Heat. Heat. of real property may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the town and the chair so declares an executive session therefore to be necessary. All in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vensoyette I >> Paul Warren I
>> David Pearlman I >> Michael Rubenstein >> I chair votes I. We'll be back after our executive session meeting. >> Recording stopped. Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Heat. Heat.
Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh yeah. Hey. Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brooklyn Select Board, and this is the regular meeting of the Select
Board for March 24th, 2026. Let's start off with announcements from the select board. Uh any announcements, Michael? The MBTA is holding an open house on
Monday, March 30th about the MBTA C branch station accessibility project. This project will upgrade several stations along the C branch to make them compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The MBTA will share
information with the public and to answer questions about the constructions, impacts of the construction, etc. And the meeting will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall in room 103. If you have further
questions, you can also contact the MPTA at public engagement mbta.com. >> Okay. Thank you, Michael. Any other announcements or updates from the slide board? Okay.
Um, next public comment. Melony, please uh read the rules and we can start on public comment. Not for the override. >> No. >> Okay. Which will be a hearing later on in the meeting. >> Thank you for joining us for public
comment. This is an opportunity for us to hear your perspective on the issues in Brooklyn that matter to you. Each person speaking tonight is limited to three minutes. You don't need to use the entire time, but you may if you like. Once 15 minutes has been met, there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the
select board's business for additional comments. Members of the public sometimes raise questions during public comment. We may be able to provide a quick answer to a question, but are more likely to work with staff to get a more thorough answer and respond over email. The onscreen timer will flash orange
when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when your time is nearly up. Please conclude your remarks at that time. If you have more to say, you are welcome to send an email to board members expressing your thoughts in greater detail. Any person wishing to speak must begin their comment by identifying
themselves with their full name, either their Brookline precinct number or street address, and the specific topic on which they wish to speak. The board encourages but not does not require that remote users turn their video on while when commenting. >> We didn't have anybody signed up prior.
>> Okay. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on matters not including the override? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is presentation of citation to Kin Liss of
the Brookline Historical Society. I don't believe he's in the Oh, >> he's here. All right. >> Okay. Oh, you're cut off. You're you're obstructing the view of Kim Liz. Okay.
So, what I'd like to do is to read the citation because people should know about your contributions to our community and this is a great place to let the public uh know that. Um, and then I'll give you the citation.
Brookline Select Board expressing its appreciation to Kenneth Ken Liss for his exemplary service and scholarship in preserving and sharing the history of Brooklyn. Whereas the Brooklyn Select Board rightfully honors those exemplary
Brooklyn residents whose civic work, scholarship, and leadership have enriched the cultural and civic life of our town. And whereas Kenneth Kin Liss has served for many years as president of the Brooklyn Historical Society,
leading the organization in its mission to preserve, interpret, and promote Brooklyn's heritage. And whereas under the leadership of Ken List, the historical society has maintained and interpreted Brookline's historic properties, including the Edward
Devotion House, one of the town's Otis colonial era structures and headquarters of the society, as well as the Widow Harris House and the Putterham School at Lars Anderson Park, thereby preserving
tangible links to Brookline's colonial and early history. And whereas Kin Liss has developed and led walking tours and virtual tours of Brooklyn neighborhoods and commercial corridors such as a century and a half of shopping in
Koolage Corner, bringing to life the stories of the people and places that have shaped our community. And whereas Kin List has overseen the historical society's expansion of online resources, making Brookline's history
widely accessible through digital archives, photo collections, neighborhood histories, and innovated then and now features. Whereas Ken List has contributed important research on topics of civic and social significance
including the study of Brooklyn's racially restrictive covenants published as Thomas Aspenwald Davis, Amos Lawrence and Brooklyn racial covenants which have helped the town and its residents confront difficult aspects of our past
with honesty and rigor. And whereas Ken List has worked with other local public historians and educators to provide historical details and documentation for their projects such as Hidden Brookline, which provides walking tours and
uncovers and educates the public about the history of enslaved people in the town and the efforts of town residents to undermine and abolish slavery. And whereas Kim Lists has served as an important and vital public historian,
giving lectures, writing extensively for the historical society's website, and contributing articles and commentary to Brookline News and other local outlets where his Brookline past and present features have illuminated the historical
context of contemporary issues. And whereas Kin List has worked in partnership with town officials, schools, civic groups, and cultural institutions such as the public library of Brooklyn using history to strengthen community connections
and inform public discourse. And whereas through these many many contributions, Kin List has helped generations of residents and students engage more fully with Brooklyn's unique past, deepened civic understanding of the town's
development, and inspired appreciation for the role of history in shaping our collective identity. Now therefore in consideration of the foregoing on this well we s we we we voted this a couple
weeks ago. Okay. So, I'll say on this sixth day of January 2026, the Brooklyn Select Board on behalf of the residents of Brooklyn hereby acknowledges, commends, and thanks Kenneth Ken Liss for his outstanding and sustained
contributions to the town of Brooklyn's historical preservation, public education, and civic life, and expresses its deepest gratitude for his scholarship, stewardship, and leadership. So, Congratulations.
>> Congratulations. >> To the podium. >> Podium. Can Um when I when I was uh asked in uh eight years ago to uh take the position as head of the Brooklyn Historical Society, um I reluctantly agreed uh to
um take that position actually just to join the board and three years later to take the role of president. And I thought I'll I'll do that shortly. And six, seven years, one uh later, more more than that, um I uh became the
president and I'm still the president. Um and uh that that kind of surprises me and and uh allows me to uh enjoy the what what I really love about history about telling stories um all kinds of stories uh to many kinds of people. I've
been having some uh injuries that have limited what I can do, but um I I really love Brooklyn. Uh I love telling stories and I love telling stories about Brooklyn and uh I continue to be the head of the Brooklyn Historical Society,
which uh surprises me, but um that I really enjoy uh telling stories, learning more uh about about this town that that we all love. So, thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ken.
>> So, it's important to know about the hidden gems in Brooklyn. um people who provide in Ken Liss's case um stories about our town that are both interesting as well as important for us to understand our past so we can go forward
into our future uh knowingly as opposed to blindly. So thank you Kim. So okay uh miscellaneous calendar uh first uh we have acknowledgment of March 31st
2026 as trans excuse me transgender day of visibility and Michael is going to read a a proclamation. >> Okay. This is a proclamation from the Brooklyn Select Board on International Transgender Day of Visibility, March
31st, 2026. Whereas in November 2025, town meeting urged the select board to proclaim March 31st, 2026 and this date thereafter as transgender day of visibility.
And whereas the town of Brooklyn is committed to honoring the dignity, resilience, and vital contributions of transgender residents, workers, students, and community members. And whereas yearly on March 31st, many
around the world observe transgender day of visibility to celebrate the lives and many contributions of transgender individuals globally and to bring awareness to the challenges the community faces such as discrimination,
poverty, and violence at disproportionate levels. And whereas national advocacy organizations highlight the importance of uplifting transgender voices, sharing stories that foster understanding and encourage
communities to stand firmly against prejudice in all forms. And whereas communities across the country commemorate this day through visible demonstrations of support, including educational programming, community
gatherings, and symbolic activities such as flag raisings to create space, affirmation, and a sense of belonging for transgender people. And now therefore, the Select Board of the Town of Brooklyn hereby proclaims March 31st,
2026 as International Transgender Day of Visibility, and encourages all Brooklyn residents to promote inclusion, challenge discrimination, uplift transgender voices, and ensure that Brooklyn remains a welcoming, affirming,
and safe community for all. signed by the five members of the Brookline Select Board. >> Thank you, Michael. >> Okay. Next, I will go to our miscellaneous calendar and uh first question of approving the following me
uh meeting minutes March 10, 2026 and March 17, 2026, which was our workshop last week. Uh, any corrections to those minutes? >> So, I had submitted some corrections. Did you get them >> to Kate?
>> I'm sorry. I thought I'd submitted them to you and Kate. >> Okay. Were they nonsubstantive? >> Uh, uh, I think there was one that was that was substantive. >> We'll trust you. >> Okay. So, I move approval as amended of
the minutes for March 10 and March 17, 2026, unless there are objections. Um, I move approval. All in favor? John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Pearlman. >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I. Jer votes. I.
>> Next. I'd like to take items 6C through 6 in omnibus fashion unless someone would like to pull one of those out for further discussion. Any uh any takers on that? No. Okay. On um >> Excuse me. >> Yes.
>> Do we also have to approve 6A? >> Oh, I guess we do. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Good point. >> Okay. Um I move approval of the um was it called a petition or proclamation?
>> Proclamation. I move approval of the proclamation acknowledging March 31st, 2026 as transgender day of visibility. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein,
>> I. >> And chair votes I. >> Thank you. Overlooked that. Okay. Okay. So, we're back to uh items 6 C through 6, which I'd like to take in omnibus fashion unless someone wants to pull something out for a deeper discussion.
Um, seeing none, I move approval of items 6C through 60. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> And chair votes I. Let's go to our main
calendar. First item, police chief contract question of approving and executing a successor agreement with chief of police Jennifer Pastard. You want to uh talk about that? >> Sure. I just want to say thank you very much to the chief for her ongoing excellent work with the department. Um
her leadership has really just been stellar. Um we're very grateful um for the steady hand that she's provided um the work that she's done um since becoming chief. She has uh ensured that the department has been um staffed, that policies and procedures have been updated, that the finances have been
updated. Um that the command staff is fully is is fully engaged. Um it's just a a really um it's been a really wonderful past three years. Uh it's hard to believe it's been three years. Um but um I just want to say how grateful we
are for the chief's work. Uh and wonderful it is that she's agreed to uh stay on with us for another another three years. Um the contract language is contained within. It's been reviewed by HR and by town council. It's been signed off on. Um and um we're very excited to
continue our work with Chief Pastor. >> Thank you. And as some of us know, Chief Pastor came into uh the position during very very rough times and she's really taken hold of the police department and given it direction and done all the
little details that Chaz mentioned that are that are essential to a successful and effective uh police department. So I thank her uh for for that. I'm sure other board members uh agree. So >> and the chief is online. If Chief, if
you want to say anything, you don't have to. Uh when they renewed my contract, I didn't say anything. >> But you didn't come in on during such troubled times. >> No, that's true. >> But you I will go I I wasn't planning on it, but I will
just um be brief and thank you all for your ongoing support um and leadership. And I um it is a position held by just one person, but I've never felt alone. And um I it hasn't always been the case, but uh for me I have always felt truly supported. So thank you.
>> Thank you. So I move approval of the uh um police chief's contract. U all in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak >> I. >> Paul Warren >> I. >> David Pearlman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein >> I. >> And chair votes I. Thank you.
Next we're g uh this will be a quick discussion. We're going to have an override uh discussion and hearing. >> Um >> you skipped something. >> Did I miss something? >> Yeah. Yeah. Number nine. >> Yeah. >> Sorry.
>> Oh, okay. Uh this is license violations, a public hearing. >> Yes. a continuation of the licensing panel hearing on alleged license violation by Steven or seven subs. Um,
no renewal application was submitted and continuation of the license panel hearing on alleged license violations by Maruchi Select who failed the fire department inspection. So, who's going to present that? >> Well, first let's talk about Seven Subs.
Is there a representative here from Seven Subs? business. Seven subs, if you're online, you can use the raise hand feature. Okay. Um, seven subs unfortunately did not submit a renewal of their application. We had a public hearing on this last Wednesday. They did not
appear. Um, we continued that hearing to this meeting in order for you to render a final decision. Um, since they didn't submit a renewal of the application, my recommendation is that you deem them closed and that if we see them operating, we'll have to close for now and we'll have to and we'll move on from there.
>> Okay. So, uh, deem them closed, also cancelling the license. >> Well, their license, they haven't renewed the license, so technically they have no license to cancel. Um, but we, you know, given that they have been an operating business, we've made several efforts to contact them. Melanie has reached out. We, we reached out to someone who said they knew the owner.
We've been trying every which way we can to get in touch with them, but they have not responded. So Paul had a question. >> Yeah, Paul. >> Uh that was going to be my question that are they open still or >> our understanding is that they are currently open. Um but that the owner has we've you know we've tried every
address we have. We've tried you know we heard we heard we heard from a from another business owner that they may be out of state. We reached out to them. We tried to tried to get in touch. We have not been successful in locating them. Um, unfortunately we have we have no other option at this point. Um, but my
hope is that if they do still want to continue operating and we tell them that they need to close that they'll come back to us in short order. >> Okay. So they they still have that opportunity. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So they're operating without authority now. >> So we will after the if with the board's approval I'd like to authorize us to
just tell them that they're operating without a license and close them down. >> Okay. Um, any other questions? Well, for people who are wondering, uh, where is this one located? I I think I I see an address. 1665 Beacon Street. Is is that
it? Yeah. Okay. >> Something like Washington Square area maybe or Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Um, I move uh that we declare the business seven subs to be closed.
Um, and um I guess we don't have to anything more than that? >> No. But again, they can they can apply to renew. We will we will do everything we can to keep them keep them in in in our, you know, in our wheelhouse, but they need to get it back to us. >> So, all in favor of that declaration, please indicate by saying I. John
Vancoyak, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> Chair votes I. Next, we have continuation of licensing panel hearing on alleged license violation by Maruchcci select. And I see we have a
representative from the fire department. >> Yes, sir. Uh, Deputy Chief Todd Caner. I run the fire prevention office for the fire department. >> Could you speak directly into the >> Oh, sorry. Uh, Deputy Chief Todd Caner. I run the fire prevention office for the fire department. Okay. >> Thanks for coming, Chief. Um, can you
first off, do we have a representative from March Select here? >> Yes. >> Hi. Good afternoon or good evening. Thank you. Um, hold on one second. So, um, Chief, could you tell us a little bit about, um, the the failed the inspection here? >> Absolutely. As as part of our, um,
licensing inspections, we initially visited Aruchi on November 20th. The inspector found that their hood suppression system was in a non-compliant status. He continually went there for, I
believe, four more occasions and most recently on March 4th, it still was in a non-compliant status and it's it shouldn't be being used at this point. So, okay. >> We couldn't approve.
>> Um, can we hear from the business if that's okay? >> Yep. >> Um, if you'd like to if you just like to come up to the microphone and tell us a little bit about your efforts to be in compliance with this. Um I'm here on the >> on behalf of the owner of the business
once again. Uh my name is >> speak directly into the mic so that yes you can pick up on our >> so the balry issue has been resolved. Uh we had a technician came out. I have all the documentation over here. Um we hired the um company called Impact Fire and
then they came in 5:03 in the morning and then took 2 hours and 45 minutes to correct the a um fire extinguisher. So we have all the work sheet over here. So this will probably resolve the uh issue. >> Okay.
>> And if you like to uh exam this report and then I can hand it over to you. So I I would assume that that the fire chief has to go back and inspect again. >> Yeah. >> Before we can make any determinations. >> But if you would if you Chief Cander, is that all right if if they give you the
the the paperwork and we'll reinspect. Does that sound all right to you? >> Well, could I I just I'd like to ask just a quick question. So, uh, to deputy chief, and you don't have, you can stay at the podium, too, because my question is going to be to you, but it sounds like there was multiple visits highlighting this problem, and they were
notified since November that there was a problem. >> On each occasion, my inspector notified whoever was the manager on duty. >> I'm just I know businesses are very busy when they're trying to, but it took two and a half hours to fix the problem. Why did it take five months or six months to
fix the problem? >> You need to come to the microphone. Again I I don't work directly to the store so uh I don't have the timeline exactly but uh since last uh August 2025 management
uh did it change quite often the vice president left uh the company middle of the August I mean August uh since then there's a several people came and go so um I think um they overlooked I'm not
quite sure but uh Um I came here last Wednesday for the first hearing and then I myself I I visit the uh store and then know notice that there's a tag on the pipe right next to uh uh this issue. So
um I probably think that they missed that tag. I'm not quite sure but um we are taking a quick action as we speak and then I'm working with the uh the business owner closely uh she's in Japan right now so I cannot
sit down and talk to her face to face but >> okay yes >> okay thank you answer my question >> any other questions okay so I assume that it goes back to the licensing hearing uh committee and uh it'll come back to us and we can make
our decision at that point and as the licensing hearing committee, you're going to be uh in a position or be asked to explain the the time it took for this to be resolved as you know Paul asked. >> And just a a couple of things to follow
up here. One, thank you. Um just uh make sure you have the paperwork and submit it to the fire department so that we can get a reinspected as soon as possible. Um the other thing is you mentioned that there's been a lot of change in ownership and management. That's got to be recorded too. Whenever there's a change in ownership interest, the town
needs to be updated on that so we know who to get in touch with so we don't have issues like this. So please make sure the ownership knows that in addition to calling for an inspection, you need to update the corporate um the the corporate Yeah. the managers of record and the corporate entity of
record um for the town so we know who to call when if something like this comes up again. Um and then yes, so what we'll do if with the board's permission is we'll continue this hearing to April. um we'll tell you it'll be a Wednesday morning like last time. We'll check in
with you then if the inspection clears it and this is resolved and this matter will be resolved and you can keep working. But then I would just ask make sure that you get that sub you know make sure the business gets that submission in for the change in corporate um structure so that we know who we're talking to and how to deal with that.
>> All right. Yep. Thank you. >> And I assume that they can continue operating. >> So the >> between now and when >> the caveat I would add is that if you know if the fire department says that it's not fixed then we will have to close you down until the issue the
problem is fixed. So with the department can inspect and if the chief if you if your team gives them the all clear great if not let us know and we'll need to shut until we fix it. >> I do I have one other question uh for the deputy So, this was a a fire safety issue with
a hood. Was that hood related for cooking? >> Yes. >> And are they are you continuing to cook uh without or have you stopped cooking? >> You stopped cooking. Okay. So, they're not going to use the hood or this area until such time that inspection complete. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. >> Okay. Next, uh, we're five minutes early on the hearing. Um, but I guess we can start.
>> So, you Yeah, the public hearing does the public hearing doesn't have to start, but the presentations can start. Yeah. >> So, I'd like to say a few words. Um, so we have until 11:59 p.m. on March 31st to do this. Uh,
hopefully we can do it uh earlier. Tonight we will hear first from the town administrator about our options for the B ball ballot questions for an override, a draft of the explanation that will be prepared by town council
and is in a summary and explanation that the town clerk sends to all Brookline households and is available at the polling uh sites. And this document will be very important because it explains the questions on the ballot including uh
possibility of uh explaining the front-loaded option uh which is kind of complex and it's going to be important that that explanation be clear uh and um and accurate. And finally uh a term sheet. I think you're going to uh uh
talk about a term sheet for anou with the schools to ensure that steps are taken to reduce certain costs and increase certain revenues that are within the control of the schools. So we will uh then hear a presentation by the
schools and I've given them 20 minutes and we have had an opportunity to study their slide deck and their PSB budget summary documents actually slide decks since uh an updated one came in this
afternoon. Uh next uh we will hear from two key unions uh the Brooklyn Educators Union and Brooklyn Local 950 of the International Association of Firefighters uh who both uh have an interest in the outcome of this
discussion and each of them will have 10 minutes. Next we'll have a public hearing and uh people in the audience and online can have their say at that point. And finally, the select board will deliberate and try to reach agreement on
an override that we can send to the town clerk sometime soon, way before 11:59 on March 31st. That's my hope. I mean, I we may not do it, okay? But that's my hope. Um, and am I correct in in um my
understanding that we do have agreement on two things? Uh, putting an override on the ballot. Okay, I think we have agreement on that. and second making it a tiered override uh with the top tier equaling the total ask of the town and school of 23
$25 million. That's my recollection from our workshop. So we we agree on two things. Okay. Um that makes it a little easier. And now we have to after the public hearing uh have a discussion of um uh as
I understand it three things. the number of tiers, uh the amount of the lower tier or tiers, and whether the tiers will be structured as a traditional incremental levy or a front-loaded uh levy. Michael,
>> I think I would say, at least on my own behalf, >> that it isn't clear to me completely whether the number of tiers will be greater than one. It might just be one. >> Okay, good point. Yeah, thank you. Okay,
so with that summary of where we're going or road mapap, uh let's start off with um Chaz. >> Thank you, Chair Green and members of the board. Um Melanie, can I share my screen? Is that all right? Thank you. >> Sure.
>> All right. Should be good to go. >> Okay. Thanks, Okay, there we go. Um, good evening everyone. Um, so we are talking here about I think give me one second here. Actually, I think this is an older
version. Sorry, one second. Our version control is very important. Um, Give us the right numbers, Jess. >> I am I am not going to play games with
that. All right, hold on. Here we go. There we go. All right. So, we're going to talk a little bit about where we are um potential next steps here based on your conversation um from the 17th.
Um, so, um, historically, Brookline, as you know, but the public may not know, um, has structured overrides in sort of a three-year cycle, or that is not always, not always a three-year cycle, but historically Brooklyn has said when it passes an override, it does so with the
promise that it doesn't want to go back to the voters for at least a three-year period. Um, so that the ask on the ballot is for the next three fiscal years. Brooklyn's fiscal year begins in July and ends uh on June 30th of the subsequent year. Um there are a number
of assumptions that go into these numbers that are important to keep in mind because they talk they are important to think about your policies during this period when there is a potential override being implemented and after an override is being implemented. That's really the crucial question here
is where do we wind up in this when that threeyear cycle is over. So here are some key assumptions that are being made as we think about these numbers. Right now the health care costs, our projected healthcare costs have gone down slightly in FY27. Whereas before we were
projecting a 12% increase since our health care provider has cut coverage for GLP1 drugs for weight loss, which I think is a tough decision to make. Unfortunately, they've they've they have made it for us. We're in the GIC. We don't have a say in what they do and don't cover because it's a consortium.
um um with those those costs are going down. Um they're still increasing, but they are increasing at a more modest amount. They have however uh kept co-pays and other payments steady at the request of the governor as opposed to raising them, which was an ask, which
means that the healthcare costs did not go down by quite as much as they could have. So, we're still looking at an 8 to 10% increase in this coming fiscal year. And we do think that that 12% number is going to creep back up in 28 and 29. For one thing, if we especially if we continue to hold co-pays steady, the
cost is the cost to the um provider and therefore us will continue to rise. Um we can't assume that the brief relief from cutting GLP1s will carry forward. The state has said that they did this to force companies to the table. Um so our hope is that the coverage for those drugs will resume, but that does mean
that the cost will likely resume as well. Um for the capital improvement plan um the revenue funded portion of the CIP will be limited to 6% for FY27 and 20 through 29 which is what it's um that's important because your policies currently say 6.6%.
6% is really the minimum you need in order to do the things that we do every year in the CIP. Roads, sidewalks, you know, the the big ticket items that people expect when they think of capital projects. Once you dip below that number, you are basically saying that
you are relying on free cash in order to meet obligations that you know you meet every year. So that's really the danger zone. Could you go below 6%? Theoretically, yes, you could. Um, our free cash has been sufficient to meet and exceed the CIP uh percentage every
year. This year, for example, it's 10% of the prior year's revenues being sent spent in capital improvement thanks to robust free cash numbers. But again, if you when you think about it from this perspective, you don't want that number to go down below 6% if you can avoid it.
Your other post-employment benefits, your health care uh liabilities to retirees, those contributions are held stable in FY27 and 29 rather than increased, which means it is likely that that um that liability will increase significantly um over the course of
those years. um your policies that focus on revenue. Like for example, every year we say we're going to contribute to the reserve fund so that it meets 1% of the prior year's revenue. Um the um the the current version of the overrides that
we're recommending or proposing um basically holds the override amounts out from that. So that you would be calculating the reserve fund and so forth for the next three years on a non-override scenario and that override money would flow directly to the town
and the schools rather than being held out um and and um uh spent on those things as well. that has the benefit of keeping the overall override dollars down. It does mean that there's a reckoning at the end of this. If those policies kick back in, then there is a
gap that naturally arises. It's not a huge gap, but it is a gap. It is, you know, more than a million dollars on both the town and the school side in terms of um if if once again those those tax revenues are factored into what
percent you know our financial policies and then healthcare. Um we the all of this operates on the assumption that the current 8317 healthcare split holds um throughout and that's because we can't change it without the consent of the people that we're working with. We don't
want to bank on something and then have it not happen. I will say that the superintendent and I and we'll talk about this are committed to negotiating that in good faith with our our union partners and making something happen there. Um so we are we want to negotiate
that. We want to get to yes on that, but until we do, we don't want to assume that it's going to happen. This is the current townside override proposal. Not very much has changed. Um most of it is in um how it's phased in.
um this rather as before we were able to um I will say that the uh PSBO and Charlie Young and the team have managed to um lower the projected cost of adding officers back in from $600,000 to $510,000 which is good. Ends the hiring freeze in order to ensure that we can
maintain that. We would phase those positions in a year over the course of the override. We've had to reduce some of the software budget on the police side. Unfortunately, it's difficult, but we we still think we'll be able to use that money effectively. Um, continuity
of service uh contribution has increased to buffer the reserve. Um, we've see some volatility in the outy years that we want to cover if in the because remember the town's proposal is designed to take this money up front and invest it, keep it in a reserve fund. And this
cuts slightly deeper the town clerk's budget. The town clerk's budget has a surplus right now in his elections fund. that money waxes and waines depending on how many elections a year that we get reimbursed from the state for some of our election costs. We think it's worth cutting that a little deeper. We know it's difficult on the town clerk side.
We know it's difficult on all department sides, but this is a situation where we've got to make every pot of money available and so that that's where we're going there. Um, but this still keeps it at 55.31 million, which again when adjusted for inflation is slightly lower than the amount that was asked for in
the 2023 override on the town side. So this is the tier one style override. This is the highest dollar number that we've talked about. Um this phases in the levy uh impact um over time by
phasing in the amount of money the schools get every year. Whereas the town takes their money up front and puts it in a stabilization fund in order to cover in the outy years. The school side takes the money and pays it as it goes. You can see here on FY27 the levy goes
up 4.5 million or the the the amount that is taken out of the levy goes out 4.5 million and the schools spend 4.5 million goes up an additional 5.5 million in 2828 and an additional seven and change million in 2029 uh FY2029
um so the overall levy increase is 23.25 25 million. Um, but because the people won't be taxed to the full levy increase, the cumulative average tax increase with all the caveats, this
doesn't include CPA. This is an average. Um, it is um, you know, it is not reflective of other people's budgets. We will have a tax calculator online that will show you can plug in your address and it will show you how much your tax how much additional money your taxes
will go up by uh if an override passes. Um but this is the average. So in FY27 8% 12% 18%. It's cumulative. So this override including for the prop two and a half increases the average tax bill
would go up by 18.29%. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah, just a clarification on that last point. Those three numbers are percentage over fiscal year 26. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Not incremental. >> No. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes.
Over this current tax year. So it's not incremental. >> So pros and cons to this. Spreads the burden of tax increases out. It fully funds the projected deficits for those years. It sets benchmarks. The schools spend to the override. The town does as well, but it has that reserve fund. And
the structure is more familiar to voters. The cons is that it's a higher overall tax burden. um a higher number appears on the ballot, right? Voters don't vote to approve the structure. The question just says, "Do you want to agree to approve the 23.25 uh increase?"
Um and if deficits exceed projections, u particularly on the schools side, there may still be cuts that need to be made. Um so it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. Um knowing as we do that the schools have already made significant cuts just to get to this point. Tier two
is $18.6 million. This assumes that both sides take it take the money up front, invest it in a stabilization fund, and then draw down on that stabilization fund in the out years. Um, you can see how this works in practice, the schools again need that $4.5 million in year
one, but because they're taxing to the full amount, they then get $ 8.45 million in savings that they put away in savings and stabilizing. And that is then um kept to the side and allow and can be used in the future. Next year the
cumulative increase is $10.1 million. It gets less than $13 million. So they have some savings again and they can sock that money away um that just under $3 million in a stabilization fund. In year three, the amount of ex additional levy
is ex uh is exceeded by the amount that we project expenses to go up, which means you need to start dipping into that reserve fund. It's the same on the town side. Um and that means that that savings goes down. Um now that does create a gap, a larger gap than would
otherwise be created in FY30 because you're not taxing as much uh and you're relying on this one-time fund to balance it out. But the assumption that you're making is that in FY30 and 31 conditions will start to improve and there will be opportunities for the town and the
schools to try and soften the blow of that cliff. Um so again, pros and cons. It's a smaller amount on the ballot. If deficits turn out lower than projections, the additional funds provide increased stability. Um and they they providation
fund provides flexibility if deficits exceed expectations. um you have money in the bank if the if the money's if the problem goes the wrong direction. It just means you have less in FY30 and beyond and you need to very quickly you need to have those discussions about
what that's going to look like in the out years. The cons are are clear, right? It's a higher shock to taxpayers. Again, look at the average cumulative tax increase. It's 10.7%. That is higher than 8%. Um keeping in mind that that is
just an average um it assumes deficit growth will slow beyond FY30. If that assumption is wrong then the gap to cover will be bigger. Um it makes a larger draw on pension and debt savings in FY31 and beyond which limits our ability to address OPE liabilities. If
we assume that there is um kind of light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the our ability to spend on uh fulfill our p outstanding pension obligations. um and use some of that money on operating costs. This will put us we will have to
use more of that money in this scenario than we would in the tier one scenario. So this gives you an idea of where the schools would wind up in FY30 under these two scenarios. Um and again remember what so in our projection for FY30 now remember we're talking about
four years out. So the sooner farther out you go, the more speculative our projections are. And that number reflects a return to the old policies about revenues, um about the CIP, all of that. Um the projected deficit for the
schools in FY30 is $10 million, $10.1 million. Under the tier one scenario, um they wouldn't have any reserves on that front. And so the net uh that they would need um in order to um uh pay for this
um would be that 10 million $10.1 million. Under the tier 2, taking the money up front, you can see the deficit is bigger in FY30, but they have a reserve to cushion it. And so the net that they would need to cover still high, but lower in FY30. And remember, 31 is when the pension obligation is
satisfied. So either way, there are likely going to be hard conversations to happen in FY30 about what we want to do going beyond this. Um, but you can cushion it somewhat using the tier 2 method. Um, it just depends on what you would prefer, how we would prefer to
handle that. You asked us to consider a number of other options. Um, here are two um that you asked us to consider um as part of the discussion last Tuesday. Um, one is keeping the total override amount below
$20 million and still keeping the school amount phased in. Um, that requires a proportional uh it requires basically schools in town only asking for 86% of what they uh had originally asked for. And so we made those cuts proportionally. The town's new number is
4.566 million. The school's number is 15.43 million. And you can see how this works in practice. You also see that if because the town is still taking it up front, um you run into this issue where the stabilization fund um uh winds up in the red in FY29, which means the town
would be need likely be needing to make cuts um in order to balance that out. Um the other option that you asked us to consider is a smaller uh override funded by reserves to keep it that keeps the average cumulative tax increase at or below 10% in the first year. Um the
magic break even number for that is $16.3 million. Um and again we make the proportional reductions from 18.6 that results in a town levy of 5.04 million a schools levy of 11.26. You can see that theoretically this
checks out. Um they the both uh entities make it through FY29 with some money in their stabilization funds. But then again, remember at FY30, you have a pretty significant cliff. And unlike with the last with option with tier two,
um there's not a significant buffer here. So you're going to have a lower levy and not as much of a buffer. And that's going to mean a pretty significant falloff in FY30 when it comes to dealing with these issues. So what would the town cut in these scenarios? Um we would likely cut
$300,000 in the DPW line. There are two tree protection positions. Um, and there's a horicultural specialist position. Um, we would potentially cut two patrol officers. We would just cut out that last year. Um, you know, with the aim of trying to restore that if we could find savings in the building
department. We would cut the plumber. We would just add to repair and maintenance. And we would cut the clerk's full-time clerk type position. That still leaves that slight $100,000 gap that I talked about. I do think that we are going to see some savings this year from the House Ways and Means
Committee budget which is due out at any minute now this week. Um, putting that money aside, we'll hopefully cover that gap. So, I think we'll be able to cover that gap making these cuts. Again, with option 3B, we could theoretically make no cuts uh to the over proposal, but
that would put us in a pretty bad state. So, I would recommend making the same number of cuts that $580,000 worth of cuts to avoid a more substantial cliff if you put 16.3 um on the ballot. Um I apologize. It says 16.8 here. That's incorrect. That
that should be 16.3. Um so the town's deficit in each of these scenarios in FY30, if you did 19.99 million with the schools phased, it would be 7 million. If you did um 16.8 8 uh sorry 16.3 with
the reserve fund it would be 5.3. If you did the classic tier one 23.25 million the town's deficit would be 5 million and under tier two with the reserve fund it would be 4.2 million. The reason why option 3B the this version here is so
hard to recommend is because of the schools number. You can see here it's 15 over $15 million. With 3A it's lower. It's roughly 9 million. It depends on how the cuts that the schools would be making to get to that initial $19 million number would reound through. Um but our rough back of the envelope would
still be around 9 million. Um so again compare that 9 million to this these numbers. It comes in between the 10 million tier one and the 8.5 and tier 2. So you had other you had made other requests of us and I'm happy to game
these out from a from a town perspective. Um you know one of them was 18.6 six but phase the schools. One of them was due 15 million with reserves or 14.8 million with reserves. Um you can see here, you know, based on those school numbers what the outcome of that
is likely to be. Um either you're going to be making cuts that are very deep into the school's operational responsibilities if you do 18.6 phased or you're just going to have a reserve fund that doesn't meet the needs of the schools um in FY30 and leaves it uses us
in such a worse place that it would be difficult for me to recommend that to you. um even 16.3 using a reserve fund would be very difficult. I think going below that number um really runs the risk of putting us in a much worse position than we started out in in FY30.
Um you know, can we go lower with a phase number? We can. Um but at that point, you start making, you know, the schools are going to talk about the operational cuts that they would make in the $19 million scenario. Uh and you'd basically be asking them to go lower than that.
Um, what does a ballot question look like? Um, this was the other uh issue that you raised. I'm sorry that the text is so small, but I wanted to get this all on a page for you. Um, so this is the language um that was on the ballot
in 2023. Um, uh, or this is the language, but it's adapted for a potential two-tier override. One at one question at 23.25 million and one at 18.6 6 million. Um, you can see shall the town of Brooklyn be allowed to assess an additional 23.25 million in
real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the cost of the Brooklyn public schools. And then there's their dollar amount and funding the cost of additional expenditures in municipal departments. There's the town amount for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. Yes. No. And then 1B is the same thing at a lower dollar amount.
Something to note here, the $18.6 million number gives the town a little more money. And that is that is by design. It's designed to cushion the town. Um, the town made cuts in order to get to that $5.31 million number to keep that $23 million number as low as
possible. Um, in order to avoid confusion on this, um, you could do one of two things. You could knock that town number down to 5.31 million, but I wouldn't recommend it because it impacts the reserve there. Or you could increase that 5.31 million in question 1A to 5.6
6 million and then you have a $23.5 million topline number as opposed to a 23.25 million top number. Um um this is a three- tiered ballot question, 1 A, 1 B, 1 C. Uh you may vote
for each question independently. Each question requires a majority of those voting on that question to pass. If more than one passes, the question with the highest dollar amount will prevail over the others. John, you had raised this question and I think it's important to talk through Is there a way to structure this differently? Is there a way to do
this such that the highest vote getter prevails? And the answer based on our conversations with town council is no. Because once a according to Mass General law, once a majority of voters say yes
to something, that question passes. So you can't say, you know, whoever gets the highest, you know, percentage of of votes pass. the statute says that if a majority of voters support it, then that passes. So that's how that's why this is
structured in that way. Um and so we can't get a we can't for example say right vote for whichever of these you want, you know, vote for only one vote which you know vote for whichever one of these you want and whoever gets the highest number of votes wins. Even if if
any of them get above 50% plus one, then it passes. Um, so that's the structure that we're kind of stuck with on this. Um, so what are the things that need to happen from here? Um, we need to revise
an MOA per the expenditures and revenue study committee's recommendation. There's not sufficient time between now and next week to formalize that. So what I would like to do with your permission, the superintendent and I have already talked about this is basically build out a term sheet that describe you ENRC made
nine recommendations for schools in the town to look at. We want to take a look at those, make commitments on what we're going to do to address them and set out a timeline by which we're going to accomplish that. Um, and that can then be formalized into anou that can be signed and ratified by both the select
board and the school committee. But at least at the staffto staff level, we will have something. And so we talked about it this afternoon. We're going back and working on it. We'll try and figure out and we will bring that back to you in advance of next Tuesday's meeting for your review and comment. Um so that uh by next Tuesday you have a
clear roadmap on where we're going on the recommendations that ENRSC made. Um there is the update from Clifton Lawson Allen. Uh as you know um they came in last year due to the school's deficit issue. Um they issued a report. We continue to emphasize to the public it's
not an audit. It was a narrative report. Uh it was done under tight time constraints. Um we've asked them to come back and conduct a follow-up review of where things are now. Uh they are in the process of conducting that. We're here today conducting interviews with the school department. Um their uh update to
the select board is due next Tuesday and my hope is that we will have sub you know if not a final document from them a substantive update to provide to you on what they've seen and where things are from here where things where things how things have gone and and gotten better. Um any additional data or gathering that you want us to do including uh Bernard
we're still working on uh uh on the side of the um the mailer uh the town council mailer so we will get that language together um for next Tuesday. um or you know initial that doesn't have to be set by next Tuesday. The ballot language does, but we will at least have
some language about how we would explain what a structure would look like um by next Tuesday and that would allow you to take the vote next Tuesday night. So those are the four those in summary of the four options that we talked about uh sorted by dollar amount. um and you
know the um you know the most kind of salient points um there um we're on the town side happy to answer any questions you may have uh any comments or concerns um but I want to be sure that the schools also get the opportunity to talk through where they are
>> great thank you um I think Paul had his hand up first David then Michael >> thanks uh first Jess thanks for all the work um I don't know anybody else but my head spinning just a little bit it was a lot um to give us at once But I do appreciate it. I have a I want to take a
step back. I have a fundamental question to help me with my understanding. Um, and I'm I've been stuck on this and I really haven't I talked to a couple of people today and I just haven't really figured it out yet and I know that you will make it clear for me. Um, the the
upfront 8 point 18.6 um, which essentially means we're going to raise the levy fully to 18.6 six in year one. We would also that would mean in year two it's at 18.6 and at year
three it would be 18.6 >> right and year four >> and and and forever. That's right. Thank thank you Bernard for clarifying that. >> But what I want to I >> in my mind it we're getting more than 18.6 right it because we're taking 18.6
in the beginning the first year. Um the next year we're going to take 18.6 again. So we're we're getting the gap. >> Yep. >> Right. So we're taking more on top of the two and a two two and a half or three whatever the with growth >> would be calculated based on that. >> Right.
>> So the total um let's say revenue after the at the end of three years of 18.6 would that be higher than the 23? Like what's do we know the total number of revenue that would come in as a
result? Do you understand my question? >> I understand your question. Yeah. Um no. Um I don't know where it's going to come in in terms of new growth. I don't know where that that structure is going to, you know, fall out, right? Um I will say right that the
>> the le you know right you you're you the select board set what the tax levy is in any given year. Um and it's your and you that's the vote you take in November and December. >> Yes. Um, so that's, you know, and you historically set the levy to the levy maximum.
>> Yeah. >> Less in an override year, the amount that you held out from the override. Um, so yes, theoretically that percentage can go up from there. Um, but it is is it going to be more than $23 million? >> Well, maybe it's not more than 20. So,
let me So, let me let me put context around why I I asked this question because it's a concern about an understanding for the public. And we've all agreed like Michael and I have this thing this is hard to understand. >> Yes. >> Um if it's on the ballot that would you like to raise your real estate taxes by
23 million um or would you rather raise your real estate taxes by 18.6 million. A lot of people go 18.6 million. It's less. But in fact it's not 18.6. It's much more than 18.6. And that's so my I'm it's confusing. Um and I've looked
at it quite a bit and I believe it would be confusing for the for the voters. I just think we have to be really clear that that 20 let's and I'm not saying these are the ones that we're going to go with. I'm just going to use an example. 23 gets us a fully funded,
right? But we're not cutting services. 18.6 you're getting fully funded, but you're not cutting services. But it's really not fully funded services for less than 23 million because it is I think they're probably reasonably equivalent. I don't
know the total the total income, but do you see that? >> I see what you're saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just I want to trust is so important here. Yeah. >> And anybody that wants to oppose uh 18.6 or even the way we're asking it would would raise this issue or maybe another issue or two about the upfront,
>> right? >> Um and I'm concerned about it. I >> I I think I think you're right, but I also think that at the end of the day, you know, to Bernard's point, the levy will will eventually reach that cap either way. And if you pass 18.6, then
that cap is lower. Um, so yes, you you may get an increase on the levy percentage-wise that is higher than you would otherwise get year-over-year. Um, but I don't necessarily think they're equivalent, and we can talk about what that looks like. The treasur, you know, this is an important question. So,
Treasury and assessing and I can talk about what that looks like in practice, >> but it ultimately comes down to this, right? If the levy goes up by more, it may that that impact may acrue in those early years, but it's going to catch up anyway. And in FY30, you're still going
to have a levy increase of two two and a half% plus new growth on 23 million on that number plus 23 million. Yeah. >> So, you still are going to see ultimately a a higher overall levy amount and therefore a higher average tax increase with tier one than tier
two. >> Okay, Michael, I'm sorry, David. >> So, just a a related question. The reason why I do think it matters to know what's the real total amount at the end of three years is if we present the 19.9
million option. Some might choose 19.9 saying 23 is too much but I prefer 19.9 to 18.6 when in reality the 18.6 is actually getting you more than the 19.9. >> Right. >> Uh so what is the 19.9 number
frontloaded? >> I can run that number. I I can run that for you. Um, let me let me do that. >> Because if we go the three option route, I would like the numbers to reflect the actual impact. >> Yeah,
>> Michael. >> Um, so sort of following up on what David said, when I when I looked at the three tier option you presented, what I saw was full funding, partial funding, full funding. >> Yes. That's confusing. >> That is that is >> that's confusing and we shouldn't do that,
>> right? Um, we shouldn't do that. Um, you had made a mention of cuts between the $5.3 million number in option number one and
the $5.6 million number two. >> What were those cuts? >> So, those cuts are those cuts are in are in the reserves, right? Those you know what I've what I tried to do in structuring this from the town and the school side was that the schools
you know, the in in order to like if you take all the money up front and your aim is to get to FY29 with a zero balance in your budget uh in your in your reserve, then that number is that the override number is pretty low, but it leaves the
both the town and the schools in a really bad place. So I tried as much as possible to think about what are the numbers that where the town and the schools need in order to defay that gap in FY30 so that there would be a reasonable way to build out some sort of
bridge programming and so that required the town number to be a little higher in those circumstances so that both town and schools wind up in that space. >> Okay. And when you say reserve in that case are you referring specifically to the override stabilization fund or a different >> reserve? Yes. >> Okay. Can we always call it the
stabilization funds? >> Let's do that. Yes. Reserve funds. >> Yes. Thank you. That's a good >> Okay. >> Um Chaz, if it isn't too much trouble, um I don't think the presentation you just made is linked to the agenda. Maybe I'm wrong. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, because it came in so late. I apologize. We'll make sure that
>> could that be done? Um and then the second request, which you know, just let me know if it's if it's not convenient to do this right now. Can you go back to the page that showed um I think there was a page that showed ho how much total will be raised in the levy um over the
course of the three years and into the fourth year by the various options um that were in front of us because I I do think that will help people to understand um what the difference is between a number that is larger 23
something million um than a number that smaller, you know, around 19 million. And how could the 19 million number um over the course of three years actually add more uh dollars to the levy than the
higher number? And uh I I think the way we express this is extremely important. And I I I I want people to understand that uh this isn't like there's a magic formula that be, you know, through
compounding um adv advantageous is advantageous to us in a way that doesn't come out of the taxpayers's uh pockets. >> That's right. um um what whichever um firstear number produces the highest
three-year result is essentially a number that takes the most money out of the taxpayers's pockets. Um, but all the taxpayer knows is that they walk into the the voting booth and they're looking at a $23 million number and a $19
million number and they're supposed to understand that more money will come out of their pockets with the $19 million choice than with the $23 million choice. That that's a real mental flip-flop there that I'm I'm not sure we can expect uh voters to take. Well, I think
I think it's important to note that it it is not that more money comes out. It's a question of when it comes out. That's the biggest issue, I think, is that it it's it's ultimately the tax levy doesn't go up by as much. Um, so that you know, yes, the few fewer
dollars overall flow into the town. It's just or you know, the >> under under what? >> Under under that under that structure. Um, >> no. Under the 23, under the 19 all in the first year, you know. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, you're you
know, so under the 23, um, ultimately more money overall is going to flow into the town because that's raising the levy permanently by a certain amount. So, over the course of time, you are going to see that that will mean that more money ultimately is as that after it's
phased in, the taxpayer will be paying more um than they would under an 18.6. The difference is they will be paying more upfront in a way that they would not be uh under a phased situation under 18.6 but but uh funded through a
stabiliz using a stabilization fund. They would see a bigger hit up front even though in the out years they would see smaller increases that would lead to them paying by FY 31 or 32 a lower amount overall. But we, excuse me, we
tend to look at these as being good for a three-year cycle, >> right? >> So, you know, how do those two numbers compare in terms of what be would be raised over a three-year cycle uh by by the 23 number versus uh by by the uh uh
18.6 uh number? >> I can get you. Let me let me run that now because I that's that's an easy calculation. >> Okay. Yep. Um, and and I guess I guess you know what I'm the point I'm trying to make and and I'll just put it right on the table here is I don't think that
this idea of of two different forms of when when we phase this in is going to be either understood by voters or is going to be satisfactory to voters because um on the one hand they might they might think that the
smaller number um isn't all that much smaller smaller. So, the only choices that they're being given are, you know, two rather high numbers. Um, but then they'll be even more sort of, I think, perturbed and confused uh if someone tries to tell them, well, by voting for
the smaller number, you actually voted um to to take maybe more money out of your pocket as a taxpayer um over three years than if you had voted for the larger number. to try to explain that to people in a way that makes sense to them. Um or or or really feels like a
choice. It it doesn't feel like a choice. And and so I I'm for one, I'm going to, you know, pursue that we we only use one number and and that it be the traditional method of, you know, a whole number that represents uh the
expectation as to the amount of money that will be added to the tax levy um over the three-year course of the u uh predicted outcome. So, am I I understand you right that you're talking about not a tiered
override? >> No, >> I I don't even like the language of tiers. I just, you know, I I think we should start with a number that is uh the the same number on the ballot as how much will be raised in the levy over three years a and and settle for that
and then move to a question of should there be a number some something smaller than that. Got it. So yeah, >> it's not a bookkeeping trick or anything else >> like a 23.2 or a $23.5 million override as tier one and then or as as the top
question. Yeah. Like the full funding question and then >> a $19 million question and maybe something lower than that is what you're suggesting. Yeah. And and doing away with the idea of >> a stabilization fund. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That that's me. And just for the record,
you are right, John, that over the three-year period, the total dollars collected from taxpayers under the upfront scenario is higher um because you take more upfront and you're taking that every year. Um >> by the upfront option, so people
understand that's the lower number. Yeah, >> it's the lower number because over right over time it evens out. Um in fact, it's more advantageous over time. But yes, because you're taxing it all up front. >> Yeah. the actual dollars that come into the town are slightly higher. Yeah. Um
than they would be under the higher under the other scenario. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, >> yeah. So, I just want to really be clear about my understanding um what John just said. Um so, we have not been presented with a number that is a pay as you go
for both the schools and the town. Right. So, >> I do I do have that number. >> You do have that number. So, so the 23 number that we've been talking about is schools is pay as you go. Town is upfront. >> So, we have a blending of these two, which is still confusing, frankly, to
me. >> But I understand why Chaz wants it, but it it still will be confusing to the voters because you are end up you're going to take more than 23 point as part of the three-year levy >> if you take the town part up. >> If you take the town part up front. So knowing what the what the uh pay as you
go for both schools and town is would be really helpful. >> That's 23 25.9 >> 25.9 >> 25895489 townside 7951 050 and the schools again rough just under 18 million. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And then the um do we have an equivalent um no I'm just going to start with that. So if we wanted to go with pay as you go which is what we always have always done in the past uh and maximum transparency with the voters so that there's no
confusion um with the ballot question. It's actually 25.9 which is what we would ask. And that would be the total three-year >> increase in the levy. Yes. Cumulative. >> Let me let me let me put this up. Hold on one second. me share the screen here.
Sorry. One second. One second. And while you're doing that, I'm going to I'm going to say two two more quick things. Uh 20 uh 23 point something. Is it four or two? What's the $23 million? >> 23.25. >> 23.25
is schools is pay as you go, but town is upfront. >> Correct. >> And then 18.6 Six is both town and schools is paid up front. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> This is both town and schools pay as you
go. >> You guys having fun yet out there? >> There'll be a quiz afterwards. So yeah, take notes. >> So you can see here every town's numbers. So you can see the total cumulative increases in year 1 it's
6.83% year 2 12.77 year 3 19.09 >> and which which is what under what scenario? >> So this is the scenario in which both town and schools are pay as you go. >> Pay as you go. Okay. >> A good rule of thumb is if it says
stabilization fund zero that's pay as you go. Um, >> Michael. >> Um, so I I have two questions. Um, the f the first question I want to ask you, Chaz, because this may take a bit of a look up, is what were the percentage
increase numbers for 2023, 2024, 2025 in the last override? I'm just want to compare them to these numbers to understand the relative shock value of what these numbers might be. if you can find those. >> We'll you can pull those up. I I my
recollection is that the overall impact to the levy >> including the debt exclusions. >> Well, yes, including the debt exclusions was just under 10% for all the ballot questions and that included the optional composting question which did not pass.
So the override alone I think the o the the question 2a alone I think only added less than 4% to the three to the to the over >> but but there were but there was debt exclusions as well that increased the number.
>> Yes. >> And so when you get to the bottom number that says total cumulative tax percentage increase. >> Yeah. >> That's the number I was asked. >> I will try and get you that number. It's higher than 10%. >> Um >> it's higher than 10%. >> Yes. because it doesn't because the
remember the rubric that was used in 2023 did not include Prop 2 and a half. It was by how much extra can your taxes go up and so ultimately that was that was the you know it was taken as a given that people's taxes will be going up by a set percentage. Expenditures and
revenues this time around wanted to make very clear to the voters that your taxes are going up by a set amount anyway and we want to fact we want we want to be honest with folks when we talk about what potential bottom >> So are you saying that in any of the option one and option two scenarios, the
rate of increase will be lower than it was three years ago because because we're including the two and a half. >> No. Um no, this the the numbers are too high here. Um okay. >> Um they're not right. The just the by by
sheer dollar value that's not it's not going to be true. Um >> I I wasn't asking a dollar value. I was asking a percent question. Yes, but I know. But like when you when you factor in just like the order of magnitude that we're talking about here, even when you think when you then try and go back and solve for it, I'm fairly confident that
the answer is no. But it's not it may not be it's it's not going to be as disperate as you might think. Um it's going to be close, but I do think that these numbers are higher. And and the second question that I have um and I this is a question for my colleagues I
believe is do we need the MOA and the CLA report information in order to decide on the override. >> I'm just trying I don't >> Yeah, don't think so. Okay, >> David. >> So just uh were you able to run the
number on 19.9 frontloaded? Let me do that. >> The reason I ask that is because it sounds like >> uh there are at least three voices saying let's not mix our variables here. Y so let's compare pay as you go to pay as you go. Let's compare frontloaded to front-loaded. So I think it would be
helpful to have that number. >> I will run that for you now. And there's also a question of comparing this year's levy or this year's override to the 2023 override which as I understand you saying did not factor in
the two and a half increase >> right >> that that we get every year irrespective of what we do others >> that working group did not factor that in. So, so that makes it I mean not apples to apples and people may be comparing >> this override to what they experienced
in 2023 and they're not really getting a good comparison. >> Again, education is going to be crucial here. >> Okay. Sorry, John. And I I don't mean to interrupt Chaz's pro process here, but
um um so uh I'll just ask the question. Um, has there ever been a an override that was other than pay as you go in Brooklyn? No. >> No. Okay. >> So, we're we're sort of in uncharted territory here.
>> Yeah. >> I'm just curious, you know, a big giant piece of the puzzle for me uh and sure for everybody else is to hear from the schools. >> Um, and I'm wondering if uh we could hear from them and then kind of because >> Well, I was I was letting people you know >> No, I No, I'm not rushing you. I'm just
I think that the questions that we're asking Chaz about numbers and scenarios um >> uh will happen as a matter of course anyway uh and knowing what's going to happen on the school side is a huge variable. >> Yeah. Are there any other clarifying
questions? >> No, I agree with you. >> No, just asking for the 199 number frontloaded. >> I I'm getting it for you now. Sorry. It's a >> No, no, that's fine. I'll just have >> It's a It's a dance of several spreadsheets. requires a super computer.
>> As soon as you get that, we'll call up the school committee for you. Okay. >> Um, give me ones >> for us. >> I wasn't intended to rush you. >> I know. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> sorry. I'm so sorry. >> Not ready.
>> Not quite ready. >> Here we go. Uh, your here's your here's your here's your rubric. Um, 19.98 upfront um puts the town at exactly 6 million and the schools at just under 14
million. The total increase allin uh is 17.31% over three years average increase. Um that leaves the schools at the end of FY29 with a $9.5 million reserve which
would be sufficient to cover which would leave them with roughly a between a five and a $6 million deficit in FY30. Um and it would wipe the town deficit out and there'd be no town deficit. >> And what was that front number? >> Uh sorry the the front the
>> So 199 >> 199 >> is pay as you go. >> Pay as you go. What's that in a front-loaded version? >> Oh, I thought you were asking me to do 19.99 frontloaded. Uh, as in take that dollar amount. >> Oh, no, no. What's the frontloaded equivalent of 199?
>> Okay, that's a different question. Maybe you should hear from Bella. >> Let's hear from Bella. Let's hear from Bella. >> Okay. Superintendent Bella. Bella. >> Good evening, everyone. >> Good evening. >> I'm sorry. You're an educator. You want
us to say good evening. Good evening. >> No, you're ready for me. All right. So, greetings to all of you and I and um I welcome the the opportunity to present what we've been doing and also to help everyone understand all that what's
behind all those big numbers that you're talking about. So um in it's so I'll talk about our team today the FY2729 budget request and the impacts of reduced or no override and I should say that I also have some of the members of
the leadership team here and of course members of the school committee. So in uh just to let you know the team today as you know um next slide please the senior leadership team I think as of today we've almost been together nine
months it's a new team myself um with Karen Schmuckler for OSS Robin um Benoy who's here for teaching and learning and Susan in her third year anchored the team so this leadership team has a lot
of experience even though we're new So in the next slide um we knew we knew coming into this as a team that there were a lot of challenges financially, organizationally um and in in the district. So we hit the
ground running. Um together also I committed 200 plus entry interviews. Many of you were participants in that. And um it was for schools, people in schools, people on the town side. Um and it really helped me set the priorities
and to understand more particularly about what the issues were and prioritization. Um the other the other part that we knew coming in was to reestablish our our working relationships with our colleagues in the town departments. I've
always come into district understanding that working together we do better for each other and also that we are all part of um >> Thank you. Also, we're also financially coming out of the same pie. So, the better we can do all together, the
better um we can able fund all our interests and better understand how to support one another. I have really appreciated town administrator Car's um openness. He's been available to me anytime, text, phone, anytime. He's always been there to answer a
question and offer support. Um and of course coming in we needed to make sure that everything that we were doing were serving the needs of all our students, our program sustainability and all of that. So coming in acquainting ourselves um and ensuring best outcomes for
students, academic excellence, preparing them for the future. Um a real um tremendous kudos to the district is the improvement on attendance across the Commonwealth. Um there has been an issue with chronic absenteeism. Brooklyn has
actually been able to mitigate that to single digits. Brooklyn's numbers are um are at the top. They're excellent in what you've been able to overcome in this town. We also have amazing specialized programming that keep students in Brooklyn. When we compare
our um numbers of out of district placements across our comparables, we uh we are below everyone. Our tuition numbers are below and this represents um a positive in impact of the investment
that you've made in indist programming. We so coming in we took a deep analysis and responded to all the elements of the CLA report um with um tenant administer Kerry. We both agreed on identifying the key
elements of the MOA that was done in the spring and I am pleased to say that everything that we outlined has been satisfied or is in progress and we have a single item that's in progress and that should be completed by the end of this fiscal year. So all the elements
have been identified and we have committed to seeing them through the end. We have also adopted some of the ERSC recommendations in the development of the FY27 budget including identifying um opportunities for revenue production.
Um and we also will respond to additional ERSC recommendations for future consideration um such as school modeling. Um so we do we have absorbed the CLA report and we are also analyzing
the ERSC final report and look to um to again to use that as a guiding document for us. Just um since the ERSC report was finalized the school committee has approved the PSB finance policy and they did that at their last meeting. Thank you.
FY2729 budget request as um as town Mr. Kerry has and you've all been um fully apprised of the rising costs in nearflap funding. So near flap funding, this is the town's capacity to
fund projected increases for the school department. Um, I want you to understand that we've worked really hard to examine all our lines and find efficiencies. And yes, a budget will increase over time
just um just for the inflation, expenses, salaries. The projected allocation or the capacity to cover increases over the next three years is about 1.8 million for over the three
years. So only 600,000 per year. Um 2.5 in the first year, but it goes negative90 in FY28 and negative 500,000 over the third year. And this is um and I know you've been fully appraised by town administrative carry for the reasons for that. But this is a decrease
in the capacity of the town to cover increases of the school budget from year to year. Um we have cost drivers and one of them continues to be high student needs and some of it is manifested in our district tuition and transportation
costs um that we carry yeartoear. Thank you. So in preparing the budget for FY27 we knew coming in of the financial constraints. So we we again reviewed all
our lines. we were able to reduce our initial forecast for FY27 by $5.8 million. We also um are looking at a budget recommendation with 22.1 net fewer FTEES
and an anticipated additional $500,000 in new revenue over the the multi-year projection. So, it sorry, go back. Um so this outlines the reductions and so how we approached the reductions we
looked at first at the district office and we did as much as we could to reduce and then we prrated the reductions across prek8 and the high school 6040 and why because that's where the enrollment is where the students are but
we tried to protect as much the reductions um at that level with the reduction of 5.8 8 million in the projection and the fine-tuning of our lines, our budget is now 12.5%
non salary expenses. Typically, school budgets are 85% salaries, 15% non-s salary expenses. We've refined our expenses so much that we are now at 12.5%.
What this means, future reductions will have to come out of staffing. So in our non salary expenses, there is tuition, transportation, um food service, utilities, there's
there is no there's really not much room to go to expenses. So future reductions will come out of staffing. Next one, please. And so we have looked at a so in in right sizing our class sizes and also
looking at um our case loads and our overall enrollment we have been reducing our staffing over time since the last override and again we are projecting reduction of a net 22.1 FTEEs for next year. If you see where our staffing was
pre- pandemic and what we are projecting for the next year, you see we're actually aligned with our prepandemic levels. So with a full funding with a fully funded budget, that's that's where we're going to be.
The other the other shift I also want to um call out for you because um some would say well with your net enrollment why isn't your staffing at the same level as it was in in um 2018. So what I want to note for you is that over time
our staffing for student services has increased but the staffing for general education and districtwide has decreased. So overall we have a net reduction of 22.3 over this period of time but it's a
reduction in general ed increase in staffing for student services. Thank you. So again we've scrutinized their expenses for efficiencies. We have reduced the initial projection by 5.8 million. We have looked at new options
for revenue. Um, so this is a slide to help you look at the differences from FY23 all the way to our projections for FY27, FY28, and FY29. And this is a really important slide to focus on. If you look
at the line for the allocations from the town over the the LA the previous um three years, you can see 7 million, 5 million, six million on average. On average, the town has had the
capacity to contribute to the increases for the annual um for the school budgets around six million a year. As we look forward um as we look forward as again we're looking at 2.5 for next year and then 90
and negative 500,000. And again, this reflects the town capacity, but our growth in our ask, if you take the numbers in dollars of what we're asking for, you divide it over three, it's around six million. So our ask or
incremental ask is very comparable to what we have had before. And the only way we've been able to do that is the identify efficiencies and reduce as much as possible. If you look at the percent increases for the next three years
versus the increases we had over the last three, the percent increases are actually close to 4% and lower than what we've had in the past. And so I just want to um demonstrate or make clear um
how hard we've been to be mindful um of our fiscal responsibility to the residents of this town and at the same time present you a budget that will meet the needs of all our students. Thank you.
Uh we understand that you have a weighty decision ahead of you and so part of the presentation is to let you know what the impact would be to a reduced or a no override option. Um and so this is so
the slides you got before are all the same as they were. This is the slide that changed um because it's updated to be more accurately reflective of um town minister K's work that he has presented to you. So I don't think I need to go into as much detail as you've already
discussed where there's tier one, tier two and tier three which are fully funded options but how you fund it are different formal formulaically and I know you're going to discuss that further. And then there's the option 3A that is um reduce funding at 86%.
So this shows you the the impact I'm sorry. Yeah. All right. This shows you the impact of a a partially funded at 86%. So there would be and so that option would require us to reduce an additional
2.5 million and as I've described we are now at 12.5% non-s salary expenses. So the reductions would come out of um need to cycle forward to um would come out of staffing and so it's outlined there.
There would be another additional 19.3 FTE reduction. We would at this point we've been doing our best to save um class sizes and programming. Um but with an additional 2.5 million we would lose
programming most notably um conservatory and um also a lot of our MTS supports and sort of the supports for athletic programming across the district. Uh and again what we did is we looked at maintaining class size. um our non-
salary cuts uh expenses have been cuts to that have been exhausted and we must adhere to special education mandates. So the trends that I described to you we we are limited by what we can do in reductions to student services. So the
reductions would come out of general ed and other generalized programs. Thank you. If there was um so this is if there's a non override or or um a failed override
in year one. So this is not the 86% um option in year one. We would have to cut 5.3 million. It would eliminate our world language program, most of our music programs, 50%
of um paraprofessional grades, one level um supports, and there'd be significant increases in in high school teaching loads um across the K8 and it would diminish our MTS supports for um general ed students. It would be an additional
reduction of 58.2 FTE and that would be in year one. If there is a failed override, even with these reductions in year two and year three, the budget will continue to grow. And as I described,
without alternate funding identified, the town allocation for increases again in year two is negative 90,000 in year three negative 500,000. So the budget would continue to grow and so so we are projecting um with no
alternate funding in year two and three additional 13 million would have to be cut and so reflecting um so a filled over result in a total reduction of 210.3 FTEES or 14.5%
of the staff. So, we continue to um up seek um um efficiencies and as ad town administrator Kerry identified, we're still in conversation about things what we can do structurally in the years
forward. Um but this is where we are with our best attempts for FY27. Since the last overrides, we've only reduced program. there is no new program embedded in our multi-year projections in the in the three years forward and um
um 86% funding would significantly compromise our educational programming and also to note historically when you lose programming they're almost impossible to retrieve so we respectfully request full funding for FY2729
as presented and we also are very respectful of the decision that you have for you. Thank you. And so we're available for questions. I don't know if you wanted to go back to your deliberation and we step aside. You can let me know what you prefer.
>> Why don't we uh if board members have questions for uh Superintendent Long? >> Uh who had a hand up? >> No, please. I actually my question may first thank you for your presentation all the work that you've done >> and again for the team you're here
everybody. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so Chaz something caught my attention. Uh actually the slide that shows the the outy years with the contribution from the town going negative. I I'd like to see that slide again.
>> There you go. >> Chaz. >> Yeah. What is going on here? I'll tell you what's going on here. In FY24 through FY26, there was an override and an override was phased in and now that override is over. Uh, and here we
are again. Um, that's part of it. Um, so the reason why those numbers were able to go up as much as they were in from FY24 to FY26 was those are the three years that we had an operating override phased in and now we're out of that. Um, the other Asian is fixed costs. Healthc care is eating. Remember the town school
split works like this for you you know this but folks in the audience may not >> in the out in we get revenue coming in we spend the revenue first on fixed costs we allocate it to fixed costs and spend it down one of our fixed costs is health care that's our biggest budget buster and so when health care costs
keep going up by double digit amounts the amount of remaining revenue that's left to split between the town and the schools is not as much as it used to be. it just doesn't go as far and that's what pushes that even further. So between the loss of the additional levy capacity that we had from the 24 through
26 override and the growth in health care costs were stuck. Um and the town is feeling that burden too. >> So so to be clear that the the health care costs for the schools we're paying for that. >> Yes. >> And that's that's that's pre-allocation. So that's eating. Okay. So they are they
are getting an allocation. is just not showing here because it's above quote unquote above the line >> above the line and that's why one of the recommendations we made as part of you know that on the town side that we made as part of expenditures and revenues was to take that number below the line so people could really see >> which we could do that in the future just to correct what just to correct one
thing that you said that the reason why the numbers dropped so why it went negative is because we're out of the three-year cycle for the operating override well the operating override is sustains forever so we didn't take that money back so that can't be the full explanation for But again, the growth,
the our ability to grow the levy has contracted, right? You know, now in those three fiscal years, 24, 25, and 26, people's taxes were able to go up, and they did go up by more than 2 and a.5% plus new growth because there was an operating override for 11.98 million
that passed in 23. Um, now we have taxed to the maximum of that. and costs continue as as superintendent wants cost to rise but we can no longer increase the levy beyond two and a half plus new growth. >> Okay. >> If I could also add that the outlook for the next three years is different than
the outlook for the past three years. When I reviewed the override slides for the past override, the town allocation actually there was a capacity to give almost four million for each of the year's increases which wasn't so but the
override helped give more and so it is a big difference. So in the past override the town did have capacity to contribute significantly more than in the outy years and and um healthc care costs and other inflationary items have just
really exacerbated and decreased the town's capacity to to contribute to that. So, it's that's a big factor and and I'm saying we we're trying to get to that level, but the town's capacity to cover that
has diminished. >> Okay, Michael. >> Uh, thank you to you and your team for um this very thorough presentation um where it's it's helpful to all of us and to to the public. Um I have two questions. Um the first is um in your
slide before where you talked about the 22.1 FTEES that you're planning to cut um regardless of of whether or not an override passes. Um you said that any further cuts would compromise
educational programming. Um, and I just want to make make sure I'm clear those 22.1 are you saying that those cuts are not compromising educational programming? >> So, um, so often often a budget is
presented as this is level service. So, I'm going to say the budget that we are presenting for FY27 is below level service. Um at the district office level we are underst staffed and so we are seeking to restore one position but we
reduced others to try to do that. So we made the cuts um further efficiencies at the district level. So I can't say we are at level service for that um but we did it to protect the um the prek and
the high school. We rightsize mostly those reductions in the prek8 and through the high school through looking at class size guidance and also we looked at case loads. So we do feel those reductions where we rightsize that we're presenting a level service with
respect to our students but it's still a reduced level because we did cut our educational and technology um specialists by 50%. So I can't say it's level service but we so we're trying so it's not exactly
level service but we do think given the financial circumstances that was something that we were committed to do but at this point we've right sized so any further reductions will will compromise programming.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Um and my second question um to the to the other end in the no override scenario you talked about an additional 145% reduction in staff overall >> over three years >> over those three years. Um but you also
said that um your special education um requirements were mandated by law. >> Yes. So the question I have is that 14.5% then generally going to be taken from general ed in order to protect the
mandated services in special ed. >> It the bulk of it will be disproportionate to general education. Um there might be you know some like paraprofessionals that we might might reduce um at the specialized services
but it will be disproportionately in general education >> and and right now what's the sort of proportional split between general ed and special ed >> overall in our staffing I don't know if you have that Sorry, >> next slide, I think.
>> Yeah, >> here it is. >> Okay, >> I see. Okay, so it's roughly two. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. I should say it's it's um
it's not just special education that are mandated services. There's also EL >> ELLL. So there there are other mandated services besides special education, but it's but it would we would have to keep those. >> Okay.
>> Sorry, English language learners. >> Yes. >> Superintendent, thank you for your presentation and all you >> Sorry, I had my hand up. Is that all right? Oh, yeah. >> Okay, you can go. >> I haven't asked a question yet. Um, but thank you very much. >> Well, I was I had a question, too.
>> Oh, well, you should ask. >> No, no, go ahead. >> Thank you, Superintendent. Um, and and I want to preface just this quick question by saying um your team uh uh and I include Susan Given as the veteran member of your team. um I think is giving people a lot of hope and and they
haven't had necessarily had hope um all the in in all of these recent years for various reasons but thank you very much for that and at uh I would I would though like to ask you can can someone put up the uh slide on page 13 is that possible or if we're not too far into
the presentation >> 13 >> budget FY27 and I asked this question for The intention of um with the intention of just bringing home to people um the kind of gap that we are talking about between
um routine increases in the size of budgets versus what the town uh by the two and a half mandate um is held to. If you take two and a half percent that the mandate holds us to and then the 1% that
we usually get in addition to that from new growth um adds up to three and a half percent. Um the line that says um on this table increase from prior year budget shows a 5.9% increase in FY24
4.44% um uh act in in FY25. These these are actuals. Um and then the budget FY26 a 4.34 FY27 projected 4.91
FY28 projected 3.68 FY29 projected 4.67 to a person who asks are we ever going to get those numbers within the range of a roughly three and a half% available revenue increase every year. Do you have
an answer? I think that I I feel very positively that we've actually increased on the percent increases. We've improved on the percent increases in the outy years and we'll continue to look for efficiencies, but I can't tell you that we would get
to 3.5% necessarily. Our tuition costs, it's $10 million of our budget and um we don't have control over those rates. Those rates are determined by DESIE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and they generally they've
they've sometimes allowed 14% increases, 7% increases. Um, so that's that's a big piece for us. Transportation, utilities, those are costs that they those increases always exceed 2.5%.
So, we always we're trying to find efficiencies. We have identified some revenue sources. Um, but some of the bar expenses are are are are not in our control and they are generally part of
our mandated services to um to our resident students. >> And if I may just finish by posing another question for people to think about. I don't have the answer, but I think the answer is knowable. Um I wonder what um uh a a analysis of income
increases over that period of time uh would indicate. Um you know have have incomes been increasing 5.9% in 24 4.4% 4.9% 3.68% 4.67%.
Um that's where the I'm I'm telling people what they already know. um that's where the money comes from to pay for sustaining this level of budget increase. Um and I suspect that the comparison would show that they haven't been increasing at at that rate. Um if
anyone can, you know, show me numbers otherwise, that's fine. >> So, um Superintendent Long, I I have a question from your budget summary. Um I was sort of troubled by something in here. Um and it was what would occur in
a no um scenario at the high school where the reductions in um in staffing could result in the high school not meeting state requirements and the consequences of that. Um I think the
school committee asked you to uh reach out to Desessie and and ask what the con those consequences are and then I have a second question related to that. >> I do remember that the question was asked and I have to say we did not do
that but um but we can still do that. The reason why I raised that is that that suggests that even at a uh 86% reduction from your full total ask, there is a risk that the high school as
well as other programs in in the district could be out of compliance with DESIE standards. Um and a lower percentage has even greater risk of being out of compliance. And I guess I I just want people to know
that that is what we're really looking at if we if we um uh offer the the community the opportunity to just slash the school committee's budget. Um >> so thank you for that. Another collateral concern is as we eliminate
generalized supports um that we might have more students that will be identified for individualized educational plans if we lo if we eliminate the generalized supports. So over time the district has invested in that to bring some of those numbers
down. our percent of students on IEPs is that also compares quite favorably with other districts at this time, but that is a number that could increase if we as if we were to eliminate all those other supports. David,
>> to that point regarding supports, could you talk a little bit about the differences between tier one, tier two, tier three interventions and how having paraprofessional support at grade one, for instance, can help prevent children from ending up in the special education
track. >> So tiered one supports are generally is what all classroom teachers are trained to do. And so just interventions, different methodologies of a student struggling. Tier two doesn't mean you're on a IEP or on a 504 or a specialized
plan, but tier two would be more targeted supports. And that could be represented like the plus ones tutorials at the high school or these um the paraprofessionals that every kindergarten classroom now has a one pair of professional grade one as well.
Those are the generalized supports to do that. Um, but there's also, especially in the in the high school, there are intervention supports for students that are and then tier three is more specialized targeted supports often
represented by a IEP or a 504. And so the the theory of action is the more you invest in tier one, tier 2 supports that ultimately you won't have as many students needing the tier three. So it's
a long-term investment in their ability to thrive, but also in decreasing the cost of intensive specialized services at a later time. And I think it's important for the public to understand that because in looking at the slide, in the event that there's no override that
passes, there would be 13 FTEEs eliminated for first grade pair professionals. Uh many other pair professionals would be lost. And some people who don't necessarily have an understanding of these different tiers of support might think, well, do we
really need that extra body in the room? and actually makes a very big difference both for the education of the student and also the financial ramifications down the line. >> Thank you. Um especially in those primary grades when students develop
more um broadly in the K1 2 and even grade three, it's important to have those early supports to so they don't get behind and then um they get they so those gaps don't appear and they move forward.
Michael. >> Um, so I'm gonna take take a potential leap here. Um, when we started you outlined some areas of agreement and I'm sort of listening to the conversation. Um, and uh, I'm just interested to know
whether as a as a group we are also sort of coming to the agreement that putting a an amount on the override that is less than full funding uh, is not in the service of our town.
So that we should we potentially should only put in full funding. So I'm just asking whether we are reaching that consensus or or whether we need to have more discussion. >> So you're saying that u we would not do a tiered override
>> or or whatever levels we have they would all guarantee full funding. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just wanted to say in in fairness um that the the comparison that I um just asked for from from the um
slide on page 13 um should also be made for the town um and and uh you know I think it would be very interesting to you know put right next to the school number increase for FY24 the town number increase FY25 67 89 um uh and I I I
can't say you know uh without going back to the books uh what that comparison would show um I think at a guess I would say it would show that both um are above mostly above the 3 and a half% which is kind of the magic number when you combine the
allowed 2 and a half% with the 1% we get from new growth um but I don't know if there would be differences in in how much they vary from that three and a half% number and in fairness I think we should at some point just you know have available to us uh both sets of numbers
and and nobody has kept them from us. It's just that we haven't had this particular table in front of us. >> Uh Paul, >> is it okay? >> You responding to Michael? >> Is it time to deliberate or I thought maybe I >> Oh, wait. Actually, we have a public
>> and we have a public hearing, too, right? >> Point taken. >> I do have the numbers that David asked for. Um um so if you were to take the 19.99 and run it
um in the same way that you uh and and and take it down so that you would be taking it all basically doing the equivalent of um solving for this and taking it all at once. The topline number would be 1798
million dollars. So basically 17.2 2 million of which 4.81 million would go to the town, 12.38 million would go to the schools. Total increase over three years would be 16.47%.
It would leave the schools stabilization fund with $4.6 million at the end and the town with $300,000 at the end. So you'd be looking at pretty sizable gap on both ends there. Um but neither side
would go into the red. So that's your $17.2 million option. This would be the upfront version of 19.99. Um pay as you go. >> Okay. Why don't we move on to the next
uh part of this uh agenda? >> No, not the public hearing. We're going to hear from the uh fire union and the teachers union. I don't know who wants to go first. Whoever gets to the microphone first.
>> Good evening everybody. Uh this presentation presentation is going to have three parts. Um first I'm going to read a joint statement from all of the public employee unions. Um >> uh introduce yourself first. Justin Brown, president of the Brooklyn Educators Union. Uh, and then we're
gonna hear from Declan Ward, who's the uh, president of the Firefighters Union. Then I'm gonna and who's going to speak specifically about fire related issues, and then I'm going to come back and speak specifically about >> You each have 10 minutes. >> Sounds good.
>> Share it. Share it carefully. >> All right. This is a joint statement from the Brookline public unions in support of an override. Uh again, I am Justin Brown. I'm the president of the Brooklyn Educators Union. Um we, the undersigned, uh represent employees in
public safety, public works, and public education for Brooklyn. We are the secretaries, trash collectors, police officers, kitchen staff, firefighters, educators, custodians, civil engineers, and many others who make Brookline go.
We are also working people who care about our jobs, each other, and our communities. We endorse an override amount of $23.2 million, the current top level, and its promise of continued level service funding for the next three years. It is
a necessary step for the town and schools to fund the services our communities expect at the levels that they expect. This full amount is an investment in Brooklyn's future and will help Brooklyn maintain its status as one of the most desirable places to live in
Massachusetts. It's clear that anything less will result in losses in jobs, losses in programs, and losses in the capacity to educate the students of PSB, provide important and urgent services to Brooklyn's neighborhoods, and keep
Brookline's infrastructure running. We encourage our members to be involved in a successful override campaign and urge the voters of Brooklyn to get involved, learn about the issues, and vote on May 5th. Respectfully, Justin Brown, the president of the
Brooklyn Educators Union, Michael Keieven, president of the Brooklyn Police Union, William Smith, president of the Brooklyn Engineering Division Associates, Mona Salulta Lamakia, president of ASME Local 1358, and Declan
Ward, president of the Brooklyn Firefighters Union Local 950. So, I'm gonna pass it on to Declan. How you doing? Good evening everybody, members of the select board. My name is Declan Ward and I stand before you
tonight as the proud president of Brookline Firefighters IIAFF Local 950 representing the men and women who protect this community every hour of every day. I want to be clear from the start. Failing to properly fund the fire
department to the level necessary to maintain services is a direct threat to p public safety. Without that funding, the result will be firehouse closures, layoffs, reduced frontline response capability.
Brookline is not a quiet suburban town. It is a densely populated urban community with multifamily housing, high-rise buildings, busy roadways, public transit, and a growing population that depends on rapid emergency response. And while this department
currently staffs its apparatus appropriately, closing firehouses means response times increase and fewer firefighters are on scene when they're needed most. The importance of a fully staffed department is not my opinion. It is based on facts. These cuts mean
layoffs. They mean closed firehouses. They mean longer response times. They mean fewer firefighters are in when seconds matter most. And in this job, seconds are everything. When a fire doubles in size every minute, when someone is trapped, when a medical
emergency turns critical, there's no substitute for staffing and proximity. We don't have to guess what happens when resources are reduced. We've seen it. Just this last year, we witnessed a tragedy that occurred in Fall River that highlighted these consequences when 10
people lost their lives in an assisted living facility fire, making it the deadliest fire in Massachusetts, Massachusetts, excuse me, in more than four decades. A recent fatal house fire in Needam, where a young woman died while crews were still waiting for mutual aid, shows exactly what's at
stake when frontline resources aren't available close to home. Decisions about reducing apparatus or staffing are not abstract. They directly affect whether help gets there in time. The lesson is simple. Full staffing and response times
matter. It is often said that the mutual aid from Boston and other surrounding communities will make up the difference. That is not reality. Boston firefighters are staffed to manage their own high call volume and are not necessarily available to cover staffing shortages in
other departments. Engine 37 and ladders 26 26 do respond in Brooklyn, but in many circumstances they are often committed to their own emergencies which take priority. Mutual aid is not meant to support a properly resourced department.
It excuse me mutual aid is meant to support a properly excuse me mutual aid is meant to support a properly resourced department not replace one. Simply put, it is an unsustainable practice that is neither realistic nor responsible. Our chief Sullivan brings valuable
experience from Worcester, including a clear understanding of how quickly conditions can overwhelm available resources and the serious consequences when that happens. The Worcester cold storage fire, which claimed the lives of six firefighters and forever change six families, stands as a sobering reminder
why adequate staffing and timely response are non-negotiable. While the chief manages the budget he is given, he does not he does not control how it is funded. that lies with our elected officials and this community. All the more reason we call on him to use his
position to ensure staffing decision decisions reflect the hard lessons of past strate strategies and work with us to support our department needs to protect both firefighters and the community. This comes down to responsibility. Balancing a budget is
your job as elected officials, but public safety is non-negotiable. If firehouses are closed and firefighters are laid off, those decision decisions are being made here by this board, residents are being forced into an override vote because elected officials have put them in this
predicament and consequences will follow. There is a critical decision coming before the residents of Brooklyn and an override vote is not just about dollars. It's about whether Brookline maintains the level of protection its res residents have come to expect and
depend on. A yes vote is necessary to prevent firehouse closures, avoid layoffs, and ensure that when someone calls 911, help arrives quickly with the staffing needed to make a difference. This vote is bigger than us. It's about the resident trapped in a fire, the
senior needing immediate care, the family asleep, trusting help will come. Brookline firefighters are counting on you and on this community to get this right. So, I'll close with this. The next tragedy, it doesn't happen somewhere else. It happens here. And
there are no second chances when it does. If these cuts go through, the question won't be if it costs lives, it's when. Do not make these cuts. Do not close firehouses. Do not compromise safety. And to the residents, support the override. Vote yes. Because when you
fund this department properly, you're not just funding a service, you're saving lives. Thank you. again for everybody. Um I am Justin Brown, the president of the Brooklyn Educators Union, uh which represents approximately 1300 pair professionals,
teachers, and administrators of the public schools of Brooklyn. Over the past several months, I've done my homework by watching uh all of the override committee meetings. I've also watched the school committee meetings and have watched as the superintendent and her staff have put together the FY27
budget. I'm here to say that we fully endorse the full amount of $23.2 million on the override. It's clear that the results of a failed override would be catastrophic for PSB. No need to rehash
all the details here. Uh but two headlines um stick out to us. a high school that would be so compromised it would struggle uh to retain accreditation for FY29 and elementary sections ballooning to 35 plus students
next to shuttered classrooms with no funds to staff them. The full $23.2 million is in is necessary not just because it will maintain level services but because it is an investment. It is an investment in stability for students
and educators. Successful educational outcomes are based on stable, predictable, and trusted relationships. The only way to do this is ensuring that working conditions are as stable as possible. It's an investment in trust in the voters of Brooklyn. By saying yes to
the full level services amount of $23.2 million, you are approaching the kind of budgetary stability that we all need and deserve. Anything less invites the possibility the possibilities of continued tension and strife for three
budget cycles. And finally, it's an investment in the future. Along with the Brookline School Committee and Superintendent Wong, we have a shared vision of educational excellence for the students of PSB where everyone has a chance to thrive. Excellence needs to be
achieved and excellence needs to be maintained. And of the options available, only the full amount has the promise for both. Thank you. Okay. Uh that was less than the 10 minutes per per union that you had. So
let's move on to our public hearing. Melanie, could you open it up or or read the rules and and then I'll open it up. >> Give me one second. Okay. Now that the chair has opened the public hearing, if there's anyone that wishes to speak, please raise your hand
using the raise your hand feature if you are online or make your presence known in the room. We have about 34 people online um and a lot in this room. We do have people that have signed up prior. Um,
first up is Dave Porter. Hello. Lesson learned. My name is Dave Porter. I'm a town meeting member. My wife Julie and I own and reside at 21 Clark Road in Precinct 6. Our two kids go to Wrl and current plan is for them to graduate from BHS.
My oldest is in fourth grade. This year he started learning the double base. He loves it. It's expanding his mind in a way that a worldclass school in a worldclass town is supposed to. I look forward to it continuing to do so. Two years ago, the elementary world
languages program did not continue to do so. Despite promises associated with the previous override, it was cut. For my kids, it's gone forever. We are here to call on you to put full funding numbers and only full funding numbers on the ballot. Lowballing us
once again raising taxes and then having to cut programs will create trust in the override process and in town government. We have friends and neighbors on fixed income. We understand that they will feel this more than we will. For everyone's sake, but for theirs especially, the full number had better
be the necessary number. So, who can we trust? On the town side, we have administrator and local superhero Chaz Kerry. On the school side, after a few frankly trustwakening years, we have the impressive superintendent Bella Wong, who has said repeatedly that she
understands her role as a cautious steward of our tax dollars and I think has demonstrated it tonight. Brookline has the leadership it needs. We are therefore here tonight to call on you to trust your staff and your constituents to rise to this moment and to put full funding numbers and only full funding
numbers on the ballot to keep strong what makes Brookline by some measures and my own the best place to live in America. Thank you. >> Next is Ailen Nielsen. If you're online, you can use the raise hand feature. >> I don't see her online.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Go to Jeremy Redburn. >> Good evening, chair, members of the select board. My name is Jeremy Redburn. I'm a town meeting member and resident of precinct 12, and I'm here tonight representing Yes for Brookline 2026.
I hold here a petition signed by 1,269 Brookline residents, our neighbors, school committee members, library trustees, town meeting members, and residents from every corner of town. All these people are deeply concerned about losing the things that help make
Brooklyn the amazing place that we all love. We know and they know that raising taxes is difficult. We understand the real burden this places on everyone. Families, seniors living on fixed incomes, small business owners. We don't
take that lightly. But as Dave said, we trust that we have the right leaders to be good stewards of that money. And we also understand something else that you've heard a lot about tonight, and I'm sure you'll hear more. Not acting now has real impacts. The cuts aren't abstract. They have real impacts
on real people. We trust our town and school leadership will continue to work toward finding ways to cut costs, make our town and school operations as efficient as possible, as well as seeking new sources of revenue. That work must continue. But we've already
made significant cuts. We've already identified operational savings. And still, the math doesn't work. This petition asks you to do three things. Place an override on the May ballot with all possible haste. We need to be out there talking to voters about what's
actually to be voted on. Set it at the level that our town and school leaders tell us we need. And please communicate transparently with residents about what happens if we fail to act or if we act insufficiently.
Thank you. Uh next we have Marissa vote. Hi everyone. I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a town meeting member for precinct 6. Um I'm speaking tonight um as both a parent to kids the public schools and as an elected library trustee um because I
want to robustly fund both our town and school services. Next year my kids will be in first grade and fourth grade. And I don't want my daughter's first grade parro to get cut or my son to miss out on starting an instrument next year. I don't want our libraries to cut a part-time library assistant position and potentially have to reduce our opening
hours or offerings. So tonight, I'm urging the select board to put only one operating question, oh, sorry, one only one override question on the ballot that fully funds both the town and school budget needs. And I want to be clear that we should not be entertaining any override amount that
does not fully fund our town and school needs. We made that mistake in 2023 by not putting a sufficient override amount on the ballot. That mistake has led to confusion and mistrust from voters who supported the 2023 override only to see world language get cut the following
year. That mistake has exacerbated tension in how our limited public funds can be divided in the so between the so town town side and the and school side. That mistake has set up perennial school budget gaps that consume so much of our community energy and prevents the school
committee and PSB leadership from tackling other important issues that will benefit our students and educators. So, I'm asking you tonight to not repeat the mistakes of the past, to please avoid unnecessarily confusing voters by placing multiple questions on the ballot with the same service levels and to
please be honest with voters about our town and school's budget needs. Allowing an insufficient override ask to go on the ballot would be intellectually dishonest because it would suggest that a smaller number could be enough when we know that it isn't. We'll be setting up our town and schools to continually face
perennial significant budget cuts, potentially even losing complete programs as soon as next year. And voters will once again end up feeling like Charlie Brown after Lucy yanks the football away. Please show your trust and support for our excellent town and school administration who have said that
they need this full funding to serve our community. Please put a single sufficient override ask on the ballot and let's get to work turning out yes votes to support our town and schools. Thank you. Emily Jaffy is next. >> Good evening, chair and members of the
select board. My name is Emily Jaffy and I am a Brooklyn resident in precinct 9, a parent to a first grader at FRR and co-chair of the Brooklyn Special Education Parent Advisory Council or CPAC. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am here to urge you to place options on the ballot that would
fully fund our public schools. This is not just a budget issue. It is an equity issue. When our schools are underfunded, the burden does not fall evenly across our community. It falls most heavily on students who already face the greatest challenges. Students with disabilities,
students from low-income families, and those who rely entirely on the public system to meet their needs. Families with financial means often have alternatives. They can turn to private schools, tutoring, or other supplemental resources. And public services fall short. But many families in Brooklyn do
not have those options. For them, our public schools are not just one choice among many. They are the only choice. And for students receiving special education services, our schools are not just a place of learning. They are a lifeline. These students depend on consistent, wellunded support systems,
specialized staff, meaningful inclusion, and legally mandated services. When funding gaps lead to cuts or understaffing, those are not just abstract reductions. They translate directly into lost opportunities, unmet needs, and diminished futures. We should be clear about what underfunding means
in practice. It means larger class sizes, elimination of programs, fewer support staff, and increased strain on educators who are already doing everything they can. And again, the students who feel these impacts most acutely are those who have the least margin for disruption. Brookline has
long prided itself on being a community that values education and fairness. If we believe in those values, then we must ensure that every student, not just those with resources, has access to a fully supported, highquality education. Placing funding options on the ballot is about giving the residents the
opportunity to uphold that commitment. It allows the community to decide whether we are willing to invest in all of our children, including those who depend on us the most. This is not about excess. It is about adequacy. It is about meeting our obligations and living up to our principles. I urge you to put
forward ballot options that will fully fund our schools. Our students, especially those without alternatives, cannot afford anything less. Thank you for your time and consideration. Erin Meyer is next. Hi. Um, I don't like public speaking.
Um, I like to say that upfront because I think it's important when people like myself that are uncomfortable doing so come here to talk to you today. Um, my name is Erin Meyer. I live on Powell Street in Brooklyn and I'm a parent of
PSB eighth grader and tenth grader both of whom have benefited greatly from the rebuild of our neighborhood elementary school, the Ruff and Ridley School, FRR for Mardivo, as well as the BHS renovation.
I voted yes not only for my kids but for the staff of our school and for the many community groups who now enjoy the use of the space outside of our school hours in the previous override that helped to rebuild this school. I did the same for students and educators and the greater
community at Driscoll and at Pierce. And I will vote yes in this upcoming override to support staffing across all PSB schools. I'm here tonight to say that I am not alone. There are many parents, current
and past, and Brooklyn community members who like me will come out to say yes. Please give us the opportunity to show you that we want to support our schools and our town even when the numbers feel
and are big. But most importantly, I am here to encourage you as a board to support this override. I am thankful for the time to be heard, but please listen to the guidance from the Brooklyn residents that you
appointed to the expenditures and revenue study committee to our superintendent to the other people who are the experts in the room. I'm sorry, I've lost my place. I think we've heard tonight very clearly
what will happen if it does not pass. Please know that there are many of us >> who are listening tonight who are listening to people that have spoken behind not behind closed doors in smaller spaces. The numbers are growing. There
is support. We are listening. Please support yes vote. Thank you. Next is Jim Ral. He's not online. Um, Stephen readers also
uh Jane Lurs lersy. Hello, select board Chaz. Um, my name is Jane Lursy. I live on Francis Street. Um, I have two children at the Lawrence School and as we heard tonight, I think the other tiers and options are too
complicated for voters to be able to differentiate and make an informed decision. So, I I do hope um as selectman um Rubenstein was saying of only having the two options um for clarity. I also think the framing of the question since we have actually had an
override in place up until now. It's it's more are we voters saying we should make a big cut to how we're raising taxes as opposed to increasing them. The two and a half Prop 2 and a half is artificially limiting our ability to levy. And as we hear about fixed costs
rising, it's it's not reasonable to operate under that constraint. So, thank you for your service and for your time. Next we have Dick Ben. He's online. >> Can we un unpin Chief P? >> Thank you. Thank you. I am trying to
share a window if I could. Good. Thank you very much. Uh Dick Ben, a member of the ENRSC, a town meeting member from precinct 14. I just wanted to follow up on questions that Paul,
David, and John raised about the phased in versus the upfront structure of the override. And I just urge you to avoid misleading the voters or creating a lightning rod or a target u during this
campaign. What was denominated as tiers by CHAZ are not really tiers as understood by the ENRSC. There were two different taxing approaches that the ENRSC defined as options. Option one was basically phased
in. That's your 23.25 million. Option two was upfront for everyone. That's your 18.6 million. and any tier as the ENRSC understood it would then proceed from one of those numbers um offering
voters a somewhat lower impact and that was motivated by the ENRSC's concern about a failed override and um uh offering uh a lower option um as a hedge
against a totally failed override. Um, as you noted, the nominal lower amount of option two, the uh upfront amount, would actually result in higher taxes during the three years than option one
would, the phased in amount. And I've done a chart uh that shows that um these use figures that uh the sixth floor provided to the ENRSC. Uh doesn't um add the 1% CPA tax. that
doesn't take account of the time value of money. Um the first ch the first group uh takes our median single family current fiscal year tax of about $21,000
and uses option one the phased in 23.25 million. You end up over three years with additional taxes of about $8,300 39.82% 82%.
If you go with the nominally lower uh upfront amount of 18.6 million, the actual taxes paid by the median single family property would be over $400 more. Uh they'd be $8,784.
Um same impact for condos. um with um the uh phased in nominal amount of 23.25 million over three years um current tax of $12,230
additional $4,872. If you went with the nominally lower amount of the upfront $18.6 6 million. The taxes paid over this three-year period, the increased taxes paid over this three-year period by the median
condo would rise to over $5,000. So, there's um a difference. And um I I really do urge you to um avoid uh creating an issue uh by putting the option one and option two on the ballot
at the same time. >> Your time is up. >> Thank you, >> Dick. Could you email that slide to the board, please? >> I would be very happy to. >> Thank you. >> We don't have anybody else signed up, but there's Alyssa is online with her hand raised.
>> Okay. >> Is there someone in the audience? >> If folks want to speak in the audience, you can just approach the uh the podium. If folks online want to speak, please uh use the raised hand. >> Let Alyssa go first. >> Yeah. Um Thank you. Uh Alyssa Plazanja
from Precinct 8. Um, I don't envy the select board and having to bear the weight of this decision. Um, but I did want to just offer some thoughts based on my professional experience, which is um, in considering options for the ballot, um, you know, nobody likes to
pay higher taxes, right? So, if given a choice, most people would opt for a smaller increase rather than a larger increase. And depending on so um if you give two choices one which is full funding one which is you know only
partially funding chances are partially funding is going to win. um if you offer three choices, behavioral economics because of the compromise effect, most people will go for the option in the middle. And so as
um Chaz Kerry the options that he had laid out earlier, I think the middle one was the 19 million that would be partial partial funding. That's probably what's going to win. So if you offer any options that
are less than full funding, that's the likely outcome. Um and so that I would therefore urge you to offer only a full funding option because of the consequences of not having um all of the money that has been asked for. If you do
end up offering a choice that includes less than um full funding, I don't know what the limitations are legally, but I think it would be very important to have as part of the ballot question some kind of highle statement about the consequences. So, um, when, uh,
administrator Kerry had the sample ballot question up, I don't know if it said like 20 23 million, which would fully fund existing town and school services, 19 million, whatever the number is, which would result in cuts to existing town and school services so
that people understand, not everyone's going to read the, you know, the pros and cons or, you know, there will be people who just go and and vote with less than full information. So I think it's really important to try to if you end up offering that option have some kind of consequences that are built into
the ballot question if that's allowed. Um so um separate from all of this I did read the uh expenditures and revenue study committees report and one question that I have um is in looking at potential sources of additional revenue.
Um, one thing that I didn't see was raising parking meter rates. And I guess I'm curious why that would not have been something that the town would look at doing given that our rates are, you know, certainly um, less than neighboring Boston. And that seems like
a place that, you know, an opportunity among all the other options that were looked at to potentially um, as a revenue stream. Thank you. Okay, step to the mic, please.
>> Good evening. Thank you for the time. My name is Sarah Luchansky. I'm a parent of a BHS and Driscoll student. And uh I am grateful to be a part of the school community here. It has been a great experience for them. And I just wanted to read a few words that my daughter
Harper, who's 11, had written out to say, but she has MCCAST tomorrow and so she needed to go home. Um, so she I have to say uh some of her favorite classes are Chinese and conservatory. And so about Chinese, she
said, "Our teacher always helps us learn by showing us a song we sing and we learn faster and in a fun way." And she also wanted you all to know that in conservatory we practice very hard and then have a concert that we are very excited about. Losing that would take
away a very good opportunity. but also cutting these jobs is cutting these people who work very hard to help kids and make a living for their family. So, just speaking on her behalf, I ask that you please put the override on the ballot to fully fund the school and town
services. Thank you. >> You're next. >> Hi, my name is Sophia Warner. Um, I live uh in the FR school district where my daughter's in first grade and my son will be entering kindergarten next year. I've lived in Brooklyn almost my entire
life. Um, and I just really would urge the select board to only put two options on the ballot. Either full funding, which is really to sustain the current level of services with some already very um significant cuts as we've heard from
Superintendent Wong. I think we have been very lucky to have such an incredibly talented leader um heading our public school system in Brooklyn and we've heard that they have made considerable efforts to cut funding where they are able. Um and so I hope
that we can be very clear with voters that anything other than full funding is really a cut to current level of services. Um and the the public school system in Brooklyn is something that draws many people to this town. Um it's a ma a big reason that many of us live here. And I think that we have to be
very clear with voters that if um if we don't fully fund the school system that we're looking at these very significant cuts and I think this is really what we owe to our town is to make it to give our to give our um to give the members of our town very clear options um and
not put more than two options on the ballot since we have learned from the 2023 experience that has led to confusion and a lack of trust. Thank you. >> Okay, it looks like that's the uh uh conclusion of our public hearing and I
would like to take a break. >> Five minutes. >> The public hearing before we take a break. >> Pardon me. >> Do you want to close the public hearing before we take a break? >> I'll adjourn it. >> Okay. But first, tell me that you want to take a break. >> Yes. >> Okay, good. Let's adjourn the public
hearing and we will return and deliberate. >> Deliberately. >> So, Chaz, >> yeah, >> I looked I looked up the numbers. Hey. Okay, we are back to continue the uh
I guess we didn't close the public hearing. We just adjourned it. Um, are there any other people who would like to speak before we close the public hearing and start deliberating among the board? Okay, seeing none and no one online, uh,
let's close the public hearing and uh let's start to talk about uh what remains to be decided. Um, first I number of tiers whether we have one tier or
more than one tier and I think Michael sort of raised some issues there. >> Well, you mean in my in my question? >> Yeah. Well, the question I raised and I'll I'll just repeat it and you can respond to it or take it take this to
another path is that I was getting a sense from the questions that people that other members of the board uh it wasn't clear to me that anybody was interested in funding in putting anything on the ballot that represented
anything less than full funding. And the reason I asked that question is because it simplifies our decision. Yeah, >> decision matrix. That was >> Well, let's let's take take a straw poll in that. I mean, I I'll tell you what I think. I started out thinking that we
would put two tiers on the ballot. Um, sort of following up on the expenditure and revenue study committee's fear that without a an a lower option, the voters would turn down the override. Um, I
guess I'm I'm not I I've changed my mind after reading uh the superintendent's materials. Um, and the high school example was just one, you know, illustration of the problem with even the 86%
um reduction from full funding. That that even that would devastate the schools, let alone anything lower than that. And I'm not sure that we want to, you know, I mean, the risk is that the that the override fails, but if it fails, we can
put it on the ballot again and hope that the community understands the importance of uh of of funding. Um, so I'm, you know, I'm inclined to say that we just put one uh tier, as you call it, on the
ballot and that be the full funding amount. David. >> So I agree with uh with you, Bernard. And just for a little more context, when we had the last override, that was more of a true tiered override in the sense that there was and it wasn't even really
level funded. Even that one included some inherent cuts to it. So that override, I would say, was more the equivalent of the 86% choice and what some would consider a nice to have on composting. And those were two truly different numbers. the composting
portion did not pass and we ended up with what I would say is the 86% equivalent and the voters were somewhat upset with that I would say because they voted to increase their taxes and then a lot of services they cared about were
cut anyway and while uh there are very valid explanations for why that occurred at a visceral level I can understand why voters would feel a lack of transparency in that in voting for a number that doesn't reflect the true need. Uh and
here we're presented with that choice. Again, I we didn't hear a single person advocate for uh having a lower option other than uh for the purpose of hedging against a failed override, but there wasn't anybody saying we truly like this
19 number as a preferred option. Uh and also as I'm sure you're receiving as well, all of us are receiving many emails from members in the community and I can't recall a single one saying I prefer the lower option. I mean we do
hear a little bit again people saying let's hedge but no one's saying that they actually prefer the lower one over the higher one. Uh so given what we're hearing from the community, given the tremendous need that the schools have articulated and also the town side,
although we spent a little less time talking about that tonight, I think that we go with one number, the number that fully funds both the schools and the towns. And if it doesn't work out, there is nothing that prevents us, as you just said, from going back to the voters
later at some other figure. And sometimes we we need uh that reality check from the voters one way or the other that that'll inform us. >> John, I know kind of >> my head is spinning.
Um well, I'm going to cite um um history of what happens uh when uh you deny voters's choice. Um people have heard me cite it before. I happen to have been um pretty deeply involved in it. U there was a so-called bundled question on the
ballot which said you can vote to build both um the new Driscoll school and a brand new 9inth school um but uh or you could vote not to do that but you can't vote to build the Driscoll school
um alone or you can't bu vote to build the new 9inth school alone. And the fact that people were being denied a choice became the primary motivator of the vote of the vote that resulted which was a no
vote which was very very unusual in Brooklyn and people you know still remember the term bundling as a result of that particular year and that particular vote. Um, you know, what
we're facing tonight is much the same kind of a situation. I'm a little surprised to hear people say you shouldn't offer a second choice because the voters might choose it. Um, I'm sorry that kind of that kind of rubs
me the wrong way. Um, I thought that was what democracy was all about. I don't know if the voters will choose a lower amount. Um, and I feel like the only way to find out if they'll choose a lower amount is to offer them a lower amount.
Um, so, uh, I definitely am in favor of, uh, both the full funding, uh, option and only the I think we should drop the use of the word tears, by the way. Um, I'm fully in favor of the full funding option with the traditional style of,
you know, pay as you go. Um, and then a secondary funding option which is somewhere between uh what meets uh the essential needs of the schools um and at the same time
recognizes that the situation that I pointed to with that table from Bellawong's very good presentation of having a built-in um uh almost like a guarantee in how we
create expectations in our budgets that our expectation will be a four or five or 6% increase in budgets year in and year out, year in and year out, year in and year out. And then what happens
after three years of that because of the difference between four or five or 6% and three and a half% which is the usual revenue increase we get, we end up having to have another override. And that cycle at some point has to end. And
it ends uh if and when uh there is a recognition by uh all sides that there has to be a tail um a sort of a dialing back of expectations in terms of our uh
our negotiated contracts with employees because that's where 80% of the you know drive towards four, five or six% annual budget increases year after year after year. That's where it comes from. And these are not easy words to say. Um, you
know, nobody nobody likes, you know, saying we need to dial back our expectations to something a little bit less, but that's that's what it is, a little bit less. It's three and a half% versus 4 and a.5%. arguably
um and and it becomes the responsibility of the elected officials, the select board and the school committee to go back to the negotiating table if and when there is an approval of a less than 100% fully funded ask in an override,
but more like an 85% uh figure. Um if there's a approval of that, it tells us what we need to do. And that's another reason to at least offer voters the choice. The voters might send us a message with that choice. We need to hear messages every
now and then from the voters. And that's one well worth hearing. Um I happen to think the other advantage of offering something like an 85% choice is that it avoids the pitfall of no choice means a
no vote. Uh, and I know people have just sort of blindly said, "Oh, yeah, but we could come back and ask them again." Well, do you think they're going to say yes if you ask them for the same amount again? I mean, to make that assumption is to assume the ultimate end of
offering people a choice would be either that, you know, that that they might take the choice or the ultimate end of no choice could be rejection of the full amount and then you'll end up having to offer them like an 85% choice. You can't just offer them the same 100% choice
again. So, I think we should recognize that there's a there's there's something useful to be learned from putting a choice on the ballot and seeing what the voters choose. >> Uh Paul,
>> um thanks. So, first thanks John for your for your comments and and Davidson Bernard. Um I do want to acknowledge that um the decision we're making tonight, and I actually do hope we make this I don't think we need to wait till next week. I think it'd be a mistake in
educating everybody in the community about what hard difficult choice or choices they have to make. So, I wouldn't hope that we do this tonight. Um, you know, there are people that based on what we do tonight will may be able to stay in Brooklyn or not based on the
cost. Uh some people may decide to leave Brookline because they they don't want to attend a less than school system that is not fully funded. Um you know um I I you know I'm ve I'm very concerned about
that. Um people leaving the school system and seeing a death spiral at the schools. Um we already have people that are uh moving into Brooklyn. It's great to have new neighbors. Um but they're coming in and they're not putting their kids in the school system. They're sending them to private. Um we have a
number of families that have taken their kids out of the schools and they put them in private after uh because of COVID. Um, and the danger I think that we face with the schools is, and I'll speak to the town in a minute, but the schools is that um to to not fully fund
um or to have cuts to the extent that we're talking about either at the fully fund or even at a partial funding. Uh the cuts are very very deep. Um, I'm concerned about the reputation of Brookline and what it will mean to uh to the school system going forward and
frankly to property values. Um, you know, Amy and I, I haven't been shy about this, are here um because uh of the school system, because of it's a safe place to live, because we have great services. Uh, Brookline has had a
stellar reputation. Um, it's one of the reason why why we chose to live here. Um it's not so attractive when our uh second grader uh can't get support at school or our sixth grader uh can't go
to conservatory or voice or whatever. Um and then the thought of of of the the level of cuts that we may see um as our daughter gets prepared to go to the high school. she's a she's sixth grade, you know, in three years she'll be a ninth
grader uh and at the high school. Um and I will tell you that I I would have to think very hard about staying in the public school system. Um whether I want my kids to continue uh and where Amy and I are having those difficult conversations now. So, but I also want
to talk on the town side. Um you know, we did hear uh tonight that this isn't just about the schools, it's about public safety. It's about our our police department and whether we're going to have sufficient staffing. Um, our chief has done a great job in maintaining
uh our services. I think that that I'd like to see more uh without six police officers fill positions. Um those positions would go away forever. um the fire department. Uh I have been I have not been shy about my view of
moving to minimum manning of free and closing fire stations and brownouts and all that. I think that's a disaster in the making and I agree with the gentleman that spoke tonight, the president of the union. Um I think it would be detrimental to public safety. So this just isn't about the schools for
me. It's also um our town services and our ability to plan and and and generate more commercial revenue um and you know being able to pursue some of our other goals that we have around sustainability. So um I fully support
fully funding the schools and the town. Um I am concerned about a little bit of rolling the dice um with with one number. Uh but you know I think that
one number fully funding is very clear to the voters. This if you don't fund this, this is what you stand to lose. You stand to have potentially a lost fire company or a closed fire station. Uh you stand to have uh a decimation of
the public school system in Brooklyn. Um I think they they need to understand, John, I think that is a choice. either we choose to fund the the the community that we want and that we have been able to many have been able to benefit from um or we don't. Um and I think that's a
very very clear choice uh to the voters. And you know, if it doesn't pass, God, I I I really hope it passes. I'd get out and work hard to help that pass. Um, but I um I'm inclined to put one very clear number on the ballot, a very clear
explanation and a campaign that can get started tomorrow morning uh to educate the voters about what that means um to to support it or what it means to not support it. Um and I think that that we should do that as quickly and as expeditiously as we can so that we can
get this this discussion going within the community. So that's that's where I'm leaning. Uh, probably 98% unless someone changed my mind. >> Hey, David, do you have anything to say? >> I have three votes already, so you don't have to. >> Well, I already mentioned I agreed with
your >> Oh, that's right. That's right. >> I have a couple of comments. Um, the first comment, you know, you may John, first of all, thank you for your for your remarks. Um, to me, it was uh, as others have pointed out, remarkable in
the consistency of the public comment. Um there even even the people who I expected to be stronger uh messengers for what you are proposing uh didn't uh
either appear with that message or uh or appeared but had a different message. Um and so that that to me was uh remarkable and uh noteworthy number one. Uh number two um I I
appreciate your example of the the bundling problem that you described with uh the ninth school and Driscoll. Um but I feel like this situation is somewhat different. Um this is much more of a you
know of a basic operational budgeting question. uh as opposed to which what was in that case a debt exclusion with two very significant uh sort of alternative options. Um and
there was there was a lot of logic in the argument of well I might want one but not the other um that I don't think applies in this case. Um the third thing that I would say um is um first of all
to thank uh the town administrator for all of the work that he's done on this question of uh uh phased in money versus uh taking all of the increase upfront and what the ramifications of that are.
Um I think they are complex. Um but uh in the spirit of sort of uh compromise and uh a little bit of allowing for the possibility of the value of taking the
money up front. Um if you think about the three possible fully funding scenarios of the $25.89 million as being everything phased in, the 23.25 25 as being the town phased in but not the
schools and the 18.6 being everything upfront. It seems to me that taking the middle approach there where the town um has the opportunity to take its money upfront and use the override stabilization fund to see how
that works out over the period of three years and let the schools continue to um take the pay as you go approach. um is a reasonable middle ground um and um some something that that I could support for
both for both purposes. Um and so just in terms of the one number that I've heard people talk about, that seems to be a reasonable one number to set forward. >> I think I'll leave it at that,
>> I guess. So my only question then is do you want to take the town's number from that 18.6 which is 5.6 million or do you want to take it at 5.31? Remember, we tried to hold it as low as possible to keep that at um
at or below the 2023 override number and to keep the town number low because the school's number was high. Um if you want to the town's share of the 18.6 was 5.6 million. >> So what is it in the 23? So >> 5.31
>> 5.31 and you think it's it should be like the other >> I think I so I think it would be healthier for the town to have it at 5.6 if we're going to do this sort of compromise solution, but I would be happier. I either way works. Either way, it's going to work out.
I think if I may, my answer to that question is actually dependent on the answer to my previous question about like you know it would be it would be helpful to be able to say in an applesto apples comparison you know what the 27
increase in people's tax bills is going to be relative to 24 and 28 relative to 25 and 29 relative to 26. >> Okay. >> As long as they're apples to apples. as long as they're as long as they're apples to apples. >> Right. Um and if if that if making that
change teters the number over in terms of the percentage, >> then I would definitely go with the lower >> lower number. Yeah, I would >> lower number being what? >> 5.31 million for the town as opposed to 5.6. John, >> um thank you Michael for your comments.
Um I you know I do want to say I um I I fear seeming like the guy who always says I've been on this board for six years now and you know uh but I have seen a lot and uh one of the things I saw in reference to your comment um
you're not hearing from anybody who's opposed to this. Um well I know that we are indeed hearing from dozens and dozens and dozens of people who strongly favor this absolute it has to be the you know the highest number possible. Um and
yes there's a very well um organized yes campaign and my hat my hats off to them. Um, this was a mass mailing campaign where, you know, the many many many many letters that we received said all all said pretty much the same thing with great sincerity and, you know, with great feeling and and many people took
the trouble to add particulars, you know, of their own school experience. I'm not arguing against any of that. What what I am what I am striving to point out is because you haven't yet heard from people who will take umbrage
at being told tonight that they are not going to be given a choice of even an 85% alternative to the full number doesn't mean there won't be a campaign. um not not for the 85%. That that that
would have been a good thing if the people who are motivated to vote no had an 85% uh alternative and decided well we'll give them that. Uh but now they they're not going to have that. That's going to strengthen their commitment to no. Um and it's going to sol solidify
it's going to bring into the uh camp of of people who might organize a campaign to vote no. um a lot of people who uh again w would have been okay with an 85% approach to the problem, but now being
told that they can't even they can't even see that on the ballot. They're they're going to be driven into a vote they reluctantly they would reluctantly take which because it's the only thing left to them maybe to to to vote no. And and as an example of sort of the
historical example going back to my you know citing of the of the whole campaign over the ninth school before that campaign was even um had even began uh I happened to run into uh the the most veteran member of the
school committee at that time who remained the most veteran member of the school committee for years afterward and then uh and no longer as of last year is on the school committee and she knew everything and really did know everything about school campaigns. And I
was on the way out of a meeting. We had a friendly relationship and I I said to her, "What you know what's going on here?" Because the neighborhood I live in, people are saying to me, they're they don't want this ninth school that's being proposed and they're the ones whose kids would go to it. So, what
what's going what's going on? And she literally looked at me and said, "There is no opposition to the ninth school. and that school ended up being voted down, you know, by in a in a campaign at the b on the ballot. So, let's not kid
ourselves that um there's no precedent for people um rejecting um uh a question on a ballot when they're not given a choice. There is a precedent, and this would have been a good choice, I'm convinced, uh an 85%
versus 100%, but now we're not even giving them that. and people are going to have to decide how they feel about that. >> I think the Baldwin situation is really not comparable to what we're dealing with here for the reasons that Michael mentioned, but also you have to realize
that the opposition to Baldwin. I'm biased. Okay, >> you were for Baldwin. I >> was that would have cost us $100 million and we didn't need it. So, we shouldn't be happy. >> At that point, we did need it. But anyway, the opposition was a well-funded
campaign by local residents who had reasons other than, you know, what was good for the school to to oppose it. That's my opinion. That may be biased, but I think that's a big big difference between what we're dealing with here and and the Baldin situation.
>> Well, I pray that you're not wrong. Wow. And the other thing is, yeah, we don't know if if the voters will will will uh vote uh for a 23 24 million override. We don't know that they won't. And we're making a judgment based on what we do
know, you know, which is not perfect, but what we do know in terms of the out the the uh response to the community as well as, you know, the analysis that has gone into the expenditure and override. um study committee report, the report
that uh the school committee and and Bella gave us this evening. Um and you know based on that we we have the basis for making a judgment but I think >> no guarantee >> you would agree with me that the expenditures and revenue study committee specifically said in their report they
did not have sufficient information as to whether to recommend a lesser alternative. >> I I did that's that's another opportunity lost. they recommended something that I I no longer agree with. >> So, but it's still good information,
still good data that that goes into my uh my my judgment. So, >> Paul, >> yeah. So, I um I do not want to uh >> continue this discussion. >> No, no, no, no. I I don't want to
completely dismiss John's concerns. I mean, I think John's right and partly right in that I do believe that that only having one question on the ballot will lose some votes. The question is, is it will it lose enough where it doesn't pass? Um, and I
I feel I feel strongly that there's such a compelling case that if we don't pass this um if you pass it at 85, John, we still we still have a train wreck in
front of us. Um because your 85% well you not yours but a proposed 85% which I understand your logic for it and I do believe it there's some wisdom there. It's dependent upon things that are totally outside of our control. You know
in order to get 80 to get our 83% health care number uh reimbursement down our contribution 83 down to like 72 or something that's more in line with communities around us. You need some percentage of the unions to agree. You know, that's, you know, that's
>> if they don't, >> then they we we pay 83%. >> And if the and if the voters deny the override, then what do we do? >> Right. Well, if the voters don't if the voters don't approve the the override, John, um you know, we have bigger problems than 83. We're going to solve
our 83%. By getting rid of all the employees. Yeah. >> Right. So, we won't we won't have health insurance. 83% 85%. We're talking about two different things. We're talking about the cost of our healthare. Yeah, >> right. But but all I'm saying is the the assumption of 85 is that you can negotiate
steps and lanes. You can negotiate uh better terms on on salary increases. You can negotiate uh you know collectively on insurance. And I think that that's risky. I don't I think that that that you can't assume that's going to happen.
I think if we can't, we're in even worse trouble than we thought because that means the question I posed for our our very good school superintendent. Is this what we can expect to see forever? Four and a half% 5%. 6% 4%. 5%
6%. Every year, year after year, year after year. And I talked to somebody who I I I have to be careful how I describe this person. Let's just say their bonafides on a yes campaign are as good as anybody's in Brooklyn.
>> And that person today is very very concerned. >> Yeah, I know. He was in the room. He didn't get >> not and and I encouraged him to speak. He didn't speak >> made the case to us as select board members from his vantage point. Shouldn't have even said his, but anyway,
>> he's from this person's vantage point, you know, as someone who really knows yes campaigns. >> Yeah. that the time has come for there to be an alternative to the the to the one and only approach to, you know, 100%
of what we want. Um, and for the very reasons that I tried to articulate, he could probably articulate them better. >> Yeah. No, he did, you know, it's real. It's real and it's out there and it isn't just the traditional no crowd. >> I know, Michael. >> Um, I sort of want to pick up on Paul's
point about uh the the cost of and the other uh sort of personnel costs that we are bearing at ever ever increasing rates and the whether it's in the memorandum of agreement or the goals of both the superintendent and the town
administrator in upcoming negotiations with unions. Um uh I don't think that by passing this passing full funding or proposing full funding that we should be signaling in any way our lack of
commitment to empower the superintendent to whatever degree we have and the town administrator to whatever degree we have to forcefully engage in those negotiations. I agree with you that 83%
is not a sustainable number in terms of our payment on health insurance. But it is also true that even if we lower that number, whether it's to 80 or 75 or we we manage to stagger it for new employees or any number of the other ways that we could address that issue,
that is still a only a one-time improvement to our budgetary picture. Um given continually rising health care costs. >> So other other communities are negotiating that down. >> Sure, >> it's not impossible to negotiate
something down. >> I agree. >> But it's not it's not instantaneous either, >> but they're doing it. >> Oh, I I definitely So I I think it is a good point to say we are not giving up on this. I definitely don't. We we can't we can't take the change as a given
either because we don't have the control over it, which is and I understand that's frustrating. We can't we can't assume something that isn't there. But we are in a unique place. Like I called when Newton moved their numbers, I called the mayor. I called then Mayor Fuller. Um and I said, "How did you do
it? How how on earth did you make it happen?" She said, "I'm the mayor. I can do it." Uh I said, "What?" Uh and it's not just that we're a town form of government and they're a city form of government. It's that we got into the GIC too early. Um and when we got into the GIC, the rules were different. And
because our rules, we're stuck in those rules and we're one of the only communities that are um you know, people have told me that back when Sean Cronin was in Melissa's job that we actually pushed for a special act in the legislature to let us go by the other rules that the other communities use and
we didn't get it. Um I'm willing to do that again. Um I think we should take another crack at that. Um, but I'm also I also want to use every tool at our disposal to negotiate in good faith with these teams, with the folks who came here tonight and made the case. You know, I
want to work collaboratively with them to get to a solution here. So, I want people to know that we are not throwing up our hands and giving up on this. We know that it's not sustainable and I think in their heart of hearts, they know that it's not sustainable. And so, we all are going to have to work on what that means and we're all going to have
to phase that in over time. whatever that solution is, but we're committed to getting to a solution. >> Okay. Um I think Paul has >> just just just and I know John wants to continue with this but you know one of the points
about um I argue but against myself sometimes you know so Dick Banker who I have tremendous respect for you know Dick um I think Dick would be advocating for for a t you know two numbers um to have a choice but his reason for a
choice is not necessarily you know to give people a choice so they'll vote for for it. You know, Dick is probably maybe in line with some of your thinking, John, that and I'm not going to speak for Dick, but I I I think this maybe is where he was going with it is that you need to force the conversation.
>> Yes. >> You need, you know, you need to force the conversation. So, um if you if you did some less number, um you would be forced to have the conversation. >> Yes. I'm not convinced even being forced to have the conversation that the unions
would then agree um to it and we'd still end up with with with the the layoffs and other things that we're going to have. My concern is even at the 85% number, John, um you're seeing the cuts in the school system, the basic things for in in grade school where music and
chorus and support in the first grade, that's the stuff you lose at 85%. um that's really that's troubling and that I mean that on itself is not acceptable. So I I think an 85% and I don't I forget what the what the impact
was on the town side um at at 85% but I know it was uh >> around 580,000. It's it's it's two police positions. It's it's um the DPW three DPW positions. >> Yeah. So, but but here but the thing I think the town continues to function,
frankly, at 85%. It's painful. I think I think the grade schools it's a disaster. >> How would they do at zero? >> Well, that's at zero. That that is a town saying that we're okay with the schools being devastated. >> Yeah.
>> That we we should then ask them again. >> No, I don't think so. I don't know. I mean, >> it could be them saying, "Why didn't you give at least give us a chance to vote for something 80 how how reasonable is 85% versus 100%." >> It's not reasonable. >> Oh, well, then we have a different
definition of reasonable, you know, and you know, you know, I I I appreciate, you know, Paul Paul's comments, but uh you know, I I just think uh at the end of the day, it's all going to come down in the mind of the voters. They didn't even give us a choice. the ones who are
the ones who are opposed. >> John, you're talking about the collective bargaining implications. If an override fully funded fails, then the voters have given us a very clear message that we can then take to the unions in these negotiations. >> Same thing with 85%.
>> No, but without the harm. I don't think without the harm because with 85% there would still be that lingering question. Did the 85 would the 85% uh would the 23 million would the fully funded version have passed if we didn't
have the 85%? There would be that question. We wouldn't know. And so I I think it would be status quo. If the voters come back and actually reject an override, that's a very clear message that we need to change the way we structure things. >> That's I mean it's a strange formulation. Would would the full
funding have passed if we didn't have the 85%? Well, uh, sure, if you deny people even their 85%, some of them might, but that doesn't mean that they were for 100%. You know, um, so, so I mean, are you
satisfied that like by forcing voters to do this all or nothing choice? We're going to make a whole bunch of them, you know, agree to something that they don't really agree with, but it was the only choice given to them. >> Okay, why don't we uh vote? No, I mean it's clear where this is going, but
>> Well, can I So, first I want to say I do want to say >> I don't want to extend this out into the next day. >> And and and I do want to say this and hopefully I won't be crossing any lines, but this is exactly why John's so helpful for the board because I think he makes us think like I think if he wasn't sitting there, we would have ran off the
cliff of 100%, you know, 30 minutes ago. Um he he is raising very valid points and it's some I'm not going to change my mind on this, but I think we're rolling the dice a bit with putting one number on the ballot. I do think it's it's it's
a little bit of a rolling the dice. Um and it's an all or nothing bet. Um and I you know I had conversations before we came back in with with the folks outside saying it's it's a roll of the dice. Um, it could fail. Um, I think it's it's a
stark choice that that we can make the case and I guess we could come back later like Arlington did or stone them. Uh, but it's it would be very painful if it fails. >> It's a rolling of the dice as every override is. >> Our job is to make sure that people
understand the consequences of one decision versus another. >> Uh, and the importance of a school system to not just the kids, right, but to our community. Yeah, >> I mean I don't want to have our reputation across the country besmer
smirked by our failure to support our schools and the devastating impact that that failure will have. So yes, it's it's a rolling of the dice, but uh you know that that's that's life. >> I got to say one last thing if you don't mind. Um because I keep bringing up the
Discll school example. When that went down, it was a year before Discll was brought back. That that was a that was a painful year. And um so don't assume >> that's a little different. I mean >> don't assume it'll be a week later. You know, we we do it all over again.
>> Oh, however long it is. But but Driscoll was the building of a school. Yeah. >> As opposed to supporting a school system. >> Yeah. >> That's on the brink of of uh bad situation. >> Yeah. Let's vote. you know, and you know, the the the override vote occurs
two months before the new fiscal year begins, you know, and if it goes down, >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's it's not a good option, but you know, the voters tell us that we have to do that, maybe we have to do it. >> Just just one last question. So, logistically, in terms of coming back
for another override vote, if it's necessary, how quickly can that realistically happen? So you have you got to set the question within 45 days of the election. The election has to be called and set up and all of those things. What communities have done historically to hedge their bets in this
situation is they have called contingency elections during town meeting. Or that is to say at at some point in April, you would call an election in for June or July during town during the weeks of town meeting before the budget is passed so that the voters
would have another crack at voting on something before the FY27 budget was passed. But I need to talk to the town clerk about how the logistics of >> I really appreciate that answer because it it it opens the door to now voters are going to think, "Oh, they didn't
give me a choice." No, I wouldn't >> and I can vote no and then town meeting can call for a second. >> Well, no town within weeks. >> Town meeting can't, right? So town So you as the select board would basically have to call a contingency election not knowing the outcome of the first election. That's by the way, I don't
really want to talk about a contingency election because the point is we got to pass this override and I think the community is committed to the town services and school services sufficiently that you know we have a great chance of doing that especially if
we explain the consequences of not passing it and and uh you what we get by pass bypassing it. So the discussion of you know contingency >> yeah I think it adds it just adds risk to the whole thing but I I I think a no vote says you know we don't we don't
value these services to the extent that you're that you're paying for it. So anyway I'm >> okay so um what's the question the the level that we are shooting for? Well, the first question I think is um we can combine them, but the first
question is whether we go for a uh uh tiered override or a single line override. >> Well, we don't need we don't I think we could just move to put >> John wants to have on the record that he opposed. >> No, no, no, no, no. >> I'm I'm sorry, John. >> But I think people are confused again.
Uh when I when you said the first question is we have over here I thought you were back to talking about the two different versions of the full funding. I didn't know what you're talking about. >> Then that's confusing on using the terminology on my part. I'm sorry. I I think what the chair is saying is is
this is this exactly your question. Do you want to have a question if do you want to have a question on the ballot that is other than the full funding request? >> Right. A question that that goes to whatever it is 85% or what have you. Um is that is that what you're >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Sure. I you know I'd move
that you know but I I know what the result is going to be. But I I do think that's the issue here. >> That's the only time pretty much the only alternative. >> Do you want to move that? >> I move that we have uh as as an alternative to the full funded question uh a question that is at a level of 85%
funding. >> Okay. So that's two tier. >> Okay. >> But he's setting the tier which is fine. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Two questions. >> Two hot dogs. I don't whatever you want to call it. >> Okay. All in favor of John's u motion uh
please indicate by saying I. John Vansoy. I >> Paul Warren >> abstain. >> Abstain. David Pearlman. >> No. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> No. >> And chair votes no. >> Okay. What else do we have to decide?
>> Now we have to vote to I move to put 23.6 whatever the number. What's the number? Chad, >> you have two options. You get 23.6 which gives the town. So you have 23.5 and change or 23.2 and change. You get the town's number from the from the
fully phased uh from the upfront. >> What did you say? You were you were your concern was what's that impact on the taxpayers? >> Right. The percentage numbers, >> right? It's 0.009. I'm sorry. It's it's right. It's 0.09%
um more overall. Um, and so what that means is in terms of like the actual dollar value for um, taxpayers, you're going to see for
median single family and I want to you I I think Dick's formulation on this is helpful because I don't want to hide the ball on this. I want to be very clear that this is an upfront and ongoing cost. So um, whereas in the 23.25 25 the
median single family goes up um by an additional $619 in this version. It goes up by an additional $637 in year one. Um so that's >> okay >> $18, but that's $18 then going forward.
>> Right. I you're not you're you're not answering the key question that I was asking relative to 23 and I'm not sure you're going to be able to give me that number. So, if I were to take your motion, I would take the 23.25 number. >> It feels It feels It feels funny to me,
Chaz, to like trying to bump the number up a little bit at this. It just feels weird to me. I I think we should stick with the lower number. >> Stick with what works. Stick with So, so the motion is >> So, wait, what what what is the difference between the 3.5? It it it the
difference is the amount of reserves that we are giving to the town to put in their override stabilization. >> So isn't the real question whether we go with the town you know fees being paid upfront and the
schools being paid over time or the entire amount being paid over time. Yes, that that is the question and in my motion I am proposing an answer to that question which is that the town >> take its money up front >> and the school which is the
significantly larger number to be pay as you go. >> Okay. And and that's the 23 >> that's the 23.25. Okay. >> We wouldn't put the 18.6. >> Right. Right. >> Right. I have >> and sorry >> then the next question if that fails is
do we put the entire amount up front >> but that's not a question you have to answer now. Um, >> well, he's I'd like to answer. >> Well, he's asking do you want to have So, you're asking do you want to have another number on the ballot? >> 18. >> No, it's not another number. Whe whether
the num the 23,000 23 million number is structured so that the town piece is paid up front >> and the school is not. Yes. Or >> the entire amount is paid up front. >> So, the the entire >> and that is put on the levy up front.
>> Yeah. I think that I think >> I I think we should take the quote on the first one and then answer your question. >> Can I can I ask a question about that? So with with the entire amount being placed up or put on this the levy uh in
the first year the cost is going to be lower than you know the other alternative >> um over three years or is it >> no it will be >> higher over that's right higher over how much is it What what what about over four years,
>> right? In the long run, it winds up being less. Okay. >> But that's that's it's your question of your time horizon, right? Um I think Dick does a good job of explaining it in what he sent you, what he showed on the screen. >> No, I understand that. But but the the other issue is if if um putting everything up front or putting
everything on the levy up front um helps us to avoid falling off a cliff in 30. Then we're we're be able to tell people that um you know you have four years at least of not having an override versus
three years of you know less payments. but another override in the fourth year. >> I think realistically I I think at this at this hour trying to trying to game out how to how to get to
that number. Um I Let me see if I understand what you're asking. Sorry. You're saying the 23 we we're going to take the number the 23.25 million. That's the number. And your question is how much of that do we take up front versus phasing? Right now the
proposal is the town takes 5.31 million of that upfront. >> No, no, no, no. The the question is if we take the entire amount up front, >> what is the difference between three years and four years and it
>> do we have do we have a deficit in the fourth year if we don't take it all up front? >> Yes, you do. Um but you're you're going to again you're going to confront this no matter what, right? you're going to confront because your policies snap back because all these assumptions come due.
You're going to confront what do we do in FY30. That's going to be a hinge year regardless of what happens here. Some of that you're going to be able to solve or mitigate with changes in policy hopefully. Some of that you're going to be able to mitigate by getting your health care split resolved in a more
healthy way. Um and you know that that gap will go down. Um, but if you take all of that upfront, um, that's a pretty sizable hit to the taxpayer. Um, does it get you through FY30?
I I I I'll do the math for you, but I think yes, it does, but it will it will come at a significant cost. And so, it's also a deviation from how you do business traditionally, right? Okay. >> And so, I mean, I'll I'll run it for you
right now. Um, we do 23 25 million. >> As you're as you're uh calculating that, can I ask whether the answer to this question actually affects what you put on the ballot? >> No, it does not. >> Okay.
>> Again, you you the commitment that you make to the community about how you phase this in is a separate question. Um, now you have to decide that question before the voter guides go out, before the ballot, before the town council sets the ballot description and all of those
things. So, you have less time than you think you do. >> But theoretically, yes, you could set this question at 23.25 million and then decide, okay, we're going to take extra money off the levy up front as long as you're honest with the voters about it. As long as you make clear to the voters, this is what we're doing. But again, to
the point that's been raised, query whether you want to do that. Um, it's a it's a departure from how you've done business. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're you're backing off of your proposal. >> No, no. I'm I'm saying it's the point that Paul raised, right? What ENRSC has
been through this whole time, what what everyone has been through is the assumption that the town is going to take the money up front, which is a little different than how we've done things in the past, in order to keep the overall dollar amount down because the school's number is so big. And the schools are going to take the money phase as they always have because
they're going to they're they they're going to defay the shock to voters in the first year and they're going to to the superintendent's point um you know build out you know demonstrate stability in their costs going forward. Um stability in the cost increases going
forward to demonstrate that they're you know this >> but but you you you have been arguing that uh taking everything up front >> had advantages. >> It does. >> Absolutely. But I think >> it also has disadvantages and I and I and I and I think the argument >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. And and and that the implication was you supported that. >> I do. Um I and I I continue to but I also I'm I'm mindful of the fact that the feedback that I've gotten from the consensus of the board feels like it's moving against that option. >> Okay. >> And that's fine with me. Um I I respect
that. >> Okay. So why don't we vote on that? Okay. >> Make your motion. So I would like to move that we put a 23.25 approximately number that represents
that represents full funding for the town and the schools where the funding for the town is taken in the fir in the first year. Um the the the funding from the levy for the town is all taken in
the first year and the funding for the schools is taken on a on a uh as as needed for their budget over three years. >> Is that consistent chaz with the what um >> that's not what the ballot question would say but I so I have language on a
ballot question if that if that helps. >> Sure. >> Town council is here and can check my check my words. Okay. Right. So moved to place on the ballot for the May 5th, 2026 municipal election the following question. Shall the town of Brooklyn be allowed to assess an additional
23,254,439 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the costs of Brookline public schools at 17,944,439 and funding the costs of additional expenditures and municipal departments at 5,310,000
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. for the fiscal year. >> Yes or no? >> Starting July 1, 2020. >> That's FY27. >> Oh, right. Okay. >> David, you >> Oh, okay.
Okay. So, you have your motion. >> So moved. >> Okay. All in favor? John Vancoyak? >> Abstain. >> Um Paul Warren, >> yes. >> David Pearlman, >> yes. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> yes. >> And chair votes, yes.
We've done our job. >> 23.254439 is the question. I will just say now that the So, you have time until the ballot closes. Presumably, you know, if things go pear-shaped for some reason, we can talk about it next week. I will say now
that a ballot question has been set um there's limits to what staff can do um in terms of our advocacy and all of those because I'm a policym official. I can talk about I can talk about you know general impacts and so forth but I would
just ask folks um to please um respect staff if they if you ask questions of them and they say I'm sorry I can't answer that. Please do not pick pictures of staff in uniform. Please do not use staff as props before or or um uh
material um of uh that belongs to the town for or against um a political campaign. Um it's it those things can get very ugly very fast. Um >> and we did get into some trouble if I remember uh with >> on the pier on the pier school with some
some communication using school resources. Right. So we want to avoid >> that wasn't us that was a school employee. Yeah, I understand. But I just >> we we can we can advocate. >> You all can ad Yes. >> Just can't use um town resources. >> Can I ask Jazz a quick question? Because you said something, you know, until the
ballot is set, if the thing uh goes pear-shaped. >> Yes. >> What did you mean by that? >> I mean, if you suddenly wake up tomorrow and have buyer remorse >> and wanted to put a second and wanted to put an 85% on the on the ballot, we could do that up until when? >> We could do that until midnight on the 31st. >> Okay.
>> All right. I would just say right I will >> that's what you meant by peers the peer shaped >> no pear-shaped not >> pearshaped okay >> peers shaped is more complicated than pear-shaped uh >> um but yeah I will just say I I will send out my usual message to staff about
what we can and can't do I would just say please respect people's >> wishes and time on this I know that's hard um I know people are advocating very strongly in both directions on this just you know please respect the fact that we all are you know most of the folks who are involved in this are just
trying to do their jobs um and can't be can't be seen as advocates one way or the other. So, thanks. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Uh I just want to I I just want I just want to offer a thought. Um since we obviously will not need to deal with
this at next week's board meeting. Um and it's now past 10 10 o'clock. No, it's not past, but it's approaching 10 o'clock. Would it be feasible to um defer some if not all of the remaining items till the following week?
>> Um I guess can we can do that, right? >> Let me see. Let's can we can we check the schedule? >> The question is that means the following weeks are going to be very very >> very packed. And I I do think you've got you've got departmental budgets people are ready to go on this and you have warrant articles that we've asked people to come in for and I think those folks
have been staying for a while. I would feel bad if we told them having stayed till 9:50. >> Just just just kidding. Um, >> how about item 11 rights of first refusal? Could that be put off or people waiting around to speak on that?
>> The team is waiting. >> Cara is online. >> Cara is online. Why don't you >> Why don't we take 11? >> Yeah. Why don't you Why don't you take that? I mean, you could off. >> No, you can you could take that now because Cara is here. >> Um, Sean O'Neal has been online for hours. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm worried about.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Commission on women. >> So, why don't you why don't you do why don't we do this? Um maybe um Melanie, can you reach out to the Warren article petitioners who are here with our >> She is here >> with our apologies and just maybe we'll email them. Um so folks, if you're
online, look for an email from Melanie. See whether or not it's feasible to go next week. >> Again, I we apologize. Um but we want to make sure that everyone that you get a full consideration here and not in the middle of the night. The parking stuff we can put off. That's no problem. >> Okay. >> Um, talking about the override
stabilization fund, no problem. We can put that off. >> Just send a chat real quick to Chi and >> Yeah, >> Chi and Jessica are here for their warrant articles. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
So, that leaves us with what? >> 112. How about 13? online. >> They're here. >> Oh, they're here. Well, then definitely. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh Melody. Okay. Who was Did we have an interviewee for the um
disability commission? >> No. >> Who was it that you said >> for disability for doing his annual report? >> Okay. So, that's what we're putting off. >> He'll come next week because he was having technical difficulties with getting his um listening device to because he need because he's visually
impaired. He needed the listening device to tell him when to for his slides. there was a a difficulty with the device he was using. So come back >> so then we can postpone 13. Okay. So why don't we start uh can we start with um commission for women so that Sean can >> Yes.
>> Okay. Go ahead. >> Let me pull Sean in. >> Sorry Cara, but >> Well, but Cara's next after this. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Maybe that will be a short conversation. Sean, are you there? >> Yes.
>> Okay, great. Thank you for your patience. >> Okay, >> Sean, uh, introduce yourself and tell us why you want to be on the, um, Brookline Commission for Women. My name is Sean O'Neal and I've lived
here for over 40 years. I am a disabled woman. Um, and I'm running for library trustee because I care deeply about the role uh library
in our community. Um, decisions that keep the library strong, strong, relevant, and accessible. Balancing tradition
with innovation. >> Sean Sean, you're applying for the Commission on Women. >> Oh, >> do we have that wrong? >> Sorry. >> I'm sorry. No, you have it right. I have it wrong. >> Okay. >> So, >> I want to be
>> Yeah. in the women's commission group because I feel like I have a lot to give. Um, being a handicapped individual, I can
help to add more innovative changes for our handicap and elderly in our community.
I am ready to do the job before me if I become library trustee. >> Thank you. >> Member of the women's commission. Um >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> So Sean, >> member of the women's
>> Sean tell me uh what are some of the issues relevant to uh tenants in BHA housing where you live? uh relevant to women with disabilities uh and relevant to library patrons uh
that you think the women's commission uh should take up. >> Um I think for example, and you can tell me if I'm on the on the right path. I think that
um my neighbors and others in the community that are dis disabled, um elderly and so forth can benefit can benefit a lot from
maybe a a mobile library. some people, you know, can't make it to the library. And for that, one of the one of the um
things to solve it was a thing called Libby, a um so like a library online. And um it it worked, but it's not the end all.
It's not the perfect thing that works. There are more things that need to be done as far as uh fundraising uh
um change in the in the disability act group to see what changes can be done for the library.
Um, and most of all, community involvement. Community involvement, um, is what keeps the library going. I can remember being a a young adult and on Saturday, Sunday afternoons,
we would go to the library. to go to the library and then to um like get ice cream or something. But um my parents all always let us know that it
is a place for knowledge and we should if you don't have an answer to the question don't be afraid to ask. So, I think we should have that that freedom as far as the women's group
goes. >> Okay. Uh, Michael, >> thank you. Uh, hello Sean. Um, I I know because uh I attend the Brooklyn Commission for Women meetings that you
had attended a recent Brookline for Commission for Women meeting before uh the Brooklyn uh women of the year celebration. Uh, and I wonder if you had any impressions of that meeting that you
could share with us in terms of things that you thought went well for the Brooklyn Commission for Women or ideas that were discussed that you would like to see taken further or new ideas for the Brooklyn Commission for Women.
>> Um, I felt the meeting went well as well as it could be. Um, and I was quite interested in what is to come in the in the future of the women's group.
Um I mean my thing is that equality also takes you know time but we need to do it fast.
Um, and being disabled, we could check up on the the laws and make sure that we um have the right things in place according
to the disabled teams. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, uh, Sean, as we usually do, we will, uh, make our decision to, uh, make appointments to various
commissions at a later meeting, but I appreciate your coming before us and and talking about your interest in the women's commission, uh, and the things that you can offer to that body. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um,
next, what what do we got left here? I see a couple of our uh uh town department people here. >> Why don't you why don't you maybe >> car is online. >> No, David is here. >> Okay, David. >> Hi.
>> Why don't we Why don't we do that then? Why don't we do >> we do planning in the departments and then be done if if the Warren article folks are good. >> They are great to come next week. They let me know. >> Is that okay with you? Does that sound right? >> Okay. So, we have uh >> Cara's online. She said she'll share her
screen. >> Okay. Um, this is 16 William Street, remember? >> No, it's so this is Sorry, this is we we this it's broad. It's the right of first refusal. We accident getting to that. >> I'm sorry. But it's not about William Street. We we we mislabeled it. Um, it was an error on our end.
>> Oh, it's another right of first. >> It's a policy more generally. >> Okay. >> Okay. Then then Cara, tell us what it is because I sure don't know. M >> we we will try to keep this brief, but I do want to say that David Guzman is in the um room there with you and is taking
the lead on this item. >> So, good night. Thanks for the opportunity. What we're looking here is to try efficiencies in decision making. So anytime that we have a typical standard resell of an affordable unit which provides the opportunity to the
town to exercise the right of first refusal. We don't need to come to the select board but we can continue doing automatically and and we have situations where we have properties that requires uh a decision from the select board.
those are the ones that we want to come and bring that subject to this to to this um uh select board and make that decision. That's technically the memo that we are presenting here. >> Okay, any questions?
>> I had uh I had spoken with Cara today uh via phone and had made a few suggestions to amend it. I think is that included in what we have in our our packet at this point? Um, so with those changes, I thought um it would be I would I would
support its passage. I probably would support it anyway, but I think this makes it a little bit better. >> Okay. Could you tell us what those changes were? >> Yep. So, uh, one change was to, um, allow some discretion in the policy. So
if uh the planning department uh felt that uh even though the right of first refusal fit in their authority to do it, if for some reason carer director wanted to bring it to us because there was something different about it, they could do that. So they wouldn't they have
choice. Um I asked for u some notification to the board so that you know we don't end up with um a kind of delegation creep so we can stay in the loop. So if you on a regular basis when they do approve it, they could send it to us or send to it quarterly and then
as part of their annual budget review, they would uh summarize what had been happening. And did you put in a five-year review, Cara, or something? Is that what you ended up doing? >> Yes. What I put the language says that that this authorization will expire um five years from today unless otherwise
renewed. >> Yeah. So just force a formal review to see if the policy makes sense. >> Good. Okay. Any questions? John, >> I confess to being confused as to the what this is uh the implications of this are u um this right of first refusal.
Are we talking about possible acquisition of properties? What are we talking about? >> Well, the right to acquire property. >> Yeah. And we would do we would authorize the planning board to acquire a property without even going through the select board. I think it's the opposite. So many of our affordable housing units created by the inclusionary zoning
program or CDG funds or home funds, they have a restriction and that restriction allows the town the opportunity to acquire the unit in the event that this the the owner decides to sell the unit. So we can go in first position, acquire
the unit, and then you know recommend the purpose of that unit for affordable housing purposes. That's the intent here. >> Thank you. But but Michael said, "No, it's not what I said, but the opposite." I I don't understand. >> The reason I'm sorry, the reason I said
the opposite is because the policy has to do with uh assigning the capacity to refuse the right of first refusal. So, we're not, as I understand it, granting anybody in the planning department the right to actually acquire the properties
only to only to refuse the right >> or decline. >> Which is it? >> Pass on the option. Yeah, pass on. >> Which is it? >> Pass on the option. >> It's the same thing as decline. >> Yeah. So, if I if so by by law, it's
indeed restricted. every unit that that is going to come on the market, John, um has to be uh has to be approved. You have to refuse it. So then the buyer and seller can make the deal because the town doesn't want it. For the for for the the typical easy cases, uh we would
delegate the authority to the planning department to make that decision. more complex things like William Street and other things like that that would that would come to us uh for sure. But >> but what happens if they decide not to
decline the right of first refusal? >> You mean to decline or to >> No. >> So if they not So Carol, what happens if you do not decline? If you decide not to decline the right of your refusal, you're committing to us to buy >> committing to buy or decide to buy it
>> or or does it select board for this? Um to back up a minute, um what David was talking about is that our normal kind of practice when there's, you know, an individual condo in a larger association, when it comes up for sale,
it already has a permanent affordable housing restriction. Um, and what David and his co-workers do is make sure that that sale of that unit remains um, in perpetuity as an affordable housing unit and is also fairly marketed to the next
buyer. Um, that kind of thing. One of the hooks, one of the leverage points that the town often has, not always, in those um deals is that we put the existing owner on notice that we have the right of first refusal to purchase
that property. What we usually do, my practice, these come up rarely, is um we say, "Okay, we're willing to decline the talent right of first of first refusal in exchange for um the party working with us to make sure that the property
is sold to another uh qualifying income household um and that all of the state rules and fair housing rules are met. Um if if I may one more question um um and this applies to any and all situations where something is presented
to us and then you know there's a but but if you if you have some you know some doubts in your mind about this don't worry because we'll limit this to five years and then it has to be reviewed every five years. I never know who who's around five years from now. He says, "Remember how the select board
made that vote five years ago to, you know, allow the planning department to refuse the right of first refusal? It's time for us to reexamine that again." I I, you know, I'm just not sure how meaningful that is and who's who's keeping track of this. If it if it's a good idea, I'm not sure why, you know,
we would have to sort of pretend to sort of leave ourselves the out of we're some of us might not be on this board. I I I hesitate to bring that up, but um >> it just forces the review, John, that if
then >> I know, but then take >> Yeah. Yeah. But who who where I've never understood how how people who's keeping track at town hall that it's time it's time to bring this up to the slord. >> It's a great that's a question. >> But I assume they have a tickler system
or something or whatever the I hope so current version of tickler systems are. >> We've we've actually been doing a better job of this. We're we're tracking you know things things that we have said in policies in the past you know when are they due for renewal when are they due for to come back before you we are >> tracking that centrally now so we will
continue to do that and yes so >> you don't have to you know >> I could none of us could be sitting at this table in 2030 uh could be a whole new group of people but we have we have a system in place that outlives people >> I'm glad to know that David >> so I have a question about the proposed
addition of 6D around notification that notification of the select board is simultaneous to notification to the broader market. I'm wondering why it would be simultaneous as opposed to >> the select board in advance.
>> If um I'll answer that question if that's okay. Um if it's to the select board in advance and we might as well not have this policy because then we're not being authorized to do anything. The thought here is to try to streamline some of our activities and when we get
when we know that the sale is ready to go because sometimes there's pits and starts when we know the sale is ready to go. We package up all the materials, there's photos taken, we are working with the state agencies, everything's a go. And at that point, we can notify you that um since we are authorized, if we
were authorized, we would be notifying you that the sale is, you know, real, that it's starting. Um, and that's an indication that the right of refusal was not after the bond. Usually those right rights of press refusal have a 30-day window, but David could answer that
question. >> So, if it's a scenario where you would want >> select board inputs, then it would come to the select board first. >> Absolutely. Be here next day. >> That's what we're looking for. >> So, we So, so far we have an inventory
of 153 affordable owner occupied units. All of those units has an affordable housing restriction and that restriction has a set of protocols and steps and actions in order to when we have the opportunity to resell the units the
restriction will tell us what to do. Some of them incorporate right of first refusal which is not most of the time not exercise because the restriction allows and goes in perpetuity. So we just want to make sure that the next buyer is an income qualified person or
family below the threshold of 80% of AMI and that's >> okay >> the mechanic. >> Paul should um maybe in response to John raising this issue should we add something that if if you decide to um to
exercise uh the option to purchase that you would first come to the select board. Yes, we're I don't think that we're authorized to um exercise to purchase property. I think we'd actually have to go to town meeting for that. >> That's a feature, not a bug.
>> Yes. Right. We have we have to go to you. We have to go to town meeting. Right. We we are not authorized to go out and buy property. >> I mean, so I just to keep things moving along if I may or not. I mean, this is simple. It's a simple ask to improve efficiency. Um this is not something
that comes along a lot. Um and if you know we're going to get notified on a regular basis of their decisions and if the board decides that this thing's getting out of hand, it doesn't make sense, then you can adjust the policy or resend it. >> So I'd like to move approval of uh the
policy with respect to rights and first refusal for affordable housing. Um any further discussion? All in favor? John Vanco. >> I Paul Warren >> I. >> David Ferman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> Chair votes I. Thank you, David.
>> Awesome. Thank you so much, >> Cara. >> Night. >> So, next we have uh what's what's next? Department budgets. Huh? >> Town clerk, finance, AC, and it. And then that's that's it. >> I see the town clerk Ben Kaufman is back
there since you're first up. Come on up. >> Just a reminder to all the departments, the clock is running this year. It's 10. You got 10 minutes. Uh, >> three. I thought it's three. >> Yeah. >> Extra points for >> at this at this time of night. It's three. >> I'll certainly try to keep it uh keep it
under three. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Uh, and Thomas the select board. I'm going to keep it short and simple without even doing any slides. Uh, the town clerk's budget is fairly standard and straightforward except for the fact that it's a dramatic increase from prior years. That's entirely due to the fact that this year we will have three elections as opposed to last year we
only had one. uh except for the increase for those elections, it is a flat budget uh from last year. Uh and there is no additional increase in the town clerk's budget. Happy to take any questions. >> Oh, that's that was quick. Sounds good. >> Any questions? I'd just like to say that
in your report in your budget report, you mentioned uh the documents that are in your files for the uh let me get this right uh semiquincential for the American Revolution. I I urge you to make those documents available to
the public so that we can uh see Brookline's role in the American Revolution and you brought stuff with you. >> Certainly I brought one with me. I won't read the whole thing, but uh I do think uh noting the impact that history has uh in Brooklyn that were a big part of that
uh cultural re of the uh uh the cultural moment in 1776 and the revolution. Um, I think it's important to read a small passage that was written in the hand of one of my predecessors at a town meeting on May 20th, 1776, where town meeting voted that if the honorable Congress
should for the safety of the American colonies declare them independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain, that we, the inhabitants, will solemnly engage with our lives and our fortunes to support them in the measure. There's a number of uh passages like that related to the Tea
Party um to uh enlistment uh to uh men from Brooklyn signing up to join the Continental Army and debates that happened around the formation of the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest continuously used uh constitution in the world. Uh so it's very important documents. Uh it's uh both a
preservation work that's important for us to do as well as ways to make it more accessible to the public especially in light of the 250th and I will not attempt uh the proper name for the uh for that. And at risk of getting myself in deep deep trouble, um some of the
language in these documents sort of reminds us of the the relevance of that period of time to the present period of time in terms of the issues that the colonists were struggling with with the king over there. >> Um
>> I'll leave it at that. >> I will mention that uh it's all in cursive too and they they wrote beautifully and we don't even teach cursive in school anymore. Did you know that? Do we? >> It's almost dead. >> Sometimes we do. >> It's almost dead. Um I do have a question. So for your budget, um and I
haven't vetted these concerns. I think I've the TMMA list was which is kind of the wild west. Um these days there's been some concerns raised I think about operating hours and availability um of staff being present. Um, does this
budget fully fund your what is it 8 to5? What's the what's the hours of the town clerk's office where someone is present to say hello to us? >> Sure. The clerk's office is currently open 8 to 5:00 Monday through Thursday and 8 to 12:30 on Friday, the same hours as the rest of town hall. Okay.
>> Um, this budget funds current staffing levels um which is five full-time employees and one uh part-time uh employee. Um the struggle that we always have uh especially around election season um is uh having sufficient staffing to cover all aspects. Usually
when the clerk's office is closed in the middle of the day, it's because we're actually doing an all staff training um mostly related to elections administration. We want to make sure everybody gets updates and information simultaneously as opposed to a kind of peace meal and ad hoc. So, uh, we will periodically close the clerk's office
for an hour, um, during a lunch to make sure that everybody is on the same page, uh, with, uh, whether it's the process for handling vote by mail, what the plan is going to be for nomination papers, or whatever is that topic that we want to make sure we are we're emphasizing for.
>> Okay, thanks, Ben. >> Okay, thank you. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. >> And next, the finance director or treasurer the town finance department. >> Good evening. >> Good evening.
>> I do have a uh presentation, but I promise to go through it very quickly and efficiently. Uh one moment's not sharers should switch over. Oh yeah. Okay. Uh, thank you. So, um, I am I am Lincoln Heinman, the town's director of
finance. Uh, I might not have any things uh as stirring to say as Ben regarding the uh the revolution in our country, but again, I'll um nevertheless, I'm here to talk about uh what is a can be an overlooked but a very important
department. Um, joining me online still, which I really appreciate, um, are our, uh, four division heads, uh, Chelsea Stevens, our controller, Don Dvito, uh, payroll director Rick Seville, uh, in his in his first time at this meeting in the full role as as the our chief
procurement officer. He had for many years served as our assistant chief procurement officer, procurement officer and interim procure chief procurement officer and very happy to have him in uh the um permanent role as the chief procurement officer. And um filling in
for Ted Costigan who is away on a family emergency is our assistant uh chief assessor uh Alex Boyerin. So, thanks very much for the opportunity to discuss uh the finance department's budget and uh some of the goals that
we've and accomplishments that we've met in fiscal 26 and um what we're looking forward to into into fiscal 27. Um I won't this board knows uh happy to take any questions about it, but we have our five divisions assessing controllers
office uh payroll purchasing and treasury collection within um the finance department. Um in terms of uh accomplishments in fiscal year 2026 um the and I'll show you in um some of
the ensuing slides how these are aligned with the select board goals. Um uh number one uh we we have maintained our AAA bond rating. Um the the board may recall that um over the past uh year
and a half actually um there have been efforts to update our um financial policies uh and reserve policies and thank you for the board's support in doing that. Um those have addressed uh the areas that are most directly under
the under the under the ability of the town to directly impact um what our uh bond rating is and maintaining our AAA bond rating particularly uh around maintaining uh reserves uh unrestricted
reserves as a percent of prior year net revenue. So that's been helpful and thank you. Um the the uh the board knows very well um that the expenditures and revenue study committee has been working over the past uh not quite a year but
but nine months. Um I specifically have in in concert with uh you know a lot of other staff members have been um helping to staff that particularly the uh futures uh sub subcommittee of expenditures and revenue study committee and I'll touch briefly uh later on on um
what came one of the things that came out of the future sub excuse me the future subcommittee of the expenditures and revenues study committee um of uh an area that uh is within the finance department's gambit going forward. Um
and then uh uh in terms of accomplishments over the last year, um seeking to um continue our current pilot agreements and seek new ones. Um we have had a a new effort to uh seek new pilot
agreements. Um it's been uh difficult and challenging but it's something that we're pursuing in in order to attempt to find some new revenue in that area. Um the board will recall uh mid last year that the town renewed the payment in le
of taxes uh agreement with Boston University um maintaining that $1.2 2 million and will be growing over time um uh amount that the uh that BEu contributes to the town's budget each
year. And so um in some cases with with number one, the more things uh change more they stay the same in terms of key goals going forward into fiscal year 2027. Um we certainly
want to continue with that goal in alignment with the select board's goals to uh maintain our AAA bond rating. Um we we've had renewed focus on um maximizing uh uh maximizing revenue
particularly with uh respect to parts of taxexempt properties that are taxable because they have a for-profit business going on in there. So we're making sure that um those pieces are identified and appropriately taxed. And then this is sort of the the the plumbing of the
finance department, but nevertheless very important. It is something that we want to pursue. We we right now Munis is our um is our accounting system, our system of record for the town. We actually use a different system, Vadar, for um the for keeping track of tax
collection. Um, and it's something that we'll want to think about uh integrating going forward. Um, I won't go deep into the numbers uh but just to show that um with uh without uh an override um the finance department
uh budget overall would decrease by 1%. um that there are some increases. Uh the only increases are in controller and treasury collection. Those are um contractual increases for the Munis um enterprise system um that we need to pay
to maintain that. Um the the the decreases uh again without an override as currently constructed in the budget um would would be within the purchasing division and that is uh personnel So I I won't go uh deep too deep into
this except to say, you know, happy to take questions about these alignments, but um these are uh the goals again um uh accomplishments in fiscal over the last fiscal year for the finance department and how they are aligned with
the goals of the that the select board laid out. Um and likewise for fiscal year 2027 and um and the goals going forward. Uh the um yeah, I'll leave it at that.
The one thing uh I'd mention and and this is sort of goals in in their alignment with the um with the proposed road map, the 2030 road map. Um the one item here I I'd bring your attention to that I mentioned earlier um coming out of the future subcommittee of the
expenditures and revenues uh committee was a recommendation to look uh at the OPED funding policy and its implications. Um uh as the board knows, you you have adopted a policy that would
um send a a large portion of what would otherwise be going into um funding unfunded pension liabilities in 2030 and 2031 going forward um into OPED outstanding OPED liabilities. There were some recommendations from the
expenditures and revenues uh committee in their final report regarding that. So, it's certainly something that I know um we'll be asked to engage with within the finance department. Uh th this is sort of just just a a quick
discussion of um uh in particular increased service demands that may be coming up. Um you know, the board's heard about unfunded uh mandates uh from town meeting A couple things we're certainly monitoring carefully. Um the rent stabilization
legislation would certainly have an impact particularly on the assessing division in terms of um what rent rent stabil what the rent stabilization uh legislation if passed in the legislature would um that would certainly impact um the assessing divisions work in um and
in uh following the state law to ensure that we have full and fair um assessments for all properties in town. the real estate transfer fee legislation, if that passed, uh, the legislature, again, would have a pretty significant impact on, um, on actually
my my work and the Treasury collections work in tracking that. Uh so again um just a quick discussion of uh what a if the override that is now on the ballot tonight um did did not pass under the current configuration now
there would be uh a reduction um in staffing um this would certainly have an impact on on um uh the services provided to the public particularly around um particularly around uh answering questions and reviewing residential
exemptions and in the purchasing division. So again, that's sort of a truncated uh because of the hour truncated presentation, but obviously very happy to answer any questions um that the board may have.
>> Um John, >> um I thank you very much, Lincoln. Uh I did hear assessing mentioned and uh I think you might be aware there's quite a uh brewhaha going on on the town meeting member list serve and I'll sum it up
with a simple request because uh I I noticed the deficiencies of this transition to a different form of of application for accessing information about your assessed values of houses up and down your street everywhere.
everywhere in town and the taxes on them, the tax information which used to be readily available for every single property in Brooklyn, not just for this year, but for previous years, isn't there anymore. And what what is going on? And I I would appreciate very much
that people can be reassured that that's going to be restored and that they can actually look up the tax information for their street, for their neighborhood, for the town, you know, other parts of town, etc., etc., etc. >> Sure. So, two things.
The old system um would would it is not able to be supported anymore by the town's vendor. So, so there's there's two there's two parts of it. One um is that there's there's a part of it that is supported
by the town's assessing software and that would is not able to be supported anymore. There there's also um a series of homebuilt applications which frankly um you know the the we have a new chief
assessor. Um it uh the the old chief assessor was very skilled at at writing code actually and and doing that backup. And you know that's not u an area of expertise for a new chief assessor who I
I would say is very skilled at doing the key parts of his job which is assessing um and he's he's absolutely found new areas of new growth and um that we that we weren't accessing previously >> the
all of the information. And so I I would certainly acknowledge what is up there now. It has uh it it it has all of the information and actually more information that was there. It is not pretty and it is something that um but
it is software that's used by many many municipalities. >> Sorry, but I you know it's late and everybody would I'm sure appreciate us moving this along. Will there be the information restored to the system so that the average person on any given day at any given time can go to the
assessor's website and look up, you know, I don't keep all my tax bills. You know, most people don't remind myself what did I pay last year, what did I pay the year before, what did my neighbor pay, what did the person across town pay. >> So, all that information is up there now
in in the in the assessor's data data files. >> Just not accessible. >> It's not accessible. Well, >> right. So, I mean >> I mean it's not just tax bills. I mean it's a lot of other things like for example whether people are taking the uh
residential exemption. >> Right. Right. Yeah. >> So when when when will the public be able to get this information like it used to? I mean you you can say what you will about the old system but it worked perfectly. I've been using it for years to look up stuff.
>> Yeah. So I mean it the fact that it's not supported by our by our our our software provider now is a fact that they have promised to continue to make improvements. I I I I I would you maybe this isn't the the moment to figure it
out, but I think may I suggest a way forward is to make sure um that that the that the data that folks are most want access to that they can access because I would say that there is no piece of data that I'm aware
of that is not accessible now. It is in a different format, but there is no piece of information that I'm aware of and I took a look at through it myself yesterday that that is not available now. It is in a different format.
>> So interesting like so I some several people have emailed us about this and have emailed Ted and I have Ted's email here which says that you know he says that he believes the new database has all the same features which may be that they're in different places. Um, so for one person asked, you know, where's the
valuation history? So you click on the previous assessment tab, the map link, you click on the map tab for details about the structure, interior, exterior. Um, and Ted has offered to do a tutorial and is scheduling a time that will help people figure out how >> I noticed the question you didn't answer is where can you look up your the tax on
your house? >> I mean, we can. So that's that that is available in the data files. I believe it is still it is still available online in the in the web pro. >> I think what I haven't been able to find is that we we need maybe some
instructions on how to get to stuff >> because I've gone to the to the new system and it's just totally confused. >> I mean at least to me I mean I'm not a computer genius or anything. >> I I just want to add one one thing. This is
>> professor's database. So this uh first >> you guys okay? >> Sorry. >> Um >> I mean this gets to a broader issue that um whenever we transition or we change a
uh taxpayer or customerf facing application, we shouldn't just change it. There's like there's a process that we go through to um you know notify and assess um pardon the pun um things that
impact the community directly on information systems and I don't know how this one got away from us. You actually told me earlier that this was done a year ago. It's been in place for a year. >> Nine nine months to a year I believe. >> Nine months to a year. So I I guess people just started to look at their
their tax bills. Um, but I think that it just gets to a broader issue of how we actually do change and anything that touches a customer, we should and we should think of taxpayers as customers. Um, we should probably be a little bit more deliberate and communicative about
it. Um, and not just be driven by that we have a new assessor and he decided to change the system because it's not supported. I don't know if that was the reason why. But I do have Can I ask him an unrelated question? >> Sure. Um maybe to I'll throw you a lifeline on
this one, but this is a harder question. So in your goals, um I was hoping to see that we would get our audits back on track. >> Yeah. >> Uh that seems to be missing. We're still at least a year behind. Um and I would
like to see that prominently uh as maybe goal number one uh because that affects our AAA bond rating. I mean, we're we're kind of flying blind here with uh how we're doing with our with our audits. So, anyway, that would be my feedback is please please add that if you could.
>> But, by the way, our audit is supposed to go to um Emma, the the securities um uh office. What are we doing about that if we're not up to date? >> We we are up to date with those filings on Emma. >> Okay.
So I if I could briefly return to to the to the previous topic. I >> I saved you. Why would you want to be back? >> David has a question. So >> So getting back to that topic, may maybe I'm just doing something wrong here, but is there a way you can even just look
things up by address instead of by parcel number or by last name of the owner? >> Yep. >> I'm gonna teach him. >> Okay. Well, well, what what I was going to suggest was we can absolutely commit to having a tutorial on how to find this
piece of information, how to find the an x piece of information, y information, z information. So that that is something we'll commit to uh creating expeditiously so that um you know so that it while it is well while folks
would access it in a new and different way we'll have a quick hopefully short I think we could do it in one page um tutorial in addition to the online tutorials that that we can do with any group that would be interested in doing
so um to tell people how to access a particular piece of information. >> Okay. I have a another a different type of question. So, uh you know the treasur invests funds like the affordable housing trust which is we've talked
about but also cemetery perpetual care funds, library trust funds and other uh funds. Um, with the affordable housing trust, we were earning the huge amount of less than 1% interest on our investments of of that
huge amounts of money. Um, and we that was fixed with some problems, but it was fixed. But my question is, are we making sure that all of the funds that we're investing um are being invested at at at
high a yield as possible? um you know given the restrictions that that many of these funds are subject to >> we are so >> we can't be leaving you huge sums of money on the table especially in this period. >> So each each of these so for example the
library trustees and the cemetery trustees each of them have particular and slightly different goals that that they've communicated. So within the context of those slightly different goals across across different groups,
yes, the the the answer is is is yes. But but some of them, for example, the library trustees have some more autonomy with their trust and they've set out a more conservative
um design, you know, a more conservative investment profile that they would like to see. Um and so we've been following that per their instructions. For example, >> I I I just want to make sure that we are
not defaulting to, you know, what the banks want to give us. >> Okay. Any other we should let him off the hook. >> Okay. You're off the hook. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for your time. >> Beat him up later. >> No, we don't need to beat him up.
Okay, I think the advisory committee is next. I see Dennis already out in the out in the uh audience there. >> He may have reprogrammed the whole thing sitting there with better access to the so good at that.
>> Hello everyone. Hopefully, this will be even faster than the town clerk's update since our budget is uh published in um the the online uh interactive budget is $32,022.
Uh and we actually reduced it by $750 from what the original um adjustment was to try to mirror um the reductions that were taken by the town administrator in his own in his own budget. Um, our budget is largely comprised of salary
for our exemplary administrative assistant, Lisa Porsche. Um, so that's $27,800 of the of the total. Um but we do have a modest amount set aside both for um food
for meetings when the when we're here in the building and um for professional dues and training and conferences. And we've had more interest in the past few years uh for participation in MMA events
of one form or another. So we've actually bumped that request up by a small amount. But then to take into account the fact that we're meeting in person significantly less frequently, we reduced our request for the the uh meals budget by $1,000. So our total
request for this year is $31,272. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> No. Thank you, Dennis. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, next it I see that uh Fun is
on uh Fong Yang is on uh on the Zoom. >> Good evening Green. >> Um can you hear me? All right. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Hear you and see you. >> Great. Good evening, Chair Green, Mr.
Kerry, and members of the board. Uh from Young, Chief Information Officer, Information Technology Department. I will be super brief. Uh you've have had you have had a long night. Um, I'll strive for three minutes and I promise you it'll be under 10. Let me share my
screen. >> Can you see my screen? >> Go to 10. >> She promises a little more than 10. >> Okay. So, um, let me dive right into it. The uh FY27 town IT proposed operating
budget uh is uh 2 million741,50 and uh it's a one uh 1.98% increase. uh primarily it's the um annual in infl uh inflationary cost for software licensing and listed computers and then the remainders due to personnel
step increases and I will um highlight um our accomplishments in four areas number one is cyber security uh we have maintained a grade A throughout the year um that's uh due to huge effort from u
the IT staff and um Number two is uh well well uh before I move forward so the standards we follow is the national institute of standards and technology uh framework which was updated last year to add it um it uh it added uh the govern
section which you know it took out the governance out of uh all the different categories and and emphasized it. So this is uh we continue to enhance the cyber security program and uh here are some of the specific accomplishments in
cyber security. I won't bore you with all of it. I just want to highlight that we uh thanks to you your efforts uh your help that bring brought us to the finish line and you adopted the IT resource use policy the updated policy also the gen
AI use policy and region information security policy. these uh these policies are extremely important um and uh particularly I want to thank Mr. Rubenstein who work with us and uh helped us bring to the finish line um
and um our network and infrastructure group has done a great deal of improvements in um in our onre on premise uh and cloud infrastructure. So I will um not bore you with all the details but um rest for sure that we
continue to enhance our infrastructure um performance and security and digital services team continues to work with all departments to streamline business processes and improve uh services. And I want to just highlight
that uh our website uh has won the Massachusetts Municipal Association uh website award as as you all know >> and uh our service desk that's number four and our service uh desk team has uh
continued to provide excellent customer service and um so we had our uh IT service management system randomly sends out after service survey to users and um
uh with six questions. So I'll just highlight a couple of them. Number one is how satisfied are you with the overall experience? So 87% uh which which is um 193 uh survey
results are very satisfied. 10% are satisfied. So in total our satisfaction rate is 97% which is very high for service desk. And uh second question how would you rate the professionalism of the technicians? 95% of the responses
said excellent. So I'm very happy with the results but we continue to improve and uh on the top you can see our it's a weekly average uh time of create a ticket that's created to resolve. So we continue to improve some of the high you
know high uh there there are some um when when there's staff out you know shortage of staff or on vacation you'll see spike sometimes and also you'll see spike during our busy time for instance the beginning of school year but overall our trend our trend is going down so we
continue to improve that I challenge your visual by going from right to left and I want to very quickly just talk a little bit about um our AI journey as this uh emerging technologies could potentially bring exponential change
down the road. So um we started a couple of years ago uh with understanding the risks and then we f uh as with any emerging technology right we want to be at the cutting edge but we don't want to be at the bleeding edge. So we focused
on governance um to start after we understood some of the risks and uh I mentioned the policy and guidelines um the gene AI policy earlier. We also have added modules to our annual employee
awareness training. Uh uh we added AI sessions uh uh modules to those training so that users are aware uh of deep fake of all the other risks that are associated with AI. And also we have added an AI section to our vendor cyber
posture review vetting questionnaire that we send out to all prospective vendors. And we also have started last year revisiting existing vendors because we have a lot of systems now have an AI feature that are made available but not
turned on. So we're we started to v existing systems and also what's very important is that we need to protect our data in the era in the edge a in the era of AI. So data classification and
governance is a huge and tedious pro uh tedious work that we need to do. So we continue to work on that and we currently are ex uh experimenting. We have some test pilots and these pilots may go on for longer than usual because
this space is changing very fast. Um so some of the AI test uh pilots are Canva AI uh Zoom AI companion um Microsoft 365 co-pilot ours ITSM system has an AI
feature uh that summarizes tickets we also have staff that are testing AI creating AI agents and also we're reviewing other tools so these test pilots gives us a good understanding of the risks and also how it actually will
be helpful in our environment. Right? So we work we have departmental users that are part of the test pilots. We want to work with all departments to identify the AI use cases and how um most efficiently uh to make use of it. So
that's where we are. I just want to also very briefly um say that we follow these fundamental AI principles um that um to keep our environment secure, our data safe but also be able
to utilize or take advantage of emerging technology and um there are two ways that are um sort of um how you can you know make sort of get value from AI right AI assistant that's knowledge
interaction and a aentic AI which are AI agents that some of them can uh autonomously work with you know AI agents so that's automation but all of those will be built upon um a governance practice and tools custom tools and
based upon found uh sort of foundational AI principles and uh I have one and a half minutes left so I promised you under 10 minutes so I'm going to be very and um and some of the stats in the
industry are are showing pilot uh production success rate is 5% and the increase of computing cost is 89%. So we we're watching very closely we continue to explore and we want to be at much better uh uh sort of position where the
success rates are higher and the costs are going down. So uh with that said um very quickly our uh mission hasn't changed our long-term goal still the same and then our FY objective uh we continue to improve cyber security work
with the departments to and to achieve the goals set by the select board and we continue to enhance our infrastructure and that ends my presentation as I promised it's under two minutes I didn't achieve three minutes my apologies Thank you, B. You left 35 seconds on the
table. So, any questions from the Siteboard? Michael? >> Um, first of all, thank you to you and your team for for all of the work that you're doing in this area. It really is foundational work for the entire uh town government and therefore foundational
work for the entire town. So, um I just wanted to recognize that reality. um you you spent a lot of time talking about AI and AI governance and some of the work that you're doing. Um I'm wondering uh if you will be able at some
point to report on the sort of range of use cases that are under either uh that you are working to develop pilots on or use cases that other uh departments have
suggested. uh and I would hope that at some point in the near future that other departments can also sort of directly report on their incorporation of AI into their various workflows and how you might support uh that incorporation into
across the town governance. Certainly um in in the near future we should be able to talk about some of the use cases um out of the pilots uh we have department participating in those for instance Canva AI we had a user we
had a pizza party and we had users talk about you know whether or not it's useful to them and they did not find the AI features in Canva that very useful. So that's one um AI a zoom AI companion. We have a lot of public meeting hosts
that are part of the uh pilot and they have uh in the very beginning um a zoom AI companion was just um not useful. The information it summarizes sometimes it's hilarious and it's really funny and it's wrong and but over time it has gotten
better. Uh it still is not completely accurate. So human in the loop is very important and uh all you know public hosts have been um instructed that any summary that's generated by zoom AI companion needs to be reviewed before it
bec it become um meeting minutes um so um we have had a user group meeting on that particular use case right and basically it's you know summarizing the meeting taking meeting minutes and things like that uh we have not had a
user school waiting for off uh co-pilot because we're waiting for some of the uh features to be made available in the government cloud as you know um government cloud we're we're we're in the government cloud of Microsoft and usually uh government cloud is about six
months behind commercial uh because it has to go through very rigorous federal ramp uh fed ramp authorization so uh we're waiting for some of the features to be made available and then we will have our user pilot testers uh group
meeting which includes uh departmental like health department other departments um uh users and then we'll talk about uh the use cases and then we um after that uh we have you know well we have others and then uh we really need to work with
departments to see what are some of the useful cases right how uh um so that's definitely in the in the near future we should be able to talk more about it Great. No other questions. Thank you, phone.
Appreciate it. Thanks. >> You're welcome. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Great. >> Okay, we're at the end of our agenda because we're not doing any of the warrant articles. Okay. Is there anyone
in the audience or online would like to make a public comment? Hearing none, I will there therefore end this meeting. Thank you. >> And we accomplished something really important.