Brookline Select Board Meeting - April 14, 2026
2026-04-14

[0:01] [music]
[4:17] Hey, hey, hey.
[4:27] [music]
[9:53] Evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the
[9:55] Brookline Select Board, and this is the
[9:57] regular meeting of the select board for
[9:59] April 14, 2026.
[10:02] First item of business is going into
[10:04] executive session. I move that the
[10:06] select board go into executive session
[10:09] for the purpose of discussing strategy
[10:11] related to litigation. The litigation
[10:14] matter must be discussed in executive
[10:16] session because an open meeting may have
[10:18] a detrimental effect on the litigation
[10:21] position of the town and the chair
[10:23] that's me so declares an executive
[10:26] session therefore to be necessary.
[10:28] [snorts] All in favor please indicate by
[10:29] saying I. John Vanco
[10:31] I.
[10:31] Paul Warren I
[10:32] David Pearlman
[10:33] I. Michael Rubenstein
[10:34] I
[10:35] and chair votes I. Select board will
[10:37] reconvene and open session after our
[10:40] executive session
[10:43] recording
[13:43] [music]
[16:54] Heat.
[18:15] [music]
[28:46] Heat. Heat.
[28:56] [music]
[29:13] Heat. Heat.
[29:17] [music]
[30:06] Heat. Heat.
[30:08] [music]
[32:38] Hey.
[32:54] [music]
[33:05] Heat. Heat.
[34:00] [music]
[36:05] Heat. Heat.
[36:07] [music]
[37:19] Heat. Heat.
[37:58] [music]
[49:53] Hi, I have comments on the agenda item
[49:57] six uh sorry 9B as well. I know a lot of
[49:59] people are coming to speak on 9B. I
[50:02] understand it's not a public hearing but
[50:04] this item has received no public hearing
[50:06] at the transportation board and also no
[50:09] hearing here. Um, I think people would
[50:12] appreciate it if you provided space for
[50:14] a public hearing for that.
[50:16] We haven't noticed. Sorry. Go ahead.
[50:18] 9B is a public hearing. The noise bylaw.
[50:21] Not Sorry, not the noise bylaw. The
[50:22] contract.
[50:23] Okay. The contract 9A. Yeah.
[50:24] Yeah. 9A.
[50:25] So, we haven't noticed a public hearing.
[50:27] So, that wouldn't be it's it's not
[50:29] something that we do, right? We don't we
[50:31] can't we don't have public hearings for
[50:33] contracts. Um so
[50:37] she's asking for a public hearing given
[50:39] that this contract is somewhat
[50:43] you guys have received
[50:44] issues that uh
[50:46] you know
[50:46] concerned about
[50:47] many tens of public comments on this and
[50:51] I know there are people who have taken
[50:54] time out of with their families in order
[50:56] to uh come and address the issue.
[51:00] So, why don't they address that public
[51:02] comment here?
[51:04] Um, I have two public comments. One of
[51:06] them is a public comment that addresses
[51:09] um a different but related subject and
[51:12] one for that item.
[51:15] Can I ask a question?
[51:16] Yeah. [clears throat]
[51:17] Um, what what time is the public comment
[51:19] for um the public hearing for the noise
[51:21] bylaw waiver?
[51:22] 6:30.
[51:23] At 6:30. Um,
[51:28] I'm wondering want to allow them public
[51:31] comment at 6:30 on the on the contract,
[51:33] although it's not really the appropriate
[51:35] time.
[51:35] Not not posted. So,
[51:37] I'm I'm just suggesting
[51:38] Well,
[51:40] I think what you're suggesting is to
[51:42] hold open item 4 until 6:30.
[51:46] Well, if that's the way you'd like to do
[51:47] it, [laughter]
[51:49] that could potentially work.
[51:51] Again, I
[51:53] Right. I I would agree what Michael's
[51:54] suggesting. Why don't we just have
[51:56] public comment until 6:30 and people can
[51:59] appine on whatever they want as they
[52:00] normally would?
[52:01] Yeah.
[52:02] Okay.
[52:04] That's in the board's discretion. That's
[52:05] fine.
[52:05] We can start public comment at
[52:06] 6:30.
[52:08] Okay. You're Wait,
[52:09] take it back.
[52:10] David, are you saying that we stop
[52:11] public comment now and wait until 6:30?
[52:13] No. That we have the general public
[52:15] comment, including for Miss Jacobson and
[52:18] others who want to speak on any topic
[52:20] other than what was specifically
[52:22] docketed for public hearing later.
[52:24] So, we have time to do that now. We
[52:25] might as well.
[52:26] Okay.
[52:27] Sit for 15. We're going to sit for 15
[52:28] minutes because I don't think there's
[52:30] enough.
[52:30] Well, but is there an item we can move
[52:32] up?
[52:32] We have miscellaneous.
[52:34] I
[52:36] I thought but I thought there are people
[52:37] here online or in the audience who who
[52:40] want to speak. So,
[52:41] there are people here that maybe are not
[52:43] speaking on that.
[52:44] I think the thing is that there is a
[52:46] bunch of there's confusion about um
[52:48] whether or not people can speak on that.
[52:50] So there are people that would have come
[52:51] at 5:30 and people that would have come
[52:53] at 6:30.
[52:56] So what we do what we typically do is
[52:58] have 15 minutes of public comment at the
[53:00] outset of a meeting and then those who
[53:02] didn't have an opportunity get a chance
[53:04] at the end of the meeting.
[53:05] So my recommendation would be that we
[53:08] have 15 minutes as we normally would now
[53:10] and then at the end of the meeting the
[53:12] others could join and they can join
[53:15] online because we take public comment at
[53:17] the end of meetings as well
[53:18] like at midnight 30.
[53:20] No,
[53:21] hopefully we won't go that late tonight,
[53:22] but whenever we finish. Yes.
[53:24] He's the optimistic member of our
[53:27] So, I think people want to deliver the
[53:29] public comment before we vote on item
[53:31] nine.
[53:32] Yeah, that's kind of the thing.
[53:37] Okay. What are we doing here? Um,
[53:38] just my comments are fairly short. If
[53:41] you would like me to
[53:42] Okay, what about how many other people
[53:44] want to comment on article 9A? Oh, I
[53:47] don't
[53:48] Hey, one other person.
[53:49] I don't have the hive mind.
[53:51] Pardon me.
[53:52] I don't have the hive of mind.
[53:55] The hive mind.
[54:00] Okay, here here's what we'll do. Uh we
[54:02] will take public comments
[54:04] 15 minutes beginning now uh on anything.
[54:08] Um and people want to talk about item 9A
[54:12] should use this time to to speak.
[54:14] Okay. Um
[54:16] so I would like to make public com My
[54:19] name is Emily Jacobson and I would like
[54:20] to make comment regarding um comments
[54:23] made at the select board last week.
[54:25] Okay.
[54:26] Um may I approach?
[54:29] You are approach.
[54:31] Oh approach us. Yes. [laughter]
[54:34] Okay.
[54:48] Thank you.
[54:52] Thanks, Emma.
[55:10] Can I get one?
[55:12] Oh, hiding it.
[55:21] Okay. So, my name is Emily Jacobson. I'm
[55:22] a resident of precinct 5. You
[55:24] need to speak. Emily, step to the
[55:26] microphone.
[55:36] My name is Emily Jacobson. Um, I'm a
[55:39] resident of precinct 5. I would like to
[55:41] address comments made at the select
[55:43] board last Tuesday regarding the new uh
[55:45] pavement management policy and uh the
[55:48] feasibility of parking protected bike
[55:50] lanes on a oneway railway road in
[55:52] general.
[55:54] So at that board at that meeting it was
[55:56] asserted that the new roadway assid
[55:58] management policy was at the root of
[56:00] improving pavement conditions on our
[56:02] streets and um um I applaud the the uh
[56:08] initiative that you guys have taken to
[56:11] um address that issue. I think the
[56:13] select board should also note that the
[56:15] policy was enacted at the beginning of
[56:17] 2025
[56:19] and they should also note on the table
[56:21] that I've given you
[56:23] um the CIP expenditures on roadways
[56:26] since uh 2010
[56:29] uh note the significant increase in
[56:31] roadway spending in the last few years.
[56:34] Even at inflation adjusted numbers this
[56:36] represents a sizable increase in
[56:38] funding. I think next the select board
[56:40] should also consider that in the last
[56:42] few years several full-time positions
[56:43] that had gone unfilled for a long time
[56:46] uh have been filled bringing the
[56:48] headcount of the transportation division
[56:50] up to six people. It was two when I
[56:53] first was here was just um Todd and Dan.
[56:57] And lastly, I'd like the board to look
[57:00] back at the paving work that has been
[57:03] done over the last few years. There's
[57:05] new asphelt on Washington Street, Beacon
[57:07] Street, Pond Avenue. Note that all of
[57:10] these projects consisted of a bonded
[57:12] wearing course. And a bonded wearing
[57:15] course is a road preservation treatment
[57:18] that would have fallen outside of the
[57:20] previous complete streets policy.
[57:23] So that policy really only covered mill
[57:26] overlay projects, which have from what I
[57:29] have seen only happened on small
[57:31] residential streets in the last couple
[57:32] years.
[57:35] So um second the is the plan that's in
[57:39] front of you. Um there were doubts
[57:42] expressed about the feasibility of
[57:43] parking protected bike lanes on two-way
[57:46] single lane roads. Parking protected
[57:48] bike lanes are entirely feasible. The
[57:50] parking situation for drivers is no
[57:52] different from where they must park on a
[57:54] two-lane road without any bike lanes.
[57:57] Additionally, this kind of layout is far
[58:00] from unique. There are numerous examples
[58:02] of parking protected bike lanes in this
[58:03] configuration in the Boston area and
[58:06] I've given you one there from Traymont
[58:08] Street in Boston for you guys to look
[58:10] at. Thank you.
[58:16] Um we have somebody online that's had
[58:18] their hand up for a while. Do you want
[58:19] to take them?
[58:20] Hassan, you're next.
[58:28] Hassan, we can't hear you.
[58:33] Yeah, you're unmuted, but we're not
[58:34] getting your audio.
[58:43] [clears throat]
[58:43] I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
[58:44] Yes. Thank you. There you go.
[58:46] Perfect.
[58:46] Good evening, members of the select
[58:48] board. I live on Walnut Street and
[58:50] frequently bicycle on Harvard Street to
[58:52] go to shops and restaurants. I'm here to
[58:54] urge you to take this opportunity to
[58:57] improve safety as part of the upcoming
[58:58] pavement project. Since work is already
[59:00] planned on Harbor Street, this is the
[59:02] perfect time to make it safer by closing
[59:04] gaps in existing bike lanes and adding
[59:06] parking protected bike lanes where
[59:08] double parking regularly forces cyclists
[59:10] into traffic. If these changes aren't
[59:12] made now, they likely won't happen for a
[59:14] long time. So, this is a valuable
[59:16] opportunity to act. Thank you for your
[59:18] consideration.
[59:21] Thank you. Next we have Scott and
[59:23] Linder.
[59:26] Mine is only two minutes, so you'll be
[59:28] happy.
[59:30] Good evening, Chair Green and the rest
[59:32] of the members of the select board. I'm
[59:35] Scott Englander, a precinct 6 town
[59:37] meeting member, uh, a member of the
[59:39] Vision Zero Committee, chair of the
[59:42] committee that developed the complete
[59:43] streets policy, and I served on the
[59:46] transportation board for about five
[59:48] years. I get around by foot, on bike,
[59:51] public transit, and by car. My wife and
[59:53] I ride on Harvard Street and shop there
[59:56] several times a week. Uh, nevertheless,
[59:58] I don't feel safe there, and I've had
[1:00:00] some close calls with cars. The crash
[1:00:04] history validates these concerns. My
[1:00:07] mother-in-law would ride there if it
[1:00:09] were safer, as would many families I
[1:00:11] know with young children. I must say I'm
[1:00:14] baffled that the safety and mobility of
[1:00:17] families like mine can be seen as
[1:00:21] unimportant.
[1:00:23] the upcoming uh pavement project on
[1:00:26] Harvard streets, a chance for us to
[1:00:28] improve bicycle safety on a critical
[1:00:31] bike route with a disproportionately
[1:00:32] high crash history and part of the
[1:00:35] vision zero priority network, the
[1:00:37] complete streets priority projects list
[1:00:40] and the green roots bicycle network
[1:00:42] plant. a mill and overlay project on
[1:00:45] such a street without including lowcost
[1:00:48] improvements to bike safety, for
[1:00:50] example, with paint and flex posts and
[1:00:53] without consideration by the
[1:00:54] transportation board is not only against
[1:00:57] current policy, but is unconscionable.
[1:01:00] I'm talking about the kinds of simple
[1:01:02] improvements that were made on
[1:01:04] Washington Street in recent years when
[1:01:06] that street underwent similar treatment.
[1:01:09] For example, closing gaps in bike lanes
[1:01:11] and providing parking protected bike
[1:01:14] lanes where double parked cars regularly
[1:01:17] obstruct lanes.
[1:01:20] What motivation for not including such
[1:01:22] improvements on Harvard could possibly
[1:01:25] be worth the lifealtering or fatal
[1:01:28] crashes they might help avoid.
[1:01:31] I urge the select board to commit to
[1:01:34] including lowcost meaningful bicycle
[1:01:37] safety improvements on Harvard Street as
[1:01:40] part of the upcoming pavement project.
[1:01:43] Thank you.
[1:01:47] We have Amy Linen Boy online.
[1:01:50] Okay, you're her.
[1:01:52] Okay. Hello.
[1:01:54] Hello.
[1:01:55] Hi. Um
[1:01:57] see if I can fix this. Um so I'm a
[1:02:01] little confused with all the different
[1:02:02] um agenda items. Um I had asked to speak
[1:02:05] about um 5F which is about the approving
[1:02:09] the conceptual design for large Anderson
[1:02:11] Park. And then I also was speaking not
[1:02:13] about the noise waiver um but about the
[1:02:16] um Harvard street uh mobility um access
[1:02:19] which others have spoken out so far
[1:02:21] about and I also wanted to speak about
[1:02:24] the community preservation act funding
[1:02:27] but I don't have a ton of details or
[1:02:29] some big plan. What I really have here
[1:02:31] isn't the overarching sense that we're
[1:02:34] really missing a lot of opportunities to
[1:02:35] coordinate planning here for things that
[1:02:38] I think many people want. For example,
[1:02:41] we are forging ahead and spending
[1:02:43] hundreds of thousands of dollars and
[1:02:45] planning on spending many millions of
[1:02:46] dollars with um with the ice rink slowly
[1:02:49] but surely. And yet we're not and we
[1:02:52] have the the parks and wreck having some
[1:02:54] sort of a feasibility study on an
[1:02:56] outdoor pool. And those two are not
[1:02:59] together and we're not looking at
[1:03:00] colllocating sites and that is a missed
[1:03:02] opportunity for there. There's an and
[1:03:04] the other missed opportunity is what
[1:03:06] everyone else has spoken about here.
[1:03:07] We're repaving streets and we're having
[1:03:08] different projects going on at different
[1:03:10] times without coordinating enough to
[1:03:12] recognize to be able to implement
[1:03:14] efficiencies and make things better more
[1:03:17] quickly without having to have them all
[1:03:19] in separate siloed projects. So my
[1:03:22] request is that a lot I think a lot of
[1:03:24] these to the extent that they can need
[1:03:25] to go back to the to the drawing board a
[1:03:27] little bit. Not I hate to delay things,
[1:03:29] but I really think that there's a real
[1:03:30] lack of coordination and we're missing
[1:03:32] opportunities to consolidate actions to
[1:03:35] do things like have both an ice rink and
[1:03:37] an outdoor pool in a cheaper and more
[1:03:40] rational location or um for or to have,
[1:03:43] you know, bike infrastructure. So people
[1:03:46] can children can actually ride their
[1:03:48] bikes to go across town instead of
[1:03:50] having to be in, you know, shuttled
[1:03:52] around and carpooled all afternoon
[1:03:53] because we have no public transit going
[1:03:55] north and south between like Coolish
[1:03:57] Corner of Harvard Street and down to
[1:03:59] like um you know the Greater Point
[1:04:01] neighborhood for example. Um there are
[1:04:03] many opportunities here to make our town
[1:04:04] better and we're really not utilizing
[1:04:06] them and we really need to think about
[1:04:07] coordinating um concerns and projects
[1:04:10] together more than we are. And that's
[1:04:12] what I'd say.
[1:04:14] Thank you.
[1:04:17] So, who who's next?
[1:04:24] All right. Good evening, everyone. My
[1:04:26] name is Greg Wheeler. I am a resident of
[1:04:28] Precinct 3. Um, and I'm here to talk
[1:04:31] about the Harbor Street Paving Project.
[1:04:34] Uh, nearly every day I bring my
[1:04:36] two-year-old daughter, Ella, to daycare
[1:04:38] in Brooklyn Village on my cargo bike. Uh
[1:04:42] just last month um there's a stretch on
[1:04:44] Harvard Street that we ride. Uh just
[1:04:46] last month there were two cyclists
[1:04:48] struck by motor vehicles uh during the
[1:04:51] time uh my pickup hour in the evening.
[1:04:55] [snorts]
[1:04:57] I use Harvard Street for everything
[1:04:59] including to support dozens of our local
[1:05:00] businesses. And I bike because it's the
[1:05:03] most efficient and affordable way for my
[1:05:05] family to move around town.
[1:05:07] Unfortunately,
[1:05:10] my daughter's life is threatened every
[1:05:12] time we get on a bike due to the lack of
[1:05:14] protected bike lanes.
[1:05:17] Town leadership has known how dangerous
[1:05:18] Harvard Street is for cyclists for
[1:05:20] decades and presumably knew it was due
[1:05:22] for paving. Yet, it appears the town
[1:05:24] failed to contemplate even basic
[1:05:25] incremental protective safety
[1:05:27] improvements that could be made within
[1:05:29] the scope of a paving project. So, I
[1:05:31] have two asks for the select board here
[1:05:33] tonight. The first is that one, you
[1:05:36] approve the construction contract for
[1:05:37] this project only with a formal
[1:05:39] commitment from the transportation board
[1:05:41] and staff to implement no or lowcost
[1:05:44] protected bike lanes.
[1:05:46] And two, you instruct the the
[1:05:48] transportation board to coordinate
[1:05:50] priorities from the vision zero vision
[1:05:52] zero action plan and the five-year
[1:05:55] paving plan so that incremental
[1:05:57] improvements can be made during paving
[1:05:59] projects in the future.
[1:06:00] This is the type of common sense fiscal
[1:06:02] and performance management that ensures
[1:06:04] the town optimizes every dollar spent
[1:06:07] during significant roadway disruptions
[1:06:09] like we're going to have this summer on
[1:06:10] Harvard Street. In my precinct, I'll
[1:06:12] note Longwood Avenue, Aspenwall Avenue,
[1:06:14] Kent Street, and St. Paul are all vision
[1:06:17] zero priorities that would benefit from
[1:06:18] this type of approach. We have policies
[1:06:21] and objectives in place already
[1:06:23] established.
[1:06:25] Now, we're looking to you as leaders to
[1:06:27] transparently prioritize and implement
[1:06:29] the town's stated goals. I thank you for
[1:06:31] your time, your service to the town, uh,
[1:06:33] and your consideration of this important
[1:06:35] matter. Thank you. [snorts]
[1:06:44] Good evening. My name is David Kroo and
[1:06:46] I'm the president of Biking Brookline.
[1:06:48] Thank you for taking my comments this
[1:06:50] evening. Biking Brookline fully supports
[1:06:53] the town's pavement preservation policy.
[1:06:57] We also fully support the town's
[1:06:59] adoption of vision zero, which is an
[1:07:02] approach to road safety that says that
[1:07:04] the status quo is not okay. It
[1:07:07] challenges decades of transportation
[1:07:09] policy that prioritize motor vehicles
[1:07:12] motor vehicle throughput over safety.
[1:07:15] The vis vision zero plan adopted by the
[1:07:18] town created a roadmap to achieve its
[1:07:20] goals of zero fatalities and serious
[1:07:23] injuries by 2035.
[1:07:25] A critical part of that roadmap is
[1:07:27] assessing overlap between high priority
[1:07:30] streets in the pavement management
[1:07:31] policy and top priority streets in the
[1:07:34] vision zero action plan and determining
[1:07:37] where safety improvements can be
[1:07:38] integrated into pavement preservation
[1:07:41] projects at little or no cost or
[1:07:44] additional time. Brookline's adoption of
[1:07:47] vision zero reflects its willingness to
[1:07:49] change the status quo. This willingness
[1:07:52] though is undercut if the transportation
[1:07:55] division can decide in its sole
[1:07:57] discretion not to include safety
[1:07:59] improvements in a road project without
[1:08:02] consulting the transportation board and
[1:08:04] important stakeholders.
[1:08:06] This delegation of authorities suggests
[1:08:09] that the decision concerning what safety
[1:08:12] improvements, if any, should be included
[1:08:14] are relatively little importance and do
[1:08:18] not involve weighing of town policies
[1:08:20] and priorities. something which is
[1:08:22] really the responsibility of the
[1:08:24] transportation board. No wonder the
[1:08:27] chairs of all three advisory committees
[1:08:29] to the transportation board, three
[1:08:32] transportation board members and all 15
[1:08:35] of the precinct 8 town meeting members
[1:08:38] expressed serious reservations about the
[1:08:41] Harvard street process. And I'd like to
[1:08:44] just digress here for a moment to say
[1:08:46] biking Brooklyn would rather not be
[1:08:49] spending tons of time interpreting the
[1:08:51] intricacies of town's payment
[1:08:54] preservation policy and vision zero as
[1:08:57] if they're major pieces of federal tax
[1:08:59] legislation.
[1:09:00] But we felt we had no choice because the
[1:09:05] town would not talk to us
[1:09:08] and we were rebuffed and told this is a
[1:09:11] pavement preservation project. We will
[1:09:14] not consider any changes. And I would
[1:09:18] really just ask the basic question. Does
[1:09:21] the select board really believe that
[1:09:23] people in the bicycling community who
[1:09:26] ride on Harvard Street every day have
[1:09:28] nothing worthwhile that they could say
[1:09:31] to the transportation division that they
[1:09:33] could consider as they consider what
[1:09:37] safety changes could be made? I think
[1:09:39] the answer is no. I do think that the
[1:09:43] time they spent responding to our emails
[1:09:48] and looking over our petition would have
[1:09:50] been much better spent if we just sat
[1:09:52] together in a room for an hour and
[1:09:54] talked about what was possible on
[1:09:56] Harvard Street. Thank you very much.
[1:10:03] Good afternoon. I'm Philippi Pite from
[1:10:05] Addington Road and I bike on Harvard
[1:10:09] Street through Harvard Street all the
[1:10:11] time. That's where our shops are, our
[1:10:13] restaurants, the bayas, my eyeglass
[1:10:16] place, the opticians, shoe repair,
[1:10:19] everything. It's always there. You know,
[1:10:22] is it safe? You know, I'm a big man. My
[1:10:27] daughters are grown. Uh I take the risk.
[1:10:30] Is it safe for a 12y old, a 15 year old?
[1:10:34] No, it's not. So, if we don't make it
[1:10:36] safe, we're going to have more cars
[1:10:38] spewing fumes on the street, more cars
[1:10:41] causing traffic.
[1:10:43] Uh we're sending more money to Putin's
[1:10:45] wars and Ayatollah's wars. Just uh we
[1:10:49] should be reasonable. Let's make it
[1:10:51] safer for bikers, not just uh old people
[1:10:54] who don't mind risking their lives.
[1:10:57] Let's get it done.
[1:11:06] Patty, are you do you want to make a
[1:11:07] comment? We're running out of time.
[1:11:11] Well, not signed up. Can I
[1:11:13] Pardon me?
[1:11:14] I have not signed up. I was not aware.
[1:11:16] Okay. Why don't we do two more comments?
[1:11:19] Why don't you go and then Patty and then
[1:11:22] we'll close this.
[1:11:23] Okay.
[1:11:23] Segment.
[1:11:24] Um, hi, my name is Luis Pension. Could
[1:11:27] you speak into closer to the microphone?
[1:11:29] Okay. Yeah. Um [clears throat] I'm gonna
[1:11:31] read my notes. Um because like Marilyn
[1:11:33] Monro, I cannot memorize a text. My
[1:11:36] resemblance with Marilyn Monro stops
[1:11:38] here. Well, I guess I am 36 years old,
[1:11:41] the age she was when she committed
[1:11:43] suicide. And some people on the street
[1:11:45] have called me suicidal for biking down
[1:11:47] Howard Street. I am not suicidal. I try
[1:11:50] very hard to come home to my kids alive.
[1:11:53] And it's why I'm here tonight. Another
[1:11:56] reason is that I'm conscious. Well,
[1:11:58] sorry. Uh, so why am I riding my bike? I
[1:12:02] can drive my large secure SUV that would
[1:12:04] plow through most of the other street
[1:12:06] occupants in the event of a crash. One
[1:12:09] of the reason that I ride my bike is
[1:12:11] that I'm conscious that I'm going to
[1:12:14] pollute the air that people around me
[1:12:16] breathes. I'm going to take up most
[1:12:18] parking space and I'm going to take
[1:12:21] those packing space from people who
[1:12:23] actually need them and don't have a
[1:12:25] choice. I'm going to wear up the road
[1:12:27] with my large SUV and it's going to cost
[1:12:29] more money to taxpayer. I'm going to
[1:12:31] take more space on the road and I may
[1:12:33] block or slow down emergency vehicle.
[1:12:37] So most of the time I choose to be kind
[1:12:40] and respectful to my neighbors and I
[1:12:42] bike despite the risk despite the risks.
[1:12:45] I want to show my kids that I am
[1:12:47] thinking of my neighbors when I make
[1:12:49] choices. I'm not only thinking of myself
[1:12:51] and my own safety. I want to show them
[1:12:54] that I care for others by making Harvard
[1:12:57] street safer. A lot of scared parents
[1:12:59] are going to start biking. The traffic
[1:13:02] and parking space are going to improve
[1:13:04] drastically. There are so many schools
[1:13:06] and daycare along Havar Street. Keep
[1:13:09] parents safe, kids safe. Stop making
[1:13:12] decisions that are going to make the
[1:13:14] problems worsen. Let's stop the
[1:13:16] hypocrisy and stop banning bike lane for
[1:13:19] lost parking spots. Blocking emergency
[1:13:22] vehicle where we all buy bigger and
[1:13:24] bigger car that take up all the road and
[1:13:26] parking space. I take care of my
[1:13:29] neighbor to make sure they are safe.
[1:13:31] Time for you to do the same and make
[1:13:33] sure that I come home alive to my kids.
[1:13:35] Thank you. [snorts]
[1:13:44] Good evening.
[1:13:46] Patty Koreah from Precinct 6. Um,
[1:13:49] [clears throat]
[1:13:51] I'm a person who has resorted to biking
[1:13:54] since my kids were small decades ago.
[1:13:58] And I found that biking, I was an
[1:14:00] assistant attorney general working on
[1:14:02] Beacon Hill. And I found that biking was
[1:14:05] the cheapest and fastest way to get to
[1:14:09] work and then to get my kids on time
[1:14:11] from daycare. And so that led to my
[1:14:14] decadesl long uh [clears throat] bike
[1:14:17] commuting uh career. I'm now a sailor. I
[1:14:20] ride downtown to the harbor to sail by
[1:14:23] bike. It's cheap and fast. Um now in
[1:14:28] addition, I'm a senior citizen and
[1:14:30] though I can pay half fair for the tea,
[1:14:33] I bike um because [clears throat] of
[1:14:36] these reasons and also because I have
[1:14:38] physical limitations on walking. So bike
[1:14:41] for me works extremely well. Um I am
[1:14:46] sorry that we are in this position today
[1:14:49] in a time when we have scarce town
[1:14:52] dollars and we have a vision zero
[1:14:54] [snorts]
[1:14:55] plan that contemplates that cost
[1:14:59] feasible improvements to town roadways
[1:15:03] will be incorporated
[1:15:05] into pavement preservation projects. I
[1:15:08] understand the need for this pavement
[1:15:11] preservation project and I support it,
[1:15:15] but there has not been sufficient
[1:15:17] attention to the types of safety
[1:15:20] improvements that could be incorporated
[1:15:23] for minimal cost into this particular
[1:15:25] project. It feels like it's been sort of
[1:15:27] rammed rammed through over community
[1:15:31] objections that have listed specific
[1:15:35] improvements that could be incorporated
[1:15:38] into this project but have not been
[1:15:40] heated so far. Um and so
[1:15:44] we have scarce dollars. There's an
[1:15:46] opportunity here to improve a tier one
[1:15:50] high priority roadway as defined in
[1:15:54] vision zero plan. It's right there and
[1:15:58] that plan contemplates that where
[1:16:00] feasible improvements will be
[1:16:02] incorporated. So, um I encourage the
[1:16:06] select board to ask questions about why
[1:16:09] DPW has not um responded to community
[1:16:14] input and what plans it has now to
[1:16:17] respond to community input. Um, and I
[1:16:20] also want to um suggest that if the
[1:16:24] answer is our written documents right
[1:16:26] now don't uh accommodate that, then
[1:16:29] maybe the problem is with our written
[1:16:31] documents and our various policies
[1:16:33] because this should be the type of thing
[1:16:35] on a tier one high priority roadway that
[1:16:39] should get this kind of attention. And
[1:16:41] there will be more projects coming the
[1:16:43] select board's way possibly on St. Paul
[1:16:45] Street, another tier one roadway. And so
[1:16:48] I ask that the select board not set a
[1:16:51] precedent here without asking questions.
[1:16:53] Thank you.
[1:17:03] Okay.
[1:17:04] Next uh the miscellaneous calendar and
[1:17:08] I'd like to move uh by this approval uh
[1:17:11] items 5 A through 5J unless someone
[1:17:15] would like to pull something out. Yes.
[1:17:17] Yeah. I I just have a comment to make.
[1:17:21] Um, I'm making this disclosure um out of
[1:17:25] an abundance of caution um with regard
[1:17:28] to the potential appearance of a
[1:17:30] conflict of interest with regard to item
[1:17:33] 5F
[1:17:34] um which is uh item 5F on tonight's
[1:17:37] select board agenda is a question of
[1:17:39] approving a contract with Maryanne
[1:17:41] Thompson Architects in the amount of
[1:17:44] $139,295
[1:17:47] for the conceptual design phase of the
[1:17:48] Lars Anderson Park. Jack Karine skating
[1:17:51] rink renovation.
[1:17:54] When I was on the board of Beacon
[1:17:55] Academy, which was approximately from
[1:17:57] 2015 to 2024, I led a project to find a
[1:18:01] new home for Beacon Academy in 2020 to
[1:18:05] 2021. Over the course of that project,
[1:18:08] Beacon Academy hired Maryanne Thompson
[1:18:10] Architects to provide architectural
[1:18:12] services related to the project. Thus uh
[1:18:17] I am acquainted with Maryanne Thompson
[1:18:19] Architects. I do not have any ongoing
[1:18:21] financial relationship with Maryanne
[1:18:23] Thompson or Maryanne Thompson
[1:18:26] Architects.
[1:18:28] Thank you.
[1:18:31] Paul
[1:18:31] Bernard, could we actually hold out 5F
[1:18:34] um to have a conversation about it for
[1:18:36] the vote?
[1:18:36] You want to have that now?
[1:18:37] Yeah, if that's okay.
[1:18:38] Okay. So, um, you know, there's been a
[1:18:40] lot of attention, um, paid to the this
[1:18:43] the skating rink project, which, uh,
[1:18:46] this I believe this is for, correct?
[1:18:48] Yes.
[1:18:49] Um, and it just I know that I think
[1:18:51] David is was part of the either the
[1:18:54] building committee or the selection
[1:18:55] committee. Um, it just would be helpful
[1:18:57] to hear an update on where are we at um,
[1:19:01] you know, with the project. Um, I know
[1:19:03] that we had put some some pretty tight
[1:19:06] boundaries around the project. uh about
[1:19:08] a year ago last uh summer. Um I was
[1:19:11] hoping you'd give us a quick update.
[1:19:13] Yes, sure. So, the committee of seven
[1:19:15] convened in December of 2025. During
[1:19:19] that time, there was an interview
[1:19:20] process to select both an architect as
[1:19:24] well as an OPM. Uh Maryanne Thompson was
[1:19:27] selected
[1:19:28] as the uh architect. Asure was selected
[1:19:33] as the OPM. So the next phase of this
[1:19:36] which is going to kick off sometime
[1:19:39] after April 27th is for the design
[1:19:41] committee. The design committee will
[1:19:43] also have seven members. There will be
[1:19:46] someone from the building commission,
[1:19:48] preservation commission, planning board,
[1:19:50] Brookline youth hockey, friends of Lars
[1:19:52] Anderson, and two members of the public.
[1:19:56] That roster of names will be brought
[1:19:58] before the select board for the select
[1:20:00] board's approval. Uh so this contract
[1:20:04] would be helpful so that we can proceed
[1:20:06] with a conceptual design and obviously
[1:20:09] the design committee uh to be formed
[1:20:13] will have a an influence on what those
[1:20:16] design concepts are uh and the public
[1:20:20] has until April 27th to apply.
[1:20:23] Okay. And um may I Bernard just have a
[1:20:25] couple of questions. So the parameters
[1:20:27] that we provided as guidance um to park
[1:20:31] and wreck around the design and scope of
[1:20:35] the project, those remain enforced.
[1:20:36] There's been no changes. It's still a
[1:20:39] single ice rink. We're not it's not
[1:20:41] going to be covered. We're using the the
[1:20:43] exist We're updating the existing
[1:20:45] warming hut. We're maintaining the
[1:20:47] footprint
[1:20:49] plus or minus a little bit. Um all those
[1:20:52] instructions. Yeah.
[1:20:53] What's that? That that was our
[1:20:55] instructions.
[1:20:55] Yeah, those are our instructions and I'm
[1:20:56] asking is that
[1:20:57] that is correct.
[1:20:58] That guidance is still in force.
[1:20:59] Probably better than
[1:21:01] Well, that's why I'm asking
[1:21:03] that is still in
[1:21:04] especially if we're hiring a designer.
[1:21:06] So, um it's all in force. Okay, that's
[1:21:07] that was my question. Thank you.
[1:21:09] Okay. I I do though want to take this
[1:21:11] opportunity to address uh the situation
[1:21:14] about having a swimming pool considered
[1:21:16] simultaneously. So there are article 97
[1:21:20] protections on Lars Anderson that would
[1:21:22] make that extremely difficult and would
[1:21:26] create quite a bit of delay on
[1:21:28] proceeding with the rink. That's not to
[1:21:30] say that I personally am not in support
[1:21:33] of an outdoor pool. I very much am. But
[1:21:35] I don't think that should be married to
[1:21:37] this process which is already pretty far
[1:21:40] along.
[1:21:40] Yeah, I would I would agree with that.
[1:21:42] the the RFP which I think was brought up
[1:21:44] last week or the week before is
[1:21:46] different than this project.
[1:21:47] Yes. The RFP for the pool which by the
[1:21:49] way has been amended to include Lars
[1:21:52] Anderson or the request of the public
[1:21:54] but to David's point I think.
[1:21:58] Yes. Yes. But I I don't want to
[1:21:59] presuppose it. So we've added it and
[1:22:01] we'll have them take a look at it.
[1:22:02] Great.
[1:22:03] Okay.
[1:22:04] Thank you.
[1:22:05] Anything else?
[1:22:07] Okay. So I move approval of items 5A
[1:22:10] through 5J. All in favor? John Vancoyak
[1:22:13] I Warren
[1:22:14] I
[1:22:14] David Throwman
[1:22:15] I
[1:22:15] Michael Rubenstein
[1:22:16] I
[1:22:17] and chair votes I
[1:22:20] just want to thank the folks who donated
[1:22:21] to the Baffin essay contest oh yes very
[1:22:24] kind we always appreciate um that
[1:22:27] pacific participation
[1:22:28] yeah
[1:22:31] I guess you're asking me to say that
[1:22:32] okay
[1:22:34] well I mean you you weren't you weren't
[1:22:36] saying very or talking very loud
[1:22:38] oh sorry
[1:22:38] so we'd like to thank the the
[1:22:41] individuals who contributed to the
[1:22:44] Brooklyn Asian-American
[1:22:47] uh family network
[1:22:50] project essay project. Um whenever we
[1:22:54] receive a donation whether significant
[1:22:57] like this or small u by state law we
[1:23:00] have to approve it in a public meeting.
[1:23:02] So we're doing that. It also gives us an
[1:23:04] opportunity to thank the donor of uh the
[1:23:08] money or or other items that uh we're
[1:23:11] we're accepting. So, thank you again.
[1:23:14] Thank you.
[1:23:17] So, we approved all the miscellaneous
[1:23:19] stuff. Main calendar, town building roof
[1:23:21] project. Question of approving contract
[1:23:24] roof replacement project with MDM
[1:23:27] Engineering Company in amount of
[1:23:29] 1,380,000.
[1:23:32] project includes town hall, main library
[1:23:35] and fire station six. Um, also includes
[1:23:39] preparing, I think, just the library for
[1:23:41] a solar array. So, if you could sort of
[1:23:43] fill us in on that piece of it also, I'd
[1:23:45] appreciate it.
[1:23:46] Um, sure. This is a a project to replace
[1:23:49] the existing roof of town hall from
[1:23:50] renovation.
[1:23:51] Are you
[1:23:51] Oh, I'm sorry. Charlie Simmons, director
[1:23:53] of public buildings.
[1:23:55] Uh, to replace the back section of the
[1:23:57] roof of the main library. The previous
[1:23:59] section was replaced 10 years ago and
[1:24:02] the entire roof of fire station number
[1:24:04] six. Um I've been working with the
[1:24:07] sustainability people. They've been
[1:24:09] looking at all three buildings for solar
[1:24:11] and uh when that building is done, the
[1:24:13] next steps would be looking at
[1:24:15] installing solar. Um we'd have to make
[1:24:18] it solar ready and look at power and so
[1:24:21] on. But um the entire roof from the
[1:24:24] front to the back will now be available
[1:24:26] to have solar pan.
[1:24:28] front to the back of the library.
[1:24:30] The entire library.
[1:24:31] Wow.
[1:24:34] If if it is deemed to be
[1:24:36] Yeah. feasible, right?
[1:24:40] Uh anything else?
[1:24:42] Any questions from the select board?
[1:24:45] One question.
[1:24:46] Yes.
[1:24:46] Thanks, Charlie. Could you describe what
[1:24:48] preparations need to be done to prepare
[1:24:50] a roof for to receive solar versus if it
[1:24:53] didn't have be prepared for solar? And
[1:24:55] is there a cost differential?
[1:24:58] uh two things. You have to look at the
[1:24:59] electric service and figure out how
[1:25:01] you're going to get the power into the
[1:25:02] ex service whether it's in front of the
[1:25:04] meter, behind the meter. So that's an
[1:25:06] electrical engineer. The second thing is
[1:25:08] structural. They have to get a
[1:25:09] structural engineer look at the existing
[1:25:11] supports of the building. Now the panels
[1:25:12] themselves are not that heavy, but you
[1:25:14] can't just put them on a a building. So
[1:25:17] sometimes you have to do some structure
[1:25:19] work inside the building. I can't say
[1:25:21] that for sure at this building. Um, with
[1:25:24] newer buildings, they're obviously solar
[1:25:26] ready. You don't have to worry about
[1:25:27] So, this project's going to help
[1:25:28] identify if we need to make those
[1:25:30] structural changes and then make the
[1:25:31] structural changes
[1:25:32] potentially. Yes.
[1:25:34] Okay.
[1:25:36] John,
[1:25:37] um, I I just wonder if we might take
[1:25:39] this opportunity uh, while Charlie's
[1:25:41] here um, whether through him or through
[1:25:44] Chaz to briefly update the public on the
[1:25:47] mold situation that developed at the
[1:25:49] library. Just I think a lot of people
[1:25:51] have been wondering about it.
[1:25:52] Sure. So, we're fortunate that the mold
[1:25:54] has been remediated. Uh, we had positive
[1:25:56] air quality results. Uh, the library
[1:25:58] reopened at 11:30 this morning. Um, we
[1:26:00] will is continuing operations. The
[1:26:03] children's room and the little uh the
[1:26:04] Heidihole space there are still both
[1:26:06] closed. Um, they will have replacement
[1:26:08] of carpeting and some fixtures I think
[1:26:11] you know over the next week and they
[1:26:14] should be open next week. Am I right?
[1:26:15] Correct.
[1:26:16] Thanks. Correct. I have one followup
[1:26:18] question. So, Charlie, you mentioned
[1:26:20] that we don't know yet if the roof needs
[1:26:22] to be reinforced. [clears throat]
[1:26:24] Um, does does this cost include
[1:26:28] potentially having to reinforce it or is
[1:26:29] it would the cost
[1:26:30] just we're just going to examine the
[1:26:32] roof and get some information that would
[1:26:33] go on to a structural engineer? That
[1:26:35] would be a separate contract.
[1:26:36] Okay. All right. Thank you.
[1:26:39] Okay. Thank you. Um, I move approval of
[1:26:42] the roof replacement project with MDM
[1:26:45] Engineering Company in the amount of
[1:26:49] 38 million
[1:26:51] uh for town hall, main library, and fire
[1:26:54] station number six. All in favor, John
[1:26:57] Vancoyak.
[1:26:58] I Paul Warren,
[1:26:58] I.
[1:26:59] David Corman,
[1:27:00] I.
[1:27:00] Michael Rubenstein,
[1:27:01] I chair votes I.
[1:27:03] Thank you.
[1:27:06] Next uh public hearing temporary
[1:27:08] entertainment license and noise bylaw
[1:27:11] waiver. Uh Snider Electric Energy Zone,
[1:27:14] Boston Marathon. So this is not related
[1:27:16] to the um the pavement project just in
[1:27:21] case someone is confused about that. Um,
[1:27:24] so I was going to [clears throat]
[1:27:26] tell us about this. Yes.
[1:27:37] Good evening everyone. My name is Lauren
[1:27:39] Persian. I'm the chief of race operation
[1:27:41] and production for the Boston Athletic
[1:27:43] Association and the Boston Marathon. Um,
[1:27:45] I'm here this evening to answer any
[1:27:48] questions about the Schneider Electric
[1:27:49] Cheer Zone or the Boston Marathon if you
[1:27:52] have them. Um, it is too late to offer
[1:27:54] any runner numbers unless you're able to
[1:27:56] run a marathon in just 4 days, which we
[1:27:59] would be happy to have you. Um, the
[1:28:01] cheer zone looks very similar to what
[1:28:03] we've had in years past. At this point,
[1:28:05] all the permits for the cheer zone have
[1:28:07] been pulled. Uh, the cheer zone this uh
[1:28:09] this year will include food trucks. Um
[1:28:12] permits so far right now have all been
[1:28:14] pulled which includes our health and uh
[1:28:16] health permits, our fire permits. Um the
[1:28:19] butters have all been notified to comply
[1:28:21] with the uh noise waiver. The footprint
[1:28:24] this year is slightly extended this year
[1:28:26] extending a little bit closer to Brandon
[1:28:28] Hall tea station. Um the as I mentioned
[1:28:32] there will be two food trucks this year
[1:28:34] um for the uh attendees for the cheer
[1:28:36] zones. We have also added a additional
[1:28:39] pedestrian crossing this year. that area
[1:28:41] gets quite uh congested. We wanted to
[1:28:43] alleviate some of the um uh we wanted to
[1:28:47] make it easier for our spectators to get
[1:28:49] from one side of the road to the other.
[1:28:51] So, we have worked quite hard um with
[1:28:53] the police department to make that
[1:28:55] happen and possible this year. And of
[1:28:57] speaking of the police department, we
[1:28:59] have worked quite closely with the
[1:29:00] police department. We could not be more
[1:29:02] grateful for their support and all the
[1:29:04] uh work that they do to make this a safe
[1:29:06] and um secure event for us this year.
[1:29:09] Also, we are here with Interstate um our
[1:29:11] tentine and equipment company to make
[1:29:13] sure that this is a secure um and
[1:29:16] permitted event. So, um that's the quick
[1:29:19] uh elevator pitch if you will, but
[1:29:21] certainly here to answer any questions
[1:29:23] on this site specifically.
[1:29:26] Okay. What I'd like to do is to address
[1:29:28] this item first.
[1:29:29] Sure.
[1:29:30] And and vote on it and then have the
[1:29:32] public hearing on the noise waiver
[1:29:33] bylaw.
[1:29:34] Absolutely. So any questions for um
[1:29:37] actually could tell you used a word
[1:29:39] cheer zone. What what I I didn't
[1:29:41] understand that.
[1:29:42] Absolutely. So this area is designed
[1:29:44] specifically Schneider Electric is our
[1:29:47] one of our most important sponsors. They
[1:29:49] wanted to have and host an area that
[1:29:51] they could bring their most important
[1:29:53] clients, their employees from all over
[1:29:55] the world quite honestly to a location.
[1:29:58] Um they want they chose Brooklyn
[1:30:00] specifically. They have their initiative
[1:30:03] is greening environmental and they chose
[1:30:05] Brooklyn specifically to align with
[1:30:08] their values. And so they they chose
[1:30:10] Brookline specifically for their
[1:30:13] location to bring their employees um to
[1:30:15] create this cheer zone to create this
[1:30:17] area for their employees to spectate.
[1:30:20] Again, what is the word that you're
[1:30:22] using?
[1:30:22] Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. I'm so
[1:30:25] sorry. Oh, I overexlained it too and I
[1:30:27] you just wanted to know the word cheer.
[1:30:29] Hooray. Yeah. My apology.
[1:30:31] That was my fault. [laughter]
[1:30:34] It sounded like cheer, but
[1:30:35] yeah, I wasn't a cheerleader.
[1:30:38] Yes, sir.
[1:30:39] Actually, Michael, you had your hand
[1:30:41] first.
[1:30:41] Yes.
[1:30:42] Um,
[1:30:43] so this is happening in the parking lots
[1:30:45] between the Fairbanks and Brandon Hall
[1:30:48] tea stops. Um, does this cheer zone or
[1:30:50] any of the other Boston Marathon
[1:30:53] activities affect the use of the tea
[1:30:57] between I guess Cleveland Circle and
[1:30:59] Kenmore Square, the length of the C
[1:31:01] branch?
[1:31:01] Yes. So the um how we're instructing the
[1:31:04] participants to get to this location
[1:31:06] specifically is by T. So that is why
[1:31:09] specifically we developed this
[1:31:10] pedestrian crossing is to help the
[1:31:13] spectators to get from one side of the
[1:31:14] road to the other. We are also
[1:31:16] developing a private transportation uh
[1:31:19] busing system to bring a lot of these
[1:31:22] employees from their first hotels which
[1:31:24] they're staying in the seapport area um
[1:31:26] to their area specifically. So there
[1:31:28] will be a transportation busing program
[1:31:30] that gets them from point A to this
[1:31:31] location specifically. So it won't be
[1:31:34] completely dependent upon the chi
[1:31:36] system.
[1:31:37] Paul um I do have two questions. My
[1:31:40] first is could you describe the design?
[1:31:42] Is this a Is this a heightened area for
[1:31:45] observation? Um like stadium seating or
[1:31:48] I'll let the
[1:31:49] She's going to get something
[1:31:50] and she looks quite determined. So
[1:31:51] Okay, I saw Okay. Oh, you've got
[1:31:53] pictures.
[1:32:05] That's upside down.
[1:32:08] Is there some way we can get this on the
[1:32:10] screen? kind of put in front of a
[1:32:12] camera.
[1:32:13] Should I sorry I should have uh brought
[1:32:15] my laptop in the car so otherwise I
[1:32:17] could have done that. I can get that for
[1:32:19] the public uh hearing part of it.
[1:32:21] Yeah, if you could extend it to the
[1:32:22] select board office. We
[1:32:24] It's going to be hard for you to
[1:32:25] describe it because we don't have the
[1:32:26] visual for the audience, but could you
[1:32:29] um how many people does this
[1:32:30] accommodate? Is it ADA accessible?
[1:32:33] Yes. So the if you go from on the
[1:32:35] diagram from left to right, the first
[1:32:38] section is a bit of an elevated stage
[1:32:40] platform and then um that will have a
[1:32:44] mobile wheelchair lift to the side so
[1:32:46] it'll be fully accessible ADA wise that
[1:32:49] is also a tented covering that's over
[1:32:51] there. We'll have um some tables and
[1:32:54] chairs for seating, some bleachers on
[1:32:56] that platform for seating. Then going uh
[1:32:59] to the side, that's where the food
[1:33:01] trucks are. Then there's what's called a
[1:33:03] spectator suite trailer, which is the
[1:33:05] only real new element this year compared
[1:33:07] to last year. And that is a large
[1:33:11] trailer with some indoor seating um
[1:33:14] along like also some top seating so
[1:33:16] people can fully see the course that
[1:33:19] will also have an ADA ramp um on the
[1:33:21] front of it. So both both units are
[1:33:24] fully ADA compliant. And our restroom
[1:33:27] trailer also has a ramp. So that is also
[1:33:29] ADA compile um compliant.
[1:33:32] I have one other question. Sure.
[1:33:34] Um is this I know we've apparently we've
[1:33:37] done this in the past. Um is it
[1:33:39] restricted to just SNET employees or so?
[1:33:42] Um I it's too late to change it but I
[1:33:45] would encourage you in the future. I
[1:33:47] think this is fantastic to host
[1:33:48] something like this, but to make it
[1:33:50] accessible for some of our uh mobility
[1:33:52] limited folks within Brookline that
[1:33:55] don't actually have a very difficult
[1:33:57] time uh going and enjoying the marathon.
[1:34:00] It would be very special to be able to
[1:34:01] have some of those individuals, even if
[1:34:04] it's [clears throat] just a handful that
[1:34:05] typically wouldn't be able to enjoy the
[1:34:06] marathon to be able to to benefit from
[1:34:09] uh the investment that you're making.
[1:34:10] And and
[1:34:11] I think what we can certainly do is work
[1:34:12] with the town of Brooklyn directly to
[1:34:14] create its own
[1:34:17] specifically. So, I think it's a BAA
[1:34:20] Brooklyn initiative. I don't know that
[1:34:21] it's necessarily something within the
[1:34:23] Schneider footprint, but I think that's
[1:34:24] that's something that we could do
[1:34:26] directly with with the town itself.
[1:34:28] Yeah, we have done something similar
[1:34:29] with other towns. We have a in Welssley,
[1:34:32] we have a sensory friendly cheer zone
[1:34:34] where it is for people who don't
[1:34:36] necessarily like the loud cheering. Um,
[1:34:39] that was something that we that they
[1:34:41] brought to us and we have developed
[1:34:43] specifically. You're 100% correct. I
[1:34:46] don't know that we could pull this
[1:34:47] together in
[1:34:47] Yeah, it's too late now. But
[1:34:48] but I will certainly put that in my
[1:34:50] notes for next year and we are more than
[1:34:52] happy to bring that forward.
[1:34:53] And this would be great, Chaz, if they
[1:34:54] could work with our disability
[1:34:55] commission. I mean, what a great idea to
[1:34:56] have uh this the marathon be accessible
[1:34:58] to folks that typically can't enjoy it.
[1:35:01] It's something that we have brought
[1:35:02] forward even in the Finnish area for
[1:35:03] cheering areas for people who are, you
[1:35:05] know, have mobility issues. So 100%. I
[1:35:08] will put it on my list for next.
[1:35:09] Super. Thank you so much.
[1:35:10] Fantastic. Great idea.
[1:35:12] Any other questions? [snorts]
[1:35:14] Okay, seeing none, I'd like to move
[1:35:16] approval of the um temporary
[1:35:20] entertainment license application for
[1:35:22] the Snider Electric Energy Zone and
[1:35:24] their cheer zone taking place along the
[1:35:27] boss America on course. Um, let's see.
[1:35:32] Activation consists of a viewing area,
[1:35:35] stage, spectator trailer, and mobile
[1:35:38] screen showing the race and sponsor
[1:35:40] content, as well as a DJ with amplified
[1:35:43] speakers.
[1:35:44] Okay. All in favor, please indicate by
[1:35:46] saying I. John Vancoyak,
[1:35:48] I
[1:35:48] Paul Warren,
[1:35:49] I.
[1:35:49] David Pearlman,
[1:35:50] I Rubenson,
[1:35:52] I.
[1:35:52] And chair votes. Thank you.
[1:35:55] I won't be out there running this year.
[1:35:57] Sorry.
[1:35:58] Perhaps next.
[1:35:59] Um that that was many years ago.
[1:36:02] [laughter]
[1:36:03] Well, thank you so much for your time.
[1:36:04] Thank you.
[1:36:05] Okay. Uh next we have a noise bylaw
[1:36:08] waiver that's related to this.
[1:36:12] Um
[1:36:13] you may want you may want to stay just
[1:36:14] in case something comes up.
[1:36:17] Who's going to talk to us? Okay.
[1:36:21] Okay. Tell us about uh your waiver, your
[1:36:24] need for a waiver. So the the DJ
[1:36:27] portion, anything that is loud is not
[1:36:30] part of the waiver. That's during, you
[1:36:32] know, allowable time. Um what we are
[1:36:35] asking for is because the the activation
[1:36:38] cannot be broken down until after the
[1:36:40] course reopens and the race is over. So
[1:36:43] that really can't begin until 5:36 p.m.
[1:36:46] when we are able to access that. So it
[1:36:49] is just asking for from say 6 until 900
[1:36:53] pm that we can be breaking down the
[1:36:56] activation. The loudest part of that is
[1:36:59] really just a hand power drill to
[1:37:01] dissemble the bleachers. Everything else
[1:37:04] can be either just hitched on a trailer
[1:37:06] and moved or it's things like tables and
[1:37:08] chairs that will be put onto a truck. So
[1:37:11] again, it's just it's more of a in case.
[1:37:14] We don't hope to be breaking down until
[1:37:16] 9, but it's more just a as much as we
[1:37:20] can clear the space that evening after
[1:37:22] the race, we want to be able to do. Um,
[1:37:25] and there are a couple components that
[1:37:27] need to be broken down before the next
[1:37:29] vendor can come and remove the other
[1:37:31] things. So, that's why we are just
[1:37:33] asking for the time in case it's
[1:37:36] necessary. But mo, like I said, most of
[1:37:39] it is stuff that doesn't require tools.
[1:37:42] It's not like loud construction type
[1:37:44] noise.
[1:37:46] Any questions?
[1:37:48] Michael,
[1:37:49] um I'm I'm just reading the agenda and
[1:37:51] it indicates that there's also a request
[1:37:54] for time on Sunday as well for
[1:37:55] installation.
[1:37:57] Um Sunday
[1:37:58] need that time or
[1:37:59] Sunday is part of our occupancy permit.
[1:38:02] It's that we have we are able to utilize
[1:38:04] that space from noon on Sunday until
[1:38:07] noon on Tuesday when it has to be
[1:38:08] completely cleared and back open for
[1:38:10] motor vehicles to park there.
[1:38:12] Right. But for the noise bylaw waiver,
[1:38:14] will you need the noise bylaw waiver to
[1:38:17] be in effect on Sunday while they're
[1:38:18] doing
[1:38:18] in I misunderstood. Um again hoping not
[1:38:21] to. It's that's more of a just in case.
[1:38:24] Last year I believe we were cleared of
[1:38:25] the site around 6:30. Um, so we are
[1:38:29] beginning work at noon is when vendors
[1:38:31] start to come in and a majority of
[1:38:33] anything that would be louder, bigger
[1:38:35] items coming out of a truck would be in
[1:38:37] the earlier portion. It's again just as
[1:38:40] an in case like say one trailer gets
[1:38:44] stuck in traffic, delays building the
[1:38:46] bleachers for an hour or two and we need
[1:38:48] a little longer. It's it's mostly just a
[1:38:51] in case we need it or with respect to
[1:38:53] the town that this might be a noise that
[1:38:55] happens.
[1:38:57] Thank you.
[1:38:59] Okay, this is a public hearing. Uh
[1:39:01] Melanie, why don't you open the public
[1:39:02] hearing and see what the public would
[1:39:04] like to say about this idea.
[1:39:06] So, if anybody here in the room would
[1:39:09] like to speak, please step to the
[1:39:10] podium.
[1:39:12] And if you are online, please raise your
[1:39:14] hand.
[1:39:19] No one. Okay. Okay. So, I will I will
[1:39:22] close the public hearing and go for a
[1:39:25] vote unless anyone has any other
[1:39:26] questions. Seeing none, I move approval
[1:39:29] of the question of approving a noise
[1:39:32] bylaw waiver from Interstate Rental
[1:39:35] Service for work to be completed from
[1:39:37] Sunday, April 19, 2026, 12:00 p.m. to
[1:39:41] 9:00 p.m. for installation
[1:39:43] of the structures. Um, all in favor,
[1:39:47] please indicate by saying I. John
[1:39:48] Vansek. Hi.
[1:39:50] Have a question. David. Oh, okay.
[1:39:51] Hi.
[1:39:52] Okay. David Paul Warren.
[1:39:54] Hi.
[1:39:55] David Carlman.
[1:39:55] Hi.
[1:39:56] Michael Rubenstein.
[1:39:57] Hi.
[1:39:57] Chair votes. I.
[1:39:58] Thank you.
[1:40:04] Okay. We have another double item here.
[1:40:07] Uh first approval of
[1:40:10] uh a contract with Laruso for
[1:40:14] transportation mobility improvements
[1:40:16] Harvard Street in the amount of
[1:40:17] $3,182,53850.
[1:40:24] I guess that's for parking fair.
[1:40:27] Um so who's going to talk to us about
[1:40:31] that?
[1:40:35] No, not it's not a public hearing.
[1:40:37] Commission.
[1:40:37] Evening. This is Aaron.
[1:40:40] Oh, that's okay. I'm here. I have some
[1:40:42] staff here as well. Um, good evening
[1:40:45] everyone. My name is Aaron Chude. I'm
[1:40:46] the commissioner of public works and I'm
[1:40:50] here uh tonight to introduce the Harvard
[1:40:52] Street Rehabilitation Project and
[1:40:54] explain why staff uh recommend the
[1:40:58] select board award and execute this
[1:41:00] contract. uh this evening. Uh Harvard
[1:41:03] Street is one of Brooklyn's most
[1:41:06] important corridors. It serves
[1:41:07] residents, businesses, schools,
[1:41:09] pedestrians, transit users, cyclists,
[1:41:13] [gasps] uh and daily vehicle traffic.
[1:41:15] And as you heard earlier, it is a really
[1:41:19] important um it's an important corridor
[1:41:22] and it is also in very poor condition
[1:41:26] and in clear need of rehabilitation.
[1:41:28] Uh this project is the direct outcome of
[1:41:31] the town's pavement maintenance
[1:41:33] management and preservation policy and
[1:41:36] the broader asset management framework
[1:41:38] that the select board asked DPW to put
[1:41:41] in place uh to stop serious decline in
[1:41:44] pavement condition townwide. Uh that
[1:41:47] policy was created so Brookline could
[1:41:49] make a more disciplined, transparent,
[1:41:52] and financially responsible approach to
[1:41:54] maintaining roads based on condition,
[1:41:57] need, and long-term value to the town.
[1:42:00] Harvard Street was identified through
[1:42:02] that adopted process as part of the FY26
[1:42:06] roadway rehabilitation program. It was
[1:42:09] presented last year to uh the advisory
[1:42:14] committee. it was presented uh to the
[1:42:16] select board. Uh the intent was to be
[1:42:20] presenting the information in a very
[1:42:22] open and transparent um manner. Um but
[1:42:27] it is timely and important work. As
[1:42:29] roads deteriorate, costs increase, risks
[1:42:32] increase, and the town falls further
[1:42:35] behind. uh timely maintenance is one of
[1:42:38] the most responsible things that we can
[1:42:40] do to protect the roadway and the
[1:42:43] taxpayers's investment in it. Uh this
[1:42:46] project also includes practical safety
[1:42:49] improvements where feasible and
[1:42:51] appropriate, including improved bicycle
[1:42:53] lane visibility and buffering,
[1:42:55] intersected daylighting, and strategic
[1:42:58] use of flex post to deter illegal
[1:43:01] parking, which is a real problem along
[1:43:03] this corridor.
[1:43:05] It's important to note, however, this is
[1:43:06] not a full corridor redesign. It's a
[1:43:09] roadway rehabilitation and maintenance
[1:43:12] project with practical and admittedly
[1:43:15] modest safety enhancements. U I want to
[1:43:18] recognize uh that members of the BI
[1:43:22] bicycle advisory committee that spoke
[1:43:24] earlier, some bike advocates are
[1:43:26] disappointed uh that this project does
[1:43:28] not go further at this time. And I
[1:43:31] understand that disappointment and I
[1:43:33] respect it. Uh it reflects a real
[1:43:35] commitment to safety and to the future
[1:43:37] of this corridor. I apologize if members
[1:43:42] of this group didn't feel heard. I had
[1:43:45] spoken with uh the [clears throat] uh
[1:43:49] representative, the leader of the
[1:43:51] organization. We asked for information,
[1:43:53] some of which is being incorporated. The
[1:43:56] transportation director attended a
[1:43:58] meeting yesterday and you know right now
[1:44:02] the the suggested plans would eliminate
[1:44:05] right turning lanes. It was thought to
[1:44:08] be unsafe uh in terms of cyclists um and
[1:44:14] would require traffic analysis and would
[1:44:17] remove some outdoor dining. none of
[1:44:19] which couldn't be um worked through but
[1:44:24] would require we think a comprehensive
[1:44:27] community engagement process. Um so
[1:44:31] moving forward with this project right
[1:44:33] now does not preclude important
[1:44:35] transportation and mobility work here on
[1:44:38] other roads. uh we just feel that the
[1:44:40] community engagement process uh would be
[1:44:43] required here and is important and we
[1:44:45] have many important bicycle and
[1:44:47] multimmodal projects underway and will
[1:44:50] continue um these and others will
[1:44:52] continue through the town's full
[1:44:54] planning design funding and public
[1:44:56] process for this project. I also want to
[1:45:00] note that the staff is recommending
[1:45:01] video detection for signal optimization
[1:45:05] uh rather than the embedded loops in the
[1:45:07] pavement. Uh this current technology,
[1:45:09] it's already used on Route 9. It's in an
[1:45:12] older form on Beacon Street and uh is
[1:45:15] currently in use by Newton Mass DOT.
[1:45:18] Staff believe that this is the better
[1:45:20] option because it's more reliable,
[1:45:22] easier to diagnose problems, can send an
[1:45:25] email alert if something is not
[1:45:27] functioning, and easier to adjust over
[1:45:30] time for current and future operations,
[1:45:32] including bike related uh functionality.
[1:45:36] I understand the use of video detection
[1:45:38] may raise questions. So to be clear, the
[1:45:40] system does not record, store, send or
[1:45:44] share video. It uses video to detect
[1:45:46] traffic movement, converts that
[1:45:48] information for signal operations, and
[1:45:51] that is the end of the process. There's
[1:45:53] no speed information or identifying
[1:45:55] information recorded or stored. Um,
[1:45:58] finally, staff is recommending approval
[1:46:00] for night work for the milling and
[1:46:01] paving operations. It's being proposed
[1:46:04] to reduce disruption during peak commute
[1:46:06] times, maintain daytime access for
[1:46:09] businesses and [clears throat] corridor
[1:46:11] users, improve safety during
[1:46:13] construction. We're also hoping that
[1:46:15] it'll help shorten the duration of the
[1:46:17] overall work as much as possible. So, in
[1:46:20] short, Harbor Street is a major corridor
[1:46:22] in poor condition. Uh the project is the
[1:46:25] direct result of the town's adopted
[1:46:27] asset management policy. It's timely,
[1:46:30] necessary, and responsible, and improves
[1:46:32] the roadway. Now, it includes safety,
[1:46:35] practical safety enhancements, but it
[1:46:37] still leaves room for much broader
[1:46:41] mobility improvements through the proper
[1:46:43] public process in the future. And uh
[1:46:47] I'll note that we staffed Vision Zero
[1:46:49] Complete Streets and our staff remains
[1:46:52] deeply committed to improving
[1:46:55] multimmodal uh safety improvements
[1:46:58] across the community uh and want to do
[1:47:01] that uh in partnership uh with uh
[1:47:05] [clears throat]
[1:47:06] the various various groups. We have uh
[1:47:10] staff here uh the director of
[1:47:12] engineering transportation Dan Murphy
[1:47:14] our associate director of transportation
[1:47:17] and mobility Rob Guptell Dan Martin who
[1:47:20] is our transportation uh sustainability
[1:47:23] transportation engineer and also Sam DS
[1:47:25] who's our deputy director of engineering
[1:47:29] um all who care deeply about the work
[1:47:31] that they do uh for this community. Uh,
[1:47:34] and so with that, if you have questions,
[1:47:37] um, they're here and ready to answer
[1:47:39] those. And, um, I'll turn it back to
[1:47:42] you, chair. Thank you.
[1:47:43] Okay. One quick question. Are these
[1:47:46] artificial intelligence cameras? Someone
[1:47:49] said that.
[1:47:52] Uh, I'll go to Dan Martin. Dan, the
[1:47:55] question was, are these artificial
[1:47:57] intelligence cameras?
[1:48:00] I think that's more of an advertising
[1:48:01] term for this. They do. um count
[1:48:04] vehicles so they they can detect a
[1:48:06] vehicle going by and a bike and a
[1:48:07] pedestrian and if if the preference we
[1:48:10] can we can keep that in the cabinet. It
[1:48:12] doesn't have to leave online. We can
[1:48:14] turn that functionality um off or just
[1:48:17] not even enable it ever. Um and that's
[1:48:20] the way we're going to get it programmed
[1:48:21] for us.
[1:48:24] Okay. I mean this I mean this became
[1:48:27] somewhat of a controversy at least with
[1:48:29] respect to the cameras when um I noticed
[1:48:32] that our packet did not include the
[1:48:34] contract and then someone told me that
[1:48:36] the contract included provisions for
[1:48:39] what six or eight uh what they called
[1:48:42] artificial intelligence cameras. Um, so
[1:48:46] we we got it into the packet when I uh
[1:48:49] contacted the um um I contacted someone
[1:48:53] who sent over a electronic copy. So we
[1:48:56] [clears throat] had that. But the
[1:48:57] problem is is that when you're when
[1:48:59] you're proposing a contract to the
[1:49:01] select board that has something as
[1:49:03] touchy as cameras, um we have to make
[1:49:07] sure that we are aware of this early on
[1:49:10] and can think through any issues that we
[1:49:13] that we think are are important to deal
[1:49:15] with. So, [clears throat]
[1:49:16] um,
[1:49:20] my my
[1:49:22] Yeah, there there there's a lot of
[1:49:24] concern in the community about cameras.
[1:49:26] Whenever you run into a camera, a lot of
[1:49:28] those concerns are very legitimate. Some
[1:49:30] maybe not. So, um, but, uh, we have to
[1:49:34] always just make sure that we're not
[1:49:36] missing something, uh, when a piece of
[1:49:39] technology like this is is brought into
[1:49:41] the town. So just my opinion um um I I I
[1:49:48] uh suggested that we pull this uh um
[1:49:52] contract so we have more time to discuss
[1:49:55] it. Chaz didn't like that idea.
[1:49:57] [laughter] Um and um I'm not going to
[1:50:00] fight him on that, but um in my opinion
[1:50:05] um we have to set some protections.
[1:50:09] uh maybe overkill, but you
[1:50:11] [clears throat] know, that's just what
[1:50:12] we have to do. Um and you know, I have a
[1:50:15] list of conditions that uh we we can
[1:50:17] incorporate into the approval of the
[1:50:20] contract that we can talk about later.
[1:50:23] Mike, you
[1:50:24] um
[1:50:26] uh I I had uh several questions about
[1:50:30] about the project and the relationship
[1:50:32] of the project to some of the uh
[1:50:35] recommendations from advocates in the
[1:50:37] community. But let me let me start with
[1:50:38] just the one question relating to the
[1:50:42] the cameras and the the system for uh
[1:50:45] working with the street lights. Um, and
[1:50:47] the question is, do these cameras
[1:50:50] collect any personal identifiable
[1:50:54] information?
[1:50:56] And if they do,
[1:50:59] does that information ever leave the the
[1:51:03] uh
[1:51:04] the cameras or the boxes that control
[1:51:07] them on site?
[1:51:10] The
[1:51:12] way these
[1:51:15] are set up is they don't store any video
[1:51:18] information whatsoever,
[1:51:20] right? But
[1:51:20] they don't store them. They don't
[1:51:22] transmit them,
[1:51:24] but they but they take they take
[1:51:26] pictures in order to count traffic and
[1:51:29] count cars. Um, so do those pictures
[1:51:32] have the do they have the the ability to
[1:51:35] get person uh private information such
[1:51:37] as facial recognition or license plate
[1:51:40] recognition um within the cameras and
[1:51:45] the system?
[1:51:46] Defer to Dan Martin on his knowledge of
[1:51:50] the system. Yeah, I think um we can
[1:51:52] definitely double check with the
[1:51:54] distributor and also the manufacturer
[1:51:56] that um is not in their their their
[1:51:59] literature as one of their functions.
[1:52:01] So, as far as we know, it is not doing
[1:52:03] any of that and most of the processing
[1:52:05] is happening inside the cabinet itself
[1:52:06] with a a video processing unit. Um but
[1:52:10] all these questions we can bring back
[1:52:12] once we get the shop drawings in, we
[1:52:14] know exactly what equipment they're
[1:52:15] specking. we can read the the terms of
[1:52:18] um service and make sure it meets the
[1:52:21] the standards and privacy requirements
[1:52:24] you're you're looking for.
[1:52:26] Can I add one thing? The I went to their
[1:52:29] website and their website seems to
[1:52:32] suggest that there's a way, you know,
[1:52:36] password protected for people to get
[1:52:39] access to the data coming out of the
[1:52:42] coming through the cameras. It's not
[1:52:44] clear what that means, but you know,
[1:52:47] their website suggests that they have
[1:52:49] much more
[1:52:51] robust capability than I think you're
[1:52:53] saying.
[1:52:56] I think the system is definitely
[1:52:58] customizable and we can we can go back
[1:53:00] to the to the distributor when they're
[1:53:02] setting equipment up before the port is
[1:53:04] placed and make sure that these
[1:53:07] requirements are in there that it's not
[1:53:08] accessible to other third parties.
[1:53:11] [snorts]
[1:53:12] Okay. Paul.
[1:53:12] Yeah. I just wanted to suggest Bernard
[1:53:14] you had you had suggested that later
[1:53:16] when we I guess deliberate on this a
[1:53:18] little bit we'll we could add some
[1:53:20] conditions uh to the contract and it
[1:53:22] should be very clear that this
[1:53:24] technology won't store transmit any
[1:53:27] video any personal identific
[1:53:30] identifiable information as Michael had
[1:53:31] mentioned and it's only there for the
[1:53:34] execution of synchronizing the lights uh
[1:53:37] you know or total counts but there
[1:53:39] shouldn't be any video at all and I
[1:53:41] think we can put that as the condition
[1:53:43] of of our approval.
[1:53:46] Okay, Michael. Um I'm not sure whether
[1:53:49] it applies to this system or in in terms
[1:53:52] of our broader thinking but I will I
[1:53:54] will raise the issue because it will
[1:53:56] probably come up again that uh in the
[1:54:00] cases of where we're where we are
[1:54:03] acquiring systems that have
[1:54:05] configuration options that we choose not
[1:54:07] to use. Um then uh our policies should
[1:54:12] reflect
[1:54:14] what what the processes are for
[1:54:17] modifying those configurations in the
[1:54:19] future if somebody decides yes that
[1:54:22] would be an interesting feature to add
[1:54:24] or take advantage of.
[1:54:26] That's an excellent point. I mean could
[1:54:28] we could we do that complicated
[1:54:29] could we do that in the license
[1:54:30] agreement Michael
[1:54:31] you know and limit in the license
[1:54:33] agreement to
[1:54:34] well well I think it's I think it's an
[1:54:35] internal town policy. It's not a policy
[1:54:38] between
[1:54:39] between um the town and the vendor
[1:54:42] because the vendor will have the
[1:54:44] capabilities. It's just what are our
[1:54:46] what I what I would like to suggest is
[1:54:48] maybe something like anou that lays out
[1:54:50] the conditions of our approval that
[1:54:53] would include all that. I mean I can
[1:54:56] think of a number of things that we
[1:54:57] should pardon me.
[1:54:58] You could attach that to the license
[1:54:59] agreement. Say you know this is we're
[1:55:01] signing a license agreement and here's
[1:55:02] our understanding of how you're going to
[1:55:03] execute that license agreement.
[1:55:05] Sure. You can make it an amendment to
[1:55:07] license
[1:55:07] configuration.
[1:55:08] Yeah, configuration. Yeah.
[1:55:09] Is this we are is license.
[1:55:15] Uh John
[1:55:16] uh well I want to thank the people in
[1:55:18] the community who have you know raised
[1:55:20] questions about the camera u uh aspect
[1:55:23] of uh this project which you know let's
[1:55:25] keep in mind that this is essentially a
[1:55:28] a project to deal with the need for um
[1:55:32] uh harvestry to be repaved repaired and
[1:55:35] repaved. Um and it's a serious need. Um
[1:55:38] and uh there's all kinds of safety
[1:55:40] issues that stem from you know a road
[1:55:42] that is in a deteriorating condition. Um
[1:55:46] and then you know as part of the process
[1:55:48] people who are very sort of watchful and
[1:55:50] good for them uh noticed that there's
[1:55:53] reference to camera technology um in the
[1:55:56] contract for the improvements to Harvard
[1:55:58] Street. Then the question arose you know
[1:56:01] what why would there be the this camera
[1:56:03] technology? Well, you heard the answer
[1:56:05] to that tonight. Um, there's two ways of
[1:56:09] monitoring um, how many cars are backed
[1:56:11] up at a light. I'll just use that
[1:56:13] example. Um, one is for there to be sort
[1:56:15] of a a pad um, under the pavement um, at
[1:56:19] the same location as the light uh, and
[1:56:23] you measure how many cars and and you
[1:56:25] know how long the line is I guess by you
[1:56:28] know the weight of the car on the pad. A
[1:56:31] different way is to have a camera there
[1:56:32] which can actually count cars um and so
[1:56:35] on. Um there has been no mention made in
[1:56:39] any of this uh of a different use of
[1:56:41] cameras that is increasingly common
[1:56:44] commonplace and in fact advocated um by
[1:56:47] many bicyclists and others um and that
[1:56:50] is so-called speed cameras. Um, I I I
[1:56:54] won't judge whether someday we might use
[1:56:58] speed cameras um as part of our routine
[1:57:01] maintenance of traffic in uh Brooklyn,
[1:57:04] but I would note that that's entirely
[1:57:06] consistent with enforcement of speed
[1:57:10] limits and with the goals of Vision
[1:57:12] Zero. So, uh, that's just an example of
[1:57:14] a camera use that a lot of people would
[1:57:17] be for. And, um, I think we better, you
[1:57:20] know, at some point deal with all of
[1:57:23] these different questions that arise,
[1:57:25] um, where cameras are concerned. But I
[1:57:28] don't think it's reason enough to put
[1:57:30] off this vote on this contract tonight.
[1:57:33] Um, and while I just, you know, have the
[1:57:35] mic, I want to say something else about
[1:57:37] all of the people who spoke um earlier
[1:57:39] on, uh, from the interests of people
[1:57:41] who, uh, uh, bike on Harvard Street, and
[1:57:44] I want to thank them for making their
[1:57:46] comments, but I do want to, um,
[1:57:49] encourage them, uh, in the future, um,
[1:57:52] not to imply uh, that our traffic um,
[1:57:56] uh, division, um, our transportation
[1:57:58] department, our DPW, um, your select
[1:58:02] board um uh are unmindful of safety. Um
[1:58:07] that of course we're mindful of safety
[1:58:09] and it it is not a open-end shut case
[1:58:12] that the overall safety of pedestrians
[1:58:16] and bicyclists and people in vehicles.
[1:58:20] that the overall safety of that street
[1:58:22] would necessarily be enhanced if we took
[1:58:26] the parking that exists at the curb and
[1:58:29] moved it further into the middle of the
[1:58:31] street. And to cite just one obvious
[1:58:34] example, as someone who experienced
[1:58:37] in a in an unfortunate way um the move
[1:58:41] um on Center Street, West Roxberry of
[1:58:43] parking towards the middle of Center
[1:58:45] Street, West Roberry uh with a bike car
[1:58:48] protected bike lane to the right of
[1:58:50] parked vehicles. And as someone who has
[1:58:53] enjoyed um going to the Cororb
[1:58:56] restaurant in West Roxberry for many
[1:58:58] years, um having first experienced
[1:59:00] Cororup right here in Brooklyn, um uh
[1:59:03] having never had any issues, um as soon
[1:59:06] as that change took place on Center
[1:59:08] Street, within one or two visits to the
[1:59:10] Cororb in West Roberry, um the uh
[1:59:14] driver's side uh mirror had been knocked
[1:59:16] off of our car
[1:59:18] um and cost us $300 to repair. Um, it
[1:59:21] should surprise no one that you when you
[1:59:23] move cars closer to the center of um of
[1:59:27] a very heavily traveled um uh vehicle
[1:59:30] lane where not only is it heavily
[1:59:33] traveled, but the cars move very fast.
[1:59:35] That's a safety risk to those getting
[1:59:37] out of the car. So, you have to take
[1:59:39] that into consideration. Um there are
[1:59:41] safety risks to people crossing the
[1:59:44] street. Um if if for any reason they
[1:59:47] step out or people in a car who step
[1:59:49] into a bike lane from the car, um they
[1:59:52] didn't have that risk on the passenger
[1:59:54] side of vehicles, now they will. Um and
[1:59:57] that's an added risk. So all these risks
[1:59:59] have to be taken into consideration. And
[2:00:02] I think um in fairness to those of us
[2:00:04] who think we should move forward on this
[2:00:06] contract, it should not be posed um uh
[2:00:10] even by the most ardent of uh biking
[2:00:12] advocates as an indication that we don't
[2:00:14] care about safety. I you know I'll I'll
[2:00:17] be honest. I I I kind of resented that
[2:00:19] tonight. Um because I know we all care
[2:00:21] about safety and I know they care about
[2:00:23] safety. But let's have a discussion of
[2:00:25] safety that embraces pedestrians and
[2:00:29] people in vehicles and people on
[2:00:31] bicycles and recognizes the reality of
[2:00:34] the difference between a tight street
[2:00:37] with not much room uh for vehicle lanes
[2:00:40] once you start you know doing all these
[2:00:42] other changes and a street that is you
[2:00:45] know very very wide such as not you know
[2:00:47] I won't say it's very very wide but
[2:00:48] Beacon Street you know down in the St.
[2:00:50] Mary's area. That's a very different
[2:00:52] situation. And I'm glad we had um
[2:00:55] success with the uh vehicle protected
[2:00:57] bike lane there. But that doesn't mean
[2:00:59] vehicle protected bike lanes will work
[2:01:01] on every street everywhere in
[2:01:03] Brooklynite. It it just it isn't true.
[2:01:05] And it doesn't mean that people who
[2:01:06] raise questions about vehicle protected
[2:01:09] bike lanes on a street such as Harvard
[2:01:11] Street are unmindful of safety. Um just
[2:01:14] not true.
[2:01:15] Thank you,
[2:01:17] David.
[2:01:19] So I I have a few questions. So first,
[2:01:21] when who precisely came up with the
[2:01:23] plans for which markings to make, which
[2:01:27] markings not to make, where to install
[2:01:30] flex posts, where not to install flex
[2:01:32] posts. Can you provide maybe a timeline
[2:01:35] for when these decisions were made, who
[2:01:38] provided input into these decisions?
[2:01:41] Sure. Sure. I'm I'm Dan Murphy, director
[2:01:43] of engineering and transportation and uh
[2:01:45] we started the design I believe in
[2:01:47] November December and uh Apex uh is our
[2:01:50] consultant and they do they do the
[2:01:52] markings plan and they will stamp them
[2:01:54] at the end when we're finished. Um but
[2:01:56] they basically come up with uh what we
[2:01:59] can do what improvements they recommend
[2:02:01] to make. Um the town staff look at that
[2:02:04] as well. Um, if I going through this now
[2:02:07] with a new PMP
[2:02:09] P policy, I would certainly build in a
[2:02:12] step to bring it to uh BAC back and uh
[2:02:15] get their input as well. Um, and I'll I
[2:02:18] hope that's what comes out of the whole
[2:02:19] prioritization progress process. U, but
[2:02:22] we do we look at all safety
[2:02:23] improvements. We had other things going
[2:02:25] on where we had we're putting in seven
[2:02:27] new pairs of our RFBs and we uh built
[2:02:31] that in. The big the big thing I want to
[2:02:33] just point out is we start a year ahead
[2:02:35] and really look at the sidewalks, look
[2:02:37] at all the ramps. We want to make sure
[2:02:38] all the ramps are brought up to code. Uh
[2:02:41] so we and we prepare. We got a big a
[2:02:43] nice grant from uh Masdot for these
[2:02:45] RFBs. So we needed to basically
[2:02:47] incorporate making sure everything was
[2:02:48] ready for them. Um we go through all the
[2:02:51] sidewalks. We did ton of work last year.
[2:02:53] We did water service um installations in
[2:02:56] preparation and did let everybody know
[2:02:58] that we were doing this ahead of the
[2:03:00] PMPP project. But I I do it's really uh
[2:03:04] Apex comes up with ideas. We review them
[2:03:07] and the step that I failed and I I will
[2:03:09] do again I will do going forward is to
[2:03:11] make sure that back has input on these
[2:03:13] PMPB projects to make to make the
[2:03:15] changes that we can on the markings
[2:03:17] plan. The good thing about the markings
[2:03:18] plan is that it's the last thing. So we
[2:03:20] do have time uh to adjust those and
[2:03:23] we've gone through that. uh uh Rob
[2:03:25] Duptel and I myself went to the back
[2:03:28] meeting last week and uh heard heard
[2:03:30] comments and we received the comments
[2:03:32] previously and we worked to incorporate
[2:03:35] uh most of them. Uh there's some that we
[2:03:37] can't that need community outreach but
[2:03:39] uh that was really the process we went
[2:03:41] through on this.
[2:03:42] So So there was some degree of community
[2:03:44] outreach you're saying? Well, I I mean,
[2:03:47] we didn't reach out to we I guess I
[2:03:50] didn't take these plans to back formally
[2:03:53] and uh I think that going forward on
[2:03:55] these on these PMPP projects, I will
[2:03:58] certainly want to build that in and make
[2:04:00] that formal. It's our first time through
[2:04:02] on this, we're looking at the
[2:04:04] prioritization uh program and how to
[2:04:06] come up with all the all the priorities
[2:04:08] with the transportation board. And one
[2:04:10] of the things we'll definitely build
[2:04:11] into that is for the PNP projects, we
[2:04:13] want to have a milestone in the middle
[2:04:15] of design, the early design, uh, when we
[2:04:17] get the maybe the initial cut by our
[2:04:20] designer, uh, to have a have everybody
[2:04:22] have a look and weigh in with input
[2:04:24] because I do see on and it's page 334 of
[2:04:28] our materials the uh, FY26
[2:04:31] transportation and mobility mobility
[2:04:34] improvements scope of work and it
[2:04:37] expressly mentions uh, that there'll the
[2:04:39] installation of signage and pavement
[2:04:41] markings and that there will be flex
[2:04:43] post installation which can be used for
[2:04:47] uh enhanced bike safety of course. And
[2:04:50] then on page 344 in the section
[2:04:53] regarding pavement markings there is a
[2:04:56] specific uh subclause talking about how
[2:05:00] bike lanes and bus lanes will be marked
[2:05:02] with methylmethacrylate.
[2:05:06] And so that tells me that within the
[2:05:08] scope of this contract, there ought to
[2:05:10] be some room for uh incorporating
[2:05:15] some degree of uh bike safety
[2:05:18] uh mechanisms. And the reason this
[2:05:20] concerns me a little bit in terms of the
[2:05:22] timing, I understand that we are
[2:05:24] technically reviewing a contract and
[2:05:27] that these processes are not necessarily
[2:05:30] one and the same, but this is a high
[2:05:33] ticket item. We're talking about uh
[2:05:35] three over $3.1 million. And I worry a
[2:05:39] little bit about whether this is the
[2:05:41] most efficient way to spend uh these
[2:05:45] dollars. I wouldn't want to see a
[2:05:47] situation where we are repaving a
[2:05:50] significant lengthy street only to then
[2:05:53] have to do it again when we look at it
[2:05:55] through a vision zero lens and yet
[2:05:58] another time when we look at it through
[2:06:00] a accessibility lens. uh that would seem
[2:06:04] to be spending more money than
[2:06:05] necessary. So to the extent that we can
[2:06:08] have the this additional community input
[2:06:12] incorporated into this process and of
[2:06:14] course it won't be perfect because some
[2:06:17] safety mechanisms would be outside the
[2:06:19] scope of the contract but even within
[2:06:21] the language that I'm seeing there is
[2:06:24] some allowance for input and for bike
[2:06:28] lanes and for flex post installation
[2:06:30] etc.
[2:06:32] just pauses.
[2:06:33] No, it's okay. Chaz had something you
[2:06:35] want to add.
[2:06:36] Well, I just I think it's I think it's
[2:06:38] it's important too to think about how
[2:06:40] these all of these policies are meant to
[2:06:41] interact um and how we are building that
[2:06:44] process out. And as Dan pointed out, I
[2:06:46] do think there's it's it's important to
[2:06:48] develop these levels of input. And it's
[2:06:50] important to set those expectations
[2:06:52] accordingly, right? In the sense that
[2:06:55] Yeah. Right. I I think one of the big
[2:06:56] comments that we heard from the
[2:06:57] community and I understand where it
[2:06:58] comes from is, hey, the contract says
[2:07:00] you could do this work. why aren't you
[2:07:01] doing it? And the answer is not, well,
[2:07:03] it's because, you know, we we don't want
[2:07:05] to or, you know, because we don't think
[2:07:07] that's there there's value in having
[2:07:09] those discussions. There is, but that
[2:07:12] process requires so much more effort to,
[2:07:16] you know, when you start changing how
[2:07:17] the striping is designed, when you start
[2:07:20] putting in,
[2:07:22] you know, parking protected bike lanes,
[2:07:23] that is a significant shift in how the
[2:07:25] road is used. And that then triggers,
[2:07:27] you know, you're getting right now a lot
[2:07:30] of comments from the community saying,
[2:07:31] "Hey, you know, we we really want
[2:07:33] protected bike lanes. That's a, you
[2:07:35] know, vehicle protected bike lanes.
[2:07:37] That's a good idea. You know, we're
[2:07:38] we're getting that feedback." I think if
[2:07:40] you were to shift your priorities and
[2:07:42] say, "Okay, we're going to put them in
[2:07:44] next meeting," you'd have 100 people
[2:07:46] saying, "Don't don't you dare." You
[2:07:48] know, absolutely. So I I think this is
[2:07:51] this is a really tough situation where
[2:07:53] you have very zealous adv advocacy on
[2:07:55] all sides and that's why we did the work
[2:07:58] that we did and the work that Paul and
[2:08:01] Mike Samman did you know last year to
[2:08:03] build not just the pavement management
[2:08:05] plan but think about how it intersects
[2:08:07] and interacts with vision zero and with
[2:08:11] um complete streets because we don't
[2:08:13] want to give up on complete streets. We
[2:08:15] don't want to give up on those projects,
[2:08:16] but we also hear the feedback of the
[2:08:19] community, which is not enough was
[2:08:20] getting done. And so, we have to find a
[2:08:23] way, if we can't make everyone happy, we
[2:08:24] at least have to find a way to balance
[2:08:26] those competing interests. Pave more
[2:08:28] roads, don't let the roads fall apart,
[2:08:30] think about complete streets, think
[2:08:31] about safety, think about vision zero.
[2:08:34] All of those things can be intentioned
[2:08:36] with each other, and we're trying to
[2:08:37] harmonize them as best we can. And that
[2:08:39] is going to result in things where
[2:08:42] people are going to get 70% of what they
[2:08:44] want and it's going to feel like a loss.
[2:08:46] Um, and I understand that and I
[2:08:48] understand the frustration there. But
[2:08:50] you also don't want to be in the
[2:08:51] situation where Cambridge is where every
[2:08:53] time a board flips, you know, right? I
[2:08:55] think last this the Cambridge City
[2:08:57] Council last at their last meeting, the
[2:09:00] composition of the council has shifted
[2:09:02] 54 in favor of bike lanes to 54 against
[2:09:05] bike lanes several times. And so now
[2:09:07] they're taking a vote to scrap a
[2:09:09] proposal to scrap a bike lane. Um it's
[2:09:13] [laughter] just and and you know staff
[2:09:15] have thrown up you know I feel very
[2:09:17] badly for the staff in Cambridge who've
[2:09:19] just kind of thrown up their hands and
[2:09:20] said how on earth how on earth are we
[2:09:22] supposed to do this you know like the
[2:09:24] the process you know you know improving
[2:09:27] the process is really important and
[2:09:29] making sure the process is right. So I
[2:09:30] take your feedback. You know, I think
[2:09:32] it's good feedback, but I also think
[2:09:33] it's then important to say we build
[2:09:36] these policies to ensure consistency of
[2:09:38] outcomes. Um, and when we say, well,
[2:09:42] we're going to bend it because this is
[2:09:43] an important thing or we need to, you
[2:09:45] know, we need to look at this another
[2:09:47] way, then you're saying that the
[2:09:49] policies and the processes you put in
[2:09:51] place are malleable and are subject to
[2:09:53] lobbying to get what thing what people
[2:09:55] want. um when what we're trying to do is
[2:09:59] solicit that input, but also be able to
[2:10:01] provide the consistency of outcome and
[2:10:02] move forward on it. So, I get that it's
[2:10:04] a hard balance to strike. And I think to
[2:10:06] Dan's point, we're going to continue to
[2:10:08] tinker with that and figure out how we
[2:10:09] can make people feel heard and respected
[2:10:12] um while also acknowledging that there
[2:10:14] are competing voices in the community
[2:10:16] and we're trying to synthesize what we
[2:10:17] hear. Well, I'm not trying to suggest
[2:10:19] that any one particular voice be heard,
[2:10:22] but it sounds like the process was work
[2:10:25] with a consultant Apex and then staff
[2:10:28] reviews Apex's recommendation. And I'm
[2:10:31] not sure why we would want to farm out
[2:10:34] these decisions to Apex rather than
[2:10:38] incorporating community input from
[2:10:40] anywhere. So I think but again the
[2:10:43] question is
[2:10:45] incor you know listening to the
[2:10:46] community getting community feedback
[2:10:48] which is what you know again Dan and Rob
[2:10:50] did you know I think people felt it was
[2:10:52] late in the process but there were
[2:10:54] changes made as a result of that input
[2:10:56] um building that in earlier to the
[2:10:58] process is important but I think you
[2:11:00] have to set expectations too which is
[2:11:02] it's you know if we were to do this as a
[2:11:06] re as not just a restriping but a change
[2:11:08] in use we would be having community
[2:11:10] meetings we would be having all the all
[2:11:12] the public feedback and before you know
[2:11:14] it the project the you know we're trying
[2:11:16] to get this project done over the summer
[2:11:17] all of a sudden you're talking about
[2:11:18] something that stretches into fall and
[2:11:20] winter you're talking about and while
[2:11:22] the road is deteriorating and so I think
[2:11:24] we've got to come up with a balance
[2:11:26] between this idea you know we we want to
[2:11:28] be solicitus of public feedback we want
[2:11:30] to try and incorporate it but we don't
[2:11:32] want everything to then resort you know
[2:11:35] come back to this you know design by
[2:11:38] committee and the potential for gridlock
[2:11:40] that that creates right at a certain
[2:11:42] point. We have to say we hire
[2:11:45] transportation experts to make these
[2:11:46] decisions. They should be making those
[2:11:48] decisions well informed with feedback
[2:11:50] from the community, but it's not
[2:11:52] necessarily a situation where it's
[2:11:54] designed by committee.
[2:11:57] Paul,
[2:11:58] yep. Um
[2:12:00] that was a good job. Um yeah, explaining
[2:12:02] all all that what you said. But I I do
[2:12:05] want to first I want to thank uh Dave
[2:12:07] and Emily and everybody who's come
[2:12:08] forward um to to speak about uh bic
[2:12:12] bicycle safety. Um as you know I've been
[2:12:15] a strong supporter of it uh with
[2:12:17] Washington Street. Um I've advocated for
[2:12:21] uh for the bridal path. Um and frankly I
[2:12:25] was supportive of changing Chestnut
[2:12:27] Hill. Um you know Chestnut Hill is
[2:12:29] actually a great example of what can
[2:12:30] happen. We it got so derailed that
[2:12:33] nothing is now happening. Um I I do I
[2:12:36] think it's important to put into context
[2:12:38] what's going on this board not
[2:12:40] particularly this board but the select
[2:12:41] board I think it was two years ago year
[2:12:44] almost two years ago
[2:12:44] year and a half yeah
[2:12:45] year and a half ago which meant it
[2:12:46] started when I joined the board and I
[2:12:48] can I'll tell you after how that
[2:12:51] happened but um you know this is this is
[2:12:54] a policy that that was uh complete
[2:12:57] streets which was actually in the way it
[2:12:59] had great intentions it had initially
[2:13:01] been launched it had never been changed
[2:13:03] changed. Um, and I I actually spoke with
[2:13:07] the chair of the board who had approved
[2:13:08] it at that time. Uh, and I said, "Has
[2:13:10] this thing ever been touched?" He said,
[2:13:11] "Nope, and it's probably time to revisit
[2:13:13] it." And one of the problems with
[2:13:14] Complete Streets, it had great
[2:13:16] intentions, but it was holding up
[2:13:17] maintenance of our roadways. And our
[2:13:19] roadways were deteriorating further and
[2:13:21] further uh because we didn't have the
[2:13:23] ability to just go repave a road um uh
[2:13:26] because it had to go through this entire
[2:13:28] process and redesign uh for complete
[2:13:31] streets. So Mike Sandman and I uh met
[2:13:34] with uh the uh DPW commissioner,
[2:13:37] engineering, I think uh the the
[2:13:40] transportation board chair was there and
[2:13:42] others and consultants. Um and we came
[2:13:44] up with this this modified uh policy set
[2:13:48] which was complete streets and pavement
[2:13:50] management. And that those policies were
[2:13:53] modified adopted by this board um the
[2:13:56] select board and adopted by the
[2:13:58] transportation board. there policies
[2:13:59] that are in place. Um, and under those
[2:14:01] policies, there's kind of two tiers.
[2:14:04] There there's tiers of those roadways
[2:14:06] that are priorities for complete streets
[2:14:08] redesign. Um, it takes a significant
[2:14:11] amount of investment to do that. It's
[2:14:13] not cheap. Um, but it's important. It
[2:14:15] needs to be done. The community
[2:14:16] engagement needs to be done properly and
[2:14:18] we know that when it isn't done
[2:14:19] properly, things get derailed. Uh, like
[2:14:21] what happened with Chestnut Hill. Um
[2:14:24] there's also a category of roadways that
[2:14:26] are important that have a lot of
[2:14:28] traffic. Um and we need to maintain them
[2:14:31] not only for the safety of of uh
[2:14:33] cyclists but also for the safety of
[2:14:35] automobiles and pedestrians. Um and and
[2:14:38] Harvard Street has fallen has had fallen
[2:14:40] into that um has falls into that
[2:14:43] category. And the design of the policy,
[2:14:45] and frankly this board, the
[2:14:47] transportation board could revisit the
[2:14:48] policy, but the design of the policy is
[2:14:51] to allow the max maximizing the limited
[2:14:54] funds that we have to repave and fix as
[2:14:58] as many miles of roadway as we can. And
[2:15:02] that's what's going on here. um you know
[2:15:05] if we were to delay the process at this
[2:15:09] point um to do the community engagement
[2:15:12] which CHZ had has mentioned it's not
[2:15:15] just the bicycle advocates which I
[2:15:18] really appreciate their advocacy but
[2:15:20] we're going to hear from seniors we're
[2:15:21] going to hear from pedestrians we're
[2:15:23] going to hear from businesses um we're
[2:15:25] going to hear from folks that uh go down
[2:15:28] Harvard Street by automobile and it's
[2:15:30] going to be a gigantic effort. it always
[2:15:33] is. So to take something and just run it
[2:15:35] by just the bicycle advisory committee
[2:15:37] frankly isn't fair. Um if we're going to
[2:15:39] run a review of a repaving project um
[2:15:43] you know to the extent that you're
[2:15:45] talking about you should have to do it
[2:15:46] by every commission that has a say in
[2:15:48] it. Um and frankly that would not be a
[2:15:50] good use in utilization of our very
[2:15:53] limited capital funds. I think we I
[2:15:56] think I asked Melissa it was five
[2:15:58] million I think is what's in our is in
[2:16:00] our CIP for roadways and I believe the
[2:16:04] commissioner has told us that we're
[2:16:05] about 100 million in the hole. So
[2:16:08] that'll tell you how far behind we are.
[2:16:10] Um so while I I really appreciate and I
[2:16:13] look forward to biking with Biking
[2:16:14] Brooklyn again on their when it gets
[2:16:16] warmer it's getting warmer now to go on
[2:16:17] one of their trips. I've I've really
[2:16:19] enjoyed it. They've helped me um embrace
[2:16:21] cycling more with my children. Um there
[2:16:24] is a balance that we have to do with
[2:16:26] make making sure that we're maintaining
[2:16:27] our roadways and our investments um for
[2:16:30] the safety of everybody and make the
[2:16:32] improvements as best we can when we're
[2:16:34] doing these mill and overlays. So um and
[2:16:36] I hope that we can adjust the process
[2:16:38] that would help you feel a little more
[2:16:40] engaged going forward. But I'm
[2:16:41] supportive of the contract
[2:16:44] likely.
[2:16:45] Uh oh, sure.
[2:16:46] I guess my hand's invisible. [laughter]
[2:16:48] Oh, I'm sorry.
[2:16:49] Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
[2:16:50] You want to go first?
[2:16:51] Go ahead. Um uh a couple of comments.
[2:16:54] Number one is um uh Paul, thank you for
[2:16:57] for that uh background information. I
[2:17:00] appreciated it. Um and I'm sure we
[2:17:02] everybody else did as well. Um I will
[2:17:05] add uh one detail of course to that is
[2:17:08] that we also um I think it was like
[2:17:12] within a month of when I joined the
[2:17:13] select board uh approved a vision zero
[2:17:16] policy which is also part of the policy
[2:17:18] set that we are trying to juggle. um
[2:17:21] with and part of it part of the
[2:17:23] challenge um that that we are facing. So
[2:17:26] I just want to make sure that that that
[2:17:29] set of policies and the the relatively
[2:17:33] newer ideas that are presented in that
[2:17:35] policy are also sort of incorporated
[2:17:37] into this conversation. Um but but in
[2:17:40] the in an effort to move to move forward
[2:17:43] from the point we're at now and I you
[2:17:46] know having read the RAMPP
[2:17:50] RAMMP
[2:17:51] um and discussed it with several people
[2:17:53] over the last several days um I I'm sort
[2:17:56] of in in agreement with you that that we
[2:17:59] need to move forward with this. But I
[2:18:02] would like to ask a couple of questions
[2:18:04] about this project in in terms of how it
[2:18:07] can integrate with the uh the interest
[2:18:11] and what has been described. So my first
[2:18:13] question is the very simple one is when
[2:18:16] is this project going to start and when
[2:18:18] do you expect it to be finished?
[2:18:21] Uh very good questions. Uh we expect it
[2:18:24] to start soon after marathon day. I
[2:18:26] believe the tenative date was May 4th um
[2:18:30] with the contractor and it's one thing I
[2:18:32] did want to point out it's in two phases
[2:18:34] uh north of Beacon Street it would be
[2:18:36] phase one where we do the milling all
[2:18:38] the structure adjustment and then the
[2:18:40] paving and then the marketing before
[2:18:42] moving to the south side of Beacon and
[2:18:43] we did that just to kind of speed things
[2:18:45] up and uh reduce the burden on uh
[2:18:48] commercial uh folks. Um and then so then
[2:18:52] it would be the second phase would be
[2:18:53] the southern section. um the timing it
[2:18:56] would take since I think uh getting in
[2:19:00] there's some curb work on the north side
[2:19:02] and then they would come in and do the
[2:19:03] milling that could be three to five days
[2:19:06] or three to five nights uh as we'll talk
[2:19:08] about later and then we basically then
[2:19:11] adjust all the structures over a few
[2:19:13] weeks and then uh do the finished paving
[2:19:15] and then the marking and then we do the
[2:19:17] same thing on the south phase and then
[2:19:19] basically the limits are the city of
[2:19:20] Boston down to Kent Street with a small
[2:19:22] piece uh near the pier school that we're
[2:19:25] going to say uh they're going to do for
[2:19:26] us uh when they finish their work with
[2:19:28] the school.
[2:19:29] So So I heard you say you're starting
[2:19:32] around May 5th and I heard a number of
[2:19:34] steps that are all taking days and
[2:19:36] weeks. Do you have do you have a Gant
[2:19:38] chart or some other
[2:19:40] Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly
[2:19:43] Yeah, we can provide that. I think
[2:19:44] there's one in the uh the application
[2:19:46] for the network
[2:19:48] the noise uh the noise bylaw.
[2:19:50] So what's so what's the date? I think
[2:19:52] it's I want to say it's July and into
[2:19:55] August.
[2:19:55] Okay. So So it's starting at the
[2:19:57] beginning of May and going through July
[2:19:59] and August. Okay. Thank you. The the
[2:20:01] next question I have is, you know, when
[2:20:04] you talk about something like the public
[2:20:06] process for developing protected bike
[2:20:09] lanes, um, in your experience, how much
[2:20:13] time would you allocate for that
[2:20:16] process, you know, in order to to be
[2:20:20] sufficiently
[2:20:22] robust to incorporate into this into
[2:20:26] Harvard Street, whether it was part of
[2:20:28] this project or not? How long would that
[2:20:30] typically take?
[2:20:32] Uh, I guess if it if there's no curb
[2:20:34] being moved, um, it it can be fairly but
[2:20:37] I think there's still a lot of
[2:20:39] stakeholders as mentioned before. If we
[2:20:41] wanted to go to parking protected bike
[2:20:42] lanes, I think it would take I mean it
[2:20:45] could take I'd say months and it could
[2:20:47] go longer. I mean, we
[2:20:49] but if it was systematic and we had it
[2:20:51] all set up um maybe you know a few
[2:20:53] months it could take we could get
[2:20:54] through it.
[2:20:55] Okay. And so the the third question is
[2:20:58] I'm familiar that with the
[2:21:00] prioritization plan that you're that uh
[2:21:04] the uh traffic uh division is setting up
[2:21:07] to to sort of help answer that question.
[2:21:10] And so, um, can can you provide any sort
[2:21:14] of update into the creation of of that
[2:21:18] plan and how that plan might be
[2:21:20] applicable to the uh design changes and
[2:21:24] requests that are being made by the
[2:21:25] public?
[2:21:27] Uh, that that plan would would basically
[2:21:30] prioritize complete streets projects,
[2:21:32] bike network improvement projects, uh,
[2:21:34] the full array of all of our projects.
[2:21:36] And I think uh that would build in a
[2:21:38] more uh a more uh robust community
[2:21:42] outreach program. And we we we
[2:21:44] introduced in January a community
[2:21:46] outreach program based on the tier of
[2:21:47] the project. We had tier one, two, and
[2:21:49] three. And I think that that would those
[2:21:52] would set the framework for that.
[2:21:53] Right. And and in your experience, based
[2:21:55] on your understanding of the of the
[2:21:58] proposals here, do you think this would
[2:22:00] be like a tier one very very long
[2:22:02] project, tier two or tier three type of
[2:22:04] project? this well Harvard would be one
[2:22:06] of the longest because it's sits in a
[2:22:08] vibrant and it's the runs right through
[2:22:10] the heart of of Brooklyn. So it would
[2:22:12] take some time. So my I would probably
[2:22:13] say it probably takes on the longer side
[2:22:15] it would take a long time or a tier two
[2:22:18] project.
[2:22:18] Yeah. And the other thing I'd say is
[2:22:19] that if we wanted to make major changes
[2:22:22] um it would take capital uh you know
[2:22:25] coming up with a capital program to to
[2:22:27] fund it. I mean
[2:22:28] okay or become a tip project. If I may
[2:22:31] briefly elaborate, as as director Dan
[2:22:34] Murphy has said, this Harvard Street
[2:22:36] would most certainly be a tier one
[2:22:37] project. Um, this was part of the public
[2:22:41] engagement process that our team put
[2:22:43] together um with collaboration from I
[2:22:46] believe Paul Warren from the select
[2:22:48] board uh and chairman Kaine. Um, and our
[2:22:51] estimate for a tier one project um with
[2:22:54] significant cross-section changes is 18
[2:22:57] to 24 months. Um, so I think that um I
[2:23:01] think that would be a good ballpark
[2:23:03] timeline to estimate uh for a for a
[2:23:06] redesign of Harvard Street. So, so, so I
[2:23:09] I would I would posit um that given the
[2:23:15] scope of changes that were being
[2:23:16] proposed that you wouldn't necessarily
[2:23:19] have to do all of Harvard Street to
[2:23:21] start to realize the benefits of some of
[2:23:23] these changes and uh potentially could
[2:23:26] chunk the project into smaller pieces
[2:23:28] that could be done more quickly.
[2:23:32] I'll leave it at that.
[2:23:34] Go ahead.
[2:23:36] Well, um I want to go back to uh what
[2:23:38] Michael said at the beginning um because
[2:23:40] I'm not sure what I heard at the end,
[2:23:42] but um I think I heard you say that you
[2:23:45] fully appreciate that we're at a point
[2:23:48] now where if we're going to be serious
[2:23:49] about the pavement improvement um uh
[2:23:52] project uh approach to our streets.
[2:23:55] We're going to fix streets when the
[2:23:57] streets are in a condition that needs
[2:23:59] fixing. And we're not going to fix
[2:24:01] streets after we undergo two, three
[2:24:05] years of, you know, all all kinds of
[2:24:07] imagined redesigns of the street. Um,
[2:24:10] and maybe to no end, depending on
[2:24:13] whether, you know, where we are on the
[2:24:15] tip, you know, which is the state
[2:24:16] process for getting state funding. Then
[2:24:18] you have to comply with all the aspects
[2:24:20] of the state funding. Um, so
[2:24:22] if you're are you asking me?
[2:24:24] Well, well, you can repeat what you said
[2:24:26] at the beginning if you wish. Sure. So,
[2:24:28] so you are asking a question in the
[2:24:30] abstract and I was responding to the
[2:24:32] specific of this case. So, in this
[2:24:34] particular case, I think that we should
[2:24:36] move forward with the Harvard Street
[2:24:38] road maintenance project.
[2:24:39] Thank you. No, really. I I appreciate
[2:24:41] that and and um I I mean I know I feel
[2:24:45] like I've gotten to know you uh pretty
[2:24:46] well and and I I I really appreciate how
[2:24:49] seriously you think about every aspect
[2:24:52] of of the job of seboard and and also
[2:24:54] every issue that comes before us and you
[2:24:56] you really look at the documentation and
[2:24:58] you really think think through your
[2:25:00] decision. So I very much appreciate that
[2:25:02] statement. Um uh and I want to say um uh
[2:25:06] Dan Dan alluded to it. First of all,
[2:25:08] let's clarify what back is because Dan
[2:25:11] mentioned that a few times. I'm not sure
[2:25:12] he told people what it was. Um, it's the
[2:25:14] bicycle advisory committee. The irony of
[2:25:17] this discussion is you would think that
[2:25:18] they were never consulted. Um, they're
[2:25:20] one of the few committees that actually
[2:25:22] had a meeting where this was fully laid
[2:25:24] out for them. And good good for them for
[2:25:27] having the meeting. Good for them for
[2:25:29] asking the questions that they asked.
[2:25:31] But one of the points that was made um
[2:25:33] by the member of the transportation
[2:25:35] board who was conducting that meeting um
[2:25:38] was that uh the meeting wasn't about uh
[2:25:42] whether to intervene and change the plan
[2:25:46] for Harvard Street because it the the
[2:25:50] meeting was being conducted to inform
[2:25:52] the bicycle advisory committee of what
[2:25:54] is to come in terms of the needed um
[2:25:59] improvements to Harvard Harvard Street
[2:26:01] in terms of its condition and the
[2:26:04] realistic assessment by our
[2:26:07] transportation division, all all of the
[2:26:10] people who are experts on on highways
[2:26:13] and on how to manage traffic and so on.
[2:26:16] Um how to come as close as possible as
[2:26:18] we can to achieving the goals of vision
[2:26:20] zero. Um they all took a look at this
[2:26:23] and they all came to the decision that
[2:26:25] if this is to go forward u so that the
[2:26:28] street gets fixed when it needs fixing
[2:26:31] and not two years later and not three
[2:26:32] years later. The way to do it is the way
[2:26:35] that they have put in front of us. And u
[2:26:38] they've done they've done their best to
[2:26:39] incorporate uh bike lanes on the street.
[2:26:42] They're not the bike lanes that the
[2:26:44] bicycle advisory committee would have
[2:26:45] preferred, but um they have also done
[2:26:48] their best to improve the intersections
[2:26:51] where they can through things. I think
[2:26:53] they're going to incorporate some flex
[2:26:55] post use. Um they're certainly going to
[2:26:58] um uh incorporate much more use of
[2:27:00] paint, much more visible crosswalks. Um,
[2:27:03] by the way, curb cuts that um are are
[2:27:06] much more in sort of where they should
[2:27:08] be in addressing the needs of um
[2:27:10] disabled people, handicapped access,
[2:27:13] excuse me. Um there's a lot of good
[2:27:15] improvements that are going to come from
[2:27:17] this project, but um they're not going
[2:27:19] to come from this project if we start to
[2:27:20] delay it. um especially if we start to
[2:27:23] delay it on behalf of a plan which
[2:27:27] actually I think has been vetted by our
[2:27:28] transportation division and I think
[2:27:30] they're a little bit too polite to say
[2:27:31] so and found to be unfeasible and for a
[2:27:35] lot of reasons. One of them that was
[2:27:37] actually specifically cited before the
[2:27:39] bicycle advisory committee was the
[2:27:41] MBTA's um current requirements for the
[2:27:44] width of vehicle lanes that accommodate
[2:27:45] buses. And turns out in in keeping with
[2:27:50] um th those requirements when this
[2:27:52] repaving is done, there's going to have
[2:27:55] to be a minimum uh width allowed for
[2:27:57] buses that's greater than than is
[2:27:59] currently allowed. And uh that's going
[2:28:01] to factor into whether it's even
[2:28:03] feasible to talk about parking protected
[2:28:05] bike lanes. They looked at it, they made
[2:28:07] their decision, they're ready to go
[2:28:09] ahead. And one other group that's got a
[2:28:11] stake in this, uh you would think that
[2:28:12] like bicyclist are the only people have
[2:28:14] a stake in this. No, there's like so
[2:28:16] many groups that have a stake in this.
[2:28:18] And one of them that we haven't barely
[2:28:19] mentioned tonight, all of the commercial
[2:28:22] um enterprise owners all up and down
[2:28:25] Harvard Street, they're very anxious
[2:28:26] about this project as well. They should
[2:28:28] be. Um projects like this interrupt the
[2:28:32] you know e and flow of uh customer
[2:28:34] traffic to their businesses. Sometimes
[2:28:37] they result in barriers being put near
[2:28:39] the sidewalk entrances to their
[2:28:40] businesses. um they need to see this
[2:28:44] executed as quickly as possible, as
[2:28:46] efficiently as possible, and with the
[2:28:48] least amount of doubt hanging over their
[2:28:50] heads as to whether a week from now
[2:28:52] they're going to be shut down because of
[2:28:54] temporary, you know, barriers in front
[2:28:56] of their place of business. So I think
[2:28:59] we owe it to a lot of people to just go
[2:29:01] ahead with the pavement improvement
[2:29:03] program as we have created it and as as
[2:29:06] we have sort of under the kind of goals
[2:29:09] that we set out to achieve with it and
[2:29:12] not let it be way laid by a sudden onset
[2:29:15] of well but wait a minute um was every
[2:29:17] interest you know consulted was it when
[2:29:20] in fact um no matter what the interests
[2:29:23] say when you consult with them if the
[2:29:25] fix need if the street needs fixing it
[2:29:27] needs fixing. And we're not doing
[2:29:29] anybody
[2:29:31] a favor if we allow a street to
[2:29:33] deteriorate further, which is already
[2:29:35] deteriorating.
[2:29:36] David,
[2:29:37] do we know? So,
[2:29:38] by the way, I'd like to wrap this up
[2:29:40] quickly.
[2:29:41] So, John, you just referenced a lot of
[2:29:43] other constituencies whose voices
[2:29:46] haven't necessarily been heard. Doesn't
[2:29:48] that all that at all concern you though?
[2:29:50] How do we know that this plan? No,
[2:29:52] because I think you're misunderstanding
[2:29:54] the the point of my emphasis of that
[2:29:56] that all of those interests, bicyclists,
[2:29:58] pedestrians, um vehicles, MBTA, um all
[2:30:03] were taken into account by the people
[2:30:05] who are the experts at doing streets and
[2:30:09] foremost they took into account the
[2:30:11] condition of the street and the need for
[2:30:13] streets in that condition to be repaired
[2:30:15] in a timely way. or else you'll end up
[2:30:17] with an even uh much bigger project that
[2:30:20] will involve actually digging up the
[2:30:22] entire street. Um so yeah, I I don't
[2:30:25] doubt that our transportation people um
[2:30:27] took all of that into consideration.
[2:30:29] What about the financial efficiency
[2:30:32] though? So a common complaint we'll hear
[2:30:34] is uh that there's a repaving of a
[2:30:36] certain street and then we repave it
[2:30:38] again a year later and then again a year
[2:30:41] after that. And are we wasting money
[2:30:43] when we don't follow the same timeline
[2:30:46] on parallel tracks?
[2:30:47] Uh if since you asked a question to me,
[2:30:49] otherwise I think it should go to
[2:30:50] Michael wants to answer it too. But um
[2:30:52] of course that's a cons consideration,
[2:30:54] but we're more familiar with that with
[2:30:57] utility work and we do our best and I'm
[2:30:59] sure you know the people who are here
[2:31:01] tonight do their best to coordinate with
[2:31:03] utilities as to their schedules for you
[2:31:05] know breaking up streets that have
[2:31:06] already recently been repaved. But um
[2:31:09] that that I'm I I just know for a fact
[2:31:12] is is not a uh a consideration that
[2:31:15] should justify delaying um this project.
[2:31:18] They wouldn't be asking us to go forward
[2:31:20] with it. If they thought that um you
[2:31:22] know all of a sudden they were going to
[2:31:24] actually um change their plan for the
[2:31:26] street two years from now and start all
[2:31:28] over again. Um we gave them a mandate,
[2:31:31] you know, which is um clear clear the
[2:31:34] decks, concentrate on on the complete
[2:31:37] streets projects that are the most
[2:31:38] important and the most doable and then
[2:31:41] beyond that get going on fixing these
[2:31:44] streets that have been waiting for some
[2:31:46] kind of attention for many years now and
[2:31:48] we're finally on the verge of doing that
[2:31:50] and I would hate to see us suddenly um
[2:31:52] you know back away from that.
[2:31:54] Got it. John, thanks John. Sorry. Um,
[2:31:56] and and then I'd like I think we have a
[2:31:59] sense or I have a sense of where we're
[2:32:01] going. Okay.
[2:32:01] I'd like to call for a
[2:32:02] vote. In order to answer David's
[2:32:04] question, I'd like to ask a question of
[2:32:06] staff. This is a project that's roughly
[2:32:09] $3.2 million. Um, how much of that cost
[2:32:13] is actually devoted to marking so that
[2:32:16] if we had to like remark, I mean, we
[2:32:18] obviously wouldn't need to repave the
[2:32:20] streets again. We, you know, presumably
[2:32:22] the bonding and the asphalt would would
[2:32:25] still be good. So, how much of this 3.2
[2:32:27] million is actually related to the cost
[2:32:29] of just the parking?
[2:32:31] Absolutely.
[2:32:32] Oh, go ahead,
[2:32:32] Dan. I have the I have the estimate up.
[2:32:34] I was just going to Is it okay for me to
[2:32:36] go?
[2:32:37] Um, so, uh, for the board, I'm going to
[2:32:39] I'm going to round numbers. Um, but the
[2:32:42] request is obviously for the full
[2:32:44] contract value, which is the $3.18
[2:32:47] million. So, of that, the video
[2:32:50] detection systems are $245,000.
[2:32:54] So, just to repave the road with surface
[2:32:57] with the paint markings, uh, is
[2:32:59] approximately $2.9 million. Uh, and of
[2:33:02] that $2.9 million,
[2:33:05] um, you can estimate that between
[2:33:06] 250,000 and 300,000 go towards the
[2:33:10] pavement markings themselves. So, the
[2:33:12] cost just to pave the road without
[2:33:15] pavement markings is approximately $2.6
[2:33:18] million.
[2:33:19] Okay. So,
[2:33:20] thank you. Quick question.
[2:33:21] Quick question.
[2:33:22] Do you Does the installation of flex
[2:33:25] posts require repaving?
[2:33:28] It does not. The technique is a very
[2:33:30] small saw cut into the road uh for the
[2:33:33] installation and that will be done at
[2:33:35] the completion of paving.
[2:33:38] So, it will be the last step along with
[2:33:39] pavement markings.
[2:33:42] Okay, I think I have the sense that the
[2:33:43] board is willing to go forward with this
[2:33:45] contract. I'd like to if the board
[2:33:48] agrees add some conditions to our
[2:33:50] approval with respect [clears throat] to
[2:33:51] the cameras. Um, and those conditions I
[2:33:54] suggest be put in the form of anou that
[2:33:57] is brought back to the board. Um, you
[2:34:03] and
[2:34:05] you basically said identifies what the
[2:34:07] capabilities are now. uh and says that
[2:34:10] no changes without select board approval
[2:34:13] specifically um prohibiting any other
[2:34:16] capabilities uh prohibiting upgrades uh
[2:34:20] prohibiting any use of AI technology and
[2:34:23] prohibiting access to our system by
[2:34:26] anyone outside of Brookline
[2:34:28] AI is without without select board
[2:34:31] approval. So I mean if if you want yeah
[2:34:33] AI they have to come to us and explain
[2:34:35] why that's
[2:34:35] so so I believe that if they take a
[2:34:40] picture of the streetway then they use
[2:34:45] an aspect of AI you know they would I
[2:34:47] could go but I'm not going
[2:34:50] but they would use they would use AI in
[2:34:53] order to convert that picture into a
[2:34:55] number of vehicle a certain number of
[2:34:57] vehicles which is a capability that I
[2:35:00] think we expect.
[2:35:01] Well, we were we were told that they can
[2:35:03] turn that off.
[2:35:05] Yeah. Everything is is is artificial
[2:35:08] intelligence in the computer world,
[2:35:09] right?
[2:35:09] But I think when we say artificial
[2:35:11] intelligence, we're talking about
[2:35:12] something different than personal
[2:35:14] identification. my um computer here,
[2:35:16] John.
[2:35:18] And I'm not sure that I fully understand
[2:35:20] your intent, but I wonder if you would
[2:35:21] be comfortable with um our you know, our
[2:35:24] taking a vote on what's in front of us,
[2:35:27] as you said, um but um leaving to a
[2:35:31] future meeting to hear your proposal of
[2:35:34] anou to attach to the light uh the
[2:35:38] camera technology that is because that's
[2:35:40] not going to we're not that part of this
[2:35:42] anytime soon. Um and um it sounds to me
[2:35:46] like what you're aiming for is something
[2:35:50] we in fact as a as a board might end up
[2:35:53] all agreeing with. Um but it's a
[2:35:55] separate matter and I don't want it to
[2:35:58] become a matter that trips up getting
[2:36:01] the necessary start to the repaving of
[2:36:04] this street.
[2:36:04] I wasn't thinking of it that way. Okay.
[2:36:07] I mean that just that we have to at some
[2:36:10] point before this is implemented have an
[2:36:12] agreement as to what they can and cannot
[2:36:16] do.
[2:36:16] Yeah.
[2:36:16] Bernard, in our in your motion, could
[2:36:18] you add that the town administrator will
[2:36:20] work with staff to come back with a
[2:36:22] proposedou that would I mean they have a
[2:36:24] sense of the conditions we're looking
[2:36:25] for
[2:36:26] as opposed to us trying to craft it on
[2:36:28] the fly
[2:36:28] before before the system is turned on.
[2:36:30] We can get back to you with that.
[2:36:31] And it doesn't have to be anou. I mean
[2:36:33] whatever it is whatever whatever set of
[2:36:34] conditions you want. Would it be too
[2:36:36] much of an ask for the board to include
[2:36:38] in that some kind of specific timeline
[2:36:41] for when Harvard Street will be
[2:36:43] reconsidered with all stakeholders, not
[2:36:45] any one potential group?
[2:36:48] I would be hesitant to do that for
[2:36:50] Harvard Street outside of the context of
[2:36:52] all of DPW's other work. I think it has
[2:36:55] to be integrated into their larger
[2:36:56] planning process.
[2:36:58] Yeah, I would agree with that.
[2:37:00] Yeah. Yeah. So, uh I will move approval
[2:37:03] of the uh
[2:37:08] of the excuse me, Larusa contract for
[2:37:12] fiscal year 26 transportation and
[2:37:14] mobility improvements of Harvard Street
[2:37:16] in the amount of one uh 3.182 million
[2:37:20] dollars. uh conditioned on uh town
[2:37:24] administrator coming back to us with a
[2:37:26] set of uh restrictions on the use of
[2:37:29] this equipment beyond its current
[2:37:31] capabilities and we'll we'll trust you
[2:37:34] to come up with uh the appropriate uh
[2:37:38] conditions.
[2:37:38] We'll give you time to edit it.
[2:37:40] Yes.
[2:37:40] Okay.
[2:37:42] So uh with that all in favor John
[2:37:45] Vancoyak.
[2:37:46] Thank you very much chair. Um I
[2:37:48] Paul Warren
[2:37:49] I
[2:37:50] uh David Pearlman
[2:37:51] abstain.
[2:37:52] Okay. Um Michael Rubenstein
[2:37:54] I
[2:37:54] and chair votes eye. Great. Okay. Now we
[2:37:58] have a uh noise bylaw uh hearing
[2:38:01] hearing. Um
[2:38:06] are you introducing the
[2:38:10] staff will talk through it?
[2:38:11] No, I think she's standing there for the
[2:38:13] public hearing.
[2:38:14] Oh, okay. Good.
[2:38:17] Are you ready? Y. Um,
[2:38:18] yes. Uh, basically, so we're coming up
[2:38:20] before you also for the noise uh bylaw
[2:38:22] to allow night work. Um, we included
[2:38:25] that in the contract uh primarily to
[2:38:28] minimize disruption during the day,
[2:38:29] particularly for commercial. Um, and so
[2:38:32] we've worked with the contractor to
[2:38:35] determine that they think maximum 10
[2:38:37] days per phase as I talked about north
[2:38:39] and south. Uh, the night work would be
[2:38:42] during milling and paving. And then the
[2:38:45] all the structure adjustment all that
[2:38:47] work would be would happen during the
[2:38:48] day. Um uh the the 10 days is probably
[2:38:52] conservative but and the other thing is
[2:38:54] we kept it a little bit open be based on
[2:38:57] weather and we wanted to uh have a have
[2:39:00] uh times we'd obviously update the board
[2:39:02] when it was when it was going to happen
[2:39:04] but it would be uh you know up to 10
[2:39:06] days per phase uh with actual fixed
[2:39:09] dates uh to be determined based on
[2:39:11] weather and schedule as we go forward.
[2:39:13] And uh this the contractor is here to
[2:39:15] talk and and Sam may have more details
[2:39:17] you could add.
[2:39:22] I I would only add that um as Dan uh
[2:39:25] indicated it's weather dependent. Um in
[2:39:28] the noise bylaw request to the select
[2:39:30] board. You can see that Luruso Corp has
[2:39:33] laid out the tenative schedule. Um and
[2:39:36] that would have milling taking place the
[2:39:38] week of May 17th. As Dan also said, this
[2:39:41] is conservative. Um, Luso Corporation
[2:39:44] believes that under good weather
[2:39:46] conditions that this work could be
[2:39:47] completed in as few as two nights per
[2:39:49] phase or two nights per milling, two
[2:39:52] nights per paving, but of course uh in
[2:39:54] the event that there's poor weather or
[2:39:55] other unforeseen errors. Um, and then
[2:39:58] the paving operation um would take place
[2:40:02] uh in early June, approximately three
[2:40:04] weeks after the milling uh for each
[2:40:06] phase.
[2:40:07] Great.
[2:40:10] Uh any questions? Let's
[2:40:13] open the Yes,
[2:40:14] I do have I have one question. Um, so
[2:40:16] when when Beacon Street was done, it
[2:40:19] seemed to be at mil for a hundred years.
[2:40:22] It was a long time. Um, what what what
[2:40:25] was that a weather issue? I don't know
[2:40:27] if you were involved in that, but was
[2:40:28] that weather and it just prevented us
[2:40:30] from actually doing the final paving?
[2:40:32] Like it seemed like it was a long time
[2:40:34] that we were grinding our teeth uh on
[2:40:36] Beacon Street.
[2:40:37] That year was particularly rainy. we we
[2:40:40] were um held back significantly from our
[2:40:42] schedule. It definitely took a lot
[2:40:44] longer. Um and as as Dan mentioned
[2:40:47] before, the intention of phasing this
[2:40:49] into two portions is to minimize the
[2:40:51] time uh that uh residents and uh
[2:40:54] visitors to our commercial areas have to
[2:40:56] deal with the mil surface. And so um
[2:40:59] that's why we believe breaking this up
[2:41:00] into two phases is best for everyone.
[2:41:03] Um, so we we really hoped for a less a
[2:41:06] less rainy summer than uh than the work
[2:41:08] on Beacon Street last year.
[2:41:10] Okay. Thank you.
[2:41:12] Okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing.
[2:41:16] Okay. The chair is open the public
[2:41:19] hearing. If there's anyone that wishes
[2:41:20] to speak, please raise your hand using
[2:41:22] the raise your hand feature online or if
[2:41:24] you're in the room, you can come to the
[2:41:26] podium.
[2:41:28] Okay. I see Emily Jackson's at the p
[2:41:30] podium. Hi. Obviously, I'm not here to
[2:41:33] speak about the noise waiver. I'm here
[2:41:34] to speak about the previous item.
[2:41:36] I'm obviously not here to speak about
[2:41:38] the noise waiver. I'm here to speak
[2:41:40] about the previous item. May I be
[2:41:41] allowed to speak? And may the other
[2:41:43] people in the room who have been waiting
[2:41:45] be allowed to speak?
[2:41:47] Um, you know, the the our policy is that
[2:41:50] u when we um after our 15 minutes are
[2:41:53] up, if people still have uh comments
[2:41:56] they want to make, they can make them at
[2:41:58] the end of the meeting. Um I don't know
[2:42:00] what the select board wants to do about
[2:42:02] this situation. John,
[2:42:04] well, I I'm just confused because I
[2:42:06] thought there were a bunch of statements
[2:42:07] at the beginning of the meeting.
[2:42:08] Yeah, they were. Yeah.
[2:42:09] So, are they coming?
[2:42:10] As a matter of fact, Emily
[2:42:12] made made a statement.
[2:42:13] I know. Are they coming back to say the
[2:42:14] same? I don't understand.
[2:42:15] No, no, no. There's more people.
[2:42:17] So, there's people who weren't heard the
[2:42:19] first time. That's Yes.
[2:42:20] But do they want to speak to the noise?
[2:42:21] I'm sorry. I shouldn't be. The chair can
[2:42:24] take take
[2:42:25] Yeah, this is a noise bylaw hearing. Oh,
[2:42:29] yep. You
[2:42:30] I just No, no, no. I just wanted to
[2:42:32] first um you know, I have great respect
[2:42:34] for you, Emily, and your advocacy. Um
[2:42:37] and I hope David, I hope I still get
[2:42:39] invites to the [laughter] to the Viking
[2:42:42] Brooklyn uh excursions even though my
[2:42:45] vote. Um but you know, just to respect
[2:42:49] um there's a there's a full agenda
[2:42:51] tonight. There's people waiting to uh
[2:42:53] give us interviews. I see a nodding head
[2:42:56] for an interview for a commission
[2:42:57] appointment. Um, we've got warrant
[2:42:59] articles that are being presented to us
[2:43:01] tonight. We need to deliberate and vote
[2:43:02] on some warrant articles. Um, what what
[2:43:05] I would suggest is that we stick to the
[2:43:07] noise bylaw uh chair um only and then at
[2:43:11] the end uh take additional public
[2:43:13] comment on and certainly if folks want
[2:43:15] to stick around to do that um and that
[2:43:17] can be incorporated for future policy
[2:43:19] deliberations. But um that that would be
[2:43:22] my suggestion that we have a really a
[2:43:23] full calendar tonight. Um, I know you're
[2:43:26] additional, not people who already
[2:43:29] spoke.
[2:43:30] Well, I I I that I'll leave that to the
[2:43:32] chair. I'm just saying right now we
[2:43:33] should focus on the noise bylaw so we
[2:43:34] can get the to our the rest of our work.
[2:43:36] Let's keep to our policy that the uh
[2:43:38] additional public comments come at the
[2:43:40] end of the meeting.
[2:43:42] Mr. Chairman, this is our street and our
[2:43:44] tax dollars and I believe we should have
[2:43:46] a chance to speak
[2:43:49] at the end of
[2:43:50] Well, yeah, but we are the executive
[2:43:52] body of this town. Yes, but the
[2:43:54] transportation board never took up this
[2:43:55] issue.
[2:43:57] You can come after our meeting and have
[2:43:59] your make your comments. We're not going
[2:44:00] to get into a back and forth in this.
[2:44:03] There are people in this room who really
[2:44:05] care about this.
[2:44:06] I understand who have come to this
[2:44:08] issue. At
[2:44:08] this point, I have to ask you to stop.
[2:44:09] I'm sorry. Thank you.
[2:44:13] Okay. Any uh anyone want to make comment
[2:44:16] on the noise bylaw waiver?
[2:44:22] No. Okay, I will close the hearing and
[2:44:25] um any questions from the board before
[2:44:28] we vote?
[2:44:31] Okay, hearing none, I move that uh we
[2:44:33] approve the request by Laruso uh related
[2:44:37] to contract PW 2638, fiscal year 26,
[2:44:41] transportation and mobility
[2:44:42] improvements. Um
[2:44:46] so we're voting on the noise bylaw
[2:44:48] waiver. I think I misread read that. Uh
[2:44:50] all in favor please indicate by saying
[2:44:52] I. John Vancoyak
[2:44:53] I.
[2:44:54] Paul Warren
[2:44:54] I.
[2:44:54] David Crowman
[2:44:55] I.
[2:44:56] Michael Rubenstein
[2:44:57] I.
[2:44:57] And chair votes I. Thank you.
[2:45:01] Thank you to the board.
[2:45:02] Thank you.
[2:45:04] Thank you very much.
[2:45:07] Next boards and commissions interviews.
[2:45:09] Um we're going to start off with the
[2:45:11] Fisher Hill Uses Advisory Committee. I
[2:45:13] understand that uh uh George Cole and
[2:45:16] Pam Lodish are scheduled for tonight's
[2:45:19] uh interview. Are they available on
[2:45:23] Zoom?
[2:45:23] Well, Pam's here in front of us.
[2:45:26] Okay. Okay. You want to start off, Pam?
[2:45:29] But before you go, I'd like to just make
[2:45:31] a little statement. Um, you know, as
[2:45:33] I've said many times, and I don't think
[2:45:35] it necessarily applies in every case,
[2:45:37] but it's important to make clear that,
[2:45:40] um, you know, when we look at applicants
[2:45:43] for one of our public bodies, uh, we
[2:45:46] look at whether they have the skills
[2:45:48] necessary, uh, for that body, uh, do
[2:45:51] they have good ideas and perspectives?
[2:45:53] uh do they have relevant diversity to
[2:45:55] ensure that all communities and
[2:45:57] perspectives are represented in the work
[2:45:59] of the public body on behalf of the town
[2:46:02] and also I think very very important can
[2:46:05] the applicant work effectively and
[2:46:07] respectfully with other members of the
[2:46:09] public body and with the town staff that
[2:46:11] will be working with the public body.
[2:46:14] Um, I think in this case, I don't have a
[2:46:16] concern with the people we're
[2:46:18] interviewing tonight, but I just want to
[2:46:20] make sure that everyone knows that that
[2:46:22] is a criteria uh for our um selection of
[2:46:26] people for town bodies. So, with that,
[2:46:29] let's start off with uh Fisher Hill uses
[2:46:31] advisory committee
[2:46:34] and uh who's first
[2:46:37] up up at the podium, ma'am.
[2:46:40] Okay.
[2:46:41] I appreciate that you clarified you
[2:46:43] weren't you weren't making that comment
[2:46:44] about getting along [laughter] with
[2:46:46] others. I have no problem because we
[2:46:47] have three great kids.
[2:46:48] We we've had this problem in the past so
[2:46:51] I want to make sure it's very clear but
[2:46:52] I don't
[2:46:53] it's not an issue with Pam.
[2:46:54] Excess
[2:46:58] we are
[2:46:59] one.
[2:46:59] One just one
[2:47:01] and we don't have the option to extend
[2:47:04] some additional positions.
[2:47:07] Um you always have that option. I'm not
[2:47:09] sure that that
[2:47:12] is a good idea. I mean,
[2:47:13] and this is a committee that's already
[2:47:14] in flight. How long has it been?
[2:47:16] Oh, it's been in place for about a year
[2:47:18] now.
[2:47:19] So,
[2:47:20] it hasn't met much, I don't believe.
[2:47:22] Uh, we've met a few times. I mean, you
[2:47:24] know, there's not much to meet since the
[2:47:26] public schools are using the site that
[2:47:28] we're
[2:47:28] right
[2:47:29] interested in.
[2:47:31] Okay. Please introduce yourself and tell
[2:47:33] us why you're interested in this
[2:47:34] committee.
[2:47:35] Okay. My name is Pam Lodish. I lived on
[2:47:40] Fischer A. I've lived in the
[2:47:41] neighborhood forever. Um I moved to
[2:47:44] Fischer Avenue 45 years ago
[2:47:47] approximately and then moved up the hill
[2:47:49] when we
[2:47:50] could inter someone I'm hearing a
[2:47:52] background noise. Was that your
[2:47:54] computer?
[2:47:55] Could be her device maybe.
[2:48:05] Okay. It's hard for me to
[2:48:07] start again and maybe we'll pick up on
[2:48:08] it again. [laughter]
[2:48:11] Um, I have no idea. I have my laptop o
[2:48:14] over there, but I wasn't signed into the
[2:48:16] meeting.
[2:48:22] Oh, it's Dave.
[2:48:35] Yeah, David, you don't want your phone
[2:48:36] conversation to be public record.
[2:48:40] Oh. Oh,
[2:48:41] I could hear myself talk.
[2:48:45] Sorry.
[2:48:46] All right. Well, I've been in the
[2:48:48] neighborhood for forever. I've been
[2:48:50] active in the neighborhood forever. I
[2:48:52] have been and I care about the Fiser
[2:48:55] Hill neighborhood. I participated for
[2:48:57] many years in the reconstruction of the
[2:49:00] um when the under when the underground
[2:49:02] reservoir was abandoned and we bu had
[2:49:04] property and then we build affordable
[2:49:06] housing. I was part of a team that took
[2:49:08] a long time to come to a good answer and
[2:49:11] have um buildings that fit into the
[2:49:13] neighborhood but met the needs of the
[2:49:15] community. Um [clears throat] I also
[2:49:17] then was on the committee to develop the
[2:49:19] Fiser Hill Park and that took another
[2:49:21] long time but it's a great asset in our
[2:49:23] community as well. Um, I've had boards
[2:49:27] board experience. I've had professional
[2:49:29] experience. I know about I' I was told
[2:49:33] somehow that you were interested in the
[2:49:35] getting someone and this is totally
[2:49:36] reasonable that had financial
[2:49:38] experience. So, I can tell you that as
[2:49:40] an undergraduate, I majored in
[2:49:42] accounting. I was I have always had when
[2:49:46] I professional jobs that involve
[2:49:48] budgeting and ma managing the budget.
[2:49:51] Well, um I did private construction
[2:49:55] management for clients for up to many
[2:49:59] millions of dollars and I was at one
[2:50:01] point the associate director of the
[2:50:02] Harvard College Observatory responsible
[2:50:04] for the entire physical plant. So money
[2:50:08] managing a budget isn't my issue isn't I
[2:50:11] have skill set in that. I have skill set
[2:50:13] in board experience. I have passion for
[2:50:16] the neighborhood which is why we stayed
[2:50:18] there when we chose to sell our home and
[2:50:19] moved up the hill.
[2:50:21] So, do you have any questions for me?
[2:50:23] I have a question for each of the the
[2:50:26] candidates. Um, let's see. Let me find
[2:50:29] it here. So, what skills and
[2:50:32] perspectives, and you answer this to
[2:50:34] some degree, uh, would you bring to the
[2:50:36] committee to enable it to sort through
[2:50:38] the many ideas that people will have and
[2:50:41] and come to a decision that will address
[2:50:43] the needs and wants of every part of the
[2:50:45] town? I'm very passionate about making
[2:50:48] sure that we are very careful to
[2:50:51] consider all the various um housing uh
[2:50:56] the pool um or the making um place for
[2:51:02] the um senior center for example. I
[2:51:05] mean, I know those are themes that have
[2:51:06] been on the that are being presented and
[2:51:08] I think we have to evaluate them all,
[2:51:12] look at the comp
[2:51:14] integrate it with a comprehensive plan
[2:51:17] and see that we can do the best for the
[2:51:19] for the community. And I would say that
[2:51:22] I was certainly an advocate when
[2:51:25] um the Newberry College was for sale. I
[2:51:29] was working I worked very closely with
[2:51:31] the neighborhood itself and we came in
[2:51:33] really in a very positive way to support
[2:51:36] it and I would hope that no matter what
[2:51:38] decision the committee came up with I
[2:51:41] could be a integral part of promoting it
[2:51:45] and getting the neighborhood to accept
[2:51:46] it as well.
[2:51:50] Any other questions?
[2:51:51] Oh I'm sorry John.
[2:51:53] Yeah. Um, I just want to say by way of
[2:51:56] preface, not just to Pam, but to the
[2:51:58] other candidates, um, I happen to think
[2:52:01] Fiser Hill is one of the great success
[2:52:03] stories, um, that we can claim in
[2:52:05] Brooklyn in terms of what we have seen
[2:52:07] done over the years to kind of take
[2:52:09] advantage with what's of what's there,
[2:52:12] improve upon what's there, improve upon
[2:52:14] Fiser Hill as a resource for the entire
[2:52:16] town. Um, you know, I'll just cite a
[2:52:19] little bit of examples quickly. Um, I
[2:52:21] think a lot of people don't realize that
[2:52:22] there is a considerable subsidized
[2:52:24] housing um, in the area of Fiser Hill.
[2:52:27] Um, and some of the nicest subsidized
[2:52:29] housing in in the town. It's of a type
[2:52:32] that you don't see very much around the
[2:52:34] town other than on Fischer Hill. Um,
[2:52:36] there is also, you know, the example of
[2:52:39] what is now the Newberry um, senior
[2:52:41] residence complex um, senior care
[2:52:43] complex. Um I know people including one
[2:52:46] former select board member who um are
[2:52:49] very happy um with um [laughter] their
[2:52:53] situation um now that they have been
[2:52:55] able to move into into that um
[2:52:57] residence. Um and uh that didn't just
[2:53:01] happen over you know by accident. It
[2:53:03] happened by dent of a lot of effort put
[2:53:05] in by a lot of people to take advantage
[2:53:07] of a situation that fell into um our
[2:53:10] laps when the Newberry College closed
[2:53:13] and one thing after another after
[2:53:15] another was done just right so that we
[2:53:18] end up with a new complex serves a lot
[2:53:20] of people spun off um well how how many
[2:53:23] millions of dollars for the uh Brooklyn
[2:53:26] Housing Authority to build 60 additional
[2:53:28] units
[2:53:28] 625 million
[2:53:30] $6.25 $25 million to for the housing
[2:53:32] affordability trust. Yeah. That that
[2:53:34] then resulted in an initial 60 units of
[2:53:36] BHA. So, this is a precious town
[2:53:39] resource and I'm really glad that we
[2:53:41] we're attracting a lot of really
[2:53:43] substantial and talented people to serve
[2:53:45] on this Fischer Hill Advisory Committee.
[2:53:47] I don't know how we're going to choose
[2:53:48] between the three people before us
[2:53:50] tonight. I want to say one more thing
[2:53:51] about Pam. And Pam, excuse me for
[2:53:53] rattling on while you're standing there.
[2:53:55] Um, she hasn't mentioned it, but she is
[2:53:57] she is a passionate advocate. um and and
[2:54:00] really
[2:54:01] h has proven her ad her her advocacy uh
[2:54:06] in very substantial ways for mental
[2:54:08] health and has been you know a long long
[2:54:10] longtime supporter of the Brooklyn
[2:54:12] Community Mental Health Center. Um in in
[2:54:14] a way, you know, what we do with Fiser
[2:54:16] Hill, this Fischer Hill opportunity um
[2:54:19] going forward um is, I think, um
[2:54:22] arguably going to um in various ways um
[2:54:25] intersect with the mental health of this
[2:54:27] community, you know, depending on what
[2:54:29] services we provide there, depending on
[2:54:30] what needs we take care of there. So,
[2:54:32] I'm really glad you came forward and
[2:54:34] good luck to you and to the other
[2:54:36] candidates tonight.
[2:54:37] Thank you. And I my husband and I are
[2:54:38] very proud to have been able to um
[2:54:40] support the Brook the Brooklyn Community
[2:54:43] Mental Health Center. Um we chose to
[2:54:46] that is our community project. I mean
[2:54:48] there's so many good nonprofits in
[2:54:50] Brooklyn. I'm of the mind that you do a
[2:54:54] lot for one versus a little for
[2:54:55] everybody. [laughter] So
[2:54:57] we um we were proud to do that. Um, I
[2:55:00] would also say I was involved with um
[2:55:02] with the Newberry as well and trying to
[2:55:05] work diligently with the developer to
[2:55:08] make sure that when we finished it was
[2:55:11] not only accepted by the community, but
[2:55:12] it was it was fit um architecturally
[2:55:15] within the town within the the
[2:55:17] neighborhood as well.
[2:55:18] So, it's I think fabulous.
[2:55:19] Beautifully. Yeah.
[2:55:21] Paul uh Pam, thanks so much for coming
[2:55:24] out tonight um and being patient to
[2:55:26] No, I'm late to the advisory committee,
[2:55:28] but
[2:55:28] Yes, I know. and that's an important
[2:55:29] role that you have. But you know, one of
[2:55:31] the things that I know about you is um
[2:55:33] one, you are certainly um a very
[2:55:36] generous donor. Um you've helped raise
[2:55:40] money for a number of important
[2:55:41] initiatives and I think uh John alluded
[2:55:44] to the community mental health. You
[2:55:46] know, one one of the things about
[2:55:48] finding a a successful outcome um on top
[2:55:52] of the hill is really being able to
[2:55:54] reach out into your network
[2:55:56] and and hear from them. Could you speak
[2:55:58] a little bit about the diversity of your
[2:56:00] network? Um, I know you've got you've
[2:56:03] got neighborhood relationships because
[2:56:04] you're integral to the neighborhood, but
[2:56:06] could you talk a little bit about the
[2:56:07] other network within Brooklyn, uh,
[2:56:11] institutional as well as
[2:56:12] Well, I would say that that, um, when I
[2:56:15] was on the school committee, and you
[2:56:16] know, many years ago, I was chair of the
[2:56:18] school committee, but that involved much
[2:56:20] more reaching out to the entire
[2:56:22] community and working with um, all kinds
[2:56:26] of divergent views and and some we were
[2:56:29] successful in them were struggles. But I
[2:56:32] would say that I certainly have the
[2:56:33] ability and the the I know people in all
[2:56:36] the different um precincts in Brooklyn.
[2:56:38] Yeah.
[2:56:38] And work with them, but I wouldn't say
[2:56:40] that I have, for example, a strong
[2:56:44] network specific in any one area.
[2:56:47] Yeah.
[2:56:47] But
[2:56:47] it's diverse.
[2:56:48] I would say for sure.
[2:56:49] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. [snorts]
[2:56:53] [clears throat]
[2:56:54] Okay. Any other questions?
[2:56:55] I'm good.
[2:56:57] If you want to be. No, I'm happy to stay
[2:56:59] and ask you ask me more questions, but
[2:57:01] I'm know that you're behind schedule, so
[2:57:03] I'm sure you'd be happy if I just went
[2:57:05] went back down to the advisory
[2:57:06] committee,
[2:57:07] right? Oh, yes. Go. Please go do that
[2:57:09] party.
[2:57:09] Okay. Thank you for having me.
[2:57:11] Thank you, ma'am.
[2:57:14] Okay. Is George Cole on?
[2:57:16] He said who's going to be here tonight,
[2:57:18] but I don't see him online.
[2:57:22] Okay. And was there another Wasn't Mike
[2:57:23] Sand? Mike, but Mike said he's not
[2:57:25] available till after 9:30, so we agreed
[2:57:27] that he would go to a future date.
[2:57:29] Okay.
[2:57:30] Bernard and I talked about it and Mike
[2:57:31] agreed.
[2:57:32] Yeah. Okay. Um, then let's move on to
[2:57:35] our next item or our next interview,
[2:57:37] which is for the uh the arts commission,
[2:57:41] right?
[2:57:42] Yes. And our candidate is online
[2:57:45] and we have
[2:57:48] Candon Baron
[2:57:50] online. Okay.
[2:57:52] Yes.
[2:57:52] Hi. Please introduce yourself and tell
[2:57:55] us why you're interested in the arts
[2:57:56] commission.
[2:57:59] Good evening, Chairman Green and the
[2:58:01] select committee. Um, my name is Candon
[2:58:03] Barrett.
[2:58:05] I've been a Brooklyn resident for a
[2:58:07] total of over 30 years. Um, I grew up in
[2:58:11] Brooklyn and graduated Brookline High
[2:58:13] School. I went to Heath school for uh
[2:58:16] elementary
[2:58:18] and then uh as an adult I lived in
[2:58:20] Brooklyn uh most recently the last 11
[2:58:24] years here in Kulage Corner. Um, I've
[2:58:27] spent 30 years uh in the biotech
[2:58:30] industry and um last summer I stopped
[2:58:35] working and I'm now interested in giving
[2:58:39] back to the community that I've lived in
[2:58:41] and loved for all these years. And um so
[2:58:45] when I noticed that um the town of
[2:58:48] Brooklyn was looking for somebody uh to
[2:58:51] help with the um commission uh for arts,
[2:58:55] um I thought that was something that I
[2:58:57] might be able to contribute to. For the
[2:58:59] record, I've also applied to the um
[2:59:02] conservation commission.
[2:59:05] I'm a scientist by training. Um I spent
[2:59:08] the last 30 years in biotech uh across
[2:59:11] the river in Cambridge primarily. Um the
[2:59:15] last 12 years in the gene therapy space.
[2:59:18] I'm very well connected with the
[2:59:20] adjoining industries of Harvard, MIT
[2:59:24] um and um you know some of the uh
[2:59:27] biotech industries that are living and
[2:59:31] participating in our community here in
[2:59:32] Brooklyn. Um but where I think you were
[2:59:37] asking chairman about what skills I
[2:59:39] might bring to the table. So my hobbies
[2:59:43] um have always included art and also um
[2:59:48] ecology uh and um I get a lot of
[2:59:52] inspiration on the art side from two
[2:59:55] places. One is the Isabella Stewart
[2:59:57] Gardner Museum where I find it to be
[3:00:00] almost like a second home to me. And um
[3:00:05] as you might know, Isabella Stewart
[3:00:07] Gardner opened that palace. Uh she built
[3:00:10] and opened it about a hundred years ago
[3:00:12] with the intention of bringing um art
[3:00:16] into uh the community and opening up her
[3:00:21] um home. The palace was actually built
[3:00:23] as a a museum so that the community
[3:00:26] could come and visit. Uh at first it was
[3:00:29] free and even today it's a very small
[3:00:31] amount um that you u pay to get in. Um
[3:00:35] and she just filled it with all kinds of
[3:00:38] art and artifacts from around the world
[3:00:40] and I've always been inspired by that. I
[3:00:43] also take inspiration from uh the city
[3:00:46] of Key West um that has done some very
[3:00:50] interesting things in in their city uh
[3:00:53] with respect to public spaces
[3:00:57] um including sidewalk art that um
[3:01:01] they've done and uh they've done murals.
[3:01:04] Um they've done poetry in in the
[3:01:07] sidewalks. Um they've done sculptures.
[3:01:11] There's a very famous sculptor down
[3:01:13] there, John Martini, and he does a lot
[3:01:15] for the city there, and they have a
[3:01:17] number of public um displays of his art,
[3:01:20] and he's donated his uh very large iron
[3:01:23] sculptures. And you know, we do that
[3:01:26] here in Brooklyn. We have the turkeys
[3:01:27] and um we have murals and um we have
[3:01:32] these beautiful painted benches now, but
[3:01:35] I think we can do more. Um, we have a
[3:01:38] number of open storefronts that could
[3:01:41] benefit from just some temporary
[3:01:43] displays.
[3:01:45] Um, I'm not sure what we're doing with
[3:01:46] our local artists and with our schools,
[3:01:49] but I see that there might be some
[3:01:51] possibilities of uh encouraging them to
[3:01:55] come together and doing some projects
[3:01:57] together.
[3:01:59] Um, I think the art commission also has
[3:02:02] some leanings towards cultural
[3:02:05] diversity. And I'll point out that I was
[3:02:08] born in Iran. Uh, I have many Jewish
[3:02:10] friends. I have many friends here in
[3:02:13] Brooklyn um who are Catholic or
[3:02:15] Christian or Jewish or of uh, you know,
[3:02:18] from all walks of life. Um, and so I've
[3:02:22] always felt comfortable standing in the
[3:02:24] middle of a lot of different cultural
[3:02:26] aspects of um, society here. And that's
[3:02:30] one of the things I love about Brookline
[3:02:32] is the diversity here because I also
[3:02:34] lived in Weston for a number of years
[3:02:35] and it wasn't nearly as fun to live
[3:02:37] there to be honest. So um, so that's me.
[3:02:42] Maybe I'll just stop there and let you
[3:02:44] um, ask your questions.
[3:02:47] Okay. Okay. Well, you know, you answered
[3:02:49] the question that I had, but maybe you
[3:02:52] can elaborate on, you know, what what is
[3:02:53] what is a big bodacious idea that you
[3:02:56] think that Brookline ought to think
[3:02:59] about incorporating into our our art
[3:03:01] scene?
[3:03:04] Well, some of the things that we might
[3:03:05] consider, um, so in Key West, there's
[3:03:09] this concept of one human family, and to
[3:03:12] me that resonates, um, very much, uh,
[3:03:15] for us here in Brooklyn. Um we have so
[3:03:19] many different um people from different
[3:03:21] parts of the world and different
[3:03:23] cultural and um and religious beliefs.
[3:03:27] And um you know for me uh unifying theme
[3:03:31] is the one human family. And some of the
[3:03:34] things that the city of Key West has
[3:03:36] done is um they have for example mosaic
[3:03:39] inlay one human family design in some of
[3:03:44] the important um centers where they have
[3:03:48] um you know in the sidewalk in the
[3:03:50] ground. Um they have sculptures for
[3:03:54] that. And then they they did uh before
[3:03:57] Governor Dantis overturned that, they
[3:04:00] had painted um some of their crosswalks
[3:04:03] uh with rainbow colors um in the center
[3:04:07] right where Duval Street has uh you know
[3:04:11] basically where they do the New Year's
[3:04:13] um celebrations with the drag queens and
[3:04:15] things. And I thought that was for me
[3:04:19] the big audacious idea was to do
[3:04:21] something along those lines. uh was to
[3:04:24] see if that conversation has happened in
[3:04:27] terms of um what we're doing with
[3:04:29] sidewalks or with our crosswalks um and
[3:04:32] if there's room for that, if there's
[3:04:34] interest for that. So, I'm new to city
[3:04:38] governance. Um, and you know, obviously,
[3:04:41] uh, I'm still just beginning to network
[3:04:44] with the people who are kind of, uh,
[3:04:47] driving a lot of these these, uh, ideas
[3:04:49] and decisions. But, um, I'm always happy
[3:04:53] to listen to what other people have to
[3:04:55] bring to the table. But, but that was
[3:04:57] one of the things that I thought we
[3:04:59] might talk about here in Brooklyn.
[3:05:01] I think I think that's a great idea.
[3:05:03] It's a it's a theme that could be part
[3:05:06] of our art scene, but also a theme that
[3:05:09] relates to how we view ourselves as a
[3:05:11] community. So anyway, any other
[3:05:15] selective members have questions? John,
[3:05:18] uh, I just I just want to say I hope
[3:05:21] that, um, if you, uh, join the arts
[3:05:23] council that you will bring a little bit
[3:05:24] of Key West to Brooklyn. [laughter] And
[3:05:27] I'm I'm I'm envisioning the day when,
[3:05:29] um, just like they do in Key West. Uh we
[3:05:32] all gather at the western most point I I
[3:05:35] hope I'm reciting it correctly of uh of
[3:05:39] the peninsula, our little peninsula, and
[3:05:41] we to all toast the setting of the sun
[3:05:44] um rockously
[3:05:46] because that's one of the charms of Key
[3:05:48] West. Um there's a lot of other Key
[3:05:50] West. Yeah.
[3:05:50] As a matter of fact, if you look down
[3:05:51] Harvard Street from Kulage Corner, you
[3:05:53] can during certain time of the year, you
[3:05:56] can watch the sunset right down there.
[3:05:58] I've done that before. It's a lot of
[3:06:00] fun. See, it's obvious she's already
[3:06:02] thinking about this.
[3:06:03] Yeah, we could do that. Yeah. [laughter]
[3:06:04] But, um, thank you for applying for the
[3:06:06] arts commission.
[3:06:07] Yeah,
[3:06:08] of course.
[3:06:09] And we don't have the problem of a
[3:06:11] governor who doesn't like the one human
[3:06:14] family.
[3:06:17] Anyway, um,
[3:06:20] [clears throat]
[3:06:21] did you want
[3:06:22] Yes. Just looking at your uh resume, I
[3:06:26] see that your background is heavy in the
[3:06:28] sciences and you [clears throat] do list
[3:06:31] arts as a hobby. Not that this is a
[3:06:33] prerequisite, of course, but I'm
[3:06:35] curious, have you had any art
[3:06:37] affiliations of some kind or other
[3:06:40] experience serving on art councils or
[3:06:43] art groups or anything you want to
[3:06:44] elaborate on there?
[3:06:47] I have not. I mean, I've taken a number
[3:06:49] of um continuing ed art classes at
[3:06:53] Brooklyn High School and I've taken some
[3:06:56] painting classes and some mosaic
[3:06:59] classes, but I have never been on any
[3:07:01] other councils. Um the only other boards
[3:07:04] I've been on are um nonprofit sort of
[3:07:07] biotechy type of boards. Um, and then
[3:07:10] and I continue to serve on a nonprofit
[3:07:12] board right now, but I have not been on
[3:07:15] any other art councils and things like
[3:07:17] that, but that's a very relevant
[3:07:18] question.
[3:07:21] Uh, Michael,
[3:07:23] um, I know one of the recommendations of
[3:07:25] the uh, public bodies handbook um is to
[3:07:29] attend a meeting of uh, the
[3:07:32] [clears throat] commission or the public
[3:07:33] body that you're interested in joining.
[3:07:35] So, I'm wondering first of all if you
[3:07:37] have attended a meeting of the Brooklyn
[3:07:39] Commission for the Arts. Um, and if you
[3:07:41] have, what was your impression of the
[3:07:44] work or before the com before the
[3:07:48] commission or um the the way in which
[3:07:52] the meeting was conducted?
[3:07:54] Yeah, thank you for asking that
[3:07:56] question. I um to be honest with you,
[3:07:58] I've only just recently applied and I
[3:08:01] haven't attended a meeting yet and I I
[3:08:04] have poked around the website a bit. Um
[3:08:08] what I noticed is that they haven't
[3:08:10] really posted much on that website since
[3:08:13] 2024.
[3:08:15] Uh last year seems to have been kind of
[3:08:18] gone silent a little bit. So I was a
[3:08:20] little bit curious about that. Um, and I
[3:08:23] definitely if there's anybody that's on
[3:08:25] the call right now that's on that
[3:08:27] commission, I would love to arrange to
[3:08:30] um meet with someone and and talk to
[3:08:32] them even if it's not a formal meeting.
[3:08:35] Thank you.
[3:08:38] Okay. Uh, Paul.
[3:08:39] Yeah. One very quick question. First,
[3:08:41] thanks for coming forward and you have
[3:08:43] some uh some really interesting ideas.
[3:08:45] So, you mentioned that you're also
[3:08:47] applying for another commission. Um, and
[3:08:50] so can I ask you, do you have a
[3:08:51] preference?
[3:08:54] Um, I have a lot of time on my hands
[3:08:56] right now and I I don't necessarily have
[3:08:58] a preference. I I would like to serve
[3:09:00] the community where there's the greatest
[3:09:02] need and where um the committee might
[3:09:06] see me fit the best. You you know who
[3:09:10] you have and who your other candidates
[3:09:12] are. Um, for the conservation
[3:09:14] commission, you know, obviously I'm a
[3:09:16] scientist. I'm a hobby uh tree grower.
[3:09:20] I've grown some mahogany saplings in Key
[3:09:22] West and here in Brooklyn, I'm growing
[3:09:26] um for better or for worse uh oak and
[3:09:29] and maple trees here in in my porch for
[3:09:33] whoever wants them. But uh other than
[3:09:36] that um you know I I love both things.
[3:09:40] That's my other hobby. I also belong to
[3:09:42] the association for the preservation of
[3:09:44] Cape Cod and um I so as a scientist I've
[3:09:48] always been interested in ecology and um
[3:09:51] preservation of our coastlines and
[3:09:53] waterways and um making sure that we
[3:09:56] have in the urban communities enough
[3:09:58] trees um so that the the birds
[3:10:02] especially the migrating birds have a
[3:10:03] place to feed and and to nest. Um and
[3:10:08] we're seeing a lot of uh deterioration.
[3:10:10] We're seeing a lot of trees getting cut
[3:10:12] down in cities
[3:10:14] uh in Cape Cod as well as Key West as
[3:10:17] well as here in Brooklyn. And we don't
[3:10:19] always replace them. If we do, sometimes
[3:10:22] they're much much much younger trees
[3:10:25] that don't always survive. And they
[3:10:27] obviously don't have the same canopy as
[3:10:29] a much taller, older tree. So, it takes
[3:10:33] many more years um to reestablish the
[3:10:35] shade and the canopy and and the the
[3:10:38] diversity that you um have with an older
[3:10:41] tree. So, that's another area that's of
[3:10:44] interest to me, but um I'll leave it up
[3:10:47] to you guys to see where you see me and
[3:10:49] where you have the greatest need because
[3:10:51] that's something that I don't really
[3:10:53] know.
[3:10:53] Okay. Thank you.
[3:10:54] Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We
[3:10:58] appreciate your application and uh we
[3:11:01] will make our decisions at a later
[3:11:03] meeting. Um, but uh, thank you for
[3:11:06] coming.
[3:11:07] Thank you, chairman.
[3:11:10] Okay. Uh, next, Meredith, before you go,
[3:11:13] uh, can we take a break?
[3:11:16] Just a five minute break.
[3:11:17] Sure.
[3:11:20] Why not?
[3:12:17] [music]
[3:17:22] Ready?
[3:17:28] We're going live in five, four, three,
[3:17:32] two, one.
[3:17:34] We are back. And the next item on our
[3:17:36] agenda are is the special town meeting
[3:17:40] warrant articles, uh, which is a public
[3:17:42] hearing since it's the first time we've
[3:17:44] heard heard this. Um, and I see Meredith
[3:17:47] Mooney is at the podium is going to uh
[3:17:50] begin the introduction of this Warren
[3:17:52] article or these two Warren articles
[3:17:54] really.
[3:17:55] Good evening, Select Board. Thank you,
[3:17:57] Chair Green. Meredith Mooney, economic
[3:17:59] development director. Um, so here
[3:18:01] tonight to present an update on the
[3:18:03] Chestnut Hill uh commercial overlay
[3:18:05] zoning package of warrant articles.
[3:18:07] There are two articles. One is a
[3:18:09] proposed set of amendments to the zoning
[3:18:10] bylaw that would incorporate the
[3:18:12] proposed overlay zoning. And then the
[3:18:14] second is um authorization from town
[3:18:18] meeting for the select board to enter
[3:18:20] into a memorandum agreement as well as a
[3:18:22] tax certainty agreement with city realy
[3:18:24] uh which is the largest property owner
[3:18:26] in the Chesnut Hill commercial area of
[3:18:28] the Chesnut Hill office park which is at
[3:18:30] 1280 to 1330 Boilston Street.
[3:18:32] Okay. And by the way, I'd like to have
[3:18:34] the hearing for both warrant articles at
[3:18:36] the same time unless anyone objects.
[3:18:40] Okay, good.
[3:18:41] Okay. Um, so for the purpose of this
[3:18:43] evening, the select board um
[3:18:48] has already held a public hearing before
[3:18:49] the decision was made to move forward.
[3:18:51] Could you speak up or speak in? I can't.
[3:18:54] Is this better?
[3:18:54] There you go.
[3:18:55] Okay. Thank you.
[3:18:57] [clears throat]
[3:18:58] So, the select board has discussed the
[3:19:01] uh proposed zoning and putting this on
[3:19:03] the warrant several times over the past
[3:19:05] couple of months,
[3:19:05] many many times.
[3:19:07] So, for [clears throat] the purpose of
[3:19:07] tonight's meeting and my presentation,
[3:19:10] um I think we were uh thinking that
[3:19:13] select board member Michael Rubenstein
[3:19:15] has a slide deck with a presentation
[3:19:17] about the contents of the MOA. Um that's
[3:19:20] not something that we've discussed um as
[3:19:22] extensively within the context of public
[3:19:23] meetings. So, we were thinking we might
[3:19:25] start off with that and then I can
[3:19:27] provide a series of updates about sort
[3:19:29] of the status of the zoning. There have
[3:19:31] been some changes in terms of friendly
[3:19:33] amendments that we've um been gathering
[3:19:36] and uh board and committee review that
[3:19:38] we can provide updates on. The board has
[3:19:40] also received several communications
[3:19:41] from property owners within the Chestnut
[3:19:43] Hill study area. So, I thought I would
[3:19:45] just um bring everyone up to speed and
[3:19:48] uh answer any questions and walk you
[3:19:49] through some of the proposed friendly
[3:19:51] amendments that we would like for you to
[3:19:52] consider. Um, when you're ready to
[3:19:54] formally amend the warrant article.
[3:19:57] Great.
[3:19:59] Do you want to bring up the slide deck?
[3:20:01] Are you gonna speak from there or you
[3:20:03] want to go?
[3:20:04] Uh, what is your whatever is your
[3:20:05] preference?
[3:20:07] Speak from there.
[3:20:08] Okay.
[3:20:09] Uh, sorry, Michael. I have to go. I
[3:20:11] didn't know I was driving the slide
[3:20:12] deck. I got to go grab it.
[3:20:13] Uh, so I'm not on the Zoom.
[3:20:22] storm.
[3:20:29] My apologies.
[3:20:35] [laughter]
[3:20:36] Oh.
[3:20:46] Put it in the select word office and
[3:20:48] No, no, no,
[3:20:49] no. Sorry.
[3:20:51] No, we don't want to take
[3:20:52] responsibility.
[3:20:52] Don't put it in.
[3:20:54] Okay.
[3:20:55] Yeah. I didn't mean you put it in, but
[3:20:57] give it to us to put it in.
[3:21:03] Can I Michael, can I just ask for a
[3:21:05] timing? Like how long are we gonna will
[3:21:07] it take to explain stuff?
[3:21:11] hopefully five minutes or less. Okay.
[3:21:13] I'm trying to be quick.
[3:21:15] Okay.
[3:21:17] Much appreciated.
[3:21:22] [laughter]
[3:21:24] It's a first.
[3:21:25] So noted.
[3:21:26] We'll put that in the minutes.
[3:21:31] Okay.
[3:21:34] Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the
[3:21:35] slide deck.
[3:21:40] I said, "I appreciate Regina making it
[3:21:41] funny instead of giving us." [laughter]
[3:21:45] No, that's okay. You didn't need to
[3:21:46] hear.
[3:21:48] It was a compliment.
[3:22:06] Okay.
[3:22:15] [snorts]
[3:22:23] Did you find the
[3:22:28] I think they might be trying to call it,
[3:22:29] right? The owner might be trying to call
[3:22:31] it.
[3:22:31] Yeah. Yeah, that's right.
[3:22:34] I do many things for this town.
[3:22:36] [laughter]
[3:22:37] And they're all appreciated.
[3:22:40] Okay. So Warren article two is an
[3:22:43] authorization uh for the select board to
[3:22:45] enter into a memorandum of agreement and
[3:22:48] a tax certainty agreement with city
[3:22:49] realy. Next slide
[3:23:00] or you can just scroll down. I I see it
[3:23:02] there.
[3:23:02] Sorry it's catching up.
[3:23:06] Oh no,
[3:23:08] it's not catching up.
[3:23:14] be good practice for town meeting
[3:23:16] Michael.
[3:23:18] Okay.
[3:23:18] Okay. So, as Meredith mentioned, City
[3:23:21] Realy is the largest uh property owner
[3:23:24] uh in the study area. They're
[3:23:25] represented in this screen by the uh
[3:23:27] large yellow uh block on the western
[3:23:30] edge. Um you can see sort of a small
[3:23:33] dashed line um which is the Newton
[3:23:35] border which runs down the middle of um
[3:23:39] Route Nine or Boilston Street in that
[3:23:41] area um and then curves around the very
[3:23:45] edge
[3:23:47] of their site. Next slide.
[3:23:50] What is the yellow parcel at the eastern
[3:23:54] end?
[3:23:54] Uh they also own that parcel but it's
[3:23:57] not part of this agreement.
[3:23:59] Okay, good.
[3:24:01] Okay. And the next slide we can skip the
[3:24:03] timeline. We've gone over this. Okay. So
[3:24:06] within the MOA, uh there is a
[3:24:08] description of the project that they
[3:24:11] intend to build and the phasing. Uh it
[3:24:13] consists of three projects. Buildings A
[3:24:15] on the right, B and C. Uh A is a 14story
[3:24:18] building that includes
[3:24:21] retail, a hotel, condos, parking, two
[3:24:24] and a half floors above ground and one
[3:24:26] floor below ground. Uh there's a large
[3:24:28] plaza between building A and building B.
[3:24:30] Uh building B has two floors of retail,
[3:24:33] two floors of parking, and eight floors
[3:24:35] of medical office. And building C has
[3:24:38] six floors of resident of rental
[3:24:41] apartments and one floor, one floor of
[3:24:44] parking above and one floor of parking
[3:24:46] below ground.
[3:24:48] Okay. Um
[3:24:52] the planning department uh contracted
[3:24:55] with RKG associates to come up with a
[3:24:57] fiscal model to analyze the uh benefits
[3:25:01] to the town. Um we have plugged in
[3:25:04] parameters from city realy in terms of
[3:25:06] the program that they intend to build as
[3:25:08] well as market parameters for data like
[3:25:11] uh the square foot rental for medical
[3:25:14] office or retail space or the expected
[3:25:16] rentals for the units and the costs of
[3:25:19] the condos. Um and then use our budgets
[3:25:22] in order to estimate costs for the
[3:25:25] businesses and the residents of this
[3:25:27] space. um and have come up with these
[3:25:30] ranges of estimates um based on their
[3:25:34] current design. Um so in the end the net
[3:25:37] new tax growth is somewhere between 4.2
[3:25:40] and $6.3 million per year of annual net
[3:25:45] new tax growth. Uh and that takes into
[3:25:48] account both the cost of services such
[3:25:50] as schools and fire and police and other
[3:25:53] town services as well as the cost uh as
[3:25:56] well as the income that we already
[3:25:58] received from these four parcels which
[3:26:00] is roughly $1.1 million.
[3:26:04] Okay.
[3:26:06] There was a lot of questions about the
[3:26:09] how much commercial um we would get out
[3:26:12] of uh this project.
[3:26:14] Um,
[3:26:16] one of the select boards in uh,
[3:26:19] directions for the creation of this
[3:26:21] study was to incentivize net new
[3:26:23] commercial tax growth. And there are
[3:26:25] both mechanisms within the zoning and
[3:26:27] the MOA in order to incentivize net new
[3:26:31] tax growth uh, in the largest amount
[3:26:34] possible. Um, the results of what the
[3:26:37] program proposes in terms of the
[3:26:38] percentage of the sites that are
[3:26:40] commercial tax is measured in two ways.
[3:26:43] um one you can measure it just by
[3:26:44] comparing the square feet. Um but we've
[3:26:47] also uh with the consultation from the
[3:26:50] economic development advisory board uh
[3:26:52] created a set of effective factors for
[3:26:55] particular commercial uses. These are
[3:26:57] uses that either benefit the town
[3:27:00] economically such as a hotel which
[3:27:02] provides excise tax as well as property
[3:27:05] taxes or uses which were which reflect
[3:27:09] neighborhood preferences such as small
[3:27:12] retail or medium-sized retail um for
[3:27:16] neighborhood uh access and use.
[3:27:23] Okay.
[3:27:26] So,
[3:27:28] so now I'd like to go into actually it's
[3:27:30] a series of four slides that talk about
[3:27:32] the contents of the MOA. Uh, and I've
[3:27:34] divided them into three sections. Um,
[3:27:36] the first is a set of town benefits. Um,
[3:27:40] in previous uh conversations we've
[3:27:43] talked about the $24 million of
[3:27:45] benefits. Most of that, though not all,
[3:27:47] is described in this list. Uh it
[3:27:49] includes the almost $11 million payment
[3:27:53] to the affordable housing trust fund um
[3:27:55] which is the largest uh payment set of
[3:27:58] payments to the affordable housing trust
[3:28:00] fund in its history. The second largest
[3:28:02] one we talked about earlier which is the
[3:28:04] well tower project on Fiser Hill. Um
[3:28:07] there will be 21 units as reflected in
[3:28:10] our inclusionary zoning bylaw within
[3:28:12] section within building C um available
[3:28:16] to people with 50% AMI or below. Um
[3:28:20] for the first time we have established a
[3:28:24] 2% hard construction cost payment to the
[3:28:28] town uh for improvements to our
[3:28:30] infrastructure both uh transportation
[3:28:33] streetscape and public safety
[3:28:35] infrastructure. Uh based on the
[3:28:36] estimates that we've gotten from city
[3:28:38] realy of roughly $600 million in hard
[3:28:43] construction costs, we're expecting
[3:28:44] approximately $12 million of uh
[3:28:48] infrastructure contributions to the
[3:28:50] town. Um that will be paid out over the
[3:28:52] course of the building projects. Um and
[3:28:54] I'll talk about the details of that in a
[3:28:57] couple of slides. Um there's also some
[3:28:59] smaller uh benefits to the town. There's
[3:29:03] uh contributions to nonprofits, access
[3:29:05] to conference rooms, uh and they are
[3:29:07] exploring the prospect of a business
[3:29:09] improvement district. Next slide.
[3:29:13] In addition to all those town benefits,
[3:29:15] the MOA lays out a number of protections
[3:29:17] for the town um that uh protect the town
[3:29:21] from various adverse uh uh conditions or
[3:29:26] risks um that we want to mitigate uh
[3:29:29] that we would like to mitigate. Um the
[3:29:33] first thing to note is both the MOA and
[3:29:35] the tax certainty agreement will be
[3:29:37] registered along the chain of title for
[3:29:39] the four parcels um that make up the
[3:29:42] city realy properties. Um the MOA will
[3:29:46] get registered as soon as all of the
[3:29:47] town conditions are met, which is
[3:29:49] practically speaking when the AG
[3:29:51] approves the town meeting warrant
[3:29:53] articles. and the 95-year tax certainty
[3:29:55] agreement for all four parcels will be
[3:29:58] uh registered with the chain of title
[3:30:00] upon delivery of the certificate of
[3:30:02] occupancy for the first building. Um and
[3:30:07] the the tax certainty agreements
[3:30:11] registration is a condition of the MOA.
[3:30:14] Um they have also agreed uh not to file
[3:30:17] any 40B comprehensive permit
[3:30:19] applications for as long as the MOA is
[3:30:21] in force. um and the fossil and a number
[3:30:25] of the other conditions below
[3:30:27] fossil-free fuel buildings, the
[3:30:29] transportation demand management plan,
[3:30:31] etc. Um are all
[3:30:34] uh special permit conditions within the
[3:30:38] MOA. Um we have uh addressed concerns
[3:30:43] expressed by the neighborhood um about
[3:30:45] the possibility that they could uh build
[3:30:48] one of the uh buildings or two of the
[3:30:51] buildings and not complete the program.
[3:30:53] Um so for building B uh which is the
[3:30:55] medical office building which they have
[3:30:57] said is will probably be the third
[3:30:59] building that they pull a building for
[3:31:01] permit for and construct. Um we have
[3:31:04] introduc introduced penalties for delays
[3:31:07] in the medical office building
[3:31:08] construction. Um both delay there's
[3:31:12] there is um a section of the zoning
[3:31:15] which says that they can't get the
[3:31:17] building uh the certificate of occupancy
[3:31:19] for building C if they build that first
[3:31:22] and they haven't broken ground and
[3:31:24] delivered proof of financing for
[3:31:26] building B. uh and there are additional
[3:31:29] penalties for delays in the medical
[3:31:31] office building in the case that they
[3:31:34] actually break ground but they don't
[3:31:36] actually complete the medical office
[3:31:38] building within a certain number of
[3:31:39] years. Uh and those penalties are
[3:31:41] actually based on the assessed value of
[3:31:44] the medical office building as the
[3:31:47] building permit indicates would be
[3:31:49] constructed. Um the construction
[3:31:52] mitigation impact is is $400,000 set
[3:31:55] aside for any parts of the streetscape
[3:31:58] um that are damaged during the
[3:32:01] construction process. Um and the
[3:32:03] following
[3:32:05] uh details the hotel occupancy, the
[3:32:07] unvital vital unbundled parking fees,
[3:32:10] the waste management plan for the
[3:32:12] demolition um and the building cost
[3:32:14] fundings are all separate items within
[3:32:16] the MOA.
[3:32:18] Next slide.
[3:32:21] Um the third slide is a set of community
[3:32:24] protections and benefits. So these are
[3:32:26] all issues that um are uh either brought
[3:32:29] up by the community members or offered
[3:32:31] by city realy in order to make the site
[3:32:35] more welcoming, accessible, and uh
[3:32:38] integrated with the neighborhood. Um the
[3:32:41] the first two are really uh the
[3:32:44] significant uh uh neighborhood benefits.
[3:32:48] Um we've agreed uh and city realy has
[3:32:51] agreed that there will be no vehicular
[3:32:53] access except for access by emergency
[3:32:55] vehicles from Heath Street. Um that is
[3:32:57] actually in the MOA and subsequent to
[3:33:00] the MOA we also put this in the zoning.
[3:33:03] Um
[3:33:04] the pedestrian access path from Heath
[3:33:06] Street to Boilston Street include um
[3:33:09] access to the large side open space
[3:33:11] directly from uh both ends as well. So
[3:33:15] access to the um to the ground floor
[3:33:19] retail will all be available um through
[3:33:23] pedestrian access paths uh spanning the
[3:33:26] property.
[3:33:31] Sure.
[3:33:33] Okay. Um the third item, the landscape
[3:33:36] buffer at the western edge was a a
[3:33:39] relatively recent addition uh uh that
[3:33:42] came from a suggestion from the
[3:33:43] neighborhood. Um but there is in
[3:33:46] building C a pretty a long wall that
[3:33:49] extends the the most of the length of
[3:33:52] the western border of the site. Um and
[3:33:54] there was concern about what the
[3:33:56] presence of a sevenstory building wall
[3:33:58] would be. So they have agreed uh within
[3:34:00] the 40oot setback that we have uh
[3:34:03] established on the western edge to uh
[3:34:06] fill that with dense vegetation as well.
[3:34:09] Um and um so that will that will both
[3:34:12] serve as a sound buffer and a visual
[3:34:15] buffer um to both the neighbors within
[3:34:18] Brookline as well as the condo buildings
[3:34:20] in Newton. Uh the public EV chargers,
[3:34:23] the shuttle um and the signage dimming
[3:34:25] after midnight are also conditions with
[3:34:28] the MOA. Um and as Janice mentioned be
[3:34:31] uh earlier during public comment, there
[3:34:33] are additional neighborhood benefits
[3:34:35] that are under negotiation between city
[3:34:37] realy the uh precinct 14 and 15 TMM
[3:34:40] which Janice is uh leading and the town.
[3:34:46] [snorts]
[3:34:47] Next slide. Um I wanted to just spend
[3:34:50] one a few seconds on what there were
[3:34:53] possible uses for the 2% hard
[3:34:56] construction costs, the $12 million. Um,
[3:34:59] these include uh the opportunity for
[3:35:01] traffic improvement design and
[3:35:03] implementation. Um, hopefully in
[3:35:05] coordination with much larger
[3:35:07] contributions by Mass DOT. Um, a blue
[3:35:10] bike station is mentioned explicitly,
[3:35:12] various streetscape improvements, trees,
[3:35:14] benches, etc. Um and also public safety
[3:35:18] in infrastructure is an option if we
[3:35:20] choose to use it. Um which would include
[3:35:24] uh potentially a ladder truck and
[3:35:26] equipment.
[3:35:28] Next slide.
[3:35:31] The 95-year tax certainty agreement is
[3:35:34] uh intended to protect the town from two
[3:35:37] particular uh risks. Um the first risk
[3:35:40] is that if a building is sold to a
[3:35:43] taxexempt organization, um they are
[3:35:46] exempt from pl paying property taxes to
[3:35:48] the town. Uh the 95-year tax certainty
[3:35:51] agreement says that if a building is
[3:35:54] sold to a taxexempt organization, then
[3:35:56] the owner must continue to make payments
[3:35:58] to the town equal to what the property
[3:36:00] taxes would have been. Uh there was a
[3:36:02] question raised at the AC meeting last
[3:36:04] night about whether those taxes would
[3:36:07] increase over time and the answer is yes
[3:36:09] because the calculation of those taxes
[3:36:12] would be tied to the assessed value of
[3:36:14] the building itself.
[3:36:16] Uh the second protection built into the
[3:36:18] 95-year tax certainty agreement um and
[3:36:21] this is I think not part of previous tax
[3:36:24] certainty agreements that we have
[3:36:26] engaged in is that is a protection for
[3:36:28] the excise taxes of the hotel. Um so
[3:36:31] that if the hotel is converted to a
[3:36:33] different use then there's a calculation
[3:36:35] that's performed based on um average
[3:36:38] hotel excise taxes across the region. Um
[3:36:42] and the owner must continue to make
[3:36:43] payments to the town equal to those
[3:36:46] hotel excise taxes. I've included in
[3:36:49] your con for your convenience in the
[3:36:50] slide deck a list of all of the terms
[3:36:52] that have been established within the
[3:36:54] MOA and where they're referenced in case
[3:36:56] you need to know what the hotel and
[3:36:58] condo buildings exist uh or what we
[3:37:02] define as the town. Um and that is all I
[3:37:05] have for any questions
[3:37:09] and back to you Meredith.
[3:37:11] Very good. Any questions from the select
[3:37:13] board?
[3:37:15] Paul.
[3:37:16] Uh thanks Michael. Um, so we got a
[3:37:20] couple of memos,
[3:37:22] one from Dick Banka, uh, which I think
[3:37:25] are some some amendments that have been
[3:37:27] proposed. Maybe
[3:37:29] some boards have already accepted them.
[3:37:30] I I think some of these things may
[3:37:32] impact the MOA. I don't know.
[3:37:34] Um, [snorts] and then also Janice Khan's
[3:37:38] um, work that she's doing.
[3:37:40] Yes. So, can you can you let us know how
[3:37:44] much is already incorporated into the
[3:37:47] MOA, if anything, from what we've
[3:37:49] received, or is that would that still
[3:37:50] need to be done?
[3:37:52] Okay. So, u Meredith, correct me if I'm
[3:37:55] wrong, but I believe all of Mr. Banka's
[3:37:57] proposals were amendments to Warren
[3:37:59] Article One, and uh Ms. Mooney is going
[3:38:04] to go over those, okay, subsequently. Um
[3:38:07] some of those have been accepted as
[3:38:08] friendly amendments, some of them have
[3:38:10] not. Um or as proposed friendly
[3:38:14] amendments, so proposed to the select
[3:38:16] board. Um EDAB has reviewed some of the
[3:38:19] some amendments um some additional
[3:38:22] amendments uh proposed by uh Janice Khan
[3:38:27] um and also proposed by Ken Lewis um and
[3:38:32] also accepted by Janice Khan. So there's
[3:38:34] sort of a few uh proposed friendly
[3:38:38] amendments that fit into that bucket and
[3:38:40] those Meredith will be going over all of
[3:38:41] them with regard to what uh Janice is
[3:38:44] referring to. So there there are really
[3:38:47] three buckets of issues that that are
[3:38:52] being worked amongst her proposal. The
[3:38:54] first include a set of changes to the
[3:38:57] zoning. um they're uh they're relatively
[3:39:01] well understood but are being held while
[3:39:04] we work a number of the issues to the
[3:39:06] MOA so that that can all be sort of
[3:39:09] brought together as as a cohesive set
[3:39:11] because there are some inter
[3:39:12] relationships between the zoning
[3:39:14] amendments and the MOA. Um and then
[3:39:17] there is a condition about the contents
[3:39:20] of the design advisory team which really
[3:39:22] has to be integrated with the planning
[3:39:23] board and planning department and their
[3:39:25] processes. Um, and those are still also
[3:39:29] being worked.
[3:39:29] So, there's some So, her stuff is is
[3:39:32] still outstanding. It needs to be worked
[3:39:34] on, which we're not voting tonight
[3:39:35] anyway. But I just I would strongly
[3:39:37] encourage first I want to I know she's
[3:39:40] not here. She spoke earlier. Thank
[3:39:41] Janice for her work.
[3:39:43] Yeah.
[3:39:43] Um, you know, she's been able to work
[3:39:46] with um city and also their legal
[3:39:50] representation to come to some
[3:39:52] consensus. Um, which I think is
[3:39:54] important for this thing to pass. I
[3:39:56] think it greatly improves the
[3:39:57] probability of this thing passing at
[3:39:58] town meeting a two-thirds vote. And I'm
[3:40:00] hoping that when this gets over to land
[3:40:02] use, maybe they're taking it up tonight.
[3:40:04] I'm not sure what.
[3:40:05] No, they're not taking
[3:40:06] they're not taking up tonight. Uh that
[3:40:07] they will continue uh to uh seriously
[3:40:11] consider those changes
[3:40:12] and incorporate those so when it comes
[3:40:14] back to us it's in a it's in a better
[3:40:15] form. And I and I will also add to those
[3:40:18] changes that um some of her changes um
[3:40:22] provide additional mechanisms for the
[3:40:25] town to work with other
[3:40:29] um other property owners to create
[3:40:32] memoranda of agreement and build those
[3:40:35] relationship. So, so that's and I want
[3:40:36] to follow up on that point if I may,
[3:40:38] Bernard. But before I say that, I think
[3:40:40] it would be really helpful uh for for
[3:40:43] this effort if the board tonight could
[3:40:46] in some way share back to advisory that
[3:40:50] we would like to have them continue to
[3:40:53] move forward seriously with the uh the
[3:40:56] work that Janice has initiated and that
[3:40:58] there's some agreement or I don't I
[3:40:59] don't know the best way to do that. um
[3:41:01] whether it's a
[3:41:02] we don't know what what what uh her
[3:41:04] proposals are yet. I mean
[3:41:06] yeah so her so her proposals um which
[3:41:09] are
[3:41:10] I know they were not fully
[3:41:12] yeah they but but I guess my point is um
[3:41:15] Bernard is that uh she has agreement
[3:41:18] with city and city has agreed with her
[3:41:20] which is bringing the neighborhood along
[3:41:22] and also the five that think we call
[3:41:24] them the chestnut hill five the Tom mini
[3:41:26] members um and again I don't even need
[3:41:28] to know the details yet but um I I think
[3:41:30] that AC uh the land use subcommittee
[3:41:34] would benefit benefit from hearing from
[3:41:36] us to say, I'm not saying which ones to
[3:41:39] accept or not accept, but that work is
[3:41:41] important to drive consensus to bring a
[3:41:44] vote at town meeting that would exceed a
[3:41:45] twothirds vote. I think that our
[3:41:47] encouragement of that continued
[3:41:49] collaboration would be good. Um, and
[3:41:51] they can help adjudicate what would work
[3:41:52] and what would not work and it will come
[3:41:55] back to us. We're not going to be
[3:41:56] editing articles tonight. So, that's
[3:41:58] just my that's a suggestion how we do
[3:42:01] that. We can talk about it or if we do
[3:42:03] it.
[3:42:04] Yeah. Um uh thank you to Michael for the
[3:42:06] presentation. Thank you to Paul for the
[3:42:08] comments. Um uh I I have um been advised
[3:42:14] uh today uh that there in fact may be
[3:42:18] yet another wrinkle to all of this. Um
[3:42:21] if that's I hope that's the right word.
[3:42:23] Um not disparaging that at all. um in
[3:42:27] that
[3:42:28] uh and this came out of a land use
[3:42:30] committee uh meeting the other day, I'm
[3:42:33] told. Um people are beginning to ask the
[3:42:36] question uh why not just uh for now
[3:42:41] stick to the the city realy owned
[3:42:45] parcels since they're the only developer
[3:42:48] that's really in front of us right now
[3:42:50] with a plan. And an enormous amount of
[3:42:52] work has been done towards figuring out
[3:42:55] how zoning can be adjusted in a way that
[3:42:59] allows them to go forward with a very
[3:43:01] ambitious project and have it as they
[3:43:04] say pencil out. You know, even with all
[3:43:07] of these um kinds of concessions that
[3:43:09] Michael has just been referencing. Um
[3:43:12] and we haven't done that work with any
[3:43:14] of the other developers. I mean, we
[3:43:16] haven't even be begun to try to match
[3:43:19] what might be
[3:43:21] our proposed zoning changes or what are
[3:43:24] in this prop the current proposal as as
[3:43:26] proposed zoning changes to sort of
[3:43:28] measure them against what are the likely
[3:43:30] asks from those developers. And once
[3:43:33] that happens, there's going to be, just
[3:43:35] think about the process we've gone
[3:43:36] through with Chestnut Hill West, uh, in
[3:43:38] terms of trying to find some kind of,
[3:43:40] excuse me, some kind of common ground
[3:43:43] between, um, a zoning proposal and what
[3:43:46] they are saying they need if if this is
[3:43:49] going to be a financially feasible
[3:43:50] development. Um, without there being a
[3:43:53] proposal in front of us, we don't really
[3:43:55] know what's going to happen to the
[3:43:57] growth company's proposals. We don't
[3:43:59] really know what's going to happen to
[3:44:01] the what is it called? W and S
[3:44:03] WS
[3:44:03] WS development prop parcels.
[3:44:06] Why why are we trying to solve that
[3:44:08] problem? It's it's enough for one day to
[3:44:11] solve the challenge of uh coming up with
[3:44:14] acceptable zoning and an acceptable
[3:44:16] development plan that will get
[3:44:18] two-thirds vote at town meeting having
[3:44:19] to do just with the city realy parcels.
[3:44:22] So I you know my my reaction when I had
[3:44:25] a conversation about this with someone
[3:44:27] was I can't believe that this didn't
[3:44:29] really occur to people until just within
[3:44:32] the past week and the reaction of the
[3:44:35] person I was speaking to was neither can
[3:44:37] I and neither can anybody but all of a
[3:44:39] sudden people are seriously talking
[3:44:41] about that and I think it deserves
[3:44:43] serious consideration. Um and so I just
[3:44:45] want to put that out in front of people.
[3:44:46] I know it's out there and I think people
[3:44:48] are going to be hearing about it. John
[3:44:50] David.
[3:44:52] So I just want uh I echo [clears throat]
[3:44:54] John's sentiments especially in the area
[3:44:56] of the tax certainty agreement. I do
[3:44:59] have some concern about providing
[3:45:03] upzoning without a guarantee
[3:45:06] uh a tax certainty agreement because why
[3:45:09] would we exactly so zoning is our
[3:45:11] leverage for a tax certainty agreement
[3:45:14] with city realy we're going to have an
[3:45:15] MOA we don't yet have MOAS with the
[3:45:20] other parcel owners now I'm not saying
[3:45:22] it's impossible that we could reach some
[3:45:25] kind of MOA agreement with some of the
[3:45:28] others even if it's very limited. Uh I
[3:45:31] I'm a little concerned because town
[3:45:33] meetings rapidly approaching, but I
[3:45:34] don't completely foreclose that
[3:45:36] possibility. And so I'm wondering if
[3:45:38] tonight we'll hear a little bit more
[3:45:40] about growth companies plans, WS's
[3:45:43] plans, where they are in terms of
[3:45:46] possibly entering into MOA agreements,
[3:45:49] agreeing to tax certainty agreements.
[3:45:52] And then I also want to uh emphasize a
[3:45:56] point Paul made earlier in a slightly
[3:45:58] different context regarding the
[3:46:01] communication to the land use
[3:46:03] subcommittee about the vital importance
[3:46:06] of uh respecting the fact that Janice
[3:46:10] Khan, the Ches Hill advisory group and
[3:46:13] city realy are essentially in agreement
[3:46:15] on most points and I think that message
[3:46:18] needs to be relayed because that
[3:46:21] obviously shows that uh there's buyin
[3:46:24] from two camps that not so long ago
[3:46:26] seemed that they were very far apart. So
[3:46:28] that's very positive news.
[3:46:31] I I guess my concern is they know that
[3:46:33] when Janice is up there talking to them
[3:46:35] now.
[3:46:37] So So what I mean
[3:46:40] we're telling them something that they
[3:46:41] know. I mean how are they going to take
[3:46:42] that? I Bernard, I think I think that um
[3:46:46] we we don't give ourselves credit for
[3:46:50] kind of the weight of our words um and
[3:46:53] on something that is this impactful and
[3:46:55] the work that Mike I mean you've done an
[3:46:56] amazing job. I think everybody has um
[3:46:59] but it's still risky to see this pass a
[3:47:01] town meeting and to hear from the board
[3:47:03] that we are encouraged I don't know what
[3:47:05] words you want to use but we're
[3:47:07] encouraged that there seems to be a
[3:47:09] breakthrough with some agreement of
[3:47:11] consensus with the neighborhood uh South
[3:47:15] Brooklyn uh town meeting members and
[3:47:17] city realy and we would encourage that
[3:47:20] that that we go in that direction
[3:47:22] somehow positively send that I don't
[3:47:24] know what the words are to use but I
[3:47:25] think it's important to do I I think I
[3:47:27] think what we say does matter, Bernard.
[3:47:29] Well, I agree that.
[3:47:30] Yeah.
[3:47:32] As longudge as long as it doesn't clash.
[3:47:35] We're not committing. We're just
[3:47:36] nudging. [laughter]
[3:47:38] [clears throat]
[3:47:39] Michael,
[3:47:40] I I also want to respect the fact that
[3:47:42] Chaz had his hand. Okay. Um, so to some
[3:47:46] of your points, there is more to present
[3:47:48] and I I would encourage us to uh uh give
[3:47:54] Miss Money the floor again um to talk to
[3:47:58] both uh the question that you raised
[3:48:00] Paul about or David about the other
[3:48:03] owners um and the other amendments.
[3:48:09] Okay.
[3:48:09] Thank you.
[3:48:10] Is yours Meredith? So, um, overview of
[3:48:14] what I want to cover in terms of what I
[3:48:15] think are the important [clears throat]
[3:48:17] updates to highlight.
[3:48:19] Last week, um, and this week, a busy
[3:48:23] week in terms of public hearings and
[3:48:24] board and committee votes on the
[3:48:26] proposed warrant articles. Uh last week
[3:48:29] on Monday, EDAB uh voted favorable
[3:48:32] unanimously favorable action on special
[3:48:34] town meeting one, but then um separately
[3:48:36] they also endorsed a scope of friendly
[3:48:38] amendments that staff presented which
[3:48:39] I'm going to share with you this
[3:48:40] evening.
[3:48:42] Between Monday and Thursday, the scope
[3:48:45] of what was included in those proposed
[3:48:47] uh friendly amendments expanded to
[3:48:48] include some of um the proposed
[3:48:50] amendments that um Mr. Banka had
[3:48:52] submitted. So the planning board and HAB
[3:48:55] have met in a joint public hearing
[3:48:56] regarding special town meeting warrant
[3:48:58] article one. Um the planning board uh
[3:49:01] voted in a vote of um six in support one
[3:49:04] abstension for favorable action on the
[3:49:05] zoning warrant article and endorsed um
[3:49:07] unanimously the proposed set of friendly
[3:49:09] amendments. They also adopted um subject
[3:49:13] to town meeting approval the set of
[3:49:15] design guidelines which is a companion
[3:49:16] piece that the planning board will be
[3:49:18] using as reference as they review
[3:49:19] applications that come through uh the
[3:49:21] Chesnut Hill Overlay District. Those
[3:49:23] were approved unanimously. Housing
[3:49:25] advisory board unanimous vote for
[3:49:26] favorable action on special town meeting
[3:49:28] one and then also unanim unanimously
[3:49:31] endorsed uh the scope of amendments
[3:49:33] presented.
[3:49:35] Upcoming public hearings. Last night we
[3:49:37] were at uh advisory land use
[3:49:39] subcommittee. That meeting has been
[3:49:40] continued to April 22nd. Um we have
[3:49:43] backto-back public hearing commitments
[3:49:44] on April 22nd. We'll also be going to
[3:49:46] the housing advisory board. They voted
[3:49:48] on the zoning, but they also would like
[3:49:49] to um hold a public hearing and
[3:49:51] potentially vote on warrant article 2.
[3:49:54] Um prior to that, what day is it? So,
[3:49:57] when uh tomorrow, we'll actually be at
[3:49:58] the zoning emissions advisory board for
[3:50:00] a public hearing. We'll be going back to
[3:50:02] the planning board on April 16th because
[3:50:04] um they wanted the opportunity to uh
[3:50:07] vote it to support to endor or review
[3:50:10] any additional um proposed friendly
[3:50:11] amendments. Um and then our we're slated
[3:50:15] to go before full advisory on April
[3:50:17] 30th.
[3:50:19] So, uh just an update. Um there's been
[3:50:21] several communications that the town
[3:50:23] select board have received from property
[3:50:25] owners within the Chesnut Hill
[3:50:26] commercial area. So, just for the sake
[3:50:27] of giving getting everyone on the same
[3:50:29] page and summarizing where things stand.
[3:50:32] Uh so, the light green here is WS
[3:50:34] development. They own the street uh on
[3:50:37] the Newton side and uh WS has I believe
[3:50:41] it was last week they submitted a letter
[3:50:43] formally opposing the zoning. They're
[3:50:45] concerned about the minimum parking
[3:50:48] requirements in the particularly in the
[3:50:50] 4.0 subdist where the city realy
[3:50:52] redevelopment proposal would be. Um
[3:50:55] they're concerned that there's the
[3:50:56] potential for a development to be
[3:50:58] underparked. Um and given that the
[3:51:01] adequate parking capacity wouldn't be
[3:51:03] provided that would increase demand for
[3:51:05] their surface parking um and create a
[3:51:07] lot of operational challenges for them
[3:51:10] um in the management of their property.
[3:51:12] You also received uh a letter from the
[3:51:15] green properties here. This is Salvatore
[3:51:17] Capital Properties. Uh they um have come
[3:51:20] out and uh supported the zoning. And
[3:51:23] then there was also a letter from
[3:51:26] Chestnut Hill Realy Ventures which is
[3:51:29] the Heath and Chief 40B developer.
[3:51:31] They're uh received their comprehensive
[3:51:34] permit. It's under litigation. You know
[3:51:35] they intend to follow through with that
[3:51:36] but they did expressed um interest in
[3:51:39] sort of the outcomes and uh you know
[3:51:41] giving serious consideration to any
[3:51:42] alternative redevelopment pathways that
[3:51:44] might be presented to them as part of
[3:51:46] this overlay zoning.
[3:51:48] So for growth companies I have a couple
[3:51:50] other slides. Um I'm not quite sure
[3:51:52] where they stand in terms of formally uh
[3:51:55] supporting or opposing the zoning at
[3:51:56] this point. Um but we we did continue to
[3:51:59] have conversations with them about
[3:52:00] additional amendments beyond the
[3:52:01] amendments that you considered before
[3:52:03] you finalized the special town meeting
[3:52:04] warrant article um on March 17th.
[3:52:09] Can I ask a quick question? Yes. Just to
[3:52:11] clarify on on WS development. Um they
[3:52:13] did they opposed it for the parking
[3:52:15] minimums as you mentioned, but they also
[3:52:17] have very significant concern about the
[3:52:18] traffic pattern. uh they raised that as
[3:52:21] well as in their uh in their letter
[3:52:23] asking for an independent uh traffic uh
[3:52:27] study or review. Is that correct?
[3:52:29] Yes, I think
[3:52:30] I think that's important that when they
[3:52:31] when when we talk about that letter,
[3:52:33] there was two really big points and it
[3:52:35] wasn't just about parking minimums.
[3:52:37] Thank you.
[3:52:39] So, this is an excerpt from uh the
[3:52:42] letter that we received from Salvatore
[3:52:44] Capital um property partners. Um and I
[3:52:47] think it helpful sort of um concise
[3:52:50] summary of really what we're trying to
[3:52:52] do in terms of providing the zoning
[3:52:54] framework um to create more incentives
[3:52:56] for property owners to you know look for
[3:52:59] meaningful redevelopment and
[3:53:00] reinvestment in their sites which they
[3:53:02] feel the current zoning really does not
[3:53:03] provide.
[3:53:05] So uh recent proposed and requested
[3:53:07] zoning changes. I'm going to talk about
[3:53:09] growth companies. We can I'm going to
[3:53:11] pull up a word document and we're going
[3:53:13] to review some track changes which we
[3:53:14] can go through quickly. Um and then I
[3:53:16] will talk about um answer any questions,
[3:53:20] talk more about um Mr. Banka's proposed
[3:53:22] amendments. I was prepared to talk about
[3:53:24] the um amendments Janice Khan had
[3:53:27] proposed, but it sounds like that still
[3:53:29] needs some additional thought and we can
[3:53:30] really tackle that in AC subcommittee
[3:53:32] discussions and circle back.
[3:53:35] So growth companies on the left side,
[3:53:38] these are all of their requests that
[3:53:39] they raised back in mid-March where they
[3:53:42] really felt that the current overlay
[3:53:44] zoning did not provide any pathways for
[3:53:47] them to um redevelop their properties.
[3:53:49] They asked for some accommodations uh
[3:53:51] which the select board um with input
[3:53:54] from the economic development advisory
[3:53:55] board agreed to incorporate into the
[3:53:56] zoning sort of resolving the the most
[3:53:59] significant hurdles um uh as presented
[3:54:03] by growth companies. Um we continued uh
[3:54:06] to have conversations with them about
[3:54:07] some additional proposed amendments. Um
[3:54:10] and in reviewing these at the staff
[3:54:11] level um and we have circled back to
[3:54:13] growth company's legal representation to
[3:54:15] sort of relay our conclusions. We feel
[3:54:17] that several of these are adequately
[3:54:18] addressed in the zoning and they were
[3:54:20] asking for a level of specificity that
[3:54:21] we weren't providing um for any other
[3:54:24] potential property owners or developers
[3:54:26] in the study area. um and that you know
[3:54:28] ultimately it would be through the
[3:54:30] design review process and special permit
[3:54:32] process that you know the the required
[3:54:34] zoning setbacks were going to land where
[3:54:35] they were going to land. Um but we do
[3:54:37] feel like in order to meet the
[3:54:39] dimensional requirements they were
[3:54:41] saying that they would need particularly
[3:54:42] for the Tully Street lot the
[3:54:43] opportunities exist for them in the
[3:54:45] current zoning. The one um uh proposed
[3:54:48] amendment that we think is reasonable
[3:54:50] and we're happy to continue working with
[3:54:51] them on, but it is was ruled out of
[3:54:53] scope by the moderator is the idea of
[3:54:55] adding different stepback requirements
[3:54:57] for um uh developments that are sort of
[3:54:59] in that lower scale. They're proposing
[3:55:01] buildings that don't exceed seven
[3:55:02] stories. The stepback requirements were
[3:55:04] really um contemplating larger um uh
[3:55:08] taller scale development. So again,
[3:55:11] we've conveyed to growth companies,
[3:55:12] their legal representation that we think
[3:55:14] this is reasonable. We're willing to
[3:55:16] continue to work with them with proposed
[3:55:17] amendments to the zoning um perhaps as
[3:55:19] their own development proposal becomes a
[3:55:23] little bit more clearly defined.
[3:55:24] A quick question I have on that around a
[3:55:26] tax certainty agreement. Have they
[3:55:29] expressed a willingness to do that? At
[3:55:31] what point would we have an answer to
[3:55:33] that? So um and I and I can circle back
[3:55:36] to the very important kind of critical
[3:55:38] question raised by um select board
[3:55:41] member Ven Skoak and um we we've
[3:55:44] discussed this before in discussions
[3:55:46] about this proposed resoning. Um the
[3:55:50] challenge with city real or sorry the
[3:55:51] challenge with growth companies and
[3:55:53] being able to uh negotiate an MOA where
[3:55:56] a tax certainty agreement might be part
[3:55:58] of that MOA is that the proposal that
[3:56:01] they have submitted includes property.
[3:56:03] They're in the process of assembling the
[3:56:04] residential properties facing Heath
[3:56:07] Street that abut their commercial
[3:56:08] properties that front onto Boilston
[3:56:09] Street. but they do not currently own or
[3:56:12] control all of the properties that they
[3:56:14] would need in order to follow through
[3:56:16] with the development proposal that they
[3:56:17] shared with us. So we it would not make
[3:56:21] any sense for the town to go through the
[3:56:23] exercise of negotiating an MOA, an
[3:56:25] attack certainty agreement on property
[3:56:26] that growth companies
[3:56:29] has no control over um and that couldn't
[3:56:31] get into the chain of title. So that's
[3:56:33] really an obstacle specific to growth
[3:56:35] companies in terms of our ability to you
[3:56:37] know even if their proposal which is
[3:56:39] still very conceptual at this point was
[3:56:40] further along. Um the fact that includes
[3:56:43] property they don't owned means we
[3:56:45] wouldn't be able to do that. However, in
[3:56:47] the zoning, we currently have two and
[3:56:49] depending on the outcomes of um Miss
[3:56:52] Khan's proposed amendments, there could
[3:56:53] be a third potential sort of placeholder
[3:56:55] that we have strategically included in
[3:56:57] the zoning that would um provide relief
[3:57:00] from certain zoning requirements subject
[3:57:02] to an agreement with the select board.
[3:57:04] And those discussions about an agreement
[3:57:06] for relief from certain aspects of the
[3:57:08] zoning are going to be the future select
[3:57:09] board's opportunity to um broach the
[3:57:12] subject of an MOA and tax certainty
[3:57:13] agreement. Paul.
[3:57:15] Yeah. So, um, thanks, Meredith. And I I
[3:57:18] want to I'm gonna kind of zero in a
[3:57:20] little bit on John's comments and D and
[3:57:22] David's, um, because they got me
[3:57:24] thinking here. Um, but you know,
[3:57:26] Michael, uh, rightly so, asked me a
[3:57:29] while back, Paul, would you want the
[3:57:32] zoning to be brought forward and
[3:57:33] approved by town meeting without a
[3:57:35] memorandum of agreement and a tax
[3:57:36] certainty agreement in place? And my
[3:57:38] answer was, hell no. Those that's a
[3:57:41] package. We need that, right? because we
[3:57:44] wouldn't want to give away the zoning
[3:57:45] because that's our leverage without
[3:57:47] getting an MOA or tax certainty
[3:57:49] agreement. Why are we willing to do that
[3:57:51] with growth companies or these other
[3:57:52] parcels? I mean, I don't understand why
[3:57:55] we're giving away our leverage
[3:57:58] to negotiate. I just let me get I know
[3:58:01] you're his hands up and your hands up.
[3:58:02] If I could just get my question out, I'd
[3:58:04] really appreciate it. Thank you. Um
[3:58:07] gosh.
[3:58:08] um why would we give away our leverage
[3:58:12] uh with growth companies or WS or
[3:58:15] whoever these other land owners are? Um
[3:58:18] but we're not willing to give it away
[3:58:20] with city. What we this whole project
[3:58:24] we've spent 90% of our time talking
[3:58:28] about city realy every conversation is
[3:58:30] about city realy. Your whole
[3:58:31] presentation was about city realy,
[3:58:33] right? MOA, a tax certainty agreement.
[3:58:36] Every public hearing I go to, I've sat
[3:58:38] on EDAB for a year. Um, it was all about
[3:58:42] city realy's program. We never talked
[3:58:44] about the rest of the zoning that I can
[3:58:47] remember. There was no attention on it.
[3:58:49] Why on earth are we giving away our
[3:58:52] leverage
[3:58:55] with zoning without having an MOA in a
[3:58:58] taxon agreement for these other major
[3:59:00] parcels which is part of the comp plan
[3:59:01] by the way um but we're not willing to
[3:59:03] do it for city
[3:59:05] um I'm sorry
[3:59:07] I mean this is it's just I didn't mean
[3:59:10] to try and cut you off um
[3:59:14] when we started this now more than two
[3:59:16] years ago it was about the zoning at
[3:59:19] large
[3:59:20] and there is there are ample
[3:59:23] opportunities through the special permit
[3:59:25] process through this through what
[3:59:28] Meredith is talking about you know you
[3:59:30] know conditioning things on approval of
[3:59:32] the select board that allow you to still
[3:59:35] have that um that opportunity for tax
[3:59:39] certainty if they want to do things
[3:59:41] above and beyond but there's also this
[3:59:43] question of right like do you want to
[3:59:45] like Salvatore for example you know Like
[3:59:49] if we're like we didn't go into this
[3:59:52] under the assumption that for every
[3:59:54] single project large or small we would
[3:59:56] need to be able to do this in order to
[3:59:58] get a tax certainty agreement for larger
[4:00:00] scale projects. I think you're right.
[4:00:02] You want to make sure that you're not
[4:00:03] you know creating and [clears throat]
[4:00:05] setting that up. But
[4:00:08] the I'm just you know I what I go back
[4:00:10] to is you know first principles of this
[4:00:13] entire operation was when this started
[4:00:16] it was about reszoning this in an
[4:00:19] optimal way that would encourage
[4:00:21] development but still retain the
[4:00:24] opportunity for us to
[4:00:27] make sure that larger scale projects
[4:00:29] were subject to thing controls like tax
[4:00:31] certainty agreements. And the way you
[4:00:32] can do that is not just through zoning,
[4:00:34] if I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but
[4:00:36] there are
[4:00:38] steps along the way that allow you to
[4:00:40] ensure that if you're going to get
[4:00:42] something big, you've got to have a tax
[4:00:44] certainty agreement in place. Um, so I
[4:00:47] don't necessarily think that you give up
[4:00:49] all of your leverage with the zoning.
[4:00:51] And I think a little bit of it is the
[4:00:52] sort of chicken and egg problem. are you
[4:00:54] going to you know in the city realy case
[4:00:57] you're fortunate in the sense that you
[4:00:59] have a willing developer to talk through
[4:01:01] this and you're developing this in
[4:01:02] concert what we lack in some of these
[4:01:04] other parcels is that partner either
[4:01:07] they're not far enough along like growth
[4:01:08] companies or they're not willing to do
[4:01:10] it right now like WS or they are
[4:01:13] somewhere somewhere in between like
[4:01:15] Salvatore where they say we we we would
[4:01:18] love the opportunity to think about
[4:01:19] redeveloping this parcel but we wouldn't
[4:01:21] do it unless we knew that the town was
[4:01:23] serious about, you know, giving us a
[4:01:25] platform off of which to work. And so
[4:01:27] the zoning is the opportunity to provide
[4:01:30] that platform. Um, but there's also
[4:01:32] protections that are can be built into
[4:01:34] that that where if they need to
[4:01:36] ultimately negotiate with the town.
[4:01:38] There are things like the special permit
[4:01:40] process and then there are things like
[4:01:42] if there needs to be changes to the
[4:01:44] zoning to accommodate an idea that they
[4:01:46] have that is broader than what we
[4:01:47] initially intended,
[4:01:48] then they go back to town meeting. And
[4:01:50] as part of town meeting, you say, "Hey,
[4:01:52] tax certainty agreement. Let's go. Um,
[4:01:53] I'm sorry, Meredith. I will let M.
[4:01:55] And just to build off of that last
[4:01:56] comment, Chz, it's also a very different
[4:01:58] discussion for a developer to approach
[4:02:01] the town requesting modifications to an
[4:02:03] existing zoning overlay as opposed to
[4:02:06] showing up to the town to start from
[4:02:08] square one on a long, unpredictable,
[4:02:11] expensive, time-consuming process to
[4:02:13] reszone their property.
[4:02:15] So,
[4:02:16] so I I and I appreciate I appreciate
[4:02:19] both your comments. I think that that
[4:02:22] when you when you if we were to upzone
[4:02:26] the whole area, right,
[4:02:29] you're already giving away if if they
[4:02:32] fit within that range of zoning, you're
[4:02:34] not going to get an MOA for public
[4:02:37] benefits and all the stuff that you've
[4:02:38] gotten or how they develop it or when
[4:02:40] they develop it or the tax certain
[4:02:41] agreement if they stay within the
[4:02:42] framework. Why give that away now? Um,
[4:02:45] this is like the last
[4:02:47] Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm almost
[4:02:49] done. You know, this is the this when we
[4:02:51] looked we just did a mapping the other
[4:02:52] night uh uh with the comprehensive plan.
[4:02:56] This is a this is considered a major
[4:02:58] major major transformative area. Um and
[4:03:02] we should be doing it through special
[4:03:04] negotiations. Frankly, we now have a
[4:03:06] framework uh that the public and the
[4:03:09] developers now understand that we're
[4:03:10] working towards. Hopefully through the
[4:03:13] work that's been done and through
[4:03:14] agreements with city realy, we can prove
[4:03:17] to other developers that own or other
[4:03:20] land owners there that we're serious
[4:03:21] about developing the area. Right? You
[4:03:24] don't have to pass zoning for something
[4:03:26] where we don't have any agreements with
[4:03:28] them to demonstrate that we're willing
[4:03:30] to re reszone with them and partner with
[4:03:33] them because we're just doing it with
[4:03:34] city. So again, I just I want to give
[4:03:37] credence to this idea that David and
[4:03:39] John have kind of percolated up that
[4:03:43] there really is no compelling reason
[4:03:46] right now to reszone the other areas.
[4:03:50] We've done a lot of good work. Doesn't
[4:03:52] mean it has to go away, but we really
[4:03:54] should be focusing on city realy and
[4:03:57] getting that done. Um, and going back
[4:03:59] when when these other land owners are
[4:04:01] ready to go, they can see the framework
[4:04:04] that we've used, how serious we are, how
[4:04:06] to get it done through town meeting. I
[4:04:08] think that might be a better way to go.
[4:04:10] Meredith, you wanted to
[4:04:13] say something.
[4:04:14] I I think
[4:04:15] or maybe I maybe you didn't I thought
[4:04:18] you raised your hand. So just to um
[4:04:21] circle back to this I think
[4:04:24] in EDAB as you know listening to those
[4:04:26] conversations there is sort of this
[4:04:28] acknowledgement of the town's practice
[4:04:30] which you have traditionally done of you
[4:04:32] wait for a developer to knock on your
[4:04:33] door for your opportunity to negotiate
[4:04:35] you get your MOA your tax certainty
[4:04:37] agreement
[4:04:38] is perhaps not serving the town's goals
[4:04:41] in in terms of expanding the commercial
[4:04:43] tax base diversifying the commercial tax
[4:04:45] base in that you are not sending clear
[4:04:50] signals to developers. Us having a
[4:04:52] proposed set of zoning I don't think is
[4:04:55] going to be sufficient to encourage
[4:04:57] developers to like talk to us about
[4:04:59] this. If town meeting approves the
[4:05:01] zoning that's very different. That's a
[4:05:03] very it's a real more tangible thing. Um
[4:05:06] so what I think and what EDAP has been
[4:05:09] talking about is like there needs to be
[4:05:10] a balance where the town can proactively
[4:05:12] pursue create incentives clearly
[4:05:14] demonstrate that there is an openness to
[4:05:17] redevelopment um you know in appropriate
[4:05:19] areas at an appropriate scale ju just to
[4:05:22] let me finish um and what I think in the
[4:05:24] Chesn Hill overlay is that the you're
[4:05:29] doing both so we have achieved both the
[4:05:33] securing protections um an attack
[4:05:35] certainty agreement and an additional
[4:05:37] set of packages for the largest most
[4:05:39] significant economic development
[4:05:41] redevelopment opportunity the town has
[4:05:43] period we have that it's for your
[4:05:45] consideration we're asking town meeting
[4:05:46] to authorize um your ability to to
[4:05:48] execute that agreement
[4:05:50] while also pro providing a planning
[4:05:53] framework for the rest of the commercial
[4:05:54] area so that the rest so the rest of the
[4:05:57] area as this catalytic parcel is
[4:05:58] redeveloped is prime for redevelopment
[4:06:02] so it does both things that the town
[4:06:04] needs to to achieve in order to advance
[4:06:06] the goals of expanding the commercial
[4:06:08] tax base.
[4:06:09] Amy,
[4:06:10] so I I appreciate this feedback. And
[4:06:12] then in addition, there's also probably
[4:06:15] the issue of coherence between parcels.
[4:06:17] You don't want a situation where the
[4:06:19] neighboring parcel has something
[4:06:21] completely different that's incompatible
[4:06:24] with one parcel over. So I appreciate
[4:06:26] those aspects. But with respect to the
[4:06:28] tax certainty agreement and having a
[4:06:30] provision about uh select board offering
[4:06:34] uh relief, could we hear from town
[4:06:37] council about the limitations on that
[4:06:39] about building that into the zoning?
[4:06:41] Sure.
[4:06:42] So, yeah, we can. Yeah. Right. The the
[4:06:43] short answer is you can't force someone
[4:06:45] to sign a tax certainty agreement. You
[4:06:46] can offer an incentive for them to enter
[4:06:48] into a tax certainty agreement, but you
[4:06:50] can't force it. Um uh because that's an
[4:06:53] unlawful we you know town council is
[4:06:55] currently at advisory but I can have him
[4:06:57] come back and I see I'm here.
[4:06:59] Oh I'm sorry Jonathan you're online. Um
[4:07:01] go ahead. I don't I didn't mean to speak
[4:07:03] for town council's office. Sorry.
[4:07:05] Oh no it's fine. I I think that that the
[4:07:08] we were able to based on what growth
[4:07:10] companies was telling us which is that
[4:07:13] we we need this provision this this uh
[4:07:16] loosening of the phasing provision in
[4:07:19] order to proceed. We were able to again
[4:07:22] uh utilize the leverage in that
[4:07:24] situation to say that's absolut we we
[4:07:27] are willing to entertain that however um
[4:07:30] we'll entertain it um by you know upon
[4:07:35] you know at at the discretion of the
[4:07:37] select board. So, the zoning allows for
[4:07:39] it. You can have it, but you have to
[4:07:41] come to the select board. And I think
[4:07:42] we're making it very clear that there
[4:07:44] that agreement with the select board is
[4:07:48] um something that is very much we're
[4:07:51] contemplating will involve a a tax
[4:07:53] certainty agreement. Um we don't we we
[4:07:56] can't specify that but the the agree the
[4:08:00] getting the agreement of the select
[4:08:01] board uh in in this in this case is is
[4:08:04] you know it's if you guys have
[4:08:06] prioritize a tax certainty agreement
[4:08:08] then that's what you can you can then
[4:08:10] require. But if we're already providing
[4:08:12] them the [clears throat] amendments to
[4:08:15] the zoning that enable their project to
[4:08:18] move forward as they envision it, then
[4:08:20] why would they exercise that clause to
[4:08:25] speak with the select board?
[4:08:26] Because we haven't given them the
[4:08:28] because [laughter]
[4:08:29] because the because that the they have
[4:08:31] again we're basing this on what they've
[4:08:33] told us which is that we can't use this
[4:08:35] zoning. We're only going to support this
[4:08:38] zoning if it has if you loosen a
[4:08:41] critical provision related to phasing
[4:08:43] and we have made we have gated that
[4:08:46] loosening behind a future agreement with
[4:08:48] the select
[4:08:49] right and again that's that's kind of
[4:08:51] how the system is right is is supposed
[4:08:54] to work right you know they say okay
[4:08:57] this is a good start but we can't do
[4:08:59] what we want to do because we can't do
[4:09:00] everything and they said we've said okay
[4:09:03] well then you need to go to the board
[4:09:05] and what the board is likely to ask of
[4:09:06] you is to enter into a tax certainty
[4:09:08] agreement in order to get the rest of
[4:09:09] the way there. To Meredith's point,
[4:09:12] right, it is so much easier to start
[4:09:16] from that base of shared understanding,
[4:09:18] but then, you know, have 90% or not even
[4:09:21] 90%, it's less than 90%, because the
[4:09:23] phasing is so integral to what they want
[4:09:24] to do from an economic perspective. They
[4:09:27] say it doesn't work unless, you know,
[4:09:29] we've built we've built the car, but we
[4:09:30] can't turn the key. Um, we don't have
[4:09:32] the we don't have the key to turn. You
[4:09:34] have the key. the select board has the
[4:09:35] key and the only way you're going to
[4:09:36] hand the keys over is if they give you
[4:09:38] what you want. Um, and that's that
[4:09:41] creates
[4:09:43] a better structure because I think what
[4:09:46] this goes back to and what Merith is
[4:09:48] saying and what Edab is saying is,
[4:09:51] you know,
[4:09:53] we have this perception that it's hard
[4:09:54] to do business here. Um, and we have
[4:09:57] this and it gets borne out this idea
[4:10:00] that, you know, so so much uncertainty
[4:10:04] that's built into our processes that it
[4:10:06] becomes difficult to to establish trust
[4:10:10] and build things out. So having a
[4:10:13] baseline of zoning that makes it easier
[4:10:15] to get the rest of the way there, a
[4:10:17] staging zoning that if there are smaller
[4:10:20] projects that go in there that use that
[4:10:23] zoning and are 100% fine, so be it. Um,
[4:10:26] do you run the risk potentially of a
[4:10:28] nonprofit swooping in there and taking
[4:10:29] that? Maybe. That is a that is a risk.
[4:10:32] Um but it's also part of this broader
[4:10:35] you know framework of do we want to
[4:10:39] create sort of a new paradigm where we
[4:10:41] say
[4:10:42] it's you know Brookline is a place where
[4:10:45] you can do business where you can you
[4:10:47] know you know where you do have this
[4:10:51] friendly framework that can be modified
[4:10:54] um if you want to do something bigger or
[4:10:56] slightly different um and you know
[4:11:00] basically kind of reset those
[4:11:02] expectations. Um, you know, when we
[4:11:04] spoke to um the mayor in Newton, you
[4:11:08] know, it was an it was an interesting
[4:11:09] conversation, you know, and there there
[4:11:11] was that dialogue, too, of like, well,
[4:11:12] why are you doing it this way? Like, we
[4:11:15] just wait for developers to knock on our
[4:11:16] door. I said, you know, but I, you know,
[4:11:20] that is one way of doing business, but I
[4:11:22] don't necessarily think, especially
[4:11:24] given the difference between the city
[4:11:26] and town forms of government, um, we
[4:11:29] maybe we want to be in that space.
[4:11:32] U Michael.
[4:11:33] Um
[4:11:35] first of all uh thank you John for
[4:11:38] raising this question and uh it uh
[4:11:42] contrary to to the conversation you had
[4:11:44] I I will say that this is not a new
[4:11:47] question. Um it's it's actually existed
[4:11:50] in the conversations of the community
[4:11:52] advisory group in the past and and other
[4:11:54] conversations over the last couple of
[4:11:56] years. So that's point number one. Uh
[4:11:58] point number two um I want to reiterate
[4:12:00] the point that Meredith made about the
[4:12:02] fact that the largest commercial site is
[4:12:05] we have under protection and we have the
[4:12:07] mechanism as Chaz described it for for
[4:12:12] the growth companies and if you look at
[4:12:14] the at the map you know you will notice
[4:12:17] that between those companies and for
[4:12:21] example the the NMU area which is which
[4:12:25] is smaller scale um and not necessarily
[4:12:28] as commercially related. Like one of the
[4:12:32] things that we're balancing, as Chaz
[4:12:34] said, is the risks of of of of
[4:12:39] an taxexempt organization taking control
[4:12:42] of one of these one of these sites. Um,
[4:12:44] and that risk relative to the risk of of
[4:12:50] not being able to develop because we
[4:12:52] haven't laid out the framework and the
[4:12:54] difficulties there. um I think way in
[4:12:59] the sense that we should do things you
[4:13:02] know
[4:13:03] do things in order to get that framework
[4:13:05] present so that we have the
[4:13:07] opportunities to move forward um and I'm
[4:13:11] a little unclear in the ma in the
[4:13:14] framing of this argument that we should
[4:13:15] be doing this one at a time how we think
[4:13:19] about comprehensive planning broadly in
[4:13:23] the town
[4:13:24] um because because I I mean I would love
[4:13:26] to have an an answer to
[4:13:29] happy to answer that but before
[4:13:30] Well, wait. Okay, John.
[4:13:32] Yeah, I'm sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to.
[4:13:33] That's okay. I think I did have my hand
[4:13:35] up. Yeah.
[4:13:36] Um so I I Meredith, excellent answer. Uh
[4:13:41] Chaz, excellent answer. Um I I think
[4:13:44] people who had that conversation with me
[4:13:46] this afternoon um are going to seriously
[4:13:48] think about those answers. But I think
[4:13:51] they would also ask and these are people
[4:13:53] from the community advisory group. Um I
[4:13:55] would specify um they they are are also
[4:13:58] going to um say a couple of things on
[4:14:02] behalf of this idea of um why take you
[4:14:06] know one huge bite of the whole thing
[4:14:08] when we really have spent an awful lot
[4:14:11] of time just to bite the Chesn Hill West
[4:14:13] part and we've barely you know begun the
[4:14:16] discussions on on the rest. What's in
[4:14:18] the background of some of this
[4:14:19] consideration is um something we have
[4:14:22] barely mentioned tonight. I'm not sure
[4:14:24] we've mentioned it at all. The effect on
[4:14:26] on traffic in the area. And so we've got
[4:14:28] this um preliminary kind of a look at
[4:14:32] what the impact on traffic in the area
[4:14:34] would be. that's that's kind of hovering
[4:14:36] in the background of all of these
[4:14:38] discussions which raised these really
[4:14:40] kind of shocking numbers as to ho how
[4:14:43] much additional car traffic uh would be
[4:14:46] posed by just the Chestnut Hill West
[4:14:50] part of things. Um and uh it's going to
[4:14:54] it's going to take a a little
[4:14:57] considerable amount of time before we
[4:14:59] get a feel for let's say Chestnut Hill
[4:15:01] West goes forward pretty much as
[4:15:03] drafted. um and actually on schedule. Um
[4:15:08] we will find out pretty quickly what the
[4:15:10] trans traffic impact is of all of that
[4:15:13] development. Um Michael, what's the
[4:15:15] multiple of the amount of development on
[4:15:17] that parcel right now? Is it six, six
[4:15:19] times what we have there now? Seven,
[4:15:21] eight.
[4:15:22] You're talking about
[4:15:23] square footage of development.
[4:15:25] So the total F in of the parcels is
[4:15:29] 3.8, right? 3.8
[4:15:32] 3.8 times what is there now?
[4:15:33] No. No, the the F that they're
[4:15:37] proposing.
[4:15:37] No, but I've se I've seen quotes of
[4:15:39] thousands of square foot of development
[4:15:41] in the future versus what's there now.
[4:15:43] Um and and so it's not F I'm talking
[4:15:45] about. I'm just talking about, you know,
[4:15:46] the developed what's developed there now
[4:15:48] versus what will be developed there.
[4:15:50] Thousands of square feet.
[4:15:52] They will be adding, you know, 246
[4:15:57] residentially.
[4:15:58] Well, okay. I'm sorry. It's it's I'm
[4:16:01] asking question number
[4:16:03] to look it up.
[4:16:04] There's 266 residential units. So
[4:16:06] regardless of the square footage,
[4:16:08] there's that many residential units in
[4:16:10] the plan. And then there's there's
[4:16:12] additional square footage. There's about
[4:16:14] 50,000 square feet of retail. Yeah. You
[4:16:17] know, there's eight floors of medical
[4:16:18] office. But you know, as a multiple I I
[4:16:20] I've seen this worked out, you know,
[4:16:22] x,000 square feet in the future versus
[4:16:25] 6,000 square feet now. And it, if I
[4:16:27] remember correctly, it came to a
[4:16:28] multiple of six, seven, eight, nine
[4:16:30] times what's there now.
[4:16:31] I don't think
[4:16:31] um well, okay. Well, five, six, seven
[4:16:34] times what's there now. We'll see. Um in
[4:16:36] in any event, um the transportation
[4:16:39] consultant tried to do their best job of
[4:16:41] figuring out what will that mean to the
[4:16:44] additional um traffic put onto Route 9.
[4:16:47] And again, came up with kind of a
[4:16:49] startling multiple. And that's just
[4:16:52] Chestnut Hill West. So, I think it's
[4:16:54] kind of reasonable for people to be
[4:16:57] thinking, why why don't we see if we can
[4:17:00] accommodate the amount of traffic that's
[4:17:01] going to be generated by Chesn Hill West
[4:17:04] before we sign off in advance on some
[4:17:07] zoning that will also multiply several
[4:17:10] times over the amount of development on
[4:17:11] the other parcels in the in the area.
[4:17:13] So, uh, Meredith, what what what is the,
[4:17:17] uh, concern with just doing
[4:17:20] the zoning for, um, city properties and
[4:17:24] not the others, which I think seems to
[4:17:26] be what people are suggesting.
[4:17:29] Is there a problem with that?
[4:17:30] The
[4:17:31] Okay.
[4:17:33] I I would also I would gently remind the
[4:17:35] select board that um about 18 months ago
[4:17:38] um we had recommended that we take the
[4:17:42] resoning in phases and we start with the
[4:17:46] western portion of the study area
[4:17:48] reszoning that and then return to the
[4:17:50] rest of the study area. And I think very
[4:17:52] wisely the select board as did members
[4:17:54] of the community advisory board group
[4:17:57] pushed back and said we want a
[4:17:59] comprehensive vision resoning proposal
[4:18:01] for the entire area. That's what we have
[4:18:04] developed. That's what we've presented
[4:18:06] and we think that the outcome is
[4:18:07] something that we stand by for what I
[4:18:09] said before. We've secured protections
[4:18:11] for the most significant site for
[4:18:13] economic development potential for the
[4:18:15] town and we have established a vision
[4:18:16] and a framework that will complement uh
[4:18:19] the proposed um 4.0 no zoning for the
[4:18:22] rest of the district. And then just as a
[4:18:24] correction, um the uh I'm happy to
[4:18:27] provide an update on the future traffic
[4:18:29] capacity analysis that was presented.
[4:18:31] That was not just for city realy. That
[4:18:32] was for assumptions we made about the
[4:18:34] buildout of the entire study area over
[4:18:36] the next 20 years.
[4:18:38] Okay.
[4:18:38] Okay. Chaz, you were definite that we
[4:18:42] couldn't do that,
[4:18:43] right?
[4:18:44] Um you No, you could. You could. I mean,
[4:18:46] I'm just I'm just saying that
[4:18:47] you shouldn't,
[4:18:48] right? I mean I for the for the reasons
[4:18:50] that we've discussed uh and for the
[4:18:52] reasons that Meredith brought up, but I
[4:18:53] I think to Meredith's got the answer to
[4:18:55] John's question, but I know Paul wanted
[4:18:57] to to speak on something before we talk
[4:18:59] about traffic maybe. I don't know.
[4:19:00] Okay, Paul.
[4:19:01] Yeah, I just I there was a question
[4:19:03] about the comprehensive plan, but before
[4:19:04] and I'm going to answer that, but before
[4:19:05] we do that, I do want you made an
[4:19:07] assertion. I just want to respond to and
[4:19:09] it was quite a while ago, so I'll remind
[4:19:10] you the assertion was that probably not
[4:19:12] yours, but it was EDABS. uh you are
[4:19:14] communicating EDAB's assertion that you
[4:19:16] know uh waiting for a developer to come
[4:19:18] to us um is not effective. Well, the
[4:19:21] most effective thing that's coming out
[4:19:23] of this work right now is that a
[4:19:25] developer came to us just by
[4:19:26] [clears throat] the mere fact that we
[4:19:28] opened the door to have a conversation
[4:19:30] about reszoning this area to do a study.
[4:19:32] It was within I think four weeks of
[4:19:35] initiating that study did we immediately
[4:19:39] hear from city realy that they wanted to
[4:19:42] propose and we spent all our time on
[4:19:45] that. So, I'm just not I don't agree
[4:19:47] with this I this uh assumption assertion
[4:19:51] that uh having a developer come to us
[4:19:54] and do what we did which I think is a
[4:19:56] good outcome frankly um means that that
[4:19:59] we would undermine the work that that's
[4:20:02] been done for the framework. We have a
[4:20:04] vision for the area. You've done it.
[4:20:05] You've done a good job. Doesn't mean we
[4:20:07] need to convert it into into zoning and
[4:20:09] the zoning code thereby losing our
[4:20:11] leverage. And I'm I'm really worried
[4:20:13] about losing leverage. But let's talk
[4:20:14] about the comprehensive plan for a
[4:20:15] little bit because we just had a big
[4:20:17] meeting last night where Cara Brutin was
[4:20:19] there. Um the team is doing great. We do
[4:20:22] have a vision. We're rallying around a
[4:20:24] vision uh for comprehensive planning.
[4:20:26] And there's really we've went parcel by
[4:20:29] parcel, corridor. We looked at the
[4:20:31] entire town. There's three areas uh of
[4:20:34] uh that we're classifying. I'm gonna
[4:20:37] boil them down to three. I think there
[4:20:38] were six, but they're all related. The
[4:20:40] first is an area where we would conserve
[4:20:42] and maintain. Think of neighborhoods
[4:20:46] that you would see some development ADUs
[4:20:48] and stuff, but it wouldn't be
[4:20:49] transformative. Um, expanding. This
[4:20:52] would be infill development similar to
[4:20:54] what we uh zoned for Harvard Street.
[4:20:56] Think Beacon Street, think Route 9, um
[4:21:00] uh you know uh Washington Square, uh
[4:21:03] Puttingham Circle. These are areas where
[4:21:06] um it wouldn't be transformative meaning
[4:21:09] it would be a completely different use
[4:21:11] but it would be infill and expansion. Um
[4:21:13] and then the last is transformative
[4:21:15] areas and that transformation is very
[4:21:18] limited. There's only a few areas within
[4:21:21] Brookline where you could truly
[4:21:22] transform what's there. The areas on
[4:21:25] comm over by Target, we've talked about
[4:21:27] that before. That's an area of
[4:21:29] tremendous opportunity transformation.
[4:21:31] Um, Chestnut Hill West is another area
[4:21:34] of potential major transformation, Stop
[4:21:37] and Shop, uh, TJ Maxx, but there's very
[4:21:40] few of these parcels and, um, my concern
[4:21:45] about giving away,
[4:21:48] uh, it's one thing to do the ex if we
[4:21:52] were to do a study and do infill zoning
[4:21:55] for the entire corridor of Beacon
[4:21:57] Street, which is something that we
[4:21:58] discussed last night, instead of doing
[4:22:00] it neighborhood by neighborhood, do an
[4:22:02] entire corridor, you would get infill
[4:22:04] development and you wouldn't need to
[4:22:05] have a tax certainty agreement. But when
[4:22:08] you get to major parcels like Chestnut
[4:22:10] Hill West, you want to have the leverage
[4:22:12] of zoning to get what you want out of
[4:22:15] that negotiation. And I think that we
[4:22:18] it's a principle actually that frankly
[4:22:20] my thinking has evolved on this Meredith
[4:22:23] from originally having a project that
[4:22:24] kicked off to have a vision for the
[4:22:26] whole area and upzoning it to realizing
[4:22:28] the benefits of having zoning
[4:22:33] and the leverage in order to get what we
[4:22:35] want for tax certainty agreements and
[4:22:37] memorandum of agreement on how the
[4:22:38] development happens. I think we need to
[4:22:40] be very cautious about how we trade that
[4:22:44] zoning on a major parcel. Um, it doesn't
[4:22:47] negate the work that you've done uh to
[4:22:49] date. It really doesn't at all. You've
[4:22:51] already created a vision through the the
[4:22:53] work of yourself and the committee and
[4:22:55] Michael that shows that we're ready for
[4:22:58] business here, but come to us so that we
[4:23:00] can negotiate in good faith about what
[4:23:02] that specific solution might be for you.
[4:23:04] Uh, where it's it's very financially
[4:23:06] benefit to the town.
[4:23:07] Okay. in terms of the item on the table
[4:23:11] which is foreign article one of special
[4:23:15] town meeting. Um what is your proposal?
[4:23:18] Well, I don't I I I don't think I have a
[4:23:20] proposal yet, but what I'm hearing is
[4:23:23] that there's there's some reservations
[4:23:26] about upzoning everything right now and
[4:23:29] that we just focus on the city realy
[4:23:32] parcel that would in that would be the
[4:23:35] package of zoning for city realy, the
[4:23:37] MOA and the tax certainty agreement and
[4:23:40] that would send us that one we get
[4:23:42] through that and that would give us send
[4:23:44] a strong signal to the devel to other
[4:23:47] land owners. that Brookline is open for
[4:23:50] redeveloping this area and we're going
[4:23:52] to work with you and here's here's the
[4:23:53] potential vision which is the work we've
[4:23:56] already done. It's a framework but it's
[4:23:57] not built in our zoning code yet.
[4:23:59] Thereby we didn't give away our
[4:24:00] leverage. So if I had to make a proposal
[4:24:03] I'm not saying I'm doing this but I'm
[4:24:04] hearing the concept of peel off
[4:24:10] just chest ju just city realy. So that
[4:24:12] means taking out the north parcels and
[4:24:14] everything else and the only article one
[4:24:17] would only be the zoning for city realy
[4:24:21] and the MOA and tax certainty for city
[4:24:23] realy. That's what I'm hearing. I'm not
[4:24:25] proposing that but that's what I'm
[4:24:26] hearing.
[4:24:27] So how would you even do that?
[4:24:30] Where would it have to go in terms of
[4:24:32] various committees etc in order to make
[4:24:35] that change to what's being proposed
[4:24:38] now?
[4:24:40] uh just
[4:24:41] time for town meeting
[4:24:43] I can't answer the town meeting process
[4:24:45] but I think you know if you gave us the
[4:24:46] instructions that we would only I would
[4:24:48] recommend not saying the city realy
[4:24:50] properties but the west block of the 4.0
[4:24:53] so just we would go and rewrite the
[4:24:55] entire zoning to just speak to um the
[4:24:59] that west block of the 4.0 And then the
[4:25:02] design guidelines as the planning board
[4:25:03] has uh adopted them would only be
[4:25:07] applicable to that corner of the study
[4:25:09] area.
[4:25:10] Maybe not to further complicate this but
[4:25:13] there is the issue of the 40B on Chief
[4:25:16] Street
[4:25:16] that if we see some upzoning there
[4:25:20] instead of being a 40B they might uh
[4:25:22] pursue commercial. There's been talk of
[4:25:24] it possibly being a hotel. So I'm not
[4:25:27] sure that we necessarily need to only be
[4:25:30] focusing on one parcel, but to the
[4:25:32] extent that as you were [clears throat]
[4:25:34] discussing in the context of the
[4:25:35] comprehensive plan that there are some
[4:25:38] parcels that are very high revenue
[4:25:41] generating potential
[4:25:43] and some other parcels along this Route
[4:25:46] 9 stretch, it's a little lower revenue
[4:25:48] generating potential.
[4:25:50] So I think it would be possible to
[4:25:52] consider that we don't necessarily just
[4:25:55] leave uh the western most parcel as the
[4:25:58] only part of the zoning. There might be
[4:26:00] other portions of it that we could move
[4:26:02] forward at this time, but I agree with
[4:26:05] you that the growth company's part,
[4:26:08] which is essentially zoned exactly the
[4:26:11] same or close to exactly the same way as
[4:26:14] the western most parcel,
[4:26:16] uh we potentially are losing some
[4:26:18] leverage there. I'm a little less
[4:26:20] concerned about the uh Salvatore portion
[4:26:23] where there's less height allowance. I'm
[4:26:26] a little less concerned about the
[4:26:28] portion approaching uh Hammond Street
[4:26:31] where there seems to be uh some more
[4:26:34] buyin from the community about the
[4:26:36] potential of converting what would be a
[4:26:38] 40B into something else.
[4:26:40] So, so the interesting I mean I'm glad
[4:26:42] you brought that up. um you know that
[4:26:44] that that land owner is also represented
[4:26:47] by the same lawyer as that's
[4:26:48] representing City realy. It's my
[4:26:50] understanding they're the ones that
[4:26:52] brought forward the 40B and they've
[4:26:53] communicated to us they want to work
[4:26:55] with us to do something different than a
[4:26:57] 40B. So they've already indicated to us.
[4:27:00] So take the same process that you just
[4:27:02] did for I forget the name of the parcel
[4:27:05] but I'm just going to call it the city
[4:27:06] parcel for now. just I know that's not
[4:27:08] the right term, the city parcel and go
[4:27:10] start the negotiations with this land
[4:27:14] owner to come up with a solution that
[4:27:18] fits generally within the framework but
[4:27:21] may be customized for them to get them
[4:27:22] away from a 40B that would certainly be
[4:27:24] beneficial to us and that zoning would
[4:27:28] give us leverage to have a better
[4:27:30] agreement similar to what cities is. I
[4:27:32] think I think it's a good model.
[4:27:34] I want to make two points. One is just
[4:27:35] to point out that in their letter they
[4:27:37] were they were very clear that their
[4:27:40] examination was contingent on the
[4:27:42] zoning. Now that may just be a
[4:27:44] negotiating technique but that is what
[4:27:47] they
[4:27:47] simple phone call to.
[4:27:49] The other thing is can you bring back
[4:27:51] the map of the of the zoning. So I just
[4:27:54] want to make sure that that we're all
[4:27:55] clear about the the tax certainty risk
[4:27:59] that we're talking about. Right. So if
[4:28:01] you look at at the yellow block, the tax
[4:28:05] certainty agreement covers that entire
[4:28:08] block, right? If you look at the the
[4:28:12] city realy uh the growth company's
[4:28:15] project based on what they proposed,
[4:28:17] right? The six you the six units there
[4:28:20] that space is all they are proposing is
[4:28:24] a combination of housing and parking,
[4:28:27] right? So the the value of the tax
[4:28:29] certainty agreement there is slim to
[4:28:32] none. Okay. And if you look at the
[4:28:34] parking lot where they're actually
[4:28:36] proposing medical office space, right?
[4:28:38] As as is indicated there, the that space
[4:28:43] as they've designed is roughly a what
[4:28:45] five or six story building is what
[4:28:48] they've proposed. Um on a on a space
[4:28:51] that is 80 feet wide. Um and the medical
[4:28:54] office portion of that is only I think
[4:28:57] the front the front section and the back
[4:29:00] is the parking that they need that they
[4:29:02] claim to need for to support the medical
[4:29:05] office. So the comparison of the value
[4:29:07] of the tax certainty agreement that
[4:29:09] you're proposing negotiating or putting
[4:29:12] off is roughly the size of that little
[4:29:15] corner relative to the size of most of
[4:29:19] the of that yellow block. So just to
[4:29:22] give just to give you a sense of the
[4:29:24] different proportion and and the the the
[4:29:28] cost of mitigating against that risk
[4:29:31] relative to the risk of moving forward.
[4:29:33] Okay, John and then I want to open up.
[4:29:35] Yes, I promise to be brief. Meredith,
[4:29:38] thank you for correcting me as to the
[4:29:40] multiple of traffic uh and it's for the
[4:29:43] entire uh uh area, not just for Ches
[4:29:46] Hill West, but what is the multiple that
[4:29:49] that the consultant came up with?
[4:29:52] Off the top of my head, I I would want
[4:29:54] to Okay, there needs to be context to to
[4:29:57] this response. Um, so
[4:30:00] we had talked about in our earlier
[4:30:01] presentations, we were waiting on the
[4:30:03] consultant to wrap up the final phase of
[4:30:05] our transportation study and we wanted
[4:30:07] to sort of pressure test the capacity um
[4:30:10] within the area. You know, would it be
[4:30:12] able to sustain the additional trip
[4:30:13] generation that would be associated with
[4:30:15] the upzoning that we're considering
[4:30:16] here?
[4:30:16] Yeah.
[4:30:18] So the assumption that we gave the
[4:30:20] consultant to work with was very
[4:30:21] conservative in that we probably
[4:30:24] overestimated the amount of development
[4:30:25] that this area will see over the next 20
[4:30:27] years. And we also overestimated the
[4:30:30] types of development that are a lot more
[4:30:32] intensive in terms of the traffic that
[4:30:34] they generate like medical office
[4:30:35] because appointments are booked
[4:30:36] backtoback has a much higher trip
[4:30:38] generation rate um and parking
[4:30:40] requirements for example. So we
[4:30:41] overestimated the amount of medical
[4:30:43] office and residential that would be in
[4:30:44] this area very intentionally to kind of
[4:30:46] create like a worst case scenario. Yeah.
[4:30:48] In terms of traffic impacts.
[4:30:50] So um with that in mind um I think the
[4:30:53] estimates and I can go back and follow
[4:30:54] with the select board but it was you
[4:30:56] know an increase of like 300% in terms
[4:30:59] of um the trip generation potential and
[4:31:01] all of the um intersections would uh
[4:31:05] degrade to a a level F in terms of level
[4:31:07] of service which is failing.
[4:31:08] Thank you. And um I you know I want to
[4:31:10] do justice to the people who had this
[4:31:12] conversation with me this afternoon. And
[4:31:14] I know that that is very much on their
[4:31:17] minds. And I think it number one
[4:31:20] probably in their in their reasons for
[4:31:22] saying we think maybe if you really want
[4:31:25] the neighbors to come on board with this
[4:31:28] the way to do that is to only go forward
[4:31:31] with Chestnut Hill Realy right now. Um
[4:31:33] because
[4:31:34] you mean city realy?
[4:31:35] Huh? City realy. I'm sorry. I apologize.
[4:31:39] Excuse me. Go forward with only the city
[4:31:41] of reality parcel right now. Uh portion
[4:31:44] of the development right now. Um is that
[4:31:47] if if going ahead with the entire
[4:31:50] package means that there is by estimate
[4:31:54] of the traffic consultant the potential
[4:31:56] for 300% increase in trips. um then
[4:32:00] maybe we're not ready to go ahead with
[4:32:01] the whole thing and we better take a
[4:32:04] little bit of cautious approach to this
[4:32:06] and maybe just go ahead with the city
[4:32:08] realy part and and hopefully find out
[4:32:12] what the nobody has said that we have
[4:32:15] figured out what we're going to do about
[4:32:16] that 300% uh increase in trips.
[4:32:20] Okay, quick Mike and then then we're
[4:32:22] open up the uh hearing.
[4:32:24] I just want to point out John that
[4:32:26] that's 300% over 20 years. So when you
[4:32:28] say we haven't figured it out, you also
[4:32:31] have to acknowledge we have 20 years to
[4:32:35] to work on this problem.
[4:32:37] Okay. So let's hope so.
[4:32:39] Sorry, I'm so sorry. Just one additional
[4:32:41] so that I think the
[4:32:42] the flip side to that is that you know
[4:32:47] we the I think the benefit in
[4:32:50] undertaking this transportation study is
[4:32:51] that we are starting conversations with
[4:32:54] mass DOT that much farther along. We
[4:32:57] have done our homework. We've identified
[4:32:58] a scope of possibilities, what we think
[4:33:00] could work, and at least one
[4:33:01] intersection redesign option at Boilston
[4:33:03] and Hammond Street that would
[4:33:04] significantly mitigate the anticipated
[4:33:06] traffic impacts that we were just
[4:33:07] talking about
[4:33:09] in order to continue those
[4:33:11] conversations. If we only move forward
[4:33:13] with a portion of the proposed zoning
[4:33:16] and the rest of the study area remains
[4:33:18] unclear, it's going to make continuing
[4:33:20] those conversations with Mass DOT about
[4:33:22] what interventions are needed in this
[4:33:24] area that much harder to advance because
[4:33:26] we don't know. Um, and we're going to
[4:33:28] and it sounds like, you know, just
[4:33:30] within the bounds of this conversation,
[4:33:31] there's the interest in maybe deferring
[4:33:33] to, you know, when developers are ready
[4:33:35] and that could take decades. So, I think
[4:33:37] um almost in service to wanting to be
[4:33:41] able to, you know, be more proactive and
[4:33:44] aggressive in um advancing
[4:33:46] infrastructure improvements, they're
[4:33:47] going to support the development we need
[4:33:49] for economic development. It would be
[4:33:50] helpful to keep the zoning overlay
[4:33:52] intact so we can plan accordingly.
[4:33:54] Okay, let's open up the hearing.
[4:33:58] Stop share.
[4:33:59] Do your magic.
[4:34:01] If there's anyone that wishes to speak
[4:34:03] on this topic, please raise your hand
[4:34:05] using the raise your hand feature
[4:34:06] online. And if you're in the room, just
[4:34:08] make your presence known by coming to
[4:34:10] the podium. I do have a couple of people
[4:34:13] that did sign up prior. Mark Bearer was
[4:34:16] first.
[4:34:17] Okay. Uh have Mark Bear first.
[4:34:20] Are you Mark Bearer?
[4:34:21] I am Mark.
[4:34:21] Oh, I'm sorry. Good. [clears throat]
[4:34:23] You better be.
[4:34:24] All right. Well, good evening. Good
[4:34:26] evening everyone. Um thank you for
[4:34:28] letting me have a few words. Um just a
[4:34:30] little context and overview from EDAB.
[4:34:33] Um you know I've sat on EDAB for a
[4:34:35] couple years now. Um and we've worked
[4:34:38] really hard for two years trying to
[4:34:41] finesse a resolution to find common
[4:34:44] ground a bunch of very varied
[4:34:46] stakeholders. Um you know one respecting
[4:34:49] the community the neighborhood number
[4:34:51] two maximizing the position from you
[4:34:53] know the town of Brooklyn and and tax
[4:34:56] revenue. Number three, understanding
[4:34:59] what's the clear go no-go economics for
[4:35:02] a developer, any developer. And finally,
[4:35:04] just really respecting the market
[4:35:05] forces, right? What's with all the
[4:35:07] oscillations, the headwinds that come up
[4:35:08] and down, how do we position this site
[4:35:11] for success, right? And I think that the
[4:35:13] Warren article at hand does position
[4:35:15] this site for success. And right now,
[4:35:17] it's clearly underutilized and and
[4:35:19] undervalued.
[4:35:21] Um so that's you know just kind of the
[4:35:23] the overview at least from you know
[4:35:25] working on a EDAB subcommittee um you
[4:35:28] know with all all parties at hand. Um
[4:35:31] also just to address kind of the the the
[4:35:33] bigger picture when we're saying about
[4:35:35] you do one parcel versus many parcels.
[4:35:37] Um you know we've brought in a couple
[4:35:39] different brokers right and and and I've
[4:35:41] been personally in real estate
[4:35:42] development for about 25 years. Um
[4:35:45] uncertainty is always the enemy of of
[4:35:46] good economic development, right? I
[4:35:48] think um if it's a peacemail approach,
[4:35:51] one parcel at a time, um you're just
[4:35:54] making it that much more difficult for,
[4:35:56] you know, a a prominent um and quality
[4:35:59] development. You know, if it's a big
[4:36:00] tenant with lots of jobs wants to come
[4:36:02] in and you're not sure, well, did the
[4:36:04] guys next door, am I going to get what
[4:36:05] they got? I don't know. Maybe, maybe
[4:36:07] not. You're just adding more headwind,
[4:36:10] you know, to I think to to the entire um
[4:36:12] you know, problem at hand. So again, I'm
[4:36:15] I'm would just in and just good best
[4:36:17] practices when you look at other, you
[4:36:19] know, neighboring towns, upzoning is the
[4:36:21] main tool and through a special permit,
[4:36:23] those are always the hooks, right? And
[4:36:25] and the hooks to make sure that you get
[4:36:27] the right agreements for the development
[4:36:28] downstream. Um, so I just think again
[4:36:33] the ability to zone the consistent way
[4:36:35] which is a clear and distinct message to
[4:36:37] the marketplace be it brokers, tenants
[4:36:39] and whoever else um I think is loud and
[4:36:42] clear and I think we'll at least
[4:36:44] facilitate as best we can and position
[4:36:46] the site for success.
[4:36:49] Thank you.
[4:36:50] Y
[4:36:52] uh who's next? Paul Ser and Kathle
[4:36:56] Seidman are have their hands up. Uh
[4:36:58] Blair Hines signed up to said in person.
[4:37:02] Oh, okay. Blair
[4:37:09] seem [clears throat] to have lost touch
[4:37:11] with my
[4:37:13] what I was going to my written remarks
[4:37:15] here over this time. So I'll be very
[4:37:17] brief. It's late. I wanted to first
[4:37:20] start with
[4:37:21] into the mic if you don't mind.
[4:37:23] I'm sorry. I want to first
[4:37:24] and just identify yourself for the
[4:37:25] record.
[4:37:26] Blair Hines, a resident at 745 Heath
[4:37:28] Street uh down the street from the
[4:37:31] proposal. I want to start by saying that
[4:37:34] the neighborhood has been in favor of
[4:37:36] redevelopment of this site and um
[4:37:42] over the course of from the very
[4:37:44] beginning we understand that this site
[4:37:47] has needed to get redeveloped. I think
[4:37:49] the challenge has been how much it has
[4:37:51] been redeveloped and I want to support
[4:37:53] the um amendment that um Janice is
[4:37:58] developing which really represents I
[4:38:01] think uh two very important uh pieces.
[4:38:03] One uh
[4:38:06] this zoning does need to pass we
[4:38:09] believe. I think that if it doesn't I
[4:38:12] think that would be worse for the town
[4:38:13] and be worse for the neighborhood. So, I
[4:38:15] want to emphasize that we've come a long
[4:38:18] way to uh see the importance of passing
[4:38:21] this. Uh secondly, uh we were really
[4:38:25] looking to um have the base zoning be at
[4:38:29] uh what the neighborhoods uh supported,
[4:38:32] which was basically 125 ft, 10 stories,
[4:38:36] similar to what was done in the
[4:38:38] children's hospital redevelopment
[4:38:40] between Pearl Street and Washington
[4:38:42] Street. We thought that this was
[4:38:44] reasonable. And the reason that we see
[4:38:46] this as a compromise is that it puts the
[4:38:50] neighborhood in a little better position
[4:38:52] in the event that the entire city real
[4:38:56] estate uh management uh proposal doesn't
[4:38:59] in fact get built. uh if there's any
[4:39:02] modifications in the proposal that is in
[4:39:07] the me memorandum of agreement with uh
[4:39:09] the select board uh we would have I
[4:39:12] think a stronger voice and that has been
[4:39:15] one of the thorns in our side is we feel
[4:39:18] like through this whole two-year process
[4:39:20] we become complainers rather than uh
[4:39:24] people who could help to forge what this
[4:39:26] redevelopment zoning would consist of.
[4:39:30] Thank you.
[4:39:31] Can I ask question?
[4:39:33] Uh, sure.
[4:39:35] Thanks. Thanks, Blair, for your
[4:39:37] comments. I just I do have a question
[4:39:38] because you reference the zoning, right?
[4:39:41] And then you talk about city realy the
[4:39:44] under the underutilized and it's
[4:39:46] important. Are you talking about the
[4:39:48] entire corridor at this point? Are we
[4:39:49] just talking about city real?
[4:39:51] Well, I think in terms of it really
[4:39:53] would be the uh the CH4 zone. Yeah.
[4:39:57] would have instead of just the bonuses
[4:39:59] uh being at 12 and 14 stories with with
[4:40:02] the overlay, it would basically have the
[4:40:05] first step being at 10 stories.
[4:40:06] I understand. I I I understand. But
[4:40:08] you're not talking about the rest of I
[4:40:10] mean the the warrant article one that's
[4:40:13] coming in front of us. No, I think I'm
[4:40:14] I'm in favor.
[4:40:15] There's only a little piece that
[4:40:16] Well, no, I think that uh I mean at
[4:40:19] [clears throat] Janice's uh you know
[4:40:22] suggestion, you know, myself had met
[4:40:25] with uh growth companies on two
[4:40:27] occasions along with George Cole to try
[4:40:29] to understand uh their concerns about
[4:40:32] the zoning. So, we are interested in the
[4:40:35] resoning of the entire area and um so I
[4:40:39] think I'm in support of resoning of the
[4:40:42] entire area.
[4:40:43] Okay. Thank you.
[4:40:45] Okay, next uh speaker. We have someone.
[4:40:48] Um we have three people online raising
[4:40:50] their hand.
[4:40:50] Okay,
[4:40:51] Kath is first.
[4:40:52] Katha,
[4:40:58] good evening. Thank you for letting me
[4:41:00] speak. Um my name is Kathy Seidman. I'm
[4:41:03] a town meeting member in precinct 2, a
[4:41:05] member of the Brooklyn Commission for
[4:41:07] the Arts, and a board member of Brooklyn
[4:41:09] for Everyone. But I speak here only for
[4:41:11] myself. The Chestnut Hill commercial
[4:41:14] area is the largest and most promising
[4:41:16] commercial area in Brooklyn and holds
[4:41:18] enormous potential for tax generating
[4:41:22] development that includes a mix of
[4:41:23] commercial uses as well as housing at
[4:41:26] all price points. Adopting new zoning
[4:41:28] regulations that allow this site to
[4:41:30] achieve its full potential pres presents
[4:41:32] an opportunity that must not be
[4:41:34] squandered by the town, especially now
[4:41:37] when a developer that owns the requisite
[4:41:39] size parcel has presented a specific
[4:41:42] proposal proposal to actually build out
[4:41:44] that potential. Passing the zoning
[4:41:47] outline in STM1 warrant articles 1 and
[4:41:49] two would not only allow the proposed
[4:41:52] development of 5.3 acres of Chestnut
[4:41:54] Hill commercial area to move forward,
[4:41:56] but obviously incentivizes other
[4:41:59] developers to come forward. Brookline
[4:42:01] has a history of making new development
[4:42:03] impossible by never changing it zoning.
[4:42:06] expecting a developer to ask for zoning
[4:42:09] to meet a developer's program could as
[4:42:11] easily as not run into the same 20-year
[4:42:14] process roadblocks as the city realy
[4:42:16] property encountered. I want to
[4:42:19] congratulate all those who worked on
[4:42:20] this project from CHCA study committee,
[4:42:23] the neighbors, staff, and select board
[4:42:25] members who all worked tirelessly to
[4:42:27] upgrade a stagnant Chestnut Hill office
[4:42:29] park and reszone the other areas
[4:42:31] proposed in the 2005 comp plan into what
[4:42:34] has the potential to be a placemaking
[4:42:37] model for future developments of this
[4:42:39] scale in Brooklyn. I would like to also
[4:42:42] take this opportunity
[4:42:44] to point [clears throat] out what I
[4:42:46] believe has been an overlooked benefit
[4:42:47] of this upgrade to Brooklyn side of
[4:42:50] Route 9.
[4:42:52] Our developers to our west, Newton,
[4:42:54] Welssley, and as far away as South
[4:42:56] Burough, have all added residential and
[4:42:58] commercial development along Route 9.
[4:43:00] The traffic those residents and shoppers
[4:43:02] generate flows through Brooklyn to
[4:43:05] Boston and back, adding traffic and
[4:43:07] congestion to Brooklyn. Those towns get
[4:43:10] increased property tax revenue from
[4:43:12] their new developments. Brooklyn gets
[4:43:14] the traffic. We can and should take
[4:43:17] advantage of the revenue from both the
[4:43:19] new development of homes for folks who
[4:43:21] want to live closer to Boston and the
[4:43:23] economic activity generated by folks
[4:43:25] visiting Brookline's new placemaking
[4:43:28] experience. In particular, I am
[4:43:31] delighted to learn that the neighbors
[4:43:33] and the developer and the town have
[4:43:35] reached consensus on amendments to the
[4:43:37] original zoning. I hope the advisory
[4:43:39] committee, the select board, and every
[4:43:40] town meeting member will now fully
[4:43:42] support these articles. I urge this I
[4:43:45] urge the select board to recommend
[4:43:47] favorable favorable action on STDM
[4:43:50] warrant articles one and two. Thank you.
[4:43:58] Next is Paul Ser.
[4:44:00] Thank you. I'm Paul Sainer, precinct 13
[4:44:02] town meeting member and I had been a
[4:44:06] member of EDAP for 28 years up until a
[4:44:09] few years ago. I want to recall Bob
[4:44:12] Spurber who um was the beloved
[4:44:16] superintendent of schools and the
[4:44:19] founder of EDAB. Bob would um constantly
[4:44:23] ask real estate people about certain
[4:44:27] sites [snorts] in Brooklyn's history,
[4:44:30] most of which bordered on other
[4:44:32] municipalities. One of his favorite
[4:44:34] sites was the northwest corner of um
[4:44:38] Hammond in Boilston uh where the star
[4:44:42] market was developed
[4:44:45] um in 1950. He would always ask, "Why is
[4:44:49] that building in such an odd shape?" And
[4:44:53] he knew the answer because he had spoken
[4:44:54] to the developers because they built
[4:44:57] around Brookline, giving Brookline the
[4:45:00] parking. Um the um Chestnut Hill
[4:45:03] commercial area is riddled with decades
[4:45:08] long opportunity costs to the town. The
[4:45:11] WS development letter of last week I
[4:45:15] felt was absolutely laughable. I want to
[4:45:17] make sure you all know that WS
[4:45:21] development
[4:45:22] controlled
[4:45:24] um Chestnut Hill Office Park the parcels
[4:45:26] that city reality is looking to develop
[4:45:29] for about 20 years and despite many
[4:45:32] overtures
[4:45:34] by those of us on EDAB never got out of
[4:45:37] their own way to seriously look at
[4:45:39] redeveloping it. while they were
[4:45:41] developing the street across the street
[4:45:43] and frankly they were one of the most
[4:45:44] prolific developers in the metropolitan
[4:45:47] area. Um I um um believe that the select
[4:45:53] boards support the planning department's
[4:45:56] work and um upzone the entire proposed
[4:46:01] area because there will be missed
[4:46:04] opportunities like the one that Bob
[4:46:06] Spurber used to ask about um that will
[4:46:10] continue at a time when we cannot afford
[4:46:14] it as four out of the five of you along
[4:46:17] with they correctly, in my opinion,
[4:46:21] endorse the override. I think it's
[4:46:23] really important to show um the voters
[4:46:26] that the town is really serious about
[4:46:29] long-term strategic
[4:46:31] economic development. Lastly, I know a
[4:46:33] lot about tax certainty, having been
[4:46:36] involved in all previous six tax
[4:46:39] certainty agreements where there were
[4:46:41] developers across the table to negotiate
[4:46:44] with. The only concern I have is medical
[4:46:48] office at scale, not a hotel of which we
[4:46:51] have four and maybe a fifth tax
[4:46:53] certainty agreement. The real risk is
[4:46:56] large medical office and the only parcel
[4:46:59] where that can happen um beyond city
[4:47:03] reality is uh the growth companies.
[4:47:05] Your time is up
[4:47:06] and you've heard Meredith's answer. So,
[4:47:08] I urge you to please support the
[4:47:11] extraordinary work of Meredith Moody and
[4:47:14] Michael Rubenstein. Thank you very much.
[4:47:17] [clears throat]
[4:47:19] Ann Meyers is next.
[4:47:24] Thank you. I'm Anne Meyers. I live in
[4:47:27] Precinct 9 and I chair the Economic
[4:47:29] Development Advisory Board. Um, I
[4:47:32] actually live in precinct 8 now. I keep
[4:47:34] forgetting. I moved from one to the
[4:47:35] other not that long ago. Um, I was
[4:47:38] actually on the 20 uh 20 2005, excuse
[4:47:42] me, uh, comp plan committee and I
[4:47:46] remember when the res need for resoning
[4:47:49] at Chestnut Hill was raised in that comp
[4:47:51] plan and was discussed uh, quite a lot
[4:47:54] and was one of the elements of that
[4:47:56] plan. Since then, the town has responded
[4:47:59] to development proposals on a
[4:48:00] case-bycase basis. And people, including
[4:48:03] many town meeting members, always
[4:48:05] complain that Brooklyn just responds to
[4:48:07] proposals and never got ahead of the
[4:48:09] game by issuing resoning in advance of
[4:48:12] proposals. Uh, the Chesnut Hill
[4:48:15] commercial area study started as a way
[4:48:17] to look at the entire area and develop
[4:48:19] resoning before there were any
[4:48:21] development proposals on the table.
[4:48:23] Having zoning in place lets a
[4:48:25] development community know what the town
[4:48:27] is looking for and what they can do by
[4:48:29] right, even for sites that are unlikely
[4:48:31] to be developed for many years. In this
[4:48:34] case, part of the site was purchased and
[4:48:36] a proposal submitted just as the work
[4:48:38] was beginning, which did change some of
[4:48:40] the focus of the work, but it did not
[4:48:42] eliminate the need for the entire site
[4:48:44] to be zoned. Now, if it is, it will make
[4:48:47] it much more desirable for developers to
[4:48:49] come in and start a project in the area.
[4:48:52] one that helps to generate the
[4:48:54] commercial tax revenue that Brookline so
[4:48:55] desperately needs. And again, I I want
[4:49:00] to urge the select board to support
[4:49:02] these warrant articles and thank all the
[4:49:05] work that's been done by the staff and
[4:49:08] the committees and everybody else. This
[4:49:10] has been several years of very hard work
[4:49:12] and I hope that we can bring it to a
[4:49:14] conclusion. Thank you.
[4:49:18] Anyone
[4:49:21] else?
[4:49:24] Okay, seeing no one else on Zoom or in
[4:49:27] the audience, I'll close the hearing and
[4:49:30] um I'll close this discussion. We'll
[4:49:33] have further discussion later on when we
[4:49:36] vote
[4:49:38] or not on whether to
[4:49:41] give favorable action on proposals.
[4:49:44] Bernard,
[4:49:45] when are we taking this up for CH? Do
[4:49:47] you know when this is going to come back
[4:49:48] to us?
[4:49:49] Um, I think there's more committee work
[4:49:51] to be done. Um, but we can obviously,
[4:49:53] you know, what I would propose doing is
[4:49:55] we can schedule updates for you as this
[4:49:57] progresses through the various hearings
[4:49:58] and so forth so that you can be ready to
[4:50:00] vote on it when it's ready to be vote
[4:50:02] when it's ready to be voted on when it's
[4:50:03] gone through all the committees. But in
[4:50:04] the inter room, we'll just continue to
[4:50:06] provide you with updates on how it's
[4:50:07] moving through.
[4:50:08] Okay. Updates by memo or on the agenda?
[4:50:11] We'll put we'll put it on the agenda and
[4:50:12] and then so that if you if you have
[4:50:14] question that also then allows you if
[4:50:16] you have questions or if things come up
[4:50:17] that you want to discuss with us you
[4:50:19] know on staff or like for example if as
[4:50:22] advisory land use comes through the
[4:50:24] process and you want us to say something
[4:50:26] to them in addition to what you've been
[4:50:27] telling us tonight we can you can have
[4:50:30] that be continually a part of the
[4:50:32] iterative process.
[4:50:33] Okay. Uh David
[4:50:35] I just want to make sure that staff
[4:50:37] doesn't feel that we are indicting their
[4:50:39] work in some way. I notice some ruffled
[4:50:42] feathers, furoughed brows, which is
[4:50:44] understandable. You put a lot of work
[4:50:45] into this, and so you get frustrated
[4:50:47] when you perceive push back, but I
[4:50:50] wouldn't characterize it as push back.
[4:50:52] So, we hear from lots of constituents.
[4:50:54] We hear from lots of different interest
[4:50:56] groups, and through discussions like
[4:50:58] these, we learn more from these
[4:51:01] exchanges. So, I just hope nobody's
[4:51:03] taking it personally when it sounds like
[4:51:05] somebody's taking a uh taking an
[4:51:08] approach that might be opposite of what
[4:51:11] you're advocating for uh in your
[4:51:13] professional expertise. It's that we're
[4:51:14] asking questions. We're trying to learn.
[4:51:16] That's what this is.
[4:51:17] Yeah. And I I I don't I don't think we
[4:51:19] we take it that way. I think it's I I
[4:51:21] wasn't going to draw this comparison,
[4:51:23] but it was just interesting to think
[4:51:24] about this in the context of the bike
[4:51:26] policy that we were talking about
[4:51:27] earlier, right? this has now been a two
[4:51:29] plus year process and we've heard you
[4:51:33] know some sometimes it feels like a step
[4:51:34] forward a step back and I and I
[4:51:36] appreciate what Paul said actually about
[4:51:37] how this is also an opportunity for
[4:51:39] people to people's views to grow and to
[4:51:41] evolve and to change and that's not a
[4:51:43] bad thing either it's just you know we
[4:51:47] it's I don't think we're we're
[4:51:49] frustrated at the questions being asked
[4:51:50] I think it's good for us to have those
[4:51:52] conversations I think sometimes it can
[4:51:54] just feel a little bit like step forward
[4:51:56] step back yeah it's a a little bit of
[4:51:58] whiplash. But you know what that's but I
[4:52:00] I I think we all understand that that's
[4:52:02] in the service of there are people who
[4:52:04] have not been engaged in this two years.
[4:52:06] There are people who tuned into this
[4:52:07] yesterday like whoa whoa wait a minute
[4:52:08] why are we doing this? Um and we have to
[4:52:10] be responsive to those questions without
[4:52:12] saying well you know where were you? Um
[4:52:15] because not everyone tunes into this
[4:52:16] stuff.
[4:52:17] So if I one quick comment because you
[4:52:19] know my opportunities to provide comment
[4:52:20] are coming to a close. Um, but I do
[4:52:24] there are two things that that for me I
[4:52:26] think are are important that I think
[4:52:29] this board should consider as important.
[4:52:30] One is we don't want to lose leverage
[4:52:33] and I think we heard about leverage
[4:52:34] tonight. I don't know maybe that means
[4:52:35] special permits provide leverage. I
[4:52:37] don't know but leverage is important to
[4:52:39] be able to get the outcomes that Michael
[4:52:41] has been able to negotiate with city.
[4:52:43] Um, and two we need to make sure that we
[4:52:46] have people on board to pass a
[4:52:48] two-thirds vote. That is that's number
[4:52:50] one. And we should make sure that we're
[4:52:52] doing any everything that can be done to
[4:52:55] add votes to have it pass a town
[4:52:58] meeting. I think you add votes
[4:53:02] by supporting Janice Khan's amendments
[4:53:05] that's just negotiated. Um, I think you
[4:53:07] potentially add votes by thinking hard
[4:53:10] about whether that north parcel uh is is
[4:53:13] ready for prime time or do you peel that
[4:53:15] off because people say that's what's
[4:53:17] causing the traffic issues. Uh that's
[4:53:20] what's causing some risk associated with
[4:53:22] uh you know uh whatever our relationship
[4:53:26] with Newton and others. So those are my
[4:53:29] two okay two things were important to
[4:53:31] me. I just want to share.
[4:53:32] Okay, let's move on. Next we have a
[4:53:34] bunch of warrant articles with public
[4:53:35] hearings. uh foreign article four close
[4:53:38] out uh um
[4:53:40] close out bills here. Pardon me.
[4:53:42] I was just saying thank you to
[4:53:43] Thank you, Meredith.
[4:53:44] Oh, thank you, Meredith.
[4:53:45] Thank you, [laughter] Meredith.
[4:53:46] Hey, Meredith, we really appreciate you
[4:53:47] and we know you're a tough tough person,
[4:53:49] so we don't have to worry about
[4:53:53] I told her to strap in about a month ago
[4:53:55] for the ride she's going to be on. So,
[4:53:59] okay. is um um is Melissa
[4:54:02] Melissa is uh down at advisory, but I
[4:54:04] will uh be a poor substitute for her for
[4:54:07] Warrant Article 4. I'm the understudy.
[4:54:09] Um um so Warrant Article 4 is required
[4:54:12] by the town's bylaws. Uh it's to give an
[4:54:15] update on where certain, you know,
[4:54:17] project accounts are, bond accounts, and
[4:54:18] so forth. Um you have in your packet the
[4:54:21] current updates. Uh the the two uh the
[4:54:25] document labeled um K is um sorry the K
[4:54:29] report um is projects that are cash
[4:54:32] funded. The capital report are projects
[4:54:34] that is are uh uh are projects that have
[4:54:38] um bond funding involved in them. Um and
[4:54:43] so you can see where we are as of 316.
[4:54:46] The comments there are from the
[4:54:49] departments. Um, you know, we have work
[4:54:52] that is in process. If there is excess
[4:54:55] revenue for projects that are completed
[4:54:56] at the end of the fiscal year, it will
[4:54:58] be returned in accordance with the terms
[4:55:00] of article 4. That's how that works. So,
[4:55:03] we've got um, you know, some available
[4:55:06] balance. Uh, but again, this is, you
[4:55:08] know, we're this is Q3 of a four quarter
[4:55:11] year. Um, and these numbers will go
[4:55:14] down, I hope, pretty significantly,
[4:55:16] um, before we reach the end of FY26.
[4:55:21] Okay, any questions about Warren Article
[4:55:23] 4?
[4:55:24] Let's open up the hearing
[4:55:28] and see if anyone would like to speak
[4:55:29] from the audience or from uh, the Zoom
[4:55:35] hearing. None, we'll close the hearing.
[4:55:38] And um
[4:55:41] are we are we ready to do favorable
[4:55:43] action on this? I mean,
[4:55:45] we know
[4:55:46] the board actually doesn't need to take
[4:55:47] action on this.
[4:55:48] There's no action. Sorry, Chaz.
[4:55:49] Yeah. It's [laughter] technically just a
[4:55:50] report. Um Okay.
[4:55:52] Yeah.
[4:55:53] Um okay, next. Uh why so why do we do a
[4:55:56] hearing?
[4:55:57] Because it's technically a warrant
[4:55:59] article.
[4:55:59] Uh
[4:56:00] okay.
[4:56:00] I think you actually do vote no action
[4:56:02] on it. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply
[4:56:04] you don't have to do anything, but you
[4:56:05] don't need to vote favorable action on
[4:56:06] it. It just needs to appear in the
[4:56:08] warrant. It's a part of the town bylaws.
[4:56:10] Let's just move on then. Article six,
[4:56:12] unpaid bills. Do we have any unpaid
[4:56:14] bills?
[4:56:16] Charlie, do we have any unpaid bills?
[4:56:17] Lincoln. There's Lincoln. Yeah,
[4:56:18] we do have one. Yeah, Lincoln will.
[4:56:21] I thought we I thought we
[4:56:22] It's always a long explanation when you
[4:56:23] have one.
[4:56:25] All right, Lincoln is online.
[4:56:27] Try to make it snappy, though. Good
[4:56:29] evening. Um, well, uh, Lincoln Heidman.
[4:56:31] I'm the director of finance for the
[4:56:32] town. So, we do have one uh unpaid bill
[4:56:36] that uh we we do need town meeting
[4:56:39] action to approve to for the town to be
[4:56:42] able to pay it. According to MLA chapter
[4:56:45] 44, section 64, it was a bill um that uh
[4:56:50] that was not received in a in a timely
[4:56:53] fashion from the vendor. We did receive
[4:56:55] it later um past the incumbrance
[4:56:58] deadline. Uh and so we we were not we
[4:57:00] were able to pay a portion of it with
[4:57:02] incumbing incumbrances but not uh the
[4:57:06] remainder uh of $5,959.
[4:57:10] And so this article six um seeks the
[4:57:14] necessary town meeting approval to pay
[4:57:16] that valid bill.
[4:57:18] Okay. And there no there no bills that
[4:57:20] we
[4:57:22] are not aware of that could come
[4:57:23] forward?
[4:57:26] None that we're that we're aware of. We
[4:57:27] we do do a very robust process to remind
[4:57:32] um uh those who who who we know we owe
[4:57:36] uh funds to to get us bills in a timely
[4:57:39] fashion. Um and there's none none others
[4:57:42] that we're aware of.
[4:57:44] Okay, Paul.
[4:57:45] Yep. Uh Lincoln, what's the bill for?
[4:57:47] It's it is for postage.
[4:57:50] Postage for
[4:57:51] the postal service is late.
[4:57:53] No, not the postal service. a a vendor
[4:57:55] that uh that mails our property and real
[4:57:58] estate real estate and personal property
[4:58:00] taxes.
[4:58:01] Michael real quick.
[4:58:01] And where do the funds come from if town
[4:58:04] meeting approves this?
[4:58:06] Yes. So the there there were there was
[4:58:08] sufficient uh funds elsewhere in the
[4:58:10] finance department. It's just that it
[4:58:12] they weren't um they weren't able to be
[4:58:14] encumbered for this purpose.
[4:58:16] It it gets paid out of the current
[4:58:17] fiscal year budget, Michael.
[4:58:19] Yeah.
[4:58:20] You mean fiscal year 26?
[4:58:23] Correct.
[4:58:23] Okay. Correct.
[4:58:24] Um, okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing.
[4:58:27] See if anyone wants to comment on this.
[4:58:31] Anybody want to have us not pay it?
[4:58:34] Okay, I'll close the hearing and um I
[4:58:37] think we can do favorable action on this
[4:58:40] one if no one objects. Okay, I move
[4:58:42] favorable action on warrant article six
[4:58:44] unpaid bills. All in favor John Skoyak.
[4:58:47] I Paul Warren.
[4:58:48] Hi.
[4:58:48] David Corman.
[4:58:49] Hi.
[4:58:49] Michael Rubenstein.
[4:58:50] Hi.
[4:58:50] Chair votes.
[4:58:52] Uh next, uh article nine, annual
[4:58:54] community. Oh, this is a significant
[4:58:56] one. It's not going to be a quick I see
[4:58:58] Nancy Heler's approaching the podium on
[4:59:01] this.
[4:59:02] Patiently waiting, very patiently.
[4:59:08] Good evening. You've all had a long
[4:59:09] night, so I'll try to be brief. I'm
[4:59:12] Nancy Heler, uh chair of the Community
[4:59:15] Preservation Act committee. I'm joined
[4:59:18] by David Lecoy who's the vice chair and
[4:59:20] you all know him. Uh and I'm also joined
[4:59:24] online by Laura Sme who is our CPA
[4:59:28] planner. Um I would like to just say a
[4:59:32] couple of words about Laura. She joined
[4:59:34] us in January of uh this year and she
[4:59:39] hit the ground running. She's got a lot
[4:59:41] of CPA experience
[4:59:44] uh in when she worked in the planning
[4:59:46] department in Canton, but she also
[4:59:49] worked for the consultant who helped us
[4:59:51] develop our CPA plan and she did some
[4:59:53] work in Brooklyn then. So, we're very
[4:59:56] happy to have her. She's really uh going
[4:59:59] to be we're going to be the best
[5:00:01] organized CPA uh
[5:00:05] committee in this in the state of
[5:00:07] Massachusetts when she's done. Um, so I
[5:00:10] want to um
[5:00:12] um Laura, can you put up the slides? Are
[5:00:16] you controlling them?
[5:00:23] Okay. So, um that's our basically our
[5:00:27] logo. I want to go to the next slide,
[5:00:29] please.
[5:00:32] Um we want you to understand what CPA
[5:00:36] delivers. This is a a short slide, but I
[5:00:38] think it's very important. We're not
[5:00:40] only preserving very critical community
[5:00:43] assets, and when I say community assets,
[5:00:45] I'm talking about town properties as
[5:00:48] well as uh community properties that
[5:00:52] deliver a community benefit. For
[5:00:54] instance, the uh we've funded a couple
[5:00:57] of churches and uh a temple. uh they all
[5:01:01] provide huge community benefits in that
[5:01:04] they uh their space is utilized by
[5:01:07] community activities.
[5:01:09] you most most notably I'm sure you know
[5:01:12] of the food bank which is in the United
[5:01:14] parish uh church on Harvard Street but
[5:01:18] there are many others in addition to
[5:01:20] which we have leveraged significant
[5:01:23] outside funding um and I'll talk about
[5:01:26] the amounts in a minute and all of those
[5:01:28] things bring long-term value to the town
[5:01:32] and the this year's recommendations
[5:01:34] continue the the same strategy
[5:01:36] um [snorts] now our next slide please
[5:01:39] Gloria
[5:01:40] uh these are revenue sources. Uh CPA is
[5:01:44] basically uh the funds are from tax base
[5:01:49] 1% sir charge on real estate property
[5:01:52] tax bills. Um the state community
[5:01:56] preservation trust fund provides us a
[5:01:59] certain match each year. It varies each
[5:02:01] year depending upon the real estate fees
[5:02:04] that are paid at the registry. That's
[5:02:07] what community preservation act funds uh
[5:02:10] uh get as a state match and uh and
[5:02:14] interest as well. So our total revenue
[5:02:16] to date and is uh through through 27 by
[5:02:21] the way. Uh so that's some projection in
[5:02:24] there of 22,700,000.
[5:02:28] Next slide please.
[5:02:32] Now this is another slide about what the
[5:02:34] CPA delivers. We have on our website
[5:02:36] this interactive map which will show you
[5:02:39] if you go to it all of the different
[5:02:41] projects from fiscal year 25 and 26. We
[5:02:44] had 29 projects that have already been
[5:02:47] approved. Fiscal year 27 of which we're
[5:02:50] approaching. We're uh bringing you eight
[5:02:53] new eight new projects for a total of 37
[5:02:56] projects. Uh the CPA funds involved in
[5:02:59] those projects is 16.5 million. And
[5:03:03] additionally, we've leveraged, and I was
[5:03:05] actually surprised by this number, um,
[5:03:08] is 15.9 million. So, we're pretty close
[5:03:12] to a one-on-one
[5:03:14] u basic match for the total of of 32
[5:03:19] million um 500,000.
[5:03:23] Next slide, please.
[5:03:26] Now, we're going to be um
[5:03:33] sorry, I'm missing my [snorts]
[5:03:37] using old fashioned using paper and one
[5:03:39] got stuck. All right. CPA funding
[5:03:42] projects by amount. Um we keep we track
[5:03:46] the category of funding because uh we
[5:03:50] are uh we have a plan which uh obligates
[5:03:54] us in a state uh scheme which obligates
[5:03:57] us to fund in three areas community
[5:04:00] which is affordable housing, historic
[5:04:02] preservation, open space and recreation.
[5:04:05] So, we want to uh uh categorize those
[5:04:09] and figure out where we are, how we're
[5:04:12] doing in that uh in the in this
[5:04:16] comparison. And uh the total by category
[5:04:20] um will for both the ones we've already
[5:04:25] uh secured and also the ones we are
[5:04:28] going for for this round will be 52% in
[5:04:31] housing, 16% in historic preservation
[5:04:35] and 32% in open space and recreation.
[5:04:39] So, you can see that we are ahead a bit
[5:04:41] in community housing, behind a bit in
[5:04:44] historic preservation, and we're looking
[5:04:46] at this as a five-year
[5:04:49] uh effort. So, we're hoping that they
[5:04:52] those level out uh as we get toward the
[5:04:55] the end of the five years. Um, next
[5:04:58] slide, please.
[5:05:00] We have
[5:05:02] three [snorts] motions before town
[5:05:03] meeting. Two of them are represented in
[5:05:05] the first chart. Um and they are um for
[5:05:11] the first motion will be for 1 2 3 4 5.
[5:05:15] The fif the the total five the fif the
[5:05:18] first five um data points in this chart
[5:05:23] ending with community housing uh are the
[5:05:26] amounts in the first motion and what it
[5:05:29] this motion does because this is
[5:05:32] anticipated revenue. It's not revenue in
[5:05:35] hand. And I'll explain that in a minute.
[5:05:38] But what this motion does is when the
[5:05:42] tax dollars come into the general fund,
[5:05:44] when the state match and the interest
[5:05:46] amounts go into the general fund, the
[5:05:49] treasur then moves them into these
[5:05:52] categories.
[5:05:54] um so that when we're ready to start
[5:05:57] using them in a future year, uh they
[5:05:59] will already be set up in that category
[5:06:02] for us to uh bring projects to you and
[5:06:05] to the town meeting. Um so the uh
[5:06:09] unallocated budget reserve for next year
[5:06:12] would we estimate it'll bring in 2.5
[5:06:16] million and the 10% uh budget reserves
[5:06:21] for open space 10% for historic
[5:06:23] preservation and 10% for community
[5:06:26] housing which is dictated by the statute
[5:06:28] by the way uh are going to be 393,400.
[5:06:33] So that's the first motion. Then the
[5:06:35] second motion is our administrative
[5:06:37] costs. The statute permits us to set
[5:06:40] aside 5% for administrative costs and
[5:06:44] those include salaries uh dues to the
[5:06:47] state organization from which we get a
[5:06:50] lot of technical assistance. Um but it
[5:06:53] also pro uh gives us the the funds to
[5:06:57] hire consultants to do certain things.
[5:07:00] We've had Jen Goldson uh who has helped
[5:07:05] us develop our CPA plan and we've also
[5:07:08] consulted with her and a couple of other
[5:07:10] issues. So uh anything that we don't
[5:07:13] spend in that category will go back into
[5:07:17] our unallocated budget reserve. We never
[5:07:19] lose the money. It we it always stays
[5:07:22] with us. Uh and but it goes back into
[5:07:25] our unallocated budget reserve for
[5:07:27] spending in another year. Um and that's
[5:07:30] the difference between the two motions
[5:07:33] is that the monies in the first in the
[5:07:36] uh unallocated budget reserves and the
[5:07:38] 10% reserves will not be spent next
[5:07:41] year. They will be uh moved into the
[5:07:46] into the categories for CPA. They will
[5:07:49] not be spent. We don't spend money that
[5:07:51] we don't have in hand and we never know
[5:07:54] exactly uh how much money we're going to
[5:07:57] actually have. These are estimates. Um
[5:08:00] we like to spend money in hand because
[5:08:03] for to to um
[5:08:07] one year we didn't we did not estimate
[5:08:11] correctly or we didn't uh um I should
[5:08:15] say plan correctly and we had to do
[5:08:17] what's called a true up and it's kind of
[5:08:20] a pain in the neck frankly. So we want
[5:08:22] to avoid that. true up is is correcting
[5:08:26] uh the uh amounts that go into uh in
[5:08:29] each project and and and go up into
[5:08:32] these categories. So but in the
[5:08:34] administration uh
[5:08:37] category we spend that this year uh in
[5:08:40] the year that we collect it and that is
[5:08:43] because in the first two years when we
[5:08:46] were collecting money uh we weren't
[5:08:48] spending it on projects we were busy de
[5:08:51] getting organized and developing a plan
[5:08:53] etc. Uh so that we did have a large uh
[5:08:56] amount of cash that first year. Uh but
[5:08:59] that's not been the case with the
[5:09:01] administrative budget. So we spend that
[5:09:04] we expect to spend that next year. Um
[5:09:06] the third motion is the one for the
[5:09:09] appropriation of awards and I believe
[5:09:11] you have that in front of you. I'm going
[5:09:13] to go through those quickly so you'll uh
[5:09:17] just to highlight the uh important
[5:09:20] points. We have a total of over $4
[5:09:23] million. Unallocallocated budget reserve
[5:09:26] is 1.9 plus open space 430
[5:09:31] historic preservation 878300
[5:09:34] and community housing 798400.
[5:09:38] Next slide please.
[5:09:42] Okay so the community housing projects
[5:09:45] the affordable housing I wish they'd
[5:09:47] always call called it that. Um we have
[5:09:51] 1.1 million allocated for the Trustman
[5:09:54] roof preservation.
[5:09:56] Um and an important thing to note about
[5:09:59] this is a uh Brookline Housing Authority
[5:10:02] project and an important thing to note
[5:10:04] about that is that we have been able to
[5:10:06] secure a very favorable leverage and
[5:10:10] matching funds from the state. Uh so we
[5:10:13] anticipate a one and a half uh match
[5:10:17] although for a prior project the Eggmon
[5:10:21] Street roofs which have already been
[5:10:23] approved we had 500,000 in 2025
[5:10:27] um another 500,000 in 2026 and those
[5:10:31] were matched they were doubled actually
[5:10:34] so this we put in a million RCPA put in
[5:10:37] a million and the state put in two
[5:10:39] million so um that's one of the reasons
[5:10:42] our leverage uh number is high because
[5:10:46] of those kinds of projects from uh BHA
[5:10:50] and also uh we'll get to some of the
[5:10:52] private projects which have attracted
[5:10:54] also a lot of private money um the 398
[5:10:58] Nancy could you sort of include
[5:11:00] you want to go faster
[5:11:01] yeah your time is up so if you can
[5:11:04] okay so you can see uh you can read for
[5:11:06] yourself then the uh the projects under
[5:11:09] community housing historic preservation
[5:11:12] We have the United Parish steeple.
[5:11:14] Again, we have a large amount of
[5:11:16] matching funds and the old burial
[5:11:18] grounds restoration which we are
[5:11:21] continuing. We funded other projects in
[5:11:23] in the previous two years. We're
[5:11:24] continuing that. Uh open space and
[5:11:27] recreation. Next slide please.
[5:11:30] Um D Blakeley invasive species
[5:11:33] management. We're continuing to fund
[5:11:35] those kinds of projects. Tree inventory
[5:11:38] is also continuation. And now we're
[5:11:41] coming to the Lars Anderson green
[5:11:43] infrastructure study. Um, so that's it.
[5:11:47] Uh, we hope you'll vote favorable action
[5:11:49] on these projects. If you want to know,
[5:11:51] you want to get into the weeds, I can
[5:11:53] certainly do that, but I my sense is you
[5:11:56] would rather not.
[5:11:58] Okay, this is a public hearing, so let's
[5:12:00] Well, let actually does anyone have
[5:12:03] questions from the board?
[5:12:05] No. I I have had some uh constituents
[5:12:08] reach out wondering is there going to be
[5:12:10] a plan at some point to try to pull more
[5:12:13] money together for larger scale projects
[5:12:16] and what are some of the limitations
[5:12:18] around that such as you mentioned about
[5:12:19] the 10% minimum per category.
[5:12:22] Right. We we do have to spend uh we have
[5:12:25] we have to put money into the 10%
[5:12:28] category unless we don't have any
[5:12:30] projects in that category and then we
[5:12:32] can't spend it. Uh but um we
[5:12:36] really the um the limitations
[5:12:41] are um that we never lose the money. So
[5:12:44] that's not a problem. And we do have
[5:12:46] quite a bit built up now. And there have
[5:12:49] been I think some of your constituents
[5:12:50] may have been talking to you about open
[5:12:52] space projects, recreation projects. And
[5:12:55] we have been reluctant to to
[5:12:59] uh spend every single cent we had in the
[5:13:02] hope that we would be able to help the
[5:13:04] town if there is such a project, an open
[5:13:06] space purchase or uh or a um renovate uh
[5:13:12] creation of a park for instance. Uh, by
[5:13:15] the way, we are creating a park on
[5:13:16] Harvard. Uh, it's called the public
[5:13:18] health park park that that land there
[5:13:21] that's already been approved. But, um,
[5:13:24] so, you know, we're reluctant to spend
[5:13:27] every dime because we want to be able to
[5:13:31] have a bit of a cushion to be able to to
[5:13:35] uh uh spend that kind kind of money. I
[5:13:38] mean,
[5:13:40] right. Well, that that was the intent
[5:13:41] behind my question. So that's good to
[5:13:42] hear because I think people are
[5:13:43] wondering whether CPA funds could be
[5:13:46] utilized for something larger scale and
[5:13:48] it sounds like they're
[5:13:50] Yeah. Well, certainly we have used
[5:13:52] larger scale uh projects. We had $3.8
[5:13:54] million $3.75 million for uh the Walnut
[5:13:59] High development
[5:14:00] as you know and we did that the first
[5:14:02] year when we had a lot more money. Um
[5:14:05] we're now facing less money each year.
[5:14:08] Uh so we have about four million. Um but
[5:14:12] we have some that gets returned like in
[5:14:15] you know and that begins to build up our
[5:14:17] unb unallocated budget reserve so that
[5:14:20] we could potentially meet some of these
[5:14:24] larger uh requests you know a million or
[5:14:28] two million say
[5:14:29] for uh land. And there's also the rink
[5:14:32] and the uh you know we funded the uh
[5:14:35] design and the and that plan for the
[5:14:37] rink. Um but we know that it has to be
[5:14:40] built. Probably we wouldn't be able to
[5:14:41] do the whole thing but we might be able
[5:14:43] to u contribute to it. So
[5:14:46] and the 3.75 million was just half of
[5:14:49] what went into walnut high pro uh
[5:14:52] project.
[5:14:52] Correct. The uh
[5:14:53] the HAB providing
[5:14:54] the HAB put in the other that's so
[5:14:56] there's $7 million there. It's supposed
[5:14:58] to be a $70 million project, I think.
[5:15:01] Yeah.
[5:15:01] But that we we get we allocated the
[5:15:03] money in order to leverage uh the other
[5:15:07] monies that are that are coming in now.
[5:15:09] Okay, let's open up the hearing.
[5:15:13] Um John Heert online has his hand
[5:15:16] raised.
[5:15:16] Okay, John Heert.
[5:15:22] For whatever reason, uh my camera is not
[5:15:26] working. Uh, can you are you able to
[5:15:28] hear me?
[5:15:28] Yes.
[5:15:29] Great. Um, I'm John Heert. I'm a town
[5:15:33] meeting member in Pre67. I live at uh 21
[5:15:37] Auburn Street. And I I have a it's more
[5:15:40] of a curious uh question and it pertains
[5:15:45] in part to the um
[5:15:49] to the previous uh discussion about uh
[5:15:51] the CHCA
[5:15:54] uh and relative to the 10.93 million
[5:15:57] cash in le of payment that uh under that
[5:16:01] MOA city realy would make uh to the
[5:16:05] housing afford uh to the affordable
[5:16:08] housing trust fund. And um I'm just
[5:16:11] curious to know if I I see overlap
[5:16:14] between that money for the affordable
[5:16:17] housing trust fund and some of the
[5:16:19] projects here on the um on the CPA
[5:16:25] such as the Trustman apartments roof
[5:16:27] replacement and the um
[5:16:31] uh the housing advisory board uh
[5:16:34] affordable housing trust purpose of
[5:16:36] community housing creation preservation
[5:16:39] support and I'm curious to know with
[5:16:42] that overlap
[5:16:44] uh is it is it possible for some of the
[5:16:47] 10.3 9 to sorry some of the 10.93
[5:16:51] million for example
[5:16:54] to be used in for purposes that are
[5:16:59] described here for the CPA funding
[5:17:02] thereby freeing up more CPA funds for
[5:17:07] additional projects. Are is is there
[5:17:10] separation between these uh two uh silos
[5:17:14] if you will?
[5:17:20] Uh
[5:17:22] wait,
[5:17:23] you want me to answer the question?
[5:17:24] Uh yeah, it was a direct question.
[5:17:26] Okay. Um well the uh to date the HAB the
[5:17:31] housing advisory board and with who that
[5:17:34] manages the trust the housing trust um
[5:17:37] has focused on creation of new housing
[5:17:40] and while we at the CPA have also
[5:17:43] focused on creation with the $3.75
[5:17:46] million for the Walnut High projects
[5:17:49] have focused on the preservation of what
[5:17:53] we have in Brooklyn now as affordable
[5:17:56] housing. housing. A lot of it is
[5:17:58] unfortunately dilapidated
[5:18:01] and um our tenants are living in um
[5:18:06] conditions that we would prefer they not
[5:18:07] live in and we want to uh to uh we want
[5:18:12] to uh help that situation. So, we've
[5:18:16] funded, for instance, the um Brookline
[5:18:19] Community Development Corporation in its
[5:18:22] house in its affordable housing to fix
[5:18:25] their um
[5:18:28] outside the uh uh preservation of their
[5:18:31] roofs and uh there are other things
[5:18:35] which which uh correct deficiencies in
[5:18:40] the uh and and deterioration in the
[5:18:44] structure of the building to preserve
[5:18:46] it. Uh that's in turn corrected uh uh
[5:18:49] attracted other money which w which is
[5:18:52] used to rehab the interior of the
[5:18:57] building which CPA is does not uh do
[5:19:02] when it has not created the actual uh
[5:19:05] apartments to begin with. In addition,
[5:19:08] as I say, we've done we've done u
[5:19:11] projects for the BHA roof preservation,
[5:19:14] uh window restoration, that kind of
[5:19:16] thing, which are very important to
[5:19:18] tenants because they prevent le they
[5:19:21] keep keep them dry and uh also keep the
[5:19:25] energy costs down and the feel of how
[5:19:28] they what it feels like to live in an
[5:19:30] apartment where the wind is blowing in.
[5:19:32] Uh so we're cognizant of that and we are
[5:19:36] um
[5:19:38] working on that. HAB has not really done
[5:19:42] that to the extent that uh at least
[5:19:46] since I've been involved in it since um
[5:19:50] uh CPA has come into existence. And I
[5:19:53] think that's a good role for us to play
[5:19:56] because I think it's important for us to
[5:19:58] support this housing that we have and to
[5:20:02] um ensure that our tenants the tenants
[5:20:05] in those buildings and they're not town
[5:20:08] uh owned. They are the BHA is stateowned
[5:20:10] although I I think of it as a quasi town
[5:20:13] agency since we vote for the
[5:20:14] commissioners but uh and the BCDC is uh
[5:20:19] uh a nonprofit uh that's operating in
[5:20:22] the town but these are town residents
[5:20:25] and they deserve to live in uh decent
[5:20:28] conditions and uh I think it's you know
[5:20:32] certainly morally um correct to uh
[5:20:37] pursue this path.
[5:20:38] of making sure that the tenants we have
[5:20:41] are in are living in good conditions as
[5:20:44] well as building more units for tenants,
[5:20:48] prospective tenants.
[5:20:49] Can I ask you a really quick question?
[5:20:50] Sure.
[5:20:51] Um the BCDC funding um is what I'm
[5:20:56] thinking of. Could you do that for a
[5:20:58] privatelyowned
[5:21:01] um three-story or three-unit building uh
[5:21:04] that is uh reasonably priced because for
[5:21:08] example the owner lives in the building?
[5:21:13] I don't know the answer to that question
[5:21:15] off the top of my head. I think it would
[5:21:17] depend upon um a lot of agreements with
[5:21:22] the owner.
[5:21:22] Oh yeah. um you know and uh the uh
[5:21:28] apartments would have to be designated
[5:21:31] as affordable in perpetuity.
[5:21:33] That would be one a CPA requirement that
[5:21:36] you might not get with a private owner.
[5:21:38] But then again, you could
[5:21:40] but you could try.
[5:21:40] Yeah.
[5:21:41] And and the reason I mentioned that
[5:21:42] so I'm not ruling it out, but I'm saying
[5:21:44] there are some addition additional um
[5:21:47] con constrictions, you know.
[5:21:50] Yeah. The reason why I mentioned that is
[5:21:52] that we have a lot of housing in this
[5:21:54] town that's that's affordable, middle
[5:21:56] income affordable um that uh is
[5:22:00] basically old and run down and maybe you
[5:22:03] know if uh an owner gets some subsidy
[5:22:06] for keeping the u roof in shape or
[5:22:09] something um they can they would be
[5:22:12] willing to enter into an agreement to uh
[5:22:15] keep it affordable for perpetuity.
[5:22:16] Right. I mean it it would require a
[5:22:19] unique situation but it's something that
[5:22:22] um
[5:22:22] it would require a unique situation and
[5:22:25] we did have originally I believe we had
[5:22:27] an applicant who came forward but the
[5:22:30] idea was that that they would transfer
[5:22:33] the prop the the apartments to other
[5:22:38] owners who would you know be able to
[5:22:40] sell them at market rate at some point
[5:22:42] and again that's not CPA is not uh
[5:22:46] interested in doing that. We're
[5:22:48] interested in preserving and increasing
[5:22:50] affordable housing in the community.
[5:22:54] Okay, let's open up the um
[5:22:57] public is open. Okay.
[5:23:00] Sorry, John. [laughter]
[5:23:02] No, I I if if I may just um make a
[5:23:05] comment uh here in followup, I I
[5:23:08] certainly don't want anybody to
[5:23:09] misconstrue that I'm that I'm against
[5:23:13] this. In fact, I'm I'm all for this. And
[5:23:15] I'm my question is is it possible to
[5:23:18] free up even more funding that we have
[5:23:21] in the CPA that could be used from this
[5:23:24] for example this $10.93 million that is
[5:23:29] um that would if the MO if if the
[5:23:32] contract went through with city realy um
[5:23:37] would we be able to use some of that
[5:23:38] $10.93 million for some of the purposes
[5:23:41] that are now used by CPA to free up
[5:23:45] those funds. In other words, it sort of
[5:23:49] amplify uh the effect or
[5:23:54] or would that money uh have to be used
[5:23:58] for other purposes and not be able to
[5:24:02] use uh for the same purposes as CPA
[5:24:05] funds are used?
[5:24:07] Are you suggesting they should be used
[5:24:08] for open space and recreation and
[5:24:10] historic preservation as well? I'm just
[5:24:13] saying I'm asking to clarify the
[5:24:15] question.
[5:24:16] Okay. And uh
[5:24:17] maybe maybe I should jump in here. Um
[5:24:21] so
[5:24:22] the mitigation funds for from city realy
[5:24:26] from theou are a different are are could
[5:24:29] be you know for different purposes right
[5:24:31] but the the general purpose of that
[5:24:33] money is to right to mitigate the the
[5:24:36] impact uh of the additional development
[5:24:40] in town. So yes, it can be used for
[5:24:43] similar purposes to CPA, but it's got to
[5:24:45] be built around this idea of mitigating
[5:24:48] the impact. And yes, theoretically,
[5:24:52] um, if there was overlap between those
[5:24:54] two pots of money, then yes, that money
[5:24:56] could be used for something that could
[5:24:57] then be used for CPA, but right now that
[5:25:00] it it doesn't seem to me that there's an
[5:25:03] immediate overlap there. Um, that could
[5:25:05] change. Um but yes, you know, you got to
[5:25:09] remember that in order to for them to
[5:25:11] make that payment, it's got to be
[5:25:12] related to something uh involving why,
[5:25:16] you know, the the building being there
[5:25:18] in the first place or the additional
[5:25:19] development being there in the first
[5:25:20] place.
[5:25:22] And if I can jump in here briefly too on
[5:25:24] the CPA funding side, we've historically
[5:25:27] used over half of the CPA funds
[5:25:29] available for housing uh purposes. at a
[5:25:33] minimum we need to have 10% for housing
[5:25:37] purposes. So the difference in that has
[5:25:39] been made up with the unallocated budget
[5:25:41] which can be used for any of those
[5:25:42] purposes. Um, and I mean in theory you
[5:25:47] could use more of those unallocated
[5:25:49] purposes for things other than housing,
[5:25:52] but I think that um when it comes to
[5:25:54] housing often the the need is so great
[5:25:57] and the expense is so great that um
[5:26:01] really it like all of the above usually
[5:26:05] when it comes to affordable housing. So
[5:26:07] um I think it would take an overwhelming
[5:26:10] amount. It sounds like a very large
[5:26:12] amount of mitigation funds, which is
[5:26:14] great, but I I would suspect that
[5:26:16] there's still going to be a pretty big
[5:26:18] role to play for CPA and community
[5:26:19] housing even with that mitigation funds.
[5:26:23] Okay,
[5:26:23] thank you everybody.
[5:26:25] Unless there is anyone else who would
[5:26:28] like to speak, I'd like to close the
[5:26:29] hearing.
[5:26:31] And um I think I I would like to, you
[5:26:35] know, vote favorable action, but I think
[5:26:38] as a as a policy matter, we ought to
[5:26:40] wait till another meeting in order to
[5:26:43] make that decision. So,
[5:26:44] okay.
[5:26:45] Good. Thank you.
[5:26:47] Thank you.
[5:26:47] Thank you, Nancy.
[5:26:50] So um it is 10:47
[5:26:54] and some I I understand some people in
[5:26:57] this uh audience are fading.
[5:27:01] No names will be mentioned. Um is there
[5:27:04] some way we can put off
[5:27:05] I have I have some good news for you
[5:27:07] which is that article 19 has been
[5:27:09] withdrawn. Um so that's out.
[5:27:12] Um articles 17 and 25 there have been
[5:27:16] some changes some revisions. Um, but a
[5:27:19] motion was just offered to refer today.
[5:27:22] So, and that's not in your packet.
[5:27:24] Motion by refer
[5:27:26] by Marty Rosenthal was offered to refer
[5:27:29] 17 and potentially 25 to a
[5:27:32] two motions to refer.
[5:27:33] Yes. Well, there's one joint there's a
[5:27:34] motion to refer both articles. Uh, and
[5:27:36] theoretically,
[5:27:37] yeah, a joint motion to
[5:27:39] that's how it's styled. I don't know how
[5:27:42] the parliamentary procedure on that
[5:27:43] works. Um
[5:27:46] um but it's unclear at this point
[5:27:48] whether Marty Rosenthal he's oh so sorry
[5:27:50] so to whom he's he's referring it to a
[5:27:53] select board committee.
[5:27:54] Oh my god. [laughter]
[5:27:55] Select board committee.
[5:27:58] Um anyhow um so that's that's out there.
[5:28:01] Um but that hasn't been um vetted yet.
[5:28:05] So I don't think there's action
[5:28:06] necessarily for you to take on 17 and 25
[5:28:09] yet given those. Um that
[5:28:11] put that off for another
[5:28:12] right another day. That leaves you with
[5:28:15] 12
[5:28:17] uh and 24. Um 12 uh is the article about
[5:28:22] publishing public records requests. And
[5:28:24] I'm sorry I you have the petitioner
[5:28:26] here. Um you also have Marty who's here
[5:28:31] who's raised his hand if he wants to
[5:28:33] talk about his referral motion. Um and
[5:28:35] then you have the petitioner for 12 and
[5:28:38] uh
[5:28:41] 20 um
[5:28:43] uh 24 which is the two offer two
[5:28:47] articles offered by Mike Toffel and Alec
[5:28:49] Labitz. Um
[5:28:51] maybe you want to
[5:28:52] Yeah.
[5:28:53] I I and so I mean all right if people
[5:28:57] if folks on 17 and 25 want to talk about
[5:28:59] them that's fine. Um,
[5:29:01] well, look, I I'd like to hear from
[5:29:02] Marty in terms of, you know, motivation
[5:29:06] behind his referral
[5:29:07] and then you should hear from the
[5:29:08] petitioner. Yeah.
[5:29:09] Yeah.
[5:29:10] I I think given that we have the
[5:29:11] petitioners here, we hear from them,
[5:29:13] too.
[5:29:14] Oh, I'm sorry. They made some changes,
[5:29:15] right?
[5:29:16] They made some changes, right?
[5:29:18] Okay. So, why don't we start off with
[5:29:20] the petitioners giving us their changes
[5:29:23] and then go to market.
[5:29:25] What are we doing? 12 12 first.
[5:29:27] No, no, no. So it looks like they're
[5:29:29] 17 and 24.
[5:29:30] Looks like their hands are up. So why
[5:29:32] don't we why don't if it's all right
[5:29:33] with you when you do 17 and 25.
[5:29:36] Okay. Yeah.
[5:29:38] And so Chi-Chi Wu is on.
[5:29:40] Okay. Chi-Chi, why don't you speak
[5:29:42] regarding uh 17 and 25? Um
[5:29:49] okay, great. Thank you uh very much.
[5:29:51] Chi-Chi moving meaning member pre
[5:29:53] precinct 7 co-petitioner on article 17
[5:29:56] and 25 joined by uh my co- petitioner
[5:29:59] Jessica Kiko um appreciate the board
[5:30:02] hearing from us since we have been on
[5:30:04] since you know 8:00
[5:30:07] um we have made changes to uh both 17
[5:30:11] and 25 as a result of feedback both from
[5:30:14] me uh members of the select board as
[5:30:16] well as advisory committee um I sent
[5:30:21] those to uh you and I'm hoping you have
[5:30:25] a copy of them if you would like. We
[5:30:27] actually have slides we which we can
[5:30:29] show you the changes if you'd like.
[5:30:32] Why don't you do that?
[5:30:33] We do have the and we do have the
[5:30:34] revised versions in the packet. So yes.
[5:30:36] Okay.
[5:30:37] Okay. Great. Let me see if I can
[5:30:40] uh
[5:30:42] It's on page 720 of the packet.
[5:30:50] My AP.
[5:30:54] All right. My apologies. The
[5:30:59] Zoom is not giving me an option for
[5:31:03] uh
[5:31:04] Can you make her as co-host?
[5:31:06] She's co-host. She should be able to
[5:31:07] Yeah. No, it's just it's just giving not
[5:31:09] giving me the option for um Can you see
[5:31:13] a PowerPoint right now?
[5:31:15] No.
[5:31:16] So, Chaz, is this in our packet as
[5:31:18] revisions to article 17 round two?
[5:31:20] Yes.
[5:31:21] Chi, I have it pulled up if you want me
[5:31:23] to screen share.
[5:31:25] Oh, awesome.
[5:31:27] Zoom is just not giving me an option for
[5:31:29] to share it from um from Google Drive.
[5:31:33] Yeah. You you want the slides, right?
[5:31:35] Yeah.
[5:31:42] Sorry. Do you want me to go back or
[5:31:44] start here?
[5:31:46] Okay. Yes. Thank you, Jessica. Um, so
[5:31:48] the first change is um at the paragraph
[5:31:53] one of the article where uh we added the
[5:31:56] federal um before some civil immigration
[5:31:58] enforcement in response to um Michael uh
[5:32:02] Rubenstein's suggestion. We also added
[5:32:04] uh at the end a um sentence that for
[5:32:08] purposes of the article the term town
[5:32:10] facilities does not include streets,
[5:32:12] roads or other public ways and that is
[5:32:15] um uh at the suggestion of the advisory
[5:32:18] committee subcommittee. Next slide
[5:32:20] please.
[5:32:23] Um on paragraph two, we tweaked the
[5:32:26] language um per suggestion um to focus
[5:32:30] on the activity and not the personnel of
[5:32:33] central immigration enforcement
[5:32:35] prohibiting it in non-public spaces. We
[5:32:38] struck the second sentence. We were
[5:32:39] getting a lot of feedback that, you
[5:32:42] know, it could possibly be interpreted
[5:32:43] to actually weaken um some of the other
[5:32:46] prohibitions, some concerns about
[5:32:48] language and um back and forth and and
[5:32:50] we finally decided it was just uh easier
[5:32:52] to strike that. So, that has been
[5:32:53] struck. The next slide, please.
[5:32:57] Um on paragraph three per the suggestion
[5:33:01] of advisory committee we noted that it
[5:33:04] was town employees that would document
[5:33:06] violations of um first and second
[5:33:08] paragraph and notify the to
[5:33:10] administrator's office. Um we have made
[5:33:12] violations not only civil in nature but
[5:33:14] also not subject to section 10.1 of the
[5:33:17] bylaws which is the uh police criminal
[5:33:20] enforcement of bylaws. So it's
[5:33:22] absolutely clear this is civil and uh
[5:33:25] nature only. We've struck paragraph 4 um
[5:33:29] that we had suggest we had thought about
[5:33:31] suggesting earlier. Um we were getting a
[5:33:33] lot of comments about different aspects
[5:33:34] of the language and um it was getting
[5:33:36] complicated and we came to the
[5:33:38] realization that um also putting in the
[5:33:41] bylaws would mean that um it would be an
[5:33:44] actual prohibition on on officers doing
[5:33:46] anything to interfere with federal law
[5:33:49] enforcement including even uh the
[5:33:51] example we heard from the police a
[5:33:53] couple of meetings ago where um you know
[5:33:56] they basically they said what happens
[5:33:58] some in the police station is that um
[5:34:00] ICE officers are politely to wait
[5:34:02] outside and um that could be construed
[5:34:05] as interference. So, we wouldn't want to
[5:34:06] prohibit that. So, we've struck that.
[5:34:09] So, those are our changes. Happy to
[5:34:11] answer questions. I I don't know if I
[5:34:13] was hoping you might vote one way or
[5:34:16] another just to vote. I'm not sure we
[5:34:18] can be back for a fifth time. Um we've
[5:34:22] been before you three times. We uh our
[5:34:25] motion was deferred another time when we
[5:34:27] waited. So, I I'm I'm really hoping um
[5:34:30] the board would like to take some
[5:34:32] action. Thank you. And then 25. Jessica,
[5:34:35] do you want to do that or you want me to
[5:34:36] handle that?
[5:34:38] I I can do it real quick.
[5:34:40] Um let me just make that.
[5:34:42] Uh we made three.
[5:34:44] Can we can we take up 17 and just
[5:34:47] resolve it first because I think we may
[5:34:49] want to do different things between the
[5:34:51] two of them.
[5:34:51] You want to make a motion?
[5:34:52] You've got you've you've got a referral
[5:34:54] motion. Yeah. Too. So, you might want to
[5:34:56] hear from after Marty.
[5:34:57] Oh, that's right.
[5:34:58] Because that's going to take precedence,
[5:34:59] right?
[5:35:00] Well, it would be voted on first.
[5:35:02] Yeah.
[5:35:02] At town meeting.
[5:35:05] So,
[5:35:05] but I mean, we can we we can recommend a
[5:35:08] favorable action.
[5:35:11] We could, but until we hear the case for
[5:35:13] referral, I
[5:35:14] Yeah. No, I'm not saying we should do
[5:35:16] that before hearing Marty, but
[5:35:18] Right.
[5:35:18] Yeah. We're not restrained by
[5:35:21] the rules of town meeting.
[5:35:24] Um Okay, Jessica. You said you wanted if
[5:35:27] you want to take up 17, you should
[5:35:28] probably hear from Marty referral.
[5:35:30] Yeah. Okay. Um Marty,
[5:35:34] why don't you in I think I'm in
[5:35:35] just on 17.
[5:35:38] Uh go never mind.
[5:35:41] Am I Can you hear me?
[5:35:44] Oh, all right. Sorry. Um so I got the uh
[5:35:48] petitioners
[5:35:49] u latest version today.
[5:35:53] um and wish they had sent it to me as
[5:35:55] well, but that's a separate issue. And
[5:35:57] then I decided I better put my referral
[5:36:01] uh draft into writing because I've been
[5:36:04] talking about it for a month or three
[5:36:07] weeks and haven't put anything into
[5:36:10] writing. So, the motion uh I I think you
[5:36:13] got it. Wait a minute. Who made my
[5:36:16] screen go full? Somebody. All right. The
[5:36:20] the motion at this point is and and the
[5:36:23] moderator said it's within the scope is
[5:36:25] to refer the subject matters tentatively
[5:36:29] 17 and 25
[5:36:31] uh including potentially related
[5:36:35] police general orders to a
[5:36:39] promptly appointed select board
[5:36:41] committee with in part representation of
[5:36:43] CDICR and the police commissioners
[5:36:46] advisory committee with staff including
[5:36:49] bus the police and town council's
[5:36:52] assistance in keeping in place the
[5:36:54] board's February 10 proclamation
[5:36:57] regarding civil immigration enforcement.
[5:37:01] That's basically the motion. I think you
[5:37:03] have it uh about an hour or two ago. I
[5:37:07] sent it at least to Jessica and I I
[5:37:09] maybe she shared it with the
[5:37:11] petitioners. I hope
[5:37:14] you're explain why Marty.
[5:37:16] Yeah. Okay. So, I I have been saying for
[5:37:20] a couple of weeks that I don't
[5:37:22] understand why the petitioners are want
[5:37:26] to run the risk of having a bylaw
[5:37:29] reviewed by the attorney general and
[5:37:32] voiding not only this bylaw but also all
[5:37:36] the executive orders by by implication.
[5:37:38] I think and the reasons are I've stated
[5:37:42] them before. I think it's loaded with
[5:37:44] legal issues and the town council memo I
[5:37:47] thought was very cursory saying that
[5:37:50] paragraph one was okay. Even that one
[5:37:53] has issues aside from the ICE issues.
[5:37:56] And I hope anyone has looked at the Vera
[5:37:59] report that I talked I've talked about
[5:38:01] and cited for you that talks about the
[5:38:03] ICE issues, the sovereign immunity
[5:38:06] versus the 10th amendment. But there's
[5:38:09] also issues about essentially a trespass
[5:38:12] law. Doesn't call it a trespass law. And
[5:38:15] I think that's probably preempted by
[5:38:17] state law. I don't think it's adequately
[5:38:20] enforceable. I think it's still got a
[5:38:22] lot of vagueness, which criminal laws uh
[5:38:26] scrutinize for vagueness. And the
[5:38:29] enforcement provision that's been
[5:38:31] changed is just not going to work. I'm
[5:38:34] sorry. Uh, you cannot
[5:38:37] make 10.1, you can't overrule it. 10.1
[5:38:42] says a violation of the bylaws is a
[5:38:44] misdemeanor. And that comes from state
[5:38:46] law. Last week, uh, the chief and I
[5:38:49] think Chi-Chi agreed that it's a general
[5:38:52] law. It's not a general law. It's state
[5:38:54] law that goes back to common law. In
[5:38:56] fact, it goes back to for any lawyers in
[5:38:59] the room, Blackstone's commentaries that
[5:39:02] that anything that is deemed to be a
[5:39:05] violation against the state a state of
[5:39:09] or where the state is the plaintiff is a
[5:39:13] crime. It's a misdemeanor. And that's
[5:39:15] where 10.1 comes for. This bylaw
[5:39:18] doesn't, the draft doesn't try to
[5:39:20] overrule uh 10.1 and the enforcement
[5:39:24] provision that civil enforcement that's
[5:39:27] already in our bylaws that something can
[5:39:29] be enforced civily, but that doesn't
[5:39:31] take it out of the designation as a as a
[5:39:34] misdemeanor and a crime that gets
[5:39:36] scrutinized by the attorney general. So,
[5:39:38] I just think that paragraph one, there's
[5:39:41] other issues as well. says, "I brought
[5:39:44] up the streets and sidewalks issues, but
[5:39:46] what about parking lots and and parks?
[5:39:49] If the police see someone they want to
[5:39:52] kidnap a alleged detainee in a park or
[5:39:58] uh in a parking lot, are we saying they
[5:40:01] can't go in there?" That's going to run
[5:40:03] into the the sovereign immunity issues
[5:40:06] and and the police station is now
[5:40:08] considered banned. They can't go into
[5:40:11] the police station and ask if someone is
[5:40:13] in detention or when they're coming out.
[5:40:15] I have proposed last week that we add a
[5:40:20] a general order along the lines of the
[5:40:22] Plymouth provision that John Van Goyak
[5:40:25] sent me uh which is that our our in
[5:40:29] keeping with our sanctuary order the
[5:40:31] desk officer could say I'm not
[5:40:33] authorized to tell you anything. But
[5:40:34] that's a separate issue. But the point
[5:40:36] is, how can we make the police station
[5:40:39] out of bounds for ICE? The other thing
[5:40:42] about this is that Alec brought up last
[5:40:45] week that we want it to be that you
[5:40:47] folks and I do too. I want something
[5:40:50] more binding to so that people can count
[5:40:53] on it. But the fact of the matter is, no
[5:40:56] matter what happens here, ICE is not
[5:40:59] going to care about what we say in
[5:41:00] Brooklyn. And the fact is that people
[5:41:03] should not be told, as Alec said last
[5:41:05] week, with all due respect, I know it
[5:41:07] was well motivated, that people should
[5:41:10] be are counting on this. Nobody should
[5:41:12] be counting on this. And I I hope that
[5:41:15] the petitioners are not telling people
[5:41:18] that
[5:41:19] even the proclamation
[5:41:22] is is going to save them from ICE right
[5:41:24] now. It isn't. In fact, ICE doesn't care
[5:41:27] about homicide laws and kidnapping laws.
[5:41:30] So, why are they going to care about an
[5:41:32] a trespass law that's not called that?
[5:41:35] And and lastly, um I I know that uh you
[5:41:39] want to get on and get get the meeting
[5:41:40] over with, but um the the uh the the
[5:41:45] definition of the uh oh, by the way, the
[5:41:48] it's there's a case called Sherman
[5:41:50] Manufacturing 1905 that says a uh crime
[5:41:54] or misdemeanor is an act committed or
[5:41:57] omitted in violation of the public law.
[5:42:01] So that's where the Blackstone's
[5:42:03] commentary comes in that this is going
[5:42:05] to be a crime no matter how you slice it
[5:42:07] and the police shall enforce town
[5:42:11] bylaws. So you're putting them in a
[5:42:13] bind. What are they supposed to do with
[5:42:15] this?
[5:42:16] The bottom line is I really believe that
[5:42:19] this would create a monkey wrench for
[5:42:22] the at least six cities that now have
[5:42:26] executive orders and maybe the governors
[5:42:28] as well because some of the language is
[5:42:30] the same as the governors. And I don't
[5:42:32] think that's a risk worth taking. I
[5:42:34] think it should be a study not by the
[5:42:37] board but a committee created by the
[5:42:39] board and that it should act quickly and
[5:42:43] try to revise especially the general
[5:42:45] orders. Whether there should be a bylaw,
[5:42:48] I'm really reluctant that a bylaw.
[5:42:50] Okay, we got we got it. David,
[5:42:52] so just the uh portion you mentioned,
[5:42:54] Marty, about concern of an attorney
[5:42:56] general review. So the town of Plymouth
[5:42:58] this past Saturday, they passed at town
[5:43:02] meeting their version of this warrant
[5:43:05] article. So that attorney general review
[5:43:07] is going to happen regardless. So beyond
[5:43:10] that point, however, you uh raised the
[5:43:13] concern about uh police and for Brooklyn
[5:43:17] police enforcing the bylaw in spaces
[5:43:20] such as public parks. I'm wondering if
[5:43:22] we can hear from the petitioners whether
[5:43:26] you've had further discussions with the
[5:43:28] police department about that enforcement
[5:43:30] issue and about whether other public
[5:43:33] spaces need to be exempted beyond
[5:43:36] sidewalks.
[5:43:40] So um we have not had further
[5:43:44] conversations with the police
[5:43:45] department. Um, we did, uh, as I said,
[5:43:51] make enforcement of this civil and not
[5:43:53] subject to the criminal enforcement
[5:43:55] penalty in the bylaws. Um, so, uh, it,
[5:44:02] um, I mean, the the obligation of the
[5:44:06] police would be the same as any town
[5:44:08] employee with a civil offense. And um
[5:44:14] you know we took out the part about um
[5:44:17] you know public spaces being for the
[5:44:19] purpose that they were intended for and
[5:44:23] so that particular paragraph only
[5:44:25] applies to non-public spaces now. Um
[5:44:31] yeah Jessica I don't know if you want to
[5:44:32] add anything to that. Um, no. I I think
[5:44:36] that's right. And I take the point that
[5:44:38] just because we have a bylaw, it doesn't
[5:44:39] mean that immigration enforcement agents
[5:44:41] are going to follow it. And and we are
[5:44:44] certainly not, you know, telling people
[5:44:46] that, you know, we have this
[5:44:48] proclamation, we will have a bylaws and
[5:44:50] therefore nothing can happen to you in
[5:44:52] Brooklyn. I mean, I I have spent the
[5:44:54] past 16 months training literally
[5:44:57] thousands of immigrants in Massachusetts
[5:44:59] about their rights, and let me tell you,
[5:45:02] nobody is feeling reassured, right?
[5:45:04] Like, nobody feels completely safe no
[5:45:06] matter where they live. Um, but I do
[5:45:09] think um it it's important for the town
[5:45:13] to say, "Look, th this is our property.
[5:45:16] These are our facilities. We don't think
[5:45:17] this activity is appropriate and
[5:45:19] necessary in our space." Um and and I
[5:45:23] think that that's still a really
[5:45:24] important message uh to send and and
[5:45:27] this bylaw does that. Uh and we you know
[5:45:31] we we've listened um as Chi-Chi said to
[5:45:35] the concerns expressed by our police
[5:45:37] department regarding enforcability and
[5:45:40] we've made amendments to to reflect
[5:45:42] those concerns. Um and we think that um
[5:45:47] it does what it needs to do in its
[5:45:49] current version.
[5:45:51] Okay. Uh, Michael, did you have your
[5:45:53] hand up?
[5:45:54] Um, yes, I did. Um,
[5:45:58] I guess the question I asked I wanted to
[5:46:00] ask Marty, but I think he may have
[5:46:02] answered it already is, you know, um, a
[5:46:05] referral motion as opposed to just
[5:46:07] trying to defeat the amendment is for
[5:46:09] study to bring it back um, for
[5:46:12] reconsideration. So, I'm just wondering
[5:46:15] what you expect the result of that study
[5:46:18] to that study to be if all of if you
[5:46:21] feel like the warrant article is just
[5:46:24] riddled with um uninforcable or
[5:46:28] inappropriate language.
[5:46:31] May I be May I be heard?
[5:46:34] Yeah, go ahead.
[5:46:36] Well, it first of all, I don't think it
[5:46:38] has to come back. I'm hoping frankly
[5:46:41] that the real best way to handle this is
[5:46:45] to do general orders that give the
[5:46:48] police enforcement powers and it could
[5:46:50] be also something to other employees
[5:46:54] could come from a select board. So I'm
[5:46:56] not convinced that the that a bylaw is
[5:46:59] the best route on this. I think you
[5:47:01] could do those things pretty quickly.
[5:47:03] And I'm asking that the proclamation
[5:47:05] stay in place, which is partly in re
[5:47:09] along the lines of what Jessica is
[5:47:11] saying that the message has been sent
[5:47:13] and needs to be sent. It was a great
[5:47:16] message, but I just don't think it's
[5:47:18] going to accomplish the goals. It's
[5:47:20] going to create problems for the police
[5:47:22] department. And and the other thing that
[5:47:24] Chi-Chi just said something about the
[5:47:26] police will not be enforcing this. other
[5:47:29] people will be enforcing it. The police
[5:47:31] are obligated to enforce bylaws. That's
[5:47:34] I think uh 10.2 or three. 10.2, isn't
[5:47:37] it? Police are shall enforce bylaws. So,
[5:47:42] I don't think they can ignore a a bylaw
[5:47:45] violation whether it's in the police
[5:47:47] station or in the town hall parking lot
[5:47:50] or the playground the the park right
[5:47:53] around the corner from town hall or any
[5:47:54] playground park. So I just think this is
[5:47:58] very difficult and it's much more
[5:48:01] complicated and I wish somebody would
[5:48:03] look at the Vera article because these
[5:48:05] are going on all over the country and
[5:48:07] that it raises some very complicated
[5:48:09] issues and I don't think any of them
[5:48:11] have been upheld yet which was uh
[5:48:15] one of the things that came up last
[5:48:17] week.
[5:48:18] Thank you Marty. I think you answered my
[5:48:19] question and I appreciate it.
[5:48:20] Sorry. Yeah.
[5:48:23] Anyone else with comments or questions
[5:48:25] on select board?
[5:48:30] No. Okay. Anything further from the
[5:48:32] petitioners
[5:48:34] specifically to warrant article 17?
[5:48:39] On 17? No.
[5:48:40] All right. So, do we feel ready to take
[5:48:43] a vote on this? Sounds like you do.
[5:48:45] I do. Yeah.
[5:48:45] All right.
[5:48:47] I'm ready to recommend favorable action.
[5:48:49] I do have a question. So, um this maybe
[5:48:53] it's a rhetorical question, but if if
[5:48:55] there's no fines, there's no
[5:48:58] enforcement,
[5:49:00] um
[5:49:02] it's seems like it'd be more civil, not
[5:49:04] criminal. I I think probably the
[5:49:06] exclusion of 10.1 probably covers you on
[5:49:09] that. Um what's the point
[5:49:13] uh of of moving it from a bylaw or not
[5:49:17] from a policy chichi to to the bylaw?
[5:49:20] What's your thinking there?
[5:49:22] So, uh, as I mentioned in one of the
[5:49:24] earlier presentations, um, part of the
[5:49:26] reason that triggered this warrant
[5:49:29] article was when someone said, well, uh,
[5:49:32] you know, to enforce the proclamation,
[5:49:34] we would go to court and ask for an
[5:49:36] injunction enforcing the ordinance. And
[5:49:39] of course, an ordinance is a bylaw. It's
[5:49:42] not a proclamation. So, it makes it um,
[5:49:45] have more legal weight so that it's
[5:49:46] enforcable civily through an injunction.
[5:49:50] Um and you know the idea is that all
[5:49:52] town employees you know whether it be
[5:49:54] librarians, teachers or police officers
[5:49:56] report it to the town administrator's
[5:49:58] office and the town administrator um
[5:50:00] would then you know have to make the
[5:50:02] decision whether to seek uh an
[5:50:04] injunction in court.
[5:50:06] So you're just saying it carries more
[5:50:08] weight broadly. Is that what the issue
[5:50:10] is?
[5:50:10] Yes. Yes. Um it it has more legal
[5:50:13] enforcibility if you're going to go to
[5:50:14] court and ask for an injunction that
[5:50:15] it's a bylaw. and and others here can
[5:50:18] remind me if I'm misremembering but I
[5:50:21] think the police chief had stated that
[5:50:24] effectively the police does act they do
[5:50:26] exercise discretion on what they are
[5:50:29] enforcing and when they are enforcing
[5:50:32] it. Uh so I think that mllifies perhaps
[5:50:35] some concerns about questions of uh
[5:50:38] would we seek to go after ICE if they
[5:50:41] utilized a public park for example as uh
[5:50:45] space to your uh question just now Paul
[5:50:48] about uh what's the point I think maybe
[5:50:50] to some extent the point is a statement
[5:50:54] of our values
[5:50:56] uh even if ICE is going to realistically
[5:50:59] ignore it the main reservation that I
[5:51:02] had initially was the point that Marty
[5:51:05] made about attorney general review, but
[5:51:07] given that Plymouth has passed their
[5:51:09] version, that's going to happen
[5:51:11] regardless. Uh, so I'm prepared to
[5:51:14] support Warrant Article 17, uh, and
[5:51:18] sounds like Michael is moving that
[5:51:19] Yeah.
[5:51:20] question,
[5:51:20] right?
[5:51:22] Okay.
[5:51:23] I move that we recommend favorable
[5:51:25] action on Warren Article 17.
[5:51:26] Okay. All in favor, John.
[5:51:29] [clears throat and cough]
[5:51:31] Well, with a lot of reservations because
[5:51:33] I do think um Marty has a very good case
[5:51:36] for referral. Um but I'll say I
[5:51:42] Paul Warren.
[5:51:43] Paul Warren. I'm going to abstain.
[5:51:45] David I
[5:51:48] and chair votes I.
[5:51:51] Okay.
[5:51:52] Thank you. Select board.
[5:51:54] Thank you.
[5:51:54] That's 17. Now we have 25.
[5:51:58] Thank you. Okay. Okay.
[5:51:59] Discussion.
[5:52:03] Um, is it okay if I share my screen uh
[5:52:05] and show slides with the edits we've
[5:52:08] made?
[5:52:08] Yes, go ahead.
[5:52:11] Okay. And I'll be as brief as humanly
[5:52:13] possible.
[5:52:15] Uh so again in response to feedback that
[5:52:19] we received both um before the select
[5:52:22] board and in public hearing before a
[5:52:24] subcommittee of the advisory um council
[5:52:27] we've made three specific edits um to
[5:52:30] the local planks of warrant article 25.
[5:52:33] Um the first one is with regards to
[5:52:35] fingerprinting. Um our resolution calls
[5:52:39] for not fingerprinting juveniles or
[5:52:41] following arrest for misdemeanors. Um,
[5:52:43] and there were some concerns expressed
[5:52:45] by our uh, police department um, that
[5:52:49] doing so would mean that we would not be
[5:52:51] in compliance with state police
[5:52:53] accredititation standards. Um, this is
[5:52:56] not an area of expertise for me. The
[5:52:57] research that I found indicates that
[5:52:59] state law requires fingerprinting only
[5:53:01] for felonies. Um, and I couldn't find
[5:53:03] anything specific in our police
[5:53:05] accreditation that requires
[5:53:06] fingerprinting across the board for
[5:53:08] every arrest. Uh, nonetheless, we
[5:53:11] included um this qualifying language
[5:53:13] unless required by state law or police
[5:53:16] accredititation um to address those
[5:53:18] concerns.
[5:53:20] The second uh is that we also added a
[5:53:23] qualifier to applying for UASI grants
[5:53:26] and we added that we shall cease
[5:53:29] applying for grants unless such grants
[5:53:31] do not require cooperation, support of
[5:53:34] or data sharing with federal immigration
[5:53:36] enforcement or border crisis response.
[5:53:39] participation in the brick or
[5:53:42] cooperation with federal election
[5:53:44] interference.
[5:53:45] And then the last one, not as
[5:53:47] substantive, we struck um the names of
[5:53:50] the individuals in the very last uh
[5:53:53] bullet um and instead just referred to
[5:53:56] uh officers by title and removed
[5:53:59] reference to the select board and the
[5:54:01] police chief as they will of course um
[5:54:04] be aware of the warrant article. So
[5:54:06] those are our three uh recommended ch uh
[5:54:11] suggested edits uh in response to the
[5:54:14] feedback that we've received.
[5:54:16] Okay,
[5:54:17] we're happy to answer.
[5:54:18] Okay, so since Marty has also referred
[5:54:20] this, why don't we hear from him and um
[5:54:24] briefly Marty?
[5:54:27] I see two pastors on the uh uh doesn't
[5:54:31] have her hand up, but looks like she's
[5:54:33] wanting to speak.
[5:54:37] Well, assuming I I'm likely to still do
[5:54:40] the referral motion, I'm likely to
[5:54:42] include this as well because I think
[5:54:44] there's things in this that could be
[5:54:46] improved and the resolution
[5:54:49] goes back to the board basically to do
[5:54:52] things anyway. So, um I think that
[5:54:55] there's things in here that could be
[5:54:58] improved and added like what I talked
[5:55:00] about about improving the what's not
[5:55:04] called whatever it's called the
[5:55:05] sanctuary order uh that police could
[5:55:08] decline to answer a question for
[5:55:10] instance and I had other ideas that I've
[5:55:13] mentioned in past meetings but I'm going
[5:55:15] to also probably put those into writing
[5:55:18] as a possible amendment if my referral
[5:55:23] motion fails. But I do think that uh for
[5:55:26] the same reasons I talked about earlier,
[5:55:28] if it's going to be referred on 17, I
[5:55:32] think that should refer this one too,
[5:55:34] which doesn't really detract from this
[5:55:37] one at all because this one is a
[5:55:40] resolution that basically is referred
[5:55:43] back to the select select board anyway.
[5:55:45] So, it seems to me that um I have some
[5:55:49] ideas on how to improve this that I hope
[5:55:51] the petitioners would be open to. Uh and
[5:55:55] if that's the case, then I think this
[5:55:57] should be referred as well. And I'm not
[5:55:59] going to get into those specifics now,
[5:56:01] partly because of the hour and partly
[5:56:03] because they're all scribblings in my
[5:56:05] computer.
[5:56:06] Okay. Thanks. Um Chief Sullivan, I see
[5:56:08] has his hand raised. Why don't we hear
[5:56:10] from him?
[5:56:15] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, John Sullivan,
[5:56:18] fire chief and emergency management
[5:56:20] director. Um, again, I would ask the
[5:56:24] board to vote non-favorably on this
[5:56:26] article um in my capacity as the uh
[5:56:29] jurisdictional point of contact for the
[5:56:31] UASI region uh for the town. Um this
[5:56:35] this article um has [clears throat] a
[5:56:38] poison pill in it that would restrict us
[5:56:41] from going for any grants um based on
[5:56:46] the various
[5:56:48] items that are in there and which is
[5:56:50] really veiled in um the the petitioners
[5:56:56] political stand against the immigration
[5:56:57] enforcement and I get that. Uh but this
[5:57:00] is this is not this is not the vehicle
[5:57:03] to do that. We we get a great deal of
[5:57:06] funding and a lot of our uh capacity for
[5:57:10] emergency management from the Yasi
[5:57:12] region. Uh and it is throwing the baby
[5:57:15] out with the bathwater. we would we
[5:57:17] would potentially lose hundreds of
[5:57:19] thousands of dollars worth of equipment
[5:57:21] and um resources [clears throat]
[5:57:24] and uh not just in Brooklyn but
[5:57:26] regionally if we were to just withdraw
[5:57:30] UASI alto together. I know it's saying
[5:57:33] not to go for UASI grants but that it's
[5:57:35] effectively the same thing. Um it's it
[5:57:38] is a temporary situation. We lived
[5:57:41] through this administration before.
[5:57:42] We'll live through it again. uh we've
[5:57:44] gone through all kinds of uh iterations
[5:57:47] of this over the course of the 25 years
[5:57:49] since 911 and I really think it is uh it
[5:57:53] is not in the best interest of the town
[5:57:55] uh to withdraw from Yuasi uh whether
[5:57:58] it's just the grants which in effect is
[5:58:00] the same same thing. So that's all I
[5:58:03] have to say.
[5:58:03] Hey uh chief can I ask you a question?
[5:58:05] So this warrant article also talks about
[5:58:08] withdrawing from brick. Um, yeah.
[5:58:10] And frankly, I'm sympathetic to that
[5:58:14] because brick, uh, as it's alleged, is
[5:58:18] really running wild. Is there any way
[5:58:22] I I don't have any I don't have I can't
[5:58:25] speak to brick. I I don't have any
[5:58:27] direct con connection to it as the fire
[5:58:29] chief or EMD. And that's kind of my
[5:58:31] point is that that's the poison pill in
[5:58:34] this particular piece of the article. uh
[5:58:37] just as the poison pill that I I brought
[5:58:39] up at the at the uh statewasi meeting uh
[5:58:43] was that the the grant itself required
[5:58:47] um you know some funding for immigration
[5:58:49] enforcement and border protection. It's
[5:58:52] the same thing but in reverse. They're
[5:58:54] doing the same thing in this article as
[5:58:56] the federal government did uh in in
[5:58:58] their uh iteration. And I just think
[5:59:01] it's it's using the it's using this
[5:59:06] against its best interest. And I and I
[5:59:09] don't think it's the right thing. It's
[5:59:10] political activism uh when we're trying
[5:59:12] to run town government. And that's
[5:59:14] that's my opinion.
[5:59:16] No, I and I get that, right? But the
[5:59:18] concern is that um Brick is compiling
[5:59:22] information on people alleged to be gang
[5:59:25] members who are behaving like children.
[5:59:28] um and that that that they have a a
[5:59:30] database of of uh alleged gang members
[5:59:34] that is overwhelmingly people of color.
[5:59:36] All these allegations, which I don't
[5:59:39] know whether they're true or not, but
[5:59:41] you know, we have to find some way to
[5:59:43] basically open the books and see if that
[5:59:45] is the case and if it is to to find some
[5:59:48] way of preventing or to stopping it.
[5:59:51] I mean I mean may I let chief pastor
[5:59:54] speak on this too, right? I think this
[5:59:56] is the thing where we got to talk about
[5:59:59] What are the allegations? When were they
[6:00:01] made? What are they in in in response
[6:00:04] to? What has happened since those
[6:00:06] allegations were made? You know, I
[6:00:08] understand where the petitioners are
[6:00:09] coming from. I understand the case that
[6:00:11] they reference from nine years ago prior
[6:00:14] to the enactment of the trust act.
[6:00:17] The trust act doesn't address brick.
[6:00:19] It does address brick though.
[6:00:21] Not the one not the Boston trust act I
[6:00:23] read. I mean it addresses the activity
[6:00:25] of the of law enforcement in Boston. Um
[6:00:29] and you know I think the other big thing
[6:00:32] that was raised is a more recent issue
[6:00:34] which is the monitoring of protest
[6:00:36] activity. Um and to the extent that that
[6:00:40] is a concern um that is something that
[6:00:43] we can you know is obviously something
[6:00:45] that can be talked about. But I think
[6:00:47] the biggest thing here is that when
[6:00:50] Mayor Woo was a city councelor, she
[6:00:53] voted to against funding the brick. Um
[6:00:56] there was that period of time in which
[6:00:58] we, you know, we were worried that the
[6:01:01] brick was going to move to Quinsey. Um
[6:01:02] nothing against Quinsey, but you know,
[6:01:04] it's just like it was it would have been
[6:01:06] a massive downgrade in terms of capacity
[6:01:09] and ability to do the work. Um, and I
[6:01:12] think, you know, I I think rather than
[6:01:17] just say to your point, right, we we got
[6:01:20] to get to the we got to get to the
[6:01:21] bottom of these allegations because
[6:01:22] these allegations are serious um and and
[6:01:26] are worth discussing. But I feel like
[6:01:29] we're just accepting them as as true um
[6:01:32] and we're not looking at the broader
[6:01:34] history of this because now that
[6:01:35] Michelle Woo is Mayor Michelle Woo, she
[6:01:37] has been resolute against defunding the
[6:01:40] brick. What I'd like to what I'd like to
[6:01:43] know is what is it that Michelle Woo has
[6:01:46] found out about the brick that gives her
[6:01:49] that confidence. See, I I think what we
[6:01:52] got to do is tell Brick, "Open your
[6:01:53] books. Let us know."
[6:01:55] Well, I Bernard, I think that that, you
[6:01:58] know, there's probably still legitimate
[6:01:59] concerns. Have the have all the reforms
[6:02:02] been done to solve all the problems that
[6:02:05] have to do with you know the gang
[6:02:06] database is really I think where the
[6:02:08] issue is with the brick but the brick
[6:02:11] also provides important regional
[6:02:14] infrastructure for law enforcement to
[6:02:16] respond to terrorist attacks the boss.
[6:02:19] So you know I think we got to be careful
[6:02:21] about throwing the baby out with the
[6:02:22] bath water here.
[6:02:23] Um I'm not suggesting that matter of
[6:02:25] fact ICE does legitimate things. Yeah,
[6:02:28] we're not concerned about the legitimate
[6:02:29] things they're doing. We're concerned
[6:02:31] about the things that really are way off
[6:02:33] off.
[6:02:34] Well, we're not Well, we're not asking
[6:02:36] we're not getting rid of ICE with the
[6:02:38] with the uh the thing that we just voted
[6:02:41] on. No, I'm I'm saying, you know, the
[6:02:43] fact that there are good things that
[6:02:45] brick does is important, but it it
[6:02:48] doesn't address the issue that I think
[6:02:50] this warrant articles is trying to
[6:02:52] address and that I'm concerned with, and
[6:02:54] that is in some ways they are out of
[6:02:56] control or seem to be out of control and
[6:02:59] and you know, we have to know whether
[6:03:01] that's true. Um, and and if it is, you
[6:03:04] know, what what can we do about it?
[6:03:07] I'm sorry, David. I I think Paul's point
[6:03:09] is that the a distinction between the
[6:03:11] two warrant articles. So Warren article
[6:03:12] 17 does not seek to eliminate ICE. Not
[6:03:16] that we could do that anyway.
[6:03:17] Yeah. No, I mean
[6:03:18] whereas Warren article 25 is saying
[6:03:21] withdraw from brick. So
[6:03:23] doick eliminate it essentially.
[6:03:25] And it seems like you're
[6:03:29] acknledging.
[6:03:30] No, I'm not ex I don't think that that's
[6:03:32] necessarily the right answer. But before
[6:03:34] we do anything, we got to basically
[6:03:36] figure out what it is that brick is
[6:03:37] doing.
[6:03:38] What we're hearing from our police
[6:03:40] department that being part of brick is
[6:03:42] very important. So absent proof of
[6:03:46] ongoing malfeasants that's not several
[6:03:48] years old and that reforms are not
[6:03:50] working. I think the burden is the
[6:03:53] opposite of how you're placing it.
[6:03:54] You're basically saying brick needs to
[6:03:56] prove that it's uh fully safe. Now, I
[6:04:00] think we need proof that what brick
[6:04:02] brick is continuing to engage in
[6:04:04] misdeeds before we withdraw from
[6:04:07] something that our police department
[6:04:08] says is critically important without
[6:04:10] having all the facts.
[6:04:12] I'm not suggesting withdrawing. I'm
[6:04:13] suggesting let's find out some
[6:04:15] information before we go for at some
[6:04:18] point. That may mean, you know, finding
[6:04:20] out what Mayor Woo has determined to be,
[6:04:24] you know, where Brick is now, um, where
[6:04:27] where it wasn't a few years ago. Uh,
[6:04:30] and, uh, we we just need to know before
[6:04:34] we, um, and we commit ourselves to to an
[6:04:38] organization that that is a little
[6:04:41] scary. Uh John,
[6:04:43] well uh I I think that what what's uh uh
[6:04:49] persuading me that that we should not
[6:04:51] support this article is actually a kind
[6:04:55] of a simple matter of um what we as
[6:04:59] select board members um the relationship
[6:05:02] we bear towards the police department
[6:05:06] and the question of whether the police
[6:05:08] department participates in brick is
[6:05:11] always in front of us. I mean, we could
[6:05:14] at any time, you know, decide in our
[6:05:16] capacity as select board members that we
[6:05:20] we're not comfortable with um our police
[6:05:23] department participating in brick. Um
[6:05:26] but I don't want to seed that decision
[6:05:29] to town meeting. Um
[6:05:31] I John, I agree.
[6:05:33] Yeah. My only concern is we don't know
[6:05:37] we don't know enough about brick to say
[6:05:39] that we should continue
[6:05:41] working with them.
[6:05:42] Yeah. But but we can
[6:05:44] we also don't know enough to say not to
[6:05:46] work with
[6:05:46] Yeah. Yeah. I mean we we of course
[6:05:48] we can we can take that up, you know,
[6:05:50] and we owe it, you know, a thank you to
[6:05:53] um the sponsors of this Warren article
[6:05:55] for, you know, kind of putting the
[6:05:57] pressure on us to not just sort of
[6:06:00] casually go along with brick. But I
[6:06:03] don't think we should resolve questions
[6:06:05] that we might have once we learn more in
[6:06:09] and it all comes down also to our
[6:06:11] collaboration with our fire chief and
[6:06:14] our police chief and we owe it to them
[6:06:18] to re really take seriously the
[6:06:21] questions raised by this article but not
[6:06:24] by seeding decision- making over whether
[6:06:28] Brooklyn should participate in Brook to
[6:06:30] brick to town meeting.
[6:06:32] Um, it's for us to decide.
[6:06:35] Disagree with that. All I'm saying is
[6:06:37] that
[6:06:39] the credible allegations have been made
[6:06:41] over many, many, you know, months and in
[6:06:45] many situations that brick has some
[6:06:48] problems. I don't know whether they're
[6:06:50] true or not, but we have an obligation
[6:06:52] to determine to extent we can whether
[6:06:55] this is an organization that we want to
[6:06:57] be involved with. I mean it it but
[6:07:00] we don't need this warrant article that
[6:07:02] No, we don't need the warrant article.
[6:07:03] This is so this is a little separate.
[6:07:05] No, you're raising I think you're
[6:07:06] raising an important point that that the
[6:07:08] board should get more information. I
[6:07:11] think John is also raising an important
[6:07:13] point that we're hearing from our fire
[6:07:15] chief. We're hearing from our police
[6:07:17] chief.
[6:07:17] He doesn't know anything about brick.
[6:07:18] No, I know. And well, but he's opposing
[6:07:20] the article and we're
[6:07:21] [clears throat and cough] hearing from
[6:07:22] our town administrator who is saying,
[6:07:24] you know, we can't just bail on brick.
[6:07:26] We've heard that from our our chief of
[6:07:27] police. So I'm inclined to say no action
[6:07:30] on the article and let's go initiate an
[6:07:33] investigation of brick to get the
[6:07:35] answers that you want and we could
[6:07:36] always withdraw it from it from in the
[6:07:38] future. But that's two separate
[6:07:40] questions. Do we withdraw from brick
[6:07:42] after we get more information? We're not
[6:07:44] going to get more information before
[6:07:45] town meeting.
[6:07:46] No
[6:07:46] your satisfaction.
[6:07:47] But we have to start the process. I mean
[6:07:49] you know
[6:07:50] this kicks us in the pants to go start
[6:07:51] the process.
[6:07:52] Okay. I'm sorry.
[6:07:53] But I agree with what Sean and Paul are
[6:07:55] saying and you to an extent. There's
[6:07:56] nothing wrong with getting more
[6:07:58] information and committing ourselves to
[6:08:00] doing that. I totally agree. But the
[6:08:02] question before us right now is this
[6:08:04] Warren article.
[6:08:05] I agree. I'm deviating from that.
[6:08:07] And also I'll add there are eight other
[6:08:09] municipalities that are a part of brick
[6:08:12] including Cambridge and Somerville. Not
[6:08:14] one of them is withdrawn.
[6:08:17] Maybe this issue hasn't come up.
[6:08:20] I mean no you know there there was there
[6:08:22] were these issues in Somerville. You
[6:08:23] know, I talked about the Romea outur
[6:08:25] case. You know, that's even in the
[6:08:28] aftermath of that case, then Mayor
[6:08:30] Valentine didn't talk about withdrawing
[6:08:31] from the brick. You know, it's it's
[6:08:33] But was a brick involved with that?
[6:08:35] No, they weren't. No, but again, that
[6:08:37] was ICE. But I'm saying, you know, in
[6:08:38] the the aftermath of something like
[6:08:40] that, the issue of to what degree did
[6:08:42] the Summerville Police Department, you
[6:08:44] know, coordinate in any way with federal
[6:08:46] law enforcement? That was a salient
[6:08:48] question. Um, and even then, now to be
[6:08:51] fair, Mayor Valentine is no longer the
[6:08:53] mayor. Um, but I haven't seen Mayor
[6:08:56] Wilson have any have that conversation
[6:08:58] either. Um,
[6:08:59] so by the way, Chief Pastor has her hand
[6:09:02] up. Let's hear from her.
[6:09:04] Thank you all very much. Um, I would I
[6:09:08] you know am in agreement with uh Chief
[6:09:11] Sullivan
[6:09:13] um that I would recommend a vote of no
[6:09:15] action on this or non-favorable action.
[6:09:17] I think there's a lot of there's a lot
[6:09:19] of confusion which I understand. Um not
[6:09:21] everybody has been living the brick for
[6:09:24] 15 years or whatever as long as I have I
[6:09:26] guess longer. Um Uassi and the brick are
[6:09:29] not the same thing. There was some
[6:09:31] information um you know in some of the
[6:09:35] public hearings people came forward.
[6:09:36] There was a resident of Newton who
[6:09:39] testified that you know she lives in
[6:09:40] Newton. Newton's a safe city. Newton's
[6:09:42] not part of the brick. And that's simply
[6:09:43] not true. I think that we're all in
[6:09:45] agreement that law enforcement, the
[6:09:46] Brooklyn Police Department, uh,
[6:09:48] specifically, you know, we need our
[6:09:49] partners. We need our relationships with
[6:09:51] other police departments in order to be
[6:09:53] effective in keeping our community safe.
[6:09:55] The brick is operations. The brick is
[6:09:58] how we do that. Um, the brick extends
[6:10:01] far beyond the UAS, the nine cities and
[6:10:03] towns that make up. I can't think of a a
[6:10:06] single city or town in our immediate
[6:10:08] area that doesn't contribute to the
[6:10:10] brick, including the colleges and
[6:10:11] universities, Newton, the other, you
[6:10:13] know, surrounding cities and towns. Um,
[6:10:16] it's not, it's more than just the UASI
[6:10:18] cities and towns. And I understand why
[6:10:19] that's confusing. Um, UASI funds the
[6:10:22] brick, but the brick serves as a
[6:10:23] regional hub similar to the Commonwealth
[6:10:25] Fusion Center. Those are the two for the
[6:10:27] state. Um so we would be removing
[6:10:30] ourselves
[6:10:32] from the [snorts] hub of information um
[6:10:34] gathering you know collecting and and in
[6:10:37] um you know synthesizing and sharing out
[6:10:41] it just it operationally wouldn't make
[6:10:43] any sense for us and we don't have the
[6:10:46] capacity and it just wouldn't be good
[6:10:48] practice to try to replicate that on our
[6:10:49] own. Um there were a few other things
[6:10:53] mentioned. You know, I think somebody
[6:10:55] talked about the brick, for example,
[6:10:56] being present at
[6:10:59] um Occupy Boston. I mean, those things,
[6:11:02] you know, you can take there's a little
[6:11:03] bit of truth in everything that I think
[6:11:04] was said. Occupy Boston, I remember back
[6:11:07] in the day there were there was crime
[6:11:08] there. It was they weren't there to
[6:11:10] impede on First Amendment rights. They
[6:11:12] were there because there was drug open
[6:11:13] market, open air drug dealing happening,
[6:11:15] sexual assaults were happening.
[6:11:18] um it it was becoming violent towards
[6:11:20] the end and so you know a police
[6:11:22] presence was warranted. Um and I think
[6:11:25] with regard to you know the statistics
[6:11:27] that are being shared um regarding
[6:11:29] demographics we should be troubled by
[6:11:32] that. But I have to say you know if you
[6:11:34] go on the Boston Police Department
[6:11:35] they're pretty transparent. They have a
[6:11:37] crime dashboard. They share out their
[6:11:39] homicide statistics. And if you look at
[6:11:40] the demographics of who's being killed
[6:11:42] in instances of gang violence in the
[6:11:44] city, the statistics and the
[6:11:46] demographics are a pretty close match.
[6:11:48] And that's unfortunate. That's something
[6:11:49] to be solved for. But illuminating us
[6:11:52] from the brick does nothing to solve for
[6:11:54] that.
[6:11:56] John,
[6:11:57] um I just want to raise one other um
[6:12:00] aspect of this. Uh, and I I don't do it,
[6:12:03] you know, to um create um tension. Uh,
[6:12:06] but but I think some people might bridal
[6:12:09] at what I'm about to say. Um, this is
[6:12:13] worded as a request, you know, request
[6:12:16] that uh the site board or the town
[6:12:19] withdraw from participation in brick.
[6:12:23] If if we were to recommend to town
[6:12:24] meeting that they not adopt this for the
[6:12:27] reasons that we've been discussing here
[6:12:29] and town meeting went ahead and adopted
[6:12:32] it anyway. I frankly I don't think it it
[6:12:36] would um actually have the power of uh
[6:12:40] of what what's the phrase I'm looking
[6:12:42] for? force of law,
[6:12:44] the the force of law to to require us as
[6:12:47] the police commissioners to uh decide uh
[6:12:52] to um bow to, you know, something that
[6:12:55] we disagree with in terms of police
[6:12:57] policy. If after discussing with the the
[6:13:00] chief and the fire chief, if if we came
[6:13:02] to think that the chiefs are right, um
[6:13:05] they are more or less under our
[6:13:07] authority and uh why would we be bowing
[6:13:11] to a request to deny them something that
[6:13:14] they have told us in very clear terms
[6:13:16] they want to continue to have access to.
[6:13:18] So I'm I'm not sure that we would even
[6:13:21] have a clear end to this discussion even
[6:13:25] if town meeting went ahead and adopted
[6:13:27] this article.
[6:13:28] You're right,
[6:13:30] Michael. Um, I guess one of the things
[6:13:33] that I'm struggling with is, you know,
[6:13:36] this the there are eight different
[6:13:39] sections to this and there are some
[6:13:42] sections that I I think are more
[6:13:46] reasonable and are worthy of adoption
[6:13:49] and then there are others that are
[6:13:51] problematic.
[6:13:52] So, one of the things that I'm wondering
[6:13:55] from the petitioners
[6:13:57] is whether they have any interest in
[6:14:01] identifying the common ground within
[6:14:05] their uh their resolution.
[6:14:10] um and moving forward where we have
[6:14:12] common ground and then continuing to
[6:14:14] work the other issues or whether or not
[6:14:16] they feel like the entire set of eight
[6:14:19] are sort of bound together in such a way
[6:14:22] that that separating them is uh
[6:14:26] unacceptable.
[6:14:32] Gi, do you have an answer?
[6:14:36] So Jessica has had her hand up for a
[6:14:39] while and and we are all co-etitioners.
[6:14:42] Yeah. And and our um transcript is over
[6:14:44] her over her face.
[6:14:46] Oh yeah, we can't see. Can we
[6:14:47] Okay, Jessica.
[6:14:49] Oh, sorry about that. I wasn't actually
[6:14:51] It's not your fault. It's our fault.
[6:14:54] That particular question. I think we
[6:14:56] would uh need to consult with one
[6:14:59] another first. I personally am inclined
[6:15:01] to bring the whole thing before town
[6:15:03] meeting. Um what what I was going to
[6:15:06] address was some of the comments that
[6:15:08] were made about Yuasi and brick. I mean
[6:15:10] I think first of all you're right. We
[6:15:12] don't know exactly how the brick works
[6:15:14] and that is by design. It's not an
[6:15:16] accident. Um city council in Boston um
[6:15:20] just issued a demand for a series of
[6:15:22] hearings on the brick to better
[6:15:24] understand how data goes in and who it's
[6:15:27] shared with. And we know that under the
[6:15:29] current administration, if any federal
[6:15:30] agency has access to that data, we can
[6:15:32] be sure that immigration enforcement has
[6:15:35] access to that data. Uh, with regards to
[6:15:37] the UASI funding, I just wanted to say
[6:15:39] to Chief Sullivan that, you know, we we
[6:15:41] heard from you the importance of these
[6:15:44] funds to our town. And so we we
[6:15:48] specifically craft the language to say,
[6:15:49] "Hey, we can get these funds unless they
[6:15:52] require us to do immigration enforcement
[6:15:55] or they require us to be complicit in
[6:15:57] the brick or they require cooperation
[6:15:59] with federal election interference. So,
[6:16:01] you know, if if what we're hearing is
[6:16:03] you can separate the brick from USI
[6:16:07] um and if what we're hearing is right
[6:16:09] now there is no immigration enforcement
[6:16:11] requirement, right? Then that that
[6:16:13] should address u those concerns. It's
[6:16:16] not our intent um to to strip the town
[6:16:19] from funding that we have access to as
[6:16:21] long as it doesn't feed into these very
[6:16:23] specific things that that I thought we
[6:16:25] all it I know that there's controversy
[6:16:28] around the brick but in terms of
[6:16:29] limiting immigration enforcement um
[6:16:32] collaboration and immigration
[6:16:33] enforcement I thought that there was
[6:16:35] common ground there um that's not you
[6:16:37] know just our activist stance it's the
[6:16:40] stance uh that the town has taken.
[6:16:44] Michael.
[6:16:45] Um,
[6:16:46] actually, I think he had his hand up for
[6:16:48] Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.
[6:16:49] Okay. So, um I mean I I I know that uh
[6:16:54] at least one of the petitioners is aware
[6:16:56] of this, but um I I gave feedback uh to
[6:17:00] the to the petitioners around number
[6:17:02] seven. Um, I have concern about the
[6:17:05] language, the amended language as
[6:17:07] they've written it because it removes
[6:17:10] the possibility of Brookline uh actually
[6:17:14] being in control of whether or not we
[6:17:16] are meeting those requirements. I know
[6:17:18] that in some other circumstances, the
[6:17:21] fact that the federal uh government has
[6:17:24] required something uh hasn't prevented
[6:17:27] us from in order to access funds has not
[6:17:30] prevented us from challenging that
[6:17:32] requirement. and and uh accessing or at
[6:17:36] least requesting access to the those
[6:17:38] funds. Anyway, so um I would I'm just
[6:17:41] saying I would be much more comfortable
[6:17:43] with number seven if it were in
[6:17:46] Brookline's capacity whether or not we
[6:17:48] determine
[6:17:50] whether or not we are meeting those
[6:17:51] requirements as opposed to whether or
[6:17:54] not the federal government decides to
[6:17:56] write requirements into their grants.
[6:18:01] Okay. See, I'm sorry, David.
[6:18:02] I just want to say I think that's an
[6:18:04] excellent point, Michael. And uh if I
[6:18:06] understand you correctly, in part at
[6:18:08] least, you're saying if we don't have a
[6:18:09] seat at the table, we're not part of the
[6:18:12] discussion about the direction. If if we
[6:18:14] were to withdraw, we don't have an
[6:18:17] influence anymore on the condition of
[6:18:20] appropriation.
[6:18:21] Um I was specifically referring to the
[6:18:23] UASI grants and the way that they're
[6:18:25] constructed. I wasn't
[6:18:26] Okay. For UAS grants,
[6:18:27] yeah. Uh, for me, the overall structure
[6:18:30] of the Warren article I find a little
[6:18:33] problematic. I think it's very
[6:18:34] well-intentioned and I'm not imputing
[6:18:37] the motives in any way, but unlike War
[6:18:39] in Article 17, which seemed focused on
[6:18:43] trying to uh prevent ICE from continuing
[6:18:48] to commit unconstitutional actions and
[6:18:52] from uh persecuting people in our
[6:18:55] community unreasonably, this warrant
[6:18:58] article, even if it has that same motive
[6:19:01] behind it, it seems to really be hamster
[6:19:03] stringing our police department uh and
[6:19:06] the town in a way that uh I'm not sure
[6:19:10] why we would want to essentially punish
[6:19:13] or make more complicated
[6:19:16] uh policing in Brooklyn because we don't
[6:19:19] like how ICE is acting. Uh and that's
[6:19:22] the way this warrant article seems to be
[6:19:24] structured. So I'm not comfortable
[6:19:27] supporting it at this time.
[6:19:29] Okay, I see Chi-Chi W's hand is up.
[6:19:35] Hi. Yes. Uh thank you, uh Chair Green.
[6:19:39] Um so I mean um I am you know kind of
[6:19:45] seeing where the winds are blowing this
[6:19:46] one and also um agree with my
[6:19:51] co-petitioner Jessica Kiko that um
[6:19:54] petitioners um probably lean be leaning
[6:19:57] against taking those planks out um and
[6:20:01] you know hoping in the interest of just
[6:20:03] sort of um
[6:20:06] you know moving forward on this um you
[6:20:10] know I would say uh it is very likely
[6:20:13] that we would not be taking those planks
[6:20:15] out if if the board wants to vote
[6:20:17] tonight.
[6:20:20] Okay. Uh board, what do you say?
[6:20:24] So Bernard, I um first I I I do
[6:20:27] appreciate the petitioners and Chichi
[6:20:30] your remarks and I I appreciate your
[6:20:32] commitment to your own article that you
[6:20:34] know take a vote and uh and we may still
[6:20:36] bring it anyway. I do think taking out
[6:20:39] the brick,
[6:20:41] removing the the requirement of
[6:20:44] withdrawing from the brick and also
[6:20:45] removing the requirement to not
[6:20:48] participate in wasi would basically gut
[6:20:50] your article. Um, so I I'm not surprised
[6:20:53] that you would you would not want to
[6:20:55] make those changes. Um but for me, you
[6:20:58] know, I it's when both of our uh lead uh
[6:21:04] public safety officials are saying
[6:21:06] please don't. Um and the town
[6:21:08] administrators are saying please don't.
[6:21:11] Um I feel like we almost have an
[6:21:13] obligation to support them. Um we don't
[6:21:16] always support everything they say, but
[6:21:18] this seems to be unanimous from our our
[6:21:21] public safety folks. So, I'm I'm
[6:21:22] inclined to to to uh support no action.
[6:21:27] Um, and Chichi, as you you're probably
[6:21:28] aware of for mo many articles where I'm
[6:21:32] either undecided or I want to take a
[6:21:33] vote at town meeting because I I will
[6:21:35] likely be in town meeting. Um, that's
[6:21:37] why I've been abstaining on stuff to
[6:21:40] leave me open an open path to hear the
[6:21:42] arguments at town meeting as opposed to
[6:21:44] committing right now. But for this one,
[6:21:46] I I'm I'm I feel pretty confident that
[6:21:49] I'm no action at this point.
[6:21:52] Yeah.
[6:21:53] Okay. Well, why don't someone move make
[6:21:56] a motion?
[6:21:57] So, I move uh no action on
[6:22:00] Right.
[6:22:01] I just I just moved it. I move no
[6:22:04] action.
[6:22:05] Okay. All in favor? Senator Vanco. Hi.
[6:22:08] Um, Paul Warren.
[6:22:09] Hi,
[6:22:10] David Farman.
[6:22:11] I Michael Rubenstein.
[6:22:13] Regretfully, I
[6:22:15] um chair abstains on this.
[6:22:21] Okay. So, that's it.
[6:22:23] All right. Thank you, Sucker. We're
[6:22:25] going to go to bed now and
[6:22:26] hopefully not see you again for a little
[6:22:28] bit.
[6:22:28] Thank you.
[6:22:29] See you at town meeting.
[6:22:30] Thanks for taking this.
[6:22:32] We We We didn't take a vote on the
[6:22:34] We have one more thing we need to do. We
[6:22:36] have one more.
[6:22:36] What's that? Oh, local ballot
[6:22:37] information.
[6:22:38] We do need to do that. But I I I will
[6:22:40] just note we didn't take a vote on
[6:22:42] either of the referral articles.
[6:22:44] Oh, we didn't take the seven we
[6:22:46] we didn't do 12 favorable.
[6:22:48] You got 12 and 24 still to go
[6:22:51] and the petitioners have been waiting
[6:22:53] and they were actually ahead of
[6:22:55] Yes. Well well 12 well 12 well 12 well
[6:22:56] 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well
[6:22:56] 12 well 12 well that's they were they
[6:22:57] were ahead and behind. Um,
[6:22:59] so, uh, Mike Tel is online. Um,
[6:23:05] Mike, if you want to talk about where
[6:23:07] you've been with 12 and 24.
[6:23:16] Hi, guys.
[6:23:18] Uh, is is Alec on the line here?
[6:23:20] I don't see advisory.
[6:23:22] Yes, I'm there as well.
[6:23:23] There. Yep. Sorry.
[6:23:24] I think Alex's gonna speak to it.
[6:23:26] Yep.
[6:23:27] Um yes. So um for warrant article 24 we
[6:23:33] sent some suggested uh language edits to
[6:23:37] CHAZ and uh Fang uh that sought to
[6:23:41] address the concern that was raised by
[6:23:42] select board member Paul Warren. Um that
[6:23:46] language um clarifies I think what the
[6:23:50] what would what we would be requesting
[6:23:53] of town administration to um do to
[6:23:56] verify the adoption of the recommended
[6:23:59] policy in regards to archiving um public
[6:24:02] record communications. Um so the actual
[6:24:05] change in language
[6:24:08] um would come in the last whereas clause
[6:24:12] um where usage were were you routinely
[6:24:15] monitored, excuse me, would be struck
[6:24:17] and replaced by adherence was
[6:24:19] periodically assessed. Um and similarly
[6:24:23] the word monitoring would be struck from
[6:24:24] the uh that the resolve clauses and
[6:24:28] replaced with the word assessments. Um
[6:24:30] so I think you know we wanted to be
[6:24:32] sensitive to this concern. Um and in
[6:24:35] Chaz's correspondence with us I think he
[6:24:37] offered some clarification as well uh as
[6:24:39] to what the town would maybe view their
[6:24:42] mandate to be with this new language.
[6:24:43] Chaz, do you want to speak to that?
[6:24:45] Yeah, thanks, Alec. I think it's just
[6:24:46] right. It's not, you know, we have no
[6:24:48] intention of reading people's emails.
[6:24:49] Um, it's just the the count. It's just
[6:24:52] figuring out who's sending what. All
[6:24:54] right, what board are they on? Okay,
[6:24:56] that gives us a general sense to Paul's
[6:24:58] point. Some people are on multiple
[6:24:59] boards, so it's not a perfect count. Um,
[6:25:01] but we generally know, okay, there are
[6:25:03] folks who are using it and folks who are
[6:25:05] not. Um, we send an email to the boards
[6:25:08] on a regular basis saying, hey, here's
[6:25:10] here's the number of emails that we got.
[6:25:13] um from members of your board. Um just a
[6:25:16] and you know not not even a you know
[6:25:19] just a reminder this number doesn't mean
[6:25:20] necessarily that you're not doing your
[6:25:22] job because what if you have no email
[6:25:24] traffic from doing from being on a board
[6:25:26] but as a reminder if you are doing
[6:25:28] official if you are conducting official
[6:25:30] business you need to be copying this
[6:25:32] board archives email. But to so may I
[6:25:34] bring up?
[6:25:34] Yeah.
[6:25:35] Uh so but to be clear, you're still
[6:25:37] saying you're going to go query the
[6:25:39] email database
[6:25:41] and see if
[6:25:43] Paul Warren or whoever's on the
[6:25:45] commission uh has actually had email
[6:25:48] traffic. Yes.
[6:25:49] Um I think I I I think that's a terrible
[6:25:51] idea. I think if if you wanted to assess
[6:25:54] uh you could send an email to uh the the
[6:25:57] the board periodically and say, "Are you
[6:25:59] aware of this requirement? Are you doing
[6:26:02] it? please let us know yes or no. But to
[6:26:05] actually go and do data mining around a
[6:26:09] person's activity um I think I think is
[6:26:12] is is a terrible idea. It's
[6:26:14] surveillance. I don't think we should be
[6:26:15] doing it.
[6:26:16] Michael
[6:26:18] um
[6:26:19] I I have a question. Uh, have you
[6:26:23] considered
[6:26:24] uh in in sort of this this search um
[6:26:28] that
[6:26:31] you could also look at emails from
[6:26:35] uh public body members to
[6:26:39] anybody with a Brooklynmma ma.gov
[6:26:41] address. So, for example, if a if the
[6:26:44] chair of the Brooklyn Commission for
[6:26:45] Women sends the select board leazison,
[6:26:49] who is a select board member an email,
[6:26:51] that would that would be captured within
[6:26:55] our system. And I'm just wondering
[6:26:56] whether or not the the analysis should
[6:27:01] include such information as evidence of
[6:27:03] activity or are we trying to measure
[6:27:06] something else?
[6:27:06] We're trying. So I I think you know at
[6:27:09] that point and then it starts becoming
[6:27:11] too much of a too much of rig
[6:27:13] rigomearroll you know I I think what
[6:27:15] we're trying to do is we're trying to
[6:27:17] ensure that in situations where there's
[6:27:20] interaction with the public as opposed
[6:27:23] to interactions with staff um or other
[6:27:26] individuals that have made.gov email
[6:27:28] addresses that we are adequately
[6:27:31] capturing that so that if there is a
[6:27:33] public records request for those files,
[6:27:36] it can be easily addressed and in such a
[6:27:39] way that doesn't require the board and
[6:27:43] committee member the border committee
[6:27:44] members to do more work um or worse come
[6:27:48] up with come up against a situation
[6:27:49] where a border committee member refuses
[6:27:52] access and then we have public records
[6:27:53] that we just can't access. Um, so I
[6:27:58] think for our purposes, I don't want to
[6:28:02] build a giant system that tries to
[6:28:04] figure out what every what every board
[6:28:07] and commission member is emailing at any
[6:28:09] given point. I want us to do enough to
[6:28:12] ensure that compliance is being adhered
[6:28:15] to. And so if that's something less than
[6:28:18] checking people's names and making sure
[6:28:21] that that's happening okay um we can
[6:28:23] send a more general compliance note. Um
[6:28:27] but you know at a certain point the
[6:28:30] proof is going to be you know at at some
[6:28:33] point someone will test this right at
[6:28:34] some point there will be an issue you
[6:28:36] know there will be a you know I don't
[6:28:38] know a ZBA member or something um and
[6:28:41] there will be an issue of with public
[6:28:43] records from emails back and forth and
[6:28:45] then the question will be do we have
[6:28:46] those yes or no we know they exist
[6:28:49] are did they copy
[6:28:50] and then you'll find out
[6:28:52] right the question is what what are we
[6:28:54] doing to ensure compliance before that
[6:28:57] point.
[6:28:57] So, so I I do think I do think education
[6:28:59] is important, but you know, let's run a
[6:29:01] scenario. You send Warren, Warren's on
[6:29:03] moderators committee,
[6:29:05] moderators committ a bad example. You in
[6:29:08] your wisdom, you appoint me to some
[6:29:09] select board committee, which I don't
[6:29:11] want you to. Uh please don't if I ask,
[6:29:14] don't. Um and and I get this email uh
[6:29:18] you know, you haven't you haven't sent
[6:29:19] any emails to the to the the thing yet.
[6:29:23] I I what I realize is, oh, I need to
[6:29:25] send an email with X in it,
[6:29:27] right? X. And that's what you're gonna
[6:29:30] get. I'm gonna I'm gonna satisfy the the
[6:29:32] the the the surveillance requirement of
[6:29:35] being present in in the surveillance
[6:29:37] database. I again I just I think it's
[6:29:40] creepy. It's creepy. And I actually I I
[6:29:43] mean, if I I'm going to volunteer and
[6:29:45] you're starting to say I'm modering your
[6:29:46] emails, like talk about scaring people
[6:29:48] off from wanting to participate. I think
[6:29:50] it's a terrible terrible idea. I am not
[6:29:53] in favor.
[6:29:57] And I guess I'm not really clear as what
[6:29:59] purposes.
[6:30:01] I mean, if I wanted to send emails to
[6:30:04] someone, you know, town emails to
[6:30:07] someone outside the system, I can do
[6:30:09] that.
[6:30:10] Yes. But you have a So, the whole point
[6:30:11] of this, as Paul knows because we talked
[6:30:14] about this, is that when this initially
[6:30:16] came to us, it was a why don't we give
[6:30:18] everyone Brooklyn.gov email addresses.
[6:30:20] And the reason for that, as we've
[6:30:22] discussed, is twofold. One, it's
[6:30:23] expensive. Two, it's a security risk.
[6:30:25] Um, so we don't want to do that. Um,
[6:30:28] it's a bad idea. Um, but we understand
[6:30:31] that the petitioners want to promote
[6:30:33] transparency and allow for public
[6:30:35] records requests to be better done. And
[6:30:37] there is a benefit to having a
[6:30:39] centralized place where public records
[6:30:40] are kept. It's actually better for
[6:30:42] boards and committee members because
[6:30:43] then they have it's less invasive for
[6:30:45] them if they get a hit with a public
[6:30:46] records request to be able to say, "Hey,
[6:30:49] just check broad, you know, let the let
[6:30:51] the town do that work for me instead of
[6:30:54] me having to go search my Gmail for my
[6:30:56] my stuff." Um, that does, you know, that
[6:30:59] feels pretty invasive. It feels more
[6:31:00] invasive. Um, so I think there's a happy
[6:31:04] medium here. I think I think the if the
[6:31:06] concern is we don't like the idea and
[6:31:08] again I I wouldn't be sending an email
[6:31:10] saying hey I noticed that you don't you
[6:31:12] haven't been sending enough emails
[6:31:14] there's no quota it would just be like
[6:31:15] here here's the data um there's no
[6:31:18] judgment call about it just says here it
[6:31:20] is um please be sure that you're copying
[6:31:23] this if you're having conversations
[6:31:24] outside of the ecosystem um so that we
[6:31:28] always have a record on a Brookline
[6:31:30] server so if that's the concern if the
[6:31:32] concern is we don't want to do that we
[6:31:34] want want to just we want to just do
[6:31:36] monitor we want to ensure adherence
[6:31:40] through education only that's if that's
[6:31:43] the will of the board sure I'm happy to
[6:31:45] do that I just think you know we got to
[6:31:48] we got to balance that out um and you
[6:31:50] know I balance out the competing
[6:31:52] priorities here because I really don't
[6:31:54] want us to be back in this situation
[6:31:55] where everyone's saying we need agov
[6:31:58] email addresses that's that's just it's
[6:32:01] asking for trouble um
[6:32:04] Um, first of all, um, I think in support
[6:32:08] of what Paul is saying, um, this is
[6:32:10] another case where, um, I I appreciate
[6:32:14] the intent. Um, but I think the intent
[6:32:18] and the impact are significantly
[6:32:19] different. Um, and I think Paul has has
[6:32:23] clearly identified the the potential
[6:32:26] impact of of presenting the data. Um,
[6:32:30] and it it's not neutral. it's it's not
[6:32:34] neutral. Um
[6:32:38] I mean yeah I think that's that's clear
[6:32:40] to me that the will what the will of the
[6:32:41] board is. So I'm happy to I'm happy to
[6:32:43] structure this in such a way that
[6:32:45] doesn't mine the data and just instead
[6:32:48] reminds people on a regular basis of
[6:32:50] their obligations to comply with this
[6:32:51] rule.
[6:32:52] But you have to get the approval or the
[6:32:56] comments of the petitioners.
[6:32:57] Yeah. I mean I I'm reminded of the TMMA
[6:33:00] list serve monthly announcement. for
[6:33:03] example, I mean,
[6:33:04] if I can briefly just respond on on this
[6:33:06] point, I I would say, you know, we
[6:33:08] we've, I think, deliberately tried to
[6:33:10] soften the language to to allow for more
[6:33:12] flexibility here. And certainly, you
[6:33:14] know, this is a resolution. Uh we make
[6:33:17] no specific prescription for how this uh
[6:33:19] verification has to be done. Um I I
[6:33:22] would suggest that uh you know the
[6:33:24] executive branch is well within their
[6:33:26] purview to to set parameters and uh I
[6:33:29] don't necessarily think that you know
[6:33:32] going to a proactive outreach approach
[6:33:34] would in any way really impinge the
[6:33:35] spirit of the article and uh I'm
[6:33:37] certainly open to that.
[6:33:39] So I guess what I what I would like to
[6:33:41] um what I'd like to propose is we change
[6:33:43] the word. So, I do appreciate you went
[6:33:45] from surveillance. I forget what you
[6:33:47] what the word monitor.
[6:33:48] Oh, monitor. Sorry. Monitor. [laughter]
[6:33:50] Uh, and now what's the word we're using?
[6:33:52] Assess.
[6:33:53] Assess. Um, I I would change the assess
[6:33:55] to educate.
[6:33:58] Yeah, that's kind of where we are now.
[6:34:00] Yeah. Educate. Yeah. I mean, and
[6:34:02] basically what I mean what the
[6:34:03] resolution is doing is saying there the
[6:34:07] primary issue here is to expand the ask
[6:34:10] to other boards and commissions, right?
[6:34:13] um beyond what I think the select board
[6:34:14] had done. I think we're now into uh into
[6:34:17] moderators committees and stuff, right?
[6:34:19] Is that the is that the expansion, Alec?
[6:34:22] Who knows?
[6:34:22] There there were two expansions. So that
[6:34:24] is one uh Paul for sure.
[6:34:26] Yeah.
[6:34:27] Expanding scope. The other was that the
[6:34:29] new word was evaluate
[6:34:31] uh instead of monitor with the idea of
[6:34:34] giving CHAZ and others the opportunity
[6:34:37] to evaluate the effectiveness of an
[6:34:40] education campaign for example because
[6:34:42] maybe it is effective but if it's not
[6:34:45] the idea is to allow you to evaluate it
[6:34:47] and see whether other options are are
[6:34:50] more appropriate
[6:34:51] to folks adhere to the select board's
[6:34:54] own policy.
[6:34:55] Right. So, so I think an alternative way
[6:34:58] to to assess is when you actually do get
[6:35:01] a public records request, if you can't
[6:35:04] fulfill it,
[6:35:05] yeah,
[6:35:05] from the from, you know, the archive
[6:35:09] email account, um there there's an
[6:35:12] educational email that goes out to
[6:35:14] boards and commissions and says, "Hey,
[6:35:16] we've got a we had a a request for this
[6:35:21] particular commission and we were unable
[6:35:23] to fulfill it because we couldn't find
[6:35:25] responsive documents because you're
[6:35:26] because no one was sending them. Um,
[6:35:29] that to me is a way to do it with
[6:35:33] information because there was actually a
[6:35:34] proactive request to do it versus
[6:35:36] something that appears to be more like
[6:35:38] surveillance that would be
[6:35:39] misinterpreted. Um, so again, I would I
[6:35:43] would I would just call it I would I
[6:35:46] could be I could be supportive of the
[6:35:48] article if we changed that word to
[6:35:50] educate um or in you know, educate the
[6:35:53] boards and commissions and you can do
[6:35:55] that as as regular as you want.
[6:35:58] Okay. Um, by the way, Joe, do you have a
[6:36:01] deadline of midnight tonight?
[6:36:04] Oh, okay. Good. Because it's five up.
[6:36:09] Okay. Okay. So, what are we what are we
[6:36:10] doing here? Um,
[6:36:12] so I I would like to I I'd like to move
[6:36:14] I'd like to move uh I'd like to make an
[6:36:16] amendment to the article,
[6:36:18] propose an amendment. I I don't know
[6:36:20] where I don't have the article in front
[6:36:22] of me, but the the word that you had of
[6:36:24] assess um I would like to change it to
[6:36:27] educate.
[6:36:33] Just so you know, it's the word is
[6:36:34] evaluate that you're changing.
[6:36:36] Evaluate to educate.
[6:36:40] Not sure a big difference.
[6:36:42] Well, evaluate
[6:36:44] evaluate
[6:36:46] was interpreted by the by the town
[6:36:48] administrator to go mine the data. Um,
[6:36:51] educate would be send a regular
[6:36:53] reminder. We could actually call that
[6:36:55] specifically say it. Send out regular
[6:36:57] reminders that to to uh to use the uh
[6:37:00] email address.
[6:37:02] Okay, let's wrap this up. Um,
[6:37:04] you want to make a motion? So I think I
[6:37:07] think basically what you're saying is
[6:37:08] you want to remove So tell me if I'm
[6:37:11] tell me if I've got this right. So the
[6:37:12] the proposed amendment would be the
[6:37:14] whereas clause currently reads whereas
[6:37:16] the town administrator and IT director
[6:37:17] believed that the handbook procedure
[6:37:19] could be more comprehensively used if
[6:37:20] public body members were better trained
[6:37:22] adherence was periodically assessed and
[6:37:24] reminders were more regularly sent.
[6:37:27] Get rid of adherence was periodically
[6:37:30] assessed.
[6:37:30] Yes.
[6:37:31] Public body members were better trained
[6:37:32] and reminders were more regularly sent.
[6:37:34] Then the other change is at the bottom
[6:37:36] of page two reads, "Town Meeting asked
[6:37:39] the town administrator and IT director
[6:37:40] to provide a report in December 2026 to
[6:37:42] update town meeting on the extent to
[6:37:44] which their training assessments and
[6:37:46] reminders, cut assessments, just
[6:37:47] training and reminders.
[6:37:49] Does that sound right?
[6:37:50] That works for me.
[6:37:51] I don't you know so that's that's the
[6:37:54] select board's motion on this."
[6:37:55] Well, I just Well, we have to with vote
[6:37:57] on it motion.
[6:38:00] Okay. for the petitioners.
[6:38:06] Uh so the version that we uh spoke about
[6:38:10] tonight had already changed the word
[6:38:11] monitoring to evaluate
[6:38:14] and we are uh pretty comfortable with
[6:38:18] the idea that we want to keep the word
[6:38:19] evaluate which gives a lot of difference
[6:38:22] to uh Chaz's team to figure out how to
[6:38:25] evaluate but we think evaluation is a
[6:38:28] useful thing to keep in our in our
[6:38:29] petitioners.
[6:38:30] Okay. Okay. So, there'll be two versions
[6:38:32] going to town meeting.
[6:38:33] Oh, one version with an amendment.
[6:38:35] With one version with an amendment.
[6:38:38] So, I I would I'd like to move the
[6:38:40] amended article for favorable action.
[6:38:45] Second.
[6:38:46] Okay. John.
[6:38:49] Hi.
[6:38:51] David.
[6:38:52] Hi.
[6:38:54] No.
[6:38:55] And um
[6:39:00] I don't like it though. Say I.
[6:39:05] Okay. Um that brings us up to
[6:39:10] uh
[6:39:13] Joe's matter.
[6:39:15] Ballot mailer. ballot.
[6:39:17] Oh my god.
[6:39:17] What do you have to say?
[6:39:18] Happy Wednesday, by the way.
[6:39:20] We had two. There's more in article 12.
[6:39:24] Oh, I'm sorry. 12. Never mind.
[6:39:26] We've already gone into another day.
[6:39:28] Uh Mike and Alec, I'm sorry. I said
[6:39:30] thank you before you were done.
[6:39:32] You've got article 12.
[6:39:38] I don't recall receiving any amendments
[6:39:41] on this one. Have there been any
[6:39:42] amendments?
[6:39:48] Mike Alec.
[6:39:51] Uh, nope.
[6:39:54] Okay.
[6:39:56] Has advisory voted on this yet? I don't
[6:39:58] know.
[6:39:59] Nope, not yet.
[6:40:00] Okay.
[6:40:04] So, I'd like to prop
[6:40:07] uh to propose an amendment.
[6:40:12] Okay. Uh and that is uh in to add the
[6:40:16] word clerk
[6:40:18] after the word town. Where it says the
[6:40:21] town shall ensure that all public record
[6:40:23] requests, it should say the town clerk
[6:40:25] shall ensure because the town clerk has
[6:40:29] jurisdiction over public record
[6:40:31] requests. And it gets the select board
[6:40:33] out of the position of having to direct
[6:40:36] the town clerk to do something.
[6:40:40] Is this considered a friendly amendment
[6:40:41] by the petitioners?
[6:40:43] I do not know the answer to that
[6:40:44] question.
[6:40:49] John,
[6:40:50] well, [clears throat] I actually agree
[6:40:53] that that is how it should be worded.
[6:40:56] Um, but I also, um, would argue that by
[6:41:01] making that clarification, we get to the
[6:41:03] heart of a problem with this article,
[6:41:07] which is I'm not sure that we can order
[6:41:10] the town clerk um, on aspects of how the
[6:41:14] town clerk is required to do the town
[6:41:16] clerk's job.
[6:41:17] town clerk reports to the secretary of
[6:41:19] state uh in terms of recordkeeping and
[6:41:23] in matters where the town clerk has not
[6:41:26] complied with the state secretary of
[6:41:27] state's requirements for recordkeeping
[6:41:30] that then becomes a matter of appeal to
[6:41:32] the attorney general.
[6:41:34] Uh it's not for town meeting to dictate
[6:41:38] to the town clerk how the town clerk
[6:41:39] does the town clerk's job.
[6:41:41] Yeah. Michael
[6:41:42] um section 3.4 four of the bylaws, which
[6:41:45] is entitled town clerk, um specifies a
[6:41:49] number of uh activities and requirements
[6:41:53] that the town clerk has to do in terms
[6:41:55] of managing the seal and transmitting uh
[6:41:59] information in various places. And I
[6:42:02] believe that this warrant article uh
[6:42:05] comports with those other warrant
[6:42:07] articles in its direction of the town
[6:42:10] clerk. It's been a long time since I
[6:42:11] checked all of the duties of the town
[6:42:13] clerk, but I think you might find that
[6:42:14] the ones um in the bylaw are the ones
[6:42:17] that are are in fact covered under state
[6:42:20] um you know statute.
[6:42:24] Joe, do you have an opinion on his
[6:42:26] point?
[6:42:27] Not at this time.
[6:42:29] [laughter]
[6:42:29] Well, then why are you here?
[6:42:34] Why don't we put this off until someone
[6:42:37] come up with the answer to that
[6:42:38] question?
[6:42:40] I I would like to know if the
[6:42:42] petitioners are ready to answer the
[6:42:44] question of whether they would consider
[6:42:46] this a friendly amendment.
[6:42:50] Uh thanks Michael. So I think what we
[6:42:52] would want to do is check in with both
[6:42:55] the town council and with the town clerk
[6:42:59] and with the moderator to understand
[6:43:02] first of all if this is a scope issue
[6:43:04] and also to you you're you made an
[6:43:07] assertion that I just want to check in
[6:43:09] with both Ben and Joe where you said the
[6:43:13] town clerk is responsible for I think
[6:43:16] you said all public record requests and
[6:43:18] I would just want to verify that that's
[6:43:20] true. If all that's true, I would be
[6:43:23] comfortable, but I'm not sure that's
[6:43:25] true. And so I I'm not comfortable at
[6:43:26] this moment.
[6:43:28] Okay. So, let's take this up in our next
[6:43:29] meeting.
[6:43:30] Okay. Just
[6:43:31] just
[6:43:34] Okay, Joe.
[6:43:36] Are there any other amendments? Are
[6:43:38] there other any any other amendments we
[6:43:40] should be considering just so that we
[6:43:41] can think about them as a package?
[6:43:45] Uh, no. I hear I don't see any. Okay.
[6:43:49] Thank you, Mike. You have a quick
[6:43:50] question. I'm sorry. With your original
[6:43:52] phrasing of the town shall ensure, what
[6:43:55] did you envision for how that would
[6:43:57] work? You envision that the the town
[6:44:00] clerk just takes control of it or
[6:44:02] because the town that is somewhat openly
[6:44:05] phrased?
[6:44:07] Well, David, the current petitioner's
[6:44:09] motion um has been amended. So now the
[6:44:12] expectation is that the um clerk would
[6:44:15] be periodically producing the index
[6:44:17] essentially of the request the town
[6:44:20] receives with a summary description
[6:44:22] including a list of the actual public
[6:44:24] documents produced for response. Um so
[6:44:28] it's changed somewhat since it was
[6:44:30] introduced but that is the current
[6:44:31] expectation.
[6:44:33] Okay.
[6:44:35] Okay. Mike
[6:44:36] um just for reference uh to Mr. Mr.
[6:44:39] Toffel's question. Um, he should check
[6:44:41] Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 66,
[6:44:44] Section 6A.
[6:44:48] Okay, good.
[6:44:50] So, let's hear from the from town
[6:44:52] council.
[6:44:55] Good evening, uh, Joe Kalan, town
[6:44:57] council. So, I'm before you on this last
[6:44:59] item to seek your approval to send out
[6:45:02] in mail 30,000 copies of the section 18B
[6:45:05] local ballot question mailer. Uh I was
[6:45:08] before you a couple weeks ago about the
[6:45:09] process that we uh went through. We
[6:45:11] solicited uh arguments from proponents
[6:45:14] and opponents. We got a principal
[6:45:16] advocate. We worked with them. We got
[6:45:18] their 150word
[6:45:20] uh argument along with a graphic and a
[6:45:23] QR code. I prepared a summary. You guys
[6:45:26] um uh voted on the question. Uh the town
[6:45:29] clerk has a cover letter, so it's ready
[6:45:31] to go. There's a final draft in front of
[6:45:33] you and I'd seek your approval to send
[6:45:36] it out. Any objection?
[6:45:40] I move approval.
[6:45:41] I'm sorry. I did have a question.
[6:45:42] Yes. Um and does does this um um what
[6:45:46] you're referring to get into the
[6:45:47] language of the of the calculator of of
[6:45:51] uh
[6:45:51] No.
[6:45:52] No. Okay.
[6:45:53] Thank you.
[6:45:55] Okay. All in favor of approving the um
[6:45:58] ballot language uh please indicate by
[6:46:00] saying I. John Vancoy. Hi.
[6:46:02] Paul Warren. Hi.
[6:46:03] David Pearlman. Hi.
[6:46:04] Michael Rubenstein. Hi. Chair votes.
[6:46:06] Thank you very much.
[6:46:07] Thank you.
[6:46:07] Is there anyone in the audience who
[6:46:09] would like to speak in public comment?
[6:46:11] [laughter]
[6:46:13] Okay. Uh with that uh I will end this
[6:46:17] meeting.
[6:46:19] Thank you.
[6:46:23] Record.