I'm going live in five, four, three, two, one. >> Good evening. Uh, I'm sorry. Good morning. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brooklyn Select Board, and this is our regular meeting for Tuesday, March 17, which is
being held as a workshop session for us to get deep into some matters. Uh, it's great importance. Our primary purpose is to have our first public discussion of the recommendation of the expenditure and revenue study committee with respect
to a possible override. This is a preliminary discussion followed by more detailed discussions on March 24th. And if uh we need to go further uh on March 31st, uh we have until March 31st at
11:59 p.m. to file our ballot. um um question. Um um so we may you know be doing this having this discussion for three uh meetings. We'll also be
discussing the 2030 road map uh this morning and um this afternoon we'll be taking up the Chess Hill uh commercial zoning matter. So let's get started. And the first item is a miscellaneous item.
Uh comments from the select board. Okay. Seeing none, uh first uh miscellaneous question is uh proving a proclamation of recognition and congratulation to retired Brooklyn police officer Debbie Hatel leftitis on
receiving the 2026 Black Excellence on the Hill Award. and uh Debbie Hats as we call her is in the audience and I'm going to read the proclamation and then give it to her. Whereas the Brooklyn Select Board
rightfully honors those Brookline residents and town employees whose service, civic commitment, and leadership have been shining examples of public service that have enriched the lives of residents and enhanced the civic life of our town. And whereas
Deborah Debbie hats hats the leftist has been a paradigm of those qualities and a true Brookline trail blazer as a Brooklyn police officer for 16 years and her many years as a civic leader and model citizen in the town of Brooklyn.
And whereas Debbie Hats was nominated by Brookline State Representative Tommy Bullo and selected by the Massachusetts Black and Hisp and Latino Legislative Caucus as its 2026 Black Excellence on the Hill Award. And whereas the
Brookline Select Board further acknowledges and thanks Debbie Hatch for her outstanding and sustained contributions to the town of Brooklyn as a longtime resident. police officer and trailblazing civic leader and
specifically cites the following. Being an outstanding product of the Brooklyn Public Schools from kindergarten to her graduation from Brookline High School where she excelled in multiple sports and was inducted into the Brooklyn Hall of Fame and became the first African-American member of the
Hall of Fame board. being a mother who raised five outstanding children, two of whom are Brooklyn firefighters and one of whom Debbie Hats served as his legal guardian through high school. being the police department's first black female officer beginning in 1998 after
graduating from the Norwood Police Academy where she broke the women's bench press record and was the president of her academy class. being a leader in Brooklyn's community policing strategy and working to divert youth from destructive behaviors and
from the criminal justice system by teaching the drug abuse resistance education program for eight years and being a leader in the groundbreaking Brooklyn roundt program that brought together the police with social workers, school administrators, probation
officers, the courts and nurses to discuss issues arising in the high school and to anticipate problems to identify risk youth at risk and to intervene to provide support, guidance, and redirection. Also serving as a school resource officer before that job
was formally known as a school resource officer and working in schools to develop relationships with students during good times so that she and other youth officers could intervene to prevent problems in the schools, provide role models and guidance when needed,
and divert youth from the criminal justice system when possible. Being a tireless volunteer with youth athletic program, serving as town meeting member for precinct 15, being the president of the friends of Laura Anderson Park, serving as a member of
the park and recreation commission, being a member of green space alliance, and driving the senior cent's bus when the regular driver was not available. Now therefore, in consideration of the poor going, on this 17th day of March
2026, the Brooklyn Select Board on behalf of the residents of Brooklyn congratulates Debbie Hats for being nominated by State Representative Tommy Bullo and being selected by the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus as its 2026 Black
Excellence on the Hill Award. And and I give you the proclamation signed by all five members of flag. We were unanimous in our >> Thank you so much. Uh it's been an honor to serve this town and um and I'll
continue to do so to the best of my ability. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> actually we need to vote on that. >> Okay. But uh all in favor of the proclamation to Debbie Hats, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoy. >> I Paul Warren.
>> Hi. >> David Pearlman. >> Hi. >> Mike Gordonstein. Hi. >> And chair both side. So it's official. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. >> Next uh let's have our override
discussion review of the expenditure and revenue study committee's final report and recommendations uh with members of the committee. uh discussion of potential override ballot questions including structure and amount. And I want to start off by saying this
morning's discussion will be the first and possibly three uh discussions the select board will have and will help us decide on an override for the May ballots and everything that goes with that. This will be an introductory session that I believe yes saddaf's
here. Saddaf tazmi and and other members of the committee will present the full 639 page recommendation of the expenditure and revenue study committee. I'm sure everyone has read um or at least you've read the important parts um
and and that's in our packet. There are important executive summaries for the overall report and for each of the subcommittees that we had that the select board and the public uh should focus their attention on. Those are the essential readings. But in addition, you
may want to read selective appendices and other materials if there is something that you want to look into in greater depth. After Saddaf's uh presentation, I'd like to get a sense of the select board's preliminary thoughts on what we should put on the ballot as preparation for next week's meeting and
further deliberation. Um among the things that we have to decide and please add or correct me if u you think u that is necessary. Um which of the options we want to use? The
recommendation of the committee is option three. Um and if we choose option three, what is the amount of the second tier? Option three of course is a tiered uh override approach. So we have to decide the amount of the second tier. Um
and you know we will receive from schools a list and town list of cuts that would be required if the town were voters were to select um the lower or intermediate level in that tier that tiered override. If we choose option
three, we'll be front loaded only with town expenses, which is like option one, or front load loaded for the entire amount of the override, which is uh basically option two. uh also have to decide whether we want
to set a condition of the uh school committee committing to anou to address some of the issues raised by the school subcommittee um and or extending theou that we entered into in relation to the uh Clifton Lawson and Aaron Allen reports
um and the content of anyou. So, you know, with that sort of summary of where where we're going or what we're going to be doing, um, I'd like to turn it over to Safney. >> Thanks everybody. So, actually Cliff is going to kick it off. Okay. >> Several of us who are going to present
today. >> Um, thank you. >> And if you want to, you can join the Zoom call and run the slides. You can share your screen pop up or we can run the slides for you. >> Yeah. Do you mind bringing this to slow us down?
>> I'll join the car is on. >> Okay, I see. >> All right, good. Um, so on there and Janet should be on the line as well. >> I just looked. >> Yeah. So, the four of us are are planning to present. So not everybody's
here with the forecast representative >> and um while Charlie pulls that up and like I said Cliff is going to kick us off. Uh we did want to summarize the findings because it is a long report and obviously we assume that this group has read at least some critical mass of that report but we wanted to make sure that we lay the groundwork really for the
public who's listening in on this discussion. You ask if I can use it. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Good morning everybody. Um for public is Cliff Brown. I uh was the advisory committee alternate member
following the expenditures study committee. I'm going to just kick us off a little bit. I'd like to start by thanking our colleagues who are not here to present today. Heath Ellen Fitch, Sergio Medlani, Jeff Budolf, John Doit, uh
Marion Rega, Jesse Heftter, Sarah Mockador, uh and of course Chair Green, and John Vanto all. Um I also want to express I hope on behalf of everyone um deep appreciation and thanks to town
administrator Carrie and his staff, Melissa Goth, John Young, Lincoln, the Kuma. Um, >> I'm on. I'm on. >> No. Did she forget to mention you >> and Braa uh other members of town school
staff who provided um wonderful support uh to the committee throughout the process. Um the agenda today we're going to as said um discuss an overview of the major sections of the report. uh the
background, why we're here, um considerations on the capacity of pay, our recommendations, and then brief summaries of the individual um subcommittee reports. There were the subcommittees as you can see the schools, the town and the future which
was really subcommittee that focus on things that the committee identified as possibilities for efficiencies and revenue enhancements, but that really would take more than the three-year uh
time frame that we're examining for a potential grow. >> Next slide, please. Uh why are we here? Um Brookline has a structural deficit. Uh property taxes represent 73% of Brookline's revenues.
And I'm just going to say um that the amount that percentage varies from 73 to 79% depending upon what you put into your numerator and denominator. Um this is from a chart in
the uh uh uh the budget um looking at all those needs including um enterprises like our tax our tax code and not all those property taxes are subject to prop 2 and a half that includes debt
exclusions which are not subject to prop um prop two and a half but those taxes that are subject to prop 2 and a half are of course statuto restricted to an increase overall of 2 and a.5%. Um at the same time, our expense growth
is unrestricted. Uh the market dictates what expenses are. Um in addition, uh we often have unfunded mandates from town meeting um that create budgetary pressures and collectively bargain
contract terms that um have embedded costs that exceed the growth in our revenues. Cliff, can I can I just make one point? Could you just for the public explain what an unfunded mandate is? Sure. >> Town meeting and give an example. Um so
an unfunded mandate is uh you town meeting uh is the town's legislature and ultimately has control over the budget and uh we have hold town meeting twice a year and at any one of those meetings uh
the members of town meeting which who are elected um representatives, volunteer representatives um can determine that they have an interest in a adding a program or a requirement. Um
they could change the bylaws and some of those uh uh votes if they're implemented have costs associated with them. And so kind of meeting passes those new ideas or regulations
but they are not in a position to be able to uh raise money to pay for them. And town meeting generally doesn't take the step of saying okay this is what it's going to cost let's move funds from
over here to over here. So they create an unbalanced situation in the budget. that helpful? >> Perfect. Thank you both. >> Um, now Brookline isn't alone in facing fiscal challenges. Uh, many
municipalities across the state are. Uh, why? Because in recent years, as we all know, inflation has been uh above historical norms. Uh, health insurance premiums have increased dramatically and are forecasted to continue increasing at
least for the next few years. And um we have unfunded pension and uh OPED that's other post-employment benefits mainly uh uh retirey healthcare costs that um we are funding and the state requires our
pension obligations to be funded by 2040. Uh Brookline is on a path to fully fund those by 2030. And um the current policy is to take the uh sums that are funding the pension
liability and if we do reach full funding to then direct those to the OPED liabilities which are um significant and growing. So uh within this uh difficult framework
there have been several efforts uh made by both the town and the schools to deal with fiscal pressure. uh in both sides of the lender, if you will, um are looking at even with an override
reductions of staff. Town is looking at uh five full-time employee reductions, full-time equivalents, and the schools are looking at 22.1 full-time equivalents, even with an override. Despite that, the three-year um
forecasted structural deficit uh totals just under 26 million, roughly eight of that from the town and roughly 18 from the schools. with a fairly significant amount of uh money that we're trying to deal with.
>> Um the next this chart shows everyone um where how that structural deficit plays out over the next three years. I'm not going to take a lot of time going through numbers on charts, but am
obviously willing to come back if anyone has questions about uh any of the information in a chart. Okay, I'm now going to pass it off to uh Dick Bena who is at homes recovering from surgery uh and he's going to
discuss the uh capacity to pay. >> Thank you very much uh Cliff. Uh Dick Bena. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 14. Um former select board member. Um and was a member of the
schools subcommittee of the ENRSC. Um there's a good deal more in the capacity to pay section of the uh of the uh ENRSC report, but I'm going to just focus on a couple of salient points
here. Um looking at housing costs in Brooklyn, um the accepted measure of housing cost burden is housing costs that are greater than 30% of household income. The data that we have is from
the American Community Survey. Uh they do estimates and calculations. We have the most recent uh 2024 uh American Community Survey data. Um taxes affect both owners and renters. Uh
owners obviously directly, renters through the tax pass through in a standard rental agreement. Um the bottom line is that over a quarter of renters of owners are paying
more than 30% of their household income for housing. Um, and an even larger percentage of senior owners are paying more than 30% of their household income for housing. Um, many of those um are
paying more than 35%. There's a small portion between 30 and 35%. Most are over 35%. Um that's over 3,000 owners and over a thousand senior owners who are in that
housing cost burden category. Among renters the impact is even greater. Um there are over renters paying more than 30% of their house.
Could you turn off your video? We're losing you. >> Essentially 50% a thousand of senior renters are paying more than 30% of their household income for housing. Can you I just have a notice that my Are
we okay? >> Yes, you're okay now. >> Thank you. Did you Did I miss Did you miss anything? We had a little blip in there, but I think I think the the point got across. >> Okay, fair enough.
>> Let me just turn to the other point, which is taxes in Brooklyn. Uh this is looking at fiscal 15 to fiscal 26. Um it is um this information is based on the assessor's annual tax classification
hearings. um rapidly escalating taxes on all types of properties in Brooklyn. Um uh far exceeding far outstripping the rate of inflation. Um and as we know, taxes are a cost
element that are highly visible to voters both in the annual tax bills that owners get and in the rent escalators that renters would get. taxes on the median condominium. Whereas area inflation during this period went
up about 37% taxes on the median condominium up 53% two family 85% three family and four four plus family uh 78% and single family 97%.
In dollar terms, um the numbers for condominiums about 1,700, two family and three family about 9,000, four family plus about 19,000, and single family over $10,000 in increased
taxes over this period on the median uh median building in each of these categories. The ENRSC approached the the needs of the town and the schools and the impacts
on individuals with the bottom line recognition that voters are going to be deciding this. They will have the last say. And our goals were to minimize the likelihood of a total override failure with the
adverse impacts that would have on the town and the schools and frankly on the town credit rating where the failure of an override affects the u the the town's credit rating. Um, we also wanted to
recognize the personal hardships that increased taxes could provide and wanted to minimize those. Forced dislocations, people forced to move um, including long-term seniors, long-term residents of the town, forced leans, tax levies,
second mortgages. The unanimous vote of the ANRSC, I believe it was unanimous, was to offer a tiered override, include the full override ask, but also a lower amount. Give voters the choice. Give a real
choice. And that takes us as background to the more detailed discussion of options and to Saddaf Kazmi. And let me just personally, as I have in the past, thank Saddaf for the incredible amount of work she's put into pulling all of
this together. So, thank you. >> Um, so shifting gears, uh, we'll talk about the three options that were presented in the report. The first option is to put the entire 23.255 combined override asks. So 5.31 from the
town and 19 uh I'm sorry 17.94 for the schools on the ballot. And this would result in an incremental override levy of 6.99% with a total increase of taxes of 18.27% over the 3-year period fiscal 29 27 to
29. Some of the considerations that I think it's important for the select board to be aware of. Um the first is that the money in this case would be raised on a schedule that maps what was proposed by the town and schools respectively. So the town had requested
that their three-year need be raised up front in fiscal 27 and then held in reserves until it's needed. The schools on the other hand had requested that their funds be raised on an annual basis mapping to the deficit uh that is forecasted in each one of those years.
in this particular option as a result of the different methods with the school request being larger the overall ramp would be more gradual and therefore ultimately less jarring for taxpayers in Brooklyn.
On the next slide, um, and I know you can't see this certainly from this room, um, but I'm not going to delve into all the numbers. I did add a graph to this slide that I thought might be useful to help people understand what the stabilization fund looks like here. So
in green that line is you can see in year one um the town actually pays into their stabilization fund um and then it grows a little bit in year two and then it's used in year three. So that was sort of the general uh I think uh headline on this particular graph. Um,
and you know, I was really looking for a way to help illustrate this method of implementing the incremental tax levy because it is different from what Brookland has done in the past. >> So on the next slide, option two, this would be frontloading of the tax levy
into 2027 while covering the full fiscal 27 to 29 deficit for the town and the schools. So in this case, both the town and the schools would frontload their request uh similar to what the town had proposed and we included in option one.
As a result, the overall override amount would actually be reduced by $4.7 million roughly to $18.6 million with an incremental override levy of 5.59 and a total of 16.89 over the total
three-year time frame. So this ends up resulting in initial higher raise but a total overall number that is smaller. Uh and I think you know sometimes it's hard for people to get their head around this. Um but what
would happen is similar to the example of the town before that excess initial revenue that would be raised would be held in an interestbearing stabilization fund and be used later on. But you're sort of ramping up quickly versus ramping up more slowly. Uh I think it's
worth noting that in this situation what happens is that you would have the opportunity to fund the full deficit for the both the town and the schools and you do actually end up over the three years raising more money because you would end fiscal 29 with some money left
in the stabilization fund to actually cushion the transition from fiscal 29 to fiscal 30. So the stabilization fund structure as I mentioned before uh is new for Brookline residents and we believe that this will require some level of education for
everybody to to really understand this and it is because of that that initial raise would happen for the entire 5.59 incremental tax levy as part of this override. It might be more jarring for taxpayers as a result and we think
that's important to understand and be part of this conversation. On the next slide, similar to what I did for option one, um I laid out what the stabilization fund would look like, as well as the incremental levy increase both specific to the override and the
overall increase in taxes that is already planned as part of existing uh debt exclusions that had been approved before, plus incremental um uh allowed uh Proposition 2 and a half increases year-over-year.
All right, option three. So, as Dick mentioned, this was our preferred option. Um, and this the objective here is to ensure that voters have options by adding tiers to what is put on the ballot. So, it can be applied to either option one or it can be
applied to option two. Uh, but ultimately taxpayers with the option to choose to fund all, none, or some intermediate amount or amounts right there. That's also an option uh of the override requests.
So this would require that the town and PSB provide a prioritized list of services that would need to be cut if that in that intermediate amount or depending on what that intermediate amount is. Uh and that is not something that we included in this presentation
because the committee was not in a position to actually um get to that level of detail on the school side. Uh and we really do think that that prioritization needs to come from the schools and the towns respectively. and for that discussion to be had within the
select board. As I mentioned before and as Dick had mentioned as well, the committee strongly recommends this option. We want to make sure that landlorders have a choice um in how much they fund and agree to an incremental tax override. Uh and so we want to make
sure that that you know this is something that's put in front of voters. The other thing that's worth mentioning here, and we'll talk about it a little bit more later, is that the school subcommittee had a proposal that we would like to have anou that's included
as part of this override proposal. And the objective of that is that we acknowledge that this is a large number, right? All of the numbers included in these presentations um are big. The deficit is is large. And we think it's important from a voter confidence
standpoint to say that we've agreed to put this recommendation forward on the part of the committee, but we also believe that there are longerterm cost structure opportunities that collaboratively the town and the schools should work together on so that
in three years we've resolved some of these longerterm cost structure opportunities. There are also some items in there that request uh that the town and the schools work together to increase revenue. Uh but the ultimate objective is to get the town more
holistically with a small T to a better place after this override cycle. So that was really the impetus and I'll talk through what is included there um in a minute. Any questions so far? >> Yes,
>> I do have one. Um, and I have to admit I I just don't understand the front loing and how it reduces the ask by maybe four million. Um, you know, that's not interest, right? If someone can I'm really struggling with how that works.
Is there some way to explain that? >> Yeah. So, I can talk through it at a high level and Chaz, I think you might be the um um the resident expert on that, but essentially essentially what happens is that the the tax levy increases but you take it all up front, right? So instead of ramping slowly and
getting to the 23.2 um you would ramp up quickly and then you sort of remain flat. So ultimately but you're collecting that incremental 5.59 every year, right? Because then it's baked into your your new base upon which the prop 2 and a half 2 and a
half% is applied. And so ultimately you end up collecting a little bit more in this scenario in option two at the end of the three years. And that's why you have some funds to uh to bank in the stabilization fund. It might be
worthwhile to look at the financials um that a little bit more detail. Um >> is there anything you want to add to that chess? No, I mean that's you know it is this is your your question is the question that a lot of people ask at the committee and elsewhere which is how do you you know why does that number go
down u and how is it possible that it goes down by so much and the answer is >> you're bank you're using one-time funds to defay the cost it's the onetime funds that you're raising up front but then defay the cost in the out years as opposed to a pay as you go model so it's
a structure you would use if you expected your conditions in FY30 and beyond ond to be better than they are now. Because the danger of a model like that is that, right, you're spending this onetime money that you you saved up to cover your operating costs.
>> If your operating costs continue to post a large structural deficit, you're actually worse off than you were before at the end of that process than the beginning. But from our perspective, we do think that FY30 is going to be somewhat of a bridge year. It's not we're not going to be out of the woods.
And then in 31 and 32 we see economic indicators shifting in a way that is beneficial for the town and the schools. Uh so that's what makes this process I >> appreciate it. I still I still don't get it but I appreciate >> absolutely worth discussing because I think it's a conversation that
ultimately if you go down this path needs to be understood by everybody. I think Saddaf made the point that the tax levy is increased immediately, okay, by whatever is coming in up front. And because of that, um, you're raising that
money every year, whereas before if you're ramping, you don't raise the levy as much. >> Okay? So, you're you're raising the base levy immediately as opposed to incrementally. >> Immediately and continuously. So the
second year you get that gap again. So overall over the over the period um while the override amount is lower total dollars raised is higher.
>> Thank um I'm wondering what the interest rate assumption you made is for the stabilization fund. So how much of that 4.65 65 million is coming from interest as opposed to an increase in
uh in the collection >> 2%. >> 2% very concerned. >> It's very concerning. >> Can I ask one more question since Cliff did such a great job in explaining that and thank you you simplified it for me. So from a let's let's take it from the
taxpayers's perspective of the ability to pay. So that actually means that the taxes are going to be higher at the beginning and throughout, right? So you're it it's the tax impact on an individual taxpayer is rent or renter is
going to be higher um throughout that process because you're taking you're raising the base at the beginning. Correct. So not so not throughout because at the at the end the last year >> you know you're going to be meaning >> okay but I I I think it's in the first
two years literally you're raising more in the first year and then in the second year there is that that delta. Um so but at the end I think you're looking at being at the same places in >> okay very
>> I guess be about two percentage points less. So yeah, your taxes would go up a little less overall in the three-year period, but they would go up a lot in year one. >> Okay. >> Um if I may. Yeah. Um so so my
understanding is again Paul uh I appreciate from the taxpayers's perspective what what you are proposing in option two is um if the taxpayer uh needs to allocate a certain amount of money to pay their taxes over the three
years. What you're telling them is is instead of spreading is spreading the increase out over those three years, you're saying the town is going to ask for more of that money up front. Um, and the town is then going to hold that
money and get a little interest for it. And then in the second year, they're going to ask for maybe a little more, but roughly an amount either way. And then in the third year, they would ask for a little less. So in the third year, so in the second and third year would be
the the baseline of 2027 plus the proposition 2 and a half statutoily allowable increase. So, so it goes up and then you know in 28 and 29 it goes up but by a much smaller amount >> but relative to option one >> that has
>> that but it's more of a slant there's their taxpayers are providing more of their money for fiscal year 27 >> relative to option >> that's right that's right >> so and that's and that's the sh >> and that and that is the potential
potentially what is more jarring for taxpayers in the past obviously what we've done override has been what we sort of termed it more traditional for line override plan. >> I I I I think I think one of the things about first I I have no
preference for one or the other first. Okay. Um I think one of the things about option two is that there you have to be defining what you're calling an override. Okay, versus what you're calling taxes because
they're different. And so the override number is lower, but the revenue that's being raised is more because you are increasing the levy in the beginning. >> That's the difference. And so there's a terminology issue there. >> Um that people would need to get their
head around. On the other hand, one of the other benefits of of of two, as Saddaf said and as Chaz alluded to, is you are um tempering for people uh the possibility of another override in 2030,
which may be required, but you're it's going to be um helped by having some of this excess revenue. >> Bren, can I ask one more question? So, um, and I'm I'm not thinking amounts right now as to how we're taring it, but, um, just for the sake of
discussion. So, we're saying at at 18 million with a front loaded, you're basically getting the same benefit of doing the 23 million or 24 million, right? Does that actually apply is if we decide there's a lower amount like say 14 million? I don't know what the next
step down is that if you frontload it, is it similar to getting 18 million if you frontload it early? >> It's a good question. You get a benefit to frontloading relative to a slightly higher, you know, it's relative to 14. We use the example of 14. If you were to
frontload 14 relative to ramping more, you know, slowly for 14, the benefit of frontloading 14 will be higher. The flip side to that is that in and and it's worth looking at the numbers and Chaz actually run some of these scenarios so that you know that might be worth
discussing for the select board. But um at some point uh you won't be able to pay all of the deficit in fiscal 29, right? Uh and maybe in fiscal 28 depending on how you how much that um so that's that's point number one. The
second point is that you won't be in a position where you won't have the stabilization funding to actually temper the transition from fiscal 29 to fiscal 30 um before additional potential relief might exist in in fiscal 31 which you
know obviously needs to be something that is also discussed by the by the select board. So it depends on what that number is fundamentally. >> The the other consideration for the select board um comes around more is that when you have this money in
the reserve um it's potentially fair game >> and so potentially fair game. So you can't lose that. So that's that is a consideration whether or not you feel
that um town heating will honor that um or use it to fund mandates um or you know other folks who might be looking at that excess you know revenue and reaching reaching out for it. I think that's a that's a consideration.
>> Did you talk about conditions on the uh >> so there there are conditions on that on that on the um >> on the fund but the conditions are very broad. their defined operating costs more generally. So town meeting could appropriate out of that. But what I would say to that is yes that is a risk
and perhaps it is more of a con you know because the money is there it's more concrete but theoretically town meeting could have done that during the last override too right when you put an override question on the ballot all it says is do you want your tax levy to go up by this number of dollars now we and
in Brooklyn last time that was 11.98 million um now we promised as a community that we weren't going to increase taxes by more than a certain dollar amount every here. Um but that promise was not on the ballot. Town meeting could have broken that promise. And in fact, in the second year of the
override, there was a proposal that was briefly floated to do that. Um we yelled and shouted and waved our hands and said that would be extremely bad to break that promise to the taxpayers. >> Um but you know, once the levy is raised, the levy is raised. Once the cap
is raised, the cap is raised and town meeting could appropriate the levy if it so chose. So that risk is there. >> Yeah. Abraham West Point not going to question continue the >> the difference between changing a commitment to the voter where we're actually it's at the time of the levy
and when the money comes in versus a stabilization fund it's a bucket of money that everybody can see and it's a lot you know it's a lot more tempting I think to have a bucket of money there which it's it's a I'm glad to it's it's a it's a valid point. I don't know what that means but it's certainly valid.
John, >> before I say anything, I want to say that I think that the work of this u has been extraordinary and I recognize, you know, I'm sort of tangentially involved in a backup member of the
committee as a whole and then a member of the town subcommittee, but um I I will confess to having been a skeptic at the beginning because the task that was set before the ERSC was so enormous And at one point we got a breakdown in the
form of an outline which I believe you provided SA and I looked at the outline and I said this am I going to get this done you know this what 62 different lines to this outline here um when when the final product emerged a week ago um
and I read into it um I was just um I was a very proud of of what was accomplished uh but also I'll admit it's going to take me a while to figure out how the heck you got it all together because, you know, we had many meetings and you expect, you know, everything to
kind of come together tidily at the meetings, but it doesn't always work out that way. There's a lot left up in the air in the last days of these committee meetings and then all of a sudden there's the report and holy cow, everything we were talking about got
into this report and in ways that I think the average person could understand. So I I heartily commend this report to people especially the executive summaries. Um uh the executive summaries are um enough to fully uh to
provide the average person with a very comprehensive understanding of what we're being asked to do here as a town. So that being said, um I think Paul has raised an important point that's been on on the minds of many of us. um you know, if we're struggling to have explain to
us what this difference between option one and option two is, um imagine what it's going to be like trying to explain it to the average voter. And the amounts of money that are being talked about here are extraordinary. They're way above what we've asked for before in
override questions. So that is, you know, in and of itself is going to be kind of a stumbling block for a lot of voters to then say, you know, for you to get to uh acceptance of a an extraordinary amount of money also
requires you to understand the difference between the option one of how to raise it and the option two of how to raise it. um I'm I think is maybe you know too too too far you know uh applying uh but um
others can weigh in on that. Um, I'm also not certain um that this has to be part of of of the decision we make in the sense that as Chaz Chaz was just sort of implying, a lot of things kind of remain open-ended when override
questions are dealt with by voters. Um, including Chaz, I don't want to misstate what you said, um, how much we raise and when. Um, yeah. So that's already kind of baked into the choices that others
are going to face once the overall amount for three years is agreed upon. So, um, why put it in front of the voters to sort of have to comprehend what it means to choose one over two when in fact they're not even the final
say on on that. A and when in fact the very thing that we're deciding to put in front of voters is something we could decide after the voters first approve the total amount of the override. Yeah. So my good I'm sure Michael is wondering
your point if I characterize this correctly. >> I take I take your point that you know once you vote to increase the levies right the allocation of that increase is dependent over time. But my
understanding of sort of the history of overrides is that when the select board puts an override on the ballot, it comes with some level of commitment for how that's being done. So, you know, whether those promises are in terms of the
timing of the of the increase that we actually use of of the levy um or you know, how the increased money is spent. Um, I think what you're saying, what you're saying is sort of what was said before is that, you know,
we could, for example, put a $24 million ask on the levy with a schedule of when we are going to how we're going to increase it and then break that schedule and put more raise more money up front, put it in the over override
stabilization fund. I mean, that would be an option, but I wouldn't I wouldn't think that as a select board, we would want to go to the voters with that plan in place to sort of have a make a series of promises for this money and then change it.
>> Well, it's I wonder if we're starting to go down a little bit of a rapple and do you have more slides you want to go through? >> Um, I know I know many people read the executive summary. So just shifting um into the school subcommittee content um I summarized on on slide 13 uh the ask
from PSB and it's worth noting that we didn't get an opportunity to to dive deep into the ask from PSV just given time limitations and capacity constraints from the PSB team. Uh so this comes from their financial summary uh which I included here. Um but they
they have presented for fiscal 27 a mostly level service budget. They did have some cuts. Some of these were right sizing. Some of these were actually cutting some technology education positions um among a few other things. Um they're listed here in efficiencies
and that amounted to 22.1 FTEEs and reduction in their baseline proposed budget. Um they had a few things that were restored. A couple of important one important position on data and information systems. Right. this person will help um uh provide better
data from from PSB which I think is important. Um they have a series of sort of smaller investments the curriculum renewal Google workplace etc. Um and then they have a series of adjustments and this is really you know a little bit of of moving dollars across um the
balance sheet so to speak. On slide 14, uh the PSB team summarized I've summarized what the PSB team presented for their failed override scenarios. So, um in fiscal 27, this would mean a
failed override. Uh would mean that 58 FTE would be cut on top of the 22 that are already baked into their baseline plan. This includes grade one paras um 6 to8s are all middle school world languages. um classroom and guidance
staff um as well as central office staff. Um and then looking forward into fiscal 28 and 29 that failed override would result in some pretty significant cuts about 130 FTE uh primarily classroom teachers. So this is K through
eight school sports, other athletic program, the Southport Line Bus Service, which had been a prior commitment and a prior override um in 23. Um and the PSB team was concerned that this could actually result in some compliance uh certification and legal issues. So I thought that was worth calling out as
well. And I think Mariah's on the call in case people have questions um about this um or she might have had to drop, but she will be back. >> Susan Gibbons is on as well. >> Oh, wonderful. Okay, great. Um I'm just you know I think directions uh questions on this should be directed to the PSP team. Um so on the next slide one of the
things that I alluded to earlier um is that we had limited capacity uh from from the PSB admin team um and the budget numbers weren't shared until really right before the holidays. So the group actually focused our analysis on things that we could do independently
and things that didn't require or that required very limited data from PSB. Um so we want to actually acknowledge the work that PSB put in to really bright sizing the budget and the numbers and the staffing. Um so that was uh a really positive thing from our perspective and
and truly a good faith effort. Um they've also started uh a program or or have have plans to start bringing non-resident students into PSB's special education programs for a tuition based
um uh admission. Uh and this is something that has been talked about for about 10 years. Um and we really appreciated uh Superintendent Wong and her team's commitment to actually try this out. Um and we expect to see revenues coming in to PSB from this starting in fiscal 28. So we thought
that was good. So as we mentioned earlier, our recommendation for an override had a number of things that that we wanted as commitments uh for that. And the real impetus behind this is that we believe that in order to instill voter confidence, given the size
of the number, given the deficits um that we saw last year, we think it's important to take a look at some of the longer term cost opportunities while also acknowledging that both the town and PSB have done a lot of work to address the things that are more
straightforward going into fiscal 27. So we think the trajectory is really positive. Um, Superintendent Wong, I think, has done a tremendous amount of work in a very difficult situation and there are list of things that we think are still important to be explored. It
starts on the next page and I will give the oneline summary for for all of these. Uh, the first is that we're asking PSB and town admin to collaborate on negotiating uh a reduced healthcare premium contribution by the town for all town
and PSB employees. And the goal here would be to align that contribution with comparable communities by the end of calendar year 2028. The next one is to for PSB and create an approach through which the schools can manage their wage expenses to a level
that's approaching our projected year-over-year revenue growth and you know look at creative ways um to manage that from a contractual standpoint. I want to acknowledge here that we understand collective bargaining can be difficult and complex. Um, and we're not
participating in that process. Um, but we thought that this was worth pointing out just given the size of uh the the percentage of the of the PSB budget that that wages comprise. Number three is to evaluate an updated school model to look at cost savings through classroom
consolidation. Whether it's part of the middle school model or whether it's just redistricting and taking a look at uh the overall districts across Brookline to see if there's some optimization that can be done there for cost savings. Uh number four is to complete the work
that the town and schoolouou from this past fall had included with respect to MUNS to make sure that our financial systems are consistent and we can get the right information that we need and and really streamline that overall process. And the request is to complete
that work by the end of 2020 fiscal 27. Number five is to ensure that teaching assignments align with contractual terms while maintaining the necessary student support programs. Uh we also wanted to caveat this with the fact that the school subcommittee didn't have time to
really pressure test uh data on on uh how the classroom um how teaching loads are right now and how much room so to speak there is within those because we didn't have um the time unfortunately to do that. On the next slide um a few more
things. Most of these are are revenue um uh revenue opportunities. Six is the last cost one. Um we just to evaluate further cutting of technology leases. Um the schools did actually trim several hundred,000 from their technology line
item by sharing computers for younger grades. We think there might be some additional opportunity and we're asking that this is looked at. Um and then number seven is to ensure that all third party users of our space are paying market rent. Um and to take a look at
the policy around this. um and uh really try to negot negotiate fair market rates. Um and this does not include um our extended date programs which we know cannot afford that. Number eight is to commit to conducting a pilot in partnership with a town to test a more robust model facilities government
governance. We think there's some opportunity here to drive incremental revenue as well as as has overall streamlined the process. Uh and then the final one, number nine, is to take a look at the beat financials and see if there's an opportunity to get this to break even. Uh for the revolving fund
portion of the program, there was some additional analysis that we undertook on the next slide. Um and those are listed here. There's a follow-up to the CLA report, the town's bill financial model and enrollment forecasts. So on slide 19 um the quick
summary of the CLA report and I know this group has has obviously um seen this before uh but we took a look at the CLA report um and the memos from the school committee the town schoolou from October a series of other documents um and there's been a material amount of
progress since that CLA report was published in May of last year um the subcommittee unfortunately did not have the expertise and specialized knowledge to confirm that things like HR policies were addressed and so we had proposed a
third party review uh of this and based on that CLA was engaged week ago maybe um and as this group knows um they will deliver a final report on March 31st and we look forward to seeing what the outcome of that is.
It's a town school financial model. Back in the summer, a subcommittee, actually the first subcommittee for the overall committee was formed to um take a look at the uh uh the formula, the town school partnerships formula and evaluate
whether or not uh uh there were changes that might be appropriate. The group never um completed its work and um as a result uh the subcommittee and the full committee believes that group should be
revived whether if some people are willing to do it or just new folks and to take a look take a step back and take a look and see whether or not there's a belief that what we are doing and the way we're approaching things is optimal.
Um and you know the big issue really is above the line and below the line costs and um whether or not how we are doing things right now provides the level of transparency to the community um so that
people really understand uh the impact of of of certain things provides more accountability. Um, so for example, if health care costs are below the line, right now they're above the line, but if they're below below the line, if people
can see the allocation of those costs, that might provide a um a better understanding of the impact of certain decisions when it comes to hiring people. uh both for the community but also for those making the decisions because right now they're looking at the
allocation they get below the line and they're really not thinking so much about above the line. Paul >> just uh briefly because I know we we use above and below the line. We throw that around all the time and I assure you on this call have no no idea what you're talking we're talking fixed and variable.
So, so I if if it it might be this is a a point where it might be worthwhile actually going and taking a look at um >> the report has an excellent layout is what you're saying. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um the chart from
up top >> um >> yeah slide four. Okay. So, if that can be made bigger for those at home, um, if you take a look at the the top line, that's the forecasted
revenue. That's the revenue the town is going to be getting from all of its sources with the exception of enterprise funds. Okay, it's a lot of money. Now if you take a look at the next line forecasted revenue for allocation
there's sorry there's close to a couple hundred million missing. >> What is it? What are those? Where did that money go? Well that money goes to expenses that are considered above the line expenses and those are shared
expenses. shared expenses or expenses that are sort of fixed and you can't do anything about it. So what do those include? Debt service, right? You can't allocate that because it's already spoken for. Um assessments from Norphick
County. Um and benefits, we treat benefits as a shared expense above the line. So all those different shared costs and and fixed costs, if you will, are are taken out before an allocation
is made to the town and schools. And that's why you see that big gap in the numbers. So that's what we mean by above the line and below the line. Now, if you were taking some of those expenses that are now above the line and you were
moving them to below the line, um it would provide transparency to people. Let's again use the example of benefits. So, if you add I don't know what the cost of benefits is off the top of my head, but it's maybe close to 100 million.
>> Okay, let's use let's use $100 million. So, that number would go up to 347 million. Those that revenue would be allocated then to town and schools and people would realize how much money that
there is being given to benefits by each side. And that is a um that's impactful for both the community to understand but also for the decision makers. So they're not looking, for example, at a salary of
$100. They're understanding that a salary of $100 is actually a cost of $130, whatever the the add-on for the benefits are. And that's that's one reason to consider going um taking some of those
expenses below the line. It also in the financial model um things we would look at or suggest people look at would be uh evaluate further consolidation of departments and establish clear relationships between departments via
memorandums of understanding. You know um there are some that have been discussed for decades and have not been executed. Um, and so if if there's a review and there are ideas that come out of the review, then maybe there's a a
way to move those forward um better. Um, another thing that we brought up last year and certainly can be looked at and maybe should be looked at is the utility of establishing a special education fund, reserve fund. Why?
Special education um uh takes up roughly 22 23% of the overall school budget. Um special education is something that's mandated both by the state state laws as well as federal laws. Um these are services that are required. There is no
um uh no decision to be made about whether or not you're going to provide special education services. And because Brookline has a number of uh a big churn in its population, people come in during the year, they leave during the year.
Anyone who comes in and needs special education services, they have to be provided. And some of those can be very expensive and unanticipated. Um, and the other thing is is that the state can decide in the middle of the
year that they're giving a bid to the folks who run special education transportation where they're letting, you know, some of the the the special education um out of district schools uh raise their tuition rates in the middle of the year and those are unanticipated.
So, uh, having a reserve fund might be a worthwhile thing, um, so that there aren't, uh, unavoidable shocks, uh, in the middle of the year. Something, just something to evaluate. Okay. Enrollment forecast. This is
something that comes up every year. Um, uh, and it is a a question that, um, really is important. uh going back in time in the you know 2010 to 2016 period when there was a
significant increase in uh enrollment uh in in town. The approach to forecasting uh was I'm going to say retrospective. I think that's the word that people have decided
that we should use. In other words, it looked more at history uh and it used history to project um and did not take into account uh demographic uh changes, forecasts, economic environment, so on
and so forth. The issue with that, it can be very accurate for let's say one year going out one year. it's not going to be accurate uh going out more than a year because all you're doing really is just continuing the paths and we saw
that with the projected enrollment back in you know eight nine years ago where it was just a 45 degree line it was always going to go up and that didn't happen. Um so uh the recommendation here
is that um as the school committee has done periodically in the last six or seven years to retain an outside independent party to do a long range forecast that takes into account um demographic
information, economic information, and you use that along with your one-year forecast. um try to bring in as much of that forward thinking data as possible to give again the community uh the sense
that um there's a there's a process that is forward thinking um more than a one-year forecast is going to give you. So that's just another um suggestion. We we just merely suggesting that the school
committee establish a policy to make sure that that's done. So yeah, Janet, >> are you awake? >> Janet should be on the phone. Was unable to be here with us today. She'll be on the line. >> Or maybe >> she's the 617.
>> So the number ending in 616. >> She's currently muted. >> No. Um 5933. >> We may want to check if that's her any call. Maybe. No, she she said um >> we are not seeing >> Carl.
I just >> This is Janet Kel. >> Yes, Jenn. >> While we do that Oh, I'm sorry. Do you have a question? >> So many question. Sorry.
>> Um yeah, I I am writing down um 61.6 is her number. So >> Oh, it is. >> Let's promote that. >> Yeah, great. >> Sorry. >> I think you can allow to speak or something like that. >> And then Janet, if you can hear us, you
can hit star six to unmute yourself. >> Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Sorry, I'm not sure why when I logged on I couldn't get to you through Zoom. So, I am looking at slides um on my on my
computer and we'll need someone's assistance. I'll tell you when to move forward. Sorry I couldn't be with you today, but what I thought was a sprained ankle turned out to be a broken fibia. So, I'm at home. >> Gosh. >> Yeah. Well, I won't go into why we need
to repair the sidewalks. Some of the numbers in the in the town um section are numbers you should be familiar with. They go back to um probably the presentation to the select board in December with some some minor
adjustments. So, regardless of whether an overnight override passes, um there will be savings on the sound town side. Uh five FTEES will be eliminated. Two of those are going to be moved to soft money. One in the recck department to
the um revolving fund and one in public health which can be absorbed by the tobacco remediation fund um which will be around for a while. So these are not we're going to move them now and have a problem next week. Um the biggest chunk
is reducing the contribution to the CIP from 6.6 to 6%. Um and uh also the decision to level fund uh ops not add to the amount um that the um that are traditionally there
which is around 5 million. The there has been an additional allocation um of about 250,000. That didn't happen in this year. It it's being projected not to happen next year. Um the amounts that you're seeing on the screen are the
um towns portion of those funds because this is something that happens below the line. Um there's a surplus in the elections fund. So they that that would be reduced and then just some minimum um contracted services that would be eliminated. There are some new fees
primarily um related to parking fees. Again, the amounts on the screen is the town's share after it goes through the split. Um, and what will also come out of those parking fees is some monies to upgrade the the meters, which has been a
request um for a while. Next slide, please. Are you with me? >> Yes, I'm with you. >> Okay. So, so this is the override proposal. Um, it's continuity of service. There's nothing in here that
hasn't been around for a while. Um the top number is about 1.3 million um which won't have to be cut. These are positions and a little bit of services and other things that would be cut without an override. And it's it's a
variety of of departments. The biggest number is for the fire department contract. 900,000 uh for um increased new steps will will come into play at the tail end of the contract. So that's 2028 or 2028, sorry.
And then 800,000 for um overtime. Overtime has been around and ignored and not been budgeted for, but it's going to happen. So, we thought it's a good idea to actually throw it in the budget. Um, and um this is this will only go away, I
think, if the um town were able to negotiate changing the way fire apparatus are are manned from four four men at all times to three um if needed because of of firefighters being out.
But that's something that the town has agreed not to raise again until they're in negotiations for the next contract. And as I said, the current contract expires at the end of 2027. So just keep that in mind. This is also something that's been around for a very long time.
Police Department, there's a request for 600,000 to restore three positions that were cut in their last contract again to make sure that it was affordable to the town. Um there's also 300,000 for upgrading their software, their dispatch
software, which is about to lose its support. Um and some monies to bring uh command per positions in the department uh more in line um so that the command staff are not making essentially the
same amount of money as their reports um because of the increases the reports got in the um last contract. DPW. There's a couple of things in there. The first is um funding the tree protection bylaw
that was passed by town meeting that has not generated the level of fees um as the town predicted. Um so if that part isn't funded, we're essentially telling the town um to not enforce the law. This is an unfunded mandate. Um the other
part is for sustainability positions. Um these are currently being funded by a grant which runs out at the end of 2027. And without those positions um the town will not be able to proceed with its um
solar initiative which will be discussed later on in in the future section of this report. But that's a way to um save money on electricity costs going forward. The money for the council on
aging represents this is this is something that's been def funded through ARPA as as a pilot over the last several years uh several years. It is essential to seniors. It gets them to and from medical appointments. Um it is the first
time that there will be a line item in the operating budget for senior transportation which has been put together through grants over the years. Um and the original proposal that that was funded under ARPA ARPA had no um
constraints on it. The uh Council on Aging has put in um a program now that people using medical transportation are subject to the same um uh income rules and how many times a month you could use
it because the program as initially implemented um was just not sustainable. The building department needs funds for maintenance. It needs funds for staff so that they're not contracting out services like plumbing. IT licenses um
both go up in cost faster than inflation and there have been support from the federal government which will most likely disappear if it hasn't already uh because we're not complying with the um president's request
um regarding how we run our business here in Brooklyn. And then there's money for collective bargaining reserve. Um because all of the town's contracts um the the five nonpublic safety contracts
are in negoti in negotiation now. Police and fire come on again. Um and uh this allows for some of the costs that should have been included the last time around. Next slide.
>> Without an override. Um 17.4 four FTEEs plus services suppliers and part-time staff will disappear in 2027. That's inclusive of the um six police positions and the and the cuts uh that
will be made even even without even with an override. uh in 2028 in order to fund that the tail that's in the contract um may need to cut 20 firefighters which is the equivalent of one engine crew. Um
and in 2029 potentially another five FTEEs would have to be cut just they haven't been identified as to where but just to stay within the the constraints of two and a half. So without an override, it it is very dire. And the
town subcommittee um fully supported the the town request for 5.31 million in an override. That's it for me. >> Can I ask a quick question? Thanks. Um the uh sustainability
funding, could we go back to the >> Sure. >> Yeah, I'll go back a slide. Thank you. Uh stop there. So DPW tree protection and sustainability position 625,000. What how many positions are in sustainability for that? >> Fund two positions.
>> There there are two positions that are now funded from um a very generous anonymous donation um funded it over three years. So it's two positions. >> The um director of sustainability is in the operating budget.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Jen, if I could just I got Chaz here. I just want to ask Chaz a question. If you could hold on one second. So Chaz, the two these two positions uh that are funded by the generous donation. This is what we're talking. So this would pick up. >> Yes. >> For those and there's already two.
>> Yes. Okay. >> So there's one position. Yeah. Yeah. There are two positions on the operating budget that moved over. So you know the conservation coordinator is now in sustainability. It used to be parks. So, but it was said that in order for us to pursue the solar initiative, which I think the solar initiative came out of
this subcommittee, not even from our sustainability division. So, I I say that first. >> What's that? >> Yeah, it work. >> It worked. But it Yeah, but I'm saying it can't but it did come out of this study, which is good. um if
do we need four people to do that or would these two people be needed to do the the solar initiative and we couldn't do the solar initiative without these two positions? I think given given the amount of work that they're already doing and I we can you know when DPW presents their budget in the coming weeks I think it will be important to
have this conversation about how much sustainability is already doing like it's really you know the the the work that they're doing to try and integrate themselves into the operating process means that they're really taxed as it is you know Alexandra is >> trying to be everywhere at once she's
dealing with you know crisis response she's dealing with you know climate you know emergencies she's dealing with the the climate the the carp the climate climate action plan. So all of that stuff is >> you know all of that stuff is happening. I think it's important you know we we
can give you a fuller picture of what it is that DPW is doing in there but I think the answer is yes something would have to give right >> in that circumstance. So these two positions just to kind of simplify it, these two positions would be in your mind more associated with enabling the solar energy.
>> Yes. Okay. That's right. I >> and and just just for clarity, the 625 there says it's for two things. Is there a between those two? >> Yes. So actually right as as it currently stands, it would be 325,000 for sustainability operations, 200,000
for tree protection and 100,000 for the horicultural specialist who was cut during CO and never restored. Okay. The future subcommittee um so the future subcommittee focused on next slide please. Uh folks initiatives
that uh we thought would benefit the town but side of the three override window. Um we looked at things for cost reduction, cost avoidance, uh revenue increasing opportunities and other I I I
do want to um say that the first two items on this list, the solar initiative and electric electrical demand management were uh uh items that were focused on by Sergio Lilliani. and um I
will do my best to uh accurately uh uh relay what he would say but um and caveat matter um okay solar initiative electrical demand management school
model analysis which we've already talked about a little bit economic development and optips so let's take them one by one the solar initiative you just obviously heard about a little The committee recommends approval of the sustainability division's $3.2 million
initiative. Um that's a cost with tax credits. That cost can be reduced to what $2.1 million. Um this would be uh an effort to uh put in uh solar panels on a number of identified buildings that
uh in town that are um uh constructed in a way that uh where those panels can actually uh be used. Um why would we do this? uh looking at long-term uh offers
where we can install these types of uh challenge installations offers degree control over our electrical uh utility costs which are increasing um and have been fairly rapidly
increasing as everyone I think uh who pays an electric bill understands. Um the initial phase of this uh uh process is projected to supply an additional 13% of our current um
electric uh usage and it would provide an annual cost avoidance. It's not going to generate revenue but it will enable us to reduce what we're taking from the utilities. So it's a cost avoidance of roughly $390,000.
And over a 25 year projected period that would return an internal rate of return ranging from 14 to 24% depending upon the assumptions you make about the increases in electricity and the size of
the tax credits. And that 14% assumes no tax credits and a 3% increase annual increase in uh electricity costs. the 24% um IR represents a 5% inflationary uh
assumption in electric cost and a full I think it's 30% uh tax credit. Um, so that's that that's the range and from a financial perspective, it's a pretty good um it's a pretty good range and
certainly convincing enough to the the committee to recommend that the initiative be be followed through on um okay, electric demand management.
A demand charge is a cost that's added to your standard usage cost per kilowatt hour. And a demand charge is based on peak usage during any 15minute period in inability cycle. And once it's
determined, it is then added to every kilowatt hour in the monthly cycle. So it represents the demand charge represents can represent 25 to 40% of a total electric bill which is really pretty stunning.
>> Um there are opportunities to mitigate um uh this cost. One is to spread loads by controlling when certain pieces of equipment are allowed to turn on. So to make sure that um if you've got several
pieces already turned on that you know the next largest one has to wait a little bit. And maybe that means uh uh an air conditioner unit in a particular location doesn't get turned on for 15 or 30 minutes until something else gets
turned off. It's um uh I I I gather I think that our building department feels that this is something that they they try to do already. Um and uh providing additional emphasis on this is is
certainly worth pursuing. Um the other idea is a battery system which would be charged during non- peak load hours uh periods and then that power would be used to run equipment when it's needed
um for peak usage and at the same time reduce the demand from the utility um which would obviously lower the demand uh the peak demand number. um systems are available, reliable and cost
effective. This is just something that the subcommittee feels should be um focused on to try to again control our utility costs. Um did you want to say anything else about the school modeling? >> Um
>> yeah, I I'll just make a quick statement which is that I I think um and and I'm biased because I wrote this section, but um I I do think that this is is worth reading. um because there has been um there's some interest in revising new school model on the part of the community. We looked at it really as a
cost driver or potential cost driver. Um but there are other reasons why uh parents uh might be interested in this and we didn't delve into those. Um but we did actually hear from Superintendent Wong that she is interested in studying
this starting uh she said targeting the science totally causing opportunities and potential upsides. Yeah. >> So you say there's interest in the community. I mean how do we know that? >> Yeah. So I mean a lot of that is I will admit anecdotal um in talking to other parents as parent myself. Um I so
there's um you know from a lot of the parents groups that I'm part of there is curiosity and interest in the benefits that might that that might pose from an academic standpoint as well as potentially a socialization standpoint. I think for some kids in the smaller schools some kids struggle socially
being in a two-section school for for nine years. Um, and all of those things would need to be weighed obviously and that is something that would need to be undertaken by the PSB administration and Superintendent Wong has expressed interest in taking a look at this uh
hopefully starting over the summer. >> I think definitely have we has to be looked at. I just remember my junior high school years. >> Yeah, that's the worst. >> And I will say the there are five different um five different scenarios
that are modeled in the document and none of them is going to one big middle school, right? So the goal is to really preserve the community school feel by having multiple middle schools. Um I lived in Cambridge for about 10 years um uh before I moved to Brookline. Moved
back to Brookline. Um and they actually have a similar model where they have multiple middle schools. They're actually integrated with the elementary schools and it is a you know is a different model than the one big you know all the schools feeding into one big middle school and then one big high school from a transition standpoint as
well as building utilization standpoint. Right. Thank you. Economic development. Um this is a rather large uh section um uh in in the report. There's a lot there. There's a lot of really good material there. Um
this is a very brief summary of things that um are are talked about and clearly economic development and diversifying the uh the revenue base is uh a topic that gets a lot of discussion in town.
Um particularly trying to expand the commercial um tax base. Um, and so again, this this particular section talks a lot about that, but it really makes the point that economic
development is more than just construction. Okay, there's um building buildings are one thing and it's great to get tax revenue, but making sure your local businesses are thriving, making sure that the infrastructure supports um those businesses, uh making sure that
the population is um uh continuing to uh to grow in a way that can support uh economic growth. It's all part of an ecosystem. So what did we um focus on in addition
to those traditional areas? You know, leadership and staffing. Okay, economic development um is by definition a longer term um uh effort. things don't happen
overnight, whether they be, you know, new buildings or they be um putting in policies to promote uh activity. You know, we we feel that the select board, and this leans into a recommendation from BAC, that the select
board should have an individual um whose primary um outside uh focus would be on economic development. Um and that is to uh you know make sure that the select board
has some expertise that's developed uh if it doesn't already exist uh on on staff on at the executive level. Um and that is uh something that uh I we felt very strongly about. We think that the
town administrator should take an evaluation about of how the unit is staffed and how it reports and where it reports. Um, we also think that it's important for uh the select board town meeting and
relevant boards and commissions to have a better understanding of what economic development means and what um is required to be successful in that area. Um uh again this was something that did
come up in VFAC. Uh, and I guess I should disclose that I was a member of BFAC and former member of EDAB. And so, uh, um, take that little bias. >> Excuse me. >> Little bias. >> I think for Yeah, thank you. I think
that would be a better way of, uh, character. >> Um, it's uh, so much of what we've talked about today. Um, it's complicated. These are complex issues just like the council partnership
formula is complex. Um just like any of these uh issues are complex and people in town and who are in town needed and have responsibilities don't necessarily fully appreciate or
understand the complexities and the nuances. So any education is only going to be beneficial for everybody whatever people decide because everyone brings their own biases and and perspectives to
every uh issue. um having a better grounding in facts and processes as opposed to um anecdotes on social media I think is we
think is important. Um the comprehensive plan uh this really you know obviously this is an important effort that's been going on for several years. I think the expectations that it's going to be finished this coming
year. Um the committee, you know, urged consensus and identification of geographic areas for commercial development, affordable housing and you know other other matters. And the recommendation is that the select board
once the comprehensive plan is done um really instruct the town administrator to uh have a systematic effort to resize the zoning bylaws to um address and uh
those areas that have been identified by in the comprehensive plan so that things can move forward in a more efficient way than they currently do. I mean, certainly people around this table know that virtually every major activity over
the last 20 years in Brooklyn has had has required an overlay district to be put in place in order for anything to get done. Um, that really should change to bring us Brookline into
a more um modern environment for lack of a better term. Um, there are efficiencies that the group feels that uh could be had to streamline activity in Brookline. One of
those to give the planning board certain authorities uh to grant um smaller scale special permits to ease processes along. Again, the section is is voluminous.
There's a lot in here. Um, and it's it's worth reading the uh certainly the um the executive summary and some of the uh some of the part itself. Okay,
last item that the um future subcommittee spent some time on the issue of opex. And uh I personally think this is a a a really important issue and I'm going to emphasize that
based upon comments that I've heard as recently as last night in a uh advisory committee subcommittee meeting that I was chairing. the community is
beginning to look ahead and think that in 2031 there's going to be a bucket of 90 billion and um
I'm a little surprised hearing that >> uh and it makes this this recommendation I think actually pretty pretty worthwhile. The first comment from the subcommittee is to not recommend is it's to is to
recommend that select word not lock itself into the policy that they put in place last September and to appoint a committee that would be in place over the next couple of years to actually evaluate the OPEN policy and
to be looking at 2031 and determining whether or not anything can be done or should be done to um alleviate the pressure that's going to be that's going to be coming coming from
uh forecasts coming from the community um in terms of taking some of that money or not. Cliff, can I ask a quick just a quick question? I keep doing this for you and I want to ground you. Just
remember that there's people that have no idea. You're talking about a chunk of money, >> okay, >> potentially coming available. Why would it become available? If you could provide just that grounding for us, that would be really helpful. >> So, one of the things back at the beginning
talking about um pressures on our budget was listed pensions and oped liabilities. Um, the town, I think we've mentioned before, is currently on a schedule to uh fully fund its pension obligations by 2030.
Um, by law, it has to do that by 2040. There is no law in place to require funding of opass other posting benefits mainly >> in 2030 if the town is successful in
fully funding um and there will be roughly 3540 million that in 2030 will have gone to meet that full funding deadline. um that will then
currently um be allocated towards opeds which would fully fund the opeds within five to six years in field because OPEDs are not required by the state to be fully funded
at any given point in time. There is the likelihood of um pressure to use some of that money. And the overarching restriction that the community or the select board certainly
will be dealing with and staff will be dealing with is whether um any of that money could be allocated without jeopardizing the township. And you know, a lot of folks think that,
oh, what's a AAA? Our borrowing cost if we went down to a double A, it's just not going to be that much of a of a difference. And that has been that's an issue that's been raised at town meeting within the last couple of years. And for those on the call, um, when a
municipality or corporation goes to raise money in the debt markets, everyone gets a rating from the rating agencies that tells investors what the credit risk is of the issuer. AAA is the highest credit rating and things go down
from there down to triple C minus. Going from a AAA to a double A may not sound like a big deal, but it is. And that's because it's really hard to get a AAA back. And if you lose it, it's two
things. Number one, it's really hard to get it back. And number two, it sends a message to the investing community, number one. and to um people who provide you with any sort of a credit. That can
be trade credit, it can be vendor credit, it could be anything um that something has happened to your fiscal management practices. And so it can it can be a problem. And so the little
change in borrowing cost isn't necessarily the big issue. It's the message that it sends to the world that you're not taking care of your business. And so everything that's in here with this group that is suggested to be looking at
um the policy, the last point is what's really crucial. Any adjustment to the funding policy that the town already has is subject to a belief
a firm belief that the town's AAA rating would not be impacted. So that is that's the overarching constraint and within that there are things that can be evaluated. >> Um
is it possible to use a portion these funds and if so how would you use them? You know it goes into AAA rating there's a lot of things that go into it. Brookline does well on some of those. It doesn't do well on others. You could use some of that OPED money maybe to boost
up some of those other criteria as opposed to putting it into um operations. There just a number of things that could be done. Um, and all we're suggesting is that this date is coming. Get ahead of the date because
again, pound meeting is going to be able to make a decision for everyone. It's better to be as educated as possible so that when that day comes, you can
discuss it with analysis that can be conducted by by that's all that's really and that's it. >> Great. >> That was quite an earful.
>> Yeah. been really comprehensive and I thought very helpful. >> Mr. Chair, may I just ask that and Cliff can agree or disagree if I'm correct on this. One of the things that belongs in this conversation is that the schedule
we're on now for paying down the unfunded pension liability is a is a schedule that's more or less required by the state. A and yet there would not be such a schedule. So, it's all the more important that we have our own outlook
as to what we're going to do to pay down OPEs once there's no longer a pension liability. Yeah, >> that that's absolutely correct. Yeah. Um and nothing in what this recommendation says would re would be ah forget about
ops. >> Yeah. >> You know, that's that's not going to be a conclusion, right? a conclusion in this sub but there are you know things are a continuum and maybe points on >> very good point
>> um so so first of all thank you thank you thank you very much that was an excellent presentation and there's tons of really useful materials uh I have a process question so I mean I have a whole bunch of questions on a whole bunch of things I'm sure other select
board members have a whole bunch of questions on a whole bunch of things that are probably best answered by different people. So, how should the select board between now and next week bundle those questions, get answers, circulate those answers amongst other
select for board members? >> Good question. And we have 15 minutes to >> I think it's sort of it's an overarching question because I don't want to dive into it specific until we >> on that point if I may. Uh can can we
maybe right now agree that we will either do a working lunch or reduce our lunch break to 15 minutes because feel like we ought to take advantage of some time here to have a little bit of discussion of this. Um and not to mention the next item on the agenda which we're going to need, you know,
some time to discuss. >> Why don't we do a working lunch? >> Yeah, I'd be fine with a working lunch. I promise to be polite, you know. >> Quick question. So, uh I I appreciate the process question. Um and this would help inform the types of discussion we
have now and then next week. What what are we hoping to do next week um with respect to this subject and when when do we need to make a decision on a ballot question and potentially the amounts? >> So as I envisioned this, you have to
let's work backwards. You have to make a decision by 11:59 p.m. on March 31st. >> No, we scheduled for a meeting. >> Not at that time, but on that day. 23. >> Okay. >> Um so that's your that's your drop dead.
>> Um working back from there on that date, you should have the information you feel that you need in order to make a decision about what whether and what to put on the ballot in order to get there. this in this session. We would appreciate any feedback that you have about the contours of the proposals that
were discussed t you know >> and you know initial guidance about if we were to tier this how would you how would you want to structure our tiers? I have some preliminary information that I can share with you about tiering and what that does in practice and how that
works. So we can talk about that as we move it through this. Um but then you know we want to be ready to come back to you both the town and the schools with okay if you tell us to tear it using this rubric this is what this is what we would cut. >> So that's the majority of the work next
week is to really dig into this >> and then hopefully have the information we need next week to start to do the contours and then we can deliberate more. Right. So Bernard, if I may, I just I thought I thought we had to at least
have a preliminary sense of what we want to do today >> so that if we're we're talking about tearing, for example, we have a number that the school committee, >> right? That's could >> that's what I just said. You know, right, if by the end of this conversation today, it would be helpful to have that frame and you may have more
than one, right? For example, there may be something that you talk about we we want a hard cap, a hard dollar amount or you know what is you want a percentage haircut like what is what is 10% less of this look like and what would that mean in practice like those >> number so we're going to try to have at
least a ballpark number today >> rightful if we if we agree to hear >> or you know ideas for how you would do that because then you can then we can come back and tell you okay if the number is x the cuts will be y Um
>> okay so can I um just offer just a quick a quick thought before I before I so first a big there's a thousand questions you have a thousand questions I bro but those thousand questions may not get us to the the outcome that we want to have today or the objective um I just a
couple of thoughts on a bigger picture um you know this this is going to be a big ask for the for the voters and it needs to be simple like they really need to understand it I the first thing I would say while I appreciate the front-loading uh conversation and
option. I think it's very complicated. Um I think it potentially may confuse the voters. Um I think if there's uh if there's some objection uh if there I know there's going to be a yes campaign, which I will likely support. I know there may be a no
campaign which may pop up. Um confusion creates uh lowers voter uh ability to vote for something. Um, so I I'm I'm concerned about the complexity of a front-loading option versus a non-frontloading option. So that that
that's the the first thing. Um, I do think that it's really important that we have some memoranduming of agreement. Not having all these things that Cliff laid out as the nine things that we need to have answered, but at least an agreement that we're going to address
them so that the voters can see that we're going to work towards the structural issues. I think that's a really important point uh that we that we have to address. It's as important as the voters believing that we're dealing with economic development. I think that's going to play into this for the next conversation. Um and uh the the
last thing is I would say I do think we need a tiered approach. I don't think we throw one number um at the voters. So that's kind of my people think that's tiered versus non-tiered. >> Well, I need to learn a lot more about the tiered. That's you know the first
thing I think and uh what is um concerning to me is uh uh to what extent does a tiered situation take us down the road towards something that does not have majority
support of the voters actually being the top vote getter in a tiered approach. So you know you might have you know a big amount of money and actually only uh let's say 40% of people supported that
big amount of money and then you have a slightly lesser and then you have a slightly lesser and so uh 30% of those who didn't support the you know the first number support the slightly lesser and then um somebody do the math for me
20% whatever support the slightly slightly lesser Um, and so you actually have a majority of people who supported something less than the big amount, but the big amount had the most votes of of any of the amounts of plurality.
>> Yeah. Plurality. And that to me shouldn't be the formula for us to be, you know, um, going with the big amount. >> Can I ask a question about this? So is is a question the voters are being
asked to vote on. override, no override, and if override, one tier or the second tier. >> So when you structure a tiered question, you structure it this way. So you would So well, let me the way that most communities are now structuring tiered
questions is there's one question and it says you can vote for any or all of the or none of these sub questions and the highest dollar amount that gets a majority vote will control. So it will, you know, for example, in um Melrose,
they said question 1A is, do you want 13.8 mill 13.5 million in your Texas to go up by $13.5 million. Question 1B was a lower amount and question 1 C was lower still. And the question said, of these, the highest one, the highest vote
getter will control. And so in Melrose, question 1A won. It was the highest dollar amount. It was the highest vote getter. In Stonem, they had a two-tiered override. They had one at like 14 million and one at around 9 million. Again, same structure per question. Whatever whatever the highest dollar
amount that gets majority support is is the one that passes and in only one of the questions passed. It was the lower one. Uh and so as a result of that, taxes only went up by that. >> I think John's pro John's question really um is is answered by what you
just said in that there won't be a plurality if we have two tiers. If we one of the two tiers is going to get a majority because the no votes are separate. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But no, but I'm concerned that we we might be talking about three tiers,
you know, we might be talking about, you know, a full amount and then two tiers of lesser amounts. >> So if if so again, think of it think of it this way. The highest dollar amount controls all three questions might pass, right? Uh if all three questions pass and one of them passes with 50% support
and a lower one passes with 78% support doesn't matter. The one with 50% support that's the highest dollar amount controls. So if you know but if the a lower if that highest dollar amount only gets 49% support and one below it gets
51% support that controls. But see, that feels like stacking the deck to me because essentially it's saying that there could be a majority of people who didn't support the the you know the highest highest amount you know and yet uh you know their voice didn't count as
much as the minority who supported the highest highest amount. Um and you know I think we have to be very careful in how we put it on the ballot so that we don't end up with that kind of a situation. >> Michael >> okay a couple of things. First of all, um I agree with Paul in this in the
option two versus option one question. Um I think that that trying to explain uh the front loing is too complicated. Um I am I am really uncomfortable
um with deciding what the tuning is. um particular particularly for the schools which is the majority of the money before the school committee can weigh in and say this is how we would tier um so that so that so that like we have that
information numbers on it you made a second point at the time I said I agree with it but I should remember >> was it memorandum of >> oh yeah the memor the memorandum far far on same age. >> So, so I have a different view on this.
I think that offering the voters several options is the best approach to take. I'm confident that our voters are smart enough to be able to figure out the differences and that there can be an education effort. There's a delta of about $5 million between option one and
option two. That's meaningful. 5 million is zero. and to be able to offer a choice of the front-loaded. Yes, that's that's a big hit near one that needs to be explained to voters, but at least that way there's a choice. Do we want the big hit in year one, but over a
three-year period it's going to be less, or do we want to have a bid each year? I think that's a meaningful part of the conversation. >> Yeah. So, you're you're saying you're you're okay with this idea of the formula that uh should be offered as an as an option, right? the the the the
front-loaded formula. >> Yes. >> You're not in agreement with Paul, right? >> Because I think I'm in agreement with Paul. >> Conceptually, conceptually, I actually think that uh if you look at this from a long-term perspective, if you are paying
less money, that's going to be attractive to many people, even if it's frontloaded. >> Yeah. Without the chair. Go ahead. >> So, just in response to Michael's point about the schools, um the and I I you know, I know Susan is online. I'm sure she can supplement this. Um, but where
the where the schools are now is they have said we have cut everything we can possibly cut at this juncture. We're not comfortable cutting more. If you tell us to cut more, if you tell us that this is not, you know, then we will do that exercise. But at this juncture, the the
the total gap over the next three years for the schools is 17.94 million. Um, that's where they're at. Um, and so I think the question they they've kind of put the question to you, which is, is that politically viable to ask for that
amount of money for the schools alone? And if not, you know, where does it where do you think it needs to be in order for there to be the political will to pass it? Um, and then they can come back to you and say, well, the consequences of giving us less than 100%
of where we are now, which to be clear is much lower than where they where they started. Uh, and you know, you really have to commend the superintendent and Susan and their team for, you know, they have a lot less people than we do and they've done a lot of work trying to get to this point. Um, and it's still a big
number. Uh, and so, you know, they they are, you know, Susan said at the last expenditures revenue study committee meeting, right? like if the select board tells us it's got to go down by x number of dollars, we we can give you what the consequences are, but at this point,
we're not in a position where we're they're they're not going to bid against themselves. Um, >> and we're saying the lower tier, >> right? >> On this particular point, I agree with Michael. My worry is that if we just go
with a number and we don't know what the consequences will be, that's going to lead to voters being very upset. So, in the past, for example, we've had an override that passes and then we eliminate a program that the override was supposedly for. And that creates a
lot of distrust in the community when you pass an override and then you're eliminating programs anyway without having explained it all in advance that this may happen. So, I worry a little bit about not being transparent with the public there. >> Be sure to understand that. Well, in
case anybody's, you know, having a hard time getting their head around what I'm the distinction I'm trying to draw, I I'll put it in another way. Uh I I think the ideal formula for an override is two questions. Okay? I think that the higher amount should be the highest, you know,
amount that people feel is needed. Um and the next amount should be something significantly lower. Not a few percentage points lower, but significantly lower. And there there should be a yes or a no. Yes or a no. Highest amount. Yes or no. Let's say
highest amount cut by half or something like that. Um and then you know clearly what voters are saying. You know that they either want the the highest amount, yes or no. They either want the significantly lower amount, yes or no. And if they say no to both, then they
don't want either, you know. But I don't want there to be confusion as to what the majority of voters are saying when they say, you know, yes or no to this, yes or no to this. If you throw in a third one, you don't really know what they're saying. All you know is that the combination.
>> So you're saying two tiers. >> I'm saying I Well, I don't even like calling them tears, you know. Two options, you know, option one and option two. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, >> so two two uh Thanks, Bernard. Uh two two quick points. I I'm going to lean
towards what John is saying um about about the tiers, although I I would even simplify it further. I would do it similar to um you know, vote for one of the following. You get one vote, a high number, a lower number, or none. And you
take whatever gets the most votes similar to the way we move on. >> See, you've created the same problem. >> So, so that's the first thing. But but that but that's the first thing. The second thing I want I just want to address is this idea about going back and forth with the schools. We don't have a lot of time to ask the school the
schools to give us a prioritized list of cuts. We should decide a number that we think is viable and ask for our next meeting next week that they come back and say okay at that lower number this is what you would end up losing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so
I I have a I have a a big there's a big challenge with having two separate votes as you describe. Um because it is possible that there are some voters, not necessarily because it's what they what they want to do, but if they want
the higher number and they and they don't want the lower number, they might vote yes on the higher number, no on the lower number because they want the higher number, but they would rather have the lower number than nothing. So
what you what you could end up doing in that case is you could end up splitting the vote between the two different numbers and a plurality but not a majority of no votes ends up winning. >> I don't agree with that interpretation.
>> Well I'm I'm saying it's a risk. >> It's a risk but think about what you just said. >> Yes. I I have made it. That's what we're talking about. Jazz, can can next week we have sort of a list of options in terms of
>> how we structure. >> I will say that I am not aware of any I'm not aware of any communities that have structured it that way, right? The the way that you're talking about two separate are you vote for only one. Um >> almost all of them have structured it as
as cascading options. um you know and then it's the one that has it's the highest the highest dollar amount controls um to avoid that problem. >> The highest the highest vote getting majority >> highest dollar amount >> the highest vote gets the most votes. >> Yes. Well, no. So imagine that. Imagine
there are three tiers. 15 million 10 million 5 million. >> 5 million passes with 56% support. >> Yep. >> 10 million passes with 51 51% support. >> And 15 million doesn't pass. It's got 48% support.
10 million controls. Even though fewer people voted for it, it has a majority of voters and so therefore it controls. >> I I thought still a little confusing for me about how >> what if we just do two tiers. I mean,
>> you could do two tier. >> Yeah. I mean, is that the simple >> I mean, you really want to give give >> the option of just destroying the entire >> system. Yeah. Well, >> yeah. Well, may I point out? Yeah.
Michael Michael uh makes a point, but I think that point can be >> um you know, if if if the the explanation to the voters is quite simply, you know, if you favor the highest amount, you should vote yes on
the highest amount, right? Um if you uh think if in the event that the highest amount fails, you would favor the second amount, then you should also vote, you know, for the second amount. Um and and and then it becomes a clear test of, you
know, is there enough people for the second amount when you combine those who were the first amount with those who were no on the first amount but would be okay with the second amount. That's all >> assuming you could do the combined.
>> So, it sounds like we're not going to have we're not we're not going to notice all this today. >> Town council's office and I will go back and and dig out what's possible here. Um, you know, it's you have to be right. This the state is very has strict restrictions on what you can and can't
put on a ballot question. Do do we have enough information to make a rec a a stab today at how many amounts and what those amounts are? >> We do very very preliminary because you know we don't want to lock ourselves into something before we have an
opportunity to really >> try to figure out I'm trying to get my brain ready to make a decision. So >> can I talk a little bit about tears before we do that and just like the concept? So I think to the point that David raised is an important one which is that right the pros and cons of a
phased approach versus an all-in- once approach the the biggest pro there is the number goes down right the the one of the mandates that we were asked to open staff that we were asked to do at part of ENRSC was come back to us with a number that has a one in front of it
right you know the the the the psych the initial psychological barrier was 15 million then you know when the schools came back with that large number, it became difficult to to square. And so the psychological barrier became 20 million. How do we get below a $20 million override ask? And the structure
of doing that is that upfront structure. And the way that that the other thing that that does that I that led me to make that my primary recommendation from an operational standpoint is it cushions us in the outear. It cushions the town and which is something that Cliff
raised, right? If you do the traditional brickline override style approach, let me show you the let me let me show you this slide. Maybe this will kind of uh make sense. Um,
so if we were to instruct, so this this assumes that this that the town uh that the town does this does the all at once approach still um this 25 uh this 23.25 million override number school. So um
town all wants schools phased. So you can see here the schools are pay as they go. Every year the override levy goes up by a certain amount. Uh and every year the schools spend all of that money covering their services. That leaves them with zero dollars to balance out.
If I were to extend this column out to FY30, that that balance there, the amount of money that they would need to cover their deficit would be another 6 to7 million. Um so the schools would start
in FY30 in the hole. um and in the hole pretty significantly. Um and we would again be at this point where the schools would have to say either we're going to make cuts in services or we're going to go back to the voters. Um and I don't
know what that would look like structurally. On our end, you know, we would be saving some of that money. We would have some of that. I think we would be okay in FY30, just back of the envelope looking at that. But there's a lot that can change between now and then. at the very least we would have
some money available that we had started you we would start to be drawing down from the stabilization fund um but we would still be able to cushion ourselves in FY30. Um whereas if you look at this version what the schools have available to them
is this is $6 million. Um and it's suffici you know you know they're starting to draw down like the town is on their uh on their um reserves in year one. But what this means in practice is the even though that gap is
ostensibly going to be larger. They're going to have more money to cover. It's going to be less than a $6 million hole for the schools to cover in in FY30. Um so that phantom fourth year that's lingering out there is another big concern of mine um in terms of thinking
about how do we structure this in such a way that we are not then confronted with a cliff because what we're seeing from the schools is growth year-over-year that exceeds two and a half plus >> or getting into a pattern that's perceived as every 3 years we levy
>> right so and and again that's that that may not you know that may not be an inherently bad thing in and of itself if that's what >> you know from a from a political perspective that's more tolerable if you were able to say to the voters >> we we can do this but you should expect that we will be coming back
>> um I I ju I just want to want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly you're you're saying that in this scenario there is six million uh the schools have six million more to play with >> but but the levy yes itself is also
higher by $4 million in in the non-frontloaded system in year four. So yes, where where does that money get presumably that money can get allocated as well? >> So that money is already allocated because it's pay as you go,
>> right? Um this is >> what do you have you have a better way of explaining this than I do? >> No. So so this uh I'm sorry I didn't. >> Yeah. No, >> um first it just shows how complicated this is. >> Yes. Let's go. >> But but number two, it's it gets back to
the conversation we had earlier um about uh the difference between what you're calling an override and the tax levy because in the front-loaded the tax levy is going up.
And so it's going to be higher in year two than it first of all it's higher in year one than it would be if you didn't have it all up front. It's higher in year two than it will be. So that extra money in year two is also going into the
reserve fund. Yeah. And so you know I mean the the benefit of doing and at the end sure your last year you're sort of like at the same but >> because you've been stepping up you do not have that extra close deal and there
is a benefit you know for having some money in reserve but people are paying for that. Yeah. Along the way. >> Does that mean that there's >> Are you actually at the same number? >> You're not exactly at the same number, but you're close. But yes, it's the 18.3
versus uh 16.9 or the two% from a percentage standoint. >> So, just does that mean you'd need you would need three numbers on the ballot because you'd have you'd have the let's just say scenario you have 23 million or whatever the number is >> the which would be the pay as you go.
>> The the front-loaded which would be 18. Yeah. >> Right. And then potentially is there another number? There could be some lower members. >> That's not a that's not tiers though. >> I mean well it's it's it's it is kind of kind of there's options on tier one. Option one tier one has option has two
options. Pay as you go or frontload. Right. >> And then there could be a lower number which is >> right >> pay as you go or frontload. Right. >> That's right. I mean so here here I've got two different front-loaded options for what it would look like. I'm sorry John's got his hand up. Um >> oh I'm sorry. Well, I I I I just um
recommend to everyone that they read the question that was on the ballot in 2023, and I'm going to read it. It doesn't take very long. Shall the town of Brooklyn be allowed to assess an additional 11,983,67 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the
cost of the Brooklyn Public Schools? And then there there's a number for the schools and funding the cost of an additional expenditures in municipal departments. and there's a number for that for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2023. Um, then it becomes a question at the uh
subsequent town meeting if the override passes the the voters have approved an override of 11,93,000 bump. Here are the options of how we could raise that. Okay. And then town meeting weighs in uh you know this this
magic wet formula that has I'm sorry disrespected. It sounds it sounds like gimmicky, but but you know, I get that it's not really gimmicky, but it sounds kind of gimmicky. Um, you know, and and if town meeting can be persuaded, let's borrow
it all in year one, then we borrow it all in year one and maybe save save ourselves some overall cost in the long run. It's not >> borrow take it. That's what you mean. You don't mean you don't mean borrow it. You mean take it. >> Take Well, well, we Well, yeah. Okay. >> Levy it.
>> Yeah. Levy it. Excuse me. But yeah, that Yeah, >> John, in the traditional way that the board has structured these overrides, the board has the control because you're setting the tax rate and you are determining how much excess capacity to leave on the table. >> Okay. Well, that's the distinction. >> Maybe that makes my my my point in a
different way that you know then it's up to the select board to decide, right? Uh how much we levy uh in a year one and and we can we can have that whole discussion about whether we levy all year. >> It's a better discussion here than here. But if you if we create a tax
calculator, which would be a good idea, so people can go evaluate it. You need to know how you're going to take the money, John. >> Yes. So that you can, right? Otherwise, you know, you're >> Yeah. I think we I think we'd have to decide this. >> Just sort of the other challenge to John's proposal here is then you don't
have a specific amount that you are asking for because that differs depending on how it would be financed. And I think having a specific amount is going to be critically important to the voters. They want to know if they're approving or not. There are differences. >> I'm sorry. I do want to correct an
earlier statement that the approximately 5 million delta would be in the number you see when you're voting, but it's not actually 5 million in savings. It's marginal savings. >> Well, what are you going to say to the voters
as you're as you're selling this? If if if you because in the past it's been, you know, the money's going to be taken over three years, right? So, are you going to be telling people that or not? Because that's really what you get back around to, >> right? And I think and what I was going to say was that, you know, a lot of what
we talked about within the committee was around transparency to the voters, making sure we give voters a choice. And without that transparency, we don't >> I don't think the committee would feel comfortable that we were giving voters a true choice. >> I think it's not to say you couldn't educate on on option two. We think that
that is an educative. I think >> I I would premise that the vast majority of voters have no idea when you're taking the money. They're when they when they do an override, they just, you know, whether we're ramping it or not. That would be the first thing. I think it shows up when we provide a tax
calculator. They can see what happens right there uh with their numbers. But um I it it is a complicated issue uh to educate and you know the you the other option of instead of having two options to say for both numbers we're going to
stay below 20 and we're going to frontload both ass the 18 million is frontloaded and then something lower is front-loaded and we get higher benefit from both scenarios and we move towards that model in the future.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean I guess my my fear um and you know I'll say we have to have some rule of right but my fear is that in the in the frontloaded model there are going to be
two things that people might look at one is what the number is presumably less than 20 million but the other is the result of that calculator and if we use the front-loaded option and somebody uses that calculator and says my my
taxes going up what this year. >> Yeah. >> Then then the fact that's 20 that 20 million 24 million I think is going to be too abstract >> to to be meaningful and they're going to base their their decision on the shock that
they just experienced. Well, I'm just It sounds like you're coming around to the same place that Paul and I are in, which is we don't want to turn the question into a it could it could be less depending on how
we how we frontload the money. >> I mean, well, >> I don't know if he's coming. Don't say what I'm doing. >> I'm not sure. I >> say save that answer for later. In response to what David said, um I mean
this get I think this gets at the the whole point here. Um are we are we actually going to have two different versions of what because the question has to be how much to increase the levy? Okay. >> And so are we going to have two different versions of the answer to taxpayers as to what that will mean to
you in terms of how much you're hit, you know, in your taxes? >> Here here's my answer to your question. Uh following something Paul often says to keep it simple. We have we have two different variables here. One is front
loading versus not and the other is full funding of the requests or something less. And I'm saying that mixing those two up as you're describing is too complicated and we should just focus on one on no more than one of them. Right.
And I think that the front loading one is the one that we should jettison. we should focus on the other question >> and you're serving the same place as me in that >> I so I agree with keeping it simple um and I do think this is really complicated
>> um and I I don't know I I I I lean towards keeping it simple and saying we need 23 million or we need 18 million or we need 18 million and we need 14 million. We just make it simple like that. um and and tell them what what they're gonna
what we're going to fund or lose if you don't get that. What are the consequences? >> Yeah. And so just to give you a sense in the to Michael's point about the real dollar value, you can see up on the screen now, this is this is if you if you um
this is if if you um structured as we traditionally do, pay as you go. Um you can see the median single family home, median condo, and median commercial. This is by how much this is how much your taxes would go up. So you could see the your taxes would go up by an additional if you're in a single
family homeowner in FY27 under the pay as you go mile an additional $619. Now remember taxes are already going up quite a bit this year because of the debt exclusions and so forth. So, the total tax increase with an override on
top of that for a median single family home, which remember that's a $2.1 million valued home, is $1,681. Conian condo would be $983. The median commercial would be 27.85.
Um, so over the course of the three-year override, the taxes would go up an estimated $3,924. These, again, these are the medians. Um, now for if you took it up front.
>> Yeah. >> Bigger. I'll make it as big as I can. >> And and Melissa, this is the chart that I really wanted numbers underneath because the topline numbers influences. Um so if you take it all up front, if
you if you structured it that way and reduce the total amount, um comparatively your taxes would go up by a lot more in the first year. You know, be the median single family home would see an increase of $2,231. That's versus $1,681.
So it's it's a significant increase. It's you know um >> so for so for the sake of trying to give >> and I what you said the two decisions is really how you look at this there's a matrix right
>> um there's there's a 23 number $23 million number that that gets you fully funded y >> and then there's a number that you're suggesting that we want to have a one in front of it to make it more palable to the voters right can we have a scenario that says says pay as you go 23 million
and $18 million and then frontload. What would be what would be the the if we frontloaded 23 it would actually be 18, >> right? >> What would be if we frontloaded 18, what would it be? >> If you frontloaded 18 so Oh, so you mean if if you if you took a cut off of 18
from the frontloading perspective, right? So what would be the lower number? >> Yeah. So yeah, so if pay if you had a 18 million pay as you go >> and instead we frontloaded it, would it be 14? Ah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So, you basically said take take 18.6 as your starting point and but
assume pay as you go and then think about what that would look like >> as as a front lo >> as a front because then what we could do is we could because we're going to spin on this for a long time. We could say to the school committee, we know what your $23 million ask is. Give us what happens
at 18 and then we can have the discussion about frontloading or not frontloading. Great. But is it 18 or is it like 15 or 14? A little bit. It will it will be lower if you frontload it. >> If you frontload it. So that's what I'm saying is what's the full Do you see where I'm going with this?
>> I do. But I also So let me just flag for you and then Dick Bank has got to say let me let me flag for you up front what happens in that scenario when you frontload. Um, the reason why the front loing works well at the level that it's at is because it gives you that cushion
and let you and then that's how you get that number to be lower is that you're using onetime funds to cover expenses in the out years once you start lowering that number. And here I'll blow this up. This is a this is a potential front-loaded $15 million override >> and it's split the so the schools in
town are reduced by roughly the same amount. It's roughly an 86 it's roughly 86% of the 18.6 million. this gets you to 15 million. >> Um, >> you know, that's that psychological barrier, whatever. Um, so that leaves the town with 4.6 million and the
schools with 10.35 million. Again, everyone's everyone is reduced at the same rate. >> Yeah. >> You see what happens to the schools at the end of this. >> They have a deficit of one and a half. >> They're in the red. Um, so this override doesn't even get them through those three years. They would be they would be
looking at a deficit and then again, think back to >> they have to cut. they would have to make cuts and then they would be in a really rough position in 30 um in FY30. >> J if you reduced it are the expenses reduced up thought
>> this um no this assumes that the this assumes that the schools and the town would try and do what they're doing now. Um, so yes, theoretically the schools could try and make reductions in the and that's why we need the feedback from the schools like if this was the model.
>> So it does really false question because because if you're if you're if you're suggesting uh a a reduction to 18 >> y >> then you'd be assuming that they're going to be reducing costs. >> Yeah, they have to cut costs. We're not >> That's not part of this.
>> Not yet. So yeah, we can we can we can come back on that. We'll we'll figure out we'll figure that out. So Dick has raised his hand and Val has raised her hand. Dick. >> Thank you. >> Um could you
>> could you go to the slide please where um you had the 2231 figure. >> Yeah. >> Um I just wanted to make clear that those are looking at tax increases from
year to year. Um, so in fiscal year 27, there'd be a 2231 increase as opposed to fiscal year 26. Another 690 above and a beyond that in fiscal year 27, if you're comparing it
to this year, you would have a 28 or $2,900 increase relative to where we are this year. um those it's not just that it's going up by the 690 but that 2231
is embedded uh or would be embedded in the um fiscal year 28 increase >> right >> so when you you know that final figure at the end >> in a sense is understated by 2231
plus um in each year going forward >> well this yeah gohead Um, and you know that that is the the real impact that people will see. That being said, I do want to point out that a large part of
this is >> is an increase that's already embedded um in the tax burden that people are going to be paying through um their their even if there is no override >> because so I'm sorry. I'm sorry to
finish. I thought you were apolog uh amounts of um uh >> exp and and that >> we've yeah >> that's actually what these numbers are right you can see if you frontload the override then the amount that goes up due to the override in future years is
0% but your taxes are still going up because you have two and a half and debt exclusions and new growth >> and the debt exclusions Yeah, but my point is >> is the full number um D that will be the full impact of the median single family
home for the um yeah so that's what they will pay at incrementally over the course of that three years. So if they're paying 10,000 today at the end which you know it's not the base but um it'll be 13,600
in 2029. Um, David, quick, but then >> just a quick question I have. So, looking at this holistically, including the debt exclusion increases that already built in, it looks like over three years, the increase in taxes for
the uh medium value home would be uh about $6,000. So, would it be fair to get an understanding of what that average bill would be per month? Divide that by 36, you get about $167.
>> I think your first number is wrong. >> I think that's fast enough. >> Yeah. Again, right. So, I I could I could restructure this to Dick's point and show you what the cumulative increase looks like, but this is the cumulative increase over three years. >> Okay. Let's uh hear from Valerie.
Val, >> she muted Valer. Sorry, Val. One second. Oh, you're promoted. You should be able to unmute. >> So, if we're waiting for valid, I wanted to chime in on one more thing that I think is relevant. >> Here, go ahead. >> Which is that option one actually is
still front-loaded from the town point of view, >> right? >> Okay. So, um and that's why if you look at the charts that I included in my in my slide presentation, um and you know, maybe we can pull those up. There is a line that actually shows the stabilization fund on the town side.
It's a green line that shows you pay into it and then you run it down. Yeah. >> So, going back to the the question around education. Um there might need to be some education regardless even if you choose option one that that I think based on the conversation that I heard I thought was important to point out
because it does throw a wrench in that particular conversation. And also the reason we did not include the full more um traditional ramp was that that number was 26 just shy of $26 million. I have it up now. It's 28 25.89.
The town's number goes up to 7.95 if you do pay as you go on the town side. >> Um >> Valerie, >> thank you. Um I apologize. I had to drop off in the middle for a bit. So if this was raised, apologies, but I I think this goes to what um Cliff was maybe
alluding to. I don't think that we save a lot above the line um at least on the school side with a lower number uh because we would see such an increase in unemployment uh costs and we bear those 100% as a
town and I know that Ann's here and and others are here who can correct me but I I believe that Melissa's calculation is that in fact um we would end up paying more in unemployment than for benefits. So I just wanted to make sure that that was understood. And on the school side,
we've also cut our non-s salary expense to a percent that no other school district uh in our peer community has. It's so low at this point. Um so there's no more to cut there. So it really is just people. >> Okay. And David,
>> I'm sorry if I can get back to my question for a moment. I think that a lot of voters will look at this as what will be their increase on average per month because it usually gets folded into mortgage payments. And so to have some idea of what is that figure for the
medium home? What would be the monthly increase over three years? We can do that. Um it would it wouldn't be level, right? But you say and I think in the upfront version it might be disingenuous because it would look low but in fact the first
year it would really ramp up quite heavily. So but we can do that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh John um so having raised uh the example of the question that was on the ballot in
2023 there's there's some I do recommend everybody sort of go back and look at that the way that was done. Um the other interesting thing about what happened in 2023 was there were actually two options. That's right. Um you know for for overrides uh amounts and the the first one was
what I recited. The second one was uh the first one plus an additional amount uh which had had to do with I think the option of a pay as you throw or uh maybe chaz composting. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um and uh the the
first one passed and the second one didn't. Um and it was made clear that um you know in the event that the first one that one passes the other one doesn't the higher amount will prevail. I think we have to we have to have some way of structuring this that people
clearly understand that uh they can you know they can choose a high amount or they can choose something other than a high amount. Um, but we don't want to put people in the position of those are your only choices. Um, and we we don't
want to put them in the position of if it turns out that a majority of you uh did not want the highest amount. Um, unfortunately your vote was divided when it came to
the lower amounts and so the higher amount actually had the most votes. uh even though the majority of you wanted something lower than the highest amount that that feels a little bit like I'll throw the word bundling in um you know
which people who remember the campaign for the Briscoll school which was bundled with a school project of about $100 million that it turns out a majority of the people in town didn't want but the only way they could express that was to vote against that and vote
against Driscoll which they wanted. So we we can't be putting people in the position of uh you know facing a question where they lose even if they're in the majority who did not choose the highest amount and I don't I don't have
the perfect answer as how we do that but I I think we have to do it. >> Okay. go uh in terms of preparing for next week's meeting which where we would should have some uh general ideas of what where we want to go and you know
finalize them in the third meeting what can you >> I I have a concrete ask from Paul which is he wants to know if we were to structure 18.6 six as pay as you go. What would that look? How how what cuts will we have to make? How would that how would that look? So, we would look at
the schools and town number on that and try and figure that out. I could get that number to the school committee and school department and they would look at what that would mean as a practical matter in terms of cuts as would we. Um we can um >> the ballot question.
>> Right. Yeah. And it was a suggestion. I mean, I'm like, let's see what the group thinks. But that's >> and but I think, you know, you're right. You got to start a number. You got to start with a number. >> You got to start somewhere. And I think that's that's as good a place as any to start. Um, you know, I think, you know, the the school committee will come back
and, you know, I I think to Val's point, cuts there are going to be pretty dire, but let's we could we can see what that looks like. Um, >> yeah. >> So, are we supposed to give them a number to cut to today? we would like or or some kind of rubric, right? For
example, John had in the past floated this idea of what is it what does this look like if it only goes up by a certain percentage? What does it look like if it only goes up by a certain dollar amount? Um, and you know, so you have again the full amount and then you have something less. The question is
what rubric do you use to determines what that something less is? Paul has suggested one. Another might be right, what's a flat 10%. Um, you know, I have that number here. What's a flat 10% look like? Um, the answer is if you took it up front, this we could we could do it.
It would just leave us in the hole badly in the hole in FY30. If again, if we frontloaded 16.3, which is 10% uh a 10% haircut. Um, we could do something similar for the pay as you go, you know, we could take a 10% off of that. Um,
there the cuts would be more significant obviously. Um, but um, and it would get it wouldn't get you below 20 million. um get you close. Um >> and then I'd also appreciate that per month increase approach because I think that makes it more meaningful to voters
and if they see that the difference is relatively small between the monthly pay the monthly increases that might make them more amountable to a higher amount or maybe not but at least they would know and be more informed because discussing the question in this manner
it's still very abstract. Right. So, >> can we throw this out? Can we agree that the uh second tier would be 10% of whatever the f top tier is? I just want to get some number that they can work with. >> We can we can pull that.
>> Okay. But is that agreeable to the people? >> So 10% less than the 23 million if we don't do front loading or if we do. >> So what's it? So what's 10? So 10% uh
90% of the $23 million number. Hold on. He's a handful too. >> Oh yeah. A little more. >> It's 20.9 million. >> So it's not one. >> Well, what would be a percentage to make
it 1900? >> There you go. I mean psychologically it has an impact. >> That's it. >> There you go. 86% >> 86% >> 19.998 >> Okay. We do we agree that that is a number that we start with >> and and we're asking both the town and
the schools to split that. >> We'll we'll we'll split it proportionally. >> So that's the high number. Bernard is you're talking about >> that's the low second tier. This high number is 24 or 23. >> Yeah. So maybe two numbers 23 and 19.
>> Yeah. So, so we'll do the same. I have my hand up. >> The other thing that I would ask for, Chaz, you know, you you talked about the psychological barrier of a number with a one in front of it, number two. I mean, I'm not convinced that that is the num
that is the number that is psychologically impactful. Um, so it would be it would be helpful for this group to have some backup on why I mean that might be that might be uh psychological
within the building or outside the building or with some groups and others and I would just like to know the basis of that. >> We get a psychologist to come in and advise >> psychologist actually it's up. Are you a
psychologist? not a psychologist. >> It's more a question of not psychology. >> So to that point, Michael, I don't know how we would be able to have a definitive response to your questionnaire and and why psychologically it would be better to
have a one in front. At least to me, intuitively, given that there has never been a ballot question in excess of 14.8 8 million in Arlington and that was recent. It's a tall order, I think, to be saying, well, we want 20some. And so
that's why I think keeping it in the teens, that would be in keeping with what other communities have done. There are there is precedent for in the teens. There isn't for 20 plus. >> No, we are. It's just a guess, but yeah. >> But we are a population of 63,000 people and Arlington is not and Stone is not
and Melrose is not. So that so so that's why I think individuals experiences may not respond to what that number is because there's no denominator. >> Yeah, John. Well, and that that discussion is important and I think that uh if I remember correctly, the uh
report goes into some pretty good analysis of um you know what what what are the comparatives and so it shouldn't just be the whole you know the number the raw number it should also be uh determined on the basis of the you know
per population etc per per person uh the number we're talking about whether it's the raw number um or or not the raw number, you know, per capita number, it's still way high. I mean, it it's it still puts us in kind of an unusual category. Uh, but the other, excuse me,
point I want to make is I may have been understood. I heard you quote mean, you know, with good intentions, but but maybe not accurately. Well, I did raise a 10% number, but if I'm remembering, you know, the context correctly, it was we should be looking at this from the
perspective of the impact on excuse me, property taxpayers and the three-year impact. And I may have said something like maybe the three-year impact should be our guidepost and maybe it should be something on the order of 10% increase,
which would be about three and a half% a year over three years. Um, and I I I think our lowest low number has got to be predicated on, you know, factoring in that whole question of taxpayer capacity
to pay these increases. We're we're in a pretty high category already. and whatever else we do. I hope that when we explain to people what we're asking them for, we make sure to say as you have
said, your taxes are already going to go up x% next year and they're already going to go up x% cumulatively over three years. And what you we are asking you for is that they go up x percent
plus this you know in one year and x percent plus this over three years. Um and then they can really figure out you know where they stand and you know what and we can figure out what is the willingness of people when it comes to
watching their taxes go up every year year after year. Maybe they're okay with it going up three and a half% every year. And maybe that's the problem with 2 and 1/2 is that we need the money. You know, it is the equivalent of three and a half and people are actually willing
to give us three and a half. But they need to have some number offered which is when we finish paying off this and when we finish paying off the unfunded you know uh pension gap and then when we begin paying off the unfun unfunded OPED
gap your taxes generally speaking year after year will go up around three and a half% a year as long as we are really careful with our negotiated contracts and as long as we don't get slammed with some sort of huge fixed
cost increase out of nowhere. That's the kind of reassurance, you know, that I think people want to hear and would make them willing, not just this year, but in future years to sustain like a three and a half% per year increase over time, year after year, you know, ask after
ask. >> So, Bernard, I just I thanks, Bernard. Um, I just there's one piece that you're missing from the puzzle, which is the consequence >> of not funding a certain level, right? So, uh police, losing police, six police
positions, uh you know, closing or losing a fire uh truck, a company, or maybe a station. Um on the school side, I consider a decimation of our public education in Brooklyn. So, you're you're purely taking it from a budgetary
standpoint, which I appreciate. I think we need to provide the information so people understand what their taxes are going to go up, but they need to clearly understand what the consequences are of not funding it. >> Well, I would say also the consequences of not being very very tight when we
negotiate contracts so that we don't push ourselves into this into these kinds of situations. >> So, I I agree with Paul's proposal with respect to having a firm understanding of the consequences of each level. Uh to Michael's earlier point, I appreciate
what you're saying about the population differences. I I was not making my remark about 19 verse 20 uh on the basis of trying to insinuate that I don't I would not support having the 23 as an
option just for the exercise of having a reduced number. What I think the reduced number should be I don't really see 23 and 20 as big of a difference as 23 and 19. And if the point of the exercise is to see what cuts would look like to
Paul's point for a lower figure, I think that the 19 amount is a is a better target. But I but I definitely appreciate what you're saying. And clearly if we do Paul's exercise to completion to show those differences between 23 and 19, uh the public needs
to be aware that at 19 you're losing a lot. And what specifically are you losing? And the schools would have a week to put that together, which is which is a big ass, but we need it. >> And to be clear, that 19 would be a nonfront loaded 19, >> right? >> On the school side. >> On the on the school side for the whole
thing. >> For the whole thing. >> If you want the whole thing, >> just the school, but then we could also see what if you did frontload it. Y >> that number would probably go down. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. Yeah, >> if I may, um, Saddap and and maybe any
other members of the ERSC who are listening, um, did the ERSC take a position, uh, because they did a lot of analysis of tax capacity, you know, the average taxpayers's capacity to pay, you know, these increases. Did they take a
position on what is a reasonable expectation for the town to set uh in terms of the capacity of taxpayers to say yes to an override in in so far as the burden that it would put them under and rent rent payers as well? Did did
the ERSC take a position on that? >> We didn't take a position on it. Um the work that was done on this topic is what was summarized by Dick um was on the call um and can probably reiterate some of the work that he did. There's a lot of great data in there. Um, but I think in order to really answer that question,
we would have had to have done, you know, a different kind of research and a different kind of survey. >> But you quantified it. I mean, you quantified what quantified was the increases that have happened and um where they exceed that sort of 30% rule of thumb threshold around cost of living
for which populations um in different categories which which is different from what I understood your question to be. >> Okay. Susan Given has her hand up. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Are you finished? >> Well, I didn't know if Dick wanted to comment on on that question because he did the work on it.
>> Yeah, I see. Uh Susan, >> I just want to make sure that I'm clear because this is a really tight turnaround. Um so so if I am I understanding this that um it's reducing the overall override uh down to 19
whatever >> um proportionally between the town and the school. You're not asking the school to take that entire cut. >> No. Yeah. It would be it would be proportional is what they're asking in my understanding. >> So we need to give them the number then. >> Yes. So I'm I'm I'm working on I'm literally I'm working on it now Susan.
I'm trying to get what what that would be. I just want to make sure that that I'm I'm clear because lots to be done in a very short turnaround and I don't want to have a mess here. >> And what and what we would get back is at that level, what would the things
that the schools would re would say they would cut? What would be the impact? >> What are the reductions? Correct. Y >> you already know what a no in no override budget would look like or cuts would look like.
a certain sense it's you know that plus what you can get back with just 19 million. question. >> Um, you I'm wondering whether the committee or any part of it did uh
either did some research or ended up taking a position within the economic development foundation. >> What would be an appropriate amount of new growth over time? Right now we have an estimated I think
2.5 million a year and obviously any dollar that comes in through new growth doesn't like the other. >> So I you know the answer is no. Um new growth is uh
it's one of those things that you really cannot predict. you know, maybe you can predict um to some degree the types of uh increases you might get from new growth of people doing renovations to new homes or new single family um or
multif family construction, but major projects, you cannot predict those at all. >> But we have had the experience of building that into overrides and then having the assumptions be wrong in timing and then we've had to kind of recalibrate it. We don't do it. >> The the the reason I asked that is is is
not because I'm first of all I appreciate uh that problem. The the reason I'm asking that is because there's a whole bunch of discussion with developments within the road map of the comprehensive plan or your economic development recommendations that the select board
either takes some action or facilitates some action like with regard to economic development. And I'm just trying to get a sense of the scale of that effort in terms of like what you think we should be trying to hold ourselves accountable
to. I mean being continuing to be conservative in our budgeting but just in terms of that level of effort. So that >> so so uh I mean a a couple of things. First remember that was part of the future
subcommittee and it does not assume that anything would be available for the next three years. Okay, this that that's >> I think broadly to your other question, you know, that really is something that the committee wasn't charged to do. And
at the end of the day, that is where the community discussion comes in. And I think it would have been uh inappropriate for this group, a small group to essentially um make a recommendation about certain aspects
that really are going to be uh come out of community discussions. as much as I wish we would my vision but that's do you think do you think that the for example the chair of the comprehensive plan might be able to answer that question
look if it if I were >> I'm only saying that it's out of the room >> if I were in your shoes I would I'd say we need to wait for the comprehensive plan to be finished >> you know I and maybe that will give you
a better um idea, but you can get a comprehensive plan. We've had them before and they haven't really done much because it's a question of implementing the recommendations, going through those zoning changes. So once you've got that that stuff in place, I
think you'll have a better sense and you're going to get the type of feedback you might want from um uh organizations that would be looking to um develop. >> So Paul, just to bring you up to speed,
the >> Did I get committed to something? >> Did I get it to do? >> Yeah. Yes, you did. um >> that the I had a question about new growth and they didn't take it on um but we talked about that in terms of the comprehensive plan. So I'm just uh
wondering whether in the context of the work that's being done by the comprehensive plan whether in uh any sort of target or accountability metrics around expected new growth over the
period of the comprehensive plan is part of that part of the discussion. >> I don't think it's down to a number yet, Michael. Um and I think that would have to be maybe a next round of of work. But I do I do want to emphasize what Cliff was saying that quick, you know, transitioning the cop plan into
execution so it doesn't become shelfware. Um I think we need to quick now whether we can jump right to I don't think we'd be able to jump right into comprehensive zoning reform, but I do think you could quickly move into based on the feedback we got from the community where the prioritization areas are for growth and then you could start
doing that additional work uh to start to uh you know do further >> studies. I hate to say but to do that >> let's try to wrap the subject. >> Yeah. I I think maybe Dick Baker wants to comment on the question I asked. No. Okay. You don't. I keep seeing you're on
the screen and I thought maybe that's what >> Yeah. Why are you on the screen Dick? You're pinned. Someone has pinned you. >> Can I >> I want to come back to Michael's question originally which is what do you guys do about asking questions? If you
have if you have questions you want to submit, >> um I would suggest one or two things. Either funnel to Bernard and have him, you know, distribute or sadd and I, you know, and patiently distribute whatever. I think that's really up to you how you
want to handle that process. But >> I think the more organized and effective approach would be to funnel them and I'll work with Chaz and work it to you. >> Yeah. So, uh, I'd like to wrap this up. You know, we're going to have a working
lunch so that we get the next item in our agenda completed. Um, really appreciate the presentation. Very thorough, uh, very, um, informative >> and, uh, also shows the complexity of what we have to do.
>> Well, I just want to thank the committee and all of you guys in particular, everyone who presented here, you did a huge, huge amount of work for more than a year. Um it was a really remarkable undertaking and the result is excellent and we're just very grateful for the you
know it's volunteer work. You know you as we joked when we were exchanging emails late night we get paid for this you don't. Uh so thank you very much clearer than I think past our studies have been uh easier to read. >> Yeah. No great
>> and the staff support was great. Yeah. You know so thanks so much. >> Okay. Uh take a break 10 minutes. >> Get our food to get our food and do other things. >> We have sandwich.
True.