recording in progress. >> I'd like to welcome you to the Thursday, January 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Brooklyn School Committee. And we are going to get started with consent agenda. We usually vote this as a block A through D. And I was wondering if
anyone would like to move it. >> I'll move it. >> That's great. Second. >> Okay. And so what's your question? >> My question is actually procedural, which is um and it's probably a question for Jesse, but I don't know. You can
decide. Um, we did have Helen used to look at these and like she could answer questions and I thought she signed off on the costs that were school building costs from the school
committee. I don't know if she just knew about them or there was other I was just wondering Jesse if you'd ever gotten clarity on um from the building commission or the building department on school committee sign off on whatever costs Helen used to sign off on. I don't know. I'm not I'm a little vague whether
these are the costs that are in that category or not, but I was just curious. >> Sorry, Mariah. Just so I understand what you're saying. Um, permission for Jesse to sign off on it or communication to Jesse Prior. Which one are you saying? >> I don't think I'm saying either one of those things. I think what I'm saying is
just like one of us signs off on the PSB accounts payable warrant, there's supposed to be a sign off somewhere on capital um expenses that don't run through the PSB budget from school committee. and Jesse had reached out to LAP at one point now that Helen is off the committee and we're sort of sharing the finance and capital responsibilities
and this just sort of made me wonder if you'd ever heard back and whether we were signing anything off or not. >> Uh I hadn't heard back and because this is fierce I sort of leave it with Andy who's on. >> Okay. >> And um he you know so >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> All right. So, um Andy is absent and I do unfortunately have to communicate to you all that, um Val had an accident and um is recovering and will not be able to be here tonight. So, um I should have said that at the at the top. So, now
that we have um Mariah's question, Jesse, we should look into that and >> and get an answer. >> Yeah, I'll reach it back out to uh lab. >> Perfect. Thank you. I was just >> Well, thank you. No problem. >> I'm just curious where
>> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I will. >> Thank you. And so we'll go into a vote. Bob, >> I vote yes. >> Jesse, >> yes. >> Carolyn, >> yes. >> Mariah, >> yes. >> Suzanne,
>> yes. Um, and that's and I vote yes. That moves us on to administrative um business and acceptance of gifts. would like to thank all of the individuals and groups that are offering these gifts.
And usually we take them as a block to vote to A through D. Would someone like to move them? >> Thank you. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Jesse. And um we'll start at this end of the table this time. So Suzanne, >> yes.
>> Mariah, >> yes. >> Carolyn, >> yes. >> Jesse, >> yes. Bob. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes. Thank you. We have a change in the order. Oh, sorry. Nope. I that was um a little bit too early. We are going to go to Adidi with the
student report. >> Hi everyone. I'm going to share my screen now. Okay. Um, so this is the January report. First off, we had Martin Luther King Day this past Monday on the 19th and there
was no school that day. And then on Tuesday, we had our Martin Luther King Day full school assembly. So, this is actually the first time we've had a full school assembly since before co. And what this meant was that we had all 2,000 students and 200 faculty all in
the same room. And the programming on this day included um a performance by the Brooklyn High School orchestra. And we had a very talented student singer who sang a song as well. And then we had some addresses made by um Mr. Meyer,
followed by a speech from a guest lecturer who worked in community organizing and advocacy. So that was the programming for the Martin Luther King Day assembly. And we haven't had an assembly like this since before CO where everyone in the whole school was in one
room and we were in the uh Schluntz gymnasium. Then on Jan 12th we had the gap year fair which was basically a seminar for anyone interested in pursuing a gap year after graduation. So I believe there
were um college counselors um alumni who had completed gap years who talked about their experiences and just got to give students interested in pursuing a gap year some idea about what that might look like if they were to um take a gap
year before pursuing their uh higher education. And another thing that happened recently is that the ACE applications opened. ACE is the alternative choice education program and I believe that it is focused
on allowing kids of different ages to take learning at their own pace. So instead of all students um progressing year by year and grouped in um grade and age categories, students progress
through classes and levels at their own pace based on when they're ready to continue. and they also graduate as normal um at the end of their tenure in the program. Finally, we have midyear exams coming
up. So, t or sorry, tomorrow, Friday, we have um the history exam as well as math. Then Monday we have English and science. And then Tuesday we have world language and then a slot for makeup
exams. And this is for anyone who takes a second language or just takes another academic course outside of the five core courses who needs another block to take one of those exams. And this does happen to be weather dependent though because I know we're getting some snow. So there's
some talk about next week having to move exams around based on whether we have a snow day or not. And that's all I have for today. >> Thank you very much. looking around for comments. It was very nice for us to see you.
Thank you. Um we are going to take things a bit out of order. We're going to go to public comment next and um we are beginning with um Maggie Canneth.
Before Maggie begins, >> we always say before public comment that you realize that we take in everything that you say very seriously and on the spot we do not respond. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Good evening everyone. My name is Maggie Canif. I've been a kindergarten teacher at the Lincoln School since 2006. I've dedicated my entire teaching career to this district because I believe deeply in its values.
My son Matthew is a sixth grader at the Roland Hay School thriving in a district I love and trust. Since we don't reside in Brooklyn, we are part of the materials fee program. Over the past few years, the
conversation around this program has shifted. Families like mine have increasingly been described as a revenue source and more recently as a burden. When I talk with Brooklyn residents and fellow parents, they are often shocked that we
pay at all. Many were especially dismayed last year when families in this program were discussed as part of a plan to generate revenue. As one parent shared, I've been a parent in the Brooklyn public schools for 16 years,
and I cannot overstate how invaluable the materials fee program is to our community. Having materials fee children in our schools has enriched our family's life immeasurably, both in and out of the classroom. I listened carefully to the most recent
subcommittee meeting. While I heard acknowledgments that the program helped retain teachers, I was disheartened that not once were our children discussed except in terms of their cost. So, with apologies to my son, I'm going
to brag about him for a moment. Matthew is kind. He's a peacemaker. He looks out for others. This year, a teacher emailed us to thank him for helping a classmate. His second grade buddy once told him he
was the best buddy he's ever had. He loves school. He respects his teachers. He cares deeply about his learning. And Matthew is not an exception. Families in the materials program are a community. And our children contribute
positively to their classrooms, their schools, and this district. They're good friends, thoughtful classmates, and engaged learners. They're not a burden. I understand that your role requires careful attention to budgets and
numbers, but I urge you to also consider the human beings behind those numbers, children and families who feel unseen and undervalued when the conversation centers only on cost. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the
erosion of trust that comes from frequent leadership turnover and financial instability at the central office level. I hope we can rely on you as school committee members to serve as intermediaries to ensure that this program is seen not merely as a line
item, but as a meaningful investment in students, educators, and the long-term strength of the public schools of Brooklyn. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Now to M Matt Picard.
>> Okay. Uh my name is Matt Bard. I'm a teacher at Haye School currently teaching grades seven and eight ELA. Uh my wife Laura Zintech teaches fifth grade at Driscoll and our daughters Marggo and Bee both attend Brookline schools through the materials fee program. Um the materials fee program
has always been an employee benefit designed to attract and retain talented educators and town employees. It brings talented people here and makes them better at their jobs by integrating them into the community. Uh that benefits not just participating families but the town
itself. uh neighboring districts recognize this and invite staff families for no fee at all. And we keep glossing over that point each time we talk about this, but it it does matter. So why should Brookline be unique in this? Uh why aren't we talking about being
competitive and bringing the fee down instead of increasing it 15% over three years? Uh what I find more concerning though is this shift as Maggie mentioned uh from treating this as a part of an employee benefits package to treating it as a
revenue stream. So suddenly the program is being described as uh quote financially important. And what that means to me is that it's really just an income source from garnered wages. So since when does the town make money off of its teachers? And the answer appears
to be uh since the schools fell into a budget crisis. So, my family has built our lives around this program and uh we've rooted ourselves here. It it wasn't a casual decision and it's certainly one that's not easily undone. So, proposals to
raise the fee beyond simply covering the cost of an otherwise empty seat feel less like fairness and more like reaching into my pocket while I stand helpless. Um, on a recent seventh grade field trip, we went a couple weeks ago to LOL Mills and we learned how the
bosses uh of the factories would quietly dock the workers pay, charging for thread, floor sweeping, other things like that. And I can't help but see the similarity here. Under the current proposal, in three years, my pay would effectively be docked $900. And that
increase would definitely outpace the raises that will soon be negotiated. So, hence, it's a wage cut. And I'm just going to say that plainly. The materials fee as proposed is a wage cut for teachers in the district uh who have
children going here. Uh in recent discussions, the term freeloading has even surfaced and I find that term particularly demoralizing. We were invited to the district and we accepted understanding that we were covering the cost of an otherwise empty
seat. And yet the basis of that cost remains undefined. So, while proposals for increases keep coming, if the true concern is fairness, then let's do some precise accounting. There's been a lot of mention of toilet flushes. And I went
to the DPW website and did the math. And at the rate of $16 per 100 cubic feet, two flushes a day, um that amounts to $12 a year per student. And so, if the concern is a system burden, that math can be done. However, we may learn that
the real cost when we add it up of an empty seat is actually lower than when we already pay. The materials fee program must return to its original purpose, recruitment, retention, and integration, not revenue generation. We cannot balance the budget on the backs
of a small group of committed families. The fee must demonstrate goodwill, reflect our value, and honor the commitments our M materials fee families have made to this town. Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna hear from Cara
Flynn Carson next. Hello. Sorry, a little bit froggy. I've been teaching in the Brookline school since 2001, where I taught and loved Suzanne's son, Ross. Carolyn's daughter, Mia. My husband, Jesse Carson, teaches 8th grade math at Pierce, where
he supported and cared for Mariah's kids. My daughter is currently a freshman at BHS. My family is wholly and deeply invested in the Brooklyn schools. I want to address the history of the materials fee program. The spirit in which the materials fee program was
founded was one of support and service to the district's teachers. A spirit that realized that when you make your teachers feel cared for, make their families feel cared for. You retain good teachers that invest doubly in your community. For eight years, I served as
the liaison for the materials fee program. The first superintendent I worked with was such a supporter of the materials fee program that he would contact me to mobilize participants to advocate for themselves when changes to the fee structure or threats to the program came up in school committee.
Now, six superintendent later, the teachers in the materials fee program have been on a constant roller coaster for years, unsure as to whether their children would get a spot in the program, unsure of the fee structure, facing last year's superintendent's proposal to more than double the fee. It
has been a rocky road. Morale is not great in Brooklyn, a town that funds beautiful buildings but cuts teachers, cuts language programs, and now looks at the materials fee as a funding source rather than the thing it was meant to be. Merely an acknowledgement of the
materials cost involved in a seats available model. As a reminder, no new staff are hired because of this program. Jesse Heft was right to remind Mariah of that in last week's finance subcommittee meeting presentation. Teachers across the district have faced a revolving door
of administrators. Teachers like me who have been here for over 25 years barely know anyone's anyone's name currently working on the fifth floor. This is a time to think about stabilizing your teaching force to build a sense of care and support to lure the
best teachers to Brookline and to make them want to stay. At the January 14th finance subcommittee meeting, Mariah said materials fee are important to the overall PSB finances, which shows that she is thinking of this fee as a revenue stream. This is not the spirit in which
the program was formed. While schools like Newton and Welsley allow their teachers to attend schools with no fee, Mariah's language at last week's meeting looked at the increase from the perspective of what the teachers could or should bear. That is not the spirit in which the materials program was
formed. Jesse Heft rightly reminded her that there's no impact in terms of staffing. Mariah responded, "It's materials." But her calculation is not a calculation of materials. I want to see that calculation. I want to see the list
that calculates the paper, the markers, even the water use of one individual child. I know that the cost is far less than the current fee, and I would happily pay that cost. I would like to move the dial in the opposite direction. What if this program were free like
Newton and Welsley's? Those teachers do not have to spend their evenings watching subcommittee meetings in which a school committee member in earnest mentions the burden of how many times a child flushes a toilet. That's demoralizing. If you're not ready to go the free
participation route or the actual materials route, I ask that the ongoing policy be that the fee goes up the exact percent of the teacher salary increase each year. That would mean teachers would know what to expect and not have have to continually and anxiously fight
for our families. Dr. Bob used to talk about moving our schools from good to great. I would like them to at least move back to being kind. Thank you. >> We're gonna hear from Ma Alib next. >> Ma, you can go ahead.
>> Hello. Thank you. My name is Ma Alibi. This is my 20th year teaching at Brooklyn High School. I have two children, both of whom attend Baker School through the materials fee program. I signed up to speak today after hearing about a proposal to increase the materials fee tuition by
23% over the next three years. Since last week, the proposed increase has decreased, but is still above the expected 3% increase typically wide. Uh I'm just perplexed as to why we're talking about it again. My first memory
of the materials fee program is from 2014. It happened in the MLK room at the high school. I was very pregnant and invited to attend by Kira and Roger because the threat to the program would affect me in the future. The time and
effort invested in exploring how and when to increase the already expected increase in the cost of tuition for a child of a non-resident employee just it doesn't feel worth it to me. the hours of brainstorming and preparing and discussing done by school committee
members, the resulting hours of processing and reflection and discussion done by materials fee families and their colleagues. It just doesn't feel worth it to squeeze an extra 14,000 from 139 families by increasing tuition by 5%
instead of 3% when we have a multi-million dollar deficit. It doesn't seem worth the time and the effort to me. And I'll tell you why. Because the revenue gained by increasing tuition for materials fee students does not cover the emotional costs. Every time the
materials fee program is put into question, you diminish the morale of Brookline teachers. We question if you believe all you say about the benefits of the materials fee program. This perpetual debate worsens the community's perception of
the employees and their children who utilize this opportunity. It seems that every time there's a large deficit in the budget, the material speed program is up for possible elimination, reduction in size, or increase in cost. We're not the problem, nor are we the
solution to the town's financial issues. Nearby communities like Newton and Welsley that offer this benefit at no cost to the employees wouldn't do so if their children were really a financial burden. I want you to know that every time the material fee program is up for discussion, interpretation, or
negotiation, you're doing more harm than good. I've watched the finance subcommittee discussions about the proposal, and I understand the math. It's a convincing argument if you agree with the premise that we should pay a percent of the district's per pupil expense determined by the non- salary
fraction of the school's total expenditures. However, I disagree with the premise. I've been racking my brain trying to determine how much extra my children actually cost the district and I can't even reach the current cost of their tuition, a fee that already grows
at a faster rate than teacher salaries. My hope is that this is the last year in which any employee has to speak during public comment about the importance and value of the material fee program. Thank you.
>> Thank you. We're going to hear from Christina Toby next. >> Yeah, you do. Okay. >> Can Is it on? Can you hear me? Okay. >> Um, hi, my name is Christina Toby and I'm in my 21st year of teaching Spanish at Brookline High School. My husband's
also a teacher and together we have three children enrolled in the public schools of Brooklyn. We're a materials fee family and we're deeply grateful for the connection our family has built with this community. I felt compelled to speak tonight because once again the materials fee program is being
questioned in the context of budget discussions. I carefully watched the finance subcommittee meeting this past week. I heard repeatedly that this conversation is not about revenue. Yet, the discussion centered on percentage increases and projected revenue gains. After Mariah's detailed presentation,
committee members expressed appreciation for having concrete numbers tied to proposed increases. Soon after, the language shifted to quote rights sizing the contribution materials fee families make and to the idea that we're quote an educational system and we all need to contribute. I want to ask, how do we
measure contribution? How do we quantify the contributions my family and I make that don't appear in spreadsheets or charts? Sorry, I'm getting emotional. Am I helping to quote rightsize my contribution when I stay at school at 5:00 p.m. on Fridays because I don't need to rush home since my children are
engaged with friends? A job at the teen center and activities right here in Brooklyn? Am I contributing when I'm available before school because I drop my middle schoolers at the Fiser Hill bus stop at 7:30 every morning? What about when I rave about Brookline High School to community members? When I engage thoughtfully with parents and
residents about our courses, language placement, and student supports. What about Oh, when I build relationships with students and families, not only in my classroom, but on the sidelines of my son's basketball games, at my daughter's track meets, or at my sixth graders plays, all here in
Brooklyn. These contributions matter. My children are thriving in this district. They're contributing to this community every single day. And so am I. But those contributions don't fit neatly into columns labeled salary, percentages, or projected revenue. I urge you to
consider what is gained and what is lost when we frame this this discussion narrowly. Please vote to keep the materials fee for families at 3%. Any increase will far outweigh the modest revenue gained, particularly when measured against staff morale, retention, and the strength of the
community we are all working to sustain. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Alicia >> Puland. >> Hello, my name is Alicia Puland. I'm a second grade teacher at FRR. I know you received a lot of contributions about
your vote tonight, but I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective. This is my ninth year teaching in Brooklyn. I had been teaching for 5 years in another district before making a very deliberate and thoughtful decision on where I wanted my forever teaching home to be. I looked at so many factors, educational philosophy, student
support, professional development. I also intentionally looked for programs like the materials fee and considered them crucial knowing that I wanted to have a family someday. At that time, Brookline marketed the program as a staff benefit. This impacted not only my decision to work in this community, but
where I would choose to live, knowing that I had that option for my future children. Now that year is finally here, the year I'm to apply for my oldest child to enter PSB and be part of the wonderful school communities I know to be true in our district. However, instead of security and confidence when
applying, I feel a great uncertainty around if it's an even a viable path forward for my family. You claim it's 5% for the next three years, but just last year it was a far larger number. Applying to this program feels like a risk for a staff member. Now, this vote
feels like the district is essentially sunsetting a program that we as staff were anticipating or already rely on all to save you pennies compared to your whole budget. I hear your argument that you are trying to write the cost. However, this idea frankly feels like an
insult to the dedication and hard work of your staff when other similar districts do not have a cost at all. Teaching at its core is a work of heart and this district currently feels heartless. I have shown up each day for my students and given my all. Even as
PSB treats us as a line item expense and not actual people, we use our personal time at the expense of our own family to go to our students events and games and support them through family tragedies. Even as you consider making it financially impossible for our own children to join this very same
community, you say that staff retention and community is the priority. But how can that feel true when your employees go above and beyond for your students, yet you find ways to put costs on our back and treat us purely as numbers and ways to increase revenue? If I could go
back to my decision 9 years ago, I'm not quite sure it would be the same. Still, I'll go to school tomorrow and I'll love and teach and care for my students as I do each and every day. That's a promise that us staff hold true to Brookline. But what truths can we rely on from you?
Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. We're gonna hear next from Erica Omahoney. >> Hi. Does Is it on? Does it work? Okay, I'm the last one. Promise. Thank you all for listening. Um, my name is Eric
Mahan. I am a Spanish teacher at Brookline High School where I have taught for eight years. I'm also the innovation fund liaison and I've served as a materials fee liaison since taking over from Kira in 2022. I want to begin with gratitude.
I came to Brooklyn so my children could go to school in this district. My eldest daughter, Oona, attended K1 in Boston public schools. The school had a good enough reputation, but she had a very negative experience with her teacher. She developed a
nervous tick in her eye and many mornings she begged me not to go to school. The following year, luckily, she got a spot through the materials fee program at the Roland Hay School. She immediately thrived. Every year since has been better than
the last. There hasn't been a single day when she has asked me to miss school. My son Finn is just as happy here. This year he ran for fourth grade student council under the slogan Finn for the win.
He was elected and is already planning his next year's campaign. Finnegan for the win again. Next year my third child, Neve will apply for a kindergarten spot and we are so excited. I recognize this is not
something that every teacher in every district can say because of this program. I don't just work here. I feel like I belong here. And each year that goes by, I feel more connected, more invested, and more
committed. Tonight, I'm going to ask you to vote against a 5% increase to the materials fee program. Predictability matters. Tying the materials fee to a a
percentage of average per pupil cost is unpredictable and it removes families abilities to plan. As a liaison, I field questions from teachers frequently. Can we stay? Can we afford to commit long term? Does
Brooklyn still feel like a place where we can build a life? I used to be able to answer those questions with confidence. Yes, come here. I'm not sure I can anymore. As others have said, the revenue raised through repeated increase is small
compared to the cost of ongoing uncertainty. Because this program is so personal, instability lands hard. It shows up as anxiety, discouragement, and erosion of trust. When Brooklyn's teachers feel respected
and trusted, we will move mountains for our students and our schools. A 3% increase provides stability, protects morale, and sends a clear message that Brookline values educators and their families. Thank you so much
for listening to all of us. >> Thank you. and we are going to move on to the superintendent's report. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> I wanted to start off with um announcing
or acknowledging Donna Finnegan, principal of the Wrl School, who's announced to her community that she will be retiring at the end of this school year. Um, and so I'm really glad that she she decided to stay one year and I
got a year to overlap with her. Um, just in terms of the institutional knowledge that she's been able to provide. Um, when I look back at the notes to see um, what her history was here, I noted um, she was thrust into the acting principal
role on March 2020. Yes. And so um she was literally she was the vice principal at the school. Um she was assigned to be the acting principal because of an unexpected leave of absence by the then principal and she
continued to serve as the interim principal through the pandemic and then was finally appointed permanently in March 2021 by the um then superintendent Jimmy Jimmy Marini. So she's also since Jimmy, she has worked with other
superintendents. So I feel lucky that I got to got to um have this experience. And I I um looked at some of the quotes um that were said before and so this one
um this one by by Jimmy Marini. Mrs. Finnegan has earned the trust and support of the teachers, students, staff, and families through honest, open communications and a direct approach to all school issues. No concern is too
large or too small for Donna to handle in a sincere and respectful manner. Through the force of her personality, strong work ethic, and unselfish commitment to RNL, she has led the school throughout this school year with poise and grace, always positive and
always student focused. As a result, she earned the admiration of the entire RNL community and and then also this is a a parent comment. Um since day one, she has been saying your well-being is what
matters the most. your health, including mental health. She's been a cheerleader, but she's also really honest, too. She doesn't sugarcoat things for us, and I appreciate the authenticity. Um, the parent said, and when there's an update, we hear from her, and she'll
even send some funny videos. Sometimes I feel like we're in really good hands with her. And when I read the quotes, I thought, whoa, that still applies to my impression of her. She's just really forthright. She's responsive. And it's true. it's a little thing or a big
thing, she's right there and um and she handles thing things with um like confidence and positive energy in that way. And so I just a hearty congratulations to Donna on this decision and um just a we'll have other
time to um say say more about her, but just in this moment to really extend our gratitude for her tenure um here in the in the Brookline public schools. So next week I will send out messaging about the
process as we embark on the selection of a new principal. Um, but in this moment, I just want to congratulate her. So, >> and if you would allow me to, I'd like to um add in a little bit. I've worked for Donna before, and I think that everything that you said is absolutely
true. And one of the things that we all enjoyed working for Donna was the relationship that she had with her teachers. And she had just as strong relationships with the students. You'd walk into her office and there'd be a half circle of students just standing there joking with her, having a good
time. One of my favorite things about Donna is hearing her address a group of people and really she was able to motivate us with just a clear way of thinking through things and I very much appreciated that. So thanks for letting me chime in too.
>> No, it's great. So um that that I don't know if anyone else. So the the second thing I wanted to mention is um in the in the fall in September we were notified that um that our MTRS files
were to be audited and I um >> say what MTRS >> oh sorry Mass teachers retirement system and so it's just another another agency the MTRS and and also among all the records that actually have a lot of
rules about how you're supposed to to keep them um accurate and compliant, but a lot of rules and a lot of oversight obviously because it's going to be the basis for people's pensions ultimately. And so, um, I was notified on January
21st that, um, that the review had been complete. And in their words, they said, um, we've completed our employee census data testing and I'm happy to report no identified exceptions for Brookline or
any other employer selected for testing. Um, I did ask if we would get a more formal letter and so this is it. So, we'll file that very we'll we'll file it into our files. And so, I'm just wanted to um let you know about that. Um I also
I just um in the busyiness of everything that we're doing, I just wanted to thank the PTO at Brookline High School and the PTO at Hayes for welcoming me um since we last met to their meetings. And um I
have appreciated the attendance of the parents and also the questions that they have to ask and I've just really thoroughly enjoyed being able to meet them and also um being in the schools. So that's my report for the evening.
>> Thank you Jesse. >> Um I had a question. Is there any relationship with the MTRS filing and anything in that the CLA audit happen asked us to do? Was it any condition of the audit that we send this in and
anything or they're they're no orthogonal? >> No, it was just random. Okay. You know, and so just like our district curriculum review, it's just random. >> Okay. >> The the IDA grant just random. Um but interestingly, the audit firm is CLA.
>> Yes. And so I did ask them about that and I did raise a question whether there was a potential conflict of interest and they assured us it was different branches of the same firm but it turned out it was so not connected but it turned out it was the same audit firm
that MTRS engages. >> For those who are um watching very closely you'll notice that 6A was that Brookline Rec Department was going to um present to us tonight and they can't make it. So they're working with Betsy
to reschedule we hope soon. Um 6B is uh the um fiscal year 26 financial report quarter 2 and we'll turn to Mariah. >> Thank you. So this was presented to us at finance last Wednesday January 14th.
Um and so you have the complete um reports and attachments in your packets and online. We don't need to show them. I'm just I'm just going to give a quick summary. Um, so I'm going to give like a twominut highlight um, the hits of Q2
report. So big news, spending is on target. That's the headline and there's lots of great other things to come. So of the $142.7 million budget. Um, there is still 3 3.5 million which is just under two and a half% unencumbered which
is excellent. um great and on target for everything. The salary lines um are underspent by 787,000 due to careful stewardship of um salary by all of the hiring managers um as well
as um some positions not much going on under um unfilled principally due to careful hiring. So that is wonderful. Um on the non-salary side, we heard um about a um there was many different
changes sort of some things went a little bit up, some things went a little bit down. We heard about a um there was a new um unintentional um double accounting last year for 450,000 in health expenses that are
related to student services. But the good news is that those um offset some of the other expenses that had been unanticipated. And so essentially we are um they're roughly netting each other out. The biggest highlight is that we
got 1.4 million in unanticipated additional circuit breaker revenue for um FY26. Some of it was for transportation and the rest was for tuition. And what that is particularly exciting because if you all recall last
spring we ended up um deciding to use 1.9 million of of future circuit breaker funds to fund this year's budget. With this 1.4 million we have brought that down to um just over
500,000 that of that deficit. So that deficit has closed dramatically due to these um unanticipated um funds from the circuit breaker at the state level. So with the um salary um
positive balance and the additional circuit breaker revenue, it looks um like we will be able to bring it in. Fingers crossed if everything trends the way it's trending um to a balanced budget at the end of the year. Of course, we'll know more um at the Q3
report. Um the one thing I want to talk about just in terms of there was two points I want to make um in the conversation from the subcommittee. One is there was a question about whether the funds from the um Lincoln playground that were originally in the CIP for um
playground um planning um could be released back to their original purpose. That is still in conversation. and we're trying to understand um what that would entail and and other questions. So, more on that later. And then the second um
conversation that we had was about um appreciation for the structure of the quarterly reports um and um some requests for modification to how some of the special revenue funds were presented. So, I hope we'll see those um
changes starting in the Q3 report. And that's my summary. And if people have questions, I believe Susan is online or I'm happy to answer them if I can answer them too or if anyone who was there wants to add anything. I see Jesse's hand is up. >> Jesse.
>> Yeah. I just want um well, first thing I wanted to say is that in sharing this report with some other um elected officials in town, not on the not on the school committee, the comment came back to me that this layout is particularly
interesting and perhaps could be used maybe as a model for other departments within the town in preparing their quarterly reports. in terms of the ease with first of all the summary and second of all the layout that allows you to sort of at a glance go right through each department and um and and see where
we're where we are. So from that I I mentioned uh to that official that um a lot of this is due to um the collaboration between Mariah and Susan Given. I would give all the credit to Susan. >> Yes. responding to lots of questions, I
did her wizardry and came up with this report. And I, you know, I I continued to say during the conversation earlier today that um to Susan's credit, to Susan's credit, to Susan's credit, that we're in this situation right now. And I think the to to your last point, Mariah,
about having the um special revenue funds broken out as well, that will be another improvement. So, thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I think Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. Would you like to call in people? >> No, go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry.
>> Um, just that so the news about the circuit breakers. Great. And I'm just curious um those numbers change. That's just sort of like legislative
decision making. How does it come to be >> at the time the budget is built? Um it's based on the assumptions we have to date. >> Um so that so the circuit breaker amount got set later. So they often >> I think it was both though. Wasn't it
transportation the I think transportation the re rate changed and what you're saying for the main out of district. Yes. >> Yes. Also when the budget said it's set and then things changed. >> Susan Susan's coming off mute. So go
ahead Susan. >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um yes. So there's two parts to it. Um Carolyn, one is that at the end of uh fiscal 25 uh there was
additional circuit breaker money um allocated for um transportation reimbursement. We received that um in July. So that's where 600,000 of it came from. And then um circuit breaker of course is a
reimbursement program. And so when we budget, we budget based on what we re what we know at the time the budget is being prepared. Um but then what we receive in the fiscal year is based on what our actual reimbursement claims um
are submitted for. And so um as you know uh tuitions have been increasing. So um the good news is is uh that we get a higher uh percentage of those reimbursed. So, uh, as a result of that, about $800,000 of the additional revenue
is a result of, uh, current year, um, reimbursements being higher. >> Thank you for the explanation. And I have a second question, which probably is for Bella, and it's just a sort of check. So, great news
that we're um, below on salary. I guess I just want to check whether that doesn't indicate any sort of major gaps like so you weren't here last year but
for example like there was a school and maybe more than one where like for a long period of time they didn't have a I don't know I think it was a French teacher or a Spanish teacher so like we're are we staffed as we want to
We are schools. Not withstanding like >> we maybe there are individual classes that might be larger than people would like but positionwise >> we are we are short staffed at the district offices, >> right?
>> And so if you think about that but that >> that helps to mitigate some of the salaries, but you you probably have a fuller answer because that doesn't explain all of it. It's only part of it. Susan. Sure. So, uh, some is unfilled
positions. Um, mostly in the area of pair of professionals, of course, we always have some turnover there. >> Uh, thankfully, we opened the year, um, fully staffed except for one professional position and, um, so from a
teacher standpoint, um, we're staffed well. >> Okay. >> But administratively, yes, we've had turnover. some of those positions are currently open and unfilled and so that also um creates um favorable balances in our salary accounts.
>> Okay, thank you Suzanne. >> Yes, thank you for this. Um I think this is good news. It feels like it's good news. So congratulations to everybody. Thank you Susan and Mariah and the committee. Thank you. I was just curious kind of related to Carolyn's question,
but so at the end of the half, I take it or the end of this quarter, that's the um we're under budget in salaries by $787,000. Will that continue into the second half of the year? Will we or not? Do you know
what I'm asking? >> Um it's based on um my forecast for the year. Of course, that number will change because uh you know, some staff will leave and other staff will uh hopefully be hired. Um but I don't see anything on
the horizon that would change that number in any significant way. Right now, our grants are in good shape. Um we don't have any deficits running in any of the other um nonoperating budget accounts. So, I feel pretty pretty good about that. Um on the non-sary side, we
will um likely have more expense there because in the absence of some of these positions, we'll need to hire some consultants to fill in some of the gaps as we have had to do in the past. So, uh in the third quarter, I would anticipate that some of the expenses on the non-sary side will be a little bit
higher to offset uh and and we'll then therefore the salaries will have to offset some of those expenses. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Jesse. >> Yeah. Um, Susan, I had a question. I think you've explained it before, but
you always have such a clear way of framing it. Um, in the discussion about funding things using extra sections, the word extra. So, I a um resident actually called me today about this in Brooklyn. And the question was, and the way I
answered it, you can tell me if I was close or not, was that looking at the what I've learned from you before, I think, is looking at the enrollment, you know, back last year for this year, you um uh compute sort of, you know, a model for how many sections you're going to
need and potentially an extra section because of ch, you know, students can come in, things can move around, and so those are like preserved, if you will, and then can be utilized in situations
um where the section isn't needed because you're using the extra section set aside for these 5.2 FTEES in the report. Is that close to reality? How I'm understanding that? >> Pretty close. Pretty close. Yeah. So, so >> my mentor, you know.
>> Yeah. So, I I'm going to re term it because, you know, people think that it's this big reserve and it really isn't. you know, the real terms shouldn't be extra because they're not extra, but they're unassigned sections. So, when we're building the budget, we don't have um master schedules
completed. And so, what we do is we um create the budget u using some assumptions um certainly enrollment being one, but also um staff uh needs are also dictated by student needs. And
um when we're budgeting at this time of year, which is January, for an implementation in September, we can't nail down with um granular uh level detail uh exactly how those sections will need to be assigned. So they're
really just unassigned sections that we're holding. And right now, we only have one unassigned section uh left. So um uh we budget as closely as we can during the budgetary process and then in
practice um we need to be able to um address the student needs uh that arise uh between the time that we develop the budget the master schedules are created um and the students arrive in September. And um Susan I my understanding just
correct me if I'm wrong is that it so one professional FTE might cover two paras >> so it's also and so that can actually change quite a bit as the year progresses. >> I like I like the um substitute word
unassigned. I think it's clearer and it doesn't leave people with the maybe with a sense that we somehow like place away somewhere in the closet extras so that if we need it, we can just pull them out. Unassign's different because there's a plan. We just aren't ready to
assign them yet, but we know we're going to kind of a thing. >> As the year goes by, that's that proves to your point that, you know, there's only one left now at this point in the year. So, thank you. >> I would just add too that this was this has been a long-standing practice in Brooklyn and then a couple of years ago
as one of the budget cutting exercises, this pool of funds to be able to um this reserve pool to be able to, as you say, assign people as we need them. Um we didn't have it and it was quite um a problem during the year when we needed
to be able to do some of this work. So, uh, the budget guidelines added back in a plan a couple of years ago to make a multi-year plan to return this, and Susan has done so. So, we and we've worked to build up this number again to provide the flexibility to the district
to be able to place um place staff as needed during the actual year and and we'll say after the budget's finalized um without incurring a deficit. So, it's a great way to balance those needs. It's a little bit off topic, but um how many
unassigned positions do we anticipate holding for school next next year? >> I'm carrying the same number next year as I um carried this year. >> Thank you. >> Is that a transition to our next
>> Oh, okay. >> Carolyn, >> sorry. And this one's for you, Mariah. Can you say a little bit more? You mentioned something about potentially changing
the decision that we made about not spending I think it was 900 something on Lincoln playground. Can you just explain? >> So it's not it's not really us. I will say that um there was a last for this
year there was a item in the CIP to I'm not going to get the word is it to like plan the Lincoln playground I don't remember there was some word that it was like it was the the preparation for the Lincoln playground to be redone and so like there's usually that feas I think it's a feasibility study right that and it was
>> and so those funds were what were held aside rather than putting them into the directly into the PSB budget um it was held to would we need it? And so, you know, we have to see whether if we don't need them, is there a way to um return
them for their like to sort of release them back to their original purpose to hopefully keep that project roughly on time or >> or or to see where that's at. And so, we need to close the loop on that. >> And I I might be able to speak more to that when we um talk about the FY27
budget update. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, hold hold the thought. >> Okay. I'll try. >> Well, I'll remember. Okay. >> To begin with. >> Okay. Could I Okay. I I wanted to um
thank Susan for the work that she's done on this. And I also I think it's okay to note that um Susan's been working remotely as much as she can. She's um she is on medical leave technically um
from 12:22 all the way to 1:30. So, we will not be um able to have Susan in or working fully until that date. And so, she's already signaled that she's likely not going to be able to stay once we get through these financial reports on on
you know, just as long as she can. So, in the meeting in the meeting. Yes. Yes. In the meeting. And um but I just I just want to appreciate to like how she's been doing that. And I know today was a very long day. Um, and so just uh so
she's not so we're all we're all kind of pitching in to do the different parts. Um, and the these there's just some parts that only Susan can do and so we're really trying to protect um her capacity to be able to do this work. Um,
I also want to say this is the earliest I've ever seen a second quarter report done. So, I'm a little worried she's setting a very high standard, but I also know that Susan's putting an extra effort because we actually need we're in a we're in a difficult time right now
where we're trying to figure out um planning for FY27. So, I know she's making a special effort to get this clarity out to us as soon as possible, but I don't know that any this is a very early date to get a second recorder report, keeping in mind it only
ended on 1231. So, I just thank you for that. It's really remarkable. It's a great report and uh might be an unsustainable effort in years to come, but but we needed it right this time. So, thank you. Well, I
was going to add that with her with her expertise in process, she could help automate it so that the third quarter report comes out around the 20th of the following month, too. Who knows? >> You know, she likes process, so we'll look forward to that.
>> Thank you. Mariah, did you want to close out that section? >> I think we're done. >> Okay. >> Can I I I just want to say I'm wishing you well, Susan, and we miss you here in the room. >> Thank you. I miss you, too. appreciate all the uh support.
I also just want to say uh that it's a team effort. It's it I always say budgeting and finance are a team sport. Uh and so uh we have some good people that are working really hard. Um we're very understaffed. Um and each and every day they come in with a great attitude
and uh if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be able to do the work that we're doing. So, I want to give a shout out to uh Deb McDonald and uh and her payroll staff as well as Donna Chisum and Z Perry who have been stepping up and leaning in to
help us get uh over the hurdle on some of these things. >> We're very thankful to you and very thankful to them. Thank you. We are going to move on to the update on the superintendent's um fiscal year 27 initial budget request.
Um I think Susan, are you going to going through the lines and then maybe I'll just jump in in the end? >> Yeah, sure. Happy to. >> Okay. >> So, uh just before we begin, this is a different document than you received in December. Um if you I I gave you both
documents um because I want to point something out that's very important. In December, what you received is three years of actual, the current year budget, and uh 27, 28, and 29 were estimates. What you have before you tonight is the
27 budget. Okay? So, those numbers are going to look different because I was estimating before and tonight I'm giving you what our budget numbers actually are. So the detail of this will be presented in the traditional manner with
um you know enrollment information and staffing FTE analysis and narratives and all of that uh in a couple of uh short weeks. Um so I'm not prepared to answer every every detailed question about the budget. That would be a little premature. There's many more
conversations that need to be had. Um but these are the numbers. And so on the salary um that means that um all of the staff that have uh submitted for uh lane movement um have been added. We've had
um some staff retiring and uh submitted their notifications and so those have all been incorporated. Um you know uh we've set aside money in the budget for uh contract settlements. uh people on leave of absence that are coming back.
All those salary adjustments, the my rate of those have all been um uh incorporated into the FY27 number now. So um so this is a real number as opposed to an estimate. So I just wanted
to make note of that. And um uh there's also some efficiencies um that we'll talk about in in more detail when we get to um uh the budget document itself, but we have some um um additional efficiencies that have been incorporated
into this with some restructuring which I am not going to talk about again tonight. um in terms of u non-s salary. So those are all the other expenses that uh categories that appear below wages. Um you'll see and I can't see Bets's
little one, but I I have it up on my screen. So um one of the things I I just I want to call out a few things so it's not um uh you know so you don't have to ask me the question um on the things that I think are obvious. um when we're
looking at um education, training and conferences, you know that um we cut pretty significantly into uh these accounts to close the budget gap this year. Um so in the budget uh we only had about 78,000 uh 79,000 uh dollars in the
FY26 budget, but you also know from looking at the quarterly report that we're running over about 57,000 because we cut just too deep. you know, there's some training that has to um occur and uh there's some memberships uh that we
needed to um fund and so uh we're running um over budget in 26. So, in 27, there's some course correction there, but there's also some some um expenses that um as I go through the FY27 budget
as a whole and all funds, you'll notice that we are um uh not going to anticipate any money for title 2, three, and four for the upcoming year. So, as we've put together the FY27 budget, we've had to look and say programming
that is funded off of those grants. Do some of those need to now come online? So, for example, we fund um uh some of our mentors uh mentor stipens and and and such and our mentor program for new teachers out of the title
grants. without the title grants then we need to now now fund those out of the operating budget because those are required um um supports uh that we have to provide for staff. So that's that's an example. So really what the education training and conference line is for 27
is restoration um and then um some additional resources there uh because other other uh funding sources um are are drying up on us. the furniture, fixture and equipment. We, you know, mentioned this, I mentioned
this um at the last meeting that um FFNe um was funded through um the CIP program um in the town for I don't know how long, but as long as I've been here and before that as well. And uh there has been kind of a sea change in um
philosophy. And uh I was informed that um CIP funds will no longer be used to fund FFN that um uh the town is moving to uh incorporating those expenses into operating budgets. So we've had to add
those expenses in and you'll see more information about exactly what the 75,000 is for when we um deliver the full budget document in a couple of weeks. general supplies. Um that's another account you you can kind of see the history here. We've been up and down
and up and down. Um but we've trimmed back there from what's in the 26 budget. So there's, you know, uh lowered expenses by about $100,000. Uh but feel pretty confident that even though we've been um reducing those lines that um we have adequate amount of
money in the budget for FY27 to cover the essential expenses for the classrooms. um you know it annuity those are all small amounts those are you can see by looking at um the numbers here that we're we're really just funding at the
spending level current spending levels from FY25 uh so a little bit higher in some cases but um but it's only to reflect uh spending trends there leased on on the lease we we of course cut back on our leases and postpone payments um and
buying um some renewing some leases in 26. We've restored some of those in 27, but we've also cut back on the number of devices that um that we are um leasing moving forward. And that's based on enrollment projections that are provided
to um the IT department as well as uh declining staff, overall staff. So, those have been right sized. There still is some opportunity for that to go down a little bit more. I'm working with fun now um to to refine the numbers um um in
other ways. So there might be a potential for that to go down a little bit um throughout our budget process, but right now I feel really good about that number. Legal services um you can see, you know, this is really kind of an average spend number. Um we're at 360
this year. Uh the numbers have been higher or a little bit lower last year. Last year, of course, we had um an HR director for um most of the year. In the prior two years, uh we were using some consulting services there to to augment
um our uh human resource needs at the time. Um and so those numbers were higher. Of course, this year we have negotiations, so the number will be higher again. We've lowered a little bit going into next year uh because we have complete optimism that we are going to uh settle our contracts before the
year's out. No, no applause. Yeah, I was waiting for somebody to catch that. Um, >> we have company in the audience. >> I'm I'm being I'm sincere. I I I'm
hopeful that we will settle the contracts. Um, okay. So, uh, yeah. So, you know, mileage, gas, etc. Um, those numbers um are going up. uh you know some of this information we get from uh
town department heads um these are some of these are back charges to us also it's for mileage reimbursement for um you know our coordinators who are moving from school to school they they seek reimbursement so uh those numbers are are rather low not big big information
on the um online uh books subscriptions and tools some of this is is making some um further adjustments you know we have fish tank and that that requires us to pay for a license. Um we have the renewal of our math um curriculum and that's p primarily sitting in this
online uh tool um uh online book um subscription and tool line. Um and and uh you know that's kind of hitting us um after having not been in our budget for a couple of years. It was paid upfront and now it's time to kind of renew that
subscription. So that's the reason why that one is is is going up. um claims and settlements um you know it kind of is what it is the all but 30,000 of that is really on the OSS side of the um side
of the uh operations and so those numbers are going down a lot of good work being done in uh in that office um um and the decrease here is reflective of that work uh out of district tuition this line is going to look wonky um and
it's going to because of what Mariah mentioned earlier, which is um using the circuit breaker fund to pay for some expenses that we previously paid for out of the operating budget and we had to move those off of the operating budget in order to be in a balanced budget
scenario for this year. So, uh we leveraged the revenue that we're taking in this year to pay for ex for some of these expenses that we have. So that's why the number looks it's artificially low for 26. In 27
um we're bringing um the full that full body of expense back onto the operating budget. And so that's why you see the increase there. And then what you see in 28 is the number going down. And the reason for that is because we will recoup and be back on cycle with our
revenue. Receiving revenue in one year, applying it into the next year. So, it'll take us a couple of years to kind of um recover from using those funds for this year because by using it, we didn't have revenue for next year. Um, and we also had the expense that we had to bear
in the current year. So, it'll just take us two years to to kind of get back to an even keel on that. But huge progress by getting that $1.4 million. Uh, that was that's a blessing um for sure. Uh, professional and technical services. This is where you see some of the double
counting that we talked about in the earlier report. There's no double counting. Um and the copers are in. So that's all good news. Um and so that number's gone down a tad. Uh purchased equipments uh level funded. And then um
again, similar numbers, slight adjustments here from the budget. Um um moving forward um some of this is uh uh money that sits in this line. The town had requested starting last year that we account for financial assistance out of
the student activities and field trip line. So that's why you see in the prior years the number is uh smaller. It was accounted for in different account lines than it than it was starting in FY25. um 26 we had the 201,000 and then moving
forward we've kind of course corrected a bit lower on that moving forward it's also for transportation and other field trips. It's not just exclusively for the um financial assistance but that's what's causing the numbers to look a little odd there. Tuition uh or um
textbooks and printed materials, you know, again going down. It's not going down. Um the reason why it's going down is because more and more um we're getting um online subscriptions um and books. Uh and so there's there's uh
shifting between those two lines. Uh but this is based and and we also made some some cuts this year um in the current year as you know um um and we also funded in the current year some additional textbooks for our literacy program. So that's the that's reflective
of what uh coordinators um um requested in the in the FY27 budget cycle. And then transportation again number looks a little odd here. Um what we're realizing in the 27 budget is kind of uh trying to
fully fund and capture all of the transportation expense for um our out of district students. We we also um cut two of the elementary buses this year. um um to try to um find efficiencies there. Uh
but we had more students um at the Lawrence School riding and so we had to add a shuttle there. We're carrying the shuttle in the FY27 budget as well. So all of those expenses um are causing the FY27 budget um to uh be a bit higher
than we had hoped. We'd hoped we had um captured most of it in 26, but we hadn't caught it all. So, uh, FY27 is reflective of the McKenna Vento increases that we talked about in the quarterly report. It's reflective of the Lawrence shuttle, um, as well as
standard increases in our transportation, um, contracts. So, that is a snapshot of what our 27 budget um, is shaping up to look like. Um, the the really good news
here is um, the bottom line, right? the bottom line is down. We're under a 6% increase. Um and hopefully we will uh get a little bit of revenue from the town and that'll bring that down further. Another thing I want to point out too is um when you're looking in the
out years. So this year is higher because again we're trying to capture that structural deficit and fund that. And once the expense is funded when you look out into the other year. So if it's funded fully in 27 then um we don't have to do any um adjusting in 28. It's just
purely moving um expenses forward um using the the uh metrics and assumptions that um I put together for the forecast. So, uh, you know, moderate increases I would say in general, um, on the school side, um, in the future if we can get
this structural deficit funded properly in FY27. So, that is my synopsis for you. >> All right, great. Thank you, Susan. Um, if you will all bear with me, I'm going to do a bit more analysis on contacts
now that Susan's gone down um the line by line and also Susan will still be here um to to help fill in as needed. Um this is a very solid very solid projection at this point. And um if you
just look across FY25, FY26, FY27, look at those lines and you can see that our budget drivers. Our our budget driver is going to be wages and um somewhat in the in the in the
adjustment to the tuition, the out of district tuition line and also um our settlements. So, we're working on on the the latter two, but if you look at all the other lines, we are we're correcting
um between FY27 and FY25, like we're really tightening up. They are either pretty close to the FY25 value or they may be even less. So, an exception is the FFNe, which Susan has
explained. we've received a new $75,000 incursion um in that line. So when you look at the budget, where are the drivers and what can we do? The salary line is a driver, but this new number
reflects our efforts on reorganization and efficiencies. When you see the detail for the budget, when it comes later, you'll see actually there are there's a reduction in FTEES. All right. So the salary line is still a
driver but it's fewer FTEES that are reflected here. Um the other thing I wanted to bring your attention to is our first projection that Susan offered um on on
November 13th, we were looking at 12.85 million as the increase. So we're at 8.47 right now. But on November 13th, it was 12.85 at a 9% because it was
before we did the reorganization the efficiencies analysis. When the um when Susan presented the update on December 17th, it was reduced to 9.95
million and she went from 9% to 6.97%. And we said at that time we're about we were partially through the reorganization and efficiency portion. And so now we are pretty much through
it. There's some things that will adjust. You know it is it's January it's mid January for a budget projected for the next fiscal year. So today's presentation of 8.47 47 million 5.93%.
We went from 9% to 5.93% in the reorganization and identification of efficiencies and right sizing. Some of the right sizing was she you know working with it matching the number of
um computer technology we needed for for fewer staff. So right sizing, efficiencies, reorganization, all of that is through that effort. This number represents pretty close to what we're going to say
is a recommended budget for level service and some items that we're recommending for continued growth and improvement. Right? So this reflects just the amount of work through the or right to
efficiencies to get to this place. This this number again reflects close to what we would say is a recommended budget level service plus items to sustain growth. So at this number 8 and the other thing
I wanted to highlight you might say okay it's 8.47 47 million. And what you had for FY26 was um that the difference than um sorry the difference in what we had for an
increase in last year. Remember the the tuition line was was low artificially because we went 1.9 million into the reserve. So this tuition line is just we're right
sizing back to what it's supposed to be. Now when you see when we right size it back in the outyear. So that 8.47 represents the right sizing of that 1.9 that we took before. If you think about
it, it's actually pretty amazing. If you took 8.47, 47. You took out the 1.9 and you compare it to the dollar increase for this year. It's it's actually really I just want everyone to understand
how much right sizing has been done for the budget. So I we've been in so we we so Chaz and I talk a lot about you know what what possibly could be the town allocation.
So on this chart it's zero. So I'm reminding you that for this year we got 5.94 5.944 million. We got almost 6 million in the town allocation for this year. In
the year before the PSB received 5.81 81 million and the year before that 7.3 or you could say 7.31 million in town allocation.
So Chaz said um town administrator Chaz Kerry said it's okay for me to announce that they're anticipating that it'll be 2 million. The exact amount is 1.9 something. So he said it was okay for me to share
that the expected town allocation will be close to 2 million. It's it's um and so previous to this the town administrator had presented a zero or a negative allocation.
So where the monies are going to come from is through the select board um through the recommendations of the town administration and his staff some reallocation of funds that are in other accounts. One of them will be the CIP
account. So it's I'm not sure what is being counted in that reallocation which is which is why I'm not sure if the if the funds that have been previously
allocated are available or not because they have been held in case we needed it um for operational support this year and so I will I will ask for for that clarification. Right. So that's why I I
don't know because I do know that the reallocation is going to come from funds that have been set aside for CIP. Um part of the allocation will also come from other revenue accounts they have available. Um whether it's parking fees
or something like that. But he Yes. >> This is sort of this is >> No, go ahead and finish. I'll ask my >> So he So So the official report from the town administrator will come out at a later date. Um, so that means we're looking at a gap
of um not 8.47, but if you minus >> six Yeah. And I still want to say um 6.47. And uh and um but also keep in mind that the town's capacity I it's been on a I
averaged the last three years and the average was 6.35 million. So it's been 6 million. So 2 million I am grateful for much better than zero or a negative number. But if you were to
consider if it were 6 million, right? If you take our 8.47 and you minus 6 million, then we would have been looking at 2.47. But also keep in mind that we've
adjusted for the 1.9. >> That's that was my question. >> So do you see how we >> So why can't we now that we have that 1.4 freed up that we got an extra revenue this year? Why can't we allocate that 1.4 against out of district tuition
next year? Like why can't that 5.2 line be reduced by 1.4? >> She's replenishing it. >> You already did it. >> I already It's already included in the analysis here. Oh, so it would have been 6.6 otherwise. Yeah.
>> O, >> thank you. >> I was hoping for an ask >> I had been hoping Susan for an asterisk on that 5.24. That's I had it circled for the same I think question that Mariah had. Where did the 1.4 go? >> So,
>> but we do see it recovering in the out years even better. Um, but it just it reflects a lot of work on the on the reorganization and efficiencies to get to where we're at. And also, um, I just want to be sure that people understand
that the gap the gap that we're going to be looking at a funding gap is partly because the town's capacity to fund has also been diminished. And the town administrators already um presented on why why that is, you know, through the
increased cost of benefits and other expenses. And we are also I mean even though some of our numbers are going down, we are also addressing inflation and increased pricing um in our expense lines. Um so it's again this is the
numbers are where they are because of um a lot of work among the the senior team um just looking at ways to to again reorganize and do things more efficiently. >> Yeah. This this doesn't I mean this 2 million you're talking about though is
only additional allocation. We don't know what the town school split's going to be yet. Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, this is the school allocation. >> So what's that? This is the school allocation. >> Yes. Yes. >> This is the 60%. >> Right. But the 151265
Yes. >> It's not a guaranteed number today. It's just >> is our expenses, not revenues. >> I understand. >> Yeah. So, >> but in other words, when the town looks at its 440 million or something in the total budget and decides at some point
what that split is actually going to be, >> yes, >> it may not match this number. This is our budgeted number, right? It's not what they get. I mean, unless I'm >> But Chaz has already put out Chaz Melissa have already put out a projected PSP allocation for next year
>> and that >> okay because I >> we it's not in it's not on this page. It was in the town's long range forecast that came out at the beginning of December and as Bella said it was it was negative, right? >> It was below what our current year, right? And so what he's saying is you won't be slightly negative. you will we
will give you 2 million in addition to the 140 in a small amount that we already gave you. So so it's it's this this because we know that FY26 revenues equal expenses. That's how that's why we're using the FY the expense number
here you can net out the 2 million from that because the 8.4 growth represents both our deficit from current expenses current revenues as well as the projected growth in expenses. I also appreciate that he um gave permission
for me to use that number and he understands that okay so this is we have a gap and so what we're obligated to present to you in February is the recommended budget and also what would it would take to get to the level of
funding that's available and that's something that takes time. So between between now and and then we'll be working on that. >> Can I make one comment too? One of the things you alluded to as well is that the that you this budget accounts for
the federal government no longer providing title 2 through four funds although the obligations remain to provide the services that those funds were I presume right otherwise we would Right. And so I just looked quickly at our Q2 report and and because I don't have the numbers of how much that represents, but it looks to me like it's
almost $300,000 in federal funds that and I could be wrong, so correct me Susan, but again that's a significant thing too as we think about the obligation that it will be will be trans that is being transferred to the town from the federal government because of this um
>> forecast. And so I think it's important to acknowledge that as well that there's not just pure growth in here. there's um additional obligations from that and from the CIP that are brand new to us >> and some and restoration of of what we think are critical critical functions
>> but the elimination of that funding >> Bob. >> Yeah. I just want to say that um it is incredibly reassuring listening to yours and Susan's and Mariah's presentation. The level of sophistication and deep understanding of the complexities of the
budget to me having paid attention for the last bunch of years while I wasn't on the school committee is just impressive and I just want to thank you and the team for getting us to this point. Thank you. >> Thank you Carolyn. Um thanks for all
this and I have a few questions. So, just to sort of go back to what Jesse was saying, and apologies if I kind of missed something. So, when I look at this, and this probably just has to do with sort of how I tend to look at this. So,
our budget is about 1512. My question that I think I don't see here what we currently understand the split to be. And I think you said that's and I know
that's always a moving target, but right now it's 140 something. >> 142 flat. >> Okay. >> If I recall. >> And then right now Chaz is saying you said >> did you say 2 point? >> No, he he said um approximately 2
million and um >> that it was >> in additional >> it's slightly less but I but he didn't give me the exact number but he felt comfortable with my saying. So >> broad amount. >> So um
so then the the big question is what's the the gap right like what are we looking at right now as a gap? Did that get said and I missed it? >> So so the the another so in in November
when we put out 12.85 85 as a as a projection before reorgan reorganization and efficiency. The town was projecting a zero allocation. So the gap theoretically was 12.85.
We worked on bringing down the monies and he thinks he can do a town allocation of 2 million. Yep. >> So that means the gap right now is 6.47. Would you agree? Mariah, what I and
that's not >> what I just said. So that So yes. >> Okay. And that's not on here and I'm missing it. >> Well, that's a zero >> because it's a zero because this is just strictly the budget. >> Um
>> and it's not till he puts out >> sure. Okay. And then thank you. completely separate two qu two questions related transportation it's so rough it's so much
um we have to do it and I I guess I just feel like I have to say this question obvious even though the answer is probably obvious like we've scoured the earth for possible ways to like is there
any kind of assistance on transport transportation and then an sort of related question. Um I hope you don't mind me asking Bella when you just went through and you said you were sort of pointing to our OOD and
settlement um budgets and you said we're working on that. Would you mind would you be able to say a little bit more what you mean by >> I think it's just the um just working on on the oversight and placement
and so you can see that we're projecting an improvement on that in the out years. >> I wonder if I could break in with a question. Um so um I'm wondering sort of your evaluation of this. There's places
where we have commitments that we can't change. Where do you feel particularly lean? Like, you know, with all respect to the great work that's been done for the efficiencies, do you feel like the training for teachers is a place where we're particularly lean right now? Is there what are what are we losing out
on? Susan, you you can also help me on this, but I feel like we're we're particularly lean actually in the in the district office level. So, we you don't have the budget yet. Um, but we are recommending
restoration of the senior data person. We're not asking for a new communications director. Um, we really probably could use two senior directors of TNL, teaching and learning. We're not asking for
restoration of that position. We have focused on studentf facing positions, but I would say where we are the most lean is actually at the district office level. Um I think it's really critical and this year we have suffered through
um not having um sufficient funds for professional development and training and we've really um we've been sort of saved by by using funds that are not like they're not going to carry forward in the next year. We were able to do
that. Um, and also we did have the the federal um two, three, and four grants this year or we're anticipating we're not going to have those next year. So I think that's so this year we felt particularly lean and I think we're
restoring it to a level that we think is reasonable. Um, I don't know where else maybe even Karen thinks that we're tight. I would say it's the district. It's we're we're kind of I don't know, not a sophisticated word. We're continuing to
suck it up here in the in the district offices. Um >> and are the Oh, sorry. >> I'm just I was looking to see if Karen had anything. >> Yeah, Robin's out sick, by the way. Yeah, she's
>> And is the where you've been feeling the pinch on training, is that sort of mainly around fish tank roll out? >> No, not >> I don't mean I mean I know you're I know that's not district office, but if >> No, not fish tank roll out because the school committee protected that.
>> Oh, right, right, right, right, right. >> It was the one area you protected, but there's all sorts of other training. >> Yeah. um across the other curriculum areas, but also just the mandated training. Um a lot of training to support our delivery of intervention
services, whether it's um for special education or general intervention. That's where we're really feeling um that. And actually more can be done around supervision evaluation. There's
just a lot of um just basic uh training across the board. >> In fact, when I look at documents from prior school committees, I see a lot more mention of PD as being a a real area that they wanted to make sure to preserve. And I feel like that is the
era that we're in right now is that we um as a school committee haven't communicated to you to preserve that as much as other prior ones have. So that's just been an observation that I've seen. >> Um, and so again, the things we saw to
restore, we we feel strongly are are critical things that need to be restored. There's some other things that would be nice to restore and we're just we um we're really trying to do our best to to um remain tight
and um again bring it bring forward a budget that will will do what we think needs to be done to to sustain service and continue to grow. Did Chaz give you an um an idea of when
they will be providing a revised multi-year forecast? Because like the the way that the long range forecast worked, the first two years were flat from well were down from this year and then the third year actually drops. So, I would like to understand if it's not
just a one-year question, but a the three-year question. Um, and whether the 2 million is retained, whether it goes up in out years, like how does what is it whether it's better in the outy years? I would just love to know if he gave you more info. >> I didn't see I didn't see a draft multi-year report.
>> Um, he just gave me the number I've been asking for, which I appreciated. He did say the date that the that the report would be released. And I have a date in my head, but I'm not exactly sure I got it exactly right or remembered exactly
right. So, I know he has a date, but I I'm reluctant to say the date. >> I'll follow up by email. >> I'm just not sure I remembered it right. >> Thank you. >> I don't know if we're going to move on. >> Okay. Um, thank you.
>> Thank you. I just want to say thank you to Susan. Yeah, >> she's gone. >> Oh, she's gone. >> Nope, she's there. Thank you, Susan. >> Thank you, Susan. >> And Karen, >> just want to remind people was a huge part of this because it's a big part of
the budget. >> Yeah, we could hear it in the details that you refer to. Yeah, thank you. >> And we'll be receiving the full budget book in the first couple of days of February. So, that will have much more details for everyone to look at. We are now at the point of um school
committee actions and our first one is the rates for the staff materials fee program. Um and Mariah has some slides to share. Sure. I believe >> um so just as a reminder, finance has reviewed this for several meetings in a
row and I'm not going to try to recap all of the conversations we've had at finance. Um and what I'm going to do is there's a a couple of new slides. Um and well one new slide and two of the old slides. So
if you don't mind Betsy. So this slide um talks about some of the Thank you. So it talks about some of the considerations that um need to guide our work and I think you'll actually hear a lot of commonality with some of the
public comment from earlier. Um and a lot of this builds on the the you know time that we've spent talking with materials leaison and understanding what's going on. So, I'll just highlight transparency and predictability, equity,
impact, um, recruitment and retention, and aligned interests. And you all can see what's written on the slide. So, I won't, um, I won't read it to you, but you can see some of this. Now the next slide I prepared
this I'm going to talk you through this because there's a lot of numbers but I just wanted it to sort of inform um what we're actually talking about when we talk about going beyond the historical 333 which is 3% um increase a
year that um has been and I won't say it's the standard or anything but it has been in recent practice most common um although we have varied from it in multiple years. Um so if you were to go and I'll just sort of walk you through this and then we can and then I'll go to
the motion and then we can talk about this. If you were to go to to do a 3 I3 which is 3% for the next three years with a 10% discount for more than one student the fee for a single student would be the values you see there. So
3641 next year, 3750 the year after that, 3863 the year after that. And you can see the revenue that that generates. Um and um that revenue is based on the assumption of the current the exact current mix of students we have now. So
of course it will not be that exact number, but it gives you a sense of scale. If you were to look at the fee and the revenue on the next column, that is what the finance subcommittee voted three to zero to zero to support. Jesse
had to leave us a couple of minutes beforehand, so he didn't get the chance to vote. Um, you'll see that the fee is um what you see there. So 3712, 38.97,492. You can see the revenue and then what I did below was net out. So you can see
the actual change between what I'll say is the default that first column. So 3712 like you see the FY27 fee minus the if it was only 3% you can see that it's a $71 increase. So it' be a $71 increase
compared to 333 in the first year 147 in the second year 229 in the third year. And then the same you can see the comparisons down below and I gave you a three-year total. Does that make sense? Like does everyone understand what 555 is and how it compares to 3 I3? Is that
clear so far? Because if you don't understand that column, none of like you'll be totally lost for the rest. >> Yes. But oh, sorry. Yeah. I didn't mean to. >> Yes. But can you just give me >> Yes. >> Like just a moment to sort of also I
just want to >> see the I want to get oriented so that I can easily go through. >> Yeah. comparisons and the revenues. >> Yep. >> So, >> take a moment to look at that column and then um
>> and anyone else who has questions, let me know. So, um, I'm sorry, Bob. I just wanted to say at the top, um, Mariah, you did read you read through the considerations, but you didn't say sort of the opening statement, which was that, >> um, on the finance committee, we would
like to make fees predictable and make them have a rationale so they're understood. And so, I just think that that's the most that's the biggest idea here is to make sure that that's where we're coming from. >> And I have a question. the um the graphs
and the material that we received from Etsy I I believe said >> uh fiscal year 27 10% increase then six and six or something like that is that true >> so that was the like I finance met the
first time um and I showed a model which is some of what the staff who are here tonight referred to which um tries to look at the per pupil expenditure as calculated by Desi in district. Not we don't include the out of district, but we look at the per pupil expenditure and
then we look at the his we know in our budget that historically um staff costs are in the mid 80s, non- staff costs are in the mid teens, right? So if we assume it's an 8515 split and we look at 15% of our total per pupil
cost being that non-sary cost, which is the approxy for the marginal cost of a student participating, right? We're not we're saying that they don't take we're not adding extra sections for a student to participate but there is a per student cost and it's in all the
materials the Chromebook the utilities the paper the markers the you know all of those things right and so >> so what's the vote on tonight >> hold on okay so the vote is on whatever you want but wait um and so after that
first conversation there was a lot of discussion about like you know is this the right model and so um at finance last week I presented multiple other models. Um, and you see those other rows here. And then the committee voted for one. This is the one that's in gray on here. But my point in showing you all of
this is that there's there's lots of ways to do this, right? You can go with a 3 I3, you could go with a zero. The committee makes up its own mind based on its own shared values, how it wants to proceed. >> Um, and um, and I'm just trying to make people understand like I think Do you
mind going back one slide, Betsy? I think there's a lot of really important things here. Um, and I just want to talk about like staff focused on the bottom two, the value of recruitment, the value of retention, aligned interest, having your student here, and that's really
great, too. People also talked about the impact, right? That there's no this is a relatively small amount of money that we're talking about both for the individual for some of these, but also for the district. And so I wanted to make it easy for people to understand the numbers thinking that most of us
around the table can appreciate and don't need to be reminded about these other I'll say non-financial impacts. Does that help sort of contextualize it at the bigger level? >> I mean I was again my my my interest was what's the bottom line that you guys voted on? >> Well, we voted on the 555 but it's a
recommendation to full school committee. So >> okay >> now and in the prior year school committee doesn't necessarily accept the finance subcommittee's recommendation. So that >> sorry Caroline go ahead. >> Um
so even though there are the four columns on the right are not on the table or maybe anything is on the table. How come we don't have numbers for the when you say fee comp, you mean comparison
>> for 333 for the next three years or the revenue? How come that one's not filled out? >> You mean down below? Because that is the revenue up here. 333 you have the fees and then the revenue. Right. So the cost the top two sets are the actual revenue
and then this is the net increase. Exactly. It's the comparison. >> This is a comparison. >> Exactly. So the bottom two sections are the comparisons with 3 I3. >> This is the math that I would have wanted to do myself had you not done it for me there. Well, I think you know
I think that there is a like a default of 3 I3 is the sort of like the default and so it helps people understand what's actually at stake and I wanted to make it easy for people to understand what that meant both for an for an individual participant in the program as well as for the district as a whole. So for
example, >> yes, >> if we instead of doing 333, which has been the practice, >> but do 555, >> we would the district would
>> assuming the same exact number of students. >> Yeah. >> Take in in FY27 13709 more than otherwise. >> Correct. and and then like the I gave the summary and then the three-year total so you
could see it's 86,000 over the three years but 13,000 in that first year as you say. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So wait are we all we all get the math right? I just want to Okay. So then the next column was one we looked at that was 5% in the first year 6% in the
second 7% in the third 10% for each additional children 10% discount. Next column 66610 the next to last one 1833. Um I presented that one get with the idea of it still gets us to the equity
of the um of the fee meaning that it still arrives at that sort of the goal of right sizing the fee to reflect the non-salary costs of student expenditures in by that third year. But it sort of >> this historic
non-s salary cost because it does change. >> It does change. Although this year we had a huge cost cutting exercise. That is why it changed, right? But so um and so I was this was like I called it a like rip off the band-aid. Oh well we could do 18% in the first year and then
3% in the two out years. It gives a greater discount if you have three or four children. So that's why it says 1020 because it's 10% discount for the second kid, 20% um discount for third and fourth and subsequent children of which there are some participant families in the district who um have
that. And then the last column is the original proposal that was 1066. Um and you can see the math from our very first presentation. I'm not going to go into the math here, but it's like a formula that over time returned us to that historic um
level of non-salary costs. So, um again, finance voted the 555. I put the motion um on the third slide, if you don't mind, Betsy, just to show people what we voted. And the other
thing is um we would like to rename this to the tuition rate for dependent of non-resident employees. Um it is what it is and I think materials fee is a confusing name. We all agreed that it might be helpful to um really focus on that as opposed to calling it materials
fee. So that was the motion that we voted. It reflects the numbers you see on the previous slide which is the 555 column. Um 555 with the 10% discount. And with that, I think I am done talking and we can get to questions, more
questions and discussion. >> You have questions over there. Sarah, >> I have questions everywhere. >> Both of them raised their hand. >> Okay. Donna, >> it's not a question. I was Are we having discussion? We're having discussion now. Yeah. So, um,
I took some time to write down some thoughts so that I'm relatively articulate. Um, I want to start by thanking everyone who has reached out to the school committee and spoken um, both
this evening and over email um, over the past few weeks. Uh, the feedback was incredibly important and I appreciated it. Um the two main themes I've heard um were around predictability and also recognition.
I value predictability. I understand why um educators have asked for it. I also um come to this conversation as a single parent on a very limited budget. So I understand personally that every single dollar matters um in a household. and I
understand the desire to feel recognized and valued for your contributions in the workplace. Um, and so, um, I think that's another reason I want to be really thoughtful about the impact of these conversations. At the same time, I, um, come to the
table with the understanding that we operate as an educational system. We are one district that values every single student. And educating any child in our system draws on systemwide resources that go beyond the toilet flushes. I
think we all understand that. And include components like curriculum and materials, student services, professional development, mileage reimbursement, and all the things that we heard about um in the Q2 report and all of that supports teaching and
learning across of our across our schools. I want to be clear that I don't view this as a revenue generating initiative. To me, this is about developing a reliable and predictable framework that respects both both the real cost of educating students and the
very real sensitivities that educators and families bring to this issue. Rightfully so. Um for me, and we we talked about this a lot um at subcommittee, for me, what's important is that the materials fee um conversation be anchored in something
real. So, a transparent calculation that reflects the actual cost of educating a Brookline student. Whether we ultimately choose to discount that amount um for recruitment or retention purposes or if we ultimately decide at some point not to charge a materials fee at all, that's
a separate decision to me. Um but that decision should come after we establish a shared and data grounded baseline. um simply carrying forward an annual percentage increase as we've the school committee has done in the past might
feel predictable but it isn't principled and it isn't tied to any underlying calculation and so I really I really appreciate the deliberate work that Mariah has done um I know it very it's very hard and it's uncomfortable
um I do believe we need to anchor the fee at roughly that 14 to 16% % of per pupil spending calculated after we remove the major cost drivers like salary and benefits and special education tuition and out of district transportation. To me that's an approach
that feels transparent, defensible and thoughtful and again whether we discount or ultimately remove the fee altogether is to me a separate conversation. Um, and I also as we move forward think it's important that we we are mindful about
how we oper operationalize the parameters that are outlined in our policy around materials fee. It's in um section J of the the policy manual. Um including some of the assumptions that are made about services and placements
in that policy so that the framework that we're discussing aligns with um aligns policy and practice. The end. Um, I really appreciate you bringing up um, some of what you brought up because
I think at some level I have sort of reached my like mental capacity to talk about materials fee um, because it's a draining conversation and like I will probably forever regret having mentioned toilet flushing as like the measurement
of you know utilities because you turn into an ogre who or I you know it turns into an ogre but I think that like what the finance subcommittee vote reflected was what you're alluding to right now which is we can still know the
real cost. we can acknowledge the real cost and also we can say you know this we're not going to get there right now and we're okay at least as a finance subcommittee with that and so we you know whether if we're quote unquote offering it as a discount or whatever it
is you know I don't I don't know that there's a right way to put that other than that I do think that it's actually an accurate way to calculate it and I I don't feel um I feel okay with the vote we took and I think that we can all accept that like there's a there can be
a difference there. And um and I don't think that there is any issue with acknowledging the true cost of it. And I appreciate you bringing that back up. You put a little bit of more wind beneath my wings to to talk about it a little bit more.
>> Thank you, Jesse. Thank you, Donna. >> Um yeah, so um two things. One is that um I'm 100% behind the name change because um materials tends to get to this sort of very basic level of crayons and paper and it's so much more. And in
the earlier uh slide deck there's actually um on the first second slide there's like 15 or 18 categories of what's in there as um non- salary categories. And I think it's important that people um remember that. Um, the
second thing I was going to say before I sort of maybe modify the motion is that um, what's missing between what we have on the the table and what sort of between what Donna said and what you responded is the actual presentation of the math,
not in how you got the number, but this is what it costs. This is when we take out salary. This is like our target. This is where we've been, and this is where we'd like to be. So, we might never get there. We might stay below it for a long time or we might get there.
But when we talk about 15% of a number that we don't sort of that we're not transparent about, it's hard to convince people because they don't know where we're pulling it from. >> So, you know, um >> I could I mean the slides are in the deck. If Betsy wants to go to that slide, we can go we can talk through it.
So, I have all the backup just like you have in your handout if we actually if people want to see that. It's in the first presentation, Betsy. >> Um keep going. do this one. Um, and so you can see that essentially there is I'll just walk
people through it. There's the fifth column there which is the average total expenditures per in district pupil. Um, all the way up through FY wh' um all the way up through FY23 that's based on DESIE data um that was published on the DESIE website.
>> Right. uh 24 and 25 are based on district submissions that are that have not yet been published on the DESIE website. This is all our district our our data we submit to them. And then 26 is the current year and is because we don't obviously have data on our per
pupil expenditures for a current year. Um that's just a 3% increase over um the prior year. And then we look at the tuition as a percent of total expenses. And you can see the blue boxes historically. This is precoid was at
16%, postcoid is at just under 14%. Um, and so when we look at how to bring that back, there's a calculation in the background that essentially um goes uh 14% of um 23 for or 24 for 27. It
basically gradually increases it to begin to impro approach the 16%. So by 29 we're at 15 and a.5% of our projected current year expenses. So this is like there's real numbers that back this to your point. You know I'm sure probably
like nobody just followed along with what I said but the point is like it's real math that ties to and the non- salary. Yeah. And the non- salary expenses. I mean we just talked about all of them if you look at our the document that we just went through, right? It's mileage, it's legal, it's
you know so many things. And then if you go Betsy to Q1 on this week's presentation if you don't mind. >> Sorry. Go. >> No. Oh, but it was in the same presentation. If you just scroll earlier
like to closer to the beginning of this week's presentation. Yep. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Go to Q1. You're almost there. >> Q1. There we go. So non- salary categories you can see we talked about these are real expenses. It's not
something that I think like you're right that people think of this as like it's paper and pen and there are other things that are legitimate non-salary costs that go into making this all work. >> Oh that's why um that's why I mean I had suggested that we rename this to um
nonresident employee tuition something like that. The way you got turned around is fine, too, because then it gets us out of that whole mess about crayons and paper. >> Yeah. Yeah. The second thing I was going to say was that
in order um you know if if we're if we're talking about approaching some number um and the fact that this came up again this year and there's so much emotion you know um invested in it and and and that's and and passion would an
alternate way of doing this go to perhaps like a 345 model for the next three years where we basically tell everybody okay three for next year because you were already doing your budget for next year as teachers and parents of children in the district who are non-residents and then tell them in
advance now okay we heard you three you know 3% for next year again it's not because of revenue but the understanding now is that we're going to be slowly increasing it in you know two years out so people who have already budgeted now for what where they're going to be with their kids and their budget for you know
the the second half of 2026 which is going to be the next academic year already have so have that predictability. We we know it's going to be the same for that year and then but then we're going to our plan is to be you know steadily increase it and depending on where I as you said Maria
like the expenses in that that complex slide that you just showed with the you know the the the lag years and everything the if the expenses slow down a little bit let's say and the percentage becomes a slightly lower number then we approach it quicker. Um I don't think we're like kicking the can
down the road. I think what we're doing is we're saying from a p predictability standpoint we we listened and we are okay with leaving it at the three and then in out a year and a half two and a half years from now the four five would
be my suggestion as a alternate motion >> you want >> sure >> I I actually do think that's kicking the can down the road but >> I mean that's just the reality of if you look at the numbers that you see in the
budget um that we again looked at for the next three years a couple of minutes ago. >> Um overall the percentage changes listed at the bottom as 6% almost four and four and a half. Right. So and and in response to one of the comments at um at
the podium about tying it to wage increases I just did a quick calculation earlier and that increase is 4.1 4.9 and 4.7% over the next three years. So, I actually do think it is um >> under the >> That's right. >> wage increase.
>> That's right. Exactly. It doesn't It's not even keeping pace with the wage increase, let alone the overall increase. So, I don't think I do think it's kicking the can down. >> That puts that puts flesh on the bone. So, thank you, >> Bob. >> Thank you, Mariah. Thank you so much for your always incredibly powerful work
that you do. Thank you. >> I think we can all agree that our teachers are our most precious resource. They do the work with our kids 180 days, many nights, many weekends throughout the school year. Our teachers are the reason that most of us moved to
Brooklyn. To honor their work is one of our most important roles. And one of the ways we have honored their work is by enabling 139 families to enroll their own children in the Brooklyn Public Schools. These teachers deeply
appreciate this benefit um of working in Brooklyn and they appreciate the reasonable cost of enrolling their children in our schools even though Newton and Welsley in Newton and Welsley there is no materials fee for faculty members to enroll their kids
in their schools. So tonight's proposal increases the materials fee above the 3% annual increase that's been in effect for many years. Um that begins to translate the benefit that the teachers feel into more of a burden.
That is not the way I want to embrace our teachers. The complex fiscal algorithm presented tonight attempts to provide a rationale for the increased cost. It is a revenue raising strategy in the context of our always challenging
budget. If my math is correct, tonight's proposal, well, it was originally 10%, but I did more quick math and lowered it to 5%. Uh, it raises approximately 34,000 bucks over the FY26 materials fee
revenue. That is less than 0.02% 02% of our $150 million budget. For a 0.02% increase in revenue, we alienate n 139 teachers and many of their supportive
colleagues. This proposal negatively impacts our teachers far more than it helps our budget. I strongly recommend that we maintain the reasonable 3% in increase that our teachers have come to
expect since fiscal year 2013. And I would propose that we we keep the 3% increase over the next three years. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bob. Suzanne. >> So, is the idea that for three years
it'd be 333 or 555 and then we would renegotiate again? I mean, is that kind of what we're thinking? >> Susan suggested, I think starting last year, that we um put our fees onto a three-year cycle and do like a third of them each year to just make this more
tractable for everyone involved. So, yes, just like last year, we voted beep um a three-year plan for BEAP. With that said, of course, we can't bind a future school committee or even this school committee next week. So, we could always revote something in the future. But that is the idea. Yes. >> And I just I know we you're talking
about maybe switching to the term tuition. I'm not sure that's the right term either because it's not tuition. I mean, it's um the cost per student is it's not really that might be tuition. That would be the full cost. When we think of
tuition for private schools or cost per student, we think of the whole cost and the whole child, not just >> I think our policy manual actually does call it tuition. So, I think, you know, this is all sort of aligning with Okay. Yes. >> Okay. I I just don't think it covers
quite what we're trying to say, but that's fine. I actually agree with Bob. I think I'm leaning towards a 3 I3. I think um this is something we provide our teachers. It is a benefit. We provide the families. The incremental
revenue is probably not that well we know it's not that much and uh I think it is benefit that you know we're not trying to cover our cost. We're trying to offer benefit and um that this is a reasonable way to do
that. And and a 3% increase is a 3% increase. And then as it compounds over the years, it's a little higher. Um I could be convinced maybe a three three four, you know, if we want to start going down that road. Um but I do think
that there as as Jesse said, you know, they're already thinking of budgeting for next year. So even 5% may sound like, you know, a a hefty amount or even even if it's a small amount for them, it's something they may have to rebudget for. I am leaning towards a 333. I could
be convinced to go to a 334, but that's that's where I'm standing right now. >> It was really helpful tonight to see the increases and I think that that is one of the things that spawned what um Bob said is, you know, this is a small
amount of money and it doesn't balance the budget any any way. And so I wanted to speak after Bob and Suzanne um to not repeat anything that you said, but to add on to one of the ideas that was presented in public comment tonight is
that our teachers really are um are here for some of our teachers are here for this benefit that we offer and we in turn get benefit from those families. And I can think over the 15 years that I taught in the public schools of Brooklyn, I think that I
probably taught about 12 materials fees kids and then maybe some that I didn't realize were materials fee kids and their families are the ones that are on the soccer fields and show up for events and um their the parents are staying in
the school system through to retirement or some of the ones of the um students who have taught over the years are still there um years later teaching kids and my son is in the class of one of those parents this year. So, um we do get
benefit from this program. I um don't want us to not act today on something that's going to come up again and again. I think that that's one of the things that the parents were asking us, predictability and rationale. So if
we are deciding that we're going to um not um get to the place where it makes the the fee makes sense, then I am feeling like let's not change the fees. We're not at at 555. We're not um we're not
balancing the budget. So I'm going to join Bob and Suzanne. >> Bella, could I ask you a question? And I should know this and I don't know this but um if we were to vote do you do you know what level of revenue for 27 is
baked into the forecast? So, for example, if we were to vote 7, if we were to vote 3 I3, would we be exacerbating the deficit that we find on our on the spreadsheet now? If we were to vote 55, like what is the
>> She didn't vote the new number. I mean, the new number isn't in there. >> Well, there has to be some sort of number baked into Susan's revenue special like the re revolver fund because it's offsetting. >> I'm assuming it's at but I don't know that. Okay. I don't that she's available.
>> Yeah, fair. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Okay, I should have asked before. It just came into my head. Um, I think that like I appreciate all of that and I think that when we're doing this from the finance subcommittee, we're looking at it through the finance lens and then we go to full school committee and we've
talked about some of these things in the finance subcommittee, you know, and I think they're important. Um, and now we're at full school committee and we're talking about them. So, do we have a motion? Does someone want to make a motion? I'd like to move that we approve
3% 3% 3% fiscal year 27 28 and 29. >> I'll second that. >> And Jess, can you confirm that you plan to also request the discount of 10% for additional dependence which is the current practice? >> Yes, I mean that. Keep that. >> Do you have all the language?
>> I can read the I can read it. So, it would be to to set the tuition rate for dependents of non-resident employees of the town of Brooklyn and the public schools of Brooklyn to Betsy, can you put it back to the one that was just there because I need the numbers on that screen to 3,641
for FY27, 3,750 for 28 and 3,863 for FY29 with a discount of 10% for additional dependence. And you seconded it, right, Sarah? Okay. >> Oh, sorry. Um, >> Carolyn did. Okay, I heard someone second it. Okay. And so we're going to go for a vote if there's no more
discussion. >> I I did want to make just a couple comments quickly. Um so I really appreciate all the work on this. I really like and appreciate sort of this directionally. Maybe not
specifically in this instance as it turns out for me personally, but I I do like um I think it's important for us to acknowledge that there is a cost for educating students. Um and I think
it's important for us to um to talk about that in all of our programmatic endeavors. Um, and I I felt
um concern about um sort of, you know, going to this program for this amount of money. And I'll just I just wanted to say also that my
concerns were coupled um even though we're talking only about the fee here, I want to just kind of recognize that um I think it would behoove probably us and
and probably um staff and the program to just kind of tighten up and and maybe get more transparency around um all of what's involved. D um in in this program. Um like I think it was a couple
or few years ago when Boston changed the um testing the the system for testing into the exam schools. And I believe that then like there were a few um requests for high school students to for
for students of staff um and employees to enter BHS I guess because they didn't get spots that they had hoped to get in the exam schools and and and I I'm not sure but I think there was some uncertainty there.
So just this notion also of like space available and what that means and um so just go looking forward um separate from this conversation I hope we can get um just a little more
sort of tightening up um looking at the policy or the agreement or whatever it is so that we have a good understanding um and transparency around um what what is offered and provided. >> Tightening up of language in the policy
or tightening up of understanding of the numbers, >> the policy if it's a policy, the agreement if it's agreement like >> there's both. Yes. A policy and an agreement. >> So, I just wanted to kind of put that out there. fidelity to what's been
written or change what's been written to equal what we do now >> or to um to address uncertainties that might exist based on feedback from the liaison. I I don't
know a lot about the process which I guess speaks to sort of the um I think it just would be helpful to get more transparency and that's not a criticism of of staff or certainly not of Bella just I think historically at
least for me >> it hasn't been super clear was kind of like >> always good to have clear language in policy and always good to have fidelity and implementation um that's good practice every time. >> Um,
>> I'm going to call a vote. I We'll start with Bob. >> I vote yes. >> Suspense. >> Yeah. going back to my earlier comment about some predictability for next year. But then recognizing that um the cost of
everything is really going up in our society in our world and that um the good faith that we have um demonstrated on both sides from the school department for a long time and in terms of the teachers um contributing something to um
should probably at some point begin to track to something. We're not ex, you know, we we know we know where we need to be and there's good faith in both directions. So, for that reason, out of 3 I3, I'm going to vote no. >> Thank you, Carolyn. >> Yes,
>> Mariah. >> Um, I appreciate the effort with which the motion was offered, but I am also going to vote no. I think that um that we are clearly um we are going to be requesting
funds from voters hopefully in three and a half months and um and we need to be balancing our approach and it is a minuscule fraction of the budget but it's about sort of showing that we are doing our best to look and make sure
that the that we are addressing all sources of funds um not just presuming that taxpayers will always carry that and so I say no but with the greatest respect for teachers and appreciating the 3% and what it represents as well. Thank you, Suzanne.
>> Yes, Donna. >> I'm going to vote no for the reasons that I that I mentioned earlier. And again, it has it's mainly about the framework we're using to get to this decision.
>> Sorry. Um, I'm going to vote no. Is there a chance that we would like to go with a different um recommendation and see how the committee feels? >> Well, that's the next step. >> Yep. >> I voted no.
>> No, it failed. It failed. Failed four to three. >> Jesse, would you like to make another? >> Yes. I wanted to uh recommend in similar language to what Maria had written before that we set the tuition rate for dependents of non-resident employees of the town to the values shown not there
would be have to be recalculated quickly to the 345 which gives us a predictability for next year um and predictability for the next two years that um um staff can uh can prepare adequately. They know a year and a half
in advance and that it does represent a good faith act action of the school committee and a good faith response of our staff to um to rising costs even though we everyone
agrees it's not a you know it's not millions of dollars but um things you know textbooks cost more and we see that in Susan's line item it leases cost more everything is costing or and so um you know it's a it's a wonderful opportunity
that students of non-resident employees of the district get to attend the schools and and enjoy all of the wonderful things that it suggests and that it provides and it's wonderful. No question about it. But um g given the fact that we have you know if we're not
talking about eliminating it. >> Wait, are you doing a motion or are you doing a monologue? >> Right. >> What's the motion? It was 34510. 345 >> 10% discount. >> 10% for additional children. >> Any further discussion? >> Well, we need a second.
>> Oh. Um, first of all, are you raising your hand to second? >> No, I'm raising my hand to suggest the potential of an friendly amendment. >> I'm wondering if >> Well, let her see. Maybe you'll accept it and then she'll second your friendly
amendment. Go ahead. >> Yes. I'm wondering if we can take that 345 and tie it to anchor it in the a tuition that's based on a percentage
of the per pupil spending. And then I did not bring my laptop to do math. I'm just telling you right now I didn't bring my laptop. So, >> well, you do understand the percentage changes, right, over time. And so, we
couldn't take 15. Um, we would if you're if you're trying to anchor it to something and have it be meaningful, >> that percentage does change, >> right? Okay. So, that's I was sort of gauging if anyone if that resonates for anyone besides me. >> Okay. >> I personally would rather see it be a
flat percentage like a 444 than a 345, but I will second your motion to see where we get. Bob, how do you vote? >> Can we have some discussion first? >> Oh, sorry. >> Again, I want to emphasize that
we're talking about budget and we're talking about perception of our budget, which is $150 million budget. We're talking about a few thousand um in terms of the materials fee. And I think, you know,
making a decision to increase that fee, saving a very, very minuscule amount of money while sending a message to the teachers that they're going to have to pay a little bit more um to come to the schools in Brooklyn. I just think
there's no balance in that particular message. I think that um you know, I I would prefer that there would be no materials fee. Honestly, I know that's a budget that's a big budget decision. Um, and
I don't think there are the votes on the committee to do that, but I guess my alternative to the three, what was it? 345 thing. My my my amendment to that would be let's just do one year 3% talk about it again. That would be my
amendment to that budget to that budget mo motion. I guess the way that things work is because it was already seconded, we're at 345. >> Well, theoretically he can amend and if someone seconds his amendment and then we actually vote on the amendment, we can go ahead parliamentarily. Yes,
that's how we can proceed. >> Can I repeat his >> Yeah. What would somebody be seconding? >> He wants to just do a one-year motion for 3%. >> I would second that. >> Okay. So, now you have to Sarah this parliamentarily. You have to go around and see if we have enough people who
accept the amendment and then well I don't know we got you you made the motion you seconded it now we go around and you see if we have enough people if that passes that becomes the main motion we vote on the main motion. >> So we're voting to see if the motion is to um raise it 3% in this next year.
>> Bob, how do you vote on the motion? >> I vote yes. >> Jesse, >> no. Caroline, >> I'm sorry because No, because I was thinking about sort of this other stuff and wishing that we could somehow tie this to a commitment to
to looking at this in its entirety. Um, sorry, we're voting on whether to accept the motion or am I voting on Bob's motion? >> Voting on to accept >> Yes, to accept it the amendment. Yes, I accept the amendment.
>> Mariah, >> yes, I accept the amendment. >> Suzanne, >> yes. I'm not going to vote for it. >> Donna, accept it. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes to accept the amendment. Now, we're going to vote on whether we think it makes sense to raise fees by 3%
for next year only. >> The motion is not to whether it makes sense. >> Sorry. Not makes sense. It would raise fees for three. It will be a three 3% raise for the material% raise for the material >> FY27 >> in FY27. >> And now I have a question. >> Yes.
>> Is that is there a way to include language that this that whatever the policy section is in J will be
docketed this >> you know cycle. I'm such a realist that I have to point out that if Mariah is not on the school committee, these things are not going to get done um like they have in the past. And this is our big chance right now. Mariah has done a
lot >> I don't I don't actually I want to sort of like that's a policy question that she's talking about and I don't think that me being on there I I think and I think that Carolyn is right that there is a larger question of making sure policy and practice are aligned that
have nothing to do with the fee. So I I wouldn't want to link them here. >> Caroline, are you speaking about the language of the policy and the fidelity of the policy? Are you also speaking about >> I'm asking whether it's possible >> as procedurally to add language to the
motion that would bind this school committee to addressing the policy in policy subcommittee before I think Andy said that there's like literally two we were at policy
last week he said there was two maybe three more policy meetings so like we're basically at the end of the policy cycle for this school committee. >> Well, I mean, can't there be more meetings? I don't know why that's funny. like
>> we have a meeting once a month and >> I just I don't I personally like Andy's not here and I would feel uncomfortable getting ahead of talk of saying that publicly without talking to staff and making sure it's going to work >> because I'm actually um because we are
so short staffed and I I I'm we're struggling to try to be able to support the subcommittee work period. Yeah. >> In a meaningful way. And you might have noticed like we're scrambling, but it's
because we're so short staff and we're focusing on >> running the schools. >> So, and I I appreciate that that I respect that you're so interested in in the sub in the subcommittee work, but
we're we're struggling to keep up, >> right? which is why um a three-year plan makes a lot of sense because it we can always change it. As Maria said, we can decide next year as a school committee we want to change it even though it was voted for three years. We can decide to triple it or remove it next year if we
don't want to. But having the three-year plan, as Susan had suggested for the fees and rotating through just makes a lot of procedural sense and it allows the school district administration to sort of, you know, exhale for a second. Jesse, you're the question on the table
is whether is about the language of the motion respectfully. So, >> and then also respectfully, Bella, I think >> you asked that it be done in this cycle and so that's different than saying we should address it through the policy
subcommittee. >> I was just concerned because there's already a backup. I understand and I said that only because I think like we can't bind a future subcommittee. >> Yeah, we can't even >> to an action. We can't even bind ourselves. Okay. I mean, I'm literally
asking whether it's possible. And just for the record, I think respectfully, although of course it's often relevant and necessary and ultimately relevant and necessary for staff to participate in subcommittee meetings. um
subcommittees can meet without staff. So like there could be some discussion, but it sounds like there's not an appetite for that and that's fine. I just wanted to ask >> We're in the middle of the vote, right? Weren't weren't we voting? >> Yeah, we're in the middle of the vote. >> So I think you were waiting for your vote and then you started talking about
the potential amendments. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry. So we are voting on >> a one-year 3% increase. >> My vote is yes. My vote is no. We should be going down threeear cycles.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> So I think it's 52, right? >> You and I voted no. Everyone else voted yes. Correct. >> So the motion pass >> and automatically we discuss it next year. I mean you know >> well that's >> what's the matter? No, I mean we have
one year of a 3% increase. Then it comes up next year. So we have an opportunity. I mean yes I would like discuss it next year and I would like to discuss it you know again with ensuring alignment with policy and ensuring that it's >> anchored in something substantial. So I
would love to discuss it next year. I just feel like there's a whole list of things that we want to discuss next year. >> Let's keep going. Can we? >> So the next item on the agenda >> next item on the agenda is the tuition rates for specialized education programs. um specialized special
education programs and um >> I think I'm gonna do this because we already did this last week at finance. Um so you have the tuition rates that were proposed. Karen came to us at at finance subcommittee last week. We talked a lot about the rationale for why
these particular programs were chosen. You can see that comparison um costing was provided. We talked about the rationale for why Brookline's costing might be different than some of the programs you see here. Um, for example, why are some of our programs or why are all these programs less expensive? We
talked about that rationale. Uh, the committee voted the subcommittee voted 400 in support of adopting the um proposed tuitions that you see here for adaptive learning center and lab. So, I would make the motion to um
to adopt the specialized education program tuition rates that are shown on the sheet. >> Would someone like to second? Seconded. >> Seconded by Jesse Suzanne. >> Yeah, I I have a couple of questions. Um,
so would we vote on the tuition amount each year or it's going to go up or how would how would that work? >> Sorry, Karen. While Karen's approaching, I just wanted to thank Karen and Susan
for the work, the backup work to establish rates that made sense. Um, so I think typically that's the school committee decision. Uh, what many places do is um you set the rate and then it's a sort of a standard increase, say a 3%
increase annually. Um, but that's certainly a decision of the committee. And if you don't mind, my other my other question is how will how will we determine if we have seats available? So for instance, in the fall, let's say a program has four students.
If we fill that, let's say they're expect you were allowing five students. So we added a tuition, we brought in a tuition student, but now we're full. And then if we have someone move in who's our own student or if it, you know,
there's been a new diagnosis or whatever and then there wouldn't be a seat. So will we fill the the seats in the fall? What how will we do this? >> Um so carefully and slowly um would would be some of that. I mean I think
you know we have a good sense um there is some predictability obviously we don't know new students coming in and moving through the district. So in general our programs do not run um you know we would be very careful in terms of um so for example the lab program
right now is pretty much at capacity right and so just you know the reason why labs there as many of you know is because Driscoll has open classrooms right so if we were going to for example bring students into the lab that would require a program expansion um our ALC
program um we certainly have we three classrooms um and 11 students. So, we have a good sense of knowing what's coming up from our u prek program. We never know in terms of moveins and so you really look at doing a very slow
measured tuition in when you know you're not going to get beyond a capacity where the program is going to be full so to speak. So, will a will a family out of district apply to uh to our district and
come through your office? Is that how that will work? >> Yeah. Having having had a program in in another district where your tuition in it works very similarly to when we send students out of district, right? Um so programs send packets, other schools
would send packets to the programs. You look at is it a good fit? Does it match your cohort? Um and so there's a students come for visits and all sorts of you know it's a fairly comprehensive pro process um in terms of and there a
myriad of factors that will determine whether a student is going to be a good fit and you're going to tuition in. >> Thank you very much. >> A decision to accept a student would never be done without the program >> staff. Absolutely. >> Yeah. So it's it's not like you apply
here and >> No. No. Yes. >> Yeah. It would involve every step of the way will very much involve all of the program staff and the program teachers because >> I want to point out that um any tuition anticipated we have not put in the FY27
projection. We've deliberately put it in for FY28 >> because I I think that's >> that's asking a lot to to be able to put a number with with us. So I just wanted to be clear. >> Can I make one? Yep. So, when we looked
at this last week, I'm not sure if I actually said it out loud, but in my head, I thought we should be voting one year because there's some learning that's going to go on here as well. And we may like there's just it to me it made a lot of sense to plan to revisit this one, not on a three-year cycle, at
least to start. So, I just thought we were voting a year it for now. And to your point, Bella, I didn't even realize you weren't even it makes a lot of sense that you're not even considering this in the budget for next year. Um, so I I guess I think that like this is something we might need to revisit quite a bit and as we know from some of our
conversations over recent years like um out of district tuition programs which are in some way there's some similarity have gone up by much more than 3%. So assuming a 3% increase would probably be not accurate anyway. So, um I think I'll
I'm not going to modify my motion to make this a multi-year increase for now because I really think it does need to be revisited closely for the first couple of years. Okay, Donna, >> I think um we had this Bless you, Betsy.
We had this conversation at subcommittee two weeks ago um and you confirmed um but I think it's It would be helpful for the full school committee to to hear as well in case it's anyone else is
thinking the same thing. Um by um voting yes, we are not inadvertent inadvertently binding us to any um facility costs or additional costs
um that are not that like that aren't already reflected in the budget. Right? So meaning there aren't going to be additional expenses that but by by voting yes, we're not going to incur additional expenses that we're not already seeing in the budget numbers.
>> Correct. Correct. Yeah. You're voting tuition rates. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Carolyn. Um, I think I watched was watching or listening to a subcommittee meeting where this was first brought up. And if
you just said this and I missed it, sorry. Um, did you say so lab is at capacity and it's actually always been at Driscoll even before they had a a bigger building. So I'm I I don't I don't know
why it started at Driscoll. That's fine. That's great. Um, and it's I think it's a popular program. I think it's a really successful program. Anecdotally, you I know a number of people who've had kids in it. Um,
and they're really happy with it. And it I think my understanding is it it it even is sort of can be an alternative to parents taking their kids out and sending them to Carol or looking for a carol
placement or a landmark placement. Um so I guess I would want to say two things. One just sort of plug which is a separate conversation a wish for like when there's capacity. I'd be super interested in seeing whether the
district has the ability to um do this program in in other buildings as well. And also just um I don't mean this to be pesky, but like how do we make sure that
if we accepted an outofd district student that that doesn't take a seat from an in district student? if that's a fair concern. >> Um I mean a couple of things you know in in terms of lab um and it is the area
where there's um often the most need in terms of there not allow there not a lot of out of district programs that provide really robust language based programming. So for lab and this might get to your question a little bit um Donna for lab we would be if we wanted to tuition into lab and and you know
again I think we need to take it very slow and steady we would be we would need to open another classroom so we would we would need to um which would then expand the capacity to bring in students.
>> Thank you. You addressed my my question. Thank you. When you're talking about whether we by accepting um a student from a another town into one of these programs whether we would be taking um places of students, I started to wonder do not lab but do the other programs
that um you're proposing these fees for do they tend to start out at the beginning years and the students stay through or do we have people that are in our district that transition into the program after the first and second year? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Oh, we do. Kids move in and out of
programs fluidly all throughout the year. >> Okay. >> In in all of our programs. >> Thank you, >> Suzanne. >> Yeah. Thanks. So, just a couple two more quick questions. Uh the district it's really district to district in terms of payment. So, it's it's the district
that's paying. It's certainly not the families, right? >> And so, transportation would also be on the home district and coming here. >> Correct. Right. We also talked about that like for example if there were this this has a set of assumptions of costs
behind it but that if there were an extraordinary cost related to a specific student say like a parah in addition to this program then that would be build like above and beyond this so this is for the the like the base program not for necessarily all of the specific student costs.
>> Makes sense. >> Thank you. >> I'm not seeing any other hands. Okay. So, so, um, the motion before us is for these tuition rates, um, as we
see them on this handout here. And, um, Bob, how do you vote? >> I vote yes. >> Jesse, >> yes. >> Carolyn, >> yes. >> Mariah, >> yes. >> Suzanne, >> yes. >> Donna, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. Thank you. That brings
us to I think that this is Suzanne that's going to um present to us the legislative update um and 2026 legislative and budgetary priorities. >> Carolyn wrote most of this. Bob helped out. >> So um we have Carolyn, Bob, and Suzanne
who are presenting and maybe Caroline will lead. >> Okay. Um okay, I'm gonna wing it because this is my first time doing this subcommittee. So, um, we have our meeting February 9th with our
legislators. February 9th, 12th. >> Let's see. February 9th. >> Um, and just jump in if I'm wrong here, Suzanne. So, we um typically uh welcome them and present them with um some
updates about the district and some of the things um that we appreciate them working on and also our priorities that we hope um they will keep an eye on and and advocate for. Um
so, um people should I sort of read this through? I mean it's largely >> they can read it. I mean we started with some of our successes. >> Yeah. >> What I'd really what I'd really love to hear is what are the highlights for you?
>> For me? >> Yeah. >> Um pleased to report Brooklyn High School's reacredititation. That was nice. Um and then the what we're asking the
legislators um to prioritize and focus on are pretty much largely repeated. Um increased funding always for chapter 70 um full funding for special
education. Um stable funding for METCO. We added some language. We advocate for increased flexibility for district level decisionm to allocate the METCO grant. Um
because we are quite restricted in how we we can allocate um that substantial amount of money. We added um something about safe technology use and distraction-free education. You go on from here, Bob. No,
>> that's >> these are all >> There's five priorities. >> Yeah, that's it. >> And Carolyn put down some of the Senate or House bills that are directly related to some of our bucket areas >> and we put it in the context um of the
Mass Municipal Association report in October which talked I think the report was called a perfect storm. Yes. >> Finances. Yeah. So, you know, it's not Brooklyn alone asking for these kind of changes or this kind of support. It's the entire state, every every one of the
351 communities in the state that's in the same boat. And so, the our requests reflect probably what most communities are also uh requesting. >> That feels like a good summary of a lot of issues that have come up here again
and again. So, the idea is that we will if we approve these or this particular memo that Betsy will then send it out to um our legislators before they come so they have some idea of what it is we want to hear about >> and then they each have a chance to talk
about their favorite topics around schools. Um, so that's how the that's how the evening will >> and of course you'd recommend that all of us who can attend >> recognize that >> you'd recommend that all of us who can attend Oh yeah. It's a it's a great event to be there for. Yes,
>> absolutely. >> Rya, I think this is great. I really appreciate you putting it together. Um, I I almost wish I do wish that that the first three were rolled into one because they're all just they're about that we
are not receiving enough funding for the core core activities of the district and that's just what it comes down to. And we voted for the I'm tired right now and I can't remember what the name of it is but the thing that is it the the thing that was supposed to fund transportation and education a couple years ago. What's
it >> the millionaire's bill? Now, what was the real name? >> Oh, the millionaire's tax. >> Yeah, whatever the real name of the millionaire's tax was. But like we voted for this and there is a vast amount of money coming into the state and yet as you point out Bob so eloquently. Every
single municipality is getting um devastated by a lack of a lack of funding. And so I just I I wish that they would be that there could be more. And I think last year there's an xxx on the first page. I think it got increased to $150,
was it? It from 70 to 150 >> in that last sentence. So, but like we need it needs to be greater, right? We it's just it's not enough. I mean, so I I guess to whatever extent we can make clear that all of this starts and ends with money. And if we were getting
enough, we wouldn't have to spend time talking about $30,000 for material. You know, like this is your points are all well taken. And it's because it's it starts and ends with sufficient state funding. >> Well, and then Bob also pointed out the 2.5% cap on on property taxes, which
>> That's right. >> Which puts all municipalities in a bind. >> And then of course the uh insurance benefits are just going through the roof. >> That's right. >> All municipalities. >> And these are all things that could be, you know, I just it's like >> we'll have the opportunity to talk to
them as well. Can we replace the draft with like a big dollar sign watermark? How about that? So, that's just my point is um I think that it's really beneficial. And honestly, I would remove five not because I don't think it's important because but because our
immediate financial needs are so much more critical. I just want there to be an exclamation point for particularly the first three tied to funding. >> Some of us just love anything to do with pre kindergarten early child. That was a discussion. >> So Mariah started out by saying that she
would combine one, two, and three. >> You you started out by saying you you would combine one, two, and three, and then you kind of went on to sort of may more say um something that would lead me to believe that maybe some sort of topic sentence to introduce the four now would be appreciated. Is that where you're
going with? >> We sort of do. Brookline, like all communities in the state, faces these challenging fiscal pressures. But I guess my and it and it goes on from there. There's the paragraph beforehand which has that. But I just think that like it's just all three are are about insufficient funding. >> So short of a watermark that's a dollar
sign. Yes. What would you like to see change? >> I would just say in like I don't know. I'm just saying that like I kind of wish it was one ask which is give us more money. Get us more money. >> Like that's the ask. >> But I think the categories are important. I think that >> the detail is important.
>> Yeah. I mean yeah we need >> Yeah. These are sub bullets under one thing which is give we need like get more money for your district. We need more education funding from the state. >> Yeah. >> And we voted for this thing. >> I think I know what your next care
second career is after if you actually leave this second career. >> Moving on. >> A lobbyist. >> Exactly. Yep. >> So do we have a motion on this thing? >> Um I Okay. Are you going to move that we
accept as? >> I'm going to move that we accept as is. And yes, >> I second it. >> Okay. Um, >> with the proviso that the dollars get >> Yeah, the dollar the dollar signs will go off. >> And sorry, are people do people want to take off five or does it matter?
>> I do not. I think it's a priority country. >> Fine. >> Yeah. And and there may be specific legislators, if not all, who see it as a very high priority. >> So, we're going to vote. Bob, how do you vote? >> Vote yes. Yes.
>> Dramatic suspense. Carolyn, yes. >> Mariah, >> it's great. I vote no. >> Suzanne, yes. Donna, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay, that brings us to subcommittee and liaison reports. Um, starting with
curriculum. >> Right. Uh well we are meeting next Monday for with curriculum. Uh and if there's a snowstorm we're going to meet online. >> Yes it's already a hybrid meeting. So there it's you can come in person or online but if it's big snowstorm we'll
pivot to remote well organized. >> We're going to talk about vision of a learner and we are going to talk about um two new courses that the high school wants to offer next year. >> We second one >> two new courses. two new two new courses.
>> I'm going to talk about WISK, too. >> Uh, it's not on the agenda, but I will have a conversation with you cuz she's not >> I requested in the fall that we put it on the agenda. I know that. >> Why is it not on the agenda? >> It's not on this agenda because this
agenda talks about new high school courses. >> There's something very important that we're going to say to you after the meeting. >> New significant changes and deletions. >> No, no, that's not what it >> No, that's what the cost catalog is all about. Bob, I'd like to ask you there's a point of clarification we're going to make in a second. Okay. Can we can we
let that that be for now? >> Um well the thing when is the course catalog being discussed at school committee? >> We are not discussing the course catalog the whole cataloging new courses that they want to offer.
Every year we discuss ch major changes, additions and deletions, right? >> What the high school when is that gonna happen? >> The high school presents them to us Bob and I have promised you that we will have the head of the curriculum come and speak to the curriculum subcommittee on
wisp. I promised you that and we will do that. She will not be available from Monday. >> Um moving on to >> medical leave right now. Are you talking about Jen? >> Yeah. >> No.
>> Moving on to 8B. Um, DIG does not have a scheduled meeting. 8C is um finance. >> We met twice in the past week. Um, but finance will be actually ramping up in Donna's like, "Oh, no."
>> Anytime you make us laugh, extra points. Um finance >> was this joint school committee >> finance finance will be ramping up um as I said the budget book will be delivered and we'll be having opportunities to meet and um most of our upcoming
meetings will either be held during school committee um we'll be doing a lot of budget talk during school committee or they'll be um thank you doubly booked was all I could come up with doubly posted um so that everyone can participate in finance subcommittee
meetings so more coming soon. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um we just spoke about government relations. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Sorry. This is actually not my topic. Um sort of but we but since Andy's not here um but it is related to finance la last
week at policy we reviewed the first draft of the finance policy redo. So I just want to mention that even though yes. So and it's I can't remember what's happening next with it but anyway it's also a finance thing that's in process.
government relations. We just addressed >> um negotiations. Uh so we had a meeting last week I believe and um we did record it and it is available to watch. So it was uh we
we meaning the school committee side with Bella presented uh some of our proposals. It was not a full proposal but we did present some things and then they presented again not a full proposal but they had uh suggestions requests uh
around uh work force and work time on time um that uh we got at the so we were just able to present and our next meeting is next week and I'm sure we're going to talk more about this in executive session. Is that correct?
>> We're not going to have executive session. Oh, okay. >> Okay. Oh, well then we're not going to talk about executive session, >> I think. Do you mean Sorry. Oh, you do you mean an executive session tonight? >> Yes. >> We're not going to have an executive session tonight. Yes. Correct.
>> Um >> Yep. >> Um I'm just curious, last time we were in negotiations, did we talk about what we talked about in these updates or is it because the recordings being posted? I can't remember in the past whether we
whether the kinds of updates you just gave were typical or is this a new is this a change in practice. I'm just asking for a refresher >> because um people have access to the video. Did you send say less about the topics discussed? >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Thank
you. >> Um we will skip over policy for this week and um are there any additional liaison and um or other updates? something on expenditure and revenues. Um, Gazunite. So, four weeks from
tomorrow um the select board needs to have the um final report um so that it can proceed with public hearings and make a decision a month later
uh regarding whether or not to put something related to an override on the ballot. So um working backwards the teams um I'm chairing town Saddaf Kazmi has um schools and Serge Sergey Miglani
has futures are um working really hard right now to get our um subcommittee reports in uh ready for subcommittee voting and then to be brought to the expenditure and revenues um next full
meeting which is February 4th I believe in about a week and a for actual vote discussion and possible voting at which time we'll have only about two weeks to take all three reports and put them into the final
report again due by February 20th. Several of the folks working on the different teams will be away uh starting in the double digits of February uh both for personal reasons as well as for school vacation coming up around then. And so that puts an additional pressure
on the subcommittees and the full committee. Um at the current time uh on the town side, I'll just say that um although I have an email into Chaz and the team about some final numbers, there is a potential deficit for next year
that the town is looking at that's just about $3 million. Um we know more about the number since, you know, with Bella and Susan tonight about the school side. Um and so um we're putting together a um we have a skeleton of the of the
reporting of the report and we are um looking for some data right now back from the uh finance team uh within the town on uh what the property tax implications will be for the override
across the different types of classes of residences and owners. Um, and in addition, whether or not the override in the amount that we are probably going to recommend will help to solve the structural deficit problem or just keep us floating for three years until 3
years goes by. So, the key takeaway I think is that we're as a bunch of volunteers right now and leaning on the town who's in the middle of doing their budget book and the schools are in the middle of doing their budget book. This is um an extraordinarily frantic time for a team of volunteers to try to get
this all together um within the next like two weeks or so. Uh based on whatever data we currently have there, we we understand the three chairs met today. We understand that we will be operating on less than full cylinders because we might not have all the
information we need. But nevertheless, we're proceeding because at the same time, Chaz mentioned yesterday that they're preparing their budget book and that will be uh and they'll have to respond soon after the governor releases her her budget which is I think in about
a week and so um uh things are just moving very quickly now and more to come. >> Thank you so much. >> I'd like quick Caroline. >> Oh, this is why I was looking at my phone. There is for the geeks who are
interested like me, there's a schools subcommittee meeting tomorrow at I thought it was two but it's posted as 3 which you can watch. Okay. The 23rd, correct? >> Correct. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to
offer the opportunity for new business. Bella, >> I I I just want to make a comment that um as I said, we've been short staffed. Susan's been working remote. Um I just want to express my gratitude
to each of you that have been offering support, but especially to Mariah. Um I have um she's h she has served critical support >> in this time and um so I I just uh
appreciate her knowledge and institutional institutional knowledge um of the financial structures but also I'm a newbie so just being able to navigate um the process. So I I I um very
grateful. So thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Here. Here. >> I have a quick and pesky new business. I'm going to put you on the spot, Bella. >> Oh, me? >> You? >> Yeah. >> This Well, maybe it's your second, but
this is you're you're calling the snow day test for the first time will be coming up. >> I don't know. And I'm not trying to pressure you. Do you want to say anything about like what your goal will be? Obviously, we're all watching the forecast, >> right? Thank you. Um
>> people are texting me like ask if there's going to be a school, >> you know that. So um every town does it differently and it really is um the DPW's call. It's really the um >> Did you ask Erin publicly?
>> No. Oh. Oh. Oh. Did people not know? >> No. And I've always heard it's a shared a joint decision. Is it not a joint decision? So it's primarily influenced by whether they can get the schools open >> and actually it's always been the case where it's it's um the people in charge
of the roads um it's always with police too. It's about safety whether >> but um >> yeah so we are watching it and um we're already trying to figure out actually everyone's on alert for um activities
that are scheduled over the weekend if we have to change them. I think things are we're trying to move things around that are happening on Monday are guaranteeing that they exist. Yes. What I didn't know is that even when the
schools are closed, the the full year employees the full year employees often work that's on town and school will continue to work remote. Um yes, but um >> I don't know. So, it's looking like a It
It is looking like a >> big >> It's looking like a snow day. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Howal H how and Anthony were We'll have to get an apology from the weather gods because it >> it's the second day of midterms at the
high school. Yes. So, it's already a weird schedule. >> That's never great. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, thank you. And with that we adjourn our school committee meeting. Thank you. >> Recording stopped.