Sorry. >> Okay, we're recording. >> Okay. Welcome to the January 20th, 2026 finance subcommittee of the Brooklyn School Committee. We're going to continue our discussion of the um materials fee um
uh tuition rate for FY27 through 29. Before we start, I just have some um slides that I want to put that I wanted to present based on some of the conversation we had last time and there were a couple of questions and I just
wanted to throw some other sort of thoughts out there. Um so I'm going to try and go through this quickly because I'm very sensitive of the time and I want to make sure we leave enough time for a discussion and hopefully a vote. So um last time there was a question about what we're talking about. you know
what is non- salary, what is in district. I just wanted to highlight the non-s salary categories that we're talking about. So you can see what they are on the left. Those are the PSB operating budget costs plus other non-s salary costs like utilities that are charged elsewhere in the town budget, it
doesn't include out of district tuition or transportation. So you'll see here that while normally out of district tuition is listed in our non-sell categories and not here in transportation would be in district only. And then Desi calculates the question is where did this term and district expenditures come from? This is
an a DESIE calculation and I'm just providing the quote here um that it comes right from and this is a link but all of the district's operating expenditures for in district programs um and it doesn't include um fixed assets debt service out of district expenditures. Again that's all listed
>> um how does this compare to salary? Um, so I actually went and just looked a couple of examples to show this is for unit A. And so you can see effective um 9125 which was this past September and then next September. So this is the
current unit A contract. And I just want to make sure for everyone who's watching that this um doesn't include any to be negotiated increases, but it includes the um 2.75% that was for um this past year plus the 1% kicker kicker which
hits at the end of the year plus steps. So if you if you look at that contract, just looking at mast's one, there's a $4,000 increase. And looking at masters uh masters 1 to2 would be a $4,000 increase. masters 5 to6 is a 3.9 um
$3,900 increase. Um and then I didn't include a unit B because unit B is measured on days because every contract everyone's um s setup is different on how many days they work. It gets very confusing but I think you could expect a similar profile to unit A or a little
bit um larger increases. current parah contract though I wanted to highlight that this is um the schedule two parah rates for which is our most common kind of parah like the vast majority something like 90% of the paras we have in the district are schedule 2 paras and
they are um if you look at the hourly rates they're the lowest paid except for bus monitor so if you look at this um if you go from and again I was just sort of picking random spot sp spots on the on the rates but thinking about people who might be um having students in the
district. So step three to step four um from last year to this or from this fall, this past fall to next fall is an $880 increase and step 10 to step 11 is a $1,200 increase. So again, that was a question that sort of came up. I think Jesse, you asked that last week about
how this ties to salary. I wanted to share that. Um, Donna, you had asked about what was the percentage comparison. Not if we looked at 3 years prior, but if we looked at the same year. So, this table is basically the same as um prior uh the
prior table that you saw last week, but I added in a column showing um like so for example, it's this this tuition compared to the same year. And so you see that the rates um and it kind of makes sense because like the because of
the way that dollars grow over time. It's again what we expect is it's slightly it's it's tuition is percent of the average total expenditures for in in district expenses um for the same year. So you see whereas it was about 16% in the past for looking
at three years prior dollars have gone up and now it's about 14.6 average before co it goes down to 12.5. So that was the question you had asked. I hope that's helpful. Um and then this was something we talked about a little bit but I wanted to get some more sort of of
the conversation. Um what should we be thinking about? And I had said last week, oh there was trans transparency and predictability. That was something we had talked about with staff in the past. This idea of equity that everyone is um contributing equitably to the system. taxpayers are the primary um
contributor but but other costs like health insurance and like this are shared with employees um impact um I think someone mentioned this too this is relatively small amount of money so if we were to just do 3% for the next 3 years or we were to do the initial
proposal from last year the total difference total is about it's less than $230,000 so it's only $75,000 a year now I say only it's not nothing but like we talk about an overall budget of um millions and millions and millions and
over close to 150 million a year. And this is really not that much of a difference either way and it has I think an um an outsized um emotional impact though especially as we think about recruitment and retention. Um people really think of it as a very valuable
recruitment and retention technique. But also if you think about like the cost of recruiting people, the cost of hiring them, onboarding them, that's quite expensive like at from a true dollar cost as well. And so retention is valuable and this is a retention strategy. Um and then also just thinking
about how we have aligned interests, right? We all I think everyone talks about, we've certainly heard from educators, from the community. We know this ourselves that when educators send their own children to the district, their commitment is heightened. And so whatever we can do to sort of increase that is also it has a value to us too.
So I wanted to sort of write these all down so that maybe there's other ones I've missed. I'm happy to um to take suggestions for additional areas, but I wanted people to think about that. So what are our options? Um I'm I just repeated the motion we had last week,
which was to set the tuition rate um at the dollar amounts you see this round. But there's other approaches that I thought about and I wanted to write down for you all now that work toward this idea of equitable share, predictable, transparent approach, etc. So, um, one
of them is, and again, I'm going to throw out like four ideas for that, and then we'll just open up the conversation. So, one is, well, maybe we just sort of quote unquote rip off the band-aid, right? Like, oh, we could address this up front. So, if we were to say, well, we still want to get to the same dollar amount in year three, but we
don't want to do it ekking it out over the years. Well, we could do an 18.2% in year 1, then 33. Go back to the 33 model. People don't necessarily like that. That's fine. I'm just showing you one possibility. Um, and you can see the revenue that that that comes to here. Now, another thing we could do is we
could say, well, we could still chip away at the at the discrepancy, but not solve it in 3 years, right? So maybe we do something like 5% a year and that chips away at the discrepancy and it still shows that there's a contribution but it's in a much less um drastic way.
It doesn't try to address it in three years. It sort of starts to go at this. At the risk of take at the risk of um taking a second for this, when can you define what you mean by the discrepancy >> when you're saying >> the discrepancy between what we've seen is historically the amount that it comes
in the share that's tied to the materials that are really being used, right? And the um and I'm glad you asked and sort of what we've seen before co and then what we've seen afterwards, right? The cost per pupil went up drastically. Um and so you know do we um
do we try to return to this tuition as a percentage of that average total expenditures. So that's one way and I'm I'm presenting it as that was sort of what we historically did and you can see that over many years but maybe you don't want to pursue that and that's also another way to think about that. But if
we if we keep going in this model, we could say, "Oh, well, we could, you know, increase the revenue again to sort of begin to build back towards that amount, but not necessarily get there in 3 years." Also a totally reasonable approach. And so one way I said, well,
555. Um, this one I because it was less drastic, I didn't do the 20% discount for three or more students. I just did 10% across the board. That's again, these are all things we can talk about. Um, but I just wanted to throw out the idea of there's different models.
Another idea is to say, well, we could do 6% every year. Another idea is to think of five, six, seven. So, there's no like one answer. And the model, the motion that I put forward last week isn't nec isn't we don't have to go with that approach. We can recommend whatever
we want to the full sub full committee and they can elect that or not. But I just wanted to throw out some other ideas for you all to think about. And just with this idea too of well um while we're talking about some of these ideas again the impact if we were to go to a
333 and just do that the the dollar amount is it's not insignificant but it's not going to be revolutionary to the finances of PSB. >> Right. >> So with that I think I'll just take down my slides and we can go to the conversation if that's okay.
>> Can I just ask very quickly the idea is that we're moving or pot the the mo the original motion that was discussed, those numbers, the increases in those numbers were based on getting to what percentage?
>> 15.5. So, it didn't totally get to the 16 historical average, but it was trending in that direction. I thought it was pretty close. Yeah. Thank you. >> Yep. Sarah or I jumped ahead of you. >> No, I appreciate that. Go ahead, Sarah. >> You're trying to be really respectful of our time and going quickly. So, I feel
like because it went by really quickly, I want to underline a couple of things. So this is really just repeating what you've said. But these are the things that I see as being important. So um we value our teachers. We want to keep our teachers. It's in our interest to keep our teachers because that's all the
experience that they have. As well as um what you mentioned and you hadn't mentioned it last time. Thank you for mentioning this time that you know um retention is um is is valuable to us. It's expensive to hire new teachers. So, I I I really like that you got all those
points in. And I think that just to really pull back overall, we've been asked by educators as well as other people to have a meaningful way of looking at these fees. And so, I do have to highlight that this time when you're
bringing it up, you're saying historical percentage. And I just wanted to say to my colleagues um Jesse and Donna that you realize that Mariah [clears throat] was trying to tie materials fee into the 15% of the non-sary part of our budget
before. This year I hope you remember that we're actually down at 12% um salary has kind of gained a little bit of the overall budget. So, it's interesting when you look back at that chart that we have been for the last few
years at about 12%. And I just wanted to make sure I'm sure you noticed that, Donna and Jesse, but I wanted to make sure that um that that that point hadn't gone by too quickly. So I guess um where I'm feeling is that I feel so thankful
to Mariah that she's making materials free contribution being meaningful that we're talking about this ahead of time being meaningful and that there's a rationale for it that we're talking about this ahead of time so that people can plan on their finances and I think that my interest in this conversation is
to make sure that the materials fee feels reasonable and I was feeling like the increase we were talking about last time felt a little bit steep. So, um, as we talk about this more, I think that I'm going to be talk I'm going to be
advocating for a lesser increase. >> Jesse, >> would you be able to just clarify [clears throat] a lesser increase so that a lesser increase over time to get to the 15? I'm
just using 15. And I know it's you 15.5 and this year we spent this year it's less. It's 12% because we cut things that we needed out of the budget. But are you saying a are you saying getting to that 15.5% at a slower rate over
time? >> Thinking about in the next few years not having it be quite as severe of an increase as we had talked about at the last meeting. But I really want to be open to this conversation and hear what all all of you have to say about it. I
don't want to um you know dig in my heels yet. So >> yeah, I uh I guess I have two comments. One is uh well three. First is Maria, thank you for all the effort you put in advance for this. This is a lot of work on top of everything else. So appreciate it. Uh second thing is is that in order
to potentially reduce the um the chatter about what materials fee really is and are we charging for materials? I'd like to suggest in a you know maybe in a motion that we rename it to a non-resident tuition fee and therefore >> I just would I would clarify we also have non-resident tuition. So we would
say like non-resident employee tuition or something like that just to >> perfect perfect and and I'm I'm in agreement with the steady the steady sort of modest increase to get us where we want to go over the next three to four years. I don't see anything magic about three. If it was like four, five,
six and we end up um you know getting well net there 16% or something like that over some period of time in terms of the increase. And again if if costs of running the school district suddenly go up a little bit that percentage would not hold and we don't know what the future. So I think something that tells
the teachers predictably that you know we're um you know threes have been held for a long time but we need to do it at you know five six and seven or four six and eight something that shows a gentle increase that's known in advance for the three years would be something I would
be ready to support. Um, thanks. Um, I I love the idea of using a name that is sort of more um reflective of what what the what the cost is. So, it's not actual when we're saying materials, it's not like a line
item on the budget. But, um, I also want to echo Mariah, this is an incredible amount of work. It has been in really helpful to have some of the information particularly that that first slide that said this is what the cost actually entails like it's much more than just um
>> right math book I mean or Chromebook or whatever anyway anyhow >> I have read with um a lot of um read and considered a lot of the emails that we received over the past few days. I've also thought a lot about our
conversation and um I really appreciate um some of the analysis that the that that the le that the school leaison did or the materials feaison did on this. At the same time I think it's important that we are framing this as um a
conversation around right sizing the contribution rather than um simply increasing the contribution. I also don't subscribe to the idea that this is um based on revenue generation. That's not how I think about it at all. I think
about this as right sizing the contributions so that the number that we're coming up with is based on a real like a a real number, a real analysis of what it costs to have a student in the classroom. Um, so I really appreciate
that part of it and I um I understand as as a single mom and as somebody who lives on a limited income and has um you know I I understand the value of every dollar and I understand that this is it's incredibly difficult to make a
jump. At the same time, I think um I I do think it's I do think it's fair if we're basing it on a real number like this is what it costs to educate a student um minus salaries and some other expenses. Um, so I appreciate that we're
using I'm I appreciate that we're using a process that incorporates a um incorporates real data, incorporates a lot of thoughtfulness, incorporates predictability and what I do think is
equity for the system. You know, we're an educational system and we all need to contribute. I just want to chime in on that that I I am reminded of a lot of the conversation that we had around the beep tuition last year that was based on real data and we
ended up we were not we did not raise rates to cover the real cost because we know that this would be it would be a very large we we actually increased them to much higher rates than historically they have been. So like we we ended up raising the beep tuition over 3 years by
8% every year and extended day much more and even that doesn't cover the true cost of running the program but we also recognize that there's a balance and so I think it's okay to look at the real cost of the data and so that we can all sort of frame our understanding around
that and say like but things don't get addressed like this and there has there has to be something that's like tractable and feasible for all the people involved. So, so I also feel comfortable with this idea of something in the middle like
>> um you know whether it's a 555 or a 666 either of those would feel um both that they are acknowledging the reality of the situation and also acknowledging all of the other dimensions of you know wanting people to be able to continue to
participate and everything else. >> Yeah. So yeah, I mean I think we could get to the 666 with a 567 as well. That way people are seeing it gradually rather than you know it jumped that stays there. It might be a little more um gentle that way even though it is an
increase. Um I'm happy to make a motion if we think we're out of discussion but um if there's >> Sarah and Donna, do you want to make do you want to make it or have any do you want to say anything else [laughter] before there's a motion? Would you mind terribly just putting that the slide
back up that has um you know all the different colored boxes like Yeah. You know what I'm talking about? So it can look >> You're talking about this one or you talking about this one? Which one are you talking about? >> No, this one for a second. So, >> and this one is only through the current
year. I did multiple >> No, the one that has the what the Oh, yeah. That >> Okay. So this is this was the first one which it sounds like no one's interested in which is fine. Um this is the 5% a year. So this it it shows you like it goes from 685
um in the current year to 793 in the outyear. Um just to give you a sense of scale. Um and then 666 goes from 685 to 816 and then 567 also 685 to 816. It's slightly
different just because of compounding. >> So I'm now that I have been able to look at what you're saying um salaries increase by. >> Mhm. >> Um 666 and 567 are still hard for me because we do have to think about the
increase in the cost of living for teachers and the amounts that their salaries go up. So I um would like to advocate for the 555. Um, I think that's more in range to what I feel comfortable with.
>> Do you want to advocate or do you want to move it? >> Oh, I sorry. Just suggested that he was going to move. So, how do we do this? >> Well, it's first first pass the post. So, if you want to make a motion, you can make a motion. We can vote on it or you can defer to Jesse and let Jesse
make a motion and we can vote on that. Before we do that, can we can you can you remind me what each of the columns are? >> So percentage. >> Yeah. >> So this is um the year, >> right? >> This is the tuition for the first
student. >> Okay. >> This is the increase from the prior year and this is how we would treat the additional students >> like 10% discount for second student, 20% for the third and and third and more student. Third and more. Third and greater. I don't know what the right
grammar is. >> And we're increasing so that we're getting to what percentage ultimately >> that does that's not shown. >> No, I don't total it up. Right. I didn't total it up. It's just done by year. >> Okay. >> I mean, >> but you can sort of add them. You know,
they're going to lose a little bit of the compounding. >> That's right. >> You know, but the other thing is we don't know, just to go back. Well, I don't show it on this one. I think I had last week's slide. So, let me show this. um like we don't know what future years are going to hold. Historically, if you
look at the data here, most years come in less than 5%, there's a couple of exceptions, 7% this year. Um the obviously the 20% big COVID year adjustment. And so we could do 555 and then, you know, go back to threes like
you could sort of say, well, maybe things will level out. Um, so I think we we don't necessarily have a cumulative, but you can sort of see how this might compare to historical averages. >> I mean, I like things to be clean
[clears throat] and to me predictable means that it's based on we are using a formula based on the real cost of something. So at the very least at the very least we we know how much it
is to educate the students. I I don't know that that's that's harder for me but um well it's it's in how you define it. If we are saying that this is the non salary percentage of the budget then
we're at 12% which it it is this year. If we're redefining it to not be materials fee, then what are we tying it to? >> Well, I guess we're tying it to >> like infrastructure, you know. >> Let me clarify something. Hold on.
Sarah, you are you are using the current year's percentage which was cut drastically and comparing it against last year's. Um, so you want to just think about it like slightly differently, right? We don't we have because the number that I have there right now just to be clear actually let
me reframe that because that wasn't accurate. >> The number that I have this for this year's cost of per pupil is an estimate based on 3% and we know that we cut significantly. So you can't you're comparing things that really shouldn't be compared. Nonetheless, I think >> but we have to we have to define it
somehow. So I'm wondering how all how you're defining it then. >> But here's the thing. I think that we can use the real data and know that like we're short on the data and that's okay. In the same way that last year Sarah we were voting for beep tuition knowing that it does not match the true cost per
pupil and that like we see a benefit to having beep and we see a benefit to having BEP extended day for the families that need that that we're like and we also see a benefit in the retention and so we're trying to balance many constraints against each other. While I understand what you're calling me out
on, I do have to say, what are we tying it to then? So, um, Donna would like to see it attain the, um, the number that defines it later. >> And so, if this is not non salary
budget, >> what are we defining it as? >> But I'm but what I'm trying to say, and I'm not calling you out. What I'm trying to say is that we can both things can be held at the same time. We can say we have a long-term goal to do X and we're not going to achieve it in three years.
So, we are chipping away at this goal >> by going to 5%. And >> what's the long-term goal? >> Well, we can't bind a future school committee. I would say like again, my personal opinion is that it really should be tied to the non- salary expenditures of indist like non-sary in
district expenditures. But I can't bind a future school committee to do that. And I can't even bind next or this Thursday's full school committee to do that. nor can I bind anyone. So, [clears throat] we can think whatever we want, but we don't have the ability to tell other people that. >> And I accept your I accept your um
commentary on sort of the ambiguity of it because that is what a a budget is defined as is you're you're trying to project but you don't know what the future will bring. >> Right. I think there have been there has been some work Sarah that uh looking at
what's the incremental cost of bringing students into the district. In other words, not even thinking about the current situation with employees children, but if a student comes into the district after the school year starts approximately what is it actually not approximately what does I mean a
general ballpark number mean for what it costs us then to educate that child obviously the teacher still there I mean teacher yeah a kid to a section or something but overall that number is much greater than the numbers we're talking about here at least that's what has been um
uh indicated. So, you're right that it doesn't >> I just want to clarify. I don't think that that analysis was was on non-salary cost, Jesse. I think that was the marginal cost of bringing in one student including salary, the thing that you're alluding to, >> right? >> Yes. But that's that's a different
analysis than what we're talking about. Just >> Yeah. But what I'm what I'm saying is is that now that we have the the longer list of things that the quote unquote materials fee in includes um if that number is is um is really the
percentage of the desi value if if we're already you know we we if if we're already close to it then then let's project where we need to be to hit that number and are you saying we are there or we are still below it. That's I
think where Sarah's >> we would still be below it, but we just have to like >> chip away. >> That's just the way it goes sometimes, right? Like >> So, so can we project out what year we what fiscal year we will be caught up or at the level?
>> No, because we don't know. I mean, I guess you could do a whole bunch of different like you could run out the current PSB budget at 3% every year, not knowing if that's going to be the actual like I showed you the historical data and it varies from less than a percent to 20% a year. So, I don't think that we
have great >> clear data on what's going to happen. >> Okay. So, so, so we're so to Sarah's point, we're trying to hone in on a goal that's a little bit mushy right now. we're not really so clear on what the goal is in terms of what we're >> I don't I guess I feel a little bit
differently. I feel like every year the data gets updated and you see where you're at, right? You say, "Okay, well, we're we're getting like this is great. We're we've built it out and we're seeing more of this." >> Okay. >> Um and maybe we're approaching it and maybe we're not and we were fine. But
again, none of us can bind a future school committee. I feel like if we were to choose a 555, if that's what you're to move, Sarah, and we were to choose the approach, you know, I can live with that because it it sort of meets my goal of continuing to build towards what I think is a is actually a strong model
for this, but it doesn't necessarily it doesn't build it in a three-year cycle. It doesn't achieve it in a three-year cycle, but this is a long-term this is a like this is a longer term question of you know how we balance all the different benefits and needs and constituencies and everything else in
the district. It's a compromise and I'm okay with that. >> I'd like to move um that we look at the model with the 555 increase. And the reason why I'm moving this is so that we're speaking about something um
you know concrete. I think it'd be good for us. >> Okay. Is there a second? Did Jesse go? Did we lose him at the last minute? >> Yeah, he had to leave. >> Okay. Um I will second it. I will second it. Um Donna, how do you vote?
>> Are we waiting for Jesse or No, >> he left. >> Jesse has another commitment. >> He had a 7:30. >> I forgot it. Okay. Right. I forgot. I wasn't paying attention at the time. >> Although I dropped the general sense he was sort of on the same page as this, but go ahead, Donna. So, can you remind me what I'm voting on now?
>> Let me pull up the wording um that I actually put on the So, it would be motion to set the tuition rate for dependents of non-resident employees of the town of Brooklyn and public schools
of Brooklyn 2. And it would be um this model I think right here we're talking about. So it' be 3 3712 in FY27, 38.97 and 28, 4,92 and 29 with 10% um
discount for um second additional dependence. Exactly. And then we could consider a separate motion or discussion to disconnect the rate from the cost of materials. I think we've talked about that. I don't know that we have the wording there. Um,
>> so can you just clarify something because now I'm a little bit confused because Mariah, oh, just a few minutes ago I thought you said we can't bind future school committees. >> You're next year school committee could vote something else. They could say nope, you're not going to do that and they can change it. We could vote that.
>> Okay. So, we're voting it now. >> This is right. This is our vote. That's right. So much so that actually we we voted it like to just give an example, we voted beep extended day last year, realized that there was a mistake in the vote and revoted it with a different dollar amount like two months later. Like this is the way it goes. But um but
yes, this would be the idea and then that way it would this idea of it's predictable. It's you know it's hopefully achieving many of the considerations that we've laid out. And to give a little context, we will be voting to recommend this to the full school committee for discussion this
Thursday evening in two days. >> Correct. Correct. >> Got it. Do you mind putting the wording back up? >> Yeah, I don't mind. And let me let me paste these numbers over into that so we have it all in one place. [clears throat] [sighs] I believe that's >> great. Okay, thank you.
>> I think that wording is good. >> Great. I will vote yes. >> Okay. Did we had a mo uh you vote? You made the motion, right, Sarah? And I seconded it. Okay. Sarah, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> And I vote yes as well. And actually I should clarify that the motion is to
recommend to the full school committee to set the tuition rate etc etc but this would be the motion that we would be recommending to full school committee on Thursday. Um do we want >> go ahead Sarah >> as we don't see that many of our colleagues here and it's two days for
them to listen to this video. Would you be able to repeat some of what was said in the initial slides that you showed us tonight? >> I will do a presentation for Thursday night. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. It'll be basically >> yeah [laughter] between I'm gonna try and go quickly but
I'm also gonna try I'm gonna try and give a sense of like the range of the conversation and where we ended up landing. >> Um >> I I'm just joking. I actually think those the slides you did tonight were incredibly valuable. So I appreciate it. >> Sure. >> And I would be happy to sit through it a
second time. >> Betsy I'll give those to you later and and then you can maybe circulate and it has the original set of slides too. So, I just threw them in the backup so you could maybe circulate the whole deck. >> We'll do. Great. Thank you. >> Yep. I think you might even have access
to them to them still, but I'm not sure. I'll reshare them just in case not. Okay. >> Humor and lightness around how um long and boring meetings can be is always appreciated, Donna. >> [laughter] >> Um, when do we want to have a motion
around the sort of way to think about materials fee or should we let should I present the conversation and let the sort of let the committee sort of just mole the conversation and then the record stand for future school committees to consider and ignore or consider and accept. I think that the
the tone in which you have um this new set of slides >> is exactly where I would go with it. I I really like that what your goal is is to have a rationale for how we think about this and you put down the you you speak
to both sides when you when you talk about um what the issues are. I think that's really strong. >> Okay, that's helpful. I also think it's really important to reflect all the different components that go into educ educating a student and so I appreciate that that was part of the slides. Um is
I and maybe I'll I'll do some research when we hang up but maybe someone on this call knows is there a policy in the policy manual that refers to materials fee to the materials fee program. There is I think it's in the um student
section Mariah in terms of enrollment the ability to enroll non-resident students is in there >> on a space of like it talks about the space availability is that the >> yeah it just describes the different categories of students that we can enroll who are non-residents medco students um uh you know the children of
employees etc. >> Okay. Thank you, Betsy. And I also want to recognize everybody who wrote to us because I think that was incredibly >> um helpful to hear from folks. >> Great. So, we don't have to go until 8. We can wrap it up now and um we'll we'll
do this again on Thursday. >> Sounds good. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Good night.