change million in 2029 uh FY2029

1:39:39 um so the overall levy increase is 23.25

1:39:43 25 million. Um, but because the people

1:39:46 won't be taxed to the full levy

1:39:48 increase, the cumulative average tax

1:39:52 increase with all the caveats, this

1:39:54 doesn't include CPA. This is an average.

1:39:57 Um, it is um, you know, it is not

1:40:01 reflective of other people's budgets. We

1:40:03 will have a tax calculator online that

1:40:05 will show you can plug in your address

1:40:07 and it will show you how much your tax

1:40:08 how much additional money your taxes

1:40:10 will go up by uh if an override passes.

1:40:13 Um but this is the average. So in FY27

1:40:16 8% 12% 18%. It's cumulative. So this

1:40:20 override including for the prop two and

1:40:23 a half increases the average tax bill

1:40:25 would go up by 18.29%.

1:40:28 Excuse me.

1:40:29 Yeah, just a clarification on that last

1:40:31 point. Those three numbers are

1:40:34 percentage over fiscal year 26.

1:40:37 That's correct. Yes.

1:40:38 Not incremental.

1:40:39 No. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes.

1:40:41 Over this current tax year. So it's not

1:40:43 incremental.

1:40:45 So pros and cons to this. Spreads the

1:40:48 burden of tax increases out. It fully

1:40:50 funds the projected deficits for those

1:40:51 years. It sets benchmarks. The schools

1:40:53 spend to the override. The town does as

1:40:55 well, but it has that reserve fund. And

1:40:57 the structure is more familiar to

1:40:58 voters. The cons is that it's a higher

1:41:00 overall tax burden. um a higher number

1:41:02 appears on the ballot, right? Voters

1:41:04 don't vote to approve the structure. The

1:41:07 question just says, "Do you want to

1:41:09 agree to approve the 23.25 uh increase?"

1:41:13 Um and if deficits exceed projections, u

1:41:17 particularly on the schools side, there

1:41:18 may still be cuts that need to be made.

1:41:20 Um so it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle

1:41:24 room. Um knowing as we do that the

1:41:26 schools have already made significant

1:41:28 cuts just to get to this point. Tier two

1:41:31 is $18.6 million. This assumes that both

1:41:35 sides take it take the money up front,

1:41:37 invest it in a stabilization fund, and

1:41:39 then draw down on that stabilization

1:41:40 fund in the out years. Um, you can see

1:41:43 how this works in practice, the schools

1:41:46 again need that $4.5 million in year

1:41:49 one, but because they're taxing to the

1:41:51 full amount, they then get $ 8.45

1:41:54 million in savings that they put away in

1:41:57 savings and stabilizing. And that is

1:41:59 then um kept to the side and allow and

1:42:02 can be used in the future. Next year the

1:42:05 cumulative increase is $10.1 million. It

1:42:09 gets less than $13 million. So they have

1:42:11 some savings again and they can sock

1:42:13 that money away um that just under $3

1:42:16 million in a stabilization fund. In year

1:42:19 three, the amount of ex additional levy

1:42:22 is ex uh is exceeded by the amount that

1:42:25 we project expenses to go up, which

1:42:27 means you need to start dipping into

1:42:28 that reserve fund. It's the same on the

1:42:30 town side. Um and that means that that

1:42:33 savings goes down. Um now that does

1:42:37 create a gap, a larger gap than would

1:42:39 otherwise be created in FY30 because

1:42:41 you're not taxing as much uh and you're

1:42:44 relying on this one-time fund to balance

1:42:46 it out. But the assumption that you're

1:42:48 making is that in FY30 and 31 conditions

1:42:52 will start to improve and there will be

1:42:53 opportunities for the town and the

1:42:55 schools to try and soften the blow of

1:42:58 that cliff. Um

1:43:01 so again, pros and cons. It's a smaller

1:43:03 amount on the ballot. If deficits turn

1:43:05 out lower than projections, the

1:43:06 additional funds provide increased

1:43:08 stability. Um and they they providation

1:43:11 fund provides flexibility if deficits

1:43:13 exceed expectations. um you have money

1:43:15 in the bank if the if the money's if the

1:43:18 problem goes the wrong direction. It

1:43:20 just means you have less in FY30 and

1:43:22 beyond and you need to very quickly you

1:43:25 need to have those discussions about

1:43:27 what that's going to look like in the

1:43:28 out years. The cons are are clear,

1:43:31 right? It's a higher shock to taxpayers.

1:43:33 Again, look at the average cumulative

1:43:35 tax increase. It's 10.7%. That is higher

1:43:39 than 8%. Um keeping in mind that that is

1:43:42 just an average um it assumes deficit

1:43:45 growth will slow beyond FY30. If that

1:43:48 assumption is wrong then the gap to

1:43:49 cover will be bigger. Um it makes a

1:43:52 larger draw on pension and debt savings

1:43:54 in FY31 and beyond which limits our

1:43:56 ability to address OPE liabilities. If

1:43:58 we assume that there is um kind of light

1:44:02 at the end of the tunnel in terms of the

1:44:03 our ability to spend on uh fulfill our p

1:44:07 outstanding pension obligations. um and

1:44:10 use some of that money on operating

1:44:12 costs. This will put us we will have to

1:44:14 use more of that money in this scenario

1:44:17 than we would in the tier one scenario.

1:44:20 So this gives you an idea of where the

1:44:22 schools would wind up in FY30 under

1:44:24 these two scenarios. Um and again

1:44:27 remember what so in our projection for

1:44:29 FY30 now remember we're talking about

1:44:31 four years out. So the sooner farther

1:44:33 out you go, the more speculative our

1:44:35 projections are. And that number

1:44:38 reflects a return to the old policies

1:44:41 about revenues, um about the CIP, all of

1:44:44 that. Um the projected deficit for the

1:44:47 schools in FY30 is $10 million, $10.1

1:44:49 million. Under the tier one scenario, um

1:44:53 they wouldn't have any reserves on that

1:44:55 front. And so the net uh that they would

1:44:57 need um in order to um uh pay for this

1:45:04 um would be that 10 million $10.1

1:45:07 million. Under the tier 2, taking the

1:45:09 money up front, you can see the deficit

1:45:11 is bigger in FY30, but they have a

1:45:13 reserve to cushion it. And so the net

1:45:15 that they would need to cover still

1:45:16 high, but lower in FY30. And remember,

1:45:19 31 is when the pension obligation is

1:45:21 satisfied. So either way, there are

1:45:24 likely going to be hard conversations to

1:45:26 happen in FY30 about what we want to do

1:45:29 going beyond this. Um, but you can

1:45:32 cushion it somewhat using the tier 2

1:45:34 method. Um, it just depends on what you

1:45:36 would prefer, how we would prefer to

1:45:38 handle that.

1:45:40 You asked us to consider a number of

1:45:42 other options. Um, here are two um that

1:45:45 you asked us to consider um as part of

1:45:48 the discussion last Tuesday. Um, one is

1:45:51 keeping the total override amount below

1:45:53 $20 million and still keeping the school

1:45:56 amount phased in. Um, that requires a

1:45:59 proportional uh it requires basically

1:46:01 schools in town only asking for 86% of

1:46:04 what they uh had originally asked for.

1:46:06 And so we made those cuts

1:46:08 proportionally. The town's new number is

1:46:10 4.566 million. The school's number is

1:46:13 15.43 million. And you can see how this

1:46:15 works in practice. You also see that if

1:46:18 because the town is still taking it up

1:46:20 front, um you run into this issue where

1:46:22 the stabilization fund um uh winds up in

1:46:25 the red in FY29, which means the town

1:46:27 would be need likely be needing to make

1:46:29 cuts um in order to balance that out.

1:46:33 Um the other option that you asked us to

1:46:35 consider is a smaller uh override funded

1:46:37 by reserves to keep it that keeps the

1:46:39 average cumulative tax increase at or

1:46:41 below 10% in the first year. Um the

1:46:44 magic break even number for that is

1:46:45 $16.3 million. Um and again we make the

1:46:49 proportional reductions from 18.6 that

1:46:52 results in a town levy of 5.04 million a

1:46:54 schools levy of 11.26.

1:46:56 You can see that theoretically this

1:47:00 checks out. Um they the both uh entities

1:47:04 make it through FY29 with some money in

1:47:07 their stabilization funds. But then

1:47:09 again, remember at FY30, you have a

1:47:11 pretty significant cliff. And unlike

1:47:13 with the last with option with tier two,

1:47:17 um there's not a significant buffer

1:47:18 here. So you're going to have a lower

1:47:20 levy and not as much of a buffer. And

1:47:22 that's going to mean a pretty

1:47:23 significant falloff in FY30 when it

1:47:25 comes to dealing with these issues. So

1:47:28 what would the town cut in these

1:47:30 scenarios? Um we would likely cut

1:47:32 $300,000 in the DPW line. There are two

1:47:35 tree protection positions. Um, and

1:47:37 there's a horicultural specialist

1:47:38 position. Um, we would potentially cut

1:47:41 two patrol officers. We would just cut

1:47:43 out that last year. Um, you know, with

1:47:46 the aim of trying to restore that if we

1:47:47 could find savings in the building

1:47:49 department. We would cut the plumber. We

1:47:51 would just add to repair and

1:47:52 maintenance. And we would cut the

1:47:53 clerk's full-time clerk type position.

1:47:55 That still leaves that slight $100,000

1:47:57 gap that I talked about. I do think that

1:47:59 we are going to see some savings this

1:48:02 year from the House Ways and Means

1:48:04 Committee budget which is due out at any

1:48:06 minute now this week. Um, putting that

1:48:09 money aside, we'll hopefully cover that

1:48:11 gap. So, I think we'll be able to cover

1:48:13 that gap making these cuts. Again, with

1:48:16 option 3B, we could theoretically make

1:48:17 no cuts uh to the over proposal, but

1:48:21 that would put us in a pretty bad state.

1:48:22 So, I would recommend making the same

1:48:24 number of cuts that $580,000 worth of

1:48:27 cuts to avoid a more substantial cliff

1:48:29 if you put 16.3

1:48:31 um on the ballot. Um I apologize. It

1:48:34 says 16.8 here. That's incorrect. That

1:48:36 that should be 16.3. Um so the town's

1:48:39 deficit in each of these scenarios in

1:48:41 FY30, if you did 19.99 million with the

1:48:44 schools phased, it would be 7 million.

1:48:47 If you did um 16.8 8 uh sorry 16.3 with

1:48:52 the reserve fund it would be 5.3. If you

1:48:55 did the classic tier one 23.25 million

1:48:58 the town's deficit would be 5 million

1:49:00 and under tier two with the reserve fund

1:49:02 it would be 4.2 million. The reason why

1:49:05 option 3B the this version here is so

1:49:08 hard to recommend is because of the

1:49:10 schools number. You can see here it's 15

1:49:12 over $15 million. With 3A it's lower.

1:49:15 It's roughly 9 million. It depends on

1:49:16 how the cuts that the schools would be

1:49:18 making to get to that initial $19

1:49:19 million number would reound through. Um

1:49:22 but our rough back of the envelope would

1:49:24 still be around 9 million. Um so again

1:49:27 compare that 9 million to this these

1:49:28 numbers. It comes in between the 10

1:49:30 million tier one and the 8.5 and tier 2.

1:49:36 So you had other you had made other

1:49:38 requests of us and I'm happy to game

1:49:40 these out from a from a town

1:49:41 perspective. Um you know one of them was

1:49:44 18.6 six but phase the schools. One of

1:49:46 them was due 15 million with reserves or

1:49:48 14.8 million with reserves. Um you can

1:49:51 see here, you know, based on those

1:49:53 school numbers what the outcome of that

1:49:54 is likely to be. Um either you're going

1:49:57 to be making cuts that are very deep

1:49:59 into the school's operational

1:50:00 responsibilities if you do 18.6 phased

1:50:03 or you're just going to have a reserve

1:50:05 fund that doesn't meet the needs of the

1:50:06 schools um in FY30 and leaves it uses us

1:50:10 in such a worse place that it would be

1:50:11 difficult for me to recommend that to

1:50:13 you. um even 16.3 using a reserve fund

1:50:16 would be very difficult. I think going

1:50:18 below that number um really runs the

1:50:21 risk of putting us in a much worse

1:50:22 position than we started out in in FY30.

1:50:25 Um you know, can we go lower with a

1:50:29 phase number? We can. Um but at that

1:50:32 point, you start making, you know, the

1:50:33 schools are going to talk about the

1:50:34 operational cuts that they would make in

1:50:36 the $19 million scenario. Uh and you'd

1:50:38 basically be asking them to go lower

1:50:40 than that.

1:50:41 Um, what does a ballot question look

1:50:44 like? Um, this was the other uh issue

1:50:46 that you raised. I'm sorry that the text

1:50:48 is so small, but I wanted to get this

1:50:50 all on a page for you. Um, so this is

1:50:54 the language um that was on the ballot

1:50:58 in 2023. Um, uh, or this is the

1:51:02 language, but it's adapted for a

1:51:04 potential two-tier override. One at one

1:51:07 question at 23.25 million and one at

1:51:10 18.6 6 million. Um, you can see shall

1:51:12 the town of Brooklyn be allowed to

1:51:13 assess an additional 23.25 million in

1:51:16 real estate and personal property taxes

1:51:18 for the purposes of funding the cost of

1:51:19 the Brooklyn public schools. And then

1:51:20 there's their dollar amount and funding

1:51:22 the cost of additional expenditures in

1:51:23 municipal departments. There's the town

1:51:25 amount for the fiscal year beginning

1:51:27 July 1, 2026. Yes. No. And then 1B is

1:51:31 the same thing at a lower dollar amount.

1:51:32 Something to note here, the $18.6

1:51:35 million number gives the town a little

1:51:37 more money. And that is that is by

1:51:39 design. It's designed to cushion the

1:51:41 town. Um, the town made cuts in order to

1:51:44 get to that $5.31 million number to keep

1:51:47 that $23 million number as low as

1:51:50 possible. Um, in order to avoid

1:51:52 confusion on this, um, you could do one

1:51:55 of two things. You could knock that town

1:51:57 number down to 5.31 million, but I

1:51:59 wouldn't recommend it because it impacts

1:52:01 the reserve there. Or you could increase

1:52:03 that 5.31 million in question 1A to 5.6

1:52:06 6 million and then you have a $23.5

1:52:08 million topline number as opposed to a

1:52:11 23.25 million top number. Um

1:52:17 um this is a three- tiered ballot

1:52:19 question, 1 A, 1 B, 1 C. Uh you may vote

1:52:23 for each question independently. Each

1:52:24 question requires a majority of those

1:52:26 voting on that question to pass. If more

1:52:28 than one passes, the question with the

1:52:30 highest dollar amount will prevail over

1:52:31 the others. John, you had raised this

1:52:33 question and I think it's important to

1:52:35 talk through Is there a way to structure

1:52:37 this differently? Is there a way to do

1:52:38 this such that the highest vote getter

1:52:40 prevails? And the answer based on our

1:52:43 conversations with town council is no.

1:52:46 Because once a according to Mass General

1:52:50 law, once a majority of voters say yes

1:52:53 to something, that question passes. So

1:52:56 you can't say, you know, whoever gets

1:52:59 the highest, you know, percentage of of

1:53:01 votes pass. the statute says that if a

1:53:03 majority of voters support it, then that

1:53:06 passes. So that's how that's why this is

1:53:08 structured in that way. Um and so we

1:53:11 can't get a we can't for example say

1:53:14 right vote for whichever of these you

1:53:15 want, you know, vote for only one vote

1:53:17 which you know vote for whichever one of

1:53:19 these you want and whoever gets the

1:53:20 highest number of votes wins. Even if if

1:53:23 any of them get above 50% plus one, then

1:53:27 it passes. Um, so that's the structure

1:53:29 that we're kind of stuck with on this.

1:53:32 Um,

1:53:35 so what are the things that need to

1:53:37 happen from here? Um, we need to revise

1:53:40 an MOA per the expenditures and revenue

1:53:42 study committee's recommendation.

1:53:44 There's not sufficient time between now

1:53:46 and next week to formalize that. So what

1:53:48 I would like to do with your permission,

1:53:50 the superintendent and I have already

1:53:51 talked about this is basically build out

1:53:53 a term sheet that describe you ENRC made

1:53:56 nine recommendations for schools in the

1:53:58 town to look at. We want to take a look

1:54:00 at those, make commitments on what we're

1:54:01 going to do to address them and set out

1:54:03 a timeline by which we're going to

1:54:05 accomplish that. Um, and that can then

1:54:07 be formalized into anou that can be

1:54:10 signed and ratified by both the select

1:54:12 board and the school committee. But at

1:54:14 least at the staffto staff level, we

1:54:15 will have something. And so we talked

1:54:17 about it this afternoon. We're going

1:54:19 back and working on it. We'll try and

1:54:20 figure out and we will bring that back

1:54:22 to you in advance of next Tuesday's

1:54:24 meeting for your review and comment. Um

1:54:26 so that uh by next Tuesday you have a

1:54:29 clear roadmap on where we're going on

1:54:31 the recommendations that ENRSC made. Um

1:54:34 there is the update from Clifton Lawson

1:54:36 Allen. Uh as you know um they came in

1:54:38 last year due to the school's deficit

1:54:40 issue. Um they issued a report. We

1:54:43 continue to emphasize to the public it's

1:54:45 not an audit. It was a narrative report.

1:54:47 Uh it was done under tight time

1:54:49 constraints. Um we've asked them to come

1:54:51 back and conduct a follow-up review of

1:54:53 where things are now. Uh they are in the

1:54:55 process of conducting that. We're here

1:54:57 today conducting interviews with the

1:54:59 school department. Um their uh update to

1:55:02 the select board is due next Tuesday and

1:55:04 my hope is that we will have sub you

1:55:06 know if not a final document from them a

1:55:08 substantive update to provide to you on

1:55:10 what they've seen and where things are

1:55:11 from here where things where things how

1:55:12 things have gone and and gotten better.

1:55:14 Um any additional data or gathering that

1:55:17 you want us to do including uh Bernard

1:55:19 we're still working on uh uh on the side

1:55:22 of the um the mailer uh the town council

1:55:25 mailer so we will get that language

1:55:27 together um for next Tuesday.

1:55:30 um or you know initial that doesn't have

1:55:32 to be set by next Tuesday. The ballot

1:55:34 language does, but we will at least have

1:55:35 some language about how we would explain

1:55:37 what a structure would look like um by

1:55:39 next Tuesday and that would allow you to

1:55:41 take the vote next Tuesday night.

1:55:45 So those are the four those in summary

1:55:48 of the four options that we talked about

1:55:49 uh sorted by dollar amount. um and you

1:55:52 know the um you know the most kind of

1:55:55 salient points um there um we're on the

1:55:59 town side happy to answer any questions

1:56:01 you may have uh any comments or concerns

1:56:04 um but I want to be sure that the

1:56:05 schools also get the opportunity to talk

1:56:06 through where they are

1:56:08 great thank you um I think Paul had his

1:56:11 hand up first David then Michael

1:56:14 thanks uh first Jess thanks for all the

1:56:15 work um I don't know anybody else but my

1:56:17 head spinning just a little bit it was a

1:56:19 lot um to give us at once But I do

1:56:21 appreciate it. I have a I want to take a

1:56:24 step back. I have a fundamental question

1:56:26 to help me with my understanding. Um,

1:56:29 and I'm I've been stuck on this and I

1:56:30 really haven't I talked to a couple of

1:56:32 people today and I just haven't really

1:56:33 figured it out yet and I know that you

1:56:35 will make it clear for me. Um, the the

1:56:39 upfront

1:56:41 8 point 18.6

1:56:44 um, which essentially means we're going

1:56:45 to raise the levy fully to 18.6 six in

1:56:50 year one. We would also that would mean

1:56:53 in year two it's at 18.6 and at year

1:56:56 three it would be 18.6

1:56:57 right and year four

1:56:59 and

1:57:01 and and forever. That's right. Thank

1:57:02 thank you Bernard for clarifying that.

1:57:04 But what I want to I

1:57:06 in my mind it we're getting more than

1:57:09 18.6 right it because we're taking 18.6

1:57:13 in the beginning the first year. Um the

1:57:16 next year we're going to take 18.6

1:57:18 again. So we're we're getting the gap.

1:57:20 Yep.

1:57:20 Right. So we're taking more on top of

1:57:22 the two and a two two and a half or

1:57:24 three whatever the with growth

1:57:26 would be calculated based on that.

1:57:28 Right.

1:57:28 So the total um let's say revenue after

1:57:32 the at the end of three years of 18.6

1:57:37 would that be higher

1:57:39 than the 23?

1:57:41 Like what's do we know the total number

1:57:43 of revenue that would come in as a

1:57:46 result? Do you understand my question?

1:57:48 I understand your question. Yeah. Um no.

1:57:50 Um I don't know where it's going to come

1:57:53 in in terms of new growth. I don't know

1:57:54 where that that structure is going to,

1:57:56 you know, fall out, right? Um I will say

1:57:59 right that the

1:58:01 the le you know right you you're you the

1:58:04 select board set what the tax levy is in

1:58:07 any given year. Um and it's your and you

1:58:09 that's the vote you take in November and

1:58:11 December.

1:58:11 Yes. Um, so that's, you know, and you

1:58:14 historically set the levy to the levy

1:58:17 maximum.

1:58:17 Yeah.

1:58:18 Less in an override year, the amount

1:58:20 that you held out from the override. Um,

1:58:23 so yes, theoretically that percentage

1:58:25 can go up from there. Um, but it is is

1:58:29 it going to be more than $23 million?

1:58:31 Well, maybe it's not more than 20. So,

1:58:32 let me So, let me let me put context

1:58:35 around why I I asked this question

1:58:36 because it's a concern about an

1:58:38 understanding for the public. And we've

1:58:40 all agreed like Michael and I have this

1:58:41 thing this is hard to understand.

1:58:43 Yes.

1:58:43 Um if it's on the ballot that would you

1:58:46 like to raise your real estate taxes by

1:58:48 23 million um or would you rather raise

1:58:51 your real estate taxes by 18.6 million.

1:58:54 A lot of people go 18.6 million. It's

1:58:56 less. But in fact it's not 18.6. It's

1:58:58 much more than 18.6. And that's so my

1:59:01 I'm it's confusing. Um and I've looked

1:59:04 at it quite a bit and I believe it would

1:59:06 be confusing for the for the voters. I

1:59:08 just think we have to be really clear

1:59:10 that that 20 let's and I'm not saying

1:59:14 these are the ones that we're going to

1:59:15 go with. I'm just going to use an

1:59:16 example. 23 gets us a fully funded,

1:59:20 right? But we're not cutting services.

1:59:22 18.6

1:59:23 you're getting fully funded, but you're

1:59:24 not cutting services. But it's really

1:59:28 not fully funded services for less than

1:59:31 23 million because it is I think they're

1:59:33 probably reasonably equivalent. I don't

1:59:35 know the total the total income, but do

1:59:38 you see that?

1:59:38 I see what you're saying. Yeah.

1:59:39 Yeah. I just I want to trust is so

1:59:41 important here. Yeah.

1:59:42 And anybody that wants to oppose uh 18.6

1:59:45 or even the way we're asking it would

1:59:47 would raise this issue or maybe another

1:59:50 issue or two about the upfront,

1:59:52 right?

1:59:52 Um and I'm concerned about it. I

1:59:54 I I think I think you're right, but I

1:59:56 also think that at the end of the day,

1:59:58 you know, to Bernard's point, the levy

2:00:01 will will eventually reach that cap

2:00:03 either way. And if you pass 18.6, then

2:00:06 that cap is lower. Um, so yes, you you

2:00:10 may get an increase on the levy

2:00:12 percentage-wise that is higher than you

2:00:15 would otherwise get year-over-year. Um,

2:00:18 but I don't necessarily think they're

2:00:19 equivalent, and we can talk about what

2:00:21 that looks like. The treasur, you know,

2:00:22 this is an important question. So,

2:00:23 Treasury and assessing and I can talk

2:00:25 about what that looks like in practice,

2:00:27 but it ultimately comes down to this,

2:00:29 right? If the levy goes up by more, it

2:00:32 may that that impact may acrue in those

2:00:35 early years, but it's going to catch up

2:00:37 anyway. And in FY30, you're still going

2:00:39 to have a levy increase of two two and a

2:00:41 half% plus new growth on 23 million on

2:00:45 that number plus 23 million. Yeah.

2:00:48 So, you still are going to see

2:00:49 ultimately a a higher overall levy

2:00:52 amount and therefore a higher average

2:00:54 tax increase with tier one than tier

2:00:56 two.

2:00:57 Okay,

2:00:59 Michael, I'm sorry, David.

2:01:01 So, just a a related question. The

2:01:03 reason why I do think it matters to know

2:01:07 what's the real total amount at the end

2:01:09 of three years is if we present the 19.9

2:01:12 million option. Some might choose 19.9

2:01:16 saying 23 is too much but I prefer 19.9

2:01:20 to 18.6 when in reality the 18.6 is

2:01:24 actually getting you more than the 19.9.

2:01:26 Right.

2:01:27 Uh so what is the 19.9 number

2:01:29 frontloaded?

2:01:32 I can run that number. I I can run that

2:01:33 for you. Um, let me let me do that.

2:01:36 Because if we go the three option route,

2:01:38 I would like the numbers to reflect the

2:01:40 actual impact.

2:01:44 Yeah,

2:01:46 Michael.

2:01:47 Um, so sort of following up on what

2:01:50 David said, when I when I looked at the

2:01:53 three tier option you presented, what I

2:01:54 saw was full funding, partial funding,

2:01:57 full funding.

2:01:57 Yes. That's confusing.

2:01:58 That is that is

2:01:59 that's confusing and we shouldn't do

2:02:01 that,

2:02:01 right? Um,

2:02:04 we shouldn't do that. Um, you had made a

2:02:08 mention of cuts between the $5.3

2:02:12 million number in option number one and

2:02:16 the $5.6 million number two.

2:02:19 What were those cuts?

2:02:20 So, those cuts are those cuts are in are

2:02:23 in the reserves, right? Those you know

2:02:24 what I've what I tried to do in

2:02:26 structuring this from the town and the

2:02:28 school side was that the schools

2:02:31 you know, the in in order to like if you

2:02:35 take all the money up front and your aim

2:02:37 is to get to FY29 with a zero balance in

2:02:41 your budget uh in your in your reserve,

2:02:44 then that number is that the override

2:02:46 number is pretty low, but it leaves the

2:02:48 both the town and the schools in a

2:02:50 really bad place. So I tried as much as

2:02:52 possible to think about what are the

2:02:54 numbers that where the town and the

2:02:55 schools need in order to defay that gap

2:02:59 in FY30 so that there would be a

2:03:01 reasonable way to build out some sort of

2:03:04 bridge programming and so that required

2:03:06 the town number to be a little higher in

2:03:08 those circumstances so that both town

2:03:09 and schools wind up in that space.

2:03:11 Okay. And when you say reserve in that

2:03:13 case are you referring specifically to

2:03:15 the override stabilization fund or a

2:03:17 different

2:03:17 reserve? Yes.

2:03:18 Okay. Can we always call it the

2:03:20 stabilization funds?

2:03:21 Let's do that. Yes. Reserve funds.

2:03:23 Yes. Thank you. That's a good

2:03:24 Okay.

2:03:25 Um Chaz, if it isn't too much trouble,

2:03:27 um I don't think the presentation you

2:03:29 just made is linked to the agenda. Maybe

2:03:31 I'm wrong.

2:03:32 I'm sorry. Yeah, because it came in so

2:03:34 late. I apologize. We'll make sure that

2:03:36 could that be done? Um and then the

2:03:38 second request, which you know, just let

2:03:40 me know if it's if it's not convenient

2:03:41 to do this right now. Can you go back to

2:03:44 the page that showed um I think there

2:03:47 was a page that showed ho how much total

2:03:50 will be raised in the levy um over the

2:03:53 course of the three years and into the

2:03:55 fourth year by the various options um

2:03:58 that were in front of us because I I do

2:04:00 think that will help people to

2:04:02 understand um what the difference is

2:04:05 between a number that is larger 23

2:04:09 something million um than a number that

2:04:12 smaller, you know, around 19 million.

2:04:15 And how could the 19 million number um

2:04:19 over the course of three years actually

2:04:22 add more uh dollars to the levy than the

2:04:27 higher number? And uh I I think the way

2:04:30 we express this is extremely important.

2:04:33 And I I I I want people to understand

2:04:36 that uh this isn't like there's a magic

2:04:39 formula that be, you know, through

2:04:42 compounding um adv advantageous is

2:04:45 advantageous to us in a way that doesn't

2:04:48 come out of the taxpayers's uh pockets.

2:04:51 That's right. um um what whichever um

2:04:55 firstear number produces the highest

2:04:58 three-year result is essentially a

2:05:01 number that takes the most money out of

2:05:04 the taxpayers's pockets. Um, but all the

2:05:08 taxpayer knows is that they walk into

2:05:10 the the voting booth and they're looking

2:05:12 at a $23 million number and a $19

2:05:16 million number and they're supposed to

2:05:19 understand that more money will come out

2:05:22 of their pockets with the $19 million

2:05:24 choice than with the $23 million choice.

2:05:27 That that's a real mental flip-flop

2:05:29 there that I'm I'm not sure we can

2:05:31 expect uh voters to take. Well, I think

2:05:33 I think it's important to note that it

2:05:34 it is not that more money comes out.

2:05:36 It's a question of when it comes out.

2:05:38 That's the biggest issue, I think, is

2:05:40 that it it's it's ultimately the tax

2:05:43 levy doesn't go up by as much. Um, so

2:05:46 that you know, yes, the few fewer

2:05:49 dollars overall flow into the town. It's

2:05:51 just or you know, the

2:05:52 under under what?

2:05:54 Under under that under that structure.

2:05:57 Um,

2:05:57 no. Under the 23, under the 19 all in

2:06:01 the first year, you know.

2:06:02 Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, you're you

2:06:03 know, so under the 23, um, ultimately

2:06:07 more money overall is going to flow into

2:06:09 the town because that's raising the levy

2:06:11 permanently by a certain amount. So,

2:06:14 over the course of time, you are going

2:06:17 to see that that will mean that more

2:06:19 money ultimately is as that after it's

2:06:21 phased in, the taxpayer will be paying

2:06:23 more um than they would under an 18.6.

2:06:26 The difference is they will be paying

2:06:28 more upfront in a way that they would

2:06:30 not be uh under a phased situation under

2:06:34 18.6 but but uh funded through a

2:06:37 stabiliz using a stabilization fund.

2:06:39 They would see a bigger hit up front

2:06:42 even though in the out years they would

2:06:44 see smaller increases that would lead to

2:06:47 them paying by FY 31 or 32 a lower

2:06:52 amount overall. But we, excuse me, we

2:06:55 tend to look at these as being good for

2:06:57 a three-year cycle,

2:06:58 right?

2:06:59 So, you know, how do those two numbers

2:07:01 compare in terms of what be would be

2:07:04 raised over a three-year cycle uh by by

2:07:07 the 23 number versus uh by by the uh uh

2:07:11 18.6 uh number?

2:07:13 I can get you. Let me let me run that

2:07:15 now because I that's that's an easy

2:07:16 calculation.

2:07:17 Okay. Yep. Um, and and I guess I guess

2:07:21 you know what I'm the point I'm trying

2:07:22 to make and and I'll just put it right

2:07:24 on the table here is I don't think that

2:07:27 this idea of of two different forms of

2:07:30 when when we phase this in is going to

2:07:34 be either understood by voters or is

2:07:36 going to be satisfactory to voters

2:07:39 because um on the one hand

2:07:42 they might they might think that the

2:07:45 smaller number um isn't all that much

2:07:47 smaller smaller. So, the only choices

2:07:49 that they're being given are, you know,

2:07:50 two rather high numbers. Um, but then

2:07:53 they'll be even more sort of, I think,

2:07:56 perturbed and confused uh if someone

2:07:59 tries to tell them, well, by voting for

2:08:01 the smaller number, you actually voted

2:08:04 um to to take maybe more money out of

2:08:07 your pocket as a taxpayer um over three

2:08:10 years than if you had voted for the

2:08:12 larger number. to try to explain that to

2:08:14 people in a way that makes sense to

2:08:15 them. Um or or or really feels like a

2:08:18 choice. It it doesn't feel like a

2:08:20 choice. And and so I I'm for one, I'm

2:08:23 going to, you know, pursue that we we

2:08:25 only use one number and and that it be

2:08:28 the traditional method of, you know, a

2:08:31 whole number that represents uh the

2:08:33 expectation as to the amount of money

2:08:35 that will be added to the tax levy um

2:08:38 over the three-year course of the u uh

2:08:42 predicted outcome.

2:08:45 So, am I I understand you right that

2:08:48 you're talking about not a tiered

2:08:50 override?

2:08:51 No,

2:08:52 I I don't even like the language of

2:08:53 tiers. I just, you know, I I think we

2:08:55 should start with a number that is uh

2:08:58 the the same number on the ballot as how

2:09:01 much will be raised in the levy over

2:09:04 three years a and and settle for that

2:09:06 and then move to a question of should

2:09:08 there be a number some something smaller

2:09:11 than that. Got it. So yeah,

2:09:13 it's not a bookkeeping trick or anything

2:09:15 else

2:09:15 like a 23.2 or a $23.5 million override

2:09:19 as tier one and then or as as the top

2:09:22 question. Yeah. Like the full funding

2:09:24 question and then

2:09:25 a $19 million question and maybe

2:09:28 something lower than that is what you're

2:09:29 suggesting. Yeah. And and doing away

2:09:31 with the idea of

2:09:33 a stabilization fund.

2:09:35 Yeah. Okay.

2:09:35 That that's me. And just for the record,

2:09:37 you are right, John, that over the

2:09:39 three-year period, the total dollars

2:09:41 collected from taxpayers under the

2:09:44 upfront scenario is higher um because

2:09:47 you take more upfront and you're taking

2:09:48 that every year. Um

2:09:50 by the upfront option, so people

2:09:53 understand that's the lower number.

2:09:54 Yeah,

2:09:55 it's the lower number because over right

2:09:57 over time it evens out. Um in fact, it's

2:09:59 more advantageous over time. But yes,

2:10:02 because you're taxing it all up front.

2:10:04 Yeah. the actual dollars that come into

2:10:06 the town are slightly higher. Yeah. Um

2:10:08 than they would be under the higher

2:10:10 under the other scenario.

2:10:10 Yeah. Yeah. Well,

2:10:12 yeah. So, I just want to really be clear

2:10:14 about my understanding um what John just

2:10:16 said. Um so, we have not been presented

2:10:20 with a number that is a pay as you go

2:10:24 for both the schools and the town.

2:10:27 Right. So,

2:10:28 I do I do have that number.

2:10:29 You do have that number. So, so the 23

2:10:31 number that we've been talking about is

2:10:33 schools is pay as you go. Town is

2:10:35 upfront.

2:10:37 So, we have a blending of these two,

2:10:39 which is still confusing, frankly, to

2:10:42 me.

2:10:42 But I understand why Chaz wants it, but

2:10:44 it it still will be confusing to the

2:10:46 voters because you are end up you're

2:10:48 going to take more than 23 point as part

2:10:51 of the three-year levy

2:10:52 if you take the town part up.

2:10:53 If you take the town part up front. So

2:10:55 knowing what the what the uh pay as you

2:10:58 go for both schools and town is would be

2:11:01 really helpful.

2:11:02 That's 23 25.9

2:11:04 25.9

2:11:06 25895489

2:11:09 townside 7951

2:11:11 050 and the schools again rough just

2:11:14 under 18 million.

2:11:16 Okay.

2:11:16 Yeah. And then the um do we have an

2:11:20 equivalent

2:11:23 um no I'm just going to start with that.

2:11:25 So if we wanted to go with pay as you go

2:11:26 which is what we always have always done

2:11:28 in the past uh and maximum transparency

2:11:31 with the voters so that there's no

2:11:33 confusion um with the ballot question.

2:11:35 It's actually 25.9 which is what we

2:11:37 would ask. And that would be the total

2:11:40 three-year

2:11:41 increase in the levy. Yes. Cumulative.

2:11:43 Let me let me let me put this up. Hold

2:11:45 on one second.

2:11:49 me share the screen here.

2:11:53 Sorry. One second. One second. And while

2:11:55 you're doing that, I'm going to I'm

2:11:56 going to say two two more quick things.

2:11:58 Uh 20 uh 23

2:12:02 point something. Is it four or two?

2:12:04 What's the $23 million?

2:12:06 23.25.

2:12:07 23.25

2:12:09 is

2:12:11 schools is pay as you go, but town is

2:12:13 upfront.

2:12:13 Correct.

2:12:14 And then 18.6 Six is both town and

2:12:17 schools is paid up front.

2:12:18 Correct.

2:12:19 Okay.

2:12:20 Thank you.

2:12:22 This is both town and schools pay as you

2:12:23 go.

2:12:27 You guys having fun yet out there?

2:12:33 There'll be a quiz afterwards. So yeah,

2:12:36 take notes.

2:12:38 So you can see here every town's

2:12:42 numbers. So you can see the total

2:12:44 cumulative increases in year 1 it's

2:12:46 6.83%

2:12:47 year 2 12.77 year 3 19.09

2:12:57 and which which is what under what

2:12:59 scenario?

2:12:59 So this is the scenario in which both

2:13:01 town and schools are pay as you go.

2:13:02 Pay as you go. Okay.

2:13:06 A good rule of thumb is if it says

2:13:08 stabilization fund zero that's pay as

2:13:10 you go. Um,

2:13:14 Michael.

2:13:15 Um, so I I have two questions. Um, the f

2:13:18 the first question I want to ask you,

2:13:20 Chaz, because this may take a bit of a

2:13:22 look up, is what were the percentage

2:13:24 increase numbers for 2023, 2024, 2025 in

2:13:29 the last override? I'm just want to

2:13:31 compare them to these numbers to

2:13:33 understand the relative shock value of

2:13:37 what these numbers might be. if you can

2:13:39 find those.

2:13:40 We'll you can pull those up. I I my

2:13:42 recollection is that the overall

2:13:45 impact to the levy

2:13:47 including the debt exclusions.

2:13:49 Well, yes, including the debt exclusions

2:13:51 was just under 10% for all the ballot

2:13:54 questions and that included the optional

2:13:55 composting question which did not pass.

2:13:58 So the override alone I think the o the

2:14:00 the question 2a alone I think only added

2:14:04 less than 4% to the three to the to the

2:14:08 over

2:14:09 but but there were but there was debt

2:14:11 exclusions as well that increased the

2:14:14 number.

2:14:14 Yes.

2:14:14 And so when you get to the bottom number

2:14:17 that says total cumulative tax

2:14:18 percentage increase.

2:14:19 Yeah.

2:14:20 That's the number I was asked.

2:14:22 I will try and get you that number. It's

2:14:23 higher than 10%.

2:14:24 Um

2:14:25 it's higher than 10%.

2:14:26 Yes. because it doesn't because the

2:14:28 remember the rubric that was used in

2:14:30 2023 did not include Prop 2 and a half.

2:14:33 It was by how much extra can your taxes

2:14:35 go up and so ultimately that was that

2:14:38 was the you know it was taken as a given

2:14:41 that people's taxes will be going up by

2:14:42 a set percentage. Expenditures and

2:14:44 revenues this time around wanted to make

2:14:46 very clear to the voters that your taxes

2:14:48 are going up by a set amount anyway and

2:14:50 we want to fact we want we want to be

2:14:52 honest with folks when we talk about

2:14:54 what potential bottom

2:14:54 So are you saying that in any of the

2:14:57 option one and option two scenarios, the

2:15:00 rate of increase will be lower than it

2:15:02 was three years ago

2:15:05 because because we're including the two

2:15:07 and a half.

2:15:07 No. Um no, this the the numbers are too

2:15:11 high here. Um okay.

2:15:13 Um they're not right. The just the by by

2:15:17 sheer dollar value that's not it's not

2:15:19 going to be true. Um

2:15:20 I I wasn't asking a dollar value. I was

2:15:22 asking a percent question. Yes, but I

2:15:23 know. But like when you when you factor

2:15:25 in just like the order of magnitude that

2:15:27 we're talking about here, even when you

2:15:28 think when you then try and go back and

2:15:30 solve for it, I'm fairly confident that

2:15:32 the answer is no. But it's not it may

2:15:34 not be it's it's not going to be as

2:15:37 disperate as you might think. Um it's

2:15:39 going to be close, but I do think that

2:15:41 these numbers are higher. And and the

2:15:43 second question that I have um and I

2:15:46 this is a question for my colleagues I

2:15:48 believe is do we need the MOA and the

2:15:52 CLA report information in order to

2:15:55 decide on the override.

2:15:58 I'm just trying I don't

2:16:00 Yeah, don't think so. Okay,

2:16:02 David.

2:16:02 So just uh were you able to run the

2:16:05 number on 19.9 frontloaded? Let me do

2:16:08 that.

2:16:08 The reason I ask that is because it

2:16:10 sounds like

2:16:12 uh there are at least three voices

2:16:13 saying let's not mix our variables here.

2:16:15 Y so let's compare pay as you go to pay

2:16:18 as you go. Let's compare frontloaded to

2:16:20 front-loaded. So I think it would be

2:16:21 helpful to have that number.

2:16:22 I will run that for you now.

2:16:27 And there's also a question of comparing

2:16:29 this year's levy or this year's override

2:16:33 to the 2023 override which as I

2:16:37 understand you saying did not factor in

2:16:40 the two and a half increase

2:16:41 right

2:16:42 that that we get every year irrespective

2:16:44 of what we do others

2:16:46 that working group did not factor that

2:16:48 in. So, so that makes it

2:16:51 I mean not apples to apples and people

2:16:53 may be comparing

2:16:54 this override to what they experienced

2:16:56 in 2023

2:17:00 and they're not really getting a good

2:17:02 comparison.

2:17:04 Again, education is going to be crucial

2:17:06 here.

2:17:07 Okay. Sorry, John. And I I don't mean to

2:17:10 interrupt Chaz's pro process here, but

2:17:13 um um so uh I'll just ask the question.

2:17:16 Um, has there ever been a an override

2:17:19 that was other than pay as you go in

2:17:21 Brooklyn? No.

2:17:22 No. Okay.

2:17:23 So, we're we're sort of in uncharted

2:17:26 territory here.

2:17:29 Yeah.

2:17:30 I'm just curious, you know, a big giant

2:17:32 piece of the puzzle for me uh and sure

2:17:35 for everybody else is to hear from the

2:17:37 schools.

2:17:38 Um, and I'm wondering if uh we could

2:17:40 hear from them and then kind of because

2:17:41 Well, I was I was letting people you

2:17:42 know

2:17:43 No, I No, I'm not rushing you. I'm just

2:17:44 I think that the questions that we're

2:17:46 asking Chaz about numbers and scenarios

2:17:49 um

2:17:50 uh will happen as a matter of course

2:17:52 anyway uh and knowing what's going to

2:17:54 happen on the school side is a huge

2:17:57 variable.

2:17:57 Yeah. Are there any other clarifying

2:18:00 questions?

2:18:01 No, I agree with you.

2:18:03 No, just asking for the 199 number

2:18:05 frontloaded.

2:18:06 I I'm getting it for you now. Sorry.

2:18:07 It's a

2:18:07 No, no, that's fine. I'll just have

2:18:09 It's a It's a dance of several

2:18:10 spreadsheets.

2:18:12 requires a super computer.

2:18:16 As soon as you get that, we'll call up

2:18:17 the school committee for you. Okay.

2:18:19 Um, give me ones

2:18:20 for us.

2:18:24 I wasn't intended to rush you.

2:18:25 I know.

2:18:39 Thank you.

2:18:40 Okay. Um,

2:18:41 sorry. I'm so sorry.

2:18:43 Not ready.

2:18:44 Not quite ready.

2:18:46 Here we go. Uh, your here's your here's

2:18:49 your here's your rubric. Um, 19.98

2:18:52 upfront

2:18:54 um puts the town at exactly 6 million

2:18:57 and the schools at just under 14

2:18:58 million. The total increase allin uh is

2:19:03 17.31%

2:19:04 over three years average increase. Um

2:19:08 that leaves the schools at the end of

2:19:10 FY29 with a $9.5 million reserve which

2:19:14 would be sufficient to cover which would

2:19:18 leave them with roughly a between a five

2:19:20 and a $6 million deficit in FY30. Um and

2:19:23 it would wipe the town deficit out and

2:19:25 there'd be no town deficit.

2:19:26 And what was that front number?

2:19:28 Uh sorry the the front the

2:19:31 So 199

2:19:32 199

2:19:33 is pay as you go.

2:19:34 Pay as you go. What's that in a

2:19:36 front-loaded version?

2:19:37 Oh, I thought you were asking me to do

2:19:39 19.99 frontloaded. Uh, as in take that

2:19:42 dollar amount.

2:19:43 Oh, no, no. What's the frontloaded

2:19:45 equivalent of 199?

2:19:47 Okay, that's a different question. Maybe

2:19:48 you should hear from Bella.

2:19:49 Let's hear from Bella. Let's hear from

2:19:50 Bella.

2:19:54 Okay. Superintendent Bella.

2:19:57 Bella.

2:19:58 Good evening, everyone.

2:20:01 Good evening.

2:20:04 I'm sorry. You're an educator. You want

2:20:05 us to say good evening.

2:20:08 Good evening.

2:20:09 No, you're ready for me. All right. So,

2:20:12 greetings to all of you and I and um I

2:20:14 welcome the the opportunity to present

2:20:17 what we've been doing and also to help

2:20:19 everyone understand all that what's

2:20:22 behind all those big numbers that you're

2:20:24 talking about. So um in it's so I'll

2:20:27 talk about our team today the FY2729

2:20:31 budget request and the impacts of

2:20:33 reduced or no override and I should say

2:20:35 that I also have some of the members of

2:20:37 the leadership team here and of course

2:20:39 members of the school committee. So in

2:20:42 uh just to let you know the team today

2:20:44 as you know um next slide please

2:20:48 the senior leadership team I think as of

2:20:51 today we've almost been together nine

2:20:53 months it's a new team myself um with

2:20:57 Karen Schmuckler for OSS Robin um Benoy

2:21:01 who's here for teaching and learning and

2:21:03 Susan in her third year anchored the

2:21:06 team so this leadership team has a lot

2:21:09 of experience even though we're new So

2:21:11 in the next slide

2:21:14 um we knew we knew coming into this as a

2:21:18 team that there were a lot of challenges

2:21:20 financially, organizationally

2:21:22 um and in in the district. So we hit the

2:21:25 ground running. Um together also I

2:21:28 committed 200 plus entry interviews.

2:21:30 Many of you were participants in that.

2:21:32 And um it was for schools, people in

2:21:37 schools, people on the town side. Um and

2:21:39 it really helped me set the priorities

2:21:41 and to understand more particularly

2:21:43 about what the issues were and

2:21:45 prioritization.

2:21:46 Um the other the other part that we knew

2:21:49 coming in was to reestablish our our

2:21:52 working relationships with our

2:21:54 colleagues in the town departments. I've

2:21:56 always come into district understanding

2:21:58 that working together we do better for

2:22:01 each other and also that we are all part

2:22:03 of um

2:22:05 Thank you. Also, we're also financially

2:22:08 coming out of the same pie. So, the

2:22:10 better we can do all together, the

2:22:12 better um we can able fund all our

2:22:14 interests and better understand how to

2:22:16 support one another. I have really

2:22:18 appreciated town administrator

2:22:21 Car's um openness. He's been available

2:22:24 to me anytime, text, phone, anytime.

2:22:26 He's always been there to answer a

2:22:28 question and offer support. Um and of

2:22:31 course coming in we needed to make sure

2:22:32 that everything that we were doing were

2:22:35 serving the needs of all our students,

2:22:36 our program sustainability and all of

2:22:39 that. So coming in acquainting ourselves

2:22:43 um and ensuring best outcomes for

2:22:45 students, academic excellence, preparing

2:22:47 them for the future. Um a real um

2:22:51 tremendous kudos to the district is the

2:22:53 improvement on attendance across the

2:22:55 Commonwealth. Um there has been an issue

2:22:58 with chronic absenteeism. Brooklyn has

2:23:00 actually been able to mitigate that to

2:23:03 single digits. Brooklyn's numbers are um

2:23:07 are at the top. They're excellent in

2:23:09 what you've been able to overcome in

2:23:10 this town. We also have amazing

2:23:13 specialized programming that keep

2:23:15 students in Brooklyn. When we compare

2:23:17 our um numbers of out of district

2:23:19 placements across our comparables, we uh

2:23:22 we are below everyone. Our tuition

2:23:25 numbers are below and this represents um

2:23:28 a positive in impact of the investment

2:23:32 that you've made in indist programming.

2:23:36 We so coming in we took a deep analysis

2:23:39 and responded to all the elements of the

2:23:41 CLA report

2:23:43 um with um tenant administer Kerry. We

2:23:47 both agreed on identifying the key

2:23:50 elements of the MOA that was done in the

2:23:52 spring and I am pleased to say that

2:23:54 everything that we outlined has been

2:23:57 satisfied or is in progress and we have

2:23:59 a single item that's in progress and

2:24:02 that should be completed by the end of

2:24:04 this fiscal year. So all the elements

2:24:06 have been identified and we have

2:24:08 committed to seeing them through the

2:24:10 end. We have also adopted some of the

2:24:13 ERSC recommendations in the development

2:24:16 of the FY27 budget including identifying

2:24:19 um opportunities for revenue production.

2:24:23 Um and we also will respond to

2:24:25 additional ERSC recommendations for

2:24:28 future consideration um such as school

2:24:30 modeling. Um so we do we have absorbed

2:24:34 the CLA report and we are also analyzing

2:24:37 the ERSC final report and look to um to

2:24:41 again to use that as a guiding document

2:24:43 for us. Just um since the ERSC report

2:24:46 was finalized the school committee has

2:24:48 approved the PSB finance policy and they

2:24:50 did that at their last meeting. Thank

2:24:53 you.

2:24:54 FY2729

2:24:56 budget request

2:24:59 as um as town Mr. Kerry has and you've

2:25:03 all been um fully apprised of the rising

2:25:06 costs in nearflap funding. So near flap

2:25:09 funding, this is the town's capacity to

2:25:12 fund projected increases for the school

2:25:14 department. Um, I want you to understand

2:25:17 that we've worked really hard to examine

2:25:21 all our lines and find efficiencies. And

2:25:24 yes, a budget will increase over time

2:25:27 just um just for the inflation,

2:25:29 expenses, salaries. The projected

2:25:33 allocation or the capacity to cover

2:25:36 increases over the next three years is

2:25:39 about 1.8 million for over the three

2:25:42 years. So only 600,000 per year. Um 2.5

2:25:46 in the first year, but it goes

2:25:48 negative90 in FY28 and negative 500,000

2:25:52 over the third year. And this is um and

2:25:54 I know you've been fully appraised by

2:25:56 town administrative carry for the

2:25:58 reasons for that. But this is a decrease

2:26:00 in the capacity of the town to cover

2:26:03 increases of the school budget from year

2:26:06 to year. Um we have cost drivers and one

2:26:09 of them continues to be high student

2:26:11 needs and some of it is manifested in

2:26:14 our district tuition and transportation

2:26:16 costs um that we carry yeartoear.

2:26:20 Thank you.

2:26:23 So in preparing the budget for FY27

2:26:27 we knew coming in of the financial

2:26:31 constraints. So we we again reviewed all

2:26:35 our lines. we were able to reduce our

2:26:37 initial forecast for FY27 by $5.8

2:26:42 million.

2:26:44 We also um are looking at a budget

2:26:47 recommendation with 22.1 net fewer FTEES

2:26:52 and an anticipated additional $500,000

2:26:56 in new revenue over the the multi-year

2:26:59 projection.

2:27:02 So, it sorry, go back.

2:27:05 Um so this outlines the reductions and

2:27:08 so how we approached the reductions we

2:27:09 looked at first at the district office

2:27:12 and we did as much as we could to reduce

2:27:15 and then we prrated the reductions

2:27:17 across prek8 and the high school 6040

2:27:21 and why because that's where the

2:27:23 enrollment is where the students are but

2:27:25 we tried to protect as much the

2:27:27 reductions um at that level with the

2:27:31 reduction of 5.8 8 million in the

2:27:33 projection and the fine-tuning of our

2:27:36 lines, our budget is now 12.5%

2:27:40 non salary expenses.

2:27:43 Typically, school budgets are 85%

2:27:46 salaries, 15% non-s salary expenses.

2:27:50 We've refined our expenses so much that

2:27:53 we are now at 12.5%.

2:27:55 What this means, future reductions will

2:27:59 have to come out of staffing. So in our

2:28:02 non salary expenses, there is tuition,

2:28:06 transportation,

2:28:08 um food service, utilities, there's

2:28:11 there is no there's really not much room

2:28:14 to go to expenses. So future reductions

2:28:16 will come out of staffing. Next one,

2:28:18 please.

2:28:20 And so we have looked at a so in in

2:28:24 right sizing our class sizes and also

2:28:28 looking at um our case loads and our

2:28:30 overall enrollment we have been reducing

2:28:34 our staffing over time since the last

2:28:37 override and again we are projecting

2:28:39 reduction of a net 22.1 FTEEs for next

2:28:42 year. If you see where our staffing was

2:28:45 pre- pandemic and what we are projecting

2:28:48 for the next year, you see we're

2:28:50 actually aligned with our prepandemic

2:28:53 levels.

2:28:54 So with a full funding with a fully

2:28:57 funded budget, that's that's where we're

2:28:59 going to be.

2:29:03 The other the other shift I also want to

2:29:06 um call out for you because um some

2:29:09 would say well with your net enrollment

2:29:11 why isn't your staffing at the same

2:29:13 level as it was in in um 2018. So what I

2:29:17 want to note for you is that over time

2:29:19 our staffing for student services has

2:29:23 increased but the staffing for general

2:29:26 education and districtwide has

2:29:28 decreased.

2:29:29 So overall we have a net reduction of

2:29:32 22.3 over this period of time but it's a

2:29:35 reduction in general ed increase in

2:29:38 staffing for student services.

2:29:41 Thank you.

2:29:44 So again we've scrutinized their

2:29:47 expenses for efficiencies. We have

2:29:49 reduced the initial projection by 5.8

2:29:52 million. We have looked at new options

2:29:54 for revenue. Um, so this is a slide to

2:29:58 help you look at the differences from

2:29:59 FY23 all the way to our projections for

2:30:03 FY27,

2:30:04 FY28, and FY29. And this is a really

2:30:08 important slide to focus on. If you look

2:30:10 at the line for the allocations from the

2:30:13 town over the the LA the previous um

2:30:17 three years, you can see 7 million, 5

2:30:20 million, six million on average.

2:30:24 On average, the town has had the

2:30:26 capacity to contribute to the increases

2:30:30 for the annual um for the school budgets

2:30:32 around six million a year. As we look

2:30:36 forward

2:30:38 um as we look forward as again we're

2:30:40 looking at 2.5 for next year and then 90

2:30:45 and negative 500,000. And again, this

2:30:47 reflects the town capacity, but our

2:30:49 growth in our ask, if you take the

2:30:53 numbers in dollars of what we're asking

2:30:55 for, you divide it over three, it's

2:30:57 around six million. So our ask or

2:31:00 incremental ask is very comparable to

2:31:03 what we have had before. And the only

2:31:05 way we've been able to do that is the

2:31:07 identify efficiencies and reduce as much

2:31:10 as possible. If you look at the percent

2:31:13 increases for the next three years

2:31:15 versus the increases we had over the

2:31:17 last three, the percent increases are

2:31:20 actually close to 4% and lower than what

2:31:23 we've had in the past. And so I just

2:31:26 want to um demonstrate or make clear um

2:31:30 how hard we've been to be mindful um of

2:31:33 our fiscal responsibility to the

2:31:35 residents of this town and at the same

2:31:37 time present you a budget that will meet

2:31:40 the needs of all our students. Thank

2:31:42 you.

2:31:45 Uh we understand that you have a weighty

2:31:48 decision ahead of you and so part of the

2:31:51 presentation is to let you know what the

2:31:53 impact would be to a reduced or a no

2:31:56 override option. Um and so this is so

2:32:01 the slides you got before are all the

2:32:03 same as they were. This is the slide

2:32:05 that changed um because it's updated to

2:32:08 be more accurately reflective of um town

2:32:11 minister K's work that he has presented

2:32:13 to you. So I don't think I need to go

2:32:16 into as much detail as you've already

2:32:18 discussed where there's tier one, tier

2:32:21 two and tier three which are fully

2:32:22 funded options but how you fund it are

2:32:26 different formal formulaically and I

2:32:28 know you're going to discuss that

2:32:29 further. And then there's the option 3A

2:32:32 that is um reduce funding at 86%.

2:32:35 So this shows you the

2:32:38 the impact I'm sorry.

2:32:41 Yeah. All right. This shows you the

2:32:43 impact of a a partially funded at 86%.

2:32:48 So there would be and so that option

2:32:51 would require us to reduce an additional

2:32:53 2.5 million and as I've described we are

2:32:57 now at 12.5% non-s salary expenses. So

2:33:00 the reductions would come out of um need

2:33:03 to cycle forward to um would come out of

2:33:07 staffing and so it's outlined there.

2:33:09 There would be another additional 19.3

2:33:12 FTE reduction. We would at this point

2:33:15 we've been doing our best to save um

2:33:17 class sizes and programming. Um but with

2:33:20 an additional 2.5 million we would lose

2:33:24 programming most notably um conservatory

2:33:28 and um also a lot of our MTS supports

2:33:31 and sort of the supports for athletic

2:33:33 programming across the district.

2:33:39 Uh and again what we did is we looked at

2:33:42 maintaining class size. um our non-

2:33:44 salary cuts uh expenses have been cuts

2:33:48 to that have been exhausted and we must

2:33:50 adhere to special education mandates. So

2:33:53 the trends that I described to you we we

2:33:57 are limited by what we can do in

2:33:59 reductions to student services. So the

2:34:02 reductions would come out of general ed

2:34:04 and other generalized programs. Thank

2:34:06 you.

2:34:09 If there was um so this is if there's a

2:34:13 non override or or um a failed override

2:34:18 in year one. So this is not the 86%

2:34:22 um option in year one. We would have to

2:34:26 cut 5.3 million.

2:34:29 It would eliminate our world language

2:34:30 program, most of our music programs, 50%

2:34:34 of um paraprofessional grades, one level

2:34:37 um supports, and there'd be significant

2:34:40 increases in in high school teaching

2:34:42 loads um across the K8 and it would

2:34:45 diminish our MTS supports for um general

2:34:49 ed students. It would be an additional

2:34:51 reduction of 58.2 FTE and that would be

2:34:55 in year one. If there is a failed

2:34:57 override, even with these reductions in

2:35:00 year two and year three, the budget will

2:35:03 continue to grow. And as I described,

2:35:07 without alternate funding identified,

2:35:10 the town allocation for increases again

2:35:13 in year two is negative 90,000 in year

2:35:16 three negative 500,000.

2:35:18 So the budget would continue to grow and

2:35:21 so so we are projecting um with no

2:35:24 alternate funding in year two and three

2:35:26 additional 13 million would have to be

2:35:29 cut and so reflecting um so a filled

2:35:33 over result in a total reduction of

2:35:36 210.3 FTEES or 14.5%

2:35:40 of the staff.

2:35:46 So,

2:35:48 we continue to um up seek um um

2:35:53 efficiencies and as ad town

2:35:55 administrator Kerry identified, we're

2:35:57 still in conversation about things what

2:35:59 we can do structurally in the years

2:36:01 forward. Um but this is where we are

2:36:04 with our best attempts for FY27.

2:36:07 Since the last overrides, we've only

2:36:08 reduced program. there is no new program

2:36:12 embedded in our multi-year projections

2:36:14 in the in the three years forward and um

2:36:19 um 86% funding would significantly

2:36:22 compromise our educational programming

2:36:25 and also to note historically when you

2:36:27 lose programming they're almost

2:36:29 impossible to retrieve so we

2:36:31 respectfully request full funding for

2:36:33 FY2729

2:36:35 as presented and we also are very

2:36:37 respectful of the decision that you have

2:36:39 for you. Thank you. And so we're

2:36:42 available for questions. I don't know if

2:36:44 you wanted to go back to your

2:36:46 deliberation and we step aside. You can

2:36:49 let me know what you prefer.

2:36:51 Why don't we uh if board members have

2:36:53 questions for uh Superintendent Long?

2:37:01 Uh who had a hand up?

2:37:02 No, please. I actually my question may

2:37:05 first thank you for your presentation

2:37:06 all the work that you've done

2:37:08 and again for the team you're here

2:37:10 everybody.

2:37:11 Yeah.

2:37:11 Um

2:37:13 so Chaz something caught my attention.

2:37:15 Uh actually the slide that shows the the

2:37:18 outy years with the contribution from

2:37:20 the town going negative. I I'd like to

2:37:22 see that slide again.

2:37:27 There you go.

2:37:29 Chaz.

2:37:30 Yeah.

2:37:32 What is going on here? I'll tell you

2:37:34 what's going on here. In FY24 through

2:37:36 FY26, there was an override

2:37:39 and an override was phased in and now

2:37:41 that override is over. Uh, and here we

2:37:43 are again. Um, that's part of it. Um, so

2:37:46 the reason why those numbers were able

2:37:48 to go up as much as they were in from

2:37:50 FY24 to FY26 was those are the three

2:37:52 years that we had an operating override

2:37:53 phased in and now we're out of that. Um,

2:37:56 the other Asian is fixed costs. Healthc

2:37:59 care is eating. Remember the town school

2:38:01 split works like this for you you know

2:38:03 this but folks in the audience may not

2:38:05 in the out in we get revenue coming in

2:38:09 we spend the revenue first on fixed

2:38:11 costs we allocate it to fixed costs and

2:38:13 spend it down one of our fixed costs is

2:38:14 health care that's our biggest budget

2:38:16 buster and so when health care costs

2:38:18 keep going up by double digit amounts

2:38:20 the amount of remaining revenue that's

2:38:22 left to split between the town and the

2:38:24 schools is not as much as it used to be.

2:38:26 it just doesn't go as far and that's

2:38:27 what pushes that even further. So

2:38:30 between the loss of the additional levy

2:38:32 capacity that we had from the 24 through

2:38:34 26 override and the growth in health

2:38:37 care costs were stuck. Um and the town

2:38:40 is feeling that burden too.

2:38:41 So so to be clear that the the health

2:38:44 care costs for the schools we're paying

2:38:46 for that.

2:38:46 Yes.

2:38:47 And that's that's that's pre-allocation.

2:38:49 So that's eating. Okay. So they are they

2:38:51 are getting an allocation. is just not

2:38:53 showing here because it's above quote

2:38:55 unquote above the line

2:38:56 above the line and that's why one of the

2:38:57 recommendations we made as part of you

2:38:58 know that on the town side that we made

2:39:00 as part of expenditures and revenues was

2:39:02 to take that number below the line so

2:39:03 people could really see

2:39:04 which we could do that in the future

2:39:06 just to correct what just to correct one

2:39:08 thing that you said that the reason why

2:39:10 the numbers dropped so why it went

2:39:12 negative is because we're out of the

2:39:14 three-year cycle for the operating

2:39:15 override well the operating override is

2:39:17 sustains forever so we didn't take that

2:39:19 money back so that can't be the full

2:39:21 explanation for But again, the growth,

2:39:23 the our ability to grow the levy has

2:39:25 contracted, right? You know, now in

2:39:28 those three fiscal years, 24, 25, and

2:39:31 26, people's taxes were able to go up,

2:39:34 and they did go up by more than 2 and

2:39:35 a.5% plus new growth because there was

2:39:37 an operating override for 11.98 million

2:39:40 that passed in 23. Um, now we have taxed

2:39:45 to the maximum of that. and costs

2:39:47 continue as as superintendent wants cost

2:39:49 to rise but we can no longer increase

2:39:51 the levy beyond two and a half plus new

2:39:53 growth.

2:39:53 Okay.

2:39:54 If I could also add that the outlook for

2:39:57 the next three years is different than

2:39:58 the outlook for the past three years.

2:40:00 When I reviewed the override slides for

2:40:03 the past override, the town allocation

2:40:06 actually there was a capacity to give

2:40:08 almost four million for each of the

2:40:10 year's increases which wasn't so but the

2:40:13 override helped give more and so it is a

2:40:17 big difference. So in the past override

2:40:20 the town did have capacity to contribute

2:40:23 significantly more than in the outy

2:40:25 years and and um healthc care costs and

2:40:28 other inflationary items have just

2:40:31 really exacerbated and decreased the

2:40:35 town's capacity to to contribute to

2:40:37 that. So, it's

2:40:40 that's a big factor and and I'm saying

2:40:43 we we're trying to get to that level,

2:40:45 but the town's capacity to cover that

2:40:49 has diminished.

2:40:50 Okay, Michael.

2:40:51 Uh, thank you to you and your team for

2:40:54 um this very thorough presentation um

2:40:57 where it's it's helpful to all of us and

2:40:59 to to the public. Um I have two

2:41:02 questions. Um the first is um in your

2:41:06 slide before where you talked about the

2:41:08 22.1 FTEES that you're planning to cut

2:41:12 um regardless of of whether or not an

2:41:16 override passes. Um you said that any

2:41:19 further cuts would compromise

2:41:21 educational programming. Um, and I just

2:41:24 want to make make sure I'm clear those

2:41:27 22.1 are you saying that those cuts are

2:41:31 not compromising educational

2:41:32 programming?

2:41:34 So, um, so often often a budget is

2:41:38 presented as this is level service. So,

2:41:40 I'm going to say the budget that we are

2:41:42 presenting for FY27 is below level

2:41:44 service. Um at the district office level

2:41:49 we are underst staffed and so we are

2:41:52 seeking to restore one position but we

2:41:55 reduced others to try to do that. So we

2:41:57 made the cuts um further efficiencies at

2:42:00 the district level. So I can't say we

2:42:03 are at level service for that um but we

2:42:06 did it to protect the um the prek and

2:42:10 the high school. We rightsize mostly

2:42:14 those reductions in the prek8 and

2:42:16 through the high school through looking

2:42:18 at class size guidance and also we

2:42:20 looked at case loads. So we do feel

2:42:23 those reductions where we rightsize that

2:42:26 we're presenting a level service with

2:42:28 respect to our students but it's still a

2:42:31 reduced level because we did cut our

2:42:33 educational and technology um

2:42:36 specialists by 50%. So I can't say it's

2:42:39 level service but we

2:42:42 so we're trying so it's not exactly

2:42:45 level service but we do think given the

2:42:48 financial circumstances that was

2:42:51 something that we were committed to do

2:42:53 but at this point we've right sized

2:42:56 so any further reductions will will

2:43:00 compromise programming.

2:43:02 Thank you. Thank you. Um and my second

2:43:04 question um to the to the other end in

2:43:07 the no override scenario you talked

2:43:09 about an additional 145% reduction in

2:43:13 staff overall

2:43:14 over three years

2:43:16 over those three years. Um but you also

2:43:19 said that um your special education

2:43:24 um requirements were mandated by law.

2:43:28 Yes. So the question I have is that

2:43:30 14.5%

2:43:32 then generally going to be taken from

2:43:35 general ed in order to protect the

2:43:38 mandated services in special ed.

2:43:42 It the bulk of it will be

2:43:44 disproportionate to general education.

2:43:46 Um there might be you know some like

2:43:50 paraprofessionals that we might might

2:43:52 reduce um at the specialized services

2:43:56 but it will be disproportionately in

2:43:57 general education

2:43:58 and and right now what's the sort of

2:44:00 proportional split between general ed

2:44:02 and special ed

2:44:04 overall in our staffing I don't know if

2:44:06 you have that

2:44:25 Sorry,

2:44:26 next slide, I think.

2:44:28 Yeah,

2:44:29 here it is.

2:44:29 Okay,

2:44:32 I see. Okay, so it's roughly two.

2:44:38 Okay, thank you.

2:44:39 Thank you. I should say it's it's um

2:44:42 it's not just special education that are

2:44:44 mandated services. There's also EL

2:44:48 ELLL. So there there are other mandated

2:44:50 services besides special education, but

2:44:52 it's but it would

2:44:55 we would have to keep those.

2:44:57 Okay.

2:44:59 Sorry, English language learners.

2:45:01 Yes.

2:45:03 Superintendent, thank you for your

2:45:05 presentation and all you

2:45:06 Sorry, I had my hand up. Is that all

2:45:08 right? Oh, yeah.

2:45:10 Okay, you can go.

2:45:11 I haven't asked a question yet. Um, but

2:45:13 thank you very much.

2:45:13 Well, I was I had a question, too.

2:45:15 Oh, well, you should ask.

2:45:16 No, no, go ahead.

2:45:17 Thank you, Superintendent. Um, and and I

2:45:19 want to preface just this quick question

2:45:21 by saying um your team uh uh and I

2:45:25 include Susan Given as the veteran

2:45:27 member of your team. um I think is

2:45:29 giving people a lot of hope and and they

2:45:31 haven't had necessarily had hope um all

2:45:33 the in in all of these recent years for

2:45:36 various reasons but thank you very much

2:45:38 for that and at uh I would I would

2:45:41 though like to ask you can can someone

2:45:43 put up the uh slide on page 13 is that

2:45:46 possible or if we're not too far into

2:45:48 the presentation

2:45:50 13

2:45:52 budget FY27

2:45:56 and I asked this question for The

2:45:58 intention of um with the intention of

2:46:00 just bringing home to people um the kind

2:46:03 of gap that we are talking about between

2:46:07 um routine increases in the size of

2:46:09 budgets versus what the town uh by the

2:46:14 two and a half mandate um is held to. If

2:46:18 you take two and a half percent that the

2:46:20 mandate holds us to and then the 1% that

2:46:23 we usually get in addition to that from

2:46:25 new growth um adds up to three and a

2:46:28 half percent. Um the line that says um

2:46:31 on this table increase from prior year

2:46:34 budget shows a 5.9% increase in FY24

2:46:39 4.44%

2:46:42 um uh act in in FY25.

2:46:45 These these are actuals. Um and then the

2:46:48 budget FY26 a 4.34 FY27 projected 4.91

2:46:54 FY28 projected 3.68 FY29 projected 4.67

2:47:00 to a person who asks are we ever going

2:47:02 to get those numbers within the range of

2:47:06 a roughly three and a half% available

2:47:09 revenue increase every year. Do you have

2:47:12 an answer?

2:47:13 I think that I I feel very positively

2:47:17 that we've actually increased on the

2:47:19 percent increases. We've improved on the

2:47:22 percent increases in the outy years and

2:47:24 we'll continue to look for efficiencies,

2:47:26 but I can't tell you that we would get

2:47:28 to 3.5% necessarily. Our tuition costs,

2:47:32 it's $10 million of our budget and um we

2:47:36 don't have control over those rates.

2:47:38 Those rates are determined by DESIE, the

2:47:41 Department of Elementary and Secondary

2:47:43 Education, and they generally they've

2:47:46 they've sometimes allowed 14% increases,

2:47:49 7% increases. Um, so that's that's a big

2:47:53 piece for us. Transportation, utilities,

2:47:57 those are costs that they those

2:48:00 increases always exceed 2.5%.

2:48:03 So, we always we're trying to find

2:48:05 efficiencies. We have identified some

2:48:08 revenue sources. Um, but some of the bar

2:48:11 expenses are are are are not in our

2:48:16 control and they are generally part of

2:48:18 our mandated services to um to our

2:48:21 resident students.

2:48:23 And if I may just finish by posing

2:48:26 another question for people to think

2:48:27 about. I don't have the answer, but I

2:48:29 think the answer is knowable. Um I

2:48:31 wonder what um uh a a analysis of income

2:48:36 increases over that period of time uh

2:48:39 would indicate. Um you know have have

2:48:41 incomes been increasing 5.9% in 24 4.4%

2:48:46 4.9% 3.68%

2:48:49 4.67%.

2:48:51 Um that's where the I'm I'm telling

2:48:54 people what they already know. um that's

2:48:55 where the money comes from to pay for

2:48:58 sustaining this level of budget

2:49:00 increase. Um and I suspect that the

2:49:03 comparison would show that they haven't

2:49:05 been increasing at at that rate. Um if

2:49:08 anyone can, you know, show me numbers

2:49:10 otherwise, that's fine.

2:49:13 So, um Superintendent Long, I I have a

2:49:16 question from your budget summary. Um I

2:49:19 was sort of troubled by something in

2:49:21 here. Um and it was what would occur in

2:49:25 a no um scenario at the high school

2:49:29 where the reductions in um in staffing

2:49:33 could result in the high school not

2:49:35 meeting state requirements and the

2:49:38 consequences of that. Um I think the

2:49:42 school committee asked you to uh reach

2:49:45 out to Desessie and and ask what the con

2:49:49 those consequences are and then I have a

2:49:51 second question related to that.

2:49:53 I do remember that the question was

2:49:55 asked and I have to say we did not do

2:49:57 that but um but we can still do that.

2:50:01 The reason why I raised that is that

2:50:03 that suggests that even at a uh 86%

2:50:08 reduction from your full total ask,

2:50:11 there is a risk that the high school as

2:50:15 well as other programs in in the

2:50:17 district could be out of compliance with

2:50:19 DESIE standards. Um and a lower

2:50:23 percentage

2:50:25 has even greater risk of being out of

2:50:27 compliance.

2:50:29 And I guess I I just want people to know

2:50:31 that that is what we're really looking

2:50:34 at if we if we um uh offer the the

2:50:39 community the opportunity to just slash

2:50:41 the school committee's budget. Um

2:50:44 so thank you for that. Another

2:50:46 collateral concern is as we eliminate

2:50:49 generalized supports

2:50:51 um that we might have more students that

2:50:54 will be identified for individualized

2:50:57 educational plans if we lo if we

2:50:59 eliminate the generalized supports. So

2:51:02 over time the district has invested in

2:51:04 that to bring some of those numbers

2:51:06 down. our percent of students on IEPs is

2:51:09 that also compares quite favorably with

2:51:12 other districts at this time, but that

2:51:14 is a number that could increase if we as

2:51:17 if we were to eliminate all those other

2:51:20 supports. David,

2:51:22 to that point regarding supports, could

2:51:24 you talk a little bit about the

2:51:25 differences between tier one, tier two,

2:51:28 tier three interventions and how having

2:51:31 paraprofessional support at grade one,

2:51:33 for instance, can help prevent children

2:51:36 from ending up in the special education

2:51:38 track.

2:51:39 So tiered one supports are generally is

2:51:42 what all classroom teachers are trained

2:51:44 to do. And so just interventions,

2:51:46 different methodologies of a student

2:51:48 struggling. Tier two doesn't mean you're

2:51:52 on a IEP or on a 504 or a specialized

2:51:55 plan, but tier two would be more

2:51:57 targeted supports. And that could be

2:51:59 represented like the plus ones tutorials

2:52:02 at the high school or these um the

2:52:05 paraprofessionals that every

2:52:06 kindergarten classroom now has a one

2:52:08 pair of professional grade one as well.

2:52:11 Those are the generalized supports to do

2:52:13 that. Um, but there's also, especially

2:52:17 in the in the high school, there are

2:52:19 intervention supports for students that

2:52:21 are and then tier three is more

2:52:24 specialized targeted supports often

2:52:27 represented by a IEP or a 504. And so

2:52:33 the the theory of action is the more you

2:52:36 invest in tier one, tier 2 supports that

2:52:40 ultimately you won't have as many

2:52:43 students needing the tier three. So it's

2:52:45 a long-term investment in their ability

2:52:48 to thrive, but also in decreasing the

2:52:51 cost of intensive specialized services

2:52:54 at a later time. And I think it's

2:52:56 important for the public to understand

2:52:57 that because in looking at the slide, in

2:53:00 the event that there's no override that

2:53:01 passes, there would be 13 FTEEs

2:53:04 eliminated for first grade pair

2:53:06 professionals. Uh many other pair

2:53:08 professionals would be lost. And some

2:53:11 people who don't necessarily have an

2:53:14 understanding of these different tiers

2:53:15 of support might think, well, do we

2:53:17 really need that extra body in the room?

2:53:19 and actually makes a very big difference

2:53:21 both for the education of the student

2:53:24 and also the financial ramifications

2:53:26 down the line.

2:53:27 Thank you. Um especially in those

2:53:30 primary grades when students develop

2:53:32 more um broadly in the K1 2 and even

2:53:36 grade three, it's important to have

2:53:38 those early supports to

2:53:41 so they don't get behind and then um

2:53:43 they get they so those gaps don't appear

2:53:46 and they move forward.

2:53:49 Michael.

2:53:50 Um, so I'm gonna take take a potential

2:53:54 leap here. Um, when we started you

2:53:57 outlined some areas of agreement and I'm

2:53:59 sort of listening to the conversation.

2:54:01 Um, and uh, I'm just interested to know

2:54:05 whether as a as a group we are also sort

2:54:08 of coming to the agreement that putting

2:54:12 a an amount on the override that is less

2:54:15 than full funding uh, is not in the

2:54:19 service of our town.

2:54:21 So that we should we potentially should

2:54:24 only put in full funding.

2:54:29 So I'm just asking whether we are

2:54:32 reaching that consensus or or whether we

2:54:35 need to have more discussion.

2:54:37 So you're saying that u we would not do

2:54:39 a tiered override

2:54:41 or or whatever levels we have they would

2:54:43 all guarantee full funding.

2:54:45 Okay.

2:54:48 Yeah. I just wanted to say in in

2:54:50 fairness um that the the comparison that

2:54:53 I um just asked for from from the um

2:54:56 slide on page 13 um should also be made

2:55:00 for the town um and and uh you know I

2:55:03 think it would be very interesting to

2:55:05 you know put right next to the school

2:55:07 number increase for FY24 the town number

2:55:09 increase FY25 67 89 um uh and I I I

2:55:15 can't say you know uh without going back

2:55:17 to the books

2:55:18 uh what that comparison would show um I

2:55:21 think at a guess I would say it would

2:55:24 show that both um are above mostly above

2:55:27 the 3 and a half% which is kind of the

2:55:29 magic number when you combine the

2:55:31 allowed 2 and a half% with the 1% we get

2:55:34 from new growth um but I don't know if

2:55:37 there would be differences in in how

2:55:38 much they vary from that three and a

2:55:40 half% number and in fairness I think we

2:55:42 should at some point just you know have

2:55:45 available to us uh both sets of numbers

2:55:47 and and nobody has kept them from us.

2:55:49 It's just that we haven't had this

2:55:51 particular table in front of us.

2:55:55 Uh Paul,

2:55:56 is it okay?

2:55:57 You responding to Michael?

2:55:58 Is it time to deliberate or I thought

2:56:00 maybe I

2:56:01 Oh, wait. Actually, we have a public

2:56:05 and we have a public hearing, too,

2:56:06 right?

2:56:08 Point taken.

2:56:09 I do have the numbers that David asked

2:56:11 for. Um

2:56:14 um so if you were to take the 19.99

2:56:18 and run it

2:56:21 um in the same way that you uh and and

2:56:25 and take it down so that you would be

2:56:28 taking it all basically doing the

2:56:29 equivalent of um solving for this and

2:56:32 taking it all at once. The topline

2:56:33 number would be 1798

2:56:37 million dollars. So basically 17.2 2

2:56:39 million of which

2:56:43 4.81 million would go to the town, 12.38

2:56:47 million would go to the schools.

2:56:49 Total increase over three years would be

2:56:51 16.47%.

2:56:53 It would leave the schools stabilization

2:56:56 fund with $4.6 million at the end and

2:56:59 the town with $300,000 at the end. So

2:57:03 you'd be looking at pretty sizable gap

2:57:06 on both ends there. Um but neither side

2:57:09 would go into the red. So that's your

2:57:12 $17.2 million option. This would be the

2:57:16 upfront version of 19.99.

2:57:18 Um pay as you go.

2:57:22 Okay. Why don't we move on to the next

2:57:24 uh part of this uh

2:57:28 agenda?

2:57:30 No, not the public hearing. We're going

2:57:31 to hear from the uh fire union and the

2:57:34 teachers union. I don't know who wants

2:57:36 to go first.

2:57:38 Whoever gets to the microphone first.

2:57:50 Good evening everybody. Uh this

2:57:52 presentation presentation is going to

2:57:54 have three parts. Um first I'm going to

2:57:56 read a joint statement from all of the

2:57:59 public employee unions. Um

2:58:02 uh introduce yourself first. Justin

2:58:03 Brown, president of the Brooklyn

2:58:05 Educators Union. Uh, and then we're

2:58:07 gonna hear from Declan Ward, who's the

2:58:09 uh, president of the Firefighters Union.

2:58:11 Then I'm gonna and who's going to speak

2:58:13 specifically about fire related issues,

2:58:15 and then I'm going to come back and

2:58:17 speak specifically about

2:58:18 You each have 10 minutes.

2:58:21 Sounds good.

2:58:22 Share it. Share it carefully.

2:58:25 All right. This is a joint statement

2:58:27 from the Brookline public unions in

2:58:30 support of an override. Uh again, I am

2:58:32 Justin Brown. I'm the president of the

2:58:34 Brooklyn Educators Union. Um we, the

2:58:37 undersigned, uh represent employees in

2:58:40 public safety, public works, and public

2:58:42 education for Brooklyn. We are the

2:58:44 secretaries, trash collectors, police

2:58:47 officers, kitchen staff, firefighters,

2:58:49 educators, custodians, civil engineers,

2:58:52 and many others who make Brookline go.

2:58:55 We are also working people who care

2:58:57 about our jobs, each other, and our

2:58:59 communities.

2:59:01 We endorse an override amount of $23.2

2:59:05 million, the current top level, and its

2:59:08 promise of continued level service

2:59:10 funding for the next three years. It is

2:59:12 a necessary step for the town and

2:59:14 schools to fund the services our

2:59:16 communities expect at the levels that

2:59:18 they expect.

2:59:20 This full amount is an investment in

2:59:22 Brooklyn's future and will help Brooklyn

2:59:25 maintain its status as one of the most

2:59:26 desirable places to live in

2:59:28 Massachusetts. It's clear that anything

2:59:30 less will result in losses in jobs,

2:59:33 losses in programs, and losses in the

2:59:36 capacity to educate the students of PSB,

2:59:39 provide important and urgent services to

2:59:42 Brooklyn's neighborhoods, and keep

2:59:43 Brookline's infrastructure running.

2:59:46 We encourage our members to be involved

2:59:49 in a successful override campaign and

2:59:51 urge the voters of Brooklyn to get

2:59:53 involved, learn about the issues, and

2:59:55 vote on May 5th. Respectfully,

2:59:59 Justin Brown, the president of the

3:00:00 Brooklyn Educators Union, Michael

3:00:02 Keieven, president of the Brooklyn

3:00:04 Police Union, William Smith, president

3:00:06 of the Brooklyn Engineering Division

3:00:09 Associates, Mona Salulta Lamakia,

3:00:12 president of ASME Local 1358, and Declan

3:00:15 Ward, president of the Brooklyn

3:00:17 Firefighters Union Local 950. So, I'm

3:00:21 gonna pass it on to Declan.

3:00:26 How you doing? Good evening everybody,

3:00:29 members of the select board. My name is

3:00:32 Declan Ward and I stand before you

3:00:34 tonight as the proud president of

3:00:35 Brookline Firefighters IIAFF Local 950

3:00:39 representing the men and women who

3:00:41 protect this community every hour of

3:00:43 every day.

3:00:45 I want to be clear from the start.

3:00:47 Failing to properly fund the fire

3:00:48 department to the level necessary to

3:00:51 maintain services is a direct threat to

3:00:54 p public safety. Without that funding,

3:00:57 the result will be firehouse closures,

3:00:59 layoffs, reduced frontline response

3:01:02 capability.

3:01:06 Brookline is not a quiet suburban town.

3:01:08 It is a densely populated urban

3:01:10 community with multifamily housing,

3:01:12 high-rise buildings, busy roadways,

3:01:16 public transit, and a growing population

3:01:18 that depends on rapid emergency

3:01:20 response. And while this department

3:01:22 currently staffs its apparatus

3:01:23 appropriately, closing firehouses means

3:01:26 response times increase and fewer

3:01:28 firefighters are on scene when they're

3:01:30 needed most. The importance of a fully

3:01:32 staffed department is not my opinion. It

3:01:35 is based on facts. These cuts mean

3:01:37 layoffs. They mean closed firehouses.

3:01:40 They mean longer response times. They

3:01:42 mean fewer firefighters are in when

3:01:43 seconds matter most. And in this job,

3:01:46 seconds are everything. When a fire

3:01:48 doubles in size every minute, when

3:01:50 someone is trapped, when a medical

3:01:52 emergency turns critical, there's no

3:01:55 substitute for staffing and proximity.

3:01:58 We don't have to guess what happens when

3:02:00 resources are reduced. We've seen it.

3:02:02 Just this last year, we witnessed a

3:02:04 tragedy that occurred in Fall River that

3:02:06 highlighted these consequences when 10

3:02:08 people lost their lives in an assisted

3:02:10 living facility fire, making it the

3:02:12 deadliest fire in Massachusetts,

3:02:14 Massachusetts, excuse me, in more than

3:02:15 four decades. A recent fatal house fire

3:02:18 in Needam, where a young woman died

3:02:20 while crews were still waiting for

3:02:21 mutual aid, shows exactly what's at

3:02:24 stake when frontline resources aren't

3:02:26 available close to home. Decisions about

3:02:29 reducing apparatus or staffing are not

3:02:31 abstract. They directly affect whether

3:02:34 help gets there in time. The lesson is

3:02:36 simple. Full staffing and response times

3:02:39 matter. It is often said that the mutual

3:02:41 aid from Boston and other surrounding

3:02:43 communities will make up the difference.

3:02:45 That is not reality. Boston firefighters

3:02:48 are staffed to manage their own high

3:02:50 call volume and are not necessarily

3:02:52 available to cover staffing shortages in

3:02:54 other departments. Engine 37 and ladders

3:02:58 26 26 do respond in Brooklyn, but in

3:03:01 many circumstances they are often

3:03:03 committed to their own emergencies which

3:03:05 take priority. Mutual aid is not meant

3:03:08 to support a properly resourced

3:03:09 department.

3:03:11 It excuse me mutual aid is meant to

3:03:13 support a properly excuse me mutual aid

3:03:17 is meant to support a properly resourced

3:03:18 department not replace one. Simply put,

3:03:21 it is an unsustainable practice that is

3:03:23 neither realistic nor responsible.

3:03:26 Our chief Sullivan brings valuable

3:03:28 experience from Worcester, including a

3:03:30 clear understanding of how quickly

3:03:31 conditions can overwhelm available

3:03:33 resources and the serious consequences

3:03:36 when that happens. The Worcester cold

3:03:38 storage fire, which claimed the lives of

3:03:40 six firefighters and forever change six

3:03:42 families, stands as a sobering reminder

3:03:45 why adequate staffing and timely

3:03:47 response are non-negotiable. While the

3:03:50 chief manages the budget he is given, he

3:03:52 does not he does not control how it is

3:03:53 funded. that lies with our elected

3:03:56 officials and this community. All the

3:03:59 more reason we call on him to use his

3:04:00 position to ensure staffing decision

3:04:02 decisions reflect the hard lessons of

3:04:05 past strate strategies and work with us

3:04:08 to support our department needs to

3:04:09 protect both firefighters and the

3:04:11 community. This comes down to

3:04:14 responsibility. Balancing a budget is

3:04:16 your job as elected officials, but

3:04:19 public safety is non-negotiable.

3:04:21 If firehouses are closed and

3:04:23 firefighters are laid off, those

3:04:25 decision decisions are being made here

3:04:27 by this board, residents are being

3:04:29 forced into an override vote because

3:04:31 elected officials have put them in this

3:04:33 predicament and consequences will

3:04:35 follow. There is a critical decision

3:04:38 coming before the residents of Brooklyn

3:04:40 and an override vote is not just about

3:04:42 dollars. It's about whether Brookline

3:04:44 maintains the level of protection its

3:04:46 res residents have come to expect and

3:04:48 depend on. A yes vote is necessary to

3:04:51 prevent firehouse closures, avoid

3:04:54 layoffs, and ensure that when someone

3:04:56 calls 911, help arrives quickly with the

3:04:59 staffing needed to make a difference.

3:05:01 This vote is bigger than us. It's about

3:05:04 the resident trapped in a fire, the

3:05:06 senior needing immediate care, the

3:05:08 family asleep, trusting help will come.

3:05:11 Brookline firefighters are counting on

3:05:13 you and on this community to get this

3:05:15 right. So, I'll close with this. The

3:05:18 next tragedy, it doesn't happen

3:05:20 somewhere else. It happens here. And

3:05:23 there are no second chances when it

3:05:24 does. If these cuts go through, the

3:05:27 question won't be if it costs lives,

3:05:28 it's when. Do not make these cuts. Do

3:05:32 not close firehouses. Do not compromise

3:05:34 safety. And to the residents, support

3:05:37 the override. Vote yes. Because when you

3:05:40 fund this department properly, you're

3:05:42 not just funding a service, you're

3:05:43 saving lives. Thank you.

3:05:56 again for everybody. Um I am Justin

3:05:58 Brown, the president of the Brooklyn

3:06:00 Educators Union, uh which represents

3:06:02 approximately 1300 pair professionals,

3:06:05 teachers, and administrators of the

3:06:07 public schools of Brooklyn. Over the

3:06:09 past several months, I've done my

3:06:11 homework by watching uh all of the

3:06:13 override committee meetings. I've also

3:06:15 watched the school committee meetings

3:06:17 and have watched as the superintendent

3:06:19 and her staff have put together the FY27

3:06:21 budget. I'm here to say that we fully

3:06:24 endorse the full amount of $23.2 million

3:06:28 on the override. It's clear that the

3:06:30 results of a failed override would be

3:06:33 catastrophic for PSB. No need to rehash

3:06:37 all the details here. Uh but two

3:06:39 headlines um stick out to us. a high

3:06:42 school that would be so compromised it

3:06:45 would struggle uh to retain

3:06:47 accreditation for FY29 and elementary

3:06:49 sections ballooning to 35 plus students

3:06:52 next to shuttered classrooms with no

3:06:55 funds to staff them. The full $23.2

3:06:58 million is in is necessary not just

3:07:01 because it will maintain level services

3:07:04 but because it is an investment. It is

3:07:07 an investment in stability for students

3:07:09 and educators. Successful educational

3:07:12 outcomes are based on stable,

3:07:14 predictable, and trusted relationships.

3:07:17 The only way to do this is ensuring that

3:07:19 working conditions are as stable as

3:07:21 possible. It's an investment in trust in

3:07:24 the voters of Brooklyn. By saying yes to

3:07:27 the full level services amount of $23.2

3:07:30 million, you are approaching the kind of

3:07:33 budgetary stability that we all need and

3:07:36 deserve. Anything less invites the

3:07:38 possibility the possibilities of

3:07:40 continued tension and strife for three

3:07:43 budget cycles. And finally, it's an

3:07:45 investment in the future. Along with the

3:07:48 Brookline School Committee and

3:07:49 Superintendent Wong, we have a shared

3:07:52 vision of educational excellence for the

3:07:55 students of PSB where everyone has a

3:07:57 chance to thrive. Excellence needs to be

3:08:00 achieved and excellence needs to be

3:08:02 maintained.

3:08:03 And of the options available, only the

3:08:06 full amount has the promise for both.

3:08:08 Thank you.

3:08:18 Okay. Uh that was less than the 10

3:08:21 minutes per per union that you had. So

3:08:25 let's move on to our public hearing.

3:08:27 Melanie, could you open it up or or read

3:08:31 the rules and and then I'll open it up.

3:08:33 Give me one second.

3:08:36 Okay. Now that the chair has opened the

3:08:38 public hearing, if there's anyone that

3:08:40 wishes to speak, please raise your hand

3:08:42 using the raise your hand feature if you

3:08:43 are online or make your presence known

3:08:46 in the room. We have about 34 people

3:08:49 online

3:08:50 um and a lot in this room. We do have

3:08:52 people that have signed up prior. Um,

3:08:56 first up is Dave Porter.

3:09:08 Hello. Lesson learned.

3:09:11 My name is Dave Porter. I'm a town

3:09:13 meeting member. My wife Julie and I own

3:09:15 and reside at 21 Clark Road in Precinct

3:09:18 6. Our two kids go to Wrl and current

3:09:20 plan is for them to graduate from BHS.

3:09:23 My oldest is in fourth grade. This year

3:09:26 he started learning the double base. He

3:09:28 loves it. It's expanding his mind in a

3:09:30 way that a worldclass school in a

3:09:33 worldclass town is supposed to. I look

3:09:35 forward to it continuing to do so. Two

3:09:38 years ago, the elementary world

3:09:40 languages program did not continue to do

3:09:42 so. Despite promises associated with the

3:09:44 previous override, it was cut. For my

3:09:47 kids, it's gone forever.

3:09:50 We are here to call on you to put full

3:09:52 funding numbers and only full funding

3:09:54 numbers on the ballot. Lowballing us

3:09:56 once again raising taxes and then having

3:09:58 to cut programs will create trust in the

3:10:00 override process and in town government.

3:10:03 We have friends and neighbors on fixed

3:10:05 income. We understand that they will

3:10:07 feel this more than we will. For

3:10:09 everyone's sake, but for theirs

3:10:11 especially, the full number had better

3:10:12 be the necessary number. So, who can we

3:10:15 trust? On the town side, we have

3:10:17 administrator and local superhero Chaz

3:10:19 Kerry. On the school side, after a few

3:10:22 frankly trustwakening years, we have the

3:10:24 impressive superintendent Bella Wong,

3:10:26 who has said repeatedly that she

3:10:28 understands her role as a cautious

3:10:30 steward of our tax dollars and I think

3:10:32 has demonstrated it tonight. Brookline

3:10:34 has the leadership it needs. We are

3:10:36 therefore here tonight to call on you to

3:10:38 trust your staff and your constituents

3:10:40 to rise to this moment and to put full

3:10:42 funding numbers and only full funding

3:10:44 numbers on the ballot to keep strong

3:10:46 what makes Brookline by some measures

3:10:48 and my own the best place to live in

3:10:51 America. Thank you.

3:10:59 Next is Ailen Nielsen.

3:11:05 If you're online, you can use the raise

3:11:07 hand feature.

3:11:08 I don't see her online.

3:11:09 Okay.

3:11:10 Okay. Go to Jeremy Redburn.

3:11:20 Good evening, chair, members of the

3:11:22 select board. My name is Jeremy Redburn.

3:11:24 I'm a town meeting member and resident

3:11:26 of precinct 12, and I'm here tonight

3:11:28 representing Yes for Brookline 2026.

3:11:31 I hold here a petition signed by 1,269

3:11:36 Brookline residents, our neighbors,

3:11:38 school committee members, library

3:11:40 trustees, town meeting members, and

3:11:42 residents from every corner of town. All

3:11:45 these people are deeply concerned about

3:11:47 losing the things that help make

3:11:48 Brooklyn the amazing place that we all

3:11:50 love. We know and they know that raising

3:11:53 taxes is difficult. We understand the

3:11:56 real burden this places on everyone.

3:11:58 Families, seniors living on fixed

3:12:00 incomes, small business owners. We don't

3:12:03 take that lightly. But as Dave said, we

3:12:06 trust that we have the right leaders to

3:12:08 be good stewards of that money.

3:12:10 And we also understand something else

3:12:12 that you've heard a lot about tonight,

3:12:13 and I'm sure you'll hear more. Not

3:12:15 acting now has real impacts. The cuts

3:12:18 aren't abstract. They have real impacts

3:12:20 on real people. We trust our town and

3:12:23 school leadership will continue to work

3:12:25 toward finding ways to cut costs, make

3:12:28 our town and school operations as

3:12:29 efficient as possible, as well as

3:12:31 seeking new sources of revenue. That

3:12:34 work must continue. But we've already

3:12:36 made significant cuts. We've already

3:12:38 identified operational savings.

3:12:41 And still, the math doesn't work. This

3:12:44 petition asks you to do three things.

3:12:47 Place an override on the May ballot with

3:12:49 all possible haste. We need to be out

3:12:51 there talking to voters about what's

3:12:53 actually to be voted on. Set it at the

3:12:57 level that our town and school leaders

3:12:59 tell us we need. And please communicate

3:13:03 transparently with residents about what

3:13:05 happens if we fail to act or if we act

3:13:08 insufficiently.

3:13:09 Thank you.

3:13:17 Uh next we have Marissa vote.

3:13:28 Hi everyone. I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a

3:13:30 town meeting member for precinct 6. Um

3:13:33 I'm speaking tonight um as both a parent

3:13:35 to kids the public schools and as an

3:13:37 elected library trustee um because I

3:13:40 want to robustly fund both our town and

3:13:42 school services. Next year my kids will

3:13:44 be in first grade and fourth grade. And

3:13:46 I don't want my daughter's first grade

3:13:47 parro to get cut or my son to miss out

3:13:49 on starting an instrument next year. I

3:13:52 don't want our libraries to cut a

3:13:53 part-time library assistant position and

3:13:55 potentially have to reduce our opening

3:13:56 hours or offerings.

3:14:00 So tonight, I'm urging the select board

3:14:01 to put only one operating question, oh,

3:14:04 sorry, one only one override question on

3:14:06 the ballot that fully funds both the

3:14:08 town and school budget needs. And I want

3:14:10 to be clear that we should not be

3:14:12 entertaining any override amount that

3:14:14 does not fully fund our town and school

3:14:17 needs.

3:14:19 We made that mistake in 2023 by not

3:14:21 putting a sufficient override amount on

3:14:23 the ballot. That mistake has led to

3:14:24 confusion and mistrust from voters who

3:14:27 supported the 2023 override only to see

3:14:29 world language get cut the following

3:14:31 year. That mistake has exacerbated

3:14:33 tension in how our limited public funds

3:14:36 can be divided in the so between the so

3:14:38 town town side and the and school side.

3:14:40 That mistake has set up perennial school

3:14:42 budget gaps that consume so much of our

3:14:45 community energy and prevents the school

3:14:47 committee and PSB leadership from

3:14:49 tackling other important issues that

3:14:50 will benefit our students and educators.

3:14:53 So, I'm asking you tonight to not repeat

3:14:55 the mistakes of the past, to please

3:14:57 avoid unnecessarily confusing voters by

3:14:59 placing multiple questions on the ballot

3:15:01 with the same service levels and to

3:15:03 please be honest with voters about our

3:15:04 town and school's budget needs. Allowing

3:15:07 an insufficient override ask to go on

3:15:09 the ballot would be intellectually

3:15:10 dishonest because it would suggest that

3:15:12 a smaller number could be enough when we

3:15:14 know that it isn't. We'll be setting up

3:15:16 our town and schools to continually face

3:15:19 perennial significant budget cuts,

3:15:21 potentially even losing complete

3:15:22 programs as soon as next year. And

3:15:25 voters will once again end up feeling

3:15:26 like Charlie Brown after Lucy yanks the

3:15:28 football away. Please show your trust

3:15:31 and support for our excellent town and

3:15:32 school administration who have said that

3:15:34 they need this full funding to serve our

3:15:36 community. Please put a single

3:15:38 sufficient override ask on the ballot

3:15:39 and let's get to work turning out yes

3:15:41 votes to support our town and schools.

3:15:43 Thank you.

3:15:50 Emily Jaffy is next.

3:15:56 Good evening, chair and members of the

3:15:58 select board. My name is Emily Jaffy and

3:16:00 I am a Brooklyn resident in precinct 9,

3:16:03 a parent to a first grader at FRR and

3:16:05 co-chair of the Brooklyn Special

3:16:07 Education Parent Advisory Council or

3:16:09 CPAC. Thank you for the opportunity to

3:16:11 speak tonight. I am here to urge you to

3:16:13 place options on the ballot that would

3:16:15 fully fund our public schools. This is

3:16:17 not just a budget issue. It is an equity

3:16:19 issue. When our schools are underfunded,

3:16:21 the burden does not fall evenly across

3:16:23 our community. It falls most heavily on

3:16:26 students who already face the greatest

3:16:28 challenges. Students with disabilities,

3:16:30 students from low-income families, and

3:16:32 those who rely entirely on the public

3:16:34 system to meet their needs. Families

3:16:36 with financial means often have

3:16:38 alternatives. They can turn to private

3:16:40 schools, tutoring, or other supplemental

3:16:42 resources. And public services fall

3:16:44 short. But many families in Brooklyn do

3:16:46 not have those options. For them, our

3:16:48 public schools are not just one choice

3:16:50 among many. They are the only choice.

3:16:53 And for students receiving special

3:16:54 education services, our schools are not

3:16:56 just a place of learning. They are a

3:16:58 lifeline. These students depend on

3:17:00 consistent, wellunded support systems,

3:17:02 specialized staff, meaningful inclusion,

3:17:05 and legally mandated services. When

3:17:07 funding gaps lead to cuts or

3:17:09 understaffing, those are not just

3:17:10 abstract reductions. They translate

3:17:12 directly into lost opportunities, unmet

3:17:15 needs, and diminished futures. We should

3:17:17 be clear about what underfunding means

3:17:19 in practice. It means larger class

3:17:20 sizes, elimination of programs, fewer

3:17:23 support staff, and increased strain on

3:17:25 educators who are already doing

3:17:26 everything they can. And again, the

3:17:28 students who feel these impacts most

3:17:30 acutely are those who have the least

3:17:31 margin for disruption. Brookline has

3:17:34 long prided itself on being a community

3:17:35 that values education and fairness. If

3:17:38 we believe in those values, then we must

3:17:40 ensure that every student, not just

3:17:41 those with resources, has access to a

3:17:43 fully supported, highquality education.

3:17:46 Placing funding options on the ballot is

3:17:48 about giving the residents the

3:17:49 opportunity to uphold that commitment.

3:17:51 It allows the community to decide

3:17:53 whether we are willing to invest in all

3:17:54 of our children, including those who

3:17:56 depend on us the most. This is not about

3:17:58 excess. It is about adequacy. It is

3:18:01 about meeting our obligations and living

3:18:02 up to our principles. I urge you to put

3:18:04 forward ballot options that will fully

3:18:06 fund our schools. Our students,

3:18:08 especially those without alternatives,

3:18:10 cannot afford anything less. Thank you

3:18:12 for your time and consideration.

3:18:20 Erin Meyer is next.

3:18:34 Hi. Um, I don't like public speaking.

3:18:38 Um, I like to say that upfront because I

3:18:41 think it's important when people like

3:18:44 myself that are uncomfortable doing so

3:18:46 come here to talk to you today. Um, my

3:18:49 name is Erin Meyer. I live on Powell

3:18:52 Street in Brooklyn and I'm a parent of

3:18:55 PSB eighth grader and tenth grader both

3:18:58 of whom have benefited greatly from the

3:19:00 rebuild of our neighborhood elementary

3:19:02 school, the Ruff and Ridley School, FRR

3:19:06 for Mardivo, as well as the BHS

3:19:08 renovation.

3:19:10 I voted yes not only for my kids but for

3:19:14 the staff of our school and for the many

3:19:16 community groups who now enjoy the use

3:19:18 of the space outside of our school hours

3:19:20 in the previous override that helped to

3:19:22 rebuild this school. I did the same for

3:19:25 students and educators and the greater

3:19:28 community at Driscoll and at Pierce. And

3:19:32 I will vote yes in this upcoming

3:19:34 override to support staffing across all

3:19:37 PSB schools.

3:19:39 I'm here tonight to say that I am not

3:19:42 alone. There are many parents, current

3:19:46 and past, and Brooklyn community members

3:19:49 who like me will come out to say yes.

3:19:54 Please give us the opportunity to show

3:19:56 you that we want to support our schools

3:20:00 and our town even when the numbers feel

3:20:03 and are big. But most importantly, I am

3:20:07 here to encourage you as a board

3:20:11 to support this override.

3:20:14 I am thankful for the time to be heard,

3:20:16 but please listen to the guidance from

3:20:18 the Brooklyn residents that you

3:20:20 appointed to the expenditures and

3:20:22 revenue study committee to our

3:20:24 superintendent to the other people who

3:20:27 are the experts in the room.

3:20:33 I'm sorry, I've lost my place.

3:20:38 I think we've heard tonight very clearly

3:20:40 what will happen if it does not pass.

3:20:44 Please know that there are many of us

3:20:46 who are listening tonight who are

3:20:48 listening to people that have spoken

3:20:50 behind

3:20:52 not behind closed doors in smaller

3:20:54 spaces. The numbers are growing. There

3:20:57 is support. We are listening. Please

3:21:01 support yes vote. Thank you.

3:21:09 Next is Jim Ral.

3:21:16 He's not online.

3:21:19 Um, Stephen readers

3:21:26 also

3:21:28 uh Jane Lurs lersy.

3:21:39 Hello, select board Chaz. Um, my name is

3:21:43 Jane Lursy. I live on Francis Street.

3:21:46 Um, I have two children at the Lawrence

3:21:48 School and as we heard tonight, I think

3:21:51 the other tiers and options are too

3:21:54 complicated for voters to be able to

3:21:56 differentiate and make an informed

3:21:57 decision. So, I I do hope um as

3:22:00 selectman um Rubenstein was saying of

3:22:02 only having the two options um for

3:22:04 clarity. I also think the framing of the

3:22:07 question since we have actually had an

3:22:09 override in place up until now. It's

3:22:11 it's more are we voters saying we should

3:22:14 make a big cut to how we're raising

3:22:17 taxes as opposed to increasing them. The

3:22:19 two and a half Prop 2 and a half is

3:22:21 artificially limiting our ability to

3:22:23 levy. And as we hear about fixed costs

3:22:26 rising, it's it's not reasonable to

3:22:27 operate under that constraint. So, thank

3:22:29 you for your service and for your time.

3:22:37 Next we have Dick Ben. He's online.

3:22:49 Can we un unpin Chief P?

3:22:51 Thank you. Thank you. I am trying to

3:22:53 share a window if I could.

3:22:57 Good. Thank you very much. Uh Dick Ben,

3:23:01 a member of the ENRSC, a town meeting

3:23:04 member from precinct 14. I just wanted

3:23:07 to follow up on questions that Paul,

3:23:10 David, and John raised about the phased

3:23:13 in versus the upfront structure of the

3:23:15 override. And I just urge you to avoid

3:23:18 misleading the voters or creating a

3:23:21 lightning rod or a target u during this

3:23:25 campaign. What was denominated as tiers

3:23:28 by CHAZ are not really tiers as

3:23:30 understood by the ENRSC.

3:23:33 There were two different taxing

3:23:35 approaches that the ENRSC defined as

3:23:38 options. Option one was basically phased

3:23:42 in. That's your 23.25 million. Option

3:23:46 two was upfront for everyone. That's

3:23:49 your 18.6 million. and any tier as the

3:23:53 ENRSC understood it would then proceed

3:23:57 from one of those numbers um offering

3:24:00 voters a somewhat lower impact and that

3:24:03 was motivated by the ENRSC's concern

3:24:06 about a failed override and um uh

3:24:10 offering uh a lower option um as a hedge

3:24:15 against a totally failed override. Um,

3:24:18 as you noted, the nominal lower amount

3:24:22 of option two, the uh upfront amount,

3:24:27 would actually result in higher taxes

3:24:29 during the three years than option one

3:24:32 would, the phased in amount. And I've

3:24:34 done a chart uh that shows that um these

3:24:38 use figures that uh the sixth floor

3:24:41 provided to the ENRSC.

3:24:43 Uh doesn't um add the 1% CPA tax. that

3:24:48 doesn't take account of the time value

3:24:50 of money. Um the first ch the first

3:24:54 group uh takes our median single family

3:24:57 current fiscal year tax of about $21,000

3:25:02 and uses option one the phased in 23.25

3:25:07 million. You end up over three years

3:25:10 with additional taxes of about $8,300

3:25:15 39.82% 82%.

3:25:18 If you go with the nominally lower uh

3:25:22 upfront amount of 18.6 million, the

3:25:25 actual taxes paid by the median single

3:25:29 family property would be over $400 more.

3:25:32 Uh they'd be $8,784.

3:25:37 Um same impact for condos.

3:25:40 um with um the uh phased in nominal

3:25:45 amount of 23.25 million over three years

3:25:49 um current tax of $12,230

3:25:53 additional $4,872.

3:25:57 If you went with the nominally lower

3:26:00 amount of the upfront $18.6 6 million.

3:26:04 The taxes paid over this three-year

3:26:06 period, the increased taxes paid over

3:26:09 this three-year period by the median

3:26:11 condo would rise to over $5,000. So,

3:26:15 there's um a difference. And um I I

3:26:19 really do urge you to um avoid

3:26:23 uh creating an issue uh by putting the

3:26:26 option one and option two on the ballot

3:26:28 at the same time.

3:26:29 Your time is up.

3:26:31 Thank you,

3:26:32 Dick. Could you email that slide to the

3:26:34 board, please?

3:26:35 I would be very happy to.

3:26:36 Thank you.

3:26:39 We don't have anybody else signed up,

3:26:40 but there's Alyssa is online with her

3:26:42 hand raised.

3:26:43 Okay.

3:26:47 Is there someone in the audience?

3:26:48 If folks want to speak in the audience,

3:26:49 you can just approach the uh the podium.

3:26:51 If folks online want to speak, please uh

3:26:53 use the raised hand.

3:26:54 Let Alyssa go first.

3:26:56 Yeah. Um Thank you. Uh Alyssa Plazanja

3:26:59 from Precinct 8. Um, I don't envy the

3:27:03 select board and having to bear the

3:27:05 weight of this decision. Um, but I did

3:27:07 want to just offer some thoughts based

3:27:09 on my professional experience, which is

3:27:12 um, in considering options for the

3:27:14 ballot, um, you know, nobody likes to

3:27:17 pay higher taxes, right? So, if given a

3:27:20 choice, most people would opt for a

3:27:23 smaller increase rather than a larger

3:27:25 increase. And depending on so um if you

3:27:29 give two choices one which is full

3:27:32 funding one which is you know only

3:27:34 partially funding

3:27:37 chances are partially funding is going

3:27:39 to win. um if you offer three choices,

3:27:44 behavioral economics because of the

3:27:46 compromise effect, most people will go

3:27:48 for the option in the middle. And so as

3:27:51 um Chaz Kerry

3:27:54 the options that he had laid out

3:27:56 earlier, I think the middle one was the

3:27:58 19 million that would be partial partial

3:28:02 funding. That's probably what's going to

3:28:04 win. So if you offer any options that

3:28:07 are less than full funding, that's the

3:28:10 likely outcome. Um and so that I would

3:28:13 therefore urge you to offer only a full

3:28:15 funding option because of the

3:28:16 consequences of not having um all of the

3:28:20 money that has been asked for. If you do

3:28:23 end up offering a choice that includes

3:28:25 less than um full funding, I don't know

3:28:28 what the limitations are legally, but I

3:28:30 think it would be very important to have

3:28:32 as part of the ballot question some kind

3:28:34 of highle statement about the

3:28:36 consequences. So, um, when, uh,

3:28:41 administrator Kerry had the sample

3:28:43 ballot question up, I don't know if it

3:28:45 said like 20 23 million, which would

3:28:47 fully fund existing town and school

3:28:49 services, 19 million, whatever the

3:28:52 number is, which would result in cuts to

3:28:54 existing town and school services so

3:28:56 that people understand, not everyone's

3:28:58 going to read the, you know, the pros

3:29:00 and cons or, you know, there will be

3:29:02 people who just go and and vote with

3:29:04 less than full information. So I think

3:29:06 it's really important to try to if you

3:29:08 end up offering that option have some

3:29:10 kind of consequences that are built into

3:29:12 the ballot question if that's allowed.

3:29:14 Um so um separate from all of this I did

3:29:18 read the uh expenditures and revenue

3:29:20 study committees report and one question

3:29:23 that I have um is in looking at

3:29:26 potential sources of additional revenue.

3:29:29 Um, one thing that I didn't see was

3:29:31 raising parking meter rates. And I guess

3:29:33 I'm curious why that would not have been

3:29:35 something that the town would look at

3:29:38 doing given that our rates are, you

3:29:40 know, certainly um, less than

3:29:43 neighboring Boston. And that seems like

3:29:45 a place that, you know, an opportunity

3:29:49 among all the other options that were

3:29:51 looked at to potentially um, as a

3:29:54 revenue stream.

3:29:56 Thank you.

3:30:01 Okay, step to the mic, please.

3:30:04 Good evening. Thank you for the time. My

3:30:06 name is Sarah Luchansky. I'm a parent of

3:30:09 a BHS and Driscoll student. And uh I am

3:30:13 grateful to be a part of the school

3:30:14 community here. It has been a great

3:30:16 experience for them. And I just wanted

3:30:18 to read a few words that my daughter

3:30:20 Harper, who's 11, had written out to

3:30:22 say, but she has MCCAST tomorrow and so

3:30:24 she needed to go home. Um,

3:30:27 so she I have to say uh some of her

3:30:30 favorite classes are Chinese and

3:30:33 conservatory. And so about Chinese, she

3:30:35 said, "Our teacher always helps us learn

3:30:38 by showing us a song we sing and we

3:30:40 learn faster and in a fun way." And she

3:30:43 also wanted you all to know that in

3:30:45 conservatory we practice very hard and

3:30:47 then have a concert that we are very

3:30:49 excited about. Losing that would take

3:30:51 away a very good opportunity.

3:30:54 but also cutting these jobs is cutting

3:30:56 these people who work very hard to help

3:30:59 kids and make a living for their family.

3:31:01 So, just speaking on her behalf, I ask

3:31:03 that you please put the override on the

3:31:06 ballot to fully fund the school and town

3:31:08 services. Thank you.

3:31:16 You're next.

3:31:18 Hi, my name is Sophia Warner. Um, I live

3:31:21 uh in the FR school district where my

3:31:23 daughter's in first grade and my son

3:31:25 will be entering kindergarten next year.

3:31:27 I've lived in Brooklyn almost my entire

3:31:29 life. Um, and I just really would urge

3:31:32 the select board to only put two options

3:31:35 on the ballot. Either full funding,

3:31:37 which is really to sustain the current

3:31:39 level of services with some already very

3:31:42 um significant cuts as we've heard from

3:31:45 Superintendent Wong. I think we have

3:31:47 been very lucky to have such an

3:31:49 incredibly talented leader um heading

3:31:52 our public school system in Brooklyn and

3:31:54 we've heard that they have made

3:31:55 considerable efforts to cut funding

3:31:57 where they are able. Um and so I hope

3:32:01 that we can be very clear with voters

3:32:02 that anything other than full funding is

3:32:04 really a cut to current level of

3:32:06 services. Um and the the public school

3:32:09 system in Brooklyn is something that

3:32:10 draws many people to this town. Um it's

3:32:13 a ma a big reason that many of us live

3:32:15 here. And I think that we have to be

3:32:17 very clear with voters that if um if we

3:32:19 don't fully fund the school system that

3:32:21 we're looking at these very significant

3:32:23 cuts and I think this is really what we

3:32:25 owe to our town is to make it to give

3:32:27 our to give our um to give the members

3:32:30 of our town very clear options um and

3:32:33 not put more than two options on the

3:32:35 ballot since we have learned from the

3:32:37 2023 experience that has led to

3:32:40 confusion and a lack of trust. Thank

3:32:42 you.

3:32:51 Okay, it looks like that's the uh uh

3:32:54 conclusion of our public hearing and I

3:32:57 would like to take a break.

3:33:00 Five minutes.

3:33:01 The public hearing before we take a

3:33:02 break.

3:33:03 Pardon me.

3:33:03 Do you want to close the public hearing

3:33:04 before we take a break?

3:33:05 I'll adjourn it.

3:33:07 Okay.

3:33:09 But first, tell me that you want to take

3:33:10 a break.

3:33:11 Yes.

3:33:11 Okay, good. Let's adjourn the public

3:33:13 hearing and we will return and

3:33:16 deliberate.

3:33:19 Deliberately.

3:33:25 So, Chaz,

3:33:26 yeah,

3:33:27 I looked I looked up the numbers.

3:38:22 Hey.

3:43:32 Okay, we are back to continue the uh

3:43:37 I guess we didn't close the public

3:43:39 hearing. We just adjourned it. Um, are

3:43:43 there any other people who would like to

3:43:45 speak before we close the public hearing

3:43:48 and start deliberating among the board?

3:43:50 Okay, seeing none and no one online, uh,

3:43:53 let's close the public hearing

3:43:56 and uh let's start to talk about uh what

3:44:01 remains to be decided. Um, first I

3:44:05 number of tiers whether we have one tier

3:44:08 or

3:44:09 more than one tier and I think Michael

3:44:12 sort of raised some issues there.

3:44:15 Well, you mean in my in my question?

3:44:17 Yeah. Well, the question I raised and

3:44:21 I'll I'll just repeat it and you can

3:44:23 respond to it or take it take this to

3:44:25 another path is that I was getting a

3:44:28 sense from the questions that people

3:44:31 that other members of the board uh

3:44:36 it wasn't clear to me that anybody was

3:44:37 interested in funding in putting

3:44:40 anything on the ballot that represented

3:44:42 anything less than full funding. And the

3:44:44 reason I asked that question is because

3:44:46 it simplifies our decision. Yeah,

3:44:48 decision matrix. That was

3:44:50 Well, let's let's take take a straw poll

3:44:52 in that. I mean, I I'll tell you what I

3:44:54 think. I started out thinking that we

3:44:56 would put two tiers on the ballot. Um,

3:45:01 sort of following up on the expenditure

3:45:04 and revenue study committee's fear that

3:45:07 without a an a lower option, the voters

3:45:10 would turn down the override. Um, I

3:45:14 guess I'm I'm not I I've changed my mind

3:45:18 after reading uh the superintendent's

3:45:21 materials. Um, and the high school

3:45:24 example was just one, you know,

3:45:27 illustration of the problem with even

3:45:28 the 86%

3:45:31 um reduction from full funding. That

3:45:34 that even that would devastate the

3:45:37 schools, let alone anything lower than

3:45:38 that. And I'm not sure that we want to,

3:45:41 you know,

3:45:43 I mean, the risk is that the that the

3:45:45 override fails, but if it fails, we can

3:45:48 put it on the ballot again and hope that

3:45:50 the community understands the importance

3:45:53 of uh of of funding. Um, so I'm, you

3:45:57 know, I'm inclined to say that we just

3:45:59 put one uh tier, as you call it, on the

3:46:03 ballot and that be the full funding

3:46:05 amount. David.

3:46:06 So I agree with uh with you, Bernard.

3:46:08 And just for a little more context, when

3:46:10 we had the last override, that was more

3:46:13 of a true tiered override in the sense

3:46:16 that there was and it wasn't even really

3:46:19 level funded. Even that one included

3:46:22 some inherent cuts to it. So that

3:46:24 override, I would say, was more the

3:46:26 equivalent of the 86% choice and what

3:46:29 some would consider a nice to have on

3:46:31 composting. And those were two truly

3:46:34 different numbers. the composting

3:46:36 portion did not pass and we ended up

3:46:39 with what I would say is the 86%

3:46:42 equivalent and the voters were somewhat

3:46:45 upset with that I would say because they

3:46:48 voted to increase their taxes and then a

3:46:51 lot of services they cared about were

3:46:53 cut anyway and while uh there are very

3:46:57 valid explanations for why that occurred

3:47:00 at a visceral level I can understand why

3:47:04 voters would feel a lack of transparency

3:47:06 in that in voting for a number that

3:47:09 doesn't reflect the true need. Uh and

3:47:12 here we're presented with that choice.

3:47:14 Again, I we didn't hear a single person

3:47:18 advocate for uh having a lower option

3:47:21 other than uh for the purpose of hedging

3:47:24 against a failed override, but there

3:47:25 wasn't anybody saying we truly like this

3:47:29 19 number as a preferred option. Uh and

3:47:32 also as I'm sure you're receiving as

3:47:34 well, all of us are receiving many

3:47:36 emails from members in the community and

3:47:39 I can't recall a single one saying I

3:47:42 prefer the lower option. I mean we do

3:47:45 hear a little bit again people saying

3:47:46 let's hedge but no one's saying that

3:47:48 they actually prefer the lower one over

3:47:50 the higher one. Uh so given what we're

3:47:53 hearing from the community, given the

3:47:55 tremendous need that the schools have

3:47:58 articulated and also the town side,

3:48:00 although we spent a little less time

3:48:01 talking about that tonight, I think that

3:48:04 we go with one number, the number that

3:48:05 fully funds both the schools and the

3:48:08 towns. And if it doesn't work out, there

3:48:10 is nothing that prevents us, as you just

3:48:13 said, from going back to the voters

3:48:15 later at some other figure. And

3:48:18 sometimes we we need uh that reality

3:48:22 check from the voters one way or the

3:48:23 other that that'll inform us.

3:48:29 John, I know kind of

3:48:31 my head is spinning.

3:48:34 Um well, I'm going to cite um um history

3:48:38 of what happens uh when uh you deny

3:48:41 voters's choice. Um people have heard me

3:48:43 cite it before. I happen to have been um

3:48:46 pretty deeply involved in it. U there

3:48:49 was a so-called bundled question on the

3:48:51 ballot which said you can vote to build

3:48:55 both um the new Driscoll school and a

3:48:58 brand new 9inth school um but uh or you

3:49:01 could vote not to do that but you can't

3:49:04 vote to build the Driscoll school

3:49:07 um alone or you can't bu vote to build

3:49:10 the new 9inth school alone. And the fact

3:49:14 that people were being denied a choice

3:49:18 became the primary motivator of the vote

3:49:21 of the vote that resulted which was a no

3:49:24 vote which was very very unusual in

3:49:26 Brooklyn and people you know still

3:49:31 remember the term bundling as a result

3:49:34 of that particular year and that

3:49:36 particular vote. Um, you know, what

3:49:39 we're facing tonight is much the same

3:49:41 kind of a situation. I'm a little

3:49:44 surprised to hear people say you

3:49:46 shouldn't offer a second choice because

3:49:48 the voters might choose it. Um,

3:49:52 I'm sorry that kind of that kind of rubs

3:49:55 me the wrong way. Um, I thought that was

3:49:57 what democracy was all about. I don't

3:49:59 know if the voters will choose a lower

3:50:01 amount. Um, and I feel like the only way

3:50:05 to find out if they'll choose a lower

3:50:07 amount is to offer them a lower amount.

3:50:09 Um, so, uh, I definitely am in favor of,

3:50:13 uh, both the full funding, uh, option

3:50:16 and only the I think we should drop the

3:50:18 use of the word tears, by the way. Um,

3:50:20 I'm fully in favor of the full funding

3:50:22 option with the traditional style of,

3:50:25 you know, pay as you go. Um, and then a

3:50:28 secondary funding option which is

3:50:30 somewhere between

3:50:32 uh what meets uh the essential needs of

3:50:37 the schools um and at the same time

3:50:40 recognizes that the situation that I

3:50:43 pointed to with that table from

3:50:47 Bellawong's very good presentation

3:50:50 of having a built-in

3:50:53 um uh almost like a guarantee in how we

3:50:58 create expectations in our budgets that

3:51:01 our expectation will be a four or five

3:51:06 or 6% increase in budgets year in and

3:51:09 year out, year in and year out, year in

3:51:12 and year out. And then what happens

3:51:14 after three years of that because of the

3:51:16 difference between four or five or 6%

3:51:20 and three and a half% which is the usual

3:51:22 revenue increase we get, we end up

3:51:24 having to have another override. And

3:51:26 that cycle at some point has to end. And

3:51:31 it ends uh if and when uh there is a

3:51:35 recognition by uh all sides that there

3:51:39 has to be a tail um a sort of a dialing

3:51:42 back of expectations in terms of our uh

3:51:47 our negotiated contracts with employees

3:51:50 because that's where 80% of the you know

3:51:53 drive towards four, five or six% annual

3:51:56 budget increases year after year after

3:51:58 year. That's where it comes from. And

3:52:01 these are not easy words to say. Um, you

3:52:04 know, nobody nobody likes, you know,

3:52:06 saying we need to dial back our

3:52:09 expectations to something a little bit

3:52:10 less, but that's that's what it is, a

3:52:13 little bit less. It's three and a half%

3:52:16 versus 4 and a.5%. arguably

3:52:19 um and and it becomes the responsibility

3:52:22 of the elected officials, the select

3:52:24 board and the school committee to go

3:52:26 back to the negotiating table if and

3:52:29 when there is an approval of a less than

3:52:33 100% fully funded ask in an override,

3:52:37 but more like an 85% uh figure. Um if

3:52:42 there's a approval of that, it tells us

3:52:45 what we need to do.

3:52:47 And that's another reason to at least

3:52:49 offer voters the choice. The voters

3:52:51 might send us a message with that

3:52:53 choice. We need to hear messages every

3:52:55 now and then from the voters. And that's

3:52:58 one well worth hearing. Um I happen to

3:53:01 think the other advantage of offering

3:53:03 something like an 85% choice is that it

3:53:06 avoids the pitfall of no choice means a

3:53:10 no vote. Uh, and I know people have just

3:53:14 sort of blindly said, "Oh, yeah, but we

3:53:16 could come back and ask them again."

3:53:19 Well, do you think they're going to say

3:53:20 yes if you ask them for the same amount

3:53:22 again? I mean, to make that assumption

3:53:24 is to assume the ultimate end of

3:53:27 offering people a choice would be either

3:53:29 that, you know, that that they might

3:53:32 take the choice or the ultimate end of

3:53:34 no choice could be rejection of the full

3:53:36 amount and then you'll end up having to

3:53:39 offer them like an 85% choice. You can't

3:53:42 just offer them the same 100% choice

3:53:43 again. So, I think we should recognize

3:53:46 that there's a there's there's something

3:53:49 useful to be learned from putting a

3:53:52 choice on the ballot and seeing what the

3:53:54 voters choose.

3:53:57 Uh Paul,

3:53:58 um thanks. So, first thanks John for

3:54:02 your for your comments and and Davidson

3:54:03 Bernard. Um I do want to acknowledge

3:54:06 that um the decision we're making

3:54:09 tonight, and I actually do hope we make

3:54:10 this I don't think we need to wait till

3:54:12 next week. I think it'd be a mistake in

3:54:14 educating everybody in the community

3:54:17 about what hard difficult choice or

3:54:19 choices they have to make. So, I

3:54:20 wouldn't hope that we do this tonight.

3:54:22 Um,

3:54:24 you know, there are people that based on

3:54:26 what we do tonight will may be able to

3:54:28 stay in Brooklyn or not based on the

3:54:31 cost. Uh some people may decide to leave

3:54:33 Brookline because they they don't want

3:54:36 to attend a less than school system that

3:54:40 is not fully funded. Um you know um I I

3:54:45 you know I'm ve I'm very concerned about

3:54:47 that. Um people leaving the school

3:54:50 system and seeing a death spiral at the

3:54:52 schools. Um we already have people that

3:54:55 are uh moving into Brooklyn. It's great

3:54:57 to have new neighbors. Um but they're

3:55:00 coming in and they're not putting their

3:55:01 kids in the school system. They're

3:55:02 sending them to private. Um we have a

3:55:04 number of families that have taken their

3:55:06 kids out of the schools and they put

3:55:07 them in private after uh because of

3:55:09 COVID. Um, and the danger I think that

3:55:12 we face with the schools is, and I'll

3:55:16 speak to the town in a minute, but the

3:55:17 schools is that um to to not fully fund

3:55:23 um or to have cuts to the extent that

3:55:25 we're talking about either at the fully

3:55:27 fund or even at a partial funding. Uh

3:55:29 the cuts are very very deep. Um, I'm

3:55:32 concerned about the reputation of

3:55:34 Brookline and what it will mean to uh to

3:55:37 the school system going forward and

3:55:39 frankly to property values. Um, you

3:55:41 know, Amy and I, I haven't been shy

3:55:43 about this, are here um because uh of

3:55:47 the school system, because of it's a

3:55:50 safe place to live, because we have

3:55:52 great services. Uh, Brookline has had a

3:55:55 stellar reputation. Um, it's one of the

3:55:57 reason why why we chose to live here. Um

3:56:02 it's not so attractive when our uh

3:56:04 second grader uh can't get support at

3:56:07 school or our sixth grader uh can't go

3:56:11 to conservatory or voice or whatever. Um

3:56:15 and then the thought of of of the the

3:56:20 level of cuts that we may see um as our

3:56:23 daughter gets prepared to go to the high

3:56:24 school. she's a she's sixth grade, you

3:56:26 know, in three years she'll be a ninth

3:56:29 grader uh and at the high school. Um and

3:56:32 I will tell you that I I would have to

3:56:34 think very hard about staying in the

3:56:35 public school system. Um whether I want

3:56:38 my kids to continue uh and where Amy and

3:56:42 I are having those difficult

3:56:43 conversations now. So, but I also want

3:56:46 to talk on the town side. Um you know,

3:56:48 we did hear uh tonight that this isn't

3:56:51 just about the schools, it's about

3:56:52 public safety. It's about our our police

3:56:55 department and whether we're going to

3:56:57 have sufficient staffing. Um, our chief

3:57:00 has done a great job in maintaining

3:57:04 uh our services. I think that that I'd

3:57:07 like to see more uh without six police

3:57:09 officers fill positions. Um those

3:57:12 positions would go away forever.

3:57:14 um the fire department. Uh I have been I

3:57:17 have not been shy about my view of

3:57:20 moving to minimum manning of free and

3:57:23 closing fire stations and brownouts and

3:57:25 all that. I think that's a disaster in

3:57:27 the making and I agree with the

3:57:29 gentleman that spoke tonight, the

3:57:31 president of the union. Um I think it

3:57:33 would be detrimental to public safety.

3:57:35 So this just isn't about the schools for

3:57:38 me. It's also um our town services and

3:57:40 our ability to plan and and and generate

3:57:43 more commercial revenue um and you know

3:57:47 being able to pursue some of our other

3:57:49 goals that we have around

3:57:50 sustainability. So um I fully support

3:57:55 fully funding the schools and the town.

3:57:59 Um I am concerned about a little bit of

3:58:02 rolling the dice um with with one

3:58:05 number. Uh but you know I think that

3:58:11 one number fully funding is very clear

3:58:13 to the voters. This if you don't fund

3:58:16 this, this is what you stand to lose.

3:58:18 You stand to have potentially a lost

3:58:21 fire company or a closed fire station.

3:58:25 Uh you stand to have uh a decimation of

3:58:28 the public school system in Brooklyn. Um

3:58:30 I think they they need to understand,

3:58:32 John, I think that is a choice. either

3:58:35 we choose to fund the the the community

3:58:38 that we want and that we have been able

3:58:40 to many have been able to benefit from

3:58:42 um or we don't. Um and I think that's a

3:58:45 very very clear choice uh to the voters.

3:58:49 And you know, if it doesn't pass, God, I

3:58:51 I I really hope it passes. I'd get out

3:58:53 and work hard to help that pass. Um, but

3:58:56 I um I'm inclined to put one very clear

3:59:00 number on the ballot, a very clear

3:59:02 explanation and a campaign that can get

3:59:05 started tomorrow morning uh to educate

3:59:08 the voters about what that means um to

3:59:10 to support it or what it means to not

3:59:13 support it. Um and I think that that we

3:59:16 should do that as quickly and as

3:59:17 expeditiously as we can so that we can

3:59:19 get this this discussion going within

3:59:22 the community. So that's that's where

3:59:24 I'm leaning. Uh, probably 98% unless

3:59:26 someone changed my mind.

3:59:28 Hey, David, do you have anything to say?

3:59:30 I have three votes already, so you don't

3:59:33 have to.

3:59:34 Well, I already mentioned I agreed with

3:59:35 your

3:59:36 Oh, that's right. That's right.

3:59:38 I have a couple of comments. Um, the

3:59:41 first comment, you know, you may John,

3:59:43 first of all, thank you for your for

3:59:45 your remarks. Um, to me, it was uh, as

3:59:49 others have pointed out, remarkable in

3:59:51 the consistency of the public comment.

3:59:54 Um there even even the people who I

3:59:58 expected to be stronger uh messengers

4:00:02 for what you are proposing uh didn't uh

4:00:05 either appear with that message or uh or

4:00:10 appeared but had a different message. Um

4:00:13 and so that that to me was uh remarkable

4:00:17 and uh noteworthy number one. Uh number

4:00:21 two um I I

4:00:24 appreciate your example of the the

4:00:27 bundling problem that you described with

4:00:29 uh the ninth school and Driscoll. Um but

4:00:32 I feel like this situation is somewhat

4:00:36 different. Um this is much more of a you

4:00:41 know of a basic operational

4:00:46 budgeting question. uh as opposed to

4:00:49 which what was in that case a debt

4:00:52 exclusion with two very significant uh

4:00:56 sort of alternative options. Um and

4:00:59 there was there was a lot of logic in

4:01:01 the argument of well I might want one

4:01:04 but not the other um that I don't think

4:01:06 applies in this case. Um the third thing

4:01:10 that I would say um is um first of all

4:01:14 to thank uh the town administrator for

4:01:17 all of the work that he's done on this

4:01:19 question of uh uh phased in money versus

4:01:24 uh taking all of the increase upfront

4:01:27 and what the ramifications of that are.

4:01:30 Um I think they are complex. Um but uh

4:01:34 in the spirit of sort of uh compromise

4:01:39 and uh a little bit of allowing for the

4:01:44 possibility of the value of taking the

4:01:47 money up front. Um if you think about

4:01:50 the three possible fully funding

4:01:52 scenarios of the $25.89 million as being

4:01:57 everything phased in, the 23.25 25 as

4:02:00 being the town phased in but not the

4:02:02 schools and the 18.6

4:02:04 being everything upfront. It seems to me

4:02:08 that taking the middle approach there

4:02:11 where the town um has the opportunity to

4:02:14 take its money upfront and use the

4:02:16 override stabilization fund to see how

4:02:19 that works out over the period of three

4:02:21 years and let the schools continue to um

4:02:24 take the pay as you go approach. um is a

4:02:28 reasonable middle ground um and um some

4:02:32 something that that I could support for

4:02:35 both for both purposes. Um and so just

4:02:39 in terms of the one number that I've

4:02:42 heard people talk about, that seems to

4:02:44 be a reasonable one number to set

4:02:48 forward.

4:02:50 I think I'll leave it at that,

4:02:51 I guess. So my only question then is do

4:02:53 you want to take the town's number from

4:02:55 that 18.6

4:02:57 which is 5.6 million or do you want to

4:02:58 take it at 5.31? Remember, we tried to

4:03:01 hold it as low as possible to keep that

4:03:03 at um

4:03:06 at or below the 2023 override number and

4:03:09 to keep the town number low because the

4:03:11 school's number was high. Um if you want

4:03:14 to the town's share of the 18.6 was 5.6

4:03:18 million.

4:03:19 So what is it in the 23? So

4:03:21 5.31

4:03:23 5.31 and you think it's it should be

4:03:26 like the other

4:03:27 I think I so I think it would be

4:03:30 healthier for the town to have it at 5.6

4:03:32 if we're going to do this sort of

4:03:33 compromise solution, but I would be

4:03:35 happier. I either way works. Either way,

4:03:38 it's going to work out.

4:03:40 I think if I may, my answer to that

4:03:43 question is actually dependent on the

4:03:46 answer to my previous question about

4:03:48 like you know it would be it would be

4:03:51 helpful to be able to say in an applesto

4:03:54 apples comparison you know what the 27

4:03:58 increase in people's tax bills is going

4:04:00 to be relative to 24 and 28 relative to

4:04:03 25 and 29 relative to 26.

4:04:06 Okay.

4:04:06 As long as they're apples to apples. as

4:04:08 long as they're as long as they're

4:04:09 apples to apples.

4:04:11 Right. Um and if if that if making that

4:04:16 change teters the number over in terms

4:04:18 of the percentage,

4:04:20 then I would definitely go with the

4:04:22 lower

4:04:22 lower number. Yeah, I would

4:04:23 lower number being what?

4:04:25 5.31 million for the town as opposed to

4:04:27 5.6. John,

4:04:30 um thank you Michael for your comments.

4:04:32 Um I you know I do want to say I um I I

4:04:37 fear seeming like the guy who always

4:04:39 says I've been on this board for six

4:04:40 years now and you know uh but I have

4:04:43 seen a lot and uh one of the things I

4:04:46 saw in reference to your comment um

4:04:49 you're not hearing from anybody who's

4:04:51 opposed to this. Um well I know that we

4:04:54 are indeed hearing from dozens and

4:04:56 dozens and dozens of people who strongly

4:04:58 favor this absolute it has to be the you

4:05:01 know the highest number possible. Um and

4:05:04 yes there's a very well um organized yes

4:05:07 campaign and my hat my hats off to them.

4:05:10 Um, this was a mass mailing campaign

4:05:12 where, you know, the many many many many

4:05:14 letters that we received said all all

4:05:16 said pretty much the same thing with

4:05:17 great sincerity and, you know, with

4:05:19 great feeling and and many people took

4:05:21 the trouble to add particulars, you

4:05:23 know, of their own school experience.

4:05:25 I'm not arguing against any of that.

4:05:27 What what I am what I am striving to

4:05:29 point out is because you haven't yet

4:05:33 heard from people who will take umbrage

4:05:36 at being told tonight that they are not

4:05:38 going to be given a choice of even an

4:05:41 85% alternative to the full number

4:05:45 doesn't mean there won't be a campaign.

4:05:49 um not not for the 85%. That that that

4:05:52 would have been a good thing if the

4:05:54 people who are motivated to vote no had

4:05:57 an 85% uh alternative and decided well

4:06:00 we'll give them that. Uh but now they

4:06:02 they're not going to have that. That's

4:06:04 going to strengthen their commitment to

4:06:06 no. Um and it's going to sol solidify

4:06:10 it's going to bring into the uh camp of

4:06:11 of people who might organize a campaign

4:06:14 to vote no. um a lot of people who uh

4:06:19 again w would have been okay with an 85%

4:06:22 approach to the problem, but now being

4:06:25 told that they can't even they can't

4:06:27 even see that on the ballot. They're

4:06:30 they're going to be driven into a vote

4:06:32 they reluctantly they would reluctantly

4:06:34 take which because it's the only thing

4:06:36 left to them maybe to to to vote no. And

4:06:38 and as an example of sort of the

4:06:40 historical example going back to my you

4:06:43 know citing of the of the whole campaign

4:06:45 over the ninth school

4:06:47 before that campaign was even um had

4:06:50 even began uh I happened to run into uh

4:06:54 the the most veteran member of the

4:06:56 school committee at that time who

4:06:58 remained the most veteran member of the

4:07:00 school committee for years afterward and

4:07:02 then uh and no longer as of last year is

4:07:05 on the school committee and she knew

4:07:07 everything and really did know

4:07:09 everything about school campaigns. And I

4:07:12 was on the way out of a meeting. We had

4:07:13 a friendly relationship and I I said to

4:07:16 her, "What you know what's going on

4:07:18 here?" Because the neighborhood I live

4:07:19 in, people are saying to me, they're

4:07:22 they don't want this ninth school that's

4:07:25 being proposed and they're the ones

4:07:26 whose kids would go to it. So, what

4:07:29 what's going what's going on? And she

4:07:31 literally looked at me and said, "There

4:07:34 is no opposition to the ninth school.

4:07:37 and that school ended up being voted

4:07:39 down, you know, by in a in a campaign at

4:07:42 the b on the ballot. So, let's not kid

4:07:46 ourselves that um there's no precedent

4:07:49 for people um rejecting

4:07:53 um uh a question on a ballot when

4:07:56 they're not given a choice. There is a

4:07:58 precedent, and this would have been a

4:07:59 good choice, I'm convinced, uh an 85%

4:08:02 versus 100%, but now we're not even

4:08:05 giving them that. and people are going

4:08:06 to have to decide how they feel about

4:08:08 that.

4:08:10 I think the Baldwin situation is really

4:08:13 not comparable to what we're dealing

4:08:15 with here for the reasons that Michael

4:08:17 mentioned, but also you have to realize

4:08:19 that the opposition to Baldwin. I'm

4:08:22 biased. Okay,

4:08:23 you were for Baldwin. I

4:08:25 was that would have cost us $100 million

4:08:28 and we didn't need it. So, we shouldn't

4:08:31 be happy.

4:08:31 At that point, we did need it. But

4:08:32 anyway, the opposition was a well-funded

4:08:35 campaign by local residents who had

4:08:38 reasons other than, you know, what was

4:08:41 good for the school to to oppose it.

4:08:43 That's my opinion. That may be biased,

4:08:45 but I think that's a big big difference

4:08:47 between what we're dealing with here and

4:08:49 and the Baldin situation.

4:08:51 Well, I pray that you're not wrong. Wow.

4:08:54 And the other thing is, yeah, we don't

4:08:56 know if if the voters will will will uh

4:08:59 vote uh for a 23 24 million override. We

4:09:04 don't know that they won't. And we're

4:09:06 making a judgment based on what we do

4:09:08 know, you know, which is not perfect,

4:09:10 but what we do know in terms of the out

4:09:13 the the uh response to the community as

4:09:17 well as, you know, the analysis that has

4:09:20 gone into the expenditure and override.

4:09:22 um study committee report, the report

4:09:26 that uh the school committee and and

4:09:29 Bella gave us this evening. Um and you

4:09:32 know based on that we we have the basis

4:09:34 for making a judgment but I think

4:09:36 no guarantee

4:09:37 you would agree with me that the

4:09:38 expenditures and revenue study committee

4:09:40 specifically said in their report they

4:09:42 did not have sufficient information as

4:09:44 to whether to recommend a lesser

4:09:45 alternative.

4:09:46 I I

4:09:49 did that's that's another opportunity

4:09:51 lost. they recommended something that I

4:09:53 I no longer agree with.

4:09:55 So, but it's still good information,

4:09:58 still good data that that goes into my

4:10:01 uh my my judgment. So,

4:10:04 Paul,

4:10:05 yeah. So, I um I do not want to uh

4:10:10 continue this discussion.

4:10:12 No, no, no, no. I I don't want to

4:10:14 completely dismiss John's concerns. I

4:10:16 mean, I think John's right and partly

4:10:18 right in that I do believe that that

4:10:20 only having one question on the ballot

4:10:22 will lose some votes. The question is,

4:10:24 is it will it lose enough where it

4:10:26 doesn't pass? Um, and I

4:10:30 I feel

4:10:33 I feel strongly that there's such a

4:10:35 compelling case that if we don't pass

4:10:38 this um if you pass it at 85, John, we

4:10:42 still we still have a train wreck in

4:10:44 front of us. Um because your 85%

4:10:49 well you not yours but a proposed 85%

4:10:52 which I understand your logic for it and

4:10:54 I do believe it there's some wisdom

4:10:56 there.

4:10:59 It's dependent upon things that are

4:11:00 totally outside of our control. You know

4:11:02 in order to get 80 to get our 83% health

4:11:06 care number uh reimbursement down our

4:11:09 contribution 83 down to like 72 or

4:11:11 something that's more in line with

4:11:12 communities around us. You need some

4:11:15 percentage of the unions to agree. You

4:11:17 know, that's, you know, that's

4:11:20 if they don't,

4:11:21 then they we we pay 83%.

4:11:23 And if the and if the voters deny the

4:11:25 override, then what do we do?

4:11:28 Right. Well, if the voters don't if the

4:11:29 voters don't approve the the override,

4:11:31 John, um you know, we have bigger

4:11:34 problems than 83. We're going to solve

4:11:36 our 83%. By getting rid of all the

4:11:38 employees. Yeah.

4:11:39 Right. So, we won't we won't have health

4:11:41 insurance. 83% 85%. We're talking about

4:11:43 two different things. We're talking

4:11:44 about the cost of our healthare. Yeah,

4:11:46 right. But but all I'm saying is the the

4:11:48 assumption of 85 is that you can

4:11:51 negotiate

4:11:52 steps and lanes. You can negotiate uh

4:11:55 better terms on on salary increases. You

4:11:59 can negotiate uh you know collectively

4:12:01 on insurance. And I think that that's

4:12:03 risky. I don't I think that that that

4:12:07 you can't assume that's going to happen.

4:12:08 I think if we can't,

4:12:11 we're in even worse trouble than we

4:12:13 thought because that means the question

4:12:15 I posed for our our very good school

4:12:17 superintendent.

4:12:18 Is this what we can expect to see

4:12:21 forever? Four and a half% 5%. 6% 4%. 5%

4:12:28 6%. Every year, year after year, year

4:12:31 after year. And I talked to somebody who

4:12:35 I I I have to be careful how I describe

4:12:37 this person. Let's just say their

4:12:39 bonafides on a yes campaign are as good

4:12:43 as anybody's in Brooklyn.

4:12:45 And that person today is very very

4:12:47 concerned.

4:12:48 Yeah, I know. He was in the room. He

4:12:50 didn't get

4:12:51 not and and I encouraged him to speak.

4:12:54 He didn't speak

4:12:54 made the case to us as select board

4:12:56 members from his vantage point.

4:12:59 Shouldn't have even said his, but

4:13:00 anyway,

4:13:00 he's from this person's vantage point,

4:13:03 you know, as someone who really knows

4:13:06 yes campaigns.

4:13:07 Yeah. that the time has come for there

4:13:10 to be an alternative to the the to the

4:13:14 one and only approach to, you know, 100%

4:13:16 of what we want. Um, and for the very

4:13:20 reasons that I tried to articulate, he

4:13:22 could probably articulate them better.

4:13:24 Yeah. No, he did, you know, it's real.

4:13:25 It's real and it's out there and it

4:13:27 isn't just the traditional no crowd.

4:13:29 I know, Michael.

4:13:30 Um, I sort of want to pick up on Paul's

4:13:34 point about uh the the cost of

4:13:37 and the other uh sort of personnel costs

4:13:41 that we are bearing at ever ever

4:13:43 increasing rates and the whether it's in

4:13:46 the memorandum of agreement or the goals

4:13:49 of both the superintendent and the town

4:13:51 administrator in upcoming negotiations

4:13:53 with unions. Um uh I don't think that by

4:13:58 passing this passing full funding or

4:14:02 proposing full funding that we should be

4:14:05 signaling in any way our lack of

4:14:09 commitment to empower the superintendent

4:14:14 to whatever degree we have and the town

4:14:17 administrator to whatever degree we have

4:14:19 to forcefully engage in those

4:14:21 negotiations. I agree with you that 83%

4:14:26 is not a sustainable number in terms of

4:14:28 our payment on health insurance. But it

4:14:31 is also true that even if we lower that

4:14:33 number, whether it's to 80 or 75 or we

4:14:36 we manage to stagger it for new

4:14:38 employees or any number of the other

4:14:40 ways that we could address that issue,

4:14:42 that is still a only a one-time

4:14:47 improvement to our budgetary picture. Um

4:14:51 given continually rising health care

4:14:54 costs.

4:14:54 So other other communities are

4:14:56 negotiating that down.

4:14:57 Sure,

4:14:58 it's not impossible to negotiate

4:15:00 something down.

4:15:00 I agree.

4:15:02 But it's not it's not instantaneous

4:15:03 either,

4:15:05 but they're doing it.

4:15:09 Oh, I I definitely So I I think it is a

4:15:11 good point to say we are not giving up

4:15:12 on this. I definitely don't. We we can't

4:15:14 we can't take the change as a given

4:15:16 either because we don't have the control

4:15:18 over it, which is and I understand

4:15:20 that's frustrating. We can't we can't

4:15:21 assume something that isn't there. But

4:15:23 we are in a unique place. Like I called

4:15:25 when Newton moved their numbers, I

4:15:27 called the mayor. I called then Mayor

4:15:29 Fuller. Um and I said, "How did you do

4:15:32 it? How how on earth did you make it

4:15:34 happen?" She said, "I'm the mayor. I can

4:15:35 do it." Uh I said, "What?" Uh and it's

4:15:39 not just that we're a town form of

4:15:40 government and they're a city form of

4:15:42 government. It's that we got into the

4:15:43 GIC too early. Um and when we got into

4:15:46 the GIC, the rules were different. And

4:15:48 because our rules, we're stuck in those

4:15:51 rules and we're one of the only

4:15:52 communities that are um you know, people

4:15:54 have told me that back when Sean Cronin

4:15:56 was in Melissa's job that we actually

4:15:58 pushed for a special act in the

4:16:00 legislature to let us go by the other

4:16:02 rules that the other communities use and

4:16:04 we didn't get it. Um I'm willing to do

4:16:06 that again. Um I think we should take

4:16:08 another crack at that. Um, but I'm also

4:16:10 I also want to

4:16:14 use every tool at our disposal to

4:16:16 negotiate in good faith with these

4:16:17 teams, with the folks who came here

4:16:18 tonight and made the case. You know, I

4:16:21 want to work collaboratively with them

4:16:22 to get to a solution here. So, I want

4:16:24 people to know that we are not throwing

4:16:27 up our hands and giving up on this. We

4:16:28 know that it's not sustainable and I

4:16:30 think in their heart of hearts, they

4:16:31 know that it's not sustainable. And so,

4:16:33 we all are going to have to work on what

4:16:34 that means and we're all going to have

4:16:36 to phase that in over time. whatever

4:16:38 that solution is, but we're committed to

4:16:40 getting to a solution.

4:16:42 Okay. Um I think Paul has

4:16:44 just just just

4:16:46 and I know John wants to continue with

4:16:48 this but you know one of the points

4:16:50 about um I argue but against myself

4:16:54 sometimes you know so Dick Banker who I

4:16:56 have tremendous respect for you know

4:16:58 Dick um I think Dick would be advocating

4:17:02 for for a t you know two numbers um to

4:17:05 have a choice but his reason for a

4:17:08 choice is not necessarily you know to

4:17:10 give people a choice so they'll vote for

4:17:12 for it. You know, Dick is probably maybe

4:17:14 in line with some of your thinking,

4:17:16 John, that and I'm not going to speak

4:17:17 for Dick, but I I I think this maybe is

4:17:20 where he was going with it is that you

4:17:22 need to force the conversation.

4:17:24 Yes.

4:17:24 You need, you know, you need to force

4:17:26 the conversation. So, um if you if you

4:17:29 did some less number, um you would be

4:17:32 forced to have the conversation.

4:17:34 Yes. I'm not convinced even being forced

4:17:36 to have the conversation that the unions

4:17:38 would then agree um to it and we'd still

4:17:41 end up with with with the the layoffs

4:17:43 and other things that we're going to

4:17:45 have. My concern is even at the 85%

4:17:47 number, John, um you're seeing the cuts

4:17:49 in the school system, the basic things

4:17:52 for in in grade school where music and

4:17:55 chorus and support in the first grade,

4:17:58 that's the stuff you lose at 85%.

4:18:00 um that's really that's troubling and

4:18:03 that I mean that on itself is not

4:18:05 acceptable. So I I think an 85% and I

4:18:09 don't I forget what the what the impact

4:18:10 was on the town side um at at 85% but I

4:18:14 know it was uh

4:18:15 around 580,000. It's it's it's two

4:18:18 police positions. It's it's um the DPW

4:18:21 three DPW positions.

4:18:23 Yeah. So, but but here but the thing I

4:18:25 think the town continues to function,

4:18:28 frankly, at 85%.

4:18:30 It's painful. I think I think the grade

4:18:32 schools it's a disaster.

4:18:34 How would they do at zero?

4:18:36 Well, that's at zero. That that is a

4:18:39 town saying that we're okay with the

4:18:42 schools being devastated.

4:18:43 Yeah.

4:18:44 That we we should then ask them again.

4:18:46 No, I don't think so. I don't know. I

4:18:48 mean,

4:18:48 it could be them saying, "Why didn't you

4:18:50 give at least give us a chance to vote

4:18:52 for something 80 how how reasonable is

4:18:55 85% versus 100%."

4:18:57 It's not reasonable.

4:18:58 Oh, well, then we have a different

4:19:01 definition of reasonable, you know, and

4:19:04 you know, you know, I I I appreciate,

4:19:07 you know, Paul Paul's comments, but uh

4:19:10 you know, I I just think uh at the end

4:19:12 of the day, it's all going to come down

4:19:14 in the mind of the voters. They didn't

4:19:15 even give us a choice. the ones who are

4:19:18 the ones who are opposed.

4:19:19 John, you're talking about the

4:19:20 collective bargaining implications. If

4:19:22 an override fully funded fails, then the

4:19:26 voters have given us a very clear

4:19:28 message that we can then take to the

4:19:30 unions in these negotiations.

4:19:32 Same thing with 85%.

4:19:33 No, but without the harm. I don't think

4:19:35 without the harm because with 85% there

4:19:38 would still be that lingering question.

4:19:40 Did the 85 would the 85%

4:19:43 uh would the 23 million would the fully

4:19:46 funded version have passed if we didn't

4:19:48 have the 85%? There would be that

4:19:51 question. We wouldn't know. And so I I

4:19:53 think it would be status quo. If the

4:19:55 voters come back and actually reject an

4:19:57 override, that's a very clear message

4:19:59 that we need to change the way we

4:20:01 structure things.

4:20:02 That's I mean it's a strange

4:20:03 formulation. Would would the full

4:20:05 funding have passed if we didn't have

4:20:07 the 85%?

4:20:09 Well, uh, sure, if you deny people even

4:20:12 their 85%, some of them might, but that

4:20:15 doesn't mean that they were for 100%.

4:20:17 You know, um, so, so I mean, are you

4:20:20 satisfied that like by forcing voters to

4:20:24 do this all or nothing choice? We're

4:20:26 going to make a whole bunch of them, you

4:20:27 know, agree to something that they don't

4:20:29 really agree with, but it was the only

4:20:30 choice given to them.

4:20:32 Okay, why don't we uh vote? No, I mean

4:20:35 it's clear where this is going, but

4:20:36 Well, can I So, first I want to say I do

4:20:38 want to say

4:20:39 I don't want to extend this out into the

4:20:41 next day.

4:20:42 And and and I do want to say this and

4:20:44 hopefully I won't be crossing any lines,

4:20:45 but this is exactly why John's so

4:20:47 helpful for the board because I think he

4:20:49 makes us think like I think if he wasn't

4:20:52 sitting there, we would have ran off the

4:20:53 cliff of 100%, you know, 30 minutes ago.

4:20:56 Um

4:20:58 he he is raising very valid points and

4:21:01 it's some I'm not going to change my

4:21:03 mind on this, but I think we're rolling

4:21:05 the dice a bit with putting one number

4:21:08 on the ballot. I do think it's it's it's

4:21:11 a little bit of a rolling the dice. Um

4:21:14 and it's an all or nothing bet. Um and I

4:21:19 you know I had conversations before we

4:21:21 came back in with with the folks outside

4:21:23 saying it's it's a roll of the dice. Um,

4:21:26 it could fail. Um, I think it's it's a

4:21:29 stark choice that that we can make the

4:21:31 case and I guess we could come back

4:21:33 later like Arlington did or stone them.

4:21:37 Uh, but it's it would be very painful if

4:21:38 it fails.

4:21:39 It's a rolling of the dice as every

4:21:41 override is.

4:21:42 Our job is to make sure that people

4:21:44 understand the consequences of one

4:21:47 decision versus another.

4:21:49 Uh, and the importance of a school

4:21:51 system to not just the kids, right, but

4:21:54 to our community. Yeah,

4:21:55 I mean I don't want to have our

4:21:58 reputation across the country besmer

4:22:00 smirked by our failure to support our

4:22:03 schools and the devastating impact that

4:22:05 that failure will have. So yes, it's

4:22:08 it's a rolling of the dice, but uh you

4:22:10 know that that's that's life.

4:22:12 I got to say one last thing if you don't

4:22:14 mind. Um because I keep bringing up the

4:22:16 Discll school example. When that went

4:22:20 down, it was a year before Discll was

4:22:23 brought back. That that was a that was a

4:22:25 painful year. And um so don't assume

4:22:29 that's a little different. I mean

4:22:30 don't assume it'll be a week later. You

4:22:32 know, we we do it all over again.

4:22:34 Oh, however long it is. But but Driscoll

4:22:36 was the building of a school. Yeah.

4:22:39 As opposed to supporting a school

4:22:41 system.

4:22:42 Yeah.

4:22:42 That's on the brink of of uh bad

4:22:46 situation.

4:22:46 Yeah. Let's vote. you know, and you

4:22:48 know, the the the override vote occurs

4:22:51 two months before the new fiscal year

4:22:53 begins, you know, and if it goes down,

4:22:56 Yeah. Yeah.

4:22:57 It's it's not a good option, but you

4:22:59 know, the voters tell us that we have to

4:23:01 do that, maybe we have to do it.

4:23:04 Just just one last question. So,

4:23:05 logistically, in terms of coming back

4:23:07 for another override vote, if it's

4:23:09 necessary, how quickly can that

4:23:12 realistically happen? So you have you

4:23:14 got to set the question within 45 days

4:23:16 of the election. The election has to be

4:23:19 called and set up and all of those

4:23:20 things. What communities have done

4:23:22 historically to hedge their bets in this

4:23:24 situation is they have called

4:23:26 contingency elections during town

4:23:28 meeting. Or that is to say at at some

4:23:30 point in April, you would call an

4:23:32 election in for June or July during town

4:23:37 during the weeks of town meeting before

4:23:39 the budget is passed so that the voters

4:23:41 would have another crack at voting on

4:23:42 something before the FY27 budget was

4:23:46 passed. But I need to talk to the town

4:23:47 clerk about how the logistics of

4:23:49 I really appreciate that answer because

4:23:51 it it it opens the door to now voters

4:23:55 are going to think, "Oh, they didn't

4:23:57 give me a choice." No, I wouldn't

4:23:59 and I can vote no and then town meeting

4:24:02 can call for a second.

4:24:03 Well, no town within weeks.

4:24:05 Town meeting can't, right? So town So

4:24:07 you as the select board would basically

4:24:08 have to call a contingency election not

4:24:10 knowing the outcome of the first

4:24:11 election. That's by the way, I don't

4:24:14 really want to talk about a contingency

4:24:16 election because the point is we got to

4:24:18 pass this override and I think the

4:24:20 community is committed to the town

4:24:23 services and school services

4:24:25 sufficiently that you know we have a

4:24:27 great chance of doing that especially if

4:24:29 we explain the consequences of not

4:24:32 passing it and and uh you what we get by

4:24:35 pass bypassing it. So the discussion of

4:24:39 you know contingency

4:24:41 yeah I think it adds it just adds risk

4:24:42 to the whole thing but I I I think a no

4:24:45 vote says you know we don't we don't

4:24:46 value these services to the extent that

4:24:48 you're that you're paying for it. So

4:24:49 anyway I'm

4:24:50 okay so um what's the question

4:24:55 the the level that we are shooting for?

4:24:57 Well, the first question I think is um

4:25:00 we can combine them, but the first

4:25:02 question is whether we go for a uh uh

4:25:05 tiered override or a single line

4:25:07 override.

4:25:08 Well, we don't need we don't I think we

4:25:09 could just move to put

4:25:11 John wants to have on the record that he

4:25:13 opposed.

4:25:14 No, no, no, no, no.

4:25:15 I'm I'm sorry, John.

4:25:17 But I think people are confused again.

4:25:19 Uh when I when you said the first

4:25:21 question is we have over here I thought

4:25:23 you were back to talking about the two

4:25:24 different versions of the full funding.

4:25:26 I didn't know what you're talking about.

4:25:28 Then that's confusing on using the

4:25:30 terminology on my part. I'm sorry. I I

4:25:32 think what the chair is saying is is

4:25:34 this is this exactly your question. Do

4:25:36 you want to have a question if do you

4:25:37 want to have a question on the ballot

4:25:38 that is other than the full funding

4:25:40 request?

4:25:40 Right. A question that that goes to

4:25:42 whatever it is 85% or what have you. Um

4:25:46 is that is that what you're

4:25:47 Oh yeah. Yeah. Sure. I you know I'd move

4:25:49 that you know but I I know what the

4:25:51 result is going to be. But I I do think

4:25:53 that's the issue here.

4:25:54 That's the only time pretty much the

4:25:56 only alternative.

4:25:57 Do you want to move that?

4:25:58 I move that we have uh as as an

4:26:01 alternative to the full funded question

4:26:03 uh a question that is at a level of 85%

4:26:06 funding.

4:26:07 Okay. So that's two tier.

4:26:10 Okay.

4:26:11 But he's setting the tier which is fine.

4:26:13 Okay. I'm sorry.

4:26:14 Two questions.

4:26:15 Two hot dogs. I don't whatever you want

4:26:17 to call it.

4:26:19 Okay. All in favor of John's u motion uh

4:26:22 please indicate by saying I. John

4:26:23 Vansoy. I

4:26:25 Paul Warren

4:26:26 abstain.

4:26:27 Abstain. David Pearlman.

4:26:30 No.

4:26:31 Michael Rubenstein.

4:26:32 No.

4:26:33 And chair votes no.

4:26:35 Okay. What else do we have to decide?

4:26:38 Now we have to vote to I move to put

4:26:40 23.6

4:26:41 whatever the number. What's the number?

4:26:43 Chad,

4:26:43 you have two options. You get 23.6 which

4:26:45 gives the town. So you have 23.5

4:26:49 and change or 23.2 and change. You get

4:26:52 the town's number from the from the

4:26:54 fully phased uh from the upfront.

4:26:57 What did you say? You were you were your

4:27:00 concern was what's that impact on the

4:27:01 taxpayers?

4:27:02 Right. The percentage numbers,

4:27:05 right? It's 0.009. I'm sorry. It's it's

4:27:08 right. It's 0.09%

4:27:10 um more overall. Um,

4:27:15 and so what that means is in terms of

4:27:19 like the actual dollar value for um,

4:27:24 taxpayers, you're going to see for

4:27:27 median single family and I want to you I

4:27:29 I think Dick's formulation on this is

4:27:31 helpful because I don't want to hide the

4:27:32 ball on this. I want to be very clear

4:27:34 that this is an upfront and ongoing

4:27:36 cost. So um, whereas in the 23.25 25 the

4:27:43 median single family goes up um by an

4:27:47 additional $619

4:27:50 in this version. It goes up by an

4:27:51 additional $637 in year one. Um so

4:27:56 that's

4:27:56 okay

4:27:57 $18, but that's $18 then going forward.

4:27:59 Right. I you're not you're you're not

4:28:01 answering the key question that I was

4:28:03 asking relative to 23 and I'm not sure

4:28:05 you're going to be able to give me that

4:28:08 number. So, if I were to take your

4:28:10 motion, I would take the 23.25 number.

4:28:13 It feels It feels It feels funny to me,

4:28:15 Chaz, to like trying to bump the number

4:28:17 up a little bit at this. It just feels

4:28:19 weird to me. I I think we should stick

4:28:21 with the lower number.

4:28:22 Stick with what works. Stick with So, so

4:28:24 the motion is

4:28:25 So, wait, what what what is the

4:28:27 difference between the 3.5? It it it the

4:28:30 difference is the amount of reserves

4:28:33 that we are giving to the town to put in

4:28:36 their override stabilization.

4:28:38 So isn't the real question whether we go

4:28:41 with the town

4:28:44 you know fees being paid upfront and the

4:28:47 schools being paid over time or the

4:28:49 entire amount being paid over time. Yes,

4:28:52 that that is the question and in my

4:28:54 motion I am proposing an answer to that

4:28:56 question which is that the town

4:29:00 take its money up front

4:29:02 and the school which is the

4:29:03 significantly larger number to be pay as

4:29:05 you go.

4:29:06 Okay. And and that's the 23

4:29:08 that's the 23.25. Okay.

4:29:10 We wouldn't put the 18.6.

4:29:12 Right. Right.

4:29:13 Right.

4:29:15 I have

4:29:16 and sorry

4:29:18 then the next question if that fails is

4:29:21 do we put the entire amount up front

4:29:26 but that's not a question you have to

4:29:27 answer now. Um,

4:29:29 well, he's I'd like to answer.

4:29:30 Well, he's asking do you want to have

4:29:32 So, you're asking do you want to have

4:29:33 another number on the ballot?

4:29:35 18.

4:29:35 No, it's not another number. Whe whether

4:29:37 the num the 23,000 23 million number is

4:29:42 structured so that the town piece is

4:29:44 paid up front

4:29:45 and the school is not. Yes. Or

4:29:47 the entire amount is paid up front.

4:29:50 So, the the entire

4:29:52 and that is put on the levy up front.

4:29:54 Yeah. I think that I think

4:29:56 I I think we should take the quote on

4:29:57 the first one and then answer your

4:30:00 question.

4:30:00 Can I can I ask a question about that?

4:30:02 So with with the entire amount being

4:30:05 placed up or put on this the levy uh in

4:30:10 the first year

4:30:12 the cost is going to be lower than you

4:30:14 know the other alternative

4:30:16 um over three years or is it

4:30:20 no it will be

4:30:21 higher over that's right higher over how

4:30:23 much is it What what what about over

4:30:25 four years,

4:30:26 right? In the long run, it winds up

4:30:27 being less. Okay.

4:30:28 But that's that's it's your question of

4:30:30 your time horizon, right? Um I think

4:30:32 Dick does a good job of explaining it in

4:30:34 what he sent you, what he showed on the

4:30:35 screen.

4:30:35 No, I understand that. But but the the

4:30:37 other issue is if if um putting

4:30:40 everything up front or putting

4:30:42 everything on the levy up front um helps

4:30:46 us to avoid falling off a cliff in 30.

4:30:51 Then we're we're be able to tell people

4:30:53 that um you know you have four years at

4:30:56 least of not having an override versus

4:31:01 three years of you know less payments.

4:31:05 but another override in the fourth year.

4:31:08 I think realistically

4:31:11 I I think at this at this hour trying to

4:31:14 trying to game out how to how to get to

4:31:16 that number. Um I

4:31:20 Let me see if I understand what you're

4:31:21 asking. Sorry. You're saying the 23 we

4:31:25 we're going to take the number the 23.25

4:31:27 million. That's the number. And your

4:31:29 question is how much of that do we take

4:31:31 up front versus phasing? Right now the

4:31:34 proposal is the town takes 5.31 million

4:31:36 of that upfront.

4:31:38 No, no, no, no. The the question is if

4:31:40 we take the entire amount up front,

4:31:43 what is the difference between three

4:31:45 years and four years and it

4:31:49 do we have do we have a deficit in the

4:31:52 fourth year if we don't take it all up

4:31:55 front?

4:31:55 Yes, you do. Um but you're you're going

4:31:58 to again you're going to confront this

4:32:00 no matter what, right? you're going to

4:32:02 confront because your policies snap back

4:32:04 because all these assumptions come due.

4:32:06 You're going to confront what do we do

4:32:07 in FY30. That's going to be a hinge year

4:32:10 regardless of what happens here. Some of

4:32:13 that you're going to be able to solve or

4:32:15 mitigate with changes in policy

4:32:17 hopefully. Some of that you're going to

4:32:18 be able to mitigate by getting your

4:32:20 health care split resolved in a more

4:32:22 healthy way. Um and you know that that

4:32:25 gap will go down. Um, but if you take

4:32:29 all of that upfront, um, that's a pretty

4:32:33 sizable hit to the taxpayer. Um, does it

4:32:36 get you through FY30?

4:32:38 I I I I'll do the math for you, but I

4:32:40 think yes, it does, but it will it will

4:32:44 come at a significant cost. And so, it's

4:32:47 also a deviation from how you do

4:32:49 business traditionally, right? Okay.

4:32:50 And so, I mean, I'll I'll run it for you

4:32:53 right now. Um, we do 23

4:32:57 25 million.

4:32:59 As you're as you're uh calculating that,

4:33:02 can I ask whether the answer to this

4:33:04 question actually affects what you put

4:33:06 on the ballot?

4:33:08 No, it does not.

4:33:09 Okay.

4:33:10 Again, you you the commitment that you

4:33:12 make to the community about how you

4:33:14 phase this in is a separate question.

4:33:17 Um, now you have to decide that question

4:33:20 before the voter guides go out, before

4:33:23 the ballot, before the town council sets

4:33:25 the ballot description and all of those

4:33:27 things. So, you have less time than you

4:33:28 think you do.

4:33:29 But theoretically, yes, you could set

4:33:32 this question at 23.25 million and then

4:33:35 decide, okay, we're going to take extra

4:33:37 money off the levy up front as long as

4:33:39 you're honest with the voters about it.

4:33:40 As long as you make clear to the voters,

4:33:42 this is what we're doing. But again, to

4:33:43 the point that's been raised, query

4:33:46 whether you want to do that. Um, it's a

4:33:48 it's a departure from how you've done

4:33:50 business.

4:33:51 Yeah.

4:33:51 Okay. So, you're you're backing off of

4:33:53 your proposal.

4:33:55 No, no. I'm I'm saying it's the point

4:33:58 that Paul raised, right? What ENRSC has

4:34:00 been through this whole time, what what

4:34:02 everyone has been through is the

4:34:03 assumption that the town is going to

4:34:04 take the money up front, which is a

4:34:06 little different than how we've done

4:34:07 things in the past, in order to keep the

4:34:09 overall dollar amount down because the

4:34:11 school's number is so big. And the

4:34:14 schools are going to take the money

4:34:15 phase as they always have because

4:34:18 they're going to they're they they're

4:34:20 going to defay the shock to voters in

4:34:23 the first year and they're going to to

4:34:25 the superintendent's point um you know

4:34:28 build out you know demonstrate stability

4:34:30 in their costs going forward. Um

4:34:32 stability in the cost increases going

4:34:34 forward to demonstrate that they're you

4:34:36 know this

4:34:36 but but you you you have been arguing

4:34:38 that uh taking everything up front

4:34:42 had advantages.

4:34:43 It does.

4:34:44 Absolutely. But I think

4:34:45 it also has disadvantages and I and I

4:34:47 and I and I think the argument

4:34:49 I'm sorry. Go ahead.

4:34:50 Yeah. And and and that the implication

4:34:52 was you supported that.

4:34:53 I do. Um I and I I continue to but I

4:34:56 also I'm I'm mindful of the fact that

4:34:58 the feedback that I've gotten from

4:35:01 the consensus of the board feels like

4:35:03 it's moving against that option.

4:35:04 Okay.

4:35:04 And that's fine with me. Um I I respect

4:35:07 that.

4:35:07 Okay. So why don't we vote on that?

4:35:09 Okay.

4:35:11 Make your motion. So I would like to

4:35:13 move that we put a 23.25

4:35:18 approximately number that represents

4:35:21 that represents full funding for the

4:35:25 town and the schools where the funding

4:35:28 for the town is taken in the fir in the

4:35:32 first year. Um the the the funding from

4:35:36 the levy for the town is all taken in

4:35:38 the first year and the funding for the

4:35:40 schools is taken on a on a uh as as

4:35:44 needed for their budget over three

4:35:46 years.

4:35:48 Is that consistent chaz with the what um

4:35:50 that's not what the ballot question

4:35:51 would say but I so I have language on a

4:35:53 ballot question if that if that helps.

4:35:55 Sure.

4:35:56 Town council is here and can check my

4:35:57 check my words. Okay. Right. So moved to

4:36:00 place on the ballot for the May 5th,

4:36:02 2026 municipal election the following

4:36:04 question. Shall the town of Brooklyn be

4:36:07 allowed to assess an additional

4:36:08 23,254,439

4:36:13 in real estate and personal property

4:36:15 taxes for the purposes of funding the

4:36:17 costs of Brookline public schools at

4:36:20 17,944,439

4:36:25 and funding the costs of additional

4:36:26 expenditures and municipal departments

4:36:28 at 5,310,000

4:36:31 for the fiscal year beginning July 1,

4:36:34 2026.

4:36:36 for the fiscal year.

4:36:37 Yes or no?

4:36:38 Starting July 1, 2020.

4:36:39 That's FY27.

4:36:41 Oh, right. Okay.

4:36:45 David, you

4:36:46 Oh, okay.

4:36:48 Okay. So, you have your motion.

4:36:50 So moved.

4:36:51 Okay. All in favor? John Vancoyak?

4:36:54 Abstain.

4:36:55 Um Paul Warren,

4:36:57 yes.

4:36:57 David Pearlman,

4:36:58 yes.

4:36:59 Michael Rubenstein,

4:37:00 yes.

4:37:01 And chair votes, yes.

4:37:03 We've done our job.

4:37:06 23.254439

4:37:09 is the question. I will just say now

4:37:12 that the So, you have time until the

4:37:14 ballot closes. Presumably, you know, if

4:37:16 things

4:37:18 go pear-shaped for some reason, we can

4:37:20 talk about it next week. I will say now

4:37:22 that a ballot question has been set um

4:37:26 there's limits to what staff can do um

4:37:29 in terms of our advocacy and all of

4:37:31 those because I'm a policym official. I

4:37:34 can talk about I can talk about you know

4:37:36 general impacts and so forth but I would

4:37:38 just ask folks um to please um respect

4:37:43 staff if they if you ask questions of

4:37:45 them and they say I'm sorry I can't

4:37:46 answer that. Please do not pick pictures

4:37:49 of staff in uniform. Please do not use

4:37:51 staff as props before or or um uh

4:37:56 material um of uh that belongs to the

4:38:00 town for or against

4:38:03 um a political campaign. Um it's it

4:38:06 those things can get very ugly very

4:38:08 fast. Um

4:38:08 and we did get into some trouble if I

4:38:10 remember uh with

4:38:11 on the pier on the pier school with some

4:38:14 some communication using school

4:38:15 resources. Right. So we want to avoid

4:38:17 that wasn't us that was a school

4:38:18 employee. Yeah, I understand. But I just

4:38:20 we we can we can advocate.

4:38:23 You all can ad Yes.

4:38:24 Just can't use um town resources.

4:38:26 Can I ask Jazz a quick question? Because

4:38:28 you said something, you know, until the

4:38:29 ballot is set, if the thing uh goes

4:38:32 pear-shaped.

4:38:33 Yes.

4:38:33 What did you mean by that?

4:38:35 I mean, if you suddenly wake up tomorrow

4:38:36 and have buyer remorse

4:38:38 and wanted to put a second and wanted to

4:38:39 put an 85% on the on the ballot, we

4:38:41 could do that up until when?

4:38:42 We could do that until midnight on the

4:38:44 31st.

4:38:44 Okay.

4:38:46 All right.

4:38:47 I would just say right I will

4:38:49 that's what you meant by peers the peer

4:38:51 shaped

4:38:51 no pear-shaped not

4:38:52 pearshaped okay

4:38:53 peers shaped is more complicated than

4:38:54 pear-shaped uh

4:38:57 um but yeah I will just say I I will

4:39:00 send out my usual message to staff about

4:39:02 what we can and can't do I would just

4:39:04 say please respect people's

4:39:06 wishes and time on this I know that's

4:39:08 hard um I know people are advocating

4:39:10 very strongly in both directions on this

4:39:12 just you know please respect the fact

4:39:14 that we all are you know most of the

4:39:16 folks who are involved in this are just

4:39:17 trying to do their jobs um and can't be

4:39:20 can't be seen as advocates one way or

4:39:22 the other. So, thanks.

4:39:24 Okay, Mr. Chair.

4:39:26 Yes.

4:39:26 Uh I just want to I I just want I just

4:39:29 want to offer a thought. Um since we

4:39:31 obviously will not need to deal with

4:39:33 this at next week's board meeting. Um

4:39:36 and it's now past 10 10 o'clock. No,

4:39:39 it's not past, but it's approaching 10

4:39:41 o'clock. Would it be feasible to um

4:39:44 defer some if not all of the remaining

4:39:47 items till the following week?

4:39:50 Um I guess can we can do that, right?

4:39:52 Let me see. Let's can we can we check

4:39:54 the schedule?

4:39:55 The question is that means the following

4:39:57 weeks are going to be very very

4:39:58 very packed. And I I do think you've got

4:40:00 you've got departmental budgets people

4:40:02 are ready to go on this and you have

4:40:03 warrant articles that we've asked people

4:40:05 to come in for and I think those folks

4:40:07 have been staying for a while. I would

4:40:08 feel bad if we told them having stayed

4:40:10 till 9:50.

4:40:12 Just just just kidding. Um,

4:40:14 how about item 11 rights of first

4:40:16 refusal? Could that be put off or people

4:40:21 waiting around to speak on that?

4:40:23 The team is waiting.

4:40:24 Cara is online.

4:40:24 Cara is online. Why don't you

4:40:27 Why don't we take 11?

4:40:28 Yeah. Why don't you Why don't you take

4:40:29 that? I mean, you could off.

4:40:31 No, you can you could take that now

4:40:32 because Cara is here.

4:40:33 Um, Sean O'Neal has been online for

4:40:36 hours. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm

4:40:37 worried about.

4:40:38 Yeah. Okay.

4:40:39 Commission on women.

4:40:40 So, why don't you why don't you do why

4:40:42 don't we do this? Um maybe um Melanie,

4:40:45 can you reach out to the Warren article

4:40:46 petitioners who are here with our

4:40:48 She is here

4:40:49 with our apologies and just maybe we'll

4:40:51 email them. Um so folks, if you're

4:40:53 online, look for an email from Melanie.

4:40:55 See whether or not it's feasible to go

4:40:57 next week.

4:40:58 Again, I we apologize. Um but we want to

4:41:00 make sure that everyone that you get a

4:41:02 full consideration here and not in the

4:41:04 middle of the night. The parking stuff

4:41:05 we can put off. That's no problem.

4:41:07 Okay.

4:41:07 Um, talking about the override

4:41:09 stabilization fund, no problem. We can

4:41:10 put that off.

4:41:11 Just send a chat real quick to Chi and

4:41:15 Yeah,

4:41:16 Chi and Jessica are here for their

4:41:17 warrant articles.

4:41:19 Thank you.

4:41:24 So, that leaves us with what?

4:41:27 112.

4:41:31 How about 13?

4:41:34 online.

4:41:35 They're here.

4:41:35 Oh, they're here. Well, then definitely.

4:41:37 Yeah.

4:41:38 Okay. Uh Melody. Okay. Who was Did we

4:41:41 have an interviewee for the um

4:41:44 disability commission?

4:41:45 No.

4:41:46 Who was it that you said

4:41:47 for disability for doing his annual

4:41:49 report?

4:41:50 Okay. So, that's what we're putting off.

4:41:52 He'll come next week because he was

4:41:54 having technical difficulties with

4:41:56 getting his um listening device to

4:41:58 because he need because he's visually

4:42:00 impaired. He needed the listening device

4:42:01 to tell him when to for his slides.

4:42:03 there was a a difficulty with the device

4:42:05 he was using. So come back

4:42:06 so then we can postpone 13. Okay. So why

4:42:09 don't we start uh can we start with um

4:42:12 commission for women so that Sean can

4:42:14 Yes.

4:42:16 Okay. Go ahead.

4:42:17 Let me pull Sean in.

4:42:20 Sorry Cara, but

4:42:24 Well, but Cara's next after this.

4:42:26 Yeah. Okay.

4:42:27 Maybe that will be a short conversation.

4:42:39 Sean, are you there?

4:42:42 Yes.

4:42:42 Okay, great. Thank you for your

4:42:44 patience.

4:42:45 Okay,

4:42:48 Sean, uh, introduce yourself and tell us

4:42:50 why you want to be on the, um, Brookline

4:42:54 Commission for Women.

4:42:56 My name is Sean O'Neal and I've lived

4:42:59 here for over 40 years. I am a disabled

4:43:04 woman.

4:43:06 Um, and I'm running for library trustee

4:43:10 because I care deeply about the role

4:43:15 uh library

4:43:18 in our community.

4:43:23 Um,

4:43:30 decisions

4:43:32 that keep the library strong,

4:43:41 strong, relevant, and accessible.

4:43:46 Balancing tradition

4:43:49 with innovation.

4:43:54 Sean Sean, you're applying for the

4:43:57 Commission on Women.

4:43:59 Oh,

4:43:59 do we have that wrong?

4:44:00 Sorry.

4:44:01 I'm sorry. No, you have it right. I have

4:44:03 it wrong.

4:44:04 Okay.

4:44:05 So,

4:44:07 I want to be

4:44:08 Yeah.

4:44:09 in

4:44:11 the women's commission group because I

4:44:14 feel like I have a lot to give. Um,

4:44:19 being a handicapped individual, I can

4:44:22 help to add

4:44:25 more innovative changes

4:44:29 for our handicap and elderly in our

4:44:34 community.

4:44:36 I am ready to do the job before me if I

4:44:41 become library trustee.

4:44:44 Thank you.

4:44:45 Member of the women's commission. Um

4:44:47 I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

4:44:51 So Sean,

4:44:52 member of the women's

4:44:54 Sean tell me uh what are some of the

4:44:56 issues relevant to

4:44:59 uh tenants in BHA housing where you

4:45:01 live? uh relevant to women with

4:45:04 disabilities

4:45:05 uh and relevant to library patrons uh

4:45:09 that you think the women's commission uh

4:45:12 should take up.

4:45:14 Um I think

4:45:16 for example, and you can tell me if I'm

4:45:19 on the

4:45:23 on the right path. I think that

4:45:27 um my neighbors and others in the

4:45:30 community that are dis disabled,

4:45:34 um elderly and so forth can benefit can

4:45:39 benefit a lot from

4:45:42 maybe a

4:45:45 a mobile library. some people,

4:45:49 you know, can't make it to the library.

4:45:53 And for that, one of the one of the um

4:45:58 things to solve it was a thing called

4:46:01 Libby, a um so like a library online.

4:46:07 And

4:46:09 um

4:46:12 it it worked, but it's not the end all.

4:46:16 It's not the perfect thing that works.

4:46:18 There are more things that need to be

4:46:21 done as far as

4:46:25 uh fundraising

4:46:29 uh

4:46:32 um

4:46:35 change in the in the disability

4:46:39 act group to see what changes can be

4:46:44 done for the library.

4:46:48 Um, and most of all, community

4:46:50 involvement.

4:46:52 Community involvement,

4:46:56 um, is what keeps the library going. I

4:46:59 can remember being a a young adult and

4:47:04 on Saturday, Sunday afternoons,

4:47:08 we would go to the library.

4:47:12 to go to the library and then to um like

4:47:17 get ice cream or something. But um my

4:47:21 parents all always let us know that it

4:47:26 is a place for knowledge

4:47:30 and we should

4:47:33 if you don't have an answer to the

4:47:35 question don't be afraid to ask.

4:47:39 So, I think we should have that that

4:47:43 freedom as far as the women's group

4:47:46 goes.

4:47:47 Okay. Uh, Michael,

4:47:49 thank you. Uh, hello Sean. Um, I I know

4:47:54 because uh I attend the Brooklyn

4:47:57 Commission for Women meetings that you

4:48:00 had attended a recent Brookline for

4:48:03 Commission for Women meeting before uh

4:48:06 the Brooklyn uh women of the year

4:48:09 celebration. Uh, and I wonder if you had

4:48:12 any impressions of that meeting that you

4:48:15 could share with us in terms of things

4:48:18 that you thought went well for the

4:48:21 Brooklyn Commission for Women or ideas

4:48:24 that were discussed that you would like

4:48:26 to see taken further or new ideas for

4:48:29 the Brooklyn Commission for Women.

4:48:33 Um, I felt the meeting went well

4:48:38 as well as it could be. Um,

4:48:42 and I was quite interested in

4:48:45 what is to come in the in the future of

4:48:50 the women's group.

4:48:52 Um

4:48:56 I mean my thing is

4:48:59 that equality also takes

4:49:04 you know time

4:49:07 but we need to do it fast.

4:49:11 Um,

4:49:12 and being disabled, we could check up on

4:49:16 the the

4:49:20 laws and make sure that we

4:49:23 um

4:49:26 have the right things in place according

4:49:29 to

4:49:31 the disabled teams.

4:49:35 Thank you.

4:49:37 Thank you. So, uh, Sean, as we usually

4:49:40 do, we will, uh, make our decision to,

4:49:43 uh, make appointments to various

4:49:45 commissions at a later meeting, but I

4:49:47 appreciate your coming before us and and

4:49:50 talking about your interest in the

4:49:51 women's commission, uh, and the things

4:49:54 that you can offer to that body. So,

4:49:57 thank you.

4:49:58 Thank you.

4:50:00 Um,

4:50:02 next, what what do we got left here? I

4:50:06 see a couple of our uh uh town

4:50:09 department people here.

4:50:10 Why don't you why don't you maybe

4:50:13 car is online.

4:50:14 No, David is here.

4:50:16 Okay, David.

4:50:16 Hi.

4:50:18 Why don't we Why don't we do that then?

4:50:20 Why don't we do

4:50:21 we do planning in the departments and

4:50:22 then be done if if the Warren article

4:50:25 folks are good.

4:50:25 They are great to come next week. They

4:50:27 let me know.

4:50:27 Is that okay with you? Does that sound

4:50:29 right?

4:50:31 Okay. So, we have uh

4:50:33 Cara's online. She said she'll share her

4:50:35 screen.

4:50:35 Okay. Um, this is 16 William Street,

4:50:38 remember?

4:50:39 No, it's so this is Sorry, this is we we

4:50:41 this it's broad. It's the right of first

4:50:43 refusal. We accident getting to that.

4:50:45 I'm sorry. But it's not about William

4:50:46 Street. We we we mislabeled it. Um, it

4:50:49 was an error on our end.

4:50:50 Oh, it's another right of first.

4:50:52 It's a policy more generally.

4:50:54 Okay.

4:50:55 Okay. Then then Cara, tell us what it is

4:50:57 because I sure don't know. M

4:51:00 we we will try to keep this brief, but I

4:51:02 do want to say that David Guzman is in

4:51:05 the um room there with you and is taking

4:51:08 the lead on this item.

4:51:11 So, good night. Thanks for the

4:51:13 opportunity. What we're looking here is

4:51:15 to try efficiencies in decision making.

4:51:17 So anytime that we have a typical

4:51:20 standard resell of an affordable unit

4:51:23 which provides the opportunity to the

4:51:25 town to exercise the right of first

4:51:28 refusal. We don't need to come to the

4:51:30 select board but we can continue doing

4:51:32 automatically and and we have situations

4:51:35 where we have properties that requires

4:51:39 uh a decision from the select board.

4:51:41 those are the ones that we want to come

4:51:43 and bring that subject to this to to

4:51:45 this um uh select board and make that

4:51:48 decision. That's technically the memo

4:51:50 that we are presenting here.

4:51:54 Okay, any questions?

4:51:56 I had uh I had spoken with Cara today uh

4:51:58 via phone and had made a few suggestions

4:52:01 to amend it. I think is that included in

4:52:04 what we have in our our packet at this

4:52:06 point? Um, so with those changes, I

4:52:08 thought um it would be I would I would

4:52:12 support its passage. I probably would

4:52:14 support it anyway, but I think this

4:52:15 makes it a little bit better.

4:52:18 Okay. Could you tell us what those

4:52:20 changes were?

4:52:20 Yep. So, uh, one change was to, um,

4:52:24 allow some discretion in the policy. So

4:52:27 if uh the planning department uh felt

4:52:30 that uh even though the right of first

4:52:33 refusal fit in their authority to do it,

4:52:35 if for some reason carer director wanted

4:52:38 to bring it to us because there was

4:52:39 something different about it, they could

4:52:40 do that. So they wouldn't they have

4:52:42 choice. Um I asked for u some

4:52:45 notification to the board so that you

4:52:48 know we don't end up with um a kind of

4:52:51 delegation creep so we can stay in the

4:52:53 loop. So if you on a regular basis when

4:52:56 they do approve it, they could send it

4:52:57 to us or send to it quarterly and then

4:52:59 as part of their annual budget review,

4:53:01 they would uh summarize what had been

4:53:03 happening. And did you put in a

4:53:04 five-year review, Cara, or something? Is

4:53:06 that what you ended up doing?

4:53:08 Yes. What I put the language says that

4:53:10 that this authorization will expire um

4:53:14 five years from today unless otherwise

4:53:15 renewed.

4:53:16 Yeah. So just force a formal review to

4:53:18 see if the policy makes sense.

4:53:19 Good. Okay. Any questions? John,

4:53:22 I confess to being confused as to the

4:53:25 what this is uh the implications of this

4:53:27 are u um this right of first refusal.

4:53:30 Are we talking about possible

4:53:31 acquisition of properties? What are we

4:53:33 talking about?

4:53:33 Well, the right to acquire property.

4:53:35 Yeah. And we would do we would authorize

4:53:37 the planning board to acquire a property

4:53:38 without even going through the select

4:53:40 board. I think it's the opposite. So

4:53:42 many of our affordable housing units

4:53:44 created by the inclusionary zoning

4:53:46 program or CDG funds or home funds, they

4:53:50 have a restriction and that restriction

4:53:52 allows the town the opportunity to

4:53:54 acquire the unit in the event that this

4:53:56 the the owner decides to sell the unit.

4:53:59 So we can go in first position, acquire

4:54:02 the unit, and then you know recommend

4:54:04 the purpose of that unit for affordable

4:54:07 housing purposes. That's the intent

4:54:10 here.

4:54:10 Thank you. But but Michael said, "No,

4:54:12 it's not what I said, but the opposite."

4:54:14 I I don't understand.

4:54:15 The reason I'm sorry, the reason I said

4:54:17 the opposite is because the policy has

4:54:20 to do with uh assigning the capacity to

4:54:24 refuse the right of first refusal. So,

4:54:26 we're not, as I understand it, granting

4:54:28 anybody in the planning department the

4:54:30 right to actually acquire the properties

4:54:33 only to only to refuse the right

4:54:38 or decline.

4:54:39 Which is it?

4:54:40 Pass on the option. Yeah, pass on.

4:54:41 Which is it?

4:54:42 Pass on the option.

4:54:44 It's the same thing as decline.

4:54:46 Yeah. So, if I if so by by law, it's

4:54:50 indeed restricted. every unit that that

4:54:52 is going to come on the market, John, um

4:54:55 has to be uh has to be approved. You

4:54:58 have to refuse it. So then the buyer and

4:55:00 seller can make the deal because the

4:55:01 town doesn't want it. For the for for

4:55:04 the the typical easy cases, uh we would

4:55:08 delegate the authority to the planning

4:55:10 department to make that decision. more

4:55:13 complex things like William Street and

4:55:16 other things like that that would that

4:55:17 would come to us uh for sure. But

4:55:21 but what happens if they decide not to

4:55:24 decline the right of first refusal?

4:55:28 You mean to decline or to

4:55:29 No.

4:55:30 So if they not So Carol, what happens if

4:55:32 you do not decline? If you decide not to

4:55:34 decline the right of your refusal,

4:55:35 you're committing to us to buy

4:55:37 committing to buy or decide to buy it

4:55:39 or or does it select board for this?

4:55:45 Um to back up a minute, um what David

4:55:48 was talking about is that our normal

4:55:52 kind of practice when there's, you know,

4:55:54 an individual condo in a larger

4:55:56 association, when it comes up for sale,

4:55:59 it already has a permanent affordable

4:56:01 housing restriction. Um, and what David

4:56:04 and his co-workers do is make sure that

4:56:07 that sale of that unit remains um, in

4:56:10 perpetuity as an affordable housing unit

4:56:13 and is also fairly marketed to the next

4:56:15 buyer. Um, that kind of thing. One of

4:56:19 the hooks, one of the leverage points

4:56:20 that the town often has, not always, in

4:56:24 those um deals is that we put the

4:56:28 existing owner on notice that we have

4:56:31 the right of first refusal to purchase

4:56:33 that property. What we usually do, my

4:56:36 practice, these come up rarely, is um we

4:56:39 say, "Okay, we're willing to decline the

4:56:41 talent right of first of first refusal

4:56:45 in exchange for um the party working

4:56:48 with us to make sure that the property

4:56:50 is sold to another uh qualifying income

4:56:53 household um and that all of the state

4:56:56 rules and fair housing rules are met.

4:57:01 Um if if I may one more question um um

4:57:05 and this applies to any and all

4:57:07 situations where something is presented

4:57:09 to us and then you know there's a but

4:57:11 but if you if you have some you know

4:57:14 some doubts in your mind about this

4:57:15 don't worry because we'll limit this to

4:57:17 five years and then it has to be

4:57:18 reviewed every five years. I never know

4:57:22 who who's around five years from now. He

4:57:24 says, "Remember how the select board

4:57:26 made that vote five years ago to, you

4:57:29 know, allow the planning department to

4:57:31 refuse the right of first refusal? It's

4:57:33 time for us to reexamine that again." I

4:57:35 I, you know, I'm just not sure how

4:57:37 meaningful that is and who's who's

4:57:39 keeping track of this. If it if it's a

4:57:41 good idea, I'm not sure why, you know,

4:57:43 we would have to

4:57:46 sort of pretend to sort of leave

4:57:47 ourselves the out of we're some of us

4:57:50 might not be on this board. I I I

4:57:54 hesitate to bring that up, but um

4:57:57 it just forces the review, John, that if

4:57:59 then

4:58:00 I know, but then take

4:58:01 Yeah. Yeah. But who who where I've never

4:58:04 understood how how people who's keeping

4:58:06 track at town hall that it's time it's

4:58:08 time to bring this up to the slord.

4:58:11 It's a great that's a question.

4:58:12 But I assume they have a tickler system

4:58:14 or something or whatever the I hope so

4:58:16 current version of tickler systems are.

4:58:19 We've we've actually been doing a better

4:58:20 job of this. We're we're tracking you

4:58:22 know things things that we have said in

4:58:24 policies in the past you know when are

4:58:26 they due for renewal when are they due

4:58:27 for to come back before you we are

4:58:29 tracking that centrally now so we will

4:58:31 continue to do that and yes so

4:58:33 you don't have to you know

4:58:35 I could none of us could be sitting at

4:58:37 this table in 2030 uh could be a whole

4:58:39 new group of people but we have we have

4:58:41 a system in place that outlives people

4:58:43 I'm glad to know that David

4:58:44 so I have a question about the proposed

4:58:47 addition of 6D around notification that

4:58:50 notification of the select board is

4:58:51 simultaneous to notification to the

4:58:54 broader market. I'm wondering why it

4:58:56 would be simultaneous as opposed to

4:58:59 the select board in advance.

4:59:03 If um I'll answer that question if

4:59:05 that's okay.

4:59:07 Um if it's to the select board in

4:59:09 advance and we might as well not have

4:59:11 this policy because then we're not being

4:59:12 authorized to do anything.

4:59:15 The thought here is to try to streamline

4:59:17 some of our activities and when we get

4:59:20 when we know that the sale is ready to

4:59:22 go because sometimes there's pits and

4:59:24 starts when we know the sale is ready to

4:59:25 go. We package up all the materials,

4:59:28 there's photos taken, we are working

4:59:30 with the state agencies, everything's a

4:59:32 go. And at that point, we can notify you

4:59:35 that um since we are authorized, if we

4:59:38 were authorized, we would be notifying

4:59:41 you that the sale is, you know, real,

4:59:42 that it's starting. Um, and that's an

4:59:45 indication that the right of refusal was

4:59:49 not after the bond. Usually those right

4:59:51 rights of press refusal have a 30-day

4:59:53 window, but David could answer that

4:59:55 question.

4:59:55 So, if it's a scenario where you would

4:59:57 want

4:59:58 select board inputs, then it would come

5:00:00 to the select board first.

5:00:02 Absolutely. Be here next day.

5:00:04 That's what we're looking for.

5:00:06 So, we So, so far we have an inventory

5:00:08 of 153 affordable owner occupied units.

5:00:13 All of those units has an affordable

5:00:15 housing restriction and that restriction

5:00:18 has a set of protocols and steps and

5:00:21 actions in order to when we have the

5:00:23 opportunity to resell the units the

5:00:26 restriction will tell us what to do.

5:00:28 Some of them incorporate right of first

5:00:30 refusal which is not most of the time

5:00:33 not exercise because the restriction

5:00:35 allows and goes in perpetuity. So we

5:00:38 just want to make sure that the next

5:00:39 buyer is an income qualified person or

5:00:42 family below the threshold of 80% of AMI

5:00:46 and that's

5:00:46 okay

5:00:47 the mechanic.

5:00:48 Paul should um maybe in response to John

5:00:52 raising this issue should we add

5:00:54 something that if if you decide to um to

5:00:59 exercise uh the option to purchase that

5:01:02 you would first come to the select

5:01:03 board.

5:01:06 Yes, we're I don't think that we're

5:01:07 authorized to um exercise to purchase

5:01:11 property. I think we'd actually have to

5:01:12 go to town meeting for that.

5:01:14 That's a feature, not a bug.

5:01:16 Yes. Right. We have we have to go to

5:01:17 you. We have to go to town meeting.

5:01:18 Right. We we are not authorized to go

5:01:20 out and buy property.

5:01:21 I mean, so I just to keep things moving

5:01:23 along if I may or not. I mean, this is

5:01:25 simple. It's a simple ask to improve

5:01:27 efficiency. Um this is not something

5:01:30 that comes along a lot. Um and if you

5:01:35 know we're going to get notified on a

5:01:37 regular basis of their decisions and if

5:01:39 the board decides that this thing's

5:01:41 getting out of hand, it doesn't make

5:01:42 sense, then you can adjust the policy or

5:01:44 resend it.

5:01:45 So I'd like to move approval of uh the

5:01:47 policy with respect to rights and first

5:01:49 refusal for affordable housing. Um

5:01:53 any further discussion? All in favor?

5:01:55 John Vanco.

5:01:56 I Paul Warren

5:01:58 I.

5:01:58 David Ferman

5:01:59 I.

5:02:00 Michael Rubenstein.

5:02:01 Hi.

5:02:01 Chair votes I. Thank you, David.

5:02:03 Awesome. Thank you so much,

5:02:04 Cara.

5:02:05 Night.

5:02:10 So, next we have uh what's what's next?

5:02:14 Department budgets. Huh?

5:02:16 Town clerk, finance, AC, and it. And

5:02:18 then that's that's it.

5:02:19 I see the town clerk Ben Kaufman is back

5:02:22 there since you're first up. Come on up.

5:02:28 Just a reminder to all the departments,

5:02:30 the clock is running this year. It's 10.

5:02:31 You got 10 minutes. Uh,

5:02:33 three. I thought it's three.

5:02:34 Yeah.

5:02:36 Extra points for

5:02:37 at this at this time of night. It's

5:02:39 three.

5:02:40 I'll certainly try to keep it uh keep it

5:02:41 under three. Thank you. Thank you,

5:02:43 chair. Uh, and Thomas the select board.

5:02:44 I'm going to keep it short and simple

5:02:46 without even doing any slides. Uh, the

5:02:47 town clerk's budget is fairly standard

5:02:49 and straightforward except for the fact

5:02:50 that it's a dramatic increase from prior

5:02:52 years. That's entirely due to the fact

5:02:54 that this year we will have three

5:02:55 elections as opposed to last year we

5:02:57 only had one. uh except for the increase

5:03:00 for those elections, it is a flat budget

5:03:02 uh from last year. Uh and there is no

5:03:04 additional increase in the town clerk's

5:03:06 budget.

5:03:07 Happy to take any questions.

5:03:08 Oh, that's that was quick. Sounds good.

5:03:12 Any questions? I'd just like to say that

5:03:15 in your report in your budget report,

5:03:17 you mentioned uh the documents that are

5:03:19 in your files for the uh let me get this

5:03:23 right uh semiquincential

5:03:26 for the American Revolution. I I urge

5:03:28 you to make those documents available to

5:03:31 the public so that we can uh see

5:03:34 Brookline's role in the American

5:03:36 Revolution

5:03:38 and you brought stuff with you.

5:03:40 Certainly I brought one with me. I won't

5:03:41 read the whole thing, but uh I do think

5:03:44 uh noting the impact that history has uh

5:03:46 in Brooklyn that were a big part of that

5:03:48 uh cultural re of the uh uh the cultural

5:03:51 moment in 1776 and the revolution. Um, I

5:03:54 think it's important to read a small

5:03:55 passage that was written in the hand of

5:03:57 one of my predecessors at a town meeting

5:03:59 on May 20th, 1776, where town meeting

5:04:02 voted that if the honorable Congress

5:04:05 should for the safety of the American

5:04:06 colonies declare them independent of the

5:04:08 Kingdom of Great Britain, that we, the

5:04:10 inhabitants, will solemnly engage with

5:04:12 our lives and our fortunes to support

5:04:14 them in the measure. There's a number of

5:04:17 uh passages like that related to the Tea

5:04:19 Party um to uh enlistment uh to uh men

5:04:22 from Brooklyn signing up to join the

5:04:24 Continental Army and debates that

5:04:26 happened around the formation of the

5:04:27 Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest

5:04:29 continuously used uh constitution in the

5:04:31 world. Uh so it's very important

5:04:33 documents. Uh it's uh both a

5:04:35 preservation work that's important for

5:04:36 us to do as well as ways to make it more

5:04:38 accessible to the public especially in

5:04:40 light of the 250th and I will not

5:04:42 attempt uh the proper name for the uh

5:04:45 for that. And at risk of getting myself

5:04:47 in deep deep trouble, um some of the

5:04:50 language in these documents sort of

5:04:52 reminds us of the the relevance of that

5:04:57 period of time to the present period of

5:04:59 time in terms of the issues that the

5:05:01 colonists were struggling with with the

5:05:03 king over there.

5:05:05 Um

5:05:06 I'll leave it at that.

5:05:07 I will mention that uh it's all in

5:05:10 cursive too and they they wrote

5:05:11 beautifully and we don't even teach

5:05:13 cursive in school anymore. Did you know

5:05:14 that? Do we?

5:05:15 It's almost dead.

5:05:16 Sometimes we do.

5:05:17 It's almost dead. Um I do have a

5:05:19 question. So for your budget, um and I

5:05:23 haven't vetted these concerns. I think

5:05:25 I've the TMMA list was which is kind of

5:05:27 the wild west. Um these days there's

5:05:30 been some concerns raised I think about

5:05:32 operating hours and availability

5:05:36 um of staff being present. Um, does this

5:05:39 budget fully fund your what is it 8 to5?

5:05:44 What's the what's the hours of the town

5:05:46 clerk's office where someone is present

5:05:48 to say hello to us?

5:05:49 Sure. The clerk's office is currently

5:05:51 open 8 to 5:00 Monday through Thursday

5:05:52 and 8 to 12:30 on Friday, the same hours

5:05:54 as the rest of town hall. Okay.

5:05:56 Um, this budget funds current staffing

5:05:58 levels um which is five full-time

5:06:00 employees and one uh part-time uh

5:06:03 employee. Um the struggle that we always

5:06:05 have uh especially around election

5:06:08 season um is uh having sufficient

5:06:10 staffing to cover all aspects. Usually

5:06:12 when the clerk's office is closed in the

5:06:14 middle of the day, it's because we're

5:06:15 actually doing an all staff training um

5:06:17 mostly related to elections

5:06:18 administration. We want to make sure

5:06:20 everybody gets updates and information

5:06:21 simultaneously as opposed to a kind of

5:06:24 peace meal and ad hoc. So, uh, we will

5:06:26 periodically close the clerk's office

5:06:28 for an hour, um, during a lunch to make

5:06:30 sure that everybody is on the same page,

5:06:33 uh, with, uh, whether it's the process

5:06:34 for handling vote by mail, what the plan

5:06:36 is going to be for nomination papers, or

5:06:39 whatever is that topic that we want to

5:06:40 make sure we are we're emphasizing for.

5:06:42 Okay, thanks, Ben.

5:06:46 Okay, thank you.

5:06:48 Excellent. Thank you very much.

5:06:50 And next, the finance director

5:06:53 or treasurer the town finance

5:06:57 department.

5:07:00 Good evening.

5:07:01 I do have a uh presentation, but I

5:07:03 promise to go through it very quickly

5:07:04 and efficiently. Uh one moment's

5:07:18 not

5:07:27 sharers should switch over. Oh yeah.

5:07:53 Okay. Uh, thank you. So, um, I am I am

5:07:58 Lincoln Heinman, the town's director of

5:08:00 finance. Uh, I might not have any things

5:08:03 uh as stirring to say as Ben regarding

5:08:06 the uh the revolution in our country,

5:08:10 but again, I'll um nevertheless, I'm

5:08:13 here to talk about uh what is a can be

5:08:15 an overlooked but a very important

5:08:18 department. Um, joining me online still,

5:08:21 which I really appreciate, um, are our,

5:08:24 uh, four division heads, uh, Chelsea

5:08:26 Stevens, our controller, Don Dvito, uh,

5:08:29 payroll director Rick Seville, uh, in

5:08:31 his in his first time at this meeting in

5:08:33 the full role as as the our chief

5:08:35 procurement officer. He had for many

5:08:37 years served as our assistant chief

5:08:39 procurement officer, procurement officer

5:08:40 and interim procure chief procurement

5:08:42 officer and very happy to have him in uh

5:08:45 the um permanent role as the chief

5:08:48 procurement officer. And um filling in

5:08:50 for Ted Costigan who is away on a family

5:08:53 emergency is our assistant uh chief

5:08:56 assessor uh Alex Boyerin.

5:08:59 So, thanks very much for the opportunity

5:09:01 to discuss uh the finance department's

5:09:04 budget and uh some of the goals that

5:09:06 we've and accomplishments that we've met

5:09:08 in fiscal 26 and um what we're looking

5:09:11 forward to into into fiscal 27.

5:09:15 Um I won't this board knows uh happy to

5:09:18 take any questions about it, but we have

5:09:19 our five divisions assessing controllers

5:09:22 office uh payroll purchasing and

5:09:24 treasury collection within um the

5:09:27 finance department.

5:09:30 Um in terms of uh accomplishments in

5:09:33 fiscal year 2026

5:09:35 um the and I'll show you in um some of

5:09:39 the ensuing slides how these are aligned

5:09:41 with the select board goals. Um

5:09:46 uh number one uh we we have maintained

5:09:48 our AAA bond rating. Um the the board

5:09:52 may recall that um over the past uh year

5:09:55 and a half actually um there have been

5:09:57 efforts to update our um financial

5:10:01 policies uh and reserve policies and

5:10:04 thank you for the board's support in

5:10:06 doing that. Um those have addressed uh

5:10:09 the areas that are most directly under

5:10:11 the under the under the ability of the

5:10:14 town to directly impact um what our uh

5:10:19 bond rating is and maintaining our AAA

5:10:21 bond rating particularly uh around

5:10:24 maintaining uh reserves uh unrestricted

5:10:27 reserves as a percent of prior year net

5:10:30 revenue. So that's been helpful and

5:10:32 thank you. Um the the uh the board knows

5:10:36 very well um that the expenditures and

5:10:38 revenue study committee has been working

5:10:40 over the past uh not quite a year but

5:10:42 but nine months. Um I specifically have

5:10:46 in in concert with uh you know a lot of

5:10:48 other staff members have been um helping

5:10:50 to staff that particularly the uh

5:10:52 futures uh sub subcommittee of

5:10:55 expenditures and revenue study committee

5:10:57 and I'll touch briefly uh later on on um

5:11:01 what came one of the things that came

5:11:03 out of the future sub excuse me the

5:11:06 future subcommittee of the expenditures

5:11:08 and revenues study committee um of uh an

5:11:12 area that uh is within the finance

5:11:14 department's gambit going forward. Um

5:11:17 and then uh uh in terms of

5:11:20 accomplishments over the last year, um

5:11:23 seeking to um continue our current pilot

5:11:27 agreements and seek new ones. Um we have

5:11:31 had a a new effort to uh seek new pilot

5:11:34 agreements. Um it's been uh difficult

5:11:37 and challenging but it's something that

5:11:39 we're pursuing in in order to attempt to

5:11:42 find some new revenue in that area. Um

5:11:44 the board will recall uh mid last year

5:11:47 that the town renewed the payment in le

5:11:50 of taxes uh agreement with Boston

5:11:52 University um maintaining that $1.2 2

5:11:55 million and will be growing over time um

5:12:00 uh amount that the uh that BEu

5:12:03 contributes to the town's budget each

5:12:05 year.

5:12:11 And so um

5:12:14 in some cases with with number one, the

5:12:16 more things uh change more they stay the

5:12:18 same in terms of key goals going forward

5:12:21 into fiscal year 2027. Um we certainly

5:12:25 want to continue with that goal in

5:12:27 alignment with the select board's goals

5:12:30 to uh maintain our AAA bond rating. Um

5:12:34 we we've had renewed focus on um

5:12:39 maximizing uh uh maximizing revenue

5:12:43 particularly with uh respect to parts of

5:12:46 taxexempt properties that are taxable

5:12:48 because they have a for-profit business

5:12:50 going on in there. So we're making sure

5:12:52 that um those pieces are identified and

5:12:54 appropriately taxed. And then this is

5:12:57 sort of the the the plumbing of the

5:12:59 finance department, but nevertheless

5:13:00 very important. It is something that we

5:13:02 want to pursue. We we right now Munis is

5:13:05 our um is our accounting system, our

5:13:08 system of record for the town. We

5:13:10 actually use a different system, Vadar,

5:13:12 for um the for keeping track of tax

5:13:16 collection. Um, and it's something that

5:13:17 we'll want to think about uh integrating

5:13:20 going forward.

5:13:26 Um, I won't go deep into the numbers uh

5:13:29 but just to show that um with uh without

5:13:33 uh an override um the finance department

5:13:37 uh budget overall would decrease by 1%.

5:13:41 um that there are some increases. Uh the

5:13:44 only increases are in controller and

5:13:46 treasury collection. Those are um

5:13:49 contractual increases for the Munis um

5:13:52 enterprise system um that we need to pay

5:13:54 to maintain that. Um the the the

5:13:59 decreases uh again without an override

5:14:01 as currently constructed in the budget

5:14:04 um would would be within the purchasing

5:14:05 division and that is uh personnel

5:14:12 So I I won't go uh deep too deep into

5:14:15 this except to say, you know, happy to

5:14:17 take questions about these alignments,

5:14:19 but um these are uh the goals again um

5:14:23 uh accomplishments in fiscal over the

5:14:26 last fiscal year for the finance

5:14:28 department and how they are aligned with

5:14:30 the goals of the that the select board

5:14:32 laid out. Um and likewise for fiscal

5:14:35 year 2027 and um and the goals going

5:14:39 forward. Uh the um

5:14:43 yeah, I'll leave it at that.

5:14:48 The one thing uh I'd mention and and

5:14:51 this is sort of goals in in their

5:14:53 alignment with the um with the proposed

5:14:56 road map, the 2030 road map. Um the one

5:14:58 item here I I'd bring your attention to

5:15:00 that I mentioned earlier um coming out

5:15:02 of the future subcommittee of the

5:15:05 expenditures and revenues uh committee

5:15:07 was a recommendation to look uh at the

5:15:10 OPED funding policy and its

5:15:13 implications. Um uh as the board knows,

5:15:16 you you have adopted a policy that would

5:15:19 um send a a large portion of what would

5:15:24 otherwise be going into um funding

5:15:27 unfunded pension liabilities in 2030 and

5:15:30 2031 going forward um into OPED

5:15:33 outstanding OPED liabilities. There were

5:15:35 some recommendations from the

5:15:36 expenditures and revenues uh committee

5:15:39 in their final report regarding that.

5:15:40 So, it's certainly something that I know

5:15:43 um we'll be asked to engage with within

5:15:46 the finance department.

5:15:53 Uh

5:15:55 th this is sort of just just a a quick

5:15:57 discussion of um

5:16:00 uh in particular increased service

5:16:02 demands that may be coming up. Um you

5:16:05 know, the board's heard about unfunded

5:16:07 uh mandates uh from town meeting A

5:16:10 couple things we're certainly monitoring

5:16:12 carefully. Um the rent stabilization

5:16:15 legislation would certainly have an

5:16:17 impact particularly on the assessing

5:16:18 division in terms of um what rent rent

5:16:21 stabil what the rent stabilization uh

5:16:24 legislation if passed in the legislature

5:16:27 would um that would certainly impact um

5:16:29 the assessing divisions work in um and

5:16:33 in uh following the state law to ensure

5:16:35 that we have full and fair um

5:16:38 assessments for all properties in town.

5:16:40 the real estate transfer fee

5:16:42 legislation, if that passed, uh, the

5:16:44 legislature, again, would have a pretty

5:16:47 significant impact on, um, on actually

5:16:50 my my work and the Treasury collections

5:16:52 work in tracking that.

5:17:02 Uh so again um just a quick discussion

5:17:05 of uh what a if the override that is now

5:17:09 on the ballot tonight um did did not

5:17:11 pass under the current configuration now

5:17:14 there would be uh a reduction um in

5:17:17 staffing um this would certainly have an

5:17:19 impact on on um uh the services provided

5:17:24 to the public particularly around um

5:17:27 particularly around uh answering

5:17:29 questions and reviewing residential

5:17:30 exemptions and in the purchasing

5:17:32 division.

5:17:35 So again, that's sort of a truncated uh

5:17:37 because of the hour truncated

5:17:39 presentation, but obviously very happy

5:17:41 to answer any questions um that the

5:17:44 board may have.

5:17:45 Um John,

5:17:48 um I thank you very much, Lincoln. Uh I

5:17:51 did hear assessing mentioned and uh I

5:17:54 think you might be aware there's quite a

5:17:56 uh brewhaha going on on the town meeting

5:17:59 member list serve and I'll sum it up

5:18:03 with a simple request because uh I I

5:18:08 noticed the deficiencies of this

5:18:10 transition to a different form of

5:18:13 of application for accessing information

5:18:16 about your assessed values of houses up

5:18:19 and down your street everywhere.

5:18:19 everywhere in town and the taxes on

5:18:22 them,

5:18:24 the tax information which used to be

5:18:26 readily available for every single

5:18:28 property in Brooklyn, not just for this

5:18:30 year, but for previous years, isn't

5:18:31 there anymore. And what what is going

5:18:34 on? And I I would appreciate very much

5:18:37 that people can be reassured that that's

5:18:40 going to be restored and that they can

5:18:41 actually look up the tax information for

5:18:44 their street, for their neighborhood,

5:18:46 for the town, you know, other parts of

5:18:48 town, etc., etc., etc.

5:18:50 Sure. So, two things.

5:18:55 The old system

5:18:58 um would would it is not able to be

5:19:01 supported anymore by the town's vendor.

5:19:04 So, so there's there's two there's two

5:19:06 parts of it. One um is that there's

5:19:10 there's a part of it that is supported

5:19:12 by the town's assessing software and

5:19:15 that would is not able to be supported

5:19:17 anymore. There there's also um a series

5:19:20 of homebuilt applications which frankly

5:19:24 um you know the the we have a new chief

5:19:27 assessor. Um it uh the the old chief

5:19:31 assessor was very skilled at at writing

5:19:34 code actually and and doing that backup.

5:19:36 And you know that's not u an area of

5:19:40 expertise for a new chief assessor who I

5:19:42 I would say is very skilled at doing the

5:19:46 key parts of his job which is assessing

5:19:49 um and he's he's absolutely found new

5:19:52 areas of new growth and um that we that

5:19:55 we weren't accessing previously

5:19:58 the

5:20:00 all of the information. And so I I would

5:20:02 certainly acknowledge what is up there

5:20:04 now.

5:20:06 It has uh it it it has all of the

5:20:10 information and actually more

5:20:12 information that was there. It is not

5:20:14 pretty and it is something that um but

5:20:17 it is software that's used by many many

5:20:20 municipalities.

5:20:21 Sorry, but I you know it's late and

5:20:22 everybody would I'm sure appreciate us

5:20:24 moving this along. Will there be the

5:20:27 information restored to the system so

5:20:28 that the average person on any given day

5:20:30 at any given time can go to the

5:20:32 assessor's website and look up, you

5:20:35 know, I don't keep all my tax bills. You

5:20:37 know, most people don't remind myself

5:20:39 what did I pay last year, what did I pay

5:20:41 the year before, what did my neighbor

5:20:42 pay, what did the person across town

5:20:44 pay.

5:20:45 So, all that information is up there now

5:20:48 in in the in the assessor's data data

5:20:50 files.

5:20:51 Just not accessible.

5:20:52 It's not accessible. Well,

5:20:54 right. So,

5:20:56 I mean

5:20:57 I mean it's not just tax bills. I mean

5:20:59 it's a lot of other things like for

5:21:00 example whether people are taking the uh

5:21:03 residential exemption.

5:21:05 Right. Right. Yeah.

5:21:07 So when when when will the public be

5:21:09 able to get this information like it

5:21:11 used to? I mean you you can say what you

5:21:13 will about the old system but it worked

5:21:15 perfectly. I've been using it for years

5:21:18 to look up stuff.

5:21:20 Yeah. So I mean it the fact that it's

5:21:22 not supported by our by our our our

5:21:25 software provider now is a fact that

5:21:28 they have promised to continue to make

5:21:31 improvements. I I I I I would you maybe

5:21:33 this isn't the the moment to figure it

5:21:35 out, but I think

5:21:38 may I suggest a way forward is to make

5:21:40 sure um that that the that the data that

5:21:45 folks are most want access to that they

5:21:47 can access because I would say that

5:21:49 there is no piece of data that I'm aware

5:21:52 of that is not accessible now. It is in

5:21:55 a different format,

5:21:57 but there is no piece of information

5:22:00 that I'm aware of and I took a look at

5:22:02 through it myself yesterday that that is

5:22:05 not available now. It is in a different

5:22:08 format.

5:22:08 So interesting like so I some several

5:22:11 people have emailed us about this and

5:22:12 have emailed Ted and I have Ted's email

5:22:15 here which says that you know he says

5:22:18 that he believes the new database has

5:22:20 all the same features which may be that

5:22:21 they're in different places. Um, so for

5:22:23 one person asked, you know, where's the

5:22:25 valuation history? So you click on the

5:22:27 previous assessment tab, the map link,

5:22:29 you click on the map tab for details

5:22:31 about the structure, interior, exterior.

5:22:33 Um, and Ted has offered to do a tutorial

5:22:36 and is scheduling a time that will help

5:22:38 people figure out how

5:22:39 I noticed the question you didn't answer

5:22:40 is where can you look up your the tax on

5:22:42 your house?

5:22:44 I mean, we can. So that's that that is

5:22:47 available in the data files. I believe

5:22:49 it is still it is still available online

5:22:53 in the in the web pro.

5:22:55 I think what I haven't been able to find

5:22:56 is that we we need maybe some

5:22:59 instructions on how to get to stuff

5:23:01 because I've gone to the to the new

5:23:04 system and it's just totally confused.

5:23:07 I mean at least to me I mean I'm not a

5:23:09 computer genius or anything.

5:23:11 I I just want to add one one thing. This

5:23:13 is

5:23:13 professor's database. So this uh first

5:23:18 you guys okay?

5:23:19 Sorry.

5:23:20 Um

5:23:22 I mean this gets to a broader issue that

5:23:25 um whenever we transition or we change a

5:23:32 uh taxpayer or customerf facing

5:23:34 application, we shouldn't just change

5:23:37 it. There's like there's a process that

5:23:39 we go through to um you know notify and

5:23:42 assess um pardon the pun um things that

5:23:47 impact the community directly on

5:23:49 information systems and I don't know how

5:23:51 this one got away from us. You actually

5:23:53 told me earlier that this was done a

5:23:55 year ago. It's been in place for a year.

5:23:58 Nine nine months to a year I believe.

5:24:00 Nine months to a year. So I I guess

5:24:02 people just started to look at their

5:24:03 their tax bills. Um, but I think that it

5:24:07 just gets to a broader issue of how we

5:24:08 actually do change and anything that

5:24:11 touches a customer, we should and we

5:24:13 should think of taxpayers as customers.

5:24:15 Um, we should probably be a little bit

5:24:17 more deliberate and communicative about

5:24:19 it. Um, and not just be driven by that

5:24:23 we have a new assessor and he decided to

5:24:24 change the system because it's not

5:24:26 supported. I don't know if that was the

5:24:28 reason why. But I do have Can I ask him

5:24:30 an unrelated question?

5:24:31 Sure. Um

5:24:34 maybe to I'll throw you a lifeline on

5:24:35 this one, but this is a harder question.

5:24:38 So in your goals, um I was hoping to see

5:24:42 that we would get our audits back on

5:24:45 track.

5:24:46 Yeah.

5:24:46 Uh that seems to be missing. We're still

5:24:48 at least a year behind. Um and I would

5:24:51 like to see that prominently uh as maybe

5:24:55 goal number one uh because that affects

5:24:58 our AAA bond rating. I mean, we're we're

5:25:00 kind of flying blind here with uh how

5:25:02 we're doing with our with our audits.

5:25:05 So, anyway, that would be my feedback is

5:25:07 please please add that if you could.

5:25:09 But, by the way, our audit is supposed

5:25:11 to go to um Emma, the the securities um

5:25:17 uh office. What are we doing about that

5:25:19 if we're not up to date?

5:25:21 We we are up to date with those filings

5:25:23 on Emma.

5:25:24 Okay.

5:25:25 So I if I could briefly return to to the

5:25:29 to the previous topic. I

5:25:30 I saved you. Why would you want to be

5:25:32 back?

5:25:33 David has a question. So

5:25:36 So getting back to that topic, may maybe

5:25:38 I'm just doing something wrong here, but

5:25:40 is there a way you can even just look

5:25:41 things up by address instead of by

5:25:44 parcel number or by last name of the

5:25:46 owner?

5:25:46 Yep.

5:25:48 I'm gonna teach him.

5:25:50 Okay. Well, well, what what I was going

5:25:52 to suggest was we can absolutely commit

5:25:55 to having a tutorial on how to find this

5:25:58 piece of information, how to find the an

5:26:00 x piece of information, y information, z

5:26:02 information. So that that is something

5:26:05 we'll commit to uh creating

5:26:08 expeditiously so that um you know so

5:26:11 that it while it is well while folks

5:26:14 would access it in a new and different

5:26:17 way we'll have a quick hopefully short I

5:26:21 think we could do it in one page um

5:26:23 tutorial in addition to the online

5:26:26 tutorials that that we can do with any

5:26:28 group that would be interested in doing

5:26:30 so um to tell people how to access a

5:26:34 particular piece of information.

5:26:36 Okay. I have a another a different type

5:26:38 of question. So, uh you know the treasur

5:26:41 invests funds like the affordable

5:26:44 housing trust which is we've talked

5:26:46 about but also cemetery perpetual care

5:26:49 funds, library trust funds and other uh

5:26:52 funds. Um, with the affordable housing

5:26:55 trust, we were earning the huge amount

5:26:58 of less than 1%

5:27:01 interest on our investments of of that

5:27:04 huge amounts of money. Um, and we that

5:27:08 was fixed with some problems, but it was

5:27:10 fixed. But my question is, are we making

5:27:13 sure that all of the funds that we're

5:27:15 investing um are being invested at at at

5:27:19 high a yield as possible? um you know

5:27:22 given the restrictions that that many of

5:27:25 these funds are subject to

5:27:27 we are so

5:27:28 we can't be leaving you huge sums of

5:27:30 money on the table especially in this

5:27:32 period.

5:27:33 So each each of these so for example the

5:27:36 library trustees and the cemetery

5:27:38 trustees each of them have particular

5:27:42 and slightly different goals that that

5:27:44 they've communicated. So within the

5:27:47 context of those slightly different

5:27:49 goals across across different groups,

5:27:52 yes,

5:27:54 the the the answer is is is yes. But but

5:27:57 some of them, for example, the library

5:27:59 trustees have some more autonomy with

5:28:02 their trust and they've set out a more

5:28:06 conservative

5:28:08 um design, you know, a more conservative

5:28:12 investment profile that they would like

5:28:14 to see. Um and so we've been following

5:28:17 that per their instructions. For

5:28:19 example,

5:28:21 I I I just want to make sure that we are

5:28:24 not defaulting to, you know, what the

5:28:27 banks want to give us.

5:28:31 Okay. Any other

5:28:35 we should let him off the hook.

5:28:37 Okay. You're off the hook.

5:28:38 Thank you.

5:28:40 Thanks for your time.

5:28:40 Beat him up later.

5:28:42 No, we don't need to beat him up.

5:28:46 Okay, I think the advisory committee is

5:28:48 next. I see Dennis already out in the

5:28:51 out in the uh audience there.

5:28:54 He may have reprogrammed the whole thing

5:28:56 sitting there with better access to the

5:28:59 so good at that.

5:29:03 Hello everyone. Hopefully, this will be

5:29:05 even faster than the town clerk's update

5:29:08 since our budget is uh published in um

5:29:11 the the online uh interactive budget is

5:29:16 $32,022.

5:29:19 Uh and we actually reduced it by $750

5:29:23 from what the original um adjustment was

5:29:25 to try to mirror um the reductions that

5:29:29 were taken by the town administrator in

5:29:31 his own in his own budget. Um, our

5:29:34 budget is largely comprised of salary

5:29:37 for our exemplary administrative

5:29:39 assistant, Lisa Porsche. Um, so that's

5:29:43 $27,800

5:29:45 of the of the total. Um but we do have a

5:29:49 modest amount set aside both for um food

5:29:53 for meetings when the when we're here in

5:29:56 the building and um for professional

5:29:59 dues and training and conferences. And

5:30:02 we've had more interest in the past few

5:30:05 years uh for participation in MMA events

5:30:09 of one form or another. So we've

5:30:11 actually bumped that request up by a

5:30:13 small amount. But then to take into

5:30:15 account the fact that we're meeting in

5:30:17 person significantly less frequently, we

5:30:19 reduced our request for the the

5:30:23 uh meals budget by $1,000. So our total

5:30:27 request for this year is

5:30:30 $31,272.

5:30:34 Thank you. Any questions?

5:30:37 No. Thank you, Dennis.

5:30:39 Thank you.

5:30:40 Okay. Um, next it I see that uh Fun is

5:30:44 on uh Fong Yang is on uh on the Zoom.

5:30:49 Good evening Green.

5:30:52 Um can you hear me? All right.

5:30:54 Yep.

5:30:55 Okay.

5:30:56 Hear you and see you.

5:30:58 Great. Good evening, Chair Green, Mr.

5:31:00 Kerry, and members of the board. Uh from

5:31:03 Young, Chief Information Officer,

5:31:04 Information Technology Department. I

5:31:07 will be super brief. Uh you've have had

5:31:09 you have had a long night. Um, I'll

5:31:11 strive for three minutes and I promise

5:31:13 you it'll be under 10. Let me share my

5:31:16 screen.

5:31:20 Can you see my screen?

5:31:21 Go to 10.

5:31:23 She promises a little more than 10.

5:31:28 Okay. So, um, let me dive right into it.

5:31:34 The uh FY27 town IT proposed operating

5:31:38 budget uh is uh 2 million741,50

5:31:44 and uh it's a one uh 1.98%

5:31:48 increase. uh primarily it's the um

5:31:52 annual in infl uh inflationary cost for

5:31:55 software licensing and listed computers

5:31:57 and then the remainders due to personnel

5:31:59 step increases and I will um highlight

5:32:03 um our accomplishments in four areas

5:32:07 number one is cyber security uh we have

5:32:09 maintained a grade A throughout the year

5:32:12 um that's uh due to huge effort from u

5:32:15 the IT staff and um Number two is uh

5:32:20 well well uh before I move forward so

5:32:23 the standards we follow is the national

5:32:25 institute of standards and technology uh

5:32:28 framework which was updated last year to

5:32:30 add it um it uh it added uh the govern

5:32:34 section which you know it took out the

5:32:36 governance out of uh all the different

5:32:38 categories and and emphasized it. So

5:32:42 this is uh we continue to enhance the

5:32:44 cyber security program and uh here are

5:32:48 some of the specific accomplishments in

5:32:51 cyber security. I won't bore you with

5:32:53 all of it. I just want to highlight that

5:32:55 we uh thanks to you your efforts uh your

5:32:58 help that bring brought us to the finish

5:33:01 line and you adopted the IT resource use

5:33:03 policy the updated policy also the gen

5:33:06 AI use policy and region information

5:33:09 security policy. these uh these policies

5:33:11 are extremely important um and uh

5:33:15 particularly I want to thank Mr.

5:33:16 Rubenstein who work with us and uh

5:33:19 helped us bring to the finish line um

5:33:24 and um our network and infrastructure

5:33:26 group has done a great deal of

5:33:28 improvements in um in our onre on

5:33:32 premise uh and cloud infrastructure. So

5:33:35 I will um not bore you with all the

5:33:38 details but um rest for sure that we

5:33:41 continue to enhance our infrastructure

5:33:43 um performance and security

5:33:46 and digital services team continues to

5:33:50 work with all departments to streamline

5:33:52 business processes and improve uh

5:33:54 services. And I want to just highlight

5:33:57 that uh our website uh has won the

5:33:59 Massachusetts Municipal Association uh

5:34:02 website award as as you all know

5:34:06 and uh our service desk that's number

5:34:08 four and our service uh desk team has uh

5:34:12 continued to provide excellent customer

5:34:14 service and um so we had our uh IT

5:34:20 service management system randomly sends

5:34:23 out after service survey to users and um

5:34:28 uh with six questions. So I'll just

5:34:30 highlight a couple of them. Number one

5:34:32 is how satisfied are you with the

5:34:34 overall experience? So 87%

5:34:39 uh which which is um 193 uh survey

5:34:44 results are very satisfied. 10% are

5:34:48 satisfied. So in total our satisfaction

5:34:51 rate is 97% which is very high for

5:34:54 service desk. And uh second question how

5:34:57 would you rate the professionalism of

5:34:59 the technicians? 95% of the responses

5:35:03 said excellent. So I'm very happy with

5:35:06 the results but we continue to improve

5:35:08 and uh on the top you can see our it's a

5:35:11 weekly average uh time of create a

5:35:15 ticket that's created to resolve. So we

5:35:18 continue to improve some of the high you

5:35:20 know high uh there there are some um

5:35:23 when when there's staff out you know

5:35:25 shortage of staff or on vacation you'll

5:35:27 see spike sometimes and also you'll see

5:35:29 spike during our busy time for instance

5:35:32 the beginning of school year but overall

5:35:34 our trend our trend is going down so we

5:35:38 continue to improve that I challenge

5:35:40 your visual by going from right to left

5:35:45 and I want to very quickly just talk a

5:35:47 little bit about um our AI journey as

5:35:50 this uh emerging technologies could

5:35:52 potentially bring exponential change

5:35:55 down the road. So um we started a couple

5:35:58 of years ago uh with understanding the

5:36:01 risks and then we f uh as with any

5:36:04 emerging technology right we want to be

5:36:07 at the cutting edge but we don't want to

5:36:09 be at the bleeding edge. So we focused

5:36:12 on governance um to start after we

5:36:16 understood some of the risks and uh I

5:36:19 mentioned the policy and guidelines um

5:36:22 the gene AI policy earlier. We also have

5:36:25 added modules to our annual employee

5:36:28 awareness training. Uh uh we added AI

5:36:30 sessions uh uh modules to those training

5:36:34 so that users are aware uh of deep fake

5:36:37 of all the other risks that are

5:36:39 associated with AI. And also we have

5:36:42 added an AI section to our vendor cyber

5:36:46 posture review vetting questionnaire

5:36:48 that we send out to all prospective

5:36:50 vendors. And we also have started last

5:36:52 year revisiting existing vendors because

5:36:56 we have a lot of systems now have an AI

5:36:59 feature that are made available but not

5:37:02 turned on. So we're we started to v

5:37:05 existing systems and also what's very

5:37:07 important is that we need to protect our

5:37:10 data in the era in the edge a in the era

5:37:14 of AI. So data classification and

5:37:17 governance is a huge and tedious pro uh

5:37:20 tedious work that we need to do. So we

5:37:23 continue to work on that and we

5:37:26 currently are ex uh experimenting. We

5:37:29 have some test pilots and these pilots

5:37:32 may go on for longer than usual because

5:37:35 this space is changing very fast. Um so

5:37:39 some of the AI test uh pilots are Canva

5:37:42 AI uh Zoom AI companion um Microsoft 365

5:37:48 co-pilot ours ITSM system has an AI

5:37:51 feature uh that summarizes tickets we

5:37:54 also have staff that are testing AI

5:37:56 creating AI agents and also we're

5:37:59 reviewing other tools so these test

5:38:02 pilots gives us a good understanding of

5:38:05 the risks and also how it actually will

5:38:08 be helpful in our environment. Right? So

5:38:11 we work we have departmental users that

5:38:14 are part of the test pilots. We want to

5:38:16 work with all departments to identify

5:38:19 the AI use cases and how um most

5:38:22 efficiently uh to make use of it. So

5:38:25 that's where we are. I just want to also

5:38:27 very briefly um say that we follow these

5:38:31 fundamental AI principles

5:38:34 um that um to keep our environment

5:38:38 secure, our data safe but also be able

5:38:41 to utilize or take advantage of emerging

5:38:44 technology and um there are two ways

5:38:47 that are um sort of um how you can you

5:38:51 know make sort of get value from AI

5:38:53 right AI assistant that's knowledge

5:38:56 interaction and a aentic AI which are AI

5:39:00 agents that some of them can uh

5:39:02 autonomously work with you know AI

5:39:05 agents so that's automation but all of

5:39:08 those will be built upon um a governance

5:39:11 practice and tools custom tools and

5:39:14 based upon found uh sort of foundational

5:39:16 AI principles

5:39:18 and uh I have one and a half minutes

5:39:22 left so I promised you under 10 minutes

5:39:24 so I'm going to be very

5:39:27 and um and some of the stats in the

5:39:29 industry are are showing pilot uh

5:39:32 production success rate is 5% and the

5:39:34 increase of computing cost is 89%. So we

5:39:38 we're watching very closely we continue

5:39:40 to explore and we want to be at much

5:39:43 better uh uh sort of position where the

5:39:47 success rates are higher and the costs

5:39:49 are going down. So uh with that said um

5:39:53 very quickly our uh mission hasn't

5:39:56 changed our long-term goal still the

5:39:58 same and then our FY objective uh we

5:40:01 continue to improve cyber security work

5:40:03 with the departments to and to achieve

5:40:05 the goals set by the select board and we

5:40:08 continue to enhance our infrastructure

5:40:10 and that ends my presentation as I

5:40:13 promised it's under two minutes I didn't

5:40:15 achieve three minutes my apologies

5:40:20 Thank you, B. You left 35 seconds on the

5:40:24 table. So, any questions from the

5:40:27 Siteboard? Michael?

5:40:28 Um, first of all, thank you to you and

5:40:31 your team for for all of the work that

5:40:33 you're doing in this area. It really is

5:40:35 foundational work for the entire uh town

5:40:38 government and therefore foundational

5:40:40 work for the entire town. So, um I just

5:40:44 wanted to recognize that reality. um

5:40:48 you you spent a lot of time talking

5:40:50 about AI and AI governance and some of

5:40:53 the work that you're doing. Um I'm

5:40:55 wondering uh if you will be able at some

5:40:58 point to report on the sort of range of

5:41:03 use cases that are under either uh that

5:41:08 you are working to develop pilots on or

5:41:11 use cases that other uh departments have

5:41:14 suggested. uh and I would hope that at

5:41:18 some point in the near future that other

5:41:20 departments can also sort of directly

5:41:23 report on their incorporation of AI into

5:41:26 their various workflows and how you

5:41:28 might support uh that incorporation into

5:41:33 across the town governance.

5:41:37 Certainly um in in the near future we

5:41:39 should be able to talk about some of the

5:41:41 use cases um out of the pilots uh we

5:41:45 have department participating in those

5:41:47 for instance Canva AI we had a user we

5:41:50 had a pizza party and we had users talk

5:41:52 about you know whether or not it's

5:41:54 useful to them and they did not find the

5:41:57 AI features in Canva that very useful.

5:42:00 So that's one um AI a zoom AI companion.

5:42:04 We have a lot of public meeting hosts

5:42:06 that are part of the uh pilot and they

5:42:09 have uh in the very beginning um a zoom

5:42:12 AI companion was just um not useful. The

5:42:15 information it summarizes sometimes it's

5:42:17 hilarious and it's really funny and it's

5:42:20 wrong and but over time it has gotten

5:42:22 better. Uh it still is not completely

5:42:25 accurate. So human in the loop is very

5:42:27 important and uh all you know public

5:42:30 hosts have been um instructed that any

5:42:33 summary that's generated by zoom AI

5:42:35 companion needs to be reviewed before it

5:42:38 bec it become um meeting minutes um so

5:42:42 um we have had a user group meeting on

5:42:45 that particular use case right and

5:42:47 basically it's you know summarizing the

5:42:50 meeting taking meeting minutes and

5:42:52 things like that uh we have not had a

5:42:54 user school waiting for off uh co-pilot

5:42:57 because we're waiting for some of the uh

5:42:59 features to be made available in the

5:43:01 government cloud as you know um

5:43:04 government cloud we're we're we're in

5:43:05 the government cloud of Microsoft and

5:43:08 usually uh government cloud is about six

5:43:10 months behind commercial uh because it

5:43:13 has to go through very rigorous federal

5:43:15 ramp uh fed ramp authorization so uh

5:43:19 we're waiting for some of the features

5:43:20 to be made available and then we will

5:43:22 have our user pilot testers uh group

5:43:26 meeting which includes uh departmental

5:43:28 like health department other departments

5:43:30 um uh users and then we'll talk about uh

5:43:34 the use cases and then we um after that

5:43:37 uh we have you know well we have others

5:43:39 and then uh we really need to work with

5:43:41 departments to see what are some of the

5:43:43 useful cases right how uh um so that's

5:43:47 definitely in the in the near future we

5:43:49 should be able to talk more about it

5:43:52 Great.

5:43:55 No other questions. Thank you, phone.

5:43:57 Appreciate it. Thanks.

5:43:58 You're welcome. Thank you very much.

5:44:00 Thank you.

5:44:01 Have a good night.

5:44:02 Great.

5:44:04 Okay, we're at the end of our agenda

5:44:08 because we're not doing any of the

5:44:10 warrant articles. Okay. Is there anyone

5:44:12 in the audience or online would like to

5:44:15 make a public comment?

5:44:19 Hearing none, I will there therefore end

5:44:23 this meeting.

5:44:26 Thank you.

5:44:28 And we accomplished something really

5:44:29 important.