Okay, we're recording. >> Great. Welcome to the January 14th, 2026 um finance subcommittee of the Brookline School Committee, Finance and Capital Subcommittee. Um we are going to adjust our agenda a little bit from the
initially posted one. Um I think we're going to start with um Susan's materials. So, we'll start with the new position report and the second quarter report and then we'll go back to the beginning of the agenda. >> Great. And thank you for making this
accommodation for me. I appreciate it. Um, so since our last meeting, we've added four pair professional positions. Uh, one at RUNL, Hayes, Lincoln, and uh, BHS. Those were all associated with uh,
student needs. um in those schools. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. Are there any questions from the subcommittee? >> One, two, three, four. >> Yeah. Um where [clears throat] where's the line that you're drawing? Where you getting the four from, Susan? >> Um our last meeting in November. So, I
was just speaking to December and um January's um entries. >> Oh, I see. At the top two, four. Yeah, now it's bigger. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Yeah, we had ended up canceling our December meeting. So, >> yeah. Yeah, you're right. Okay, that's right. Okay. Yeah, I get it. Okay, thank
you. >> Yep, that looks looks clear. >> My question would be except that you answer this in the Q two report, how much like what balance we have left. So, I will not ask that question because you answer it in our next agenda item. Um,
so why don't we go ahead to Q2 report then? Okay. Great. >> I'll just give you the highlights and then um take whatever questions you might have. So um at this time we have
an unencumbered fund balance or balance available of 3,560,474 which represents about 2 and a half% of our um operating budget. Um this is typical for this time of year. Of course this is a quarterly
report that ends December 31st. So the second half of the year, many of the incumbrances have not hit the books yet. So um I would anticipate, you know, by the time we get to the quarter three, um the majority of this will have been
spent with the exception of um salaries. So I'll uh speak for a moment about salaries. Um again, this year we're trending very favorably. Uh right now we have we're under uh budgeted uh under our budget by 787,000
which just represents uh 63% of our salary accounts. Um you might wonder you know how how does this um occur? It occurs because when we fill positions, the uh placeholder that I'm carrying in the
budget um uh might be higher than what we hire uh the the person who's uh coming in to fill the position or um the other uh breakage component is we go unfilled
um in some positions throughout the year. So we might have a pair of posessional position that's open um and until we can get it filled there's a certain amount of money that accumulates. Likewise if we have uh an administrator who leaves and then it
takes um eight or or 12 weeks to fill the position then we accumulate a certain amount of uh money in our salary accounts. So this is good news because uh those of you who have been here know that we have been running um in the
negative uh for the last couple of years in salary. So it's it's refreshing to be sitting here um running uh positive variance in this area. So uh to date through the end of quarter 2 we have um added 14.2 new positions. Uh 5.2 were
funded by eliminating or what we call realigning positions. uh two were grant-f funded and seven were funded from extra sections. Um so at this point in time again the end of December that left us with one professional FTE
section or uh that is the equivalent of two paras that are available to us for the remainder of the year. >> Can I ask a question Susan? >> Sure. Um just does the 14.2 two. So that only includes the it doesn't include the two the two paras that were added in
January. It's or it does it I haven't gone back to add up all the fractional FTEES. >> Um it includes everything up in including the report that you're seeing here today. >> Okay. So even though it's a Q2 report, it's including January too. >> Yeah, because those happened. It's our
January report, but they were already implemented in December. So I included them. Yeah. >> Thank you. Yep. Um Susan the um what does it mean by using extra sections? Seven were funded using extra. When I saw that I was like how what is that?
How do I understand what that means? >> Um yeah so during the budget process we changed our methodology for how to approach um addressing um variances in staffing needs. Of course when we're preparing the budget we're giving you
our best plan based on what we know now. But inevitably uh when the year opens uh the landscape looks a little bit differently and then we shift staff around. This year um to bring about um a higher level of transparency,
we uh we funded um five FTE in professional positions and two FTE in parrofessional so that when these situations um arose um we could um whenever possible of course um um
realign positions. So, in other words, we collapsed a kindergarten position and then we added a second grade position, let's say, that would be a realignment or um if we didn't have any opportunity to realign positions, then we would um use extra sections. So those sections
were set aside in the budget um knowing that uh throughout the year um if we're budgeting incredibly tight with our staffing that there is going to be situations that we can't forecast in our minds at the time we're preparing the budget that we're going to need to address during the year. So that's what
the extra sections are. They they reside in the um uh ANF uh section of the salary budget. And then when we make these um um allocations to the schools, then uh the expense will show up in the
schools and I'll release the money out of the operating budget in the ANF budget. >> All right. So So would another word like be like reserved or like if needed sections. Is that the kind of thing? These are like placeholder sections that don't really exist yet, but as the year
goes by, if you need to bring in a person FTE or some combination, you utilize these these reserved placeholders. Is that >> I guess sort of, but uh think about it
this way, Jesse. Um we're preparing a budget before we create the let's say the high school schedule, >> right? So when I'm preparing the budget, I can't say with all specificity that I'm going to need X number of sections
in English for certain. So what we do is we budget to the extent that we can and then we set aside extra sections. So when the student enrollment hits, they're not sitting in English and then moving it there. We sit in the extra sections and then when the the sections
um shake out, then we allocate it to the appropriate place. >> Got it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Okay. Thank you. >> All righty. Um I had covered um the ESY and the
Title One um reallocations uh in the first quarter report. So I'm going to um slide over that tonight. So that's not really new information, but it does um explain when you're looking at the statements um some of the changes and the deficits that you might see
there. So, we're going to move on to the operating budget. So, this is your non-s salary highlights. Um, again, most of our unencumbered balance sits in the non- salary lines because I'm encumbering everything that I'm aware of on the salary side. It's a little bit
different on the non-salary side because we don't place purchase orders for an entire year at the beginning of the year. So, um, we'll enter into let's say second semester at the high school. So during the month of January and February, typically you would see the
ordering for those um courses um coming on our books um in January and February. So uh it's not uncommon to see, you know, this this amount of money available in the supply lines because we're not even halfway through the
school year when we hit December 31st. So it's good. I mean, we're not in deficit. Um, I feel pretty comfortable uh that um that will be sufficient to cover our expenses and if we um there's a couple of hot spots that I want to point out that we're kind of monitoring.
I'll talk to you about that next. So, the first one I um I I called attention to in the first quarter report and this is for PDP. we had cut our um memberships and our training uh back significantly during the budget process
and in fact we cut it uh back too far. And so when you look at the statements you'll see that we're running a deficit of 57,574 and that is because there are essential training needs andor memberships that we omitted um when we made the cuts um that
we had to restore. So, the deficit in that area is uh running at uh like I said just south of 58,000 at this time. That will probably rise just a little bit more before the end of the year, but I wanted to call that out. Um we'll have
money in other lines that are favorable and that will help us to close the deficit in this line. The other area that's a a bit of a hot spot and has been for us is transportation. And um of course I reported in the first quarter that uh we were seeing an uptick
in McKenna Vento students um and that I would be u making the adjustments to the financials um in this quarter to accommodate um those additional um transportation needs that we're seeing. Um we also added the shuttle bus uh for
the Lawrence um school because um our routes were uh running too long and the population taking uh buses at that particular location increased uh actually doubled and has remained consistent since then. Uh so those were
both unanticipated. And then um as you know when we closed last year um by the end of the year we uh were kind of upside down again in our special education transportation. We had estimated for FY26 based on what we knew about this time
last year. However, the numbers were a bit higher. So, we're running a little um over in special education transportation at this time and we're looking at different ways that we can consolidate routes to bring that number down. So, that number um hopefully will
look a little bit better uh by the time we get to the third uh the the third quarter report. And then last, um, I called out, um, uh, that we had missed, um, the budget for the copier leases,
um, during our first quarter report. That was about $240,000. Um, the good news is is as we were reconciling accounts, uh, we found that we double counted, um, health services professional services both in the OSS
and then the health services um, uh, professional service lines. And so we double budgeted 450,000. So that gives us uh sufficient funds to cover the copier deficit. So we're uh you know we're we're glad that um there will be
no um um appreciable changes to our our spending plan or our educational programs um necessary to cover the costs of the lease uh leases that we had missed. So that is the operating side. Any questions there?
>> Why don't we pause there and we'll take a question from Sarah and then Jesse and then I have a question. Go ahead Sarah. >> Just a clarifying question, Susan. And I wanted to make sure that I understood correctly. When you say special education transportation, you mean only within Brookline?
>> Um, when I say special education, it's a combination of out of district and in district. >> But what we're looking at is is root consolidation in district. Okay, thank you. >> We can do better there. >> Okay, Jesse.
>> Um, yeah, Susan, um, a question just a little if, um, Betsy could scroll back towards the top of this section. Um, yeah, right there. So, this 12.5% of the budget, um, you know, I've been sort of floating in my mind for some time now,
this $22 million, which was the total of the $22 million of non-salary expense, which was the part that was in the budget book. Um am I so I went back and I looked at your first quarter report that you gave us back in um November and this 1778793
shows up there as well. So that I just want to clarif, you know, confirm for myself that the 22 million that was originally in the FY26 budget looks like it got decreased by $5 million of expense got taken out when the FY26 budget was finalized. Because when I go
back to March or April when we had the vote on the FY26 budget at the 142 million, it doesn't list there. I went back through read all the slides again. couldn't find the 22 million or the 17 million. So I just want to cl I want to
confirm this is the actual non-s salary expense side that we're looking at for this year. >> Yes. >> Okay. So my next question is um if if we take the warrants that we're signing off on every week from the
beginning of this fiscal year through December 31st, it comes out somewhere in a range of about 12 to$13 million. that's been expensed so far for FY26. I again it's possible some of the early
ones in July were uh the last fiscal year. I don't know the you know I couldn't get at the detail but if this this so so at $13 million or so that's been spent just under that so far against the 17 million and we're only 20 >> not against the 17 million Jesse you
have the the things that we sign off on aren't just the operating budget they're grants they're other special revenue funds they're they're everything >> correct >> so so the total expense would be um other items that can be added into this
17.7 million Mariah other than just this number >> like for example the METCO grant if you if they buy supplies and they get charged against the MECO grant we sign off on those any of the right >> you know we sign off on out of district tuition for example because that's something that comes onto the warrant
and some of those are charged here and some of them are charged to circuit breaker and we we we sign off on everything that um >> comes through >> that comes through that's non- salary independent of revenue source. Okay, thank you.
>> Okay, then the last section, >> my question, sorry, my question was um >> is the 4 the fact that the $450,000 was budgeted twice, that's new information from this quarter, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because the 240 we'd heard about
before, I guess my mind is a little bit blown that like it's possible to not find that. And I'm just curious if you could talk about how like $450,000 is double counted. It's a lot of money. >> It is a lot of money. So if you remember last year and the year before for that
matter, we never got an OSS budget. And so last year when we were going through this, we didn't have the detail that underpinned the numbers that were there with any level of specificity. when Karen started uh she and I and Z uh
attempted to put together a budget that included all expenses and in the process of doing that we counted it in two different segments. Um and so as we've gone through and issued contracts and everything and we were reconciling back
to see what was left open for this year to better understand the variance uh we caught this and we were surprised as well. But uh under the gun without any um um you know kind of uh grounding
information um uh when we went through the budget last year uh we wouldn't have been able to find this easily um without having gone through the exercise of putting together the detail um there. So
it was in uh the health health lines. Um but then in an effort um to to not miss any contracts this year, we merged everything into the OSS, but we had left those over there in that budget as well. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, it it's it's helpful for FY27. Um, of course with Karen here and all the work that has been done, um, we have clarity around the OSS budget, which is, uh, wonderful news. Um,
>> so for the 27 budget, does this mean since you've discovered this relatively recently that we might like had it had it already been stripped out of 27 or is that something that can now be removed from 27, thus increasing or decreasing the overall?
>> I had already taken this into consideration. um in in my work but I still have more work to do in order to give you your final numbers. So the good news is is that um though we missed the 240 um in OTL
uh you know this kind of um will you know moderate the impact of that um in the FY27 and the moving forward. >> Thank you for the update. Yep. >> Okay. I think unless Karen you want to say I see you came off of you came
you're there if you want to say anything about this. >> Sure I think Susan answered it. It's not there's no double count in the FY27. >> Well, it would have been great news if there were. >> It would have been. Yes. [laughter] It would have been >> some of this is in reconciling between
the two years and and putting the budget together. You know, we we're looking at current year expenses. We're looking at um you know, next year and our forecasts. And as Bella has said, we're really uh scrubbing each and every number. Um and so it um you know this
this came to light and um thought it was you know important to report it and not and not hide it. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Jesse, go ahead. >> Yeah, just quick clarification on the earlier discussion then Susan. So in the if I scroll down way down in your document where the tables are and
everything >> Yep. Um there's a a part that starts with all the title one grants and they'll way past down there. Keep going. Go. Yeah. Uh keep going. Yeah. So So these expense lines that are budgeted then
like the f the Perkins, the Metco uh METCO pack, enhanced school health, are all those the balance of the non- salary expenses? Everything on this list, the federal, the state and the uh revolving funds does that
>> the expense on the special revenue fund is all in expense, not separating out uh salary from non-s salary. So in the special revenue report, we show you the revenue per fund and then we show you the total expense that was approved for that particular grant in this case. So
it doesn't expense does not mean non- salary. It means all expenses associated with the grant. >> Okay. Okay. So, it could include salary. Got it. >> Jesse, there are also some other little funky accounts that we don't ever necessarily see like sometimes you'll
see them referenced on the warrant like um like the VHS photo account and it's like basically money that's come back from the photography and then it turns into and it's like very small amounts and then they charge certain things to it. So, there's there's even these other small accounts which
>> Sure. Got it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Like lost your lost book account. Yeah, things like that. It's money in, money out. The reimbursement um for certain expenses. >> Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Okay. So, speaking of special revenue funds, um we closed um as we had um noted in the last report, um we closed an additional five funds during the Q2 uh time frame. And
so um that's in addition uh to the 21 that we closed in the first quarter. So that is significant progress on um uh spending down our grants timely. Um and so what you'll see on this report is
that um all of the uh grants that we have open right now are either 25 or 26 grants. So that's awesome. when I started uh you had three or four years of grants um open simultaneously and so we have done a significant amount of
work over the last couple of years to uh close those grants out um use the funds and um and then uh you know stay current with uh both applying for grants and um u managing them so that we're spending
them down in a timely fashion. So that's that's good news. um three kind of areas I wanted to focus on. Um in this quarterly report um we we looked at um some of our feebased programs and the
revenue there. Um of course base I had reported that um unfortunately by the close of base there was about a $30,000 uh deficit. >> Can you go up Betsy a little bit? Up a little more. >> One more. >> There you go. Right there.
>> Yep. So, uh, yep. The base program closed in deficit. Um, and we've had to pay th that $30,000 worth of expenses. Obviously, there's no money there, so we had to fund those um through the operating budget. So, those bills have
now been paid. Um, we're hoping that uh that's the end of the bills that will be coming in for base. And so um I wanted to make sure that you were aware that uh we had um finished processing those uh
payments. So the base the base revolving fund is now closed. >> Can I ask two question? Can I make a question? Ask a question and make a comment. One the question is I know revolving funds have to be approved by town meeting to be established. Now, do is there any sort of formal vote or
anything that needs to be taken to close a revolver or do you just decide it's closed and that's okay? >> I I when I say it's closed, it's it's that it's not going to show up on our books, but that doesn't give that doesn't mean that we don't have the authority in the future to start a
program um again since we have the authorization to do so. >> Okay? So, it eventually just goes inactive for now. And so this this this will happen too like with material fee the the um segment of the um Mass
General law that enables us to collect non-resident tuition. We call ours material fee. We already have the authorization to set up um a non-resident tuition account. So when Karen talks later on about um tuition
based programs that uh we might be introducing next year, uh we've already have the authority to set up a non-resident tuition account. So that would be an example of we don't need to go to town meeting to get that because we already have the authority to do so. >> You don't have to [clears throat] keep
going back and forth and back and forth. Once you have the authority, you have the authority. And then the second thing I just wanted to say was that to the school committee members, I had um forwarded an email that I'd received from Tim Davis, the director of recreation, giving us an update on um how the transition to Wreck is doing.
And um I believe he's coming to full school committee to share a report next Thursday. So um it's not just about base closing and deficit, it's about um that programming doing well in Wreck. And we'll hear about that next week. Yeah, >> that was good.
>> That's good to hear. Okay. Uh the second highlight is beep and I have talked about this a number of times. Now you're seeing it on the statements um that uh we're going to receive uh less revenue than we um had
forecasted in the budget and that is because we um consolidated those um classrooms and so we have fewer seats. We talked about this when we were talking about the enrollment report a couple of months ago. And so now this translates into um uh fewer seats that
uh we can offer um and receive tuition for. So um our forecast is off by about 190,000. Um the expenses are are a little bit higher um as well but uh there is um sufficient funds in the fund
balance to cover um the variance should it remain at 105 um by the end of the year. So it's nothing to uh be uh overly concerned about. Um we'll course correct on our forecasting of revenue for FY27.
The next item is um awesome news and that is of course I reported that we uh received $67,145 in unanticipated circuit breaker revenue in July. Um and that was associated with
more reimbursement for transportation FY25. So actually it was a 25 uh reimbursement that we received in July um and is uh showing up on our books now. But um an even bigger number uh is
uh as a result of us uh getting a higher um uh higher amount this year for uh reimbursement for our students that um we're submitting for reimbursement. So it's 810,279. Usually in the last quarter they'll do
some reconciliation. So there is an outside chance that number might get a little bit bigger although it might um just remain um at the 810. Um so this means that of the 1.9 million that um
was our initial structural gap at the beginning of the year, we've been able to uh recover 1.4 4 million um in revenue through the circuit breaker fund. So that is awesome. So >> does that does that um increased amount
reflect a greater reimbursement rate or reflect increased expenses that we submitted to get a greater reimbursement >> in increased um increased uh uh um amounts that we submitted. So, doesn't it end up being that we're net
negative on it or it's because this is all prior year? This is prior year. So, it's the reimbursement for 26 is based on 25 expenses. >> No, the reimbursement this year is based on what we're submitting for reimbursements now.
>> But then how is it a positive thing if we're getting another if we're getting 810,000, but I'm making this up. it required us to spend uh an additional 1.2 million. I don't I can't I don't know what the exact ratio of like like doesn't that actually mean we're further
in deficit if we're getting a greater circuit breaker? >> No, because we we budgeted for the increased tuitions. >> Oh, okay. So, we already had these tuitions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I was I Okay. So, I guess that >> our tuition lines are fine overall this
year so far. So then why did our circuit breaker like I thought we knew the rate of reimbursement so why did it why was it greater than we anticipated? >> It's not anticipated. So when I put the budget together >> Yeah. >> the amount of money that we received last year is what I used this year
because I don't know what the reimbursement's going to be. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> Right. I don't know what the reimbursement is going to be. So I level them just like all the other special revenue funds. I don't I don't make >> the rate is higher than what we expected because you had forecast a certain
amount of special educ out of district expenses and you had forecast a certain um circuit breaker but this circuit breaker is higher. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So we had budgeted in the current year budget um a higher level of tuitions
that we were going to pay this year when we went and we are submitting and filing claims. the claims are obviously higher because the tuitions we're paying are higher. But when I'm budgeting this time at this time of year, I only know what
the tuition is right now. I don't know what next year's tuition's going to to be. I don't know if they're going to change the amount. Um if rates are going to adjust, we don't know that. Uh so um this is this is good news. >> Great. And it's and I will say this is
attributed to Karen and her due diligence again in making sure that uh we're filing claims for everything that we're eligible for. That helps too. So great job OSS. >> Yay. Sarah, go ahead. >> I'm try that was all very helpful. I was
going to ask a question similar to what Mariah was asking and I'm just trying to really make sure that I understand everything with circuit breaker. So um again back to transportation. Does outofd district transportation get claimed to circuit breaker only or does
in district specialed transportation also go there? I think my understanding of circuit breaker is that any expenses over a certain dollar threshold and I'm not sure what the dollar threshold is right now. Karen, do you know what the
dollar threshold is off the top of your head? you can seek reimbursement for >> um I don't know the dollar threshold for transportation. >> Yeah. Um the >> I don't know it off the top of my head. >> And when [clears throat] you're calculating that that can be
transportation for out of district as well as for within Brookline. >> Yeah. It's any any expenses we have over a certain dollar threshold you can seek reimbursement for. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that's both circuit breakers. So both circuit breaker is for tui is in
district students and out of district students on both accounts both for transportation and for the general circuit breaker claim. >> There I think Sarah is asking this question. There was a time when we when they introduced reimbursement for special transportation through circuit
breaker. Um there was a time when they did not allow you to c to in to include in district special transportation. So I think that's why Sarah's asking that question. So I do want to make sure
that that that is al that's the question she's asking. And so they may have remove that restriction. Does that make sense? >> Okay. So maybe we have to come back with an answer. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's probably something I can look up myself as well, but I'm just trying to
really make sure that we follow this closely. So thank you. >> Y. So that's great. So the so this the large structural deficit like as you said the gap of this the the salary running positive and this means that that large gap that
we borrowed against future year um circuit breaker is essentially gone. Am I interpreting this right? >> You're interpreting it right. >> Can I ask that's assuming everything you know nothing else happens in the second half of the year that's unanticipated or
big. I don't I don't see that. I I feel pretty good about the financial position we're in right now. >> So So does this does this financial position we're in assume that we will have access to the funds that were deferred for the
Lincoln Playground project or not? Because I guess my question is those funds had been held in a separate account by CHAZ, right? I think they'd been pulled out of the 26 CIP and held by CHAZ. And at what point could we say comfortably
that we don't necessarily need to ask them to hold those funds so that that project could proceed um maybe not perfectly on time with what like it wouldn't have started July 1st of 2025 but at least it could perhaps
start earlier in the spring the planning part of the playground because I think that was what the $700ish thousand was for. Do you know what I'm talking about? Does this make >> I know exactly what you're talking [laughter] about. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I don't see um at this point in time that we're going to need
to access any additional resources from the town. >> May I ask the that um so the thought was they were holding that in case we wouldn't needed it for operating expenses for FY26. Is that is that >> right? That's the idea. It wasn't going
to be reallocated into PSB's budget, but it also wasn't spent against the Lincoln playground project. It was held in some I don't know where it was held, some account. >> I see. >> In sort of limbo. >> There is some question about what the town allocation can be possibly to the
to the schools for FY27. So, I just want to I just want to hold that thought if that's part of the flexibility for FY27. And I don't >> I don't think it is because I think these were 20 this was 26 funds >> that were Yeah.
>> So I just I just want before we are excited about this. I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Of course. >> Carol, I see your hand is up. Go ahead. >> Oh, I don't know if you can go off of mute. Does she need Do you need to do something, Betsy, to take her off of
mute? >> Um, we we really can't have other members She's not a member of this subcommittee. >> I'm sorry. Oh, Carol, I'm sorry. Uh, I was looking at other names here. Sorry about that. >> Uh, when I'm sharing the screen, it's hard to also see the name, so my
apologies. >> Did you figure it out? Do you want me to do something? I think I can. >> No, I just did it. Carol, you should be able to unmute now. >> Okay, >> go ahead, Carol. Uh Mariah, my recollection was that that money for the Lincoln playground was held back in part
because of the repair and maintenance budget being cut and it was sort of a they they went hand in hand. I don't remember all the details, but um it it was related and in direct response to
the schools cutting the the original repair and maintenance contribution. So, I think there's probably more conditions about spending that money on the Lincoln playground than just not
needing to come to the the town for additional money. >> Well, why don't why don't we take up an action item to follow up on this offline to get clarity on that they're raising and um and so on. And I think Charlie Young is here too. So, um I don't want
to put him on the spot, but he also might know the answer. Um and when we get to his part next, we could maybe talk about that or again just take it offline and we'll follow up. Sarah, I see your hand is up and I'm happy to call on you, but we don't need an advocacy moment for the Lincoln playground unless you have something
specific you want to add about this. So, I will um I'll let Betsy go ahead and um ask you to unmute or unmute you. Um, but certainly I think your email earlier today was helpful to continue to keep an eye on that. Betsy, do you want to offer or
>> Sorry, you should be able to unmute now. >> Um, thanks. Oh, okay. So, yes, I raised my hand before you said let's talk to Charlie and see if we can get clarification on the funds. So, I am happy to uh to do that and just say thank you. And Bella, too late. I'm
already excited, but I will um I will go ahead and remute myself. Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay, why don't we keep going on Q2? Um, there's anything else we want to I I would really appreciate, Susan, if we
could go to I think it's the next page cuz I still am puzzled on how to interpret these revolving or the special revenue funds. It's not the next page. If you can keep going, Betsy, like maybe page seven or something like that. Keep going.
Yeah, this. So why does like what does it mean that for example FY25 has a different um I just can't I don't understand how to interpret the fact that the expense is listed as 28,000 but then the spent column under revenue is
there's a spent revenue as opposed to expense which is different. I'm I'm puzzled. You're on mute. Sorry about that. Yeah, this is this is kind of an accounting um
uh kind of issue um I would say. And so when we close the fiscal year, if we have not received reimbursement for the expenses from the prior fiscal year, then it shows up as part of the revenue we're going to collect this
year. And so this is the way that that is acknowledged. We on the expense side, we sought reimbursement in the prior fiscal year. So the expense went through, but we couldn't. So on federal grants, what
happens is that you have to draw down um your revenue. So you have to spend the money in order to draw down the revenue. And so there's a misalignment when you cross fiscal years. uh between revenue and the expense.
So I understand that it it can be a little confusing. I don't like having to present it this way, but um this is the way uh the special revenue funds are set up in Munis right now. And so the revenue that we have access to in fiscal
25 is 87,000. I'm just using the first one as the example. And the expense though is only 28,000 because we are already um sought reimbursement. we just didn't receive the revenue. This is kind of what happened with uh the circuit breaker 607. Like if and you know and I
tried to explain it the last time because you're getting really into different um accounting rules which makes it um a little bit confusing but uh they're using the town uses what's called a cash basis of accounting. Um
most and many school districts um use a modified acrruel basis so that you don't have misalignment in your reporting. But the town the town of Brooklyn, >> can I make a little bit of a request because like I'm someone who professionally works in the space and like I have an MBA and if I don't understand this and this is meant to be
a public facing document to me there's like a problem. So I really do I would really appreciate if we can like figure out a way to report this that's more friendly to like the lay reader if you will. >> Yep.
>> Thank you. Um, are there other questions or comments on the document before we go ahead and move on? Jesse, Sarah. Okay, I think we will say thank you so much Susan um for the great news that you gave us and for the detailed
reporting. Um and we will move ahead to the next items on the agenda. >> Always nice to have a lot of information. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you very much and it's really great to see it all coming together and the the budgeting work and
the things breaking our way. It's great. I hope it holds for the next two quarters as well. Um the next item on the agenda, I think we're going to go back to the beginning of the agenda and let me pull that back up for myself. So I think our first item is
sorry. >> I'll just let uh Mr. Simmons know. I had told him about the change. So maybe Charlie Young first if you want to. >> Well, we've have to do minutes in the applications and then we'll come back to them really quickly. So we've got a couple minutes. Yeah. >> So first item is approval of the
November 12th, 2025 minutes. Um can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Sarah, do you second? >> You do. Okay. Jesse, how do you vote? >> Yes. Sarah. Yes. And um I vote yes as well.
>> I'm here and I vote yes. >> Hi Donna. >> Hi. >> Hi. Sorry. I didn't see you. >> I didn't see you. That's okay. Welcome. >> I vote I vote yes. >> Oh great. Okay. >> Ry was calling something up on my computer. So I vote yes. Thank you. >> No worry. I saw the thumbs up. That's
perfect. And then the next um item on the agenda is the Meco Transportation Grant. Um, Betsy, were you able to replace the packet online? I don't know if everyone saw that there was um there was more content
backing this um backing this request up than was originally shared with us. Um, so I had just asked Malcolm a little bit more, but then I read the backup and found it helpful as well. Um, but my understanding from Malcolm, let
me just go find the email because my questions were, um, um, I asked about, it said the total budget expenditure for 26 was 483,000. And I just wasn't clear if that was the state's budget for this supplement or
the PSB MECO transportation budget. He clarified it was for the transportation budget. Um, and I asked if we were projected to overspend the transportation allocation. If so, by how much? He said we won't overspend. Um, we're still within our spending. Um, and
essentially, um, he's requesting the maximum of 25,000 that is allowed. Um, and then if they get support for the transportation funding, they will rebudget to push funds into student support activities. Um, and I think Malcolm couldn't join us
tonight because he had a conflict. Are there any other questions or comments from the committee about this 25,000? >> No. >> Okay. I will make a motion for approval. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. Okay. >> Okay. I'll take Jesse's a second. Jesse,
how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Sarah? >> Yes. >> Donna? >> Yes. >> And I vote yes. Um and then the next item on the agenda, we have four gifts. Um, there is a gift from the Boston
Bruins for $3,000 to Baker School. A gift from the MLV Goldstein Memorial Fund for $5,000 to Baker School. A gift from the David Bounty 2020 revocable trust for $100 to the high school Winthrop House program. And a gift from
David Calfman for $1,000 to the high school queer student union. Um, thank you very much to the donors of those gifts. um much appreciated and especially um meaningful the Goldstein family gift which is of course um very
meaningful to the community at Baker. Um are there any questions on any of the gifts? >> If not can I ask you a quick question and maybe this is more general but >> um if there was a specified use for the gift. So in other words, if if we were
um limited and how those funds were applied beyond just um beyond just uh Winthrop House for example >> um it would be included in the information that we were given. Right.
>> Right. The restrictions that are listed are specified. >> Okay. Wonderful. >> Yeah. >> Um although I would say that the Baker one it says the team is earmarked. I don't believe that the gift itself has that restriction, but I believe the Goldstein memorial fund gift is um
restricted for the purpose you see. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um I will make a motion to approve with gratitude the four gifts that we have. Do I have a second? >> Yes. >> Second. >> No. >> Um Okay. Thank you, Jesse. Donna, how do you vote? >> Yes. Thank you,
>> Jesse. >> Yes. >> Sarah, >> yes. >> And I vote yes as well. Thank you. And now we will go back to section four of the agenda. Um Oh, no, sorry. Back to
section two of the agenda, which is um Is uh Charlie Simmons here? >> Yes, he is. Yep. >> Oh, great. I don't see him. >> No, he's there. He's at like eight or nine down in from top seven in the top. >> Okay. I meant I Sorry. I meant I
literally didn't. There you are. Hi Charlie. >> Oh yeah. >> Um thanks for joining us. Um so you're going to talk about the request um that you submitted on December 23rd for um
services personnel. >> Uh yes, >> it over to you. Thanks for coming. >> You're welcome. Um, so yes, I was looking for an increase in repair and maintenance money and um I'm also looking to add a couple more staff members.
The increase in the U repair and maintenance money is two-part. I'd like to get the monies that were cut from this fiscal year's budget and um add additional to that with an increase of 4% or four and a half% for inflation.
Um, last year we did cut the uh budget and um I have been cutting back on things such as not washing windows and I'd like to put that stuff back into the budget. The uh second item that I'd like to talk about is hiring two non-licensed HVAC
personnel. This came up um a year year and a half ago and um on the town side we did hire a person and it's been very successful and this person primarily takes care of replacing filters and belts and so on
that we were subcontracting out. He also helps do some HVAC repairs that do not require a license and troubleshooting which has been very very helpful and I'd like to apply that on the schools um because I think it would be better for the schools as far as response time
and services and save us a little bit of money. That about summarizes it. Charlie, we didn't get um a breakdown of the salary request, correct? Like you up gave us the dollar amount for the services but not for the
salaries, correct? >> Oh, correct. Okay, Charlie Young, I know you sent earlier a different spreadsheet um which does include salaries, but the salaries you're sending you sent and I don't
think anyone else has received this. This came by email earlier, but those salaries are not incorporated like the additional staffing that Charlie Simmons is requesting for is not in the document you sent. Correct. >> That is correct. That's just steps for the existing folks that are in the
school portion of the building department budget. Now, I will say this is just a flag because I think um we decided to adopt this idea because it came with a promise of some savings. Um you know, this year we did not fund an
increase in building department personnel to hire the non-licensed HVAC person. we sort of came to an agreement with Charlie that we would fund that with a transfer out of R&M because it is it's designed to save more money than it costs to hire that person. So, um that's
just a flag. We we didn't actually increase the budget yet to account for that and when we do we're going to take it out of R&M and put it into personnel. And the net savings um that's in the memo which it says 75 to 85 per year. Is
that is that for for the two people together or is that each person Charlie? >> Two people together. >> Okay. So So you were assuming around 40,000 for the single HVAC tech you like a net savings of840 for the single HVAC
tech from this year >> approximately. Yeah. >> Okay. Can you just remind me how last year worked out >> uh regarding >> the same the HVAC? >> Um well, we hired a person and it um
they didn't start until February. Um had to go through a process obviously. Um the person has most of the qualifications to have a license. he hasn't have all his time in and um he hit the ground running. We had to get up
to speed because now we had to start buying air filters and scheduling things. So that took a little bit of time, but we've worked out all the problems such that we don't have to go into a building and shut down a building or anything or work out hours. And um we're doing well. We're doing really
well with it. And he's got into every single town building um more than once now. And uh we're going to continue to do that. And as I mentioned, um, we're expanding the scope a little bit to help us with other HVAC stuff that sometimes is just very minor.
>> And the budget compared to the actual spent. Where did we end up? >> Well, um, I haven't finished the year yet. And he started in February, so it's hard to compare apples to apples right now. Um, I'll have a better idea at the
end of June, actually, for one full year. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Charlie Young, hang on, Donna. I have a question because when I look at the spreadsheet that you sent,
um Betsy, do you mind pulling it up for a minute because you got it too, right, Betsy? >> Yes. Um there were a few though, so let me um stop sharing. >> It's the one he's on at three. >> Okay. I can also pull it up if need be. >> Oh, if you don't mind, maybe that would
be easier so that she doesn't have to lose her spot in all the documents. >> Yes, just give me one moment. Sure. Um >> I'm just [snorts] trying to understand because the dollars that I saw in your spreadsheet don't match the dollars that I saw in Charlie's. >> Yeah, there are there are different ways to run these um reports. And to be
honest with you, Mariah Melissa sent me the request that you had emailed this afternoon and I just jumped right on it and pulled a couple of reports. Um, so when you're saying they don't match up, let's let's figure out what that number is and maybe we can um try to make them jive. Uh,
>> yeah, >> it may just have to do with whether or not um Charlie or I counted prior year incumbrances. Like for example, when we talk about the FY25 actual spend, that's what's been recorded. We do carry some purchase orders into the next fiscal
year and spend them down. So there there could be some expenses that haven't been made yet. And I think Susan was alluding to this earlier that it is actually difficult sometimes to put those in their correct fiscal year. So which numbers are you seeing? Is it the the services line? Yeah, with the services
line because I think Charlie has 3538 for 26 in his um memo. Am I right, Charlie? Now, I'm not looking at the memo items. >> Yes. And so what's happening there is they have so this service is um I just gave you a basically a roll up by
category of accounts. And so under this line item, there's more than just R&M. There's another smaller account. So I'm going to um I'm going to jump to another tab here. So just bear with me. It's a bit of a blizzard of numbers, but I will zoom in and try to make it easier to
follow. So, um, this is something maybe to look at more closely offline, but um, this is the FY26 column. This is what we're planning for FY27. This is the building maintenance line item. And there is that 3.538 number that we were just talking about
Charlie having in his spreadsheet. >> U, and that's what we have as well. And we're assuming a two two and a half% uh, growth in that for now. Looks like this right here, maybe this 1250 and maybe one or two other line items make up the
difference between the 538 and this 544. >> Got it. >> They're very small uh like repair line items that are separate from the R&M account. >> So when when you have if you don't mind
just keeping this view up for a moment. So you have 3633 which as you said is the 2 and 12% increase >> but Charlie is requesting >> 30 um sorry Charlie I can't 3943
395 so that's 310,000 more than what is in the current projection that feeds and I'm sort of talking through this a little bit for everyone else who's listening so that they can maybe follow along with what's I'm also confirming it from my own understanding but also making sure there's a shared
understanding. So essentially, if we were to um go along with the 3943, we would then be essentially transferring 310,000 of the allocation that's currently in the PSB bucket back to the town bucket.
So we would be increasing our projected um deficit. >> That is correct. Um I I will say uh well, we I I shouldn't um I shouldn't speak out of term. We should look at what we have in the forecast for an assumption for
growth of school costs within the town budget. Uh utilities came in a little bit lower than I had originally projected and what we built into the forecast, but we should confirm with Melissa uh before I promised any real savings there. Um just to make sure we, you know, I don't want to promise
anything there, but utilities came in a little bit lower for FY27 than I had initially projected. And when we have 54,000 for capital that you're allocating, is this a car? Are we getting a car? >> That is an annual annual purchase of a vehicle. And to be perfectly clear, last
year in order to meet the deficit, this the town cut their um this line item on the town side of the building department for a vehicle replacement every year. So that and in FY26 and likely in FY27, there won't be funds on the town side of the building department to purchase a
car. So the schools has funded it for 26 for the building department. >> Correct. >> Okay. So if there is a car needed, doesn't it seem like it should come from the town side of the ledger and not the school side of the ledger? >> So these are these are cars that are
being used by school repair and maintenance school staff to go out to school buildings. That makes sense. So in other words, there's in the building department, they have line items for town accounts for town buildings and they have line items for school accounts for school buildings. There was as of
last year one vehicle on each side and the town chose to reduce its vehicle. >> Charlie, do we need to fund this vehicle per 27? Like is it a >> um personally because um they're great vehicles. It's all electric. They're
newer and my fleet is getting older. We haven't been keeping up. Not that that's a anybody's issue, but we have been keeping up getting newer vehicles. So, they are getting in tough shape. And the two that we have, my tradesmen are very satisfied with them. They've been
working out really well. And we've had no issues with them at all. >> But how could we only have two cars if we've funded a car for 26,25 and 24 and possibly earlier back than that? Charlie can present a vehicle schedule and the age of all the vehicles that the
building department has access to. You know, part of the reason that we chose to reduce our line item for FY26 is at least one of the vehicles we needed to replace, we were able to do through ARPA temporarily. Um, and so I think we did the same. I think Charlie, we purchased
multiple building department vehicles through ARPA. Um I think it may be worth following up to look at the age of the vehicles as Charlie is saying they're old but um but again you know just offering that up that we did we made
that reduction on the town side um last year this year. >> Okay, Donna go ahead and I see you have your hands up. >> You're on mute. Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties and I'm about to lose my mind on steroid
drive. So, um I wanted to ask Oh, going back to Sarah's question so that I'm totally clear with regards to the hiring of the um like an internal HVAC person on the town side. Did are you on track to realizing
to realize the savings that you had anticipated? >> Well, as I said, I never finished. Um, he started the fiscal year >> right >> late and I am in six months into this fiscal year. We do look better, but I'm mixing HVAC because I hire outside
contractors. So, I have to pull out just the portion that we spent on filters and what I've been buying filters on. Um, it looks good, but I don't want to promise anything right now. And ballpark though, the numbers have to be better because
I'm paying much less for labor. And even if I'm paying the same amount for filters, we have to be doing better. So, but I'd like to point out >> Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry. No, no, >> no. I'd like to point out that in addition to doing filters and belts, he
is doing other HVAC work that I would be hiring an outside contractor for. So I think them the savings might be even higher because we haven't been using the outside contractors much. And again that's more simple things but they do pop up from time to time. >> And then on the school side the it would
be if I'm if I'm remembering correctly it's two positions not one. Is that right? >> Yes. >> So is there is the reason it's two on the school side because of the you know because of the number of buildings. So there's more volume of
>> uh the the the square footage is about twice it's 66% 33% if you add up all the square footages the um the buildings as complicated is more complicated as um the town side. So it's just the balance of the two.
>> Right. And then my last clar point of clarification was when you said the I think you had said $80,000 in um projected savings that's after sal after salary. So after we account for salary. Okay. Got it. Thank you so much.
>> You're welcome. So, if we were to go ahead and do that kind of thing, could it would it be the same kind of thing like Charlie Young described where it would basically be like a side deal where you hire them and then we and then you transfer as needed out of the services line?
>> Yeah, exactly. >> So, we wouldn't need to increase personnel. We could theoretically just net it out of services of whatever the ultimate services line ends up becoming. Is that correct? It is, but you're presuming that I'd
have a person or persons on board July 1st, and I can't necessarily say that it'll happen. Um, you know, strange things happen with hiring. I just, not to belate it, but I'm probably on year eight or nine where I've had three open
licensed HVA HVAC positions that I still have not been able to fill. So, >> but do you feel like the HVAC tech that's because this is person is a all but licensed situation, right? you said. So this is that is that an easier hire do you think? Because they don't pay the
license. It >> is. Yeah. >> Okay, great. >> Just in terms of like hourly rate or salary or whatever, it's a more you the town can afford to be more the town is more competitive is what you're saying? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Um, other questions from the subcommittee, one one comment that I want to make. Go ahead. Well, why don't you go ahead, Donna? >> Yeah, go ahead. Well, what I was going to say was I had asked um I had gone back to Charlie's Charlie Simmons um
report on the FY25 actuals that he'd given us in October, I think it was, which I think came in in an actual um the actual expenditure of on the services line of 3.4 million or so. Um
am I remembering right? I'm I'm I think so. 3.4 million. and asked why we couldn't work off the actuals um and then increase that. And I understand that last year we held the budget flat. So I certainly would not be just doing an increase over 25, but thinking about
a multi-year increase over the actual spend from 25 rather than operating off of the um 25 budget um which was, if you all recall, we held it flat for 26. It was flat, right? It's not flat on this
budget. which I'm confused by. >> Well, from what I understand, um, you you cut it by $163,000 the last year. >> But why does this one show a $200,000 plus? Am I reading your Charlie Young?
Am I reading your spreadsheet right? G4 and >> Sorry. These are these are actual expenditures, not the budget. Um, so uh this so what we're showing here is the FY26 budget. That's the current. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Charlie is correct that um the Yeah. Well, go ahead. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Two two and a half% was around the same was not that much different from this number as of last year. >> Um and so uh what was what was actually reduced was it was not just level funded. Level funded would have been um it's it was actually reduced um below
FY25 levels. I can pull that up. Um I can pull that number up. So budget to budget you're saying it was reduced but it was but it was more than the 25 actual >> 26 budget is greater than 25. Okay. >> Uh correct. 20 I think 25 budget
obviously is greater than 25 actual. So it's um I I can pull I could pull that up. U what the FY25 budget was. Um but it it's uh was a it was actually a reduction from 25 to 26 to this number here. Um, and I just want to add really
quick, which is I, you know, not disputing your offer to work off of actuals at all, Mariah, just pointing out that the whole reason we use this 2.5% is because the 2008 override built in a 2 and a.5% increase into building repair and maintenance on the town and
school side basically every year. And so the override added the funds to do that every year. Um it's obviously like last year you can make the decision to do something different but that's the origination of the practice >> but most years at least in recent memory we've done much better than that. I mean
we have been trying to put funds into we know that building maintenance in PSB has been underfunded and for multiple years except for last year we were increasing at much greater than 2.5%. And so, you know, I just want to make sure that it's clear. It's not like PSB is being chintzy on the 2 and a half%
year-to-year. We have a much better history of this. And if we look at the funding from prior to 24, you'll see that it's increased tremendously because of the work that needs to be done by the building department and which we appreciate. But I guess like the issue
is, and I think you're alluding to this, Charlie Young, when the model only allows for a two and a half percent increase, every single year we end up in this structural conflict where Charlie Simmons requests more than 2 and a half% because his costs are going up by more than that. And then we have to decide
whether we're going to take it out of the student facing expenses or or not do the maintenance. And so every year we have this and I'm trying to say is there some way we can you know respect the work that Charlie and the team are doing but going off of the actuals
going off of the actuals but also reflecting the greater than 2 and 1.5% growth in costs that he has yeartoear. I'm trying to square the circle a little bit here if you will. Um, and it's just very challenging because otherwise every
single year like we are in the position of having to say no because this the model for the 2008 override identified this incredibly low number of 2 and a.5% as the increase for his budget every year. So, I mean, I just I find it frustrating. It's no one here's fault,
but I find it frustrating that um that we don't have the funds to do what we all think is right for the buildings to be maintained. Donna, go ahead. Yes. I wanted to sorry
going back to well first of all Mariah B on what you just said I I and I'm not sure that I followed all of it but I think what I extracted was that you would like you're suggesting that we use for for budget
purposes we use last year's actuals to build on versus the last year's budget numbers. Is that right? Yes. I mean, and if there was some adjustment that needed to be made, if Charlie said, "Oh, you know, >> and Charlie Young, Charlie Young, you're
essentially saying the reason it was built the way it's built is because of because of the override, right? >> Um, >> yes. Right. That's where it originated. Okay, got it. I just wanted to make sure I was following the conversation. Um my
question is going back to the idea of the the two um additional positions. >> Oh, did I lose you or can you still hear me? >> No, we can hear you. >> Okay. So, um would there be any utility in talking about one position versus two or that's
not even a scenario we should like is there any utility in in discussing that scenario? >> Why would we do less than that if we could save more? Like essentially Charlie like it can only result in savings as I interpret this.
>> Is that true? >> There's no world in which Charlie hires a person and also hires the contractors. I mean that's what it comes down to, right? So >> Okay. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Charlie Simmons, this is Carol. My recollection is that
there's you're still going to need outside contractors because the people you're hiring are not licensed and there's some things that these outside contract >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, Carol. I didn't mean to imply for that, but just that the things like if it's filter replacement, I just meant he's not going to have to hire
someone to do the work that they're doing, >> right? But I also want to caution you that there's things that might not be getting done by the outside contractors because that budget is being used for maintenance. So, you shouldn't be too quick to cut the outside service
contract budget because >> I think that was clear. Charlie made that clear earlier. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Right. He basically said, I don't I can't necessarily hire them at the end of the beginning of the fiscal year and so forth and he doesn't necessarily know if he can hire them at all. So, we can't just net out the funds was his point.
Um, >> I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. There's what he would there's that point and also the point is that there's work that maybe won't get done or needs to get done that can only be done by the licensed contractors.
So you can't so some of those savings might have benefit in the in the outside service contract line item. And just just to add to that though, Carol, we do uh most years uh have savings in the salary line item um
where those positions those licensed HVAC positions are vacant. And frequently we do a transfer out of personnel into R&M so that Charlie can do outside services contracted work on HVAC that those licensed HVAC personnel would be doing. We're talking about
doing one of those transfers right now for around 100 grand in salary savings. Um, so that there there is uh there's more to it than just what's in the R&M funds when it comes to the licensed HBAC work. >> So I guess what you're saying is it's
not necessarily going to be a direct one forone reduction in that service contract because of those transfers from >> I'm just trying to say that there uh where you say there's some work not getting done by the you know not getting done because it's being spent on RM. We
also transfer the the salary savings from the vacant licensed HBAC folks into R&M so that Charlie can do more contracted HV licensed HBAC work. >> So it's not a necessarily onetoone. It's it's a little it's a little bit more
finesse. What you're saying is the impact on the budget, >> right? But there is there is real savings there is I guess the the bottom line is there is real savings to be had to be to be made there. Um and and I I will just add for my part that I have
talked to Charlie Simmons about this and he he does see sort of it would be generally more efficient if the town and schools aligned on the on the idea and the and the process here. Um so that it may work better with [snorts] all three on board.
>> All three HVAC techs you mean? >> Non non-licensed HVAC. Exactly. >> We don't need to make a decision on this one tonight, right? We we have some time. So, we can flip over to utilities at this point. Is that reasonable? >> Anything else you want to add, Charlie Simmons? >> Yeah.
>> No, no, I'm fine. Sorry, I have to turn off my >> picture. I'm having a little ba rights here, but that's fine. >> Thank you. Okay, Charlie or which one of you is presenting utilities? Is it you, Charlie Young, or both? >> Yeah, I can I can pull it up and um would love um Charlie Simmons help. So,
I forgot to introduce myself for anybody who doesn't know me. I'm Charlie Young. I'm the assistant town administrator for finance. Um, and I help with doing some of our utilities cost projections. Um, and we've provided the schools with our initial look at the utilities budget. I
can explain what's going on there as soon as I can pull it up on my screen. Um, and thank you Mariah for catching um an error in my sheet. Very small, but still nice to get everything accurate. Um, so >> while you're doing that, just to
confirm, the three licensed HVAC positions are also still in the budget, right? We would be talking about adding, you would be adding the non-licensed positions in addition, correct? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. Exactly. >> Thanks. >> Exactly. >> Is it possible like we've gotten in previous years to get the breakdown of
the um in addition to what we talked about with the vehicles to get a breakdown of the staff titles and fraction like fractional FTEEs that PSP is paying for. >> Yes, absolutely. We we uh we didn't have time to produce that today. Um it's takes a little bit more manual work
looking the information up instead of just kind of pulling the reports. Um >> we I'll put that on the list. I think uh may not hurt to have a reminder at some point if I don't get that to you. We're just we're in budget book production mode. U you mind being the nudge.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Betsy. I appreciate that. >> Not my favorite role, but I'll do it. >> Well, I'll be nudged. [laughter] I'll be nice about it, Betsy. Um, I'll try to remember. I put it on my to-do list. Um, okay. So, um, just a a few quick notes.
Um, we have in the past had a significant reserve fund transfers to cover deficits in school utilities. We've had lots of conversations about those in the past. Um, but Charlie Simmons and I think have been able to align and get our estimates um, you
know, basically true them up in a in a in a better way. Um, and last fiscal year we did not end with a significant deficit which was spectacular. Um, and this year we are projecting currently as is noted on the screen a very small
deficit of $100,000 or less. Um and it as we can talk about as we go through this that may be resolved as we investigate further. So what we do with utilities budgets across the town um is we gather up the usage data and the cost
data from all the departments and we create a three-year average of usage under each type of uh utility and we multiply it by the expected utility price that we're going to pay um that next fiscal year. Um, so you can see right now we have a total budget of 3.7
million for school utilities in the building department budget. And I'll zoom in a little bit so this is easier to see. Um, in FY26. And um, we are we're making some some changes here. As you can see, it looks like electricity prices are going up. There's some more information about this
on the on the right side I can talk about. Um, we are estimating an increase in units, an increase in kilowatt hours. Um, this is really not a substantial increase. Um, but it just reflects the $100,000 potential $100,000 deficit that
we're seeing. Um, and natural gas is going up substantially. A lot of folks are seeing this on their bills. Um, in both electricity and natural gas, the price increase is coming from mainly an increase in our supply contract price. That's a fixed contract. We we settle
every few years. We put out to bid and settle every few years. we've benefited from having very low, especially natural gas supply rates, which are going up substantially this year, much like folks in the community. Um, so between the two, you know, $113,000 increase in
electricity is recommended, a $218,000 increase in natural gas is recommended. Um, and then, uh, water is also is the next largest account here. um which we're recommending a $50,000 increase to partly um actually almost entirely due
to just increase in costs. The usage is actually estimated to be a little bit lower than the current year budget. Um so that is how we come up with our estimates. Um we do make some other assumptions and I included those on the right side here. So we talk about these
um there's two components to our utility prices. The supply I just talked about and then delivery from the actual utility. We're assuming 3% increases over our current rates. Um, >> how could Charlie, how could the budget be using three-year averages of uses? Like if you go back, do you mind just
scooching back over? >> Yep, absolutely. >> Okay, so like like the unless there was and I can't if you scroll a little further so we can see 25. I don't know what 24 was necessarily, but I guess it's over there, right? Or no, that's budget versus this is budget versus
actual for 25, >> correct? So, we have there's there's additional years and so >> Oh, there's a whole bunch of hidden stuff in there. Okay. >> But just to be totally clear with you, just to be completely transparent with you, Mariah, this number when we ran the three-year average of units came out lower than the current year budget. And
as a result, And as a result, because we're looking at a deficit this fiscal year, we decided to hold it at the 8.5 and then we added the kilowatt hours that are shown over here. >> Right. Correct. Um, and so this is not actually a three-year average. I don't
think it's 280. I think it's a different number. I think fair enough. Yeah, it's >> fair enough. It's a it's an odd number perhaps. Yes. Um and so, um you know, not trying to bury the lead or anything, you know, we we basically start with a three-year average and then we look at actual performance of the buildings and
current year budgets and bills and we make some assumptions after that. Um I do believe that natural gas ended up being just a three-year average plus the therms that we discussed on the right. Um, and so, uh, in in any case, uh, we
did get a an analysis from our outside energy consultant, Freedom Energy, that looked at our usage and our costs. We looked at that today. Um, and it looks like we're pretty much aligned with where they think we're going to be in FY27 on our utility budgets, which was which was helpful and confirmed a lot of
our assumptions. This seems like a substantial increase. um in the grand scheme you know it reflects I think it's about a 10% increase which is about what we're seeing in price increases and so we talk about this this with the community you know obviously we are
budgeting for small increases in usage the primary driver of the cost increases this year much like a few years ago when we were running deficits is cost increases so that that's basically what I have to present um each of these numbers is a rollup of all of the buildings that are
that that you know the tools have um in each of these categories. And Charlie Simmons does a great job with his energy manager tracking those buildings and giving us lots of data. And so for questions about specific buildings, I would need Charlie to jump in. But I can answer any questions about how we're
doing the budget here. Oh, and before I I'm sorry. Before I turn it over, just want to point out that this 382563 right here increase ties out to the sheet that I showed you earlier where we're showing the utilities category going up by 382563.
Um, the percentages are off, I think, because the total might not be completely accurate on this one. There may be something wrong, maybe something off here. So, um this seems like it's a little higher than town meeting table.
In any case, um happy to take any questions on how we arrived at our assumptions and what why we're recommending what we're recommending. >> Can I ask a question about the units of electricity and just solar? So, like does this represent all of our electricity or the ones we've generated?
Like how does that work in terms of netting it out with our solar panels? >> Yeah, absolutely. A great question. Um, so for example, um, I think the Driscoll bill, the Driscoll Solar Array, Charlie, can you could you jump on and talk about when that's going live? And I believe it
is behind the meter. So you'll be realizing the savings directly on your bills. Where we would realize that is in the cost per unit. And so essentially what we do is we look at for some departments, they run much lower than what we expect. And so instead of
plugging in the exact dollar per kilowatt hour that we're expecting people to pay, we're plugging in an assumption based on how they usually how much lower they usually run than what we expect. If that makes sense. Hope that makes >> it does. I guess I'm wondering like because for some of the buildings I
would imagine we're not we don't pay the supply search charge, right? We just pay or what do we we pay the what are we pay? >> We still have to pay both even though we're like how does the solar reduce the cost? I should know this, but I'm like completely like [laughter]
I'm confused when it comes to this sort of level of calculation where it gets netted out, >> right? And so, for example, if you had a net meter credit agreement, right? You would be seeing just dollar amounts on your bills. It wouldn't actually change your kilowatt hours. So, you are identifying correctly that we're
budgeting for the total amount of kilowatt hours. But when we look at what we're paying for a cost per unit. So for example, if I go back and look at the FY25 budget and how it turned out, what we expected folks to pay was 24 cents
per kilowatt hour in FY25. Um, and the schools actually ended up with 25 cents a kilowatt hour. And where that comes from is probably demand load charges, which are charges that occur when you flick on large power draining systems in your schools. Um, and they can vary and
there there could be other reasons why the cost is higher than anticipated as well. Um, we could in this this fiscal year budget have said, well, because you're already paying, you know, 1 cent more than what we expect, we should budget you 1 cent above. But because we
have a few things going on here, we have the Driscoll Solar Array coming up. We have some new net meter credit agreements coming on board. We're expecting to see some savings. And so, I understand where you're coming from, Mariah. We'd like to see this on like a, you know, maybe building by building basis or a much more detailed basis.
>> I just want to save money, Charlie. >> I [laughter] understand. >> I just don't want us to spend that much. >> I understand. Um, and I think that if you can identify savings, we can factor them in here. You know, I you know, I don't know what that looks like. Whether it's like, oh, we're going to use the buildings one last day a week. I have no
idea what that looks like. Or we're going to try a new conservation measure. um we can build that in with a reduction in units or a reduction in even a reduction in cost if we think that's what it's going to be. Um unfortunately, much like a few years ago, these are just real increases in costs that we're
seeing. Um and with the solar savings and other projects, the way that I tend to look at this in my budgeting philosophy is that I don't like to count on the savings unless I absolutely have to, right? And so, for example, Driscoll Solar coming online, I don't have an
estimate in here that says, "Oh, we're going to spend this much less per month once that solar array is live." Um, instead, we're going to monitor the overall perform the overall budget performance of the school utilities profile, and it'll likely be captured in the following year when we look at the
price that you're paying per kilowatt hour and it's lower than what we expected, right? Um, so that's how those things get captured. It's, you know, we we can and you absolutely can say, "Listen, we're we're expecting that to save us 20 grand a month. We want to your five grand a month. We want to take that out of our utilities budget." Much
like R&M, we this is a this is a conversation. Um, but I am saying upfront that this is what I think you're realistically going to need next year to not need a reserve fund transfer to to get through. though. You just if they reduce their budget and know that they're back
stopped by a reserve fund transfer, that's the wrong incentive. >> Thank you, Carol. Other question. [laughter] >> I'm sorry, did you ask me a question? >> No, I was asking if the subcommittee who I had called on actually had questions. Thank you.
One one thing I wonder about I know this is like it's just a rounding error, but like if we have all these electric cars now, where's the gasoline getting used? Like [laughter] I'll take the savings wherever we can get them. >> This is a good point. Um and and you know, if if you look at your actual um
if you look at your actual expenditures for gas in FY25, they were only about $2,000 and we're you know, we're suggesting 3,800. you know, um it's it is um it's you know, these are all formulas that we just we budget this way
by practice. We, you know, advisory gave us this this advice several many years ago to start using a three-year average times basically the latest information, you know, unit price you have. Um but, uh you know, there is sometimes room to squish these down and again, it is a conversation. I understand what Carol is
saying and I completely I completely agree. We want to budget to the fullest, but you know, we can have a conversation about um what the experience is likely to be, right? >> Do you have any sense of what our likely like our I know that you're budgeting conservatively and I guess my and and
you're what you're saying, but my question is if you do think we're going to realize with relative certainty, you know, x amount of savings, it would be great to be able to take that proactively. >> Understo understood. And and the way that this works is right, we're not
capturing that savings in case and and it it sort of buffers against for example a water meter getting replaced and the cost suddenly dramatically increasing because the meter is just better at reading water, right? >> Um and I think that is up to you to make that decision as to whether or not you
want to u present a budget that cuts that close to the bone. Um it I I would recommend you know we we've had a good track record so you the past couple of years. This is what I would recommend to stay on target to stay on target. Uh but if you want to have a conversation
offline with Charlie Simmons and say hey when did Driscoll Solar come online? How much is it going to save us? And you want us to program that in we can have that conversation. >> That would be great if we could just kick the tires and explore that a little bit. Is Charlie still here? I can't see him but if so Oh yes. That would be
great to think about. Um, any last questions from the subcommittee before we move on? We still have a lot of >> none for me, but I I do want to say thank you for the conversation. >> Absolutely. Happy to answer any questions.
>> Yeah, I really appreciate to the um it's been helpful to get them the greater detail on utilities over the past couple years and just again like it's helpful to be able to have these kinds of informed conversations. So, appreciate that. >> Yeah, very >> absolutely happy to do it. >> Thank you. Thank Thank you all. Have a
great night. Okay. >> Thank you. >> More soon. Appreciate it. >> Okay. I think the next items on the agenda we're going to go to um we have specialized program and materials fee. Why don't we start with specialized program if that's okay with you Betsy?
Um and that way we'll let Karen um go. Go ahead Karen. >> All right. Well, good evening everybody. Um good evening. >> Um so just to give you a little bit of
an overview so we have been working on um costing out our specialized special education programs. These are our subs separate programs um at our elementary level. And we are actually working on this across all of our programs. But
these are the specific programs that had been identified earlier in the year uh for um to really look at tuitioning in students. These are um programs where there um had been identified as um being
space available. Um I'll talk specifically about lab because that's a little bit different. Um but where we're currently um would be able to tuition in students. So the tuition rates that you're seeing is based on costing out the full cost of our program. So that
looks at all of our staffing, our support staffing, so it's our teachers, our paras, um our administrative staffing, our related service staffing, and then um transportation and indirect costs. So all of that was costed out to
produce the tuition rates that you are seeing um on the screen. Um we also gave um next to it some comps. So in terms of the type of program and the students that are served in our various programs,
what are the comps in um out of district placement? So you can just see comparisons um across the board. So um in terms of um the lab program specifically so Winthrop House and this
is particularly at our middle school in which as many of you know this is the second year of that program um and so that program is growing um but we certainly have um the ability to tuition in students there same as our adaptive
learning center we needed to add another classroom last year um and so again we've got a new classroom there and so we have three classrooms rooms and we have the ability to tuition in students. Our language and academic homework program that is our lab program which is at Driscoll. So the adaptive learning
center is at Lincoln. The Winthrop House Middle School program is at Driscoll and at the high school and then the language and academic homebased program is at Driscoll. Um that program is pretty enrolled right now. However, one of the reasons why we looked at um at the lab
program is as many of you know there are there is classroom availability. So there is the ability to expand that program um which would require an addition of staff whereas currently our adaptive learning center and Winthrop
House would not require any additional potentially certainly don't require any additional teaching staff in terms of expanding. Um and while we do have um limited space in the lab program in certain grades, um that's probably the
place that's um most enrolled at the district level. Um and um so the goal was as as many of you are aware um these tuition rates are um presented to the school committee and they get approved
by by the school committee and then the district would begin working with our fellow public school districts to market and let people know that we would be accepting students for tuitioning in. Obviously, we've got indistrict work uh
to do in terms of just process and procedure um and readiness. Um but that would be the plan. And so the goal um although we've certainly and and this is certainly you know has happened over the course of the year. We have people reach
out to always ask do we tuition in? Um the goal would be that we would start um accepting students for the FY27 school year uh in these programs. >> Any any questions or any any things I
Yeah. Sarah. >> So I can imagine a lot finances are the most important of course. I can imagine that there are other reasons why this is to our benefit. Um, and I'd love for you to just sort of quickly add those to the
conversation. Um, that you know some of our programs they are small enough that it would I think it would actually benefit the program to make a little bit larger. >> Some of our programs the cohort it's important for those kids to have like more of a cohort so that they're um
socializing. Could you just go over those? >> Yes. Um so I think you you mentioned many of them in terms of yes there is benefit in terms of the socialization aspect um the cohorting aspect you can do many different things when you have
um sort of a cohort and like cohort so you can do a lot more sort of matching um and um you know I I also think we our programs we run outstanding in district programming um there many districts certainly I've been in you know
districts outside of Brooklyn where districts have tuitioned in for many years. Uh it brings you know different diversity um and and really has sort of mutual benefit both for the district and obviously for the sending district.
>> Um Donna, why don't you go ahead? I think your next question you're on mute. Thank you so much. Um Karen, thank you. Um thank you for putting this together. I
know it's an incredible amount of work, but I want to say I'm so excited not about not necessarily about the financial aspect, which would be great, but because primarily because we can um help more students even outside of
Brooklyn. And I think that that really incredible to expose um students who are who have needs to some of the uh amazing work that we're doing in in these programs. I am hoping you can
answer a couple of questions. One is are there any projections on or have you built any projections on how many students you'd like to see us um tuitioning in in each of the programs? I'm also curious and I missed
I I came on late because of work and so I missed the part of the conversation which I assume was about the Lincoln playground. I imagine that expanding the um adaptive learning center might have some implications for the Lincoln playground. So I just wanted to ask
about that. And then I also wanted to ask whether if we have to make room for additional students for example in in the lab program from Brookline how that would work if we're tuitioning in students.
>> Yeah. Great. Um so a couple of things obviously we're going to start this slowly um so we have looked at numbers within the program um and I think over the so for the adaptive learning center and again so one of the things that I think it's important for people to
understand is even within our own programs your your class size is is um really based on students profiles and level of need and so you really are and that's very dynamic. So you're always looking at that aspect. So you know desi
sets are not to exceed by size. Um and then you know space staffing level of complexity will really determine what is a what is an appropriate grouping of students for any one teacher in a program and that shifts from year to
year and that can shift you know during the year students move you know students may step down to a less restrictive program students may need something more restrictive. So again it's a very dynamic um fluid process in terms of numbers and again this will be over the
year and again you know based on um our capacity and ability to bring students in our adaptive learning center we could probably um assume somewhere between four to six students across all three classrooms but really depending again on
the on the profile of the student. Um so but six would be the maximum. Um it would probably be more like four students over the over the course of the next year. Um that's the same for Winthrop House Middle School. Um and actually the high school and again that
depends on grades. So we have grades and um uh where we wouldn't be able to take students in. So a lot of it is also going to depend on um you know what the referral is, right? what grade the student is and if it matches where we may have opening. Um for lab we again in
some of our grades we could probably take one maybe two students next year with where we are currently. Um so lab is much more of a looking at what is the what is the referral capacity. Um the lab programs as you can see there are very few outofd district programs that
serve the profile of students in lab which is for students with specific learning disabilities um dyslexia and so as you can see there's landmark which is in Beverly right which is certainly you know very far and learning prep which serves students with language based needs but
is actually different in terms of profile and so that is an area where there's there's probably the greatest need um and so we'd need to really look over the spring at to look at what is the what would be once we've marketed and advertised what would be the
referral capacity to really look at are we opening up another section of lab. Um so that's going to be a more complex um process in terms of lab just based on you know again when we when we open this up to districts what are our numbers
look like and does it make sense and at what point we do that. Um but certainly on the other two for the ALC and for Winthrop House there is capacity um to start you know reviewing referrals and
thinking about taking students in slowly uh as we enter into the new school year. >> Thank you Karen. And I'm sorry I'm not on camera but um is there any thoughts about whether there might be
um like sort of unanticipated expenses? And I'm thinking about the playground at um Lincoln for the adaptive learning center or you know it also occurred to me at Driscoll we've heard a lot or we heard a lot last spring about the loss
of a vice uh a vice principal there. So in terms of capacity um in some of these spaces were there might there be unanticipated expenses? >> Not at this point. I mean certainly, you know, I think you raised the playground
um piece at the ALC and at Lincoln. Um I don't know, you know, in terms of um you know, just something to think about in terms of you know, not just because we're tuitioning students. Obviously, that's a that's an area of um of need uh
for all students. Um other than that, no, I don't think there are un any right now unanticipate. Well, I wouldn't know, right, cuz they're unanticipated. But, um, I don't think there's anything as we think about it. And again, having been in a district where we have tuitioned in
um so I have some experience with doing it, I don't believe there's things that we haven't thought about um that you know, could be. And you know similarly in just as when we um when we
when we tuition um when we send students out um sometimes students come with additional needs that might be over and above this tuition. So if a particular student came in and needed additional staffing um that would be over and above
tuition which is very similar to how it is in the out of district world. Um and so we would at the student level um that would really be factored in uh in terms of um you know sometimes you need some additional staffing in a for a six week period for example just to settle a
student in um and so that would that would get factored in after the fact. >> Okay. Thank you so much Karen. >> Pleasure. >> I'm gonna ask a question then I'll call on you Sarah. Um thank you Karen for this. Um maybe I missed it but did was there a reason that rise and TLC aren't
presented? >> Um yes [laughter] um these were the three initial as I said in terms of where we really had space and capacity. We don't have space and capacity um right now in either rise or TLC. We are actually um doing the
same exercise for both of those. Um but that's really why we started with with these three and those those programs particularly rise pretty much runs um in you know with pretty robust um sort of program capacity right now.
>> Okay. And then could you just describe for me if you could like that you mentioned that as you're creating the c the cost um the tuition you are including indirect costs. Are you including like the fully loaded cost of the salary? Like are we including
benefits and all of those things like >> Yep. >> So, okay. And like all the building like so it's not just fringe benefits all all the sort of the indirect costs of running the district overall too >> like utilities that we just heard so much about and other things. >> So generally with this it's indirect
program costs and then an administrative overhead. Um, so all of that was included in the in the cost out. >> Okay. Is there like a formula that the state provides to help people walk through this or are you just everyone does it their own way and does it get
audited? How is this like is there any sort of after the-act checking on it or how does that work? Um so the state when when special ed programs um create their rates there is you know there is a spreadsheet with a you know with what you can include in it and so we
certainly use that as as sort of our guideline for creating this. Okay, thank you. Sarah, >> I don't know enough about this. So, I wondered if you just explained to me um you you do have a feeling yourself about how big a program can get, which
classroom can be at what number. That all gets documented somewhere, right? Like, so that should a family want to contest a decision or something, we have it documented. >> Um, no. I mean not necessarily in terms
of because as I said it's pretty fluid and dynamic. Um and so you know even you know referrals are often based on you know cohort on peer matches which is very similar to what we experience when we look for out of district placements. So all there's so many factors that
would would come into whether a student is an appropriate fit for a program. Um so you know certainly you would provide the reasoning for that but it's it's going to there might be a myriad of reasons why a student is an appropriate fit and might not be an appropriate fit.
So it would be that would be a very individualized um process of decision-m which would be you know transparent and communicated with families and sending districts. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to make a motion to recommend
um the proposed rates to the full committee for adoption. Is there a second? >> Yes, with enthusiasm. >> Great. Um Jesse, I see your hand is up. Is this a question before we vote? >> Uh yes. >> Go ahead. >> I I was just wondering how it how we
were able to get our tuitions for all three programs lower than anybody else's. Is that economy of scale? probably not because ALC, you know, you maybe have two spots available or three spots. I'm not sure about Winthrop and and Labs. So, can you explain h, you
know, this looks really tantalizing, you know, someone's looking at these other programs and looks at what Brooklyn may advertise. Um, why why is it so much cheaper than what we're predicting it's going to cost? >> Oh, you're asking why are rates somewhat
lower than out of district rates? Well, they're not somewhat. They're substantially lower. >> Like, you know, for the ALC, I mean, it's either 10,000 or 5,000. So, yeah, 15,000. So, I'm saying it's a lot of money. So, I'm just saying it's like 10%. I'm just wondering,
>> you know, is this is it because of our I mean, it can't be scale. So, I mean, are we just more economical? Um are those like for example the >> well I think I mean I think there's economy of scale which private if you're
a standalone private school you don't have the the sort of economies of a large district on in certain you know things like your overhead your utilities your health insurance all of those sorts of things. So I do think there is there
are economies of scale that public school districts have that your private standalone schools do not. >> Okay. And and for example for the ALC or Cotting BC campus or Kennedy about the same size as our ALC or are they vastly
different meaning? >> They're vastly different. >> Vastly different. Larger. >> Larger. Yep. >> Okay. Jesse, are you asking because you're you're wondering whether
we should be increasing our rates? >> Possibly. Yeah. I mean, like, you know, if if BC campus is is is vastly larger and and requires 125,000 a year and we're charging 110 for you a really good program than we have. there's, you know,
just trying to understand why the difference because even if it was even if it was fairly close um for a family that lives, you know, nearby in Cambridge or or or Somerville or whatever and and can't get over to, you know, BC campus closes out or whatever and Brooklyn, they find out
>> I don't think people are price shopping, Jesse, the way you're considering. >> No. And I think one of the things that's also important to understand, Jesse, is those programs are all considered public day programs and our programs are considered substantially separate programs. And so there's a different
degree of intensity of need for a student who is in a substantially separate program in district, which means they are still able to have inclusive opportunities um and be part of a general education environment to the best of what they're
able to do. Um whereas your out of district schools, it's a higher level of restrictiveness from an IEP perspective than a substantially separate program. So you would expect a higher level of intensity and complexity of students who
are needing to go out of district versus a student who can be in in an in district program but in a substantially separate program. So you're dealing with a different level of intensity and complexity which would account for, you know, staffing rates, type of staffing,
type of related service pieces. So there's a there's a difference in um from an IEP perspective in your profile and complexity of need of students that we would be serving in district versus a student who might need to go out of district who can't be in a less
restrictive placement like a substantially separate program. >> Got it. Thank you. Okay, let's take the vote. Jesse, how do you vote? >> I >> Sarah, >> I. >> Donna, >> can you hear me? >> We can. >> Oh, yeah. Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. And I vote yes as well. So, I think we'll put this on the next full school committee agenda for adoption. Thank you, Karen. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Um, next item on the agenda is materials fee. I actually have a presentation, Betsy, that's you all got this handout
which gives you the sort of the summary, but I have a little bit more of a an extensive presentation and I I'm going to apologize in advance because you know you all know how much I hate running over, but this was a massive agenda tonight and so we're sure >> is Yeah, it sure is. >> We're working our way through. We're on
our last item for the agenda. Um, [clears throat] let me find the share button. So, [snorts] did I hear someone talking? >> No. >> No, you're good. >> Okay. I thought I heard someone saying something. So, this is some of the
background on materials fee. I'm going to keep it off of presentation mode so that I can still see you all instead of being blinded by the view. Um, so this is a little bit of the background of what we're going to be talking about tonight, which is the three-year materials fee um proposal.
So um the last time that we took this up or I'll say the most recent that we took this up time that we took this up seriously which was in 2023 um afterwards Susan and I met with the materials few leaison and we agreed to propose um 3% for the next two years
which would be for 25 and 26 um or at least to propose that to the school committee for adoption which the school committee accepted um and that would give Susan time to understand sort of more of the overall PSB financial model how materials fee works within that and
then come back in 2026 for um FY27 which is what we're doing now. And at the time um it was a great meeting. Um we really talked about that we had this shared goal across all of us which was a fee that was transparent um and that everyone understood sort of how it was
derived and that it was predictable so that people weren't feeling surprised yeartoear. I think that a lot of and especially last year as I know people communicated very clearly is the stress of surprise for them. Um so some of the key sort of findings that have happened since then one is that the fees are
important to the overall balance of the PSP finances and that they haven't um kept pace with expenditures. So this next slide I'm going to show you. >> Um can I just ask a quick question before you move on? >> Yeah. >> Um material free liaison are who are
those people? They're >> members of the staff. >> Got it. who part who who utilize the material materials fee program or not >> necessarily I don't know that they're necessarily current but they're at least current or former and the ones that are
now are current I believe all three of them are current >> okay thank you >> um so so here's the proposed materials fee model and I know this is going to be a lot for people so I'm going to walk you through this a little bit and um and help you understand what's going on so
this is actually for those of you who are around in 2023 three. Um it's an updated version of that spreadsheet. And so what you see is that there's the first column is fiscal year. Um and then the fee is the second column. And you
see the percent increase from the prior year. There is a line drawn between 2526 and 2627 because 2526 as we know this is actual. Everything that's above this line is what the school committee has voted and below the line is um the
proposal that we're going to discuss tonight. Um and so you can see that this most recent year, the current year, the fee for one student is 3,535. It's a 3% increase from the prior year and students um in addition to a second
and more students get a 10% discount. Um the proposal for the future years you can see and you received earlier. So for next year is 3909 which is a 10.6% increase. Um and again so for two
students there would maintain the 10% um discount and for three or more students would be 20%. Um for 2728 the proposal is 41.65 which is a 6.6% increase and for 2829 it's 4433 which is a 6.4% 4%
increase. Now the the the generation of these numbers is not coincidental. It ties to um the average total expenditures per indist pupil from 3
years prior. And the reason it's 3 years prior is because um that's basically the most recent data that DESIE um provides. And so this is historical data and because there's this three-year lag. Um
so like 15 if you look at like 2011 2012 um the year that that's released is 2014 2015 and if you compare it then this number compared to this the 2565 is 16% of this. This is all really complicated
and I appreciate that. Um but what you see historically is that before COVID um there was a 16% average pre-COVID average of the materials fee the lagged materials fee compared to the indistrict
pupil expenses. And the interesting thing about this, I won't say it's interesting, but the important thing about this is that um it ties to this idea of this being this being related to the non um salary costs associated with
the students. Um and then after CO though the rate actually dropped sub substantially. So after CO and I tried to draw these boxes to help make this clear, the um rate was 13.7%. And so you see this difference. Part of
that is because our per pupil expenditures are almost significantly. The reason is our pup per pupil expenditures in district increase substantially um in this time 20% actually from fiscal year 20 to fiscal year 21. That's the
big notable change there. And so you see a significant change there. Um and so if we look at our proposed year for next year um what the math is is it's taking the 24
um FY24 indistrict pupil expenditures and it starts to incrementally increase them towards the historic average. So we were at as I say 16.0% precoid 13.7% after. So if we go to 14.5
um of this year that's the 3909. If we go to 15% of this number that's the 4165 and then if we go to 28602 of the current year that's in 3 years the 4433.
Now I just want to highlight that obviously we have um or I don't want to highlight but I want to explain to you that these these numbers here the 25749 fiscal year 23 these are all published on the DESIE website there's just a link you go to and they give you this number DESIE hasn't published any numbers since
2023 as I said there's a lag and so 24 and 25 these are the district submissions that just haven't been published yet um so we have we but they are included here to be able to do this and then the 28602 for the current year.
Obviously, we have no way of calculating that. So, that's this number is just a 3% increase on um last year's number as a an estimate. So, does everyone follow the math of of how we're approaching this?
>> The table was really helpful to understand. >> I hope so. It's really complicated and I I I have some >> articles to walk through. Go ahead. >> I I'm not sure. I want to make sure I'm following the math. >> Yeah. >> First of all, what did you you said
something um about non-salary expenses. So historically as you look at PSB expenses, obviously the vast majority of it is in salary expenses and typically it's been about 15% of our total budget
or so. It's it varies yeartoear is um >> is non- salary. >> Correct. >> And so that's where this sort of ties to. It's interesting that earlier during the Q2 report, Susan mentioned that this year it's much lower because of the budget the budgeting exercise we went through. um unfortunately reduced it
significantly but but typically it is around 15%. >> Okay. So you're saying that's the tuition percentage of the total expenses that are non salary expenses >> but the and and the average total expense per pupil
according to Desi obviously includes everything like I mean that's all in like including salary. I just want to make sure I'm covering. >> Correct. And that's why we take a fraction of it, right? We're sort of working on taking a fraction of it. >> And so, can you explain to me? Can you
explain again? So, how did you got to the for example for 2627 3909 related back to >> that's 14.5% of the 26959.
But shouldn't it be [snorts] shouldn't it be that plus like three like if we're if it's in the future years shouldn't it be is aren't we expecting it to go up like that 3% or whatever that you did for >> these these because there's a three-year
lag we actually know like this was this 26959 that was our per pupil expenditure in FY24 so we have the per pupil expenditure for 24 and 25 the only one I'm estimating is 26 so that's why I had that one increase at a 3%.
>> I guess what I'm saying is though, don't we want it to be 14.5% of what it's going to cost the per pupil spend in 2627? >> I hear what you're saying and I think that like it's there is a lag to this. This is all somewhat of a proxy, right?
Like we're trying to come up with something that's sort of again predictable, fair, understandable. At the time, I didn't have like when I was first doing this, I built in a three-year lag because that was the best data we had for in district pupil expenditures. Like staff had to
specially calculate these numbers to um because it's not provided by by Desi for us and they haven't theoretically been validated by Desi, right? There could be a small change here. But again, all of this is sort of building a model that we can use to help create predictability,
explanability um for staff and for everyone. >> Okay, got The other thing I want to note about this is that there's a goal here to present a three-year um a three-year just like we've been doing in other areas where like for
example in beep we presented a three-year plan here also we're going into this idea of trying to create a three-year cycle so that there's predictability people don't have to they might say okay well it's it's going to be now I know what's going on for the next three years so they have some of
that um ability to look forward Are there other questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. Um, >> go ahead. >> Um, I just wanted to back up for a second. If, um, materials fee students come into the district after the
budget's been set and we have empty seats, right? It's by an empty seat kind of thing. If a particular, I don't know, fourth grade classroom has two chairs that are empty, it's given as an option, I guess, like to teachers with students from out of district that they could pay
a fee to have their child sit in one of those seats. Is that right? >> I don't know if I would use those exact words, but I would say it's directionally accurate. Yeah. >> Right. And so I guess what's the b what's the um the advantage of using
this desi number that we provide where for example if there if those two chairs stayed empty there's no impact but >> well there is there's materials that the students have to use some things are truly per pupil expenses the salary right that teacher in that classroom
might not be but there are other things which are relating to the actual student >> right but the amount if if we were to tease it out, wouldn't the like average total expenditure for the each student in the an extra kid, you an extra
student sitting in a chair be vastly 25 grand a year? >> That's why we're talking about 3,900 instead of 27. We're not talking about charging them these fees. We're talking about this down here. >> Oh, right. Right. No, no, no, no. I I understand that. But the but the but the
the you know a slide or two ago we talked about predictability and people have been assuming we're using 3% every year and suddenly we're tripling it next year for next year at least as a proposal seems you know like a huge abrupt change rather than the predictability thing.
>> When we talked about this with them um two years ago we talked about this idea of like coming to them like this was the year that we were going to come and talk to about a model. So you're right. I mean it is a change but again as we think about this there's the question of
how do we ensure that we are providing overall sort of the the the contribution that materials fee provides to the overall budget and how we are going to be able to sustain the overall program we have with our mix of revenue funds. But just to your point in um I think it
was when it was 23 and we were talking about this for 24 there was a I I brought the proposal at the time which was to align this and the school committee my recollection is finance it voted it failed on a tide vote at finance and full school committee chose
to do 3.5% instead. So, you're right. There's certainly a history of school committee rejecting this type of proposal if that's like it's not to say you're right, but I will agree with you that there is this um other trend,
>> right? And I guess I guess the other question I have is that you know we don't know what's going to happen with negotiations but the the um 500 the 400 and something dollars or whatever it is uh additional cost if a teacher salary isn't going up the same amount. This
could actually put them in a squeeze teachers who are currently with students in the program. >> Why don't I look at some of the impact on participants and you can see what some of this looks like for people. Um, so this is our current enrollment in 26.
You can see that there's 139 families total that participate. 87 of them have one student, 45 have two, five have three, and two have four students. So there's a total of 200 students. So if you look at what would happen in like right now, year 1, there's the 35 35
that they pay right now and then next year you can see the increase 374. then the year after that 250 and then the year after that just under 270. So you can see the total growth for two children. Um the current system is that
there's a 90% discount for child 2. You can see for children um 2, three, and four that stays in place. And you can see the the dollar amount 711, 487, and then 509. >> That's the annual fee, right Mariah? Just for clarity, >> these are the So you can see the total
over um the total for their two children. Yes, that's the >> for one year. Yeah, it'd be for one year of >> Yeah, exactly. It's the total of the two children, >> right? >> Then [clears throat] for three, I'm just showing you. So, we've got right now people with three kids pay um just under
$9,900. Um because they get a currently they get a discount of 90% on their third kid, but in this proposal they'd get an 80% discount. So, that actually reduces their in their increase to 6.6% 6.6 6.4.
And then for people who have four kids, um again there's a a discount of 80% instead. And so the first year is relatively small for them because of that 80% discount and then it increases again at the same 6.6 and 6.4. >> I think it's actually a 20% discount but
you're showing the 80% of the tuition. >> Right. I sorry. Yeah. I was doing I was trying to make it easy for me to do >> I could Yeah, I could see I could see why. >> Yes. Yes. So, um, so that sort of shows you how it flows for different people in
terms of increase year-on-year increase in dollar amounts, um, depending on how many kids they have. And then this chart shows you thinking about how these fees align with or compare with real estate taxes that we pay. >> Right?
>> So, um, there's two different ways I I there's two different ways that I calculated the property value equivalent. Um there's not some one there's there's different ways and I can talk more about that if you're interested but basically there's a range here. So currently if you have for
example one student you could say well that's sort of the equivalent of someone who has property that's between 700 and $930,000 in worth of how much taxes they pay. Um and all the way up to four it's between
1.6 and 2.4 um million. And you can see this all the way down through. It doesn't actually change drastically every year. So you can you look at it and my takeaway from this was that um materials fee participants contribute at similar levels to residents based on
these real estate tax ranges that you see. And also my takeaway was that the rates don't meaningfully change that going forward. the r the the increase in rates still places places them squarely sort of within on the I will say often on the low end
although not always on the low end but like certainly you could think about it like for example a property value equivalent of in the low 800s for a property in Brooklyn is probably on the low end um but again I think that like it shows you that these this this is
they are contributors this is a um this isn't some sort of freeloading situation it's a benefit that they're contributing to um just like people contribute to health insurance at a fraction that we all contribute to our benefits that we get to our employers. Um and it seems
like it is not an excessive or ownorous contribution. It seems like it's relatively in in the right sort of range. Um >> well, I mean, but don't they pay property taxes and they're like, you know, if they live in need, they're
paying property taxes and they're >> That's true. they do pay property taxes in their other community possibly. I mean, I don't know exactly where they live or what they pay for, but I guess there seems to be I think there's historically sort of this trend, this idea that like there's there's not this
isn't a meaningful amount or it's not a reasonable amount. And I think the point of this analysis is to say that it really is a reasonable amount. They are contributing at sort of a fair level um to the the resource that they're using in TAM.
In terms of revenue impact, um the projected revenue for 26 based on the the enrollment we have is about 685. It's slightly different from what's in Susan's actual revolver um projections that we got for Q2, but it's roughly
approximate. If you look at um fiscal year 27, it would bring in um about 70,000 more. So that is a 10% increase. And then you see the increases about another 50,000 for 28 and then another 50,000 on top of that in 29. So overall
over the three years it's about $170,000 um increased revenue and should we choose to make a motion um I drafted a proposed motion. >> How how does the pri if you look at the prior slide
>> this one? Um, yeah. So, what are teacher salary increase percentages going for the next couple of years? Just if we knew. >> Well, we're in negotiations right now, so we don't have that information. >> I mean, but I mean, in general, they're not probably not going up um six to six
to 8% a year. >> I mean, I I think that people's health insurance is going up 12% a year and their salaries aren't going up 12% a year either, right, Jesse? Unfortunately, what we find is that like it's I personally think it's more meaningful to look at the >> um the dollar amount increase versus
comparing like 1% of a million versus 10% of $10. Like you would say, oh well 10% of $10 is is more impactful than 1% of a million. So I think looking at the actual dollar amounts might be more um useful than looking at the percents. But
I don't mean to diminish that like it's a relatively large one-year jump. It's certainly if you compare it to his Oh, it's it's it's it's very large. Sure. Especially as you say other things are increasing in cost at the same time and you know to propose this at this
juncture in 2025 you know in 2026 is could startle a lot of people I guess I guess the the question would be if we if if we converted the average total expens expenditures for this desi number to a marginal cost of having one or two
more students in each classroom or something. What would the what would the rates look like then? >> Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. >> I'm saying that if we if we were to convert this desi number which is the totaling to desi that it costs us to
actually run a class for a student. >> And then we have an extra chair, you know, a student moves out of the district. Now we have an extra chair. Everything's been said and it's true. We'll have to put a few more materials, you know, and if we had uh 20 kids, now we have 21 kids. So, one over 20 is like
uh what? 4% 5%. In terms of the extra materials cost, you know, one more book, one more this, one more that. You add all that up. Does that really come anywhere close to 25 grand a year? Or is it more like 3,000 a year or something? in which case the the the the the
comparison between the tuition fee um which really is the materials fee and the total expenditures for students seems like sort of a lopsided um comparison. I mean it's been used for a lot of years here. I see that before I joined >> it hasn't been used Jesse. This this is
not this is something that I've been trying to to explain to people how it's connected. And I think that based on the what you're saying, I feel like you're not understanding that this the whole point is we're trying to see how we associate the non salary costs of the
district. So >> I I like where Jesse is going with that because it's with a lot of empathy for thinking about what you know what the true cost is to families. Um, Jesse, I just do have to point out that while an extra
student in a classroom when they enter the program might not have a lot of additional expenses, we then have that student all the way through 12th grade, whatever, however it shakes out each year afterwards. >> Yeah, that's true. Well, it means I mean
in theory that just means we have one filled seat that we wouldn't have had. it would have been empty all the way through, right? So that like the 20 kids in that cohort beca went became 19 and then this other kid came in and that kid stays with that cohort, you're right,
till 12th grade, let's say. So instead of it being 19 children the whole time >> where we're paying the same infrastructure cost, utility costs, teacher salaries the same whether it's 19 or 20, having the one child carry through all the way filling a seat that would have been empty. That's true,
>> but Jesse, it's not the same infrastructure costs. I mean like like >> I'll just be like, you know, a student flushes a toilet that increases water use. just some very like minuscule example of like there's always incremental costs associated with
additional wear and tear, additional use of supplies, additional use of like a whole bunch of things that >> I guess like I'm not saying that like I I'm not saying that this is the exact model and I assist you you have to follow this but to sort of to diminish
the idea that there is no incremental cost or that they're like you know there are there's like you know wear and tear on books there's a whole bunch of different things that happen whether it's a non-resident student or a resident student that's why we have non-personal costs because they they
exist and they're real right so I guess my question is is the 3% a year increase somehow not kept pace as you had on slide two I think of your presentation where it said something about I think it was the second bullet one up from there Maria I can't read it's too small but I if you go up one
slide >> this one >> I think So yeah, MFES have not kept >> you can see what the percent annual increase is. We had a 20% annual increase in per pupil expenditures a couple of years ago. Like clearly 3% when we have a 20%
increase in students like a 3% increase doesn't cover that. C can I also add something >> please? I I I I want to disagree with you slightly, Jesse, or maybe add
something that you're not thinking about, which is that seat might be empty in September, but we are required as a district to take students that move into our district at any time. So for example, you have a school like FRR
that has a lot of transition um and Lawrence depending on a lot of times the international climate but so that seat may or may I mean it might be empty at the start of the school year but it might not it may that doesn't ensure that it would have been empty at
the end of the school year. And so I don't know I don't think it's just I just don't think it's that black and white in other words. Um >> I I don't understand that because a teacher in the district, Donna, uh signs
on to start the year. Most teachers, okay, unless there's like something happened to a teacher and you have to replace them mid year. Um and their kids probably were in some other school where they live. So the normal situation, I think, would be that that a teacher from, I don't know, Newton has a job in
Brooklyn public schools and at the beginning of the year they they're interested in having their child come with them. So they make a they make you know they they find out about this program and they register their student because there's a seat. I I don't know what it has to do with >> But you're saying there's an empty seat
and that seat would have gone empty all year and I'm disagreeing with that portion because it may or may not have gone empty all year because we take students when they move into Brooklyn. I'm not talking about materials G students. I'm talking about residents. Yeah. >> So that part
in that case have to add another chair in the room because you have to provide uh So, I'm just disagreeing with I'm just disagreeing with that particular part of the statement. I don't think it's as clean as what how you're depicting it. I also wanted to ask if I
can um unless you want to continue this conversation about the m that the slide that you had up with all the beautiful colored boxes, Mariah. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to put it back up? I was down so I could see you. >> It doesn't matter. And it I guess my
question is I'm still not understanding why we wouldn't use more like actual numbers um if we're truly if if the intent of materials fee um um
uh if the the the intent of developing the cost of the material street program and we we might decide that we want to charge less because, you know, it's important to us for our educators to have their students in the schools or for other um town town employees to have
their kids in the schools. But isn't there I just wonder if we shouldn't be using the actual something closer to the actual cost of the materials fee as the basis for the modeling. Does that make sense? Can you do the thing where you
>> like get the actual cost? I'm saying like you know how there's that threeyear lag or whatever like you said >> like what can't we get a number that's closer to the real cost instead of the lagging cost because our costs are increasing year-over-year. >> Yeah, we have it. I mean Mariah showed
it, Donna. It just hasn't been certified by Desi yet. We have we know each year, >> right? But I thought that in that bottom left hand corner for future years like FY 26 27 27 28 >> you're basing the the price on like the
three-year lag. >> I only because that's the data we have >> like and and part of the the the nice thing about the three years the positive benefit of it is it lets us do this kind of future like planning. So we could
like the originally I did it because that was the best date I had, the most recent I had. But now the the thing that I see that makes it a benefit is it lets us actually forecast out three years as well. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I guess what I I'm just want to be
as like um I don't know. I have to think about what what like why that's bugging me but I think it's because um we might make a decision to reduce the cost right like
as a committee we might decide anyway I have to think about it more >> the end of my comment >> so it's really late and I apologize we're 50 minutes past the what should be the appropriate end of
the meeting. Um, and I want to get a sense from the subcommittee of do you want to keep talking about this or have we talked about it enough and you want to think about it? >> I do have >> Sorry, I was just going to say I would I am not ready necessarily to vote tonight
to recommend it, but I am very close to voting to recommend it. We do have a little bit of a time issue here is that um educators have asked that they're able to plan ahead and so we did want to try to do this quickly. I
don't know if the committee would feel comfortable with this but is there any chance that this is an important enough issue that we want to bring it to the full school committee to for discussion? Um is >> we need to come to the full school committee with a recommendation. The
committee will discuss no matter what we do, but the subcommittee needs to come to the full committee with a recommendation. That would be my I mean in theory we could not, but that's what our job is is to do that and I would like us to do that if we but I agree with you Sarah
that we should but we need to be respectful of the desire of staff to have a both on the town side and on the school side because both sides are eligible to have a sense of what this would look like. So, um, we could theoretically sked schedule a one-off meeting to discuss this further perhaps
like next week or early the week after. >> Right. I mean, our our um I think we have another finance subcommittee meeting February 4th, which is the day before two school committee meetings from now, right? >> But that's three weeks from now, Jesse. >> Well, I know, but we only have But the
school committee the next school committee meeting is next week. >> Right. I'm saying we could schedule a meeting like next week was my post. >> I'm so sorry. I had a hard stop 20 minutes ago and I'm really late for some more that I need to be. >> Yeah. >> So, I would like to >> My fault. I'm sorry.
>> No, no. I would like to move that we um meet especially to discuss this. >> Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's do that. >> Okay. We don't even need to make it a motion. We'll just make that plan. Betsy, will you follow up with people afterwards to see what we can schedule for before the next school committee meeting?
>> So, before the 22nd. Yeah, which I know is crazy, but we're gonna we're gonna make it happen if we can. >> Yeah, let's try. Yeah, >> let's try and hopefully maybe >> is the um >> is your presentation part of the meeting minutes? >> It will be. It will be. >> I was looking, but okay. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Well, Mariah, I do want to say thank you for sorry, no worries. Thank you, Sarah. >> Before we close, I just want to say thank you because I imagine, you know, that was an immense amount of work and >> Yeah. I think you know it's it's I I mean I just want to say like first off I
appreciate a lot of the communication from the materials few leaison they're wonderful people to work with and I think everyone has this you know this there's this tension between trying to keep this as affordable as possible and um make sure that we can overall support the district finances
>> and have you had any feedback from them or this is the first view that they will have seen of the proposed model >> Bella has been speaking to them directly about So yeah, >> thank you. >> No problem. Okay, thanks everybody. Have a good night.
>> Good night. >> Appreciate it. Byebye.