Brookline Select Board Meeting - March 24, 2026
2026-03-24

[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.