HomeMy Public PortalAbout01.27.21 Fin Com PacketTown of Brewster Finance Committee
2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631
fincommeeting@brewster-ma.gov
(508) 896-3701
MEETING AGENDA
Remote Participation Only
January 27, 2021 at 4:00PM
This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Gov. Baker’s March 2020 orders suspending certain Open
Meeting Law provisions and imposing limits on public gatherings. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is
unable to live broadcast this meeting, a record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible.
The meeting may be viewed by: Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brerwster-
ma.gov), or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov).
Meetings may be joined by:
1. Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592. Webinar ID: 814 1267 1958 Passcode: 886006
To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized.
2. Zoom Webinarhttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/81412671958?pwd=b3V6OXdQWnhFQyt2Y24vR3pnQys3Zz09
Passcode: 886006
To request to speak: Tap Zoom “Raise Hand” button or type “Chat” comment with your name and address, then wait to
be recognized.
Finance
Committee
Harvey (Pete) Dahl
Chair
Frank Bridges
Vice Chair
William Meehan
Clerk
Andrew Evans
Alex Hopper
Honey Pivorotto
Robert Tobias
Robert Young
Town
Administrator
Peter Lombardi
Finance Director
Mimi Bernardo
1.Call to Order
2.Declaration of a Quorum
3.Meeting Participation Statement
4.Recording Statement
5.Public Announcements and Comment: Members of the public may address the Finance Committee on
matters not on the meeting’s agenda for a maximum 3-5 minutes at the Chair’s discretion. Under the Open Meeting
Law, the Finance Committee is unable to reply but may add items presented to a future agenda.
6.Town Administrator/Finance Director Report
7.Policies and Procedures Update (Standing Item)
8.Discussion on town mailing and legal issues for Finance Committee Report on NRHS
9.Discussion and Vote on Nauset Reqional High School Project
10.Liaison Reports
11.Review and Approval of Minutes
12.Request for agenda items for future meetings
13.Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair
14.Next Finance Committee Meetings – 01/27/21, 2/8/21, 2/10/21
15.Adjournment
Date Posted:Date Revised:Received by Town Clerk:
1/25/21
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT TO BREWSTER FINCOM FINALIZED JANUARY 2021
Is the $132 million project proposed by the Nauset Regional
School Committee is worthy of Brewster FINCOM and taxpayer
support?
NAUSET
REGIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL
BUILDING
PROJECT
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
1 | Page
Background on Sub-Committee
1. The Nauset Regional High School (NRHS) subcommittee of the Brewster Finance Committee
was formed in December of 2019 to focus on the proposed project to renovate and expand
the regional high school and provide input to the Finance Committee in its deliberations and
final vote on the project.
2. Prior to and subsequent to the formation of the subcommittee, the Brewster Finance
Committee (FINCOM) met and attended a number of presentations held to inform all
stakeholders in the project including:
• A joint presentation by the NRHS Building Committee to FINCOM and the Select Board on
July 22, 2019
• A public presentation by the NRHS Building Committee and the Owner’s Project Manager
on August 25, 2019
• A presentation made by Nauset Regional School Committee (NRSC) and NRHS Building
Committee members on October 2, 2019
• A public presentation made by Jack McCarthy of the MSBA on November 19, 2019
• A presentation to FINCOM by NRS Committee members Chris Easley and Jim O’Leary on
December 2, 2019
• A joint presentation by the NRHS Building committee to FINCOM and the Select Board on
January 20, 2020.
The subcommittee met with members of the NRSC, NRHS Building Committee,
Superintendent Conrad and the finance staff of Nauset Regional School Administration on
two occasions in October and November 2019. The subcommittee has met seven times since
its formation in December 2019.
3. Once the full range of considerations is addressed, the key decision that needs to be made
is whether the project proposed by the Nauset Regional School Committee is worthy of
Brewster FINCOM and taxpayer support.
Current State of NRHS
4. The current NRHS is 50 years old and requires substantial work on its infrastructure.
5. Only one major project has been done since it was originally constructed.
6. It is not fully compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and has other code
violations.
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
2 | Page
Project Size and Scope
7. The proposed project scope involves a combination of renovation and new construction.
The total project cost is estimated at $132 million. The Massachusetts School Building
Authority (MSBA) has reviewed the project and committed to a contribution of $36 million.
8. The School Committee proposes to issue bonds for some period of time (20 to 30 years) to
fund the $96 million if voters in the region/district approve the project and thereby agree to
fund the debt. (APPENDIX 1/1A – COMMENTS PREPARED BY R. YOUNG FOR SELECT BOARD
REGARDING IMPACT OF 20, 25, 30 YEAR SCENARIOS AND SUPPORTING ANALYSIS)
9. All funding for the bonds or debt service would be the responsibility of taxpayers in the four
towns forming the region/district.
10. Taxpayers who are currently legally bound by their respective Select Boards to participate in
the Nauset region/district are those residing in Brewster, Orleans, Wellfleet and Eastham.
11. These taxpayers will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to approve the NRHS
project as approved by MSBA when it is presented on the ballot on March 30, 2021.
12. The project as proposed and designed is the ONLY option for voters to consider on the
March 30, 2021 ballot.
13. The maximum student enrollment approved by the MSBA as the basis for the project is
905. (APPENDIX 2 – MEMO TO FINCOM DATED 6/30/20 FROM F. BRIDGES REGARDING
NRHS PROJECT AND INTER-DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE)
14. The Superintendent has strongly supported the need for a school population this size as
critical to robust programming, diversity, and essential for effective recruitment and
utilization of full-time teachers.
Student Utilization of NRHS
15. Actual student volume at NRHS for FY 2020 was as follows:
Brewster* 281 31%
Eastham, Wellfleet, and
Orleans*
335 36%
Provincetown and Truro 86 9%
CHOICE – other towns 219 24%
Total 921 100%
*4 TOWNS IN DISTRICT = 67% OF STUDENT VOLUME
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
3 | Page
16. Average enrollment from the 4 towns in the district as well as the tuition towns
(Provincetown and Truro) decreased 2% each year since 2010 while enrollment of CHOICE
students increased an average of 4% per year. Enrollment in 2020 is comprised as follows:
67% of the youth are from the 4 towns in the district; 33% are from outside the district (9%
from Provincetown and Truro; 24% are CHOICE. (see chart in #15 above)
17. While the total budget increased 29% over these 10 years (averaging 3% per year), the
budget per enrolled student increased 39% over the period or an average of 4% per year as
student enrollment decreased an average of 1% per year. (see CHART 1 on following page)
18. The MSBA performed a demographic study supporting the 905-enrollment figure including
an expectation a 1% decline per year for students within the district.
19. The MSBA data shows a 4-1/2% decline in the student population between 2017 and the
end of construction in 2025.
20. We cannot determine the impact on enrollment of the multiple affordable housing
initiatives across the 4 towns in the region/district. In Brewster the Habitat for Humanity
community has added families with children to the town’s student population. The
Millstone project will also likely add students.
21. Eastham and Orleans have similar projects that will be coming online.
Financial Considerations
22. The School Committee makes a decision each year whether to continue the CHOICE
program and the number of students to accept in each grade.
23. Of the four towns in the Nauset regional system, Brewster funds the largest percentage of
NRHS costs at nearly half based on the percentage of its student enrollment the prior year
in relation to the other 3 district towns (see #15 for chart 281/616=47%).
24. As a result, Brewster would be obligated for about $45 million of the $96 million estimated
project debt. Brewster’s financial obligation will vary based on its student enrollment as
percentage total enrollment from the four district towns.
25. The project impacts taxpayers in three ways: operating budgets, capital budgets and debt
service.
26. Two five-year tuition agreements were executed in April 2019 with the towns of
Provincetown and Truro in which the two towns agree to an annual payment of $18,457 per
student (flat fee) through the end of 2024 school year. This fee is increased annually by 2-
1/2% for the first four years and 3-1/2 % in the final year.
27. The agreement does not require full operating costs or capital costs reimbursement nor
does it include any obligation to fund debt service on any major projects including this
project.
28. CHOICE students are students from towns throughout Cape Cod who choose and are
accepted to attend the Nauset Regional School District. State law effectively limits annual
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
4 | Page
operating budget reimbursement from the CHOICE student’s town of residence to $5k.
State law does not require the sending district to fund capital costs or debt service for major
projects.
CHART 1 – CREATED FROM NRHS DATA TRENDS 2010-2020
KEY BUDGET AND ENROLLMENT STATISTICS FOR LAST DECADE AT NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NRHS
Budget
(excludes
Region,
other
expenses)
NRHS
BUDGET PER
ENROLLMENT
TOTAL NRHS
ENROLLMENT
Total NRHS
4 member
towns
enrollment
Total NRHS
member
towns +
tuition
enrollment
Total
CHOICE
enrollment
4 Member
Towns as a %
of TOTAL
ENROLLMENT
Provincetown
and Truro
Tuition as a %
of TOTAL
ENROLLMENT
CHOICE as a%
of TOTAL
ENROLLMENT
FY10 (09/10)$9,126,011 $9,190 993 800 840 153 81%4% 15%
FY11 $9,059,459 $9,179 987 737 819 168 75%8% 17%
FY12 $9,436,281 $9,779 965 696 780 185 72%9% 19%
FY13 $9,725,011 $10,026 970 695 780 190 72%9% 20%
FY14 $10,250,107 $10,010 1024 706 810 214 69% 10% 21%
FY15 $10,730,685 $11,017 974 687 777 197 71%9% 20%
FY16 $10,968,281 $11,181 981 676 772 209 69% 10% 21%
FY17 $11,131,812 $11,780 945 642 734 211 68% 10% 22%
FY18 $11,086,421 $11,998 924 603 688 236 65%9% 26%
FY19 $11,468,531 $12,149 944 624 716 228 66% 10% 24%
FY20 $11,781,018 $12,792 921 616 702 219 67%9% 24%
% change FY10-FY20 29% 39% -7% -23% -16%43%
AVERAGE PER YEAR 3% 4% -1% -2% -2%4%
OBSERVATIONS:
Total budget increased 29% over 10 years ......... or an average of 3% per year.
Budget per student increased 39% over 10 years .....or an average of 4% per year; student enrollment has decreased an average of 1% per year.
Average enrollment from 4 towns in district and tuition towns (Ptown and Truro) decreased 2% each year; CHOICE increased an average of 4% per year.
Enrollment in 2020 is comprised of 67% youth from district and 33% outside the district (9% Ptown/Truro + 24% CHOICE).
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
5 | Page
29. State law does stipulate some additional payment for costs associated with CHOICE
students with special education needs.
30. The State law regarding financing/reimbursement for costs related to CHOICE students,
known as the inter-district school choice, has not changed since its inception in 1991.
31. Although not required under the state law, the district provides transportation for CHOICE
students. The district does not provide transportation for tuition students from
Provincetown and Truro.
32. In a March 2020 memo, the district superintendent reports receiving $5,800 in operating
revenues on average for CHOICE students representing a deficit per student in operating
costs of $14,300 ($20,100 - $5,800). The $20,100 is the state reported average in-district
expense/pupil for the Nauset district.
33. In total for FY 2018, the district reported receiving gross reimbursement/revenues of $1.5
million for the high school from CHOICE students.
34. The five-year agreement with Provincetown and Truro requires payment of approximately
$1,643 less ($20,100-$18,457) than the actual cost per student, although Provincetown and
Truro provide for their own transportation costs.
35. Taxpayers from the 4 towns in the region/district pay nearly $25,200 per district student per
year in operating costs. The overall cost/student is about $20,100. District taxpayers are
therefore paying $5,100 or 25% more per student than the average cost in order to
subsidize unfunded costs for students from Provincetown and Truro as well as CHOICE
students.
36. Over the last ten years (2010 to 2020), the NRHS did not request increases to its operating
budget of more than 2.5% per year.
37. During this same 10-year period, total enrollment has decreased 7% and the total NRHS
budget has increased 29%. This translates to budgeted costs per enrolled student
increasing 39% during the period, and CHOICE students increasing from 15% to 24% of the
total student population.
Other Considerations
38. The Brewster Select Board has recommended a 25-year level debt repayment schedule to
the NRS Committee but the Committee has not made its decision as to the term of the
financing (20, 25 or 30 years). (APPENDIX 1/1A – COMMENTS PREPARED BY R. YOUNG FOR
SELECT BOARD REGARDING IMPACT OF 20, 25, 30 YEAR SCENARIOS AND SUPPORTING
ANALYSIS)
39. Assuming the NRS Committee approves the 25-year level debt repayment schedule, the
annual property tax increase for the Brewster household with the median home value of
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
6 | Page
$461,500 is about $265, inclusive of the subsidy for students from Provincetown and Truro
as well as CHOICE students.
40. Market interest rates are expected to be lower than those included in the project estimate.
41. Taxpayers have to choose between approving this project, which would commit them to
both the capital cost of the proposed project and the annual operating costs associated
with educating CHOICE and tuition students, OR rejecting the project knowing there is a risk
that an alternate project could be presented for which the state MSBA refuses to provide
funding, shifting the burden for 100% of the cost of the new project to the taxpayers.
42. If the current proposal is defeated and an alternate project is undertaken that eliminates
and/or substantially reduces CHOICE and/or Provincetown/Truro student enrollment, the
assumed $4-$5 million/year in operating cost savings from eliminating the subsidies and
educating fewer students could effectively be used to fund the four district towns’ debt
service costs for this alternate project. Assuming a 25-year bond term at a 2.25% interest
rate, this $4-$5 million/year redirection of funds would support $80-$90 million in debt.
When combined with any MSBA support, this combination could fund the entire alternate
building project with zero property tax increase versus today. (APPENDIX 3/3A – MEMO
AND ANALYSIS TO FINCOM DATED 1/19/21 PREPARED BY R. YOUNG REGARDING COST TO
EDUCATE AND THE SUBSIDY BURDEN TO THE DISTRICT TAXPAYERS OF TUITION AND INTER-
DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE STUDENTS)
43. If an alternate project, as described above, was developed, it is uncertain how much of the
estimated CHOICE and tuition student-related subsidy savings could be realized. This
analysis assumes that the NRSD in-district expense per pupil would remain at the state-
reported average of $20,100, an amount that is 20% higher than the average total
expense/pupil for the Top 25 Massachusetts high schools, as ranked by US News, and 9%
higher than the Monomoy school district. A concrete determination as to whether this is a
fair assumption could only be made after a new educational plan and new budgets based on
the lower enrollment are developed by the NRS Committee. The magnitude of a budget cut
that could be achieved without a negative impact on student educational outcomes is not
known.
44. Although the Superintendent and NRS Committee have asserted that a student population
of 900-1000 is needed for a robust program and excellent education, 1/3 of the Top 25 and
Top 50 Massachusetts high schools, as ranked by US News, have fewer than 750 students,
and 1/4 of the Top 50 have fewer than 500 students. (APPENDIX 4 – ANALYSIS OF
STATISTICS OF US NEWS MASSACHUSETTS TOP 25/TOP 50 RANKED HIGH SCHOOLS)
REPORT OF FINCOM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT – 1/20/21
7 | Page
PROS AND CONS OF APPROVING NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT AS PRESENTED TO
VOTERS
PROS (Reasons to Vote for the Project) CONS (Reasons to Vote against the Project)
Significant issues and concerns at current 50
year old school will be resolved in 3 to 5
years to include compliance with code and
ADA.
905 Student capacity supports leadership
desire for more diverse student population
and more robust curriculum.
Project is underway; 3 years of planning and
design work has been completed and
project has received approval from the
MSBA; failure to approve could result in
delays and potential increases in interest
and construction costs.
State commitment of this project will offset
some of the anticipated $132m costs of the
project. The net cost of the project after
receipt of the $36m from MSBA ($96m) is
approximately the same cost as bringing the
existing structures to code ($98m).
Commitment to 905 enrollment as basis for
project plan solidifies a long term commitment by
the School Committee to accepting greater
numbers of CHOICE students outside the 4 towns
in the district burdening the taxpayers with major
subsidies for these students (currently $4-$5
million per year). These savings could be used to
fund $80-$90 million toward an alternative
project – higher than the $36 million MSBA
contribution.
Voter rejection of the project would
necessitate resubmission of an alternative
project to the MSBA. There is no guarantee
that a NRHS project would be reconsidered
by MSBA in the next few years.
Provincetown and Truro (tuition students) are
not part of the region/district. While they have
agreed to pay a tuition fee, they have not
committed to paying full operating cost, capital
or any debt service costs.
The $1.3 m in taxpayer funds spent on the
feasibility study for the project as approved
by MSBA cannot be recouped.
Brewster will send about 1/3 of the student
population but will pay for about 1/2 of the
school project.
APPENDIX 1
COMMENTS BY ROBERT YOUNG, BREWSTER FINANCE COMMITTEE
MADE TO THE BREWSTER SELECT BOARD
NOVEMBER 2019
I would like to share an analysis that I have done with regard to the NRHS building project bond
financing term. I performed this analysis with the thought that we need to consider the town’s
annual debt servicing requirements in light of the NRHS project as well as other projects that
can be reasonably anticipated - as well as those that we can’t foresee. This is not to prejudge
support for any of these projects, but to better understand the flexibility a longer bond financing
term would provide.
The bottom line is that the longer the term of the bond for NRHS, the more flexibility the town
would have with regard to financing other projects without stressing the town budget or further
burdening taxpayers. This is because, although total interest payments would be greater, the
annual debt service cost would be less, thereby reducing the size of the required property tax
increase.
I believe this should be a key consideration for the Select Board in its recommendation to the
School Committee that will ultimately decide the NRHS project bond financing term. I
appreciate that the Select Board voted to recommend a 20 year bond term at its 11/4/2019
meeting, but I think this additional information and analysis needs to be presented so that the
Select Board can reconsider this position.
The schedules that were provided to the Select Board provided scenarios for 20, 25, and 30
year bond terms and assumed interest rates of 4.25%, 4.75%, and 5.00%, respectively.
The 20 year scenario calculated Brewster’s annual debt service payment at $3,387,681.94. The
25 year scenario’s annual payment equaled $3,116,110.31. The 30 year scenario’s annual
payment equaled $2,929,259.75. So, the 25 year scenario would result in annual debt service
payments $271,571.63 less than the 20 year scenario, and the 30 year scenario would result in
annual debt service payments $458,422.19 less than the 20 year scenario.
These annual reduced debt service requirements would then be available to fund future bond
issuance to support other projects without increasing the tax burden beyond what’s currently
contemplated with a 20 year NRHS bond term.
How much debt capacity would this provide? If we continue to use the scenario’s extremely
conservative interest rate assumptions, the $271k would support about $3.6MM in borrowing for
a 20 year term, $3.9MM for a 25 year term, and $4.2MM for a 30 year term. The $458k would
support about $6MM in borrowing for a 20 year term, $6.6MM for a 25 year term, and $7MM for
a 30 year term.
We can revise this analysis using today’s actual municipal bond interest rates to paint an even
more compelling picture. AA rated municipal bond interest rates are about 2.20% for 20 year
financing, 2.3% for 25 year financing, and 2.40% for 30 year financing.
Using these interest rates and Brewster’s assumed portion of the NRHS bond results in the
following: For a 20 year term, annual debt service equals $2,807,313.24. For a 25 year term,
annual debt service equals $2,388,473.46. For a 30 year term, annual debt service equals
$2,122,835.67. So, the 25 year scenario would result in annual debt service payments
$418,839.78 less than the 20 year scenario, and the 30 year scenario would result in annual
debt service payments $684,477.57 less than the 20 year scenario - lowering the annual debt
service cost even more than using the extremely conservative interest rates in the Unibank
scenarios.
Again, these annual reduced debt service requirements would then be available to fund future
bond issuance to support other projects without increasing the tax burden beyond what’s
currently contemplated with a 20 year NRHS bond term. Assuming today’s municipal bond
interest rates, the $418k would support about $6.7MM in borrowing for a 20 year term, $7.9MM
for a 25 year term, and $8.9MM for a 30 year term. The $684k would support about $11MM in
borrowing for a 20 year term, $12.9MM for a 25 year term, and $14.5MM for a 30 year term.
The upside of longer borrowing terms is greater financial flexibility in the future for other
anticipated and unforeseen projects. When considered on an individual median value
homeowner basis, the annual savings from extending the term don’t appear substantial (about
$30-$50/year). However, when looked at collectively, the ability to substantially fund future
projects without placing any further burden on the taxpayer beyond what is contemplated by the
20 year financing for the NRHS project is compelling.
The clear downside is that the total amount of interest paid would be substantially greater.
However, interest rates are at historic lows, and locking in very long term financing for a very
long term asset is prudent financial management. There is also the rationale that extending the
tenor to 30 years is a matter of fairness given that this would mean the burden of the financing
would be spread over more/different taxpayers as homeowners arrive in and leave Brewster.
Assumptions:
Total project cost to taxpayers from all 4 member communities of $97MM (assumes $140MM total project cost less $43MM MSBA subsidy)
Current 46.4225% contribution of Brewster taxpayers, based on FY20 student enrollment figures (which adjusts every year based on updated actuals)
Current Brewster median home valuation of $445,000
Current (FY20) total assessed property valuation of $4,121,908,120 4121908120 3400000 0.000824861 367.0630096 176.1902446
20 year term Conservative rate scenario Current rate scenario 25 year versus 20 year bond Conservative rate scenario Current rate scenario
Interest rate 4.25%2.20%Annual reduction in debt service $271.6k $418.8k
Total Debt Service $145.9MM $120.9MM Add'l debt capacity on a 20 year bond $3.6MM $6.7MM
Total Interest $48.9MM $23.9MM Add'l debt capacity on a 25 year bond $3.9MM $7.9MM
Impact to the Tax Rate $0.82/1000 $0.68/1000 Add'l debt capacity on a 30 year bond $4.2MM $8.9MM
Annual Impact to the Tax Bill $365/year $303/year
Total Paid by Median Homeowner $7,313 $6,062 30 year versus 20 year bond Conservative rate scenario Current rate scenario
Brewster annual debt service $3.4MM $2.8MM Annual reduction in debt service $458.4k $684.5k
Add'l debt capacity on a 20 year bond $6.0MM $11.0MM
25 year term Conservative rate scenario Current rate scenario Add'l debt capacity on a 25 year bond $6.6MM $12.9MM
Interest rate 4.75%2.30%Add'l debt capacity on a 30 year bond $7.0MM $14.5MM
Total Debt Service $167.8MM $128.6MM
Total Interest $70.7MM $31.6MM
Impact to the Tax Rate $0.76/1000 $0.58/1000
Annual Impact to the Tax Bill $336/year $258/year
Total Paid by Median Homeowner $8,408 $6,446
Brewster annual debt service $3.1MM $2.4MM
30 year term Conservative rate scenario Current rate scenario
Interest rate 5.00%2.40%
Total Debt Service $189.3MM $137.2MM
Total Interest $92.3MM $40.2MM
Impact to the Tax Rate $0.71/1000 $0.52/1000
Annual Impact to the Tax Bill $316/year $229/year
Total Paid by Median Homeowner $9,487 $6,875
Brewster annual debt service $2.9MM $2.1MM
NRHS BOND TERM SCENARIOS AND DEBT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
CONSERVATIVE RATE VERSUS CURRENT RATE SCENARIOS ADD'L DEBT CAPACITY WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES BEYOND 20 YEAR BOND FINANCING
APPENDIX 1A
APPENDIX 2
Memo to: Brewster FINCOM Chair
From: Frank Bridges
Date June 30, 2020
Re: NRHS Project and Inter-School Choice
In the June 29, 2020 Joint Brewster Select Board / Nauset Regional School Committee meeting, the Select Board reaffirmed its
support for the project and directed the NRSC to move the vote for the project to the spring 2021 Town Meeting. After the Select
Board vote, NRSC Chair Chris Easley stated that “school choice is not part of this building project” and further “it is something that
has just come up and it is new”. As part of the NRHS Finance Subcommittee investigation I reviewed the minutes and videotape of
the May, June and July 2017 NRSC meetings and the minutes of the August 2017 NRSC meeting. This information was going to be
included in the subcommittee’s future report but in the light of Mr. Easley’s recent statements I provide it now.
In February 2017, the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) invited the Nauset Regional School Committee (NRSC) to
submit a statement of interest into the MSBA’s Eligibility Period. In the subsequent months the NRSC Committee met on several
occasions to discuss the key components of the process – determining grade configuration of the facility and the student enrollment
number on which the design would be based. In its public meetings in May, June, July and August of 2017, the Committee (of which
Mr. Easley was a member and subsequently Chair) discussed these and other topics as part of the MSBA Modular 1 requirements. The
Modular 1 criterion required the NRSC to submit a report to confirm the grade configuration and certified enrollment data of the high
school to the MSBA by the end of August 2017.
At the May 11, 2017 meeting the Committee Chair stated that the Committee needed to address the size of the facility “700
or 1000 students” and to look into the impact of School Choice, and the tuition arrangements for Truro and Provincetown.
At the June 14, 2017 meeting the issues of grade configuration, Truro/Provincetown tuition enrollment and the Inter-District
School Choice program were again determined to be crucial topics for further discussion. In particular the Superintendent
indicated that the “towns have asked us to look at school choice students and look at our population”.
In the July 13, 2017 meeting the new Committee Chair (Mr. Easley) stated that long term effects of grade configuration
would be deferred for future consideration, to be studied 5 or 10 years down the road. It was suggested that a subcommittee
be formed for that study.
At the August 10, 2017 meeting, the Superintendent indicated that the MSBA representative had advised him that the
deliberations of the NRSC meetings of June and July would satisfy MSBA Modular 1 requirements. The Committee then
voted to 1) maintain the 9-12 configuration for the project and 2) maintain the Choice program in grades 6-12.
On November 8, 2017 the MSBA approved a 9-12 grade structure with an enrolled base of 905 students.
Up until the MSBA’s Invitation to Eligibility to the NRS District in February 2017, it is my conclusion based on a review of the
minutes and videotape, that the NRSC had viewed the Choice enrollment invitations as an annual decision that would impact the
curriculum of the school and the annual operating budget. Because the existing facility had been designed to accommodate 1000+
students the Board considered only the marginal impact of Tuition and Choice students on its annual budget. I believe that when
asking the Board to “look at school choice students and look at our population”, the towns were asking the Board to consider the
impact of declining district enrollment and an increasing Choice enrollment on the District ’s long term capital requirements. It is not
clear to me that the Board did so.
The minutes and video of the Nauset Regional School Committee meetings show:
No discussion of the prior period enrollment declines
No discussion of the prior period Choice enrollment incr eases at NRHS
No discussion of requiring Truro and Provincetown’s inclusion into the NRSD Agreement
No discussion of amending the Tuition Agreements with Truro and Provincetown to provide for any future capital
requirements related to their students (New 5 year tuition agreements for both towns were completed in April 2019 with
2.5% escalators in all but the last year, which will increase by 3.5%.)
The inclusion of Choice students in the proposed enrollment base was the key determinant in all of the ensuing work done by
the design team and resulted in the project under consideration by the towns.
APPENDIX 3
COST TO EDUCATE AND THE SUBSIDY BURDEN TO THE DISTRICT TAXPAYERS OF TUITION AND
INTER-DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE STUDENTS
BY Robert Young, Brewster Finance Committee
January 19, 2021
This is an analysis regarding the cost to educate each of the NRSD’s four member town’s pupils
which then results in highlighting the subsidy the member town’s taxpayers pay for Inter-
District School Choice students and Provincetown and Truro tuition students.
The basis of the analysis is all public data from the MA Dept. of Elementary and Secondary
Education (DESE) and the Nauset Regional School District (NRSD). It includes analyses of the
two most recent fiscal years where all data was available for the NRSD - FY18 and FY19.
Using FY 18 as an example, the analysis takes the NRSD’s total In-District expenses which DESE
uses in calculating the NRSD’s In-District Expenditure per Pupil of $20,133 for the NRSD for that
fiscal year. It then subtracts the revenues received from Choice reimbursements and
Provincetown and Truro tuition. The remainder represents the balance of expenses that it takes
to educate the member town’s pupils that must be covered by the four member towns.
Using the same calculation method as DESE, the NRSD In-District Expenditure per Member
Town Pupil was $25,162. The difference of $5,029 versus the $20,133 In-District Expenditure
for all NRHS pupils represents the premium that the member towns are paying for each of their
1,022 pupils as a result of the 347 Choice and 108 Tuition students in the district contributing
less than the $20,133 average cost to educate each of them. The District member town’s
taxpayers are subsidizing the cost to educate the non-District pupils.
The total calculated premium/subsidy for FY18 is $5.1 million split as $4.7 million due to the
Choice subsidy and $0.4 million due to the Tuition subsidy. Importantly, this analysis assumes
that the NRSD could educate just its own 1,022 students at its average $20,133 Expenditure per
Pupil. This seems plausible given that the Top 25 and Top 50 ranked high schools in MA have a
median Total Expenditure per Pupil of about $17,000 (including out-of-district expenses, so
their in-district median would be even less), and the adjacent Monomoy School District In-
District Expenditure per Pupil was $18,520.
According to this analysis, the cost of these subsidies for the median Brewster household
currently assessed at $461,500 was about $267 for FY18.
The analysis then addresses three hypothetical questions important to the taxpayers, each
assuming that the savings generated by eliminating only the Choice subsidy could be used to
support a bond payment of the same amount over varying terms. Eliminating the Choice
subsidy assumes ending participation in Choice – which is under the direct control of the NRSC.
Note: the answer to each question assumes the savings from eliminating only the Choice
subsidy (and not the Tuition subsidy) would be applied to a payment on a 25-year, level
payment bond with an interest rate of 2.25%
(1) How large of a school bond could be raised using the savings from the elimination of the
above subsidies (without raising taxes on the district at all)? Answer: $89.6 million
(2) Assuming a smaller school would then be built for $126 million with $0 MSBA state
assistance, how large of a bond would the district need (supported by new taxes) as
compared the current NRSD project bonding/tax ask of $95+ million. Answer: $36.4
million
(3) Freed-up bonding capacity for Brewster, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet that could be used
to support other town priorities without raising taxes beyond current NRSD project
(Brewster is about 1/2) Answer: $58.8 million
The analysis finishes with the following statement: Bottom line - by eliminating the Choice
subsidy, even assuming no MSBA state funding, Brewster taxpayers would support a new,
smaller Nauset Regional High School and would still have $20-$30+ million of bonding flexibility
to support, for example, a Brewster Ladies Library renovation, a Community Center, or Cape
Cod Sea Camps project without raising taxes beyond what the NRSD is currently asking the
taxpayers to support for the larger proposed NRHS project.
Source FY18
DESE EOYR18 Total In-District XP 29,551,080$ Only considered In-District expenses because Out-of-District expenses not affected by Choice/Tuition students
DESE EOYR18/Line 630 Choice Reimbursement 1,744,600$ 5,983$ 5,028$
DESE EOYR18/Line 630 Choice SPED Reimbursement 331,611$ 956$
DESE EOYR18/Line 40 Tuition from Other Dist (Reg Day)1,515,227$ 16,291$ 14,030$
DESE EOYR18/Line 40 Tuition from Other Dist (SPED)244,210$ 2,261$
Member Town's In-District XPs 25,715,432$ a Represents the total expenses that need to be covered by the member towns for its students through taxes, aid and grants
Does not offset expenses with revenue from other aid/grants because assume would be the same without Choice/Tuition students
Member Towns' Enrollment 10/1/17 (FY18)NRHS 603
NRMS 419
1,022 b
Choice Enrollment 10/1/17 (FY18)NRHS 236
NRMS 111
347 c *District 10/1/17 (FY18) Official Enrollment Data sheet shows 340 Choice, but this misses 7 P-Town NRMS Choice pupils
Tuition Enrollment 10/1/17 (FY18)NRHS 85
NRMS 23 *Only Truro 7th & 8th grades tuition into NRMS; Choice is the reported 89 + 15 Truro 6th graders + 7 P-Town pupils
108 d
25,162$ e = a/b Member Towns' Taxpayers In-District expense/Member Towns' pupil in NRMS/NRHS (reflects burden of subsidies for Choice/Tuition)
20,133$ f DESE reported In-District expense/pupil
5,029$ g = e-f Subsidy burden/Member Town pupil
5,139,506$ h = b*g Total Annual Subsidy burden for Member Towns due to Choice/Tuition
414,927$ i = d * f - tuition paid Annual Subsidy burden due to Tuition - Truro/P-Town
4,724,579$ j = h-i Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice
*Assumes NRSD can educate its 1,022 pupils at same $20,133 In-District expense/pupil
*Median expense/pupil for MA Top 25/50 high schools is about $17k (Total expense/pupil, not just In-District), so seems probable
What is the annual tax cost of the subsidy burden to the Brewster taxpayer with the town's median value home of $461,500 (assuming Brewster is 48% of NRSD)?4254853730 Brewster total assessed value
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice/Tuition 267.58$ 461500 Median Assessed Value
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Tuition - Truro/P-Town 21.60$ 0.00010846 Tax cost multiplier
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice 245.98$ 48%Brewster Nauset assessment %
Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 84,038,290$ $77,253,639
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 97,457,279$ $89,589,275
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 107,571,364$ $98,886,821
Assuming a smaller school would then be built for $126 million with $0 MSBA assistance, how large of a bond would the district need (supported by new taxes) as compared the current NRSD project bonding/tax ask of $95+ million.
Net cost of new, smaller school 126,000,000$ Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 41,961,710$ 48,746,361$
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 28,542,721$ 36,410,725$
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 18,428,636$ 27,113,179$
Freed-up bonding capacity for Brewster, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet that could be used to support other town priorities without raising taxes beyond current NRSD project (Brewster is about 1/2)
Current NRSD bonding/tax ask 95,200,000$ Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 53,238,290$ 46,453,639$
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 66,657,279$ 58,789,275$
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 76,771,364$ 68,086,821$
APPENDIX 3A
Bottom line - by eliminating the Choice subsidy, even assuming no MSBA state funding, Brewster taxpayers would support a new, smaller Nauset Regional High School and would still have $20-$30+ million of bonding flexibility to support, for example, a Brewster
Ladies Library renovation, a Community Center, or Cape Cod Sea Camps project without raising taxes beyond what the NRSD is currently asking the taxpayers to support for the larger proposed NRHS project
1,759,437$
2,076,211$ Total Choice Reimbursement
Total Tuition from Truro/P-Town
How large of a school bond could be raised using the savings from the elimination of the above subsidies (without raising taxes on the district at all)?
Source FY19
DESE EOYR19 Total In-District XP 30,239,017$ Only considered In-District expenses because Out-of-District expenses not affected by Choice/Tuition students
DESE EOYR19/Line 630 Choice Reimbursement 1,573,550$ 5,877$ 4,948$
DESE EOYR19/Line 630 Choice SPED Reimbursement 295,236$ 928$
DESE EOYR19/Line 40 Tuition from Other Dist (Reg Day)1,975,644$ 18,964$ 16,062$
DESE EOYR19/Line 40 Tuition from Other Dist (SPED)356,875$ 2,901$
Member Town's In-District XPs 26,037,712$ a Represents the total expenses that need to be covered by the member towns for its students through taxes, aid and grants
Does not offset expenses with revenue from other aid/grants because assume would be the same without Choice/Tuition students
Member Towns' Enrollment 10/1/18 (FY19)NRHS 624
NRMS 445
1,069 b
Choice Enrollment 10/1/18 (FY19)NRHS 228
NRMS 90
318 c
Tuition Enrollment 10/1/18 (FY19)NRHS 92
NRMS 31 *Only Truro 7th & 8th grades tuition into NRMS
123 d
24,357$ e = a/b Member Towns' Taxpayers In-District expense/Member Towns' pupil in NRMS/NRHS (reflects burden of subsidies for Choice/Tuition)
20,239$ f DESE reported In-District expense/pupil
4,118$ g = e-f Subsidy burden/Member Town pupil
4,402,221$ h = b*g Total Annual Subsidy burden for Member Towns due to Choice/Tuition
156,878$ i = d * f - tuition paid Annual Subsidy burden due to Tuition - Truro/P-Town
4,245,343$ j = h-i Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice
*Assumes NRSD can educate its 1,069 pupils at same $20,239 In-District expense/pupil
*Median expense/pupil for MA Top 25/50 high schools is about $17k (Total expense/pupil, not just In-District), so seems probable
What is the annual tax cost of the subsidy burden to the Brewster taxpayer with the town's median value home of $461,500 (assuming Brewster is 48% of NRSD)?4254853730 Brewster total assessed value
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice/Tuition 229.19$ 461500 Median Assessed Value
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Tuition - Truro/P-Town 8.17$ 0.00010846 Tax cost multiplier
Annual tax cost for the Total Annual Subsidy burden due to Choice 221.02$ 48%Brewster Nauset assessment %
Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 71,982,623$ $69,417,443
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 83,476,599$ $80,501,818
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 92,139,774$ $88,856,271
Assuming a smaller school would then be built for $126 million with $0 MSBA assistance, how large of a bond would the district need (supported by new taxes) as compared the current NRSD project bonding/tax ask of $95+ million.
Net cost of new, smaller school 126,000,000$ Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 54,017,377$ 56,582,557$
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 42,523,401$ 45,498,182$
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 33,860,226$ 37,143,729$
Freed-up bonding capacity for Brewster, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet that could be used to support other town priorities without raising taxes beyond current NRSD project (Brewster is about 1/2)
Current NRSD bonding/tax ask 95,200,000$ Total Subsidy Choice Subsidy
20 year term, level payments, 2% interest rate 41,182,623$ 38,617,443$
25 year term, level payments, 2.25% interest rate 52,676,599$ 49,701,818$
30 year term, level payments, 2.5% interest rate 61,339,774$ 58,056,271$
APPENDIX 3A
Bottom line - by eliminating the Choice subsidy, even assuming no MSBA state funding, Brewster taxpayers would support a new, smaller Nauset Regional High School and would still have $15-$25+ million of bonding flexibility to support, for example, a Brewster
Ladies Library renovation, a Community Center, or Cape Cod Sea Camps project without raising taxes beyond what the NRSD is currently asking the taxpayers to support for the larger proposed NRHS project
1,868,786$ Total Choice Reimbursement
2,332,519$ Total Tuition from Truro/P-Town
How large of a school bond could be raised using the savings from the elimination of the above subsidies (without raising taxes on the district at all)?
Rank Enrollment Region
Per Pupil
XP
1 Boston Latin School 1656 $19,609 from Schooldigger.com Top 25 Top 50
2 Sturgis Charter 816 $14,713 500 or less 4 16%12 24%
3 Hopkinton 1153 $15,016 501-750 4 16%6 12%
4 Advanced Math & Science Charter532 $15,125 751-1000 4 16%12 24%
5 Dover-Sherborn 665 $20,970 1001-1500 7 28%11 22%
6 Mystic Valley 365 $12,866 >1500 6 24%9 18%
7 Lexington 2212 $18,747 25 50
8 Weston 693 $25,367
9 Belmont 1294 $14,246 Median $ $17,389 Median $ $16,872
10 John O’Bryant Math & Science 1223 $19,948 from Schooldigger.com Median Enroll 1079 Median Enroll 881
11 Lynnfield 648 $15,888
12 Boston Latin Academy 1224 $19,817 from Schooldigger.com Average $ $17,521 $17,161
13 Manchester Essex 443 $18,343 Ave Enroll 1098 961
14 Medfield 828 $15,889
15 Westford Academy 1711 $14,806 not sure if this is academy or district
16 Berkshire Arts & Tech 151 $17,389
17 Bromfield School 402 $19,655 from Schooldigger.com Nauset vs.Top 25 Nauset vs.Top 50
18 Acton-Boxborough 1827 $15,697 Median $119%Median $123%
19 Sharon 1079 $16,892 Average $118%Average $121%
20 Newton South 1892 $19,395 all Newton district Just 3 districts in Top 50 have higher Cost/pupil
21 Winchester 1351 $14,121
22 Westwood 999 $18,310 FY21 9-12 Enrollment
23 Arlington 1325 $14,594 XP/Pupil
24 Nauset 907 $20,710 Ptown $30,903
25 Brookline 2043 $19,921 Truro $31,460
26 Wayland 855 $18,750 Wellfleet $29,143
27 Groton Dunstable 784 $15,606 Eastham $24,827
28 Wellesley 1569 $20,380 Orleans $22,559
29 Boston Collegiate Charter 313 $19,307 Brewster $20,168
30 Hamilton-Wenham 560 $18,362 Nauset $20,710 855
31 Duxbury 1053 $15,288 Monomoy $17,503 496
32 Lenox Memorial 245 $19,476 D-Y $15,777 652
33 Westborough 1131 $15,838 Barnstable $15,762 1,390
34 Needham 1686 $18,148 Falmouth $18,630 811
35 Ashland 769 $14,469 Sandwich $17,460 641
36 Nashoba 976 $16,589 Bourne $15,782 428
37 Cohasset 469 $16,953 Mashpee $17,643 442
38 Pioneer Charter Science 2 203 $14,353 Cape Tech $26,693 626
39 Foxborough Charter 280 $12,519 Upper Cape Tech $21,359 722
40 Pioneer Charter Science 198 $14,409
41 Concord Carlisle 1273 $22,471
42 Scituate 921 $15,995
43 Abby Kelley Foster Charter 364 $14,094
44 Newton North 2121 $19,395 all Newton district
45 KIPP Lynn 483 $18,286
46 Newburyport 766 $16,851
47 Longmeadow 957 $15,263
48 Tantasqua 720 $14,419
49 Masconomet 1143 $18,654
50 Holliston 794 $14,146
Cape School Districts
*Highlighting indicates 750 or fewer students
APPENDIX 4
Nauset Believes … Every Child Matters
Nauset Public Schools
78 Eldredge Park Way, Orleans MA 02653
Phone: 508-255-8800 ● Fax: 508-240-2351 ● http://nausetschools.org
Thomas M. Conrad
Superintendent of Schools
Keith E. Gauley Mary E. Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent Director of Student Services
Giovanna Venditti Eileen Belastock
Director of Finance & Operations Director of Technology
Massachusetts Inter-district School Choice Program
The Massachusetts School Choice program was established in 1991 (MGL c 76 sect 128). The
Nauset Regional School District began participating in the the Choice program in 1997, at which
time Nauset had 5.5 FTE students coming in through the Choice program and 13.8 FTE students
leaving the District through Choice.
School Choice Tuition Revenues (Edited from the DESE Web Site) – 1-15-2021
While the School Choice Statute does not provide explicit guidance as to the allowable uses of
choice tuition revenue, the requirement that municipalities place such revenues in a special account
for use by the school committee indicated a legislative intent that they be used for the general
purposes of the school choice program. School choice tuition is intended to cover any additional out
of pocket expenses associated with students who are enrolled under the choice program and to
provide a financial incentive to encourage districts to participate in the program. Therefore,
allowable expenditures include any expenditure for staff, materials, equipment, or services that
directly enhance the quality of a district’s educational program and benefit students who currently
attend a district’s schools. Local school committees may not transfer funds for the payment of debt
service, even if the debts were incurred by the municipality for a school related capital expenditure,
as such expenditures are not within the scope of the school committee’s power or authority.
Under the Current Chapter 70 formula, the pupils at a receiving district are credited toward the
sending district’s foundation enrollment. However, any low-income increments for those pupils are
credited to the receiving districts’ foundation budgets.
Why School Choice works for the Nauset Regional Schools
Nauset, along with all other Cape high schools, continues to participate in School Choice because of
the significant advantages it brings to our member towns and their school-aged children, namely:
• Positive income stream
• Additional income contributes to a wide variety of courses that deepen and broaden the
school curriculum, enriching the educational experience for all students
• Increases the diversity of the Nauset student body by bringing in students from more
diverse backgrounds and cultures.
Nauset Believes … Every Child Matters
School Choice provides a very significant revenue stream (1.74 million in FY20) that not only
enables Nauset Middle School and Nauset High School to offer an extensive program of studies, but
the funds also allow the District to reduce assessments (taxes) to the member towns. How is this
possible when the base tuition rate is only $5,000? It has to do with the distribution of the students
into our classrooms. To understand how the school choice tuition benefits Nauset financially, even
at $5,000 per student, we identified the home towns of each student enrolled and matched that with
the courses they are enrolled in. We have attached a summary of this data collected for all of our
English classes at the high school as of October 2020. The data show that on average there are 10.3
students per course from one of the four member towns or from Truro or Provincetown and 2.97
students from other towns attending under School Choice. The percentage of school choice students
in each course varies from 0% to 47%. The average % of Choice students in all of our English
classes in October 2020 was 22%.
In most cases, the additional cost to educate a School Choice student is limited to the cost of any
consumable supplies. In the example of our English classes, the District is already paying for the
salary of the teacher, the heat and electricity costs, and general operating costs of the 10.3 students
per class who attend from the member towns. So there is little added expense to add an average of
about 3 School Choice students to each English class at Nauset High School.
There are of course some situations where we have added a teacher to accommodate the School
Choice students and keep class size reasonable for students from our member towns. For the 2020-
2021 school year, we estimate that about 6-7 teachers teaching 4-5 course sections each are needed
to accommodate the 198 students who attend Nauset High under School Choice and keep class sizes
for all students at a reasonable level. The cost for these teachers is approximately. $644,085 based
on 6.5 teachers @$84,750 each (Nauset’s average teacher salary per DESE FY18) plus the cost of
fringe benefits (health and life insurance). With expected revenue from School Choice in FY20 to
be $1,735,199 & FY21 to be $1,549,403 the School Choice program is clearly financially beneficial
to our District.
Why are some of the High School classes so small?
When you review the data on enrollment in our English classes, you will notice that some classes are
very small. The reasons for this vary. In some cases the course is a special education inclusion class
where enrollment is purposefully kept small. In some cases, a small group of students needed to
take a course but a new section had to be added to accommodate their schedule of other classes. Still
other classes are small because a few students needed to take a required class to matriculate into the
next grade or in order to accumulate enough credits to graduate. Our goal is to meet the needs of
each and every students in the most effective way possible.
Why else is School Choice beneficial to Nauset students?
Beyond financial benefits, there are at least two other major benefits to the School Choice program
in Nauset – the positive impact on the Program of Studies – the courses we can offer - and the
addition of students from diverse backgrounds, race and cultures.
Again, when we reviewed our core classes in English, we found that very few of the classes would
not run even if there were no school choice students enrolled at Nauset High. On the other hand,
Nauset students – from member towns and from School Choice – can take a wide variety of courses
Nauset Believes … Every Child Matters
that we would likely not be able to afford to offer without the additional revenue from School
Choice. Some of these courses include: Advanced Placement Art, American Sign Language, Level
4 German, Latin 2, Criminology, Botany, Salt Water Ecosystems, American Pop Culture, and even
some sections of Advanced Placement Calculus or AP Statistics to name a few. These courses not
only attract students to Nauset from all over Cape Cod, but they provide an unmatched opportunity
for member students to challenge themselves and pursue their individual interests and passions.
In addition, the School Choice students also expose our member students to more diverse
backgrounds, cultures and races. The Outer Cape can be a very isolating place, and some students
do not have numerous opportunities to venture off Cape. So the addition of 198 students with
different backgrounds and experiences enriches all of our students in a way that may not be possible
without participation in School Choice.
In Conclusion
School Choice makes sense for Nauset financially and educationally. We intend to continue to
market our Regional Schools throughout the Cape as an outstanding opportunity for students to
attend one of the best high schools in Massachusetts.
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
Course Grade Member Town Students School Choice Students Total % Choice
ENG 11 - 001 9 10 3 13 23%
ENG 11-002 9 12 3 15 20%
ENG 12-001 9 8 1 9 11%
ENG 12-002 9 11 4 15 27%
ENG 12-003 9 12 1 13 8%
ENG 12-004 9 9 6 15 40%
ENG 12-005 9 16 1 17 6%
ENG 12-006 9 17 4 21 19%
ENG 12-007 9 17 6 23 26%
ENG 12-008 9 5 3 8 38%
ENG 12-009 9 7 5 12 42%
ENG 12-010 9 14 2 16 13%
ENG 12-011 9 12 0 12 0%
ENG 13-001 9 4 1 5 20%
ENG 13-002 9 4 0 4 0%
Total Grade 9 158 40 198 20%
ENG 21-001 10 8 5 13 38%
ENG 21-002 10 15 6 21 29%
ENG 21-003 10 19 2 21 10%
ENG 22-001 10 11 3 14 21%
ENG 22-002 10 17 3 20 15%
ENG 22-003 10 21 2 23 9%
ENG 22-004 10 13 4 17 24%
ENG 22-005 10 2 1 3 33%
ENG 22-006 10 9 1 10 10%
ENG 22-007 10 10 0 10 0%
ENG 22-008 10 18 3 21 14%
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
ENG 22-009 10 13 4 17 24%
ENG 23-001 10 7 3 10 30%
ENG 23-002 10 8 1 9 11%
Total Grade 10 171 38 209 18%
ENG 30-001 11 12 2 14 14%
ENG 30-002 11 16 6 22 27%
ENG 30-003 11 15 6 21 29%
ENG 31-001 11 8 7 15 47%
ENG 32-001 11 6 3 9 33%
ENG 32-002 11 6 2 8 25%
ENG 32-003 11 8 3 11 27%
ENG 32-004 11 6 2 8 25%
ENG 32-005 11 7 5 12 42%
ENG 32-006 11 15 2 17 12%
ENG 33-001 11 7 1 8 13%
SWS10e-2 11 12 0 12 0%
SWS10e-1 11 5 4 9 44%
SWS11e-1 11 7 3 10 30%
SWS11e-2 11 8 3 11 27%
Total Grade 11 138 49 187 26%
ENG 41-001 12 14 5 19 26%
ENG 41-002 12 9 1 10 10%
ENG 42-001 12 9 5 14 36%
ENG 42-002 12 19 6 25 24%
ENG 42-003 12 6 3 9 33%
ENG 46-001 12 18 4 22 18%
ENG 46-002 12 15 4 19 21%
ENG 47-001 12 18 3 21 14%
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
ENG 49-001 12 8 6 14 43%
ENG 49-002 12 14 0 14 0%
ENG 49-003 12 10 4 14 29%
ENG 49-004 12 13 3 16 19%
ENG 50-001 12 7 3 10 30%
ENG 61-001 12 4 1 5 20%
ENG 71-001 12 13 4 17 24%
SWS40e-1 12 6 2 8 25%
SWS40e-2 12 7 1 8 13%
SWS41e-2 12 3 0 3 0%
SWS41e-1 12 1 2 3 67%
Total Grade 12 194 57 251 23%
ESL3-001 ungraded 6 1 7 14%
ESL3-002 ungraded 4 0 4 0%
ESL3-003 ungraded 1 0 1 0%
ESL4-5-001 ungraded 4 0 4 0%
Total Ungraded (ESL)15 1 16 6%
IB - Various Grades 12 24 17 41 41%
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
TOTALS
Grade 9 158 40 198 20%
Grade 10 171 38 209 18%
Grade 11 138 49 187 26%
Grade 12 194 57 251 23%
ESL 16 1 17 6%
IB 24 17 41 41%
TOTAL 701 202 903 22%
Number of Classes 2021
9 15
10 14
11 15
12 19
Various 5
68
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
Nauset Regional High School
English Class Snapshot by Town of Residence
1/21/2021
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 1 of 7
TOWN OF BREWSTER
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Date: January 20, 2021 Time: 4:00 PM
VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES
Present: Chair Pete Dahl, Vice Chair Frank Bridges, Clerk Bill Meehan, Honey Pivirotto, Bob Young, Andy
Evans, Robert Tobias, Alex Hopper
Also present: Mimi Bernardo, Finance Director; Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator; Greg Levasseur,
Nauset Regional School Building Committee Chair; Tom Fitzgibbons, Nauset School Committee
Absent:
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Gov. Baker’s March 2020 orders suspending certain Open Meeting Law provisions and
imposing limits on public gatherings. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting, a record of the
proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible.
The meeting may be viewed by: Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brerwster-ma.gov), or Video
recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov).
Meetings may be joined by:
1. Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592. Webinar ID: 827 2458 9527 Passcode: 380018
To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized.
2.Zoom Webinar:https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82724589527?pwd=R3N5c1RNZjFuUFI1UXpmOXQyUWtndz09
Passcode: 380018
To request to speak: Tap Zoom “Raise Hand” button or type “Chat” comment with your name and address, then wait to be recognized.
A quorum was declared for the Finance Committee.
1.Public Announcements and Comment
Adam Lange – watched meeting from last week, thank you all for what you do. The Nauset Regional High
School project is complex and large, and some things are hard to believe. A small school doesn’t cost as much
as a large school. It is time to reject the current expansion. It is unfair. We are getting hemmed in to School
Choice permanently.
Mary Loftus – will wait until NHRS agenda items to speak.
Helga Dyer – will wait until NHRS agenda items to speak.
Richard Stew – will wait until NHRS agenda items to speak.
Rheanna Hastings - will wait until NHRS agenda items to speak.
2.Town Administrator/Finance Director Report
Peter Lombardi doesn’t have anything new to report from last week’s meeting to today. He will provide
information for other items on the Agenda as we go.
Approved:
VOTE:
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 2 of 7
3. Policies & Procedures Update - none
4.Discussion on town mailing and legal issues for Finance Committee Report on NRHS
Peter Lombardi did reach out to Counsel again with a couple follow up questions, one of which was if there
was an option where towns can, on a debt exclusion vote, bring what we typically see from State Elections - a
high level summary which shows ‘for’ or ‘against’ a certain issue. If it were a Town Project we could, however,
because it is a Regional Project, we are not clear. Due to Campaign ethics or campaign regulations, we cannot
do a direct mailing to the Town, but there may be room to put something pointing to more information on the
town website.
Frank said that the decision by the Nauset School Committee has trumped the obligation of all the four towns
Finance Committees from communicating with taxpayers, via the Warrant, their vote or opinion on the
project.
Bill agreed with Frank and thinks this is the largest Capital Debt Project by far in the history of this community.
He feels it extremely important for the community to stress that if you are not fully informed, go find out from
all the sources you trust. If you fail to find information, send an email to this Committee and we will help
direct you to information.
Bob asked if Peter Lombardi has seen anything from the school committee with changes to their methodology
after seeing Whelan’s piece in the newspaper – have they changed their opinion on the vote. Peter Lombardi
said we will discuss later down on the agenda.
Pete stated that the Unified Vote does hinder the Committee from communicating directly with the
community. We will find a way, but this vote coming on March 30th means we will not be able to do our job
effectively as is our directive through the Town Warrant.
Greg Levasseur, Chair of the Nauset Regional School Building Committee said he would chime in any time the
Chair wanted.
5.Discuss and vote on update of sub-committee report on NRHS project.
Pete said we received an invitation from the Chair of the Select Board, Mary Chaffee, to attend their special
meeting on Monday to discuss the school project. He responded that he hopes he will be able to present the
final sub-committee report at that time. Peter Lombardi said we are trying to turn this around as quickly as we
can, asking for the School Committee and Superintendent’s availability for that special meeting. The Finance
Committee would have the opportunity for the next meeting, Monday, February 1st, to make a full report to
the Select Board.
Bob said he put the report together with the edits we discussed over the last several weeks, but everyone
needs to recall and understand the spirit with which we undertook to pull together this report was as a fact
gathering mission. We spent a great deal of time pulling all of this information together to present an impartial
list of the facts and analysis to allow the Finance Committee to come to their decision based on unbiased
facts. This is very important to make clear to the public.
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 3 of 7
Pete said the subcommittee report has already been published and is a public document. If anyone wants a
copy, please email Pete directly at pdahl@brewster-ma.gov, and he will be happy to email it out. He does
think that to hear the presentation given by Bob Young in our last meeting is really a nice way to put it into
context. He suggests the community go back in to our last meeting to look at the report and listen in to hear
the presentation and follow along.
6.Discussion and Vote to accept responses to Finance Committee questions from NRSC.
Should we vote to accept the Nauset School Committee responses as final? Alex asked if these responses were
returned to the School Committee to review and perhaps give further clarification. Alex thought that maybe
what we want to vote on is whether or not we should return them for further clarification.
Bill said he thinks in the overall consideration of this project, we spent a lot of time with these questions, and
he feels these responses were not real responses. He thinks it is even more compelling for us to say just that.
Frank said he looked at the questions from the Finance Committee that have been presented to the School
Committee and joint meetings with the Select Board and Finance Committee, and he refers people back to
October and November of 2019 where we sat with the School Committee and Building Committee and
reviewed the impact of Choice. We have had no serious response to those questions we have had for over a
year and a half. In those meetings, the Subcommittee made significant attempts to have the School
Committee answer those specific questions. In March of last year, the superintendent came out with a two
page memo which still did not directly answer our questions.
Andy said the vote on March 30th eclipses this Committee and the Finance Committees of other towns. If we
make recommendations as a Committee which we have researched and prepared, he would feel a little more
engaged if there was a process he understood better. Pete answered if this had gone out to Town Meeting for
a vote, we would have made a recommendation in the Warrant. We will still make a recommendation,
however, our primary job is to do so at Town Meeting, and it changes the directive of this Committee to do it
otherwise.
Andy went on to say that if we asked for information and never got it that automatically puts us in a negative
position. He wonders if there is another way to come across as not automatically negative on the project. Pete
said when it comes time to vote, we will take a position. As it is, because the Select Board is having a special
presentation on Monday, it is an opportunity for everyone to hear the benefits of the project. We will then
take that information along with the information we have developed and make an informed decision. He
thinks we should hold our vote until our meeting the following week.
Peter Lombardi said one potential suggestion he might offer to the Committee would be that it wouldn’t hurt
to convey the Committee’s frustration to the responses received, recognizing they will be meeting with the
Select Board next Monday night which might elicit some further response from the School Committee.
Bill said on the record tonight and in future conversations, we should feel free to convey our disappointment
with the responses we received. We don’t have to characterize them, let’s move on and recognize the hard
labor and hours of work, let’s get the report out there, listen to others and then take a vote. Pete felt it in our
best interest to let the report stand.
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 4 of 7
Tom Fitzgibbons said thank you for allowing us to attend these meetings. The Choice issue is a budget issue,
and we would be very happy to lay out some of the answers to the questions related to Choice. We hoped we
could do it at the Budget Session, but maybe we can do it sooner.
Frank responded with the point that this is an Operating issue, it is a discussion we have had over a year ago; it
is not an Operating issue when you are devoting capital to building a project to accommodate students who
are not contributing, it becomes a Capital issue. It’s not simply an Operating decision. You make it an
Operating decision for the next 50 years if you build a school that is 30% bigger than the population that is
actually carrying the cost. It is a Capital decision and a debt service decision. So to say this is a budget issue,
after we’ve approved this project, is not a complete response.
Tom Fitzgibbons said regarding the answers to the questions, in our responses, we have stated our reasoning
is that the entire Choice issue is self-funding. That is our position.
Bob said we have heard that a number of times, we have provided an analysis from the school numbers and
the State numbers, and an assertion that something is self-funding doesn’t make it so. We need hard numbers
and proof. We have hard numbers and analysis that says it costs $4-$5M/year.
Citizen Alice Stelzer said she wants to get copy of the report. She wants to know when the citizens are going to
vote on this. Pete asked Greg Levasseur, Chair of the Nauset School Building Committee, to answer that
question. Greg Levasseur answered that there will be a district-wide vote on March 30th from 11am-7pm.
Peter Lombardi said the Town Clerk will be sending out absentee ballot applications to all registered voters to
expedite that process if residents are interested in voting that way and can do so by reason of the pandemic
and not wanting to vote in person through the end of March which is part of the reason the end of March was
chosen for the vote. So, in Brewster, that is how we are providing opportunities for residents to vote outside
of voting in person.
7.Discuss extension of MSBA time limit for vote (see Rep. Whelan’s post). Develop and
vote on a response to Select Board and NRSC relative to vote on Nauset School
Project.
Greg Levasseur, Chair of the Nauset Regional School Building Committee, said the Nauset Regional School
Committee has received two extensions to date on the timeline for the vote on the project and the $36M
State funding, these two extensions amount to 418 days, the longest extension the MSBA has ever given, and
there is no guarantee for a third. In this ever-worsening pandemic, the same date of March 30th is, without a
doubt, the most Democratic option. It allows for balloting by mail and will attract the largest number of voters
in the region. If the goal is to get the most voters to vote on this project, the same day, district-wide ballot
election is the best democratic option.
Pete said a vote up or down at Town Meeting would be the signal from Brewster as to what Brewster wants.
At an open meeting, a town like Brewster may vote against it, but they could be out-voted by the other four
member towns. It is the School Committee’s responsibility to set the type of election, and they have done
that. So respectfully, that is the situation at hand.
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 5 of 7
Rob had a question regarding Town Meeting format - would any one town be able to fail the project – Pete
said yes. Rob agrees that we will get more people to a vote either in person or an absentee vote, but the Town
gives up control through a town meeting format.
Pete said it was successfully done for Cape Tech with 13 towns. Frank said that is true, but Brewster is
different because we are picking up approximately 50% of the project. It is very important to know that, with
varying percentages of Brewster students based on enrollment. Bob said he thinks we’re answering two
different questions – what percentage of the assessment population of the four towns does Brewster
contribute, and we are at 48% up to 50% or more, so we will pick up roughly 50% of the cost of the project,
but in terms of what percentage of students that attend NRH, it is about a third of the population from
Brewster. And that gets back to the point where 200 Choice students aren’t paying anything for the project
and another 100 P-Town and Truro tuition students that won’t be paying anything for the project.
Tom Fitzgibbons said the real issue is getting out the vote – however you feel about the project. He asked Greg
Levasseur, Chair of Nauset Regional School Building Committee, to comment through the Chair. Greg
Levasseur said if you look at the Town Meeting per region, there were approximately 1200 voters that voted
on lots of different Articles, so it is a small minority of voters. It is the timing of the 4 Town Meetings, if not
within 60 day timeframe, the town that missed the 60 day cut-off, forfeits its right to vote on the project.
Peter Lombardi said ultimately it is up to the Regional School Committee to make this decision, not the Select
Board.
8.Discussion and Vote on Nauset Regional High School Project.
Pete said we will not be conducting a vote, but we are best-off listening to the presentations on Monday, we
have our own report for the Committee and then on Wednesday’s meeting, this will be the primary agenda
item. Then that vote will be what we present on February 1st.
Bill Meehan MOVED to defer a vote on the Nauset Regional High School Project from tonight’s agenda to a
subsequent meeting on January 27th. Alex Hopper second.
Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Andrew Evans
– yes, Rob Tobias – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes.
The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no
Pete then opened up the discussion to the citizens who were waiting to address the Committee:
Citizen Rheanna Hastings, new to the committee issues, she is learning a lot. From the perspective of a voter,
she is trying to get the information. If she doesn’t know, then a lot of voters don’t know. We really need to get
the information out there in regards to cost, and if there is an alternative to the renovation, what is that? We
also need School Choice information out there as well, so the community can make an informed choice. She is
not clear, even after the last hour, so getting more information out there is important.
Citizen Mary Levine is a retired teacher and still advocates for public schools. She is happy to see we are
looking at finally replacing this building. She saw first-hand how older buildings impact students and teachers.
She asks that they support a well thought out plan to renovate and reconfigure a school that is almost 50
years old. The risk of losing the State Funding - she doesn’t think we can afford to miss that opportunity.
Thinking small and not supporting this plan is ironic. Most people wouldn’t think twice of spending this on
their second home. Our Cape students deserve nothing less. Good schools are an asset on so many levels.
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 6 of 7
Citizen Richard Stewart is on the Regional School Committee and thinks it’s more deliberative than indicated.
This school badly needs upgrades and renovation. The auditorium is largely unusable. Some classes were held
in old locker bays moved out of their classrooms because of air quality. There is inadequate rehearsal space
for any productions. A great school needs a functional structure to house its programs. Our approach is the
best one. We need to do it for our students, their teachers, and the community.
Citizen Helga Dyer thanked the Committee and Subcommittee and especially Bob Young, who gave the
presentation last week and very clearly told us exactly what the Choice Program costs the community. $4.7M
for approximately 314 Choice students is paid by the Nauset Regional taxpayers. Brewster will pay
approximately ½ of that cost. This will be the largest debt that Brewster would incur. Only about 10% of the
town is school age children. The town is also considering upcoming expenditures such as the dog park, school
merges, a community center, etc. Building a much larger school is unconscionable. Thank you for listening and
for your dedication.
9.Liaison Reports
Bill reported on the Charter Committee. He said on Saturday at 10 am, in a public forum, the Charter
Committee will present an overview of the Charter, discussing the details and purpose of the Charter and will
invite comment by the public. We have put this on the website and other ways. There will be another meeting
subsequent to that as well.
Bill also updated on Golf and said it continues to set records. Jay Patchet, the new Director of Golf is in place,
Mark O’Brien attended his last meeting yesterday.
Andy is meeting with the Brewster Ladies Library Board tomorrow. He believes strategic planning will come to
the Committee in April.
Rob attended a meeting of the Brewster Affordable Housing Trust on Jan 7th re: Millstone Road Property
Watershed Analysis. There may be affordable housing there in 3-5 years. Progress continues on the Brewster
Woods Project of 30 affordable housing units where groundwork is underway.
Pete gave a Select Board report – he wanted to give a Mark O’Brien shout out – Mark did a great job showing
the golf course through many ups and downs. In a trying time, he worked and showed great flexibility in the
course and communication on letting us know where they were at each step of the way. The Select Board also
requested the Fire Chief, who didn’t get the grant for two new fire fighters, use other monies in the budget, to
be able to hire those two firefighters. Peter Lombardi said the Select Board did approve to use approximately
$175K from the line budget items for this purpose. This is something the Chief clearly raised as a fall back
option if we didn’t receive the grant funds. The Finance Team vetted and recommended that approach to fill
these two positions. This has been a transition from a mainly call fire department to a full time professional
department with 23 full-time fire positions. There is one more position they are looking for - a full-time EMS
Coordinator position, but that would not be in consideration until FY24. Pete said the Chief made a compelling
argument for a Professional Fire Department and not keeping on-call Firefighters at all because they get called
to other departments. Peter Lombardi said we are really looking to phase out Call Firefighter positions
entirely.
Finance Committee Minutes
January 20, 2021 Page 7 of 7
Rob said he wanted to mention different channels to inform the Community regarding the School Project. In
the Town Clerk’s Absentee Ballot Application, he wondered if we could have a reference to a town website
area where this information could be found. Peter Lombardi said that is one of the questions we have sent to
Counsel. State Election Laws are very prescriptive and we are checking to see how much flexibility we have to
at least point residents to the town website, etc.
10.Review and Approval of Minutes 12/16/20 & 1/13/21
Bill Meehan MOVED to accept the Minutes from 12/16/20 as written. Frank Bridges second.
Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Andrew Evans
– yes, Rob Tobias – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes.
The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no
Bob Young MOVED to append the Finance Committee Letter to the Nauset School Committee Chair,
Questions from the Finance Committee, and Responses from the Nauset School Committee to the Minutes
from 1/13/21. Frank Bridges second.
Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Andrew Evans
– yes, Rob Tobias – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes.
The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no
Bill Meehan MOVED to accept the amended Minutes from 1/13/21. Frank Bridges second.
Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Andrew Evans
– yes, Rob Tobias – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes.
The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no
11. Request for agenda items for future meetings – please email Pete
12. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair- none
13. Next Finance Committee Meeting Date of 1/27/21 & 2/8/21
Pete asked the Committee to remember on the 25th presentations are being made at the Select Board
Meeting at 5:30pm. Pete will be there with Bob or Frank as panelists. On the 1st, we were invited to make a
presentation at the Select Board Meeting at 6pm.
Pete will get the re-structured Report of the Subcommittee Meeting out to the Committee.
14. Adjournment
Bill Meehan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 5:51 PM. Alex Hopper second.
Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Andrew Evans
– yes, Rob Tobias – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes.
The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no
Respectfully submitted, Beth Devine