Brookline Select Board begins public debate on study committee's override recommendations, favors tiered option

The Brookline Select Board on March 17 began public deliberations on a 639-page report from the Expenditure and Revenue Study Committee that lays out options for a proposed property-tax override on the May ballot.

Chair Bernard Green opened the workshop by saying the session was "our first public discussion of the recommendation of the expenditure and revenue study committee with respect to a possible override," and that the board would hold further deliberations on March 24 and could finalize ballot language before the March 31 filing deadline.

Committee presenters summarized the town's fiscal outlook and three alternative approaches for raising revenue to close a roughly $26 million three-year structural deficit: a full "pay-as-you-go" ask, a front-loaded levy that raises more up front and places the excess in a stabilization fund, and a tiered ballot that would offer voters multiple funding levels.

The committee's representative, Saddaf Kazmi, described the preferred option as a tiered override that "adds tiers to what is put on the ballot" and said the committee recommended that both the town and public schools prepare prioritized lists of services that would be cut at intermediate levels so voters would know the consequences of each tier.

Presenters and board members discussed the two headline examples developed by the committee. One example — the full combined request described in the report — was presented as approximately $23.3 million (the packet summarized roughly $5.31 million for the town and $17.94 million for the schools) under a pay-as-you-go implementation. Presenters said an alternate front-loaded design could reduce the headline three-year ask (an example figure cited was about $18.6 million) but would raise the immediate tax impact in the first year and requires careful voter education and conditions on the use of a stabilization fund.

Cliff Brown, who helped present the report, told the board Brookline faces a structural deficit driven by inflationary expense growth, rising health-insurance costs and required pension/OPEB funding. "Property taxes represent 73% of Brookline's revenues," he said, noting the difference between restricted and unrestricted tax components.

Dick Bena, part of the schools subcommittee, highlighted household impacts from the committee's capacity-to-pay analysis: "Over a quarter of renters or owners are paying more than 30% of their household income for housing," he said, stressing that seniors and renters are especially vulnerable.

School officials and the committee warned that a failed override would have concrete staffing consequences. Presenters summarized the school department's planning scenarios: the school baseline included 22.1 full-time-equivalent reductions already, a failed override in fiscal 2027 could add roughly 58 FTE cuts, and multi-year failure scenarios could push total school reductions toward roughly 130 FTE by FY28'FY29, with impacts on classroom teachers, guidance staff, language offerings and athletics. School presenters also cautioned about potential compliance and legal issues tied to reductions in mandated special-education services.

On the town side, presenters described planned reductions and the risk of additional staffing and service losses without new revenue; items cited included contract-driven firefighter step increases and overtime, tree-protection enforcement, sustainability positions tied to a town solar initiative and other operating-contribution reductions.

Board members focused discussion on two tasks for staff before the next meeting: prepare concrete, comparable scenarios for at least two ballot amounts and provide tax-calculator examples that show likely household impacts (including monthly equivalents) so the public can compare options. Several members also asked staff to return with a proportional split for a lower working target (participants discussed an illustrative lower figure in the high teens as a working scenario) and for prioritized cut lists from the schools and town that would attach to any intermediate tier.

Members pressed the committee on mechanics and risks of front-loading: presenters said they used a 2% interest assumption in their stabilization-fund worked examples and warned that front-loading uses one-time collected revenue to smooth later years and therefore requires explicit conditions to maintain voter confidence.

The meeting also included subcommittee recommendations beyond the override question: a nine-point list of follow-up items for schools and town administration (examples included negotiating health-care contribution alignment by 2028, evaluating wage-management approaches, pursuing non-resident tuition for special-education placements, and completing a town-school financial model), and a '4M-scale solar initiative the committee said could provide cost avoidance and a projected multi-decade return under various assumptions.

No formal override motion or ballot language was voted at the March 17 meeting; the session concluded with the board asking staff and the school department to return next week with the requested scenarios, the tax-calculator outputs and prioritized cut lists so the Select Board can deliberate before the March 31 ballot-filing deadline.

What's next: the Select Board will continue the discussion at its March 24 meeting; staff were asked to supply scenario numbers, tax-calculator illustrations (including monthly impacts for median properties), and specific lists of proposed cuts tied to any lower-tier figures.