tap to load the tape · nothing plays until you doDuring the Brookline Select Board meeting on May 12, 2026, members discussed several key items including the nomination of a new vice chair, the importance of condemning anti-Semitism, and plans for a contest awards ceremony scheduled for May 17. The Board voted to approve a memorandum of agreement regarding the $150,000 funding to support local nonprofits and another vote to raise fines to $50 for various infractions, effective July 1, 2026. The afternoon also saw discussions on the importance of public safety in regard to infrastructure and commercial development, alongside community engagement in its planning ([19:54], [70:03], [199:44], [202:19], [263:44]).
Scored, not chosen for you — the salience bar is a measurement, and every moment is a receipt into the transcript below. With JavaScript on, tick moments to compose a reel — and tick moments on other meetings too; a reel can span the record.
→ the publish kit for this meeting — the clips worth cutting and draft copy, for a producer.
Read from the transcript; a name may be misheard — verify against the official minutes.
Counted, not modeled — each lens is a word list; drift compares the first half to the second.
1:08 Heat. Heat.
2:00 Heat.
2:36 Heat. Heat.
4:22 Heat.
4:48 Heat. Heat.
8:12 Heat.
9:09 Heat. Heat.
9:31 Heat.
9:51 Heat. Heat.
10:42 Heat
10:53 up here.
10:57 Heat.
12:23 Heat. Heat.
12:27 Heat.
13:12 Oh,
13:23 heat, heat.
14:07 Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, still
14:09 chair of the Brookline Select Board.
14:12 This is our regular meeting for May.
14:15 What do you mean no? We haven't elected
14:18 anyone to replace me yet. Any rate, I'm
14:20 gonna assume that I still have. um for
14:23 May 12, 2026.
14:26 Um I'd like to start off by uh beginning
14:29 the reorganization of the select board.
14:31 Thank you. Um so this is the
14:34 organizational meeting of the board. Uh
14:35 once again, I have the privilege to
14:37 serve theoretically for a very brief
14:39 period as chair prom while I read these
14:41 cards to you. Um at this the board's
14:44 first meeting after the town election. I
14:46 first like to call the meeting to order
14:47 and direct your attention to the first
14:49 item on the agenda which calls for the
14:50 board to organize with the election of a
14:52 chair. I am to read the results of the
14:54 election for select board. Uh the
14:57 results are uh John Vanskoak 5,864
15:02 Anthony Buano 7,593
15:06 Amanda El Zimmerman 9,225.
15:10 The results of which being that Dr.
15:11 Zimmerman and Mr. Buo are elected select
15:13 board members. We thank Mr. Vanco Skoyak
15:15 for his service to the board. Um, we
15:17 will now proceed with the election of a
15:19 chair. Nominations are in order and no
15:21 seconds are required. Do I have a
15:23 nomination?
15:23 Yes.
15:25 Uh, I'd like to make a nomination, but
15:26 first I'd like to read a statement.
15:30 I've served as chair since May 2019
15:34 until today with a break from May 2022
15:38 to February 2023. So, I've been chair of
15:41 the select board for a total of six
15:44 years and three months. They included
15:47 some very, very tough times, including
15:49 the pandemic and the national outrage
15:52 over the killing of George Floyd in
15:54 Minneapolis. The period included a time
15:57 when my in my opinion unwarranted
16:00 comparisons of the Brooklyn Police
16:01 Department with Minneapolis and other
16:03 police departments where killings and
16:05 abuse of black residents occurred.
16:08 unwarranted because the comparisons
16:11 failed to acknowledge 30 plus years of
16:14 effort of this select board under the
16:17 leadership originally of Marty Rosenthal
16:20 and Jeffrey Allen and others working
16:22 with former police chief Daniel Olirri
16:25 to turn the Brookline Police Department
16:27 into a communityoriented and highly
16:30 trained department that had extensive
16:32 guard rails that minimized the risk of
16:35 political or police abuse. The critics
16:38 of the police saw themselves as helpless
16:40 and assumed that because they couldn't
16:41 do it, it couldn't be done. But it was
16:44 done. Among the consequences of this
16:47 period was that Brookline was
16:48 dangerously without a permanent police
16:50 chief and top leadership of the police
16:53 department for 30 months. Starting in
16:56 July of 2020 when Chief Andy Lipson
16:59 resigned and continuing until March 2023
17:04 when Chief Jen Pastor was appointed
17:06 permanent police chief. This includes a
17:09 short embarrassing period in 2022 when
17:13 Chief Ashley Gonzalez was in command
17:15 until being quickly dismissed for
17:18 inappropriate uh conduct.
17:22 In addition, the anti- police fervor
17:25 resulted in the ending of the school
17:26 resource officer program in the schools
17:29 and the walk-in talk officers in the
17:31 housing authority. two programs that
17:33 were successful in disrupting what was
17:36 widely called the school to prison
17:38 pipeline in Brooklyn by creating
17:40 relationships with youth and finding
17:43 alternatives to the criminal justice
17:44 system when youth did what youth do as
17:48 we all did um and found themselves in
17:52 trouble. John Vancoyak and I were the
17:54 two votes opposing that big mistake.
17:57 It's been an exciting and challenging
17:58 six years and three months and I thank
18:00 the select board and town administrators
18:02 during this period for entrusting me
18:04 with that leadership. I don't claim that
18:07 it has been a that I have been a perfect
18:10 chair. But to paraphrase Grace Jones, I
18:13 may not have been perfect, but I may
18:15 have been perfect for Brooklyn. With
18:18 that, I'd like to nominate as chair new
18:20 chair of the select board, David
18:22 Pearlman.
18:24 Thank you, Mr. Green. Are there any
18:26 other nominations?
18:28 There being none, is there a motion that
18:29 the nominations be closed?
18:31 I move closure of the nominations.
18:33 Excellent. I will take a vote on the nom
18:35 vote on the motion that the nominations
18:36 be closed. I'll do this in order of
18:38 seniority. Uh Mr. Green,
18:40 yes.
18:40 Mr. Pearlman,
18:41 yes.
18:42 Mr. Rubenstein,
18:43 yes.
18:43 Uh Dr. Zimmerman,
18:45 yes.
18:45 Mr. Bono,
18:46 yes.
18:47 All right. It has been moved uh that
18:50 David Pearlman be elected chair of the
18:52 board for the ensuing year. Those in
18:54 favor of the motion will say uh I or
18:56 yes. Those opposed, no. Uh Mr. Green,
18:59 I.
18:59 Uh Mr. Pearlman,
19:01 I.
19:01 Uh Mr. Runstein,
19:02 I Dr. Zimmerman,
19:04 I.
19:04 Mr. Bano,
19:05 I.
19:06 The vote carries by a vote of five to
19:08 zero. Uh I Mr. Pearlman has been elected
19:11 chair of the board for the ensuing year
19:12 and will take the chair.
19:26 to find out where the cords are.
19:33 Oh, yeah. Okay.
19:44 So, thank you very much to the four of
19:47 you for entrusting me with this
19:49 position. It's especially meaningful to
19:52 me as someone who grew up here in
19:54 Brooklyn, attended our schools. I've
19:56 lived here for 40 straight years. So,
19:59 this is particularly impactful for me to
20:02 have this opportunity. So, thank you
20:03 very much to the four of you. Thank you
20:06 to my friends, allies, family, even
20:10 fremies who have helped make this
20:12 possible. Uh, I feel humbled and I'm
20:15 very grateful and look forward to
20:18 serving in this position. And with that,
20:21 we now will be electing a vice chair. I
20:24 would like to nominate Michael
20:26 Rubenstein.
20:29 All right. All right. So, are there any
20:32 other nominations for vice chair?
20:37 Seeing none, I move that we close
20:39 nominations for vice chair. Bernard,
20:43 yes.
20:45 Michael,
20:45 nominations,
20:46 yes.
20:48 Amanda,
20:48 yes.
20:49 Anthony,
20:50 yes.
20:50 And I also vote yes. And now for
20:55 electing Michael as vice chair. Bernard
20:58 I.
20:59 Amanda
21:00 I.
21:01 Anthony
21:02 I.
21:02 I'm sorry. Michael
21:04 I.
21:04 And I also vote I. So congratulations
21:07 Michael.
21:09 Thank you very much.
21:12 back.
21:15 I thought that came with the chair
21:17 position though.
21:17 No, no, it comes with a sleepy person.
21:22 With that, we will now move to
21:25 announcements and updates.
21:27 Uh, I would like to begin by addressing
21:33 a situation that occurred at uh,
21:35 Michael's Deli. I know there's been a
21:38 lot of conversation about this both on
21:40 the town meeting members list serve.
21:41 There was an event at Michael's deli um
21:45 on Friday afternoon that I know that
21:47 many people at this table were able to
21:49 attend and some other community members
21:51 also some u recent past select board
21:54 members were at that uh the anti-semitic
21:58 vandalism at Michael's Deli deserves
22:01 unequivocal condemnation. Defacing a
22:04 photograph of a Jewish family was not
22:07 legitimate protest or protected
22:09 political expression. It was a
22:11 destructive act targeting Jewish
22:13 identity in a profoundly personal and
22:16 hateful way. Criticism of any
22:19 government, including the government of
22:21 Israel, can never justify singling out
22:24 Jewish people, Jewishowned businesses,
22:27 or Jewish symbols for intimidation or
22:30 harassment.
22:32 To direct attacks at someone because
22:34 they are Jewish is anti-Semitic. Period.
22:37 In a community like Brooklyn, where
22:39 diversity and mutual respect are core
22:41 values, there must be no tolerance for
22:44 acts that attempt to intimidate or
22:47 dehumanize members of the Jewish
22:49 community. Brookline should stand firmly
22:51 with Michael's Deli, its owners, staff,
22:54 and patrons, and reject the
22:56 normalization of anti-Semitic conduct
22:59 disguised as activism. Hate directed at
23:02 Jews because they are Jews is hate
23:05 regardless of the political language
23:08 used to rationalize it. I want to thank
23:10 the dozens of civic leaders in our
23:13 community who have already denounced the
23:15 anti-semitic vandalism at Michael's
23:17 Delhi, including elected leaders in
23:19 their individual capacities, various
23:22 leaders from faith communities as well.
23:24 The outpouring of support for Michael's
23:26 Delhi, not just from members of the
23:28 Jewish community, but also from secular
23:30 leaders, Christians, Muslims, and other
23:33 religious groups, leaves me with
23:35 optimism that we will stand together as
23:37 a broader community against hatred in
23:40 every form.
23:43 Now, uh, Lisa Shatz, a town meeting
23:45 member in precinct 11, has been
23:48 circulating a petition on the town
23:51 meeting list serve that I would like to
23:52 read. Brooklyn condemns anti-semitism.
23:56 We, the undersigned Brooklyn town
23:58 meeting members and town leaders,
23:59 condemn the repeated targeting and
24:01 intimidation of Jewishowned businesses
24:04 and Jewish residents in our community.
24:06 Brooklyn should remain a place where
24:08 residents of all backgrounds feel safe
24:11 and respected. Political disagreement
24:14 must never become harassment or
24:16 intimidation directed at people because
24:19 they are Jewish. Now I'm not sure what
24:21 the precise number is in terms of who
24:24 has signed on to this so far and
24:27 obviously due to open meeting law we as
24:29 a board were not able to discuss in
24:31 advance whether we too would endorse
24:34 this statement or even our thoughts on
24:36 this as a board. I know this leaves many
24:38 in the community frustrated when
24:40 sometimes select board seems a bit slow
24:43 in issuing a unified statement but we
24:46 are prohibited by law from having
24:49 discussions even in those situations if
24:51 it's a deliberation. So that's why I've
24:53 prepared my individual statement. Paul
24:55 Warren who's here in the audience was
24:56 very prompt in issuing a statement of
24:58 his own while he was on the board and
25:01 many others have uh issued statements. I
25:04 would recommend that uh this board also
25:07 endorse uh Lisa Shatz's statement.
25:10 That's not technically before us today
25:12 as a docket item, so we may need to take
25:15 a little more time to approve that, but
25:17 I certainly share the sentiments that
25:19 she expressed in her statement. Uh
25:23 something else I would like to bring up
25:25 briefly, we had a uh farewell for Paul
25:29 Warren and his last select board meeting
25:31 where each of us were able to speak
25:33 about his contributions and what we
25:36 enjoyed about working with him. We did
25:38 not afford John Vancoy that uh same
25:42 farewell opportunity because we weren't
25:45 100% sure of course about whether he
25:47 would still be here today or not. So, I
25:50 want to echo the town administrator's
25:52 sentiment uh that he stated earlier in
25:55 thanking John for his uh six years of
25:59 service to the select board and for his
26:01 decades of service to our community. I'm
26:05 confident we haven't heard the last of
26:07 him. I hope we haven't. Uh he has put in
26:09 a lot of effort and work into helping
26:11 make Brookline what it is today. and I
26:14 look forward to his uh continued
26:16 contributions along with those of Paul
26:19 Warren who's here today and clearly
26:21 misses us already.
26:25 And with that, I would like to open the
26:27 floor to others who may have some
26:29 updates or announcements to make.
26:30 Michael,
26:32 thank you very much. Um I have uh three
26:36 uh sets of announcements to make. Um the
26:39 first one is on behalf of the Brooklyn
26:41 AsianAmerican
26:43 Family Network. Um the BAFN
26:47 uh is hosting their 11th annual essay
26:51 contest awards ceremony. Um that is
26:54 happening tomorrow, Wednesday, May 13th,
26:57 uh at 6 o'clock p.m. at the Coolage
26:59 Corner Theater. Um and all members of
27:02 the public are warmly invited to attend.
27:08 Um the second uh announcement that I
27:11 have uh I'd like to recognize two
27:14 important obser observances celebrated
27:16 together this month. Uh Jewish American
27:18 Heritage Month and Aaron Fstein Day. On
27:23 Sunday, May 17th from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m.
27:27 the community is invited to gather in
27:29 room 103 at Brooklyn Town Hall for an
27:33 afternoon of learning and music in honor
27:35 of Aaron Fstein.
27:37 The event will feature nationally
27:39 recognized educator Yavila McCoy who
27:42 will speak about the Jewish value of
27:46 loving kindness and its importance in
27:48 our lives today. The program will also
27:51 include music from the Kles encounters
27:54 band and light refreshments. Erin
27:56 Fstein, a Brooklyn native and CEO of
28:00 Malden Mills, whose remarkable act of
28:02 conscience and compassion, paying his
28:05 workers salaries and rebuilding his
28:07 factory after a devastating fire,
28:10 continues to inspire people well beyond
28:13 Brookline. This event during Jewish
28:16 American Heritage Month offers an
28:18 opportunity for all of us to celebrate
28:20 Aaron's legacy and the many
28:22 contributions of Jewish Americans to our
28:25 communities and our country. So I
28:28 encourage residents to attend and join
28:30 in this meaningful community
28:33 celebration.
28:35 And thirdly, um though I know we are uh
28:38 reading a proclamation uh in celebration
28:41 of DPW week uh shortly in our agenda, um
28:45 I would like to point out two uh
28:49 specific uh events relating to DPW week.
28:53 Um the first is the DPW is holding the
28:57 DPW public forum, an evening with the
29:00 commissioner and DPW leadership team on
29:03 Wednesday, May 20th from 6 o'clock to
29:06 8:00 p.m. Uh it is a Zoom meeting that
29:09 you can sign up at
29:10 tinyurl.comdpw-pub-forum-2026.
29:18 This forum is intended to provide town
29:20 meeting members, elected officials, and
29:23 interested residents with an opportunity
29:25 to hear directly from DPW leadership,
29:28 ask questions ahead of town meeting, and
29:31 learn more about current projects,
29:33 services, and priorities. I know from my
29:36 own experience, this has been a very
29:38 valuable opportunity to ask questions
29:41 and hear directly from the commissioner
29:43 and her leadership team. So I invite you
29:46 to join all of DPW and share this
29:49 information amongst your networks. And
29:52 secondly, uh DPW day is on Tuesday, May
29:56 19th. Um there is a public uh
30:00 opportunity to join DPW from noon to
30:03 5:00 pm on May 19th at the annual DPW
30:07 day at the municipal service center at
30:10 870 Hammond Street. This free,
30:13 familyfriendly, community event is open
30:15 to the public from noon to 5:00 pm and
30:18 is a wonderful opportunity to meet our
30:20 crews, explore equipment up close, and
30:23 see firsthand the working that goes into
30:25 keeping Brookline running. So, I invite
30:29 everyone to enjoy DPW Day as well.
30:34 All right. While we're on the theme of
30:36 cultural appreciation, I want to mention
30:38 that this is also Asian-American and
30:41 Pacific Islander Heritage Month. And as
30:44 part of that celebration, there is an
30:48 event tomorrow evening at the Koolage
30:51 Corner Theater, which is sponsored by
30:53 Baffin, the Brooklyn Asian-American
30:55 Family Network, and they will be
30:57 convening the 11th annual essay contest
31:00 award ceremony. Uh so for those of you
31:02 who can attend again tomorrow 6 pm
31:04 Kulage Corner Theater, I highly
31:06 recommend it. Uh I also want to thank
31:11 Bernard Green for his six years, three
31:13 months of service as chair of the select
31:17 board. You did an excellent job. I uh
31:20 very much enjoyed uh mentoring under you
31:23 for the uh last year as your vice chair.
31:26 I learned a lot from you. Uh, and I also
31:30 want to congratulate our two newest
31:32 members of the select board, Amanda
31:34 Zimmerman and Anthony Wono. Amanda, this
31:37 is the first time I have a female
31:39 colleague on the board. Uh, so you're
31:40 really a trailblazer, at least on my
31:42 time on this board, and also the highest
31:44 vote getter in select board history, at
31:47 least in modern history, as far as we
31:49 know. Very impressive.
31:53 and Anthony, you're just 26 years old
31:56 and elected to select board. As recently
31:59 as a couple weeks ago, I was the baby of
32:01 the board and now I'm middleaged. I've
32:04 got two who are younger than me, so
32:06 times are changing. So, congratulations
32:08 to you both.
32:09 Thank you.
32:14 Anyone else?
32:15 Yeah.
32:15 All right, Bernard. And then we'll go to
32:16 Amanda. Go ahead.
32:17 Okay. I I have three things I'd like to
32:19 mention. I was also at the um event at
32:22 Michael's Deli that uh Scott Gladstone
32:25 organized. Um and yeah, I talked to
32:29 Stephen PJovich
32:31 um who had an interesting perspective on
32:34 what was going on and I asked him if I
32:36 could use his his uh quote and he said
32:40 yes. Um he said put stickers on other
32:43 businesses and on mine but not just on
32:46 mine because that is not how we have a
32:48 discussion. We may disagree, but at
32:51 least we should be talking. It's not
32:53 okay to single out just my business
32:55 because that is not showing you want to
32:58 discuss the issue. Rough paraphrase, but
33:01 the substance is what he said. Um, you
33:04 know, the right to free speech is
33:05 important and gives us the right to
33:07 discuss and disagree. It does not give
33:09 anyone the right to threaten or bully or
33:11 intimidate, which was what I think
33:13 happened at um, Michaels. No one should
33:16 be shocked that anti-semitism or other
33:19 forms of hatred, whether racism,
33:21 anti-gay and anti-trans, etc., exist in
33:24 Brooklyn. We should investigate and
33:27 prosecute vandalism under uh state law,
33:30 uh, which, you know, has serious
33:32 consequences for such vandalism. But we
33:35 also must learn and teach others,
33:37 including those foolishly vandalizing,
33:40 how to have a respectful conversation
33:42 about hot button issues, even hot button
33:45 issues. The people who vandalize only
33:48 Michael's Deli with the stickers
33:50 stickers may fear such a discussion, but
33:53 we can't hide from it. Um, so that's
33:56 that's one comment. Um
34:00 secondly,
34:02 um I'd like to uh mention that uh Iana
34:05 Lindo Smith is uh retiring. Uh she is uh
34:10 head of community development at the
34:12 planning department and I know her
34:14 mainly through the CBD CDBG advisory
34:18 committee. Um, and you know, a little
34:22 little statement here uh that was uh
34:25 help that uh um Cara Brudin helped me
34:28 put together. For more than four
34:30 decades, Iana Lindo Smith has been an an
34:33 inspiring presence in the town of
34:35 Brooklyn. Over 41 years, 41. Wow.
34:41 41 years of dedicated service. Her work
34:44 her work has left a lasting impression
34:46 on the community reflecting not only
34:48 deep professional commitment but also a
34:51 genuine care for the people and
34:53 nonprofit institutions her work in
34:55 community development has supported. I
34:58 worked with her on the CDBG advisory
35:01 committee for a number of years and her
35:02 hard work behind the scenes made it
35:06 possible for us to use this federal CDBG
35:10 money uh to benefit communities that we
35:13 could not as a select board directly uh
35:16 fund uh with town resources um such as
35:20 the capital and other needs of the
35:22 Brookline Housing Authority. the the
35:24 money that we used from CDBG made a huge
35:28 difference in the lives of people in the
35:30 housing authority. Um her tenure stands
35:34 as a testament to consistency,
35:36 integrity, and adaptability.
35:38 Through challenging times and evolving
35:40 community needs, Iana remained a
35:43 reliable force, someone colleagues and
35:46 residents alike could trust. Long-term
35:49 service of this kind is rare and it
35:51 speaks volumes about both her love for
35:53 her work, her joy is work in working
35:56 with her colleagues and her belief in
35:58 public service. Beyond the day-to-day
36:01 responsibilities, her legacy is found in
36:03 the relationship she built, the
36:05 knowledge she shared, and the example
36:07 she set for others. She has helped shape
36:10 the future culture of the work and the
36:12 culture of the workforce and contributed
36:14 to the stability that makes local
36:16 government effective. She's a reminder
36:19 of the value of dedication and the
36:21 difference one individual can make over
36:24 time and she made it over 41 years. I it
36:27 just blows my mind knowing her, you
36:29 know, doesn't seem like she's been
36:31 around that long, but 41 years is quite
36:33 amazing. Uh so anyway, thank you. uh and
36:38 um you know I think she's going to be
36:39 here later on when we have the CDBG
36:42 discussion and we can uh all thank her
36:45 at that point too. Um we're you
36:49 mentioned a few things about John
36:51 Vancoyak. I'd like to just say a couple
36:53 things. Um John and I didn't always
36:56 agree. Many times we did agree and the
36:59 times we agreed were times when both he
37:01 and I were sort of going against the
37:04 grain on on issues. And I appreciated
37:06 that about John. Um, and maybe it's why
37:09 he's not here. You want to get some
37:11 grain on some issues. But, you know, he
37:14 was an important person on the select
37:16 board even when I disagreed with him
37:18 because he opened up my mind to things
37:20 that maybe I was overlooking or not
37:23 paying or not seeing as as important as
37:26 I should have. So, uh, we'll miss John.
37:28 Uh but we uh will not um um or he will
37:32 not u disappear from uh Brook town of
37:36 Brooklyn and select board's uh work. So
37:40 Amanda,
37:41 I just wanted to say something really
37:42 briefly that the town clerk uh said when
37:45 we were being sworn in, which is our
37:47 last election was the highest turnout
37:49 that Brooklyn has seen since World War
37:51 II. Um or maybe World War I. Ben will
37:54 graduate if I'm wrong. Um which I think
37:57 is phenomenal. It just speaks to the
37:58 level of engagement of so many of our
38:01 town voters. Um, and so we should all
38:04 hope that we can even beat that number
38:06 next year. So,
38:09 what else? Oh, go ahead.
38:10 Sorry. One more quick thing. Um, town
38:12 hall, uh, the public health building and
38:15 the main branch of the public library
38:16 here will be closed on Thursday the
38:19 14th. Um, that's for staff professional
38:22 development day. This is a first for the
38:24 town. Um, we've had staff appreciation
38:26 day before, but we've never had the
38:28 opportunity to actually take time for
38:30 the whole team, especially folks who
38:31 have to ordinarily work at the desks and
38:33 so forth, to do some training, um, to do
38:35 some betterment so that we can better
38:36 serve the community. Um, it's really
38:38 rare to have that opportunity. Um, we
38:41 want to thank the community. We
38:42 understand it is a hardship when we have
38:44 to close operations, but we want to be
38:45 thankful to you all for your patience on
38:48 this. If you have business with the town
38:50 that you need to come in for, I would
38:51 suggest you come in on Wednesday, which
38:52 will be regular working hours. Friday,
38:55 which again is early closure, but it's
38:56 regular working hours. So, um, just want
38:59 to let everyone know again that is Town
39:00 Hall, that is the public health
39:02 building, and that is the public library
39:04 here in Brooklyn Village. So, again,
39:07 thank you all for your patience and your
39:08 forbearance, and thank you to the staff.
39:10 Um, it's a real rare opportunity to be
39:12 able to do this. We're very grateful for
39:14 it.
39:16 All right. And with that, we will now
39:19 move to public comment. Melanie, if
39:21 you'd like to go over the roles.
39:22 Sure.
39:23 Thank you for joining us for public
39:24 comment. This is an opportunity for us
39:26 to hear your perspective on the issues
39:28 in Brookline that matter to you. Each
39:30 person speaking tonight is limited to
39:32 three minutes. You don't need to use the
39:34 entire time, but you may if you'd like.
39:37 Once 15 minutes has been met, there is
39:38 an opportunity at the conclusion of the
39:40 select board's business for additional
39:42 comments. Members of the public
39:44 sometimes raise questions during public
39:46 comment. We may be able to provide a
39:48 quick answer to a question, but are more
39:50 likely to work with staff to get a more
39:52 thorough answer and respond over email.
39:54 The onscreen timer will flash orange
39:56 when you have 30 seconds remaining and
39:58 red when your time is nearly up. Please
40:00 conclude your remarks at that time. If
40:03 you have more to say, you're welcome to
40:04 send an email to board members
40:06 expressing your thoughts in greater
40:07 detail. Any person wishing to speak must
40:10 begin their comment by identifying
40:12 themselves with their full name, either
40:14 their Brooklyn precinct number or street
40:16 address, and the specific topic on which
40:18 they wish to speak. The board encourages
40:20 but does not require that remote users
40:22 turn their video on when commenting.
40:26 So, we have three people signed up. Um
40:28 Paul Ser is first and Paul
40:32 Paul, I'll let you know when your 30
40:34 seconds is near. Okay.
40:36 Hopefully, you will not need to.
40:37 Hopefully, I'll be long done. Uh before
40:39 I um introduce myself formally, I want
40:42 to uh congratulate and thank Amanda and
40:45 Anthony for stepping up to the select
40:47 board. Uh and David Prman for elected
40:51 chair. Uh but most importantly, I want
40:53 to thank Bernard for serving for what I
40:56 believe, and I've been around a long
40:58 time, Bernard, a record six plus years.
41:00 I don't remember anyone serving that
41:01 long, never mind in the challenging
41:04 times that we've had recently. So um
41:08 thank you um for uh a nice transition.
41:12 Uh I want to speak very briefly about
41:15 one particular um uh sentence in uh the
41:20 2030 road map which um is on your agenda
41:23 tonight and it's in section 3B which um
41:28 is the section that references
41:30 increasing revenue through development
41:33 and specifically I am suggesting what I
41:37 think is a simple change and then I want
41:38 to explain why. So rather than, and
41:42 pardon me if I listen to my screen
41:43 reader,
41:49 rather than proactively seeking out
41:51 commercial development, I would suggest
41:53 a simple um amendment to that sentence
41:56 that says um uh seeking out um mixed
42:02 use. So insert mixed use including
42:05 commercial and then following that
42:08 insert in residential development
42:10 opportunities.
42:12 Why? Um two points. One first of all I
42:16 didn't introduce myself Paul Sander
42:18 precinct 13. I'm not speaking on behalf
42:20 of Brookline for everyone whose board
42:22 I'm on but I am reflecting on my
42:26 considerable experience um in a
42:28 leadership role on the economic
42:30 development advisory board. So um EDAB
42:33 has always prioritized
42:36 um achieving commercial development but
42:39 EDAB has also been practically
42:41 realistic. So I'll point out that the
42:43 three uh commercial property upzoning
42:47 since 2016
42:49 um which include um Emerald Island,
42:52 Waldo Durban in the proposal for Ches
42:55 Hill office park at Chestn Hill
42:56 commercial area rather. um those are all
42:59 mixeduse um developments with a
43:02 residential component. Those two phrases
43:04 mixeduse and residential don't presently
43:07 appear in the draft roadmap. The second
43:10 reason is that the road map itself says
43:13 that the um pending recommendations from
43:17 the um expenditure and revenue study
43:20 committee now having been delivered uh
43:23 to the select board should be considered
43:26 uh actually should be responded to.
43:28 30 seconds Paul.
43:30 Oh my god. So um uh they have um set
43:35 forth a development um memo to the
43:38 select board which they unanimously
43:40 voted and that memo says that commercial
43:43 development
43:45 uh should be on a mixeduse basis with
43:48 residential supporting commercial
43:50 development and in many cases making it
43:53 feasible. So in closing, I would like to
43:56 recommend that the select board consider
44:00 an important amendment reflective of
44:03 reality. Thank you.
44:10 Next we have Lisa Schutz.
44:20 Hello, I'm Lisa Shatz, precinct 11.
44:24 Members of the select board, I want to
44:26 speak briefly about why a strong public
44:29 response to anti-Semitic incidents
44:31 matters, not only morally, but
44:33 practically. History shows that hatred
44:36 rarely begins with violence. It begins
44:38 with words: intimidation, graffiti,
44:41 vandalism, and the normalization of
44:43 targeting a minority group. When those
44:46 acts are minimized or treated as
44:48 insignificant, the message received by
44:50 extremists is that the community will
44:52 tolerate escalation. We have seen this
44:54 pattern internationally.
44:57 In Bandi Beach, Australia, anti-Semitic
45:00 vandalism and harassment escalated over
45:03 time into increasing threatening public
45:05 incidents directed at Jews and Jewish
45:08 institutions. In London as well,
45:10 authorities and community leaders have
45:12 warned repeatedly that when anti-Semitic
45:15 rhetoric and intimidation are allowed to
45:17 become normalized in public life,
45:19 physical violence often follows. The
45:22 progression is predictable. Offensive
45:24 speech becomes harassment. Harassment
45:27 becomes vandalism. Vandalism becomes
45:29 violence. The point at which government
45:31 officials speak clearly and decisively
45:33 can interrupt that progression. That is
45:36 why public condemnation by elected
45:38 officials is not symbolic or
45:40 performative. It is preventative. It
45:43 establishes community standards. It
45:45 reassures targeted residents that they
45:48 are protected members of the community.
45:50 And it tells potential perpetrators that
45:52 Brooklyn will not look away. A strong
45:55 response does not require panic or
45:57 exaggeration. It simply requires moral
45:59 clarity. We do not wait for violence
46:02 before we speak up against hatred.
46:04 Brookline should remain a place where
46:05 Jewish residents and all residents know
46:08 that intimidation and anti-semitism will
46:11 be recognized early, condemned clearly,
46:13 and taken seriously. Thank you.
46:19 Next, we have Mike Sammon.
46:33 Uh, good evening. I'm Mike Sandman,
46:35 precinct 14, uh, 123 Fischer Avenue. Uh,
46:39 before I begin, uh, I want to say
46:41 congratulations to, um, to Amanda and to
46:46 Anthony and to David, and I'm sure you
46:49 will, um, even as a middle-aged member,
46:52 you'll you'll do just fine speaking to
46:54 you as the former grandfather of the
46:56 select board. And, uh, Bernard, thank
46:58 you very much for your service. It was a
47:00 pleasure uh to serve on the select board
47:02 with you. Um
47:05 so uh
47:08 Andy uh Andy Fischer and uh and uh
47:11 Marissa vote have introduced a proposed
47:14 condition of appropriation for the DPW's
47:17 budget that would require implementing
47:19 vision zero designs on streets that are
47:22 being repaved. and I chaired the
47:24 committee that wrote the vision zero
47:26 policy and I understand the desire to
47:28 see it uh implemented.
47:30 Um
47:32 Paul Warren will be offering a condition
47:35 of appropriation uh that res that
47:38 regards the DPW budget that I hope you
47:40 will support as a substitute for Andy
47:43 and and Marissa's uh uh proposal. Uh the
47:47 impetus for their proposal
47:49 uh is DPW's plan to resurface Harvard
47:52 Street in the same way as Beacon was
47:54 resurfaced and relined last year. The
47:57 proponents want a full-scale redesign
47:59 along the lines of what's been done for
48:01 Washington Street and they're hoping
48:03 that that's what the consequence will
48:05 be. But this is a classic example of the
48:08 perfect uh being the enemy of the good.
48:10 DPW sort of skim coats heavily patched
48:13 streets as a stop gap until funds become
48:16 available for full redesign uh and
48:18 reconstruction for a major street like
48:20 Harvard. That means applying for funding
48:22 through Mass Dot's transportation
48:24 improvement process um uh that planning
48:28 process. The tip is a five-year rolling
48:30 plan for street and highway work.
48:32 Meanwhile, repaving Harvard and other
48:34 streets including and included in the
48:36 vision zero p plan would have to be put
48:38 on hold or delayed.
48:41 Um waiting for the uncertain prospect of
48:44 getting tip funding for Harvard Street
48:46 and then going through the gauntlet of
48:47 redesign will delay any improvements for
48:50 many years. uh repaving streets and
48:53 improving lines like what Brookline what
48:55 DBW did on Beacon Street actually would
48:58 contribute to cyclist and safety
49:01 cyclists and pedestrian safety right
49:02 now. Riding on uneven streets like
49:05 Harvard is uncomfortable for both
49:06 drivers and cyclists and it's actually
49:08 dangerous. Um I uh my business partner
49:12 rode over an open seam on Babcock
49:13 Street, fell off his bike and sustained
49:15 a spiral fraction of his leg. and I
49:18 think of that whenever I'm biking on a
49:20 rough patch street. Um, I hope you will
49:23 uh enable the DPW to go forward with its
49:25 planning. Thank you.
49:30 We don't have anybody else.
49:32 Looks like David Kroo would like to
49:34 speak.
49:37 Hi, I didn't expect to speak this
49:40 evening, but as one of the people who
49:42 has been advocating for more um
49:44 significant improvements on Harvard,
49:46 would
49:46 you mind just introducing yourself
49:47 first? Sorry. or David Kroo um precinct
49:49 date. Um we have never asked for
49:53 anything comparable to Washington Street
49:55 on Harvard Street. What we've asked for
49:58 is exactly what is specified in vision
50:00 zero which is to consider road marking
50:04 changes that can improve safety on the
50:07 road. uh vision safe. Vision zero is a
50:10 very practical common sense policy which
50:13 basically says try to figure out where
50:16 the high-risk areas are and try to
50:19 incorporate lowcost improvements as you
50:22 maintain and preserve your roads. Um so
50:25 I just I I just want to make that clear.
50:28 We're not asking for Washington Street
50:31 on Harvard Street. And I also think the
50:34 reference to the tip is really important
50:36 because we can't wait for the next tip
50:39 on Harvard Street for a safer Harvard
50:42 Street and we don't have to wait and
50:44 that's what Vision Zero makes clear. Um,
50:47 also just in terms of the reference to
50:49 Beacon Street. Um, it is true that DPW
50:52 did resurface Beacon Street, but
50:55 remember there's already a complete
50:57 streets progress project that is in 75%
51:00 design. Now there is no such project on
51:04 Harvard Street. So not taking advantage
51:07 of the vision zero approach could really
51:09 delay improvements for more than 10
51:11 years. Thank you.
51:22 If you're online and you want to speak,
51:23 you can use the raise hand feature.
51:30 I don't see anyone else.
51:32 Does anyone else in the room would
51:35 anyone else in the room like to speak?
51:36 We have uh one more slot left. We have
51:38 up to 15 minutes at the beginning of a
51:40 meeting.
51:42 Seeing none, we will move on in our
51:45 agenda then to miscellaneous approval of
51:48 miscellaneous items, licenses, and
51:52 contracts. And for the benefit of our
51:54 two new members, typically we will vote
51:57 these in omnibus fashion. But if there
52:00 is someone who would like to remove one
52:03 or more of the items to be treated
52:05 separately or if uh anyone has questions
52:08 regarding one of the items, we can
52:10 address that first.
52:12 There's also the proclamation in there
52:14 for DPW day if someone wants to read
52:15 that.
52:16 Yes. And would anyone like to read the
52:18 proclamation for DPW Day?
52:21 I will. No one else does.
52:24 Or you want you speak better than I do.
52:27 Okay. I I can Yeah, I have it.
52:30 All right. So, why don't we do that
52:31 first?
52:56 starts here.
53:01 Is that is that it or
53:09 Michael? Do you want to read from here?
53:11 Yes. Thank you.
53:14 Sorry, that's better.
53:21 Okay.
53:23 A proclamation of the Brooklyn Select
53:25 Board for National Public Works Week,
53:29 May 17 through 23rd, 2026,
53:34 rooted in service powered by community.
53:38 Whereas public works professionals focus
53:41 on infrastructure, facilities, and
53:43 services that are of vital importance to
53:46 sustainable and resilient communities
53:49 and to public health, high quality of
53:52 life, and well-being of the people of
53:54 the town of Brooklyn. And whereas these
53:57 infrastructure, facilities, and services
54:00 could not be provided without the
54:02 dedicated efforts of public works
54:04 employees at all levels of government
54:07 and the private sector who are
54:09 responsible for rebuilding, improving,
54:12 and protecting our nation's
54:14 transportation, water supply, parks and
54:17 open space, solid waste programs, and
54:21 other structures and facilities
54:23 essential for our citizens. And whereas
54:26 it is in the public interest for the
54:29 citizens, civic leaders, and children in
54:32 the town of Brooklyn to gain knowledge
54:34 of and to maintain an ongoing interest
54:37 and understanding of the importance of
54:40 public works and public works programs
54:43 in their respective communities. And
54:46 whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th
54:49 annual National Public Works Week
54:52 sponsored by the American Public Works
54:54 Association,
54:56 be it now National Public Works Week
55:00 resolved. We, the select board in the
55:03 town of Brooklyn, do hereby designate
55:05 the week May 17 through 23rd, 2026 as
55:10 National Public Works Week. I urge all
55:13 citizens to join with representatives of
55:16 the American Public Works Association
55:18 and government agencies in activities,
55:21 events, and ceremonies designed to pay
55:24 tribute to our public works
55:26 professionals, engineers, managers, and
55:29 employees, and to recognize the
55:31 substantial contributions they make to
55:34 protecting our national health, safety,
55:37 and advancing quality of life for all.
55:41 In witness thereof, we set our hands and
55:43 cause the seal of the state done in the
55:46 town of Brooklyn, Massachusetts, this
55:48 12th day of May, 2026 by the Brookline
55:52 Select Board.
55:55 Thank you for reading that proclamation,
55:56 Michael. And two other items I would
55:59 like to highlight are 4 and 4 I.
56:02 Typically when we are uh receiving uh
56:06 sponsorship funds or accepting a grant
56:08 we acknowledge those who are providing
56:10 it. So 4 is a question of accepting
56:13 sponsorship funds from residents to the
56:16 ODICR
56:18 office of diversity equity inclusion and
56:20 community relations and the Brooklyn
56:21 Asian-American Family Network in the
56:23 amount of $1,50.
56:26 These funds will be used towards the
56:27 2026 BAFEN essay contest. And for I is
56:32 the question of accepting a grant from
56:34 the Brooklyn Community Foundation to the
56:36 ODICR
56:38 and the Brooklyn Asian-American Family
56:40 Network in the amount of $8,000. This
56:43 grant will be used to build its capacity
56:45 to organize and support Asian-American
56:47 Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander
56:49 residents and youth through affinity
56:51 groups and community events, including
56:53 an annual A&I
56:56 Heritage Month event. Now, in terms of
56:59 the other items, does anyone have
57:01 anything they would like to discuss
57:02 further or a question or something you'd
57:06 like to pull out?
57:08 I think I have a question related to
57:10 item 440.
57:11 Okay. Okay, just the parking fees. I
57:14 just want to make sure we're
57:15 Oh, I'm that that shouldn't be in
57:16 miscellaneous. That should be pulled
57:18 out. I'm sorry. That doesn't belong in
57:19 miscellaneous agenda. I didn't realize
57:20 that was off. Um, but by all means ask
57:24 your question, but we'll we can we can
57:26 take that up at a later we can take that
57:27 up later in this meeting, but I didn't
57:29 realize that was a miscellaneous.
57:30 So, we're not going to vote on this
57:31 right now, though?
57:31 Well, we the the goal would be to to
57:33 take a vote on it, but um I think we
57:35 should let the full board discuss it.
57:37 Um, so if you have questions, um, maybe
57:40 we should, if it's okay with the chair,
57:42 maybe we could just move that past the
57:44 public hearings.
57:45 Um, so that we, but then we can come
57:46 back to that because I do want the board
57:48 to be able to talk through that.
57:49 Okay.
57:49 Thank you.
57:49 Yeah, no worries.
57:51 I have a question. Go ahead.
57:53 Um,
57:54 which is on this.
57:58 I don't even know which one. The sealing
58:00 the cracks.
58:01 Yes.
58:02 Um, it just says on locations throughout
58:04 town. And I'm curious as to if you might
58:06 be
58:09 uh it just says locations throughout the
58:12 town and I'm wondering if folks if
58:14 someone here can give clarification on
58:16 what cracks are being sealed where.
58:19 So this is a standing, you know,
58:21 services contract to be provided as
58:23 needed. Um so they are they're providing
58:25 this when when the need arises. We do
58:27 the public bid and then when you know
58:29 they quote us a price for this and then
58:30 when there are um repair jobs that need
58:33 to be done they provide that service to
58:35 us.
58:39 Didn't we have to know the sites in
58:42 order to put out a request for bids?
58:44 No.
58:45 Or this is just like a certain quantity
58:47 of work.
58:47 Yes. It's a service Yeah. It's a
58:48 services contract. Not not necessarily a
58:50 um right you know a project contract.
58:54 Thank you.
58:57 All right. So, I move that we approve
59:00 items 4 A through 4P excluding 4 O which
59:04 we will address later. Any further
59:07 discussion?
59:10 Seeing none. Bernard,
59:12 yes.
59:13 Michael,
59:14 yes.
59:15 Amanda,
59:15 yes.
59:16 Anthony,
59:17 yes.
59:18 And I also vote yes. And with that, we
59:22 move to Chestnut Hill West.
59:28 And Michael, would you like to introduce
59:30 this?
59:31 I believe Meredith Mooney is online and
59:33 is taking upation.
59:36 Go ahead, Meredith.
59:38 Good evening, um, Chair Pearlman, Vice
59:41 Chair Rubenstein, and select board
59:43 members Bono Green and Zimmerman. I'm
59:46 Meredith Mooney, economic development
59:48 director, and I'm here tonight to
59:50 present um uh a few uh recommended
59:55 actions for the select board related to
59:57 special town meeting one. And I have a
1:00:00 slide deck here um just to sort of
1:00:04 orient everyone um
1:00:09 about tonight's agenda items.
1:00:12 So, just to to recap, because it's been
1:00:14 a few weeks since the select board has
1:00:16 been discussing the set of warrant
1:00:18 articles, I just wanted to remind the
1:00:20 board about um special town meeting one
1:00:23 articles one and two. Um article one
1:00:26 proposes to amend the zoning bylaw to
1:00:28 incorporate the Chestnut Hill commercial
1:00:30 area commercial overlay zoning. And
1:00:32 article two um authorizes the select
1:00:35 board to enter into a memorandum of
1:00:37 agreement and tax certainty agreement
1:00:38 with city realy. And sort of related to
1:00:41 article two, there are two documents.
1:00:43 The memorandum of agreement with City
1:00:45 Realy and a tax certainty agreement um
1:00:47 regarding 12801330
1:00:49 Boilston Street, also known as the
1:00:51 Chestnut Hill Office Park, which City
1:00:52 Realy owns.
1:00:55 And so tonight in your select board
1:00:56 packet materials, there was um a a
1:00:59 proposed amended version of special town
1:01:01 meeting one article one. And those um
1:01:05 three edits are intended to reflect the
1:01:07 final language included in the
1:01:09 memorandum of agreement. And then
1:01:11 there's also a final version of the
1:01:13 memorandum of agreement and attached um
1:01:16 several exhibits attached to that. Uh
1:01:18 the final version of this the memorandum
1:01:21 of agreement was sent to the Slack board
1:01:23 earlier this afternoon. uh along with a
1:01:26 complete set of exhibits. Um the legal
1:01:28 descriptions of the parcels in 1280 1330
1:01:31 Boilson Street were not included in the
1:01:33 packet materials on Friday, but those
1:01:35 are now um I I believe maybe uploaded to
1:01:38 the packet and at least in your inboxes.
1:01:42 So tonight, um, oh, and just to to
1:01:44 recap, recent select board conversations
1:01:46 regarding special town meeting one. Uh,
1:01:49 in a April 14th and April 28th, the
1:01:52 select board held a public hearing, two
1:01:54 public hearings um on the proposed
1:01:56 warrant articles. On April 28th, the
1:01:59 select board voted favorable action on
1:02:01 both articles and the um vote was for an
1:02:06 amended version of the zoning which
1:02:08 incorporated
1:02:10 a broad set of um amendments that were a
1:02:12 reflection of uh contributions made from
1:02:15 select board member Michael Rubenstein.
1:02:17 It included the Janice Khan consensus
1:02:19 amendment, several proposed amendments
1:02:20 from Dick Banka, um and a few proposed
1:02:24 friendly amendments from staff as well.
1:02:28 So this evening uh we are uh
1:02:30 recommending and have presented to the
1:02:32 select board uh a couple of actions um
1:02:35 for you to undertake. So one would be
1:02:37 the uh to reconsider and amend special
1:02:40 town meeting one article one um with
1:02:43 those amendments to reflect the final
1:02:45 MOA language and the provisions in the
1:02:46 MOA.
1:02:47 Excuse me. I think you mean article two.
1:02:51 I'm sorry. Article two. Thank you.
1:02:54 The second action would be related to uh
1:02:57 voting to approve to ex so sorry so
1:02:59 voting approval to execute the
1:03:01 memorandum of agreement contingent upon
1:03:03 town meetings approval of the special
1:03:05 town meeting one articles uh later this
1:03:08 month and it is important to note that
1:03:09 tonight's vote would be um to execute
1:03:13 the articles but uh sorry to execute the
1:03:15 MOA but you would not actually execute
1:03:17 the MOA until after town meeting and
1:03:20 then um upcoming for next week's meeting
1:03:24 uh we will be returning with a set of
1:03:26 very minor amendments related to special
1:03:28 town meeting one article one um that the
1:03:30 select board should take up prior to the
1:03:33 town meeting and the uh supplemental
1:03:36 reports.
1:03:38 So just a quick overview and this was
1:03:40 also covered in the cover memo provided
1:03:42 in your packets. Um the amendments to
1:03:45 the MOA uh incorporated the Janus Khan
1:03:49 amendments. There was the Janice Khan
1:03:50 consensus amendment that was made to the
1:03:52 proposed zoning and there were a
1:03:54 corresponding set of amendments specific
1:03:56 to the MOA um requirements. And so those
1:03:59 are summarized here and just a couple of
1:04:01 highlights. Um there'll be $150,000 for
1:04:05 retail support fund for Chesnut Hill
1:04:08 commercial area small businesses. Um
1:04:10 there are several incentives for
1:04:11 expediting the completion of building A,
1:04:13 which is the hotel and condo building
1:04:16 that City Realy is proposing. Um and
1:04:19 then there's some recommendations about
1:04:21 membership included in a future design
1:04:23 advisory team for city realies project.
1:04:26 Other amendments uh include adding some
1:04:29 extra protections for the language
1:04:31 regarding the um requirement about 2% of
1:04:33 the heart construction costs to go
1:04:35 towards uh for infrastructure
1:04:37 mitigation, public safety mitigation.
1:04:39 And then the the key difference and the
1:04:41 most substantive change since um the
1:04:45 materials the MOA was sent in your
1:04:47 packet late last week is that the final
1:04:50 version of the MOA modifies and provides
1:04:52 some clarification around the timing of
1:04:55 when the town will receive the
1:04:56 infrastructure and public safety
1:04:58 mitigation funding.
1:05:00 And then uh proposed vote sequence and
1:05:03 motion language for tonight. Um I think
1:05:06 it would be appropriate for the select
1:05:07 board to consider amending special time
1:05:10 meeting one article one and then um
1:05:13 considering um executing the MOA.
1:05:17 So I'm happy to
1:05:19 answer any questions.
1:05:21 Um excuse me Meredith. Thank you very
1:05:23 much for the for the summary. Um I just
1:05:26 wanted to confirm also um if we received
1:05:29 the executed signature pages from city
1:05:32 realy on the MOA. Yes, thank you for the
1:05:35 reminder. So, also forwarded to the
1:05:37 select board earlier this afternoon
1:05:40 with the final MOA is um the set of
1:05:42 signatures from city realy.
1:05:47 Anthony um I had a question related to
1:05:49 the 150,000 um which would be um used to
1:05:53 support the commercial businesses that
1:05:55 would operate here. Who would be doing
1:05:57 out that 150,000? I believe I read it
1:06:00 was a nonprofit in theou. I was
1:06:02 wondering if we had a spec specific uh
1:06:04 one in mind for that.
1:06:08 Yes, thank you for the question. So, uh
1:06:10 right now the MOA the language is a bit
1:06:12 broader with just a local nonprofit
1:06:14 organization. Um we are in conversation
1:06:16 with Janice Khan about um one of the
1:06:19 Chestnut Hill neighborhood associations
1:06:21 um that is a nonprofit would be the um
1:06:25 steward of those funds. Has the town put
1:06:28 any thought into um operating the fund
1:06:30 in itself through the planning
1:06:32 department or the economic uh or like
1:06:34 EDAB or something or another uh town
1:06:36 agency that could maybe do that instead
1:06:38 of a nonprofit?
1:06:40 So, we we did consider that. Um there's
1:06:43 certainly sort of the administrative
1:06:46 capacity considerations. There's also
1:06:48 some complexity. Um there could be some
1:06:51 anti-aid amendment considerations. Um,
1:06:54 but I think also just based on the
1:06:56 intent of these proposed amendments to
1:06:58 the MOA, the importance of having
1:07:01 neighborhood
1:07:03 input and um,
1:07:06 uh, kind of control over about how those
1:07:08 funds are directed in support of
1:07:09 businesses in their community is very
1:07:11 important. So given that, I think it is
1:07:13 more appropriate that a neighborhood
1:07:16 oriented local nonprofit be the the
1:07:18 steward of those funds.
1:07:19 Okay. Thanks. Yeah, just so folks are
1:07:22 aware, it's it's similar to the kind of
1:07:23 problem we had with ARPA where we can't
1:07:25 directly fund a lot of programs because
1:07:28 we're the government and that raises
1:07:29 unique concerns, but we can provide
1:07:31 funding to nonprofits who then have more
1:07:33 leeway to do to run programs based on
1:07:35 that.
1:07:36 Bernard,
1:07:37 yeah. Are there no businessoriented
1:07:39 nonprofits that could uh be used for
1:07:41 this purpose?
1:07:43 I mean, like a chamber of commerce type
1:07:46 organization?
1:07:48 Uh, great question. So, we we've had
1:07:49 conversations with both the Brookline
1:07:51 Community Foundation. They were unable
1:07:53 um to be the um administrator of this
1:07:57 program because they have to support
1:08:00 other local nonprofit organizations. So,
1:08:02 they couldn't um provide the grant
1:08:03 funding to for-profit businesses. And
1:08:05 then we did have a conversation with the
1:08:07 Charles River Chamber of Commerce who
1:08:09 had a a similar set of concerns about
1:08:10 the complexities in terms of um
1:08:13 administering and um uh giving out those
1:08:17 funds. So, um, that's sort of why we
1:08:19 landed on local nonprofit leaning
1:08:21 towards one of the neighborhood
1:08:23 organizations.
1:08:24 Is there some way to include business
1:08:26 sort of perspectives in the local
1:08:29 community organizations activities?
1:08:33 You're saying in terms of developing the
1:08:35 grant criteria for this $150,000
1:08:38 program?
1:08:39 Yes.
1:08:41 Yeah. That's certainly something that um
1:08:43 from the economic development staff
1:08:44 perspective, we can try to connect that
1:08:47 group with, you know, local business
1:08:49 organizations as they're finalizing the
1:08:51 selection criteria for grant recipients.
1:08:59 Anyone else?
1:09:02 All right. So, are we ready to vote on
1:09:06 6A and 6B or any further discussion?
1:09:09 Seeing none, I move that we execute the
1:09:13 proposed memorandum of agreement between
1:09:15 the town of Brooklyn and city realy
1:09:17 contingent upon passage of special town
1:09:20 meeting one articles one and two at town
1:09:24 meeting later this month.
1:09:27 Bernard,
1:09:27 yes.
1:09:28 Michael,
1:09:29 yes.
1:09:30 Amanda,
1:09:31 yes.
1:09:31 Anthony,
1:09:32 yes.
1:09:33 And I also vote yes. Next, I would like
1:09:36 to move possible reconsideration of
1:09:40 special town meeting one article 2
1:09:42 regarding authorization of the select
1:09:45 board to enter into a memorandum of
1:09:47 agreement and tax certainty agreement
1:09:49 with city realy as amended. Two reflects
1:09:52 the final language in the executed
1:09:54 memorandum of agreement.
1:09:57 Bernard
1:09:58 uh for reconsideration, yes.
1:10:00 Michael,
1:10:01 yes.
1:10:02 Amanda,
1:10:03 yes.
1:10:04 Anthony,
1:10:04 yes. And I also vote yes.
1:10:07 So Bernard, did you want further
1:10:09 discussion or are
1:10:11 No, you're you're fine. Okay.
1:10:14 Do you want to say anything on these
1:10:16 changes?
1:10:17 Uh, no. I I think um Director Mooney
1:10:20 summarized them very well.
1:10:22 All right, then could I ask one
1:10:25 question? Sure. Okay. Um, if I want to
1:10:27 read the ex explicit on the tax
1:10:30 certainty agreement, uh, Michael, do you
1:10:32 know where that is in the in the article
1:10:35 or
1:10:36 um, so the tax
1:10:38 Sorry.
1:10:39 Uh, the tax certainty agreement I
1:10:41 believe is an exhibit to the memorandum
1:10:43 of agreement.
1:10:44 Okay. Okay.
1:10:49 All right. So, I move that uh, we
1:10:51 provide that authorization in 6B.
1:10:54 Bernard. Yes,
1:10:56 Michael.
1:10:58 I'm I'm sorry.
1:11:00 What do we
1:11:01 Well, we're voting on We voted for
1:11:02 possible reconsideration. Now voting to
1:11:04 actually
1:11:06 recommend favorable action,
1:11:07 right?
1:11:07 And I think this is about executing the
1:11:09 agreement.
1:11:10 Executing the agreement
1:11:12 conditional on town meeting,
1:11:13 right?
1:11:15 Can you say that one more time?
1:11:17 6B is um authorization of the sele. So
1:11:20 yeah, this is favorable action on STM1
1:11:22 article 2. Um and um right this would be
1:11:27 authorizing the um
1:11:30 I'm sorry
1:11:33 ex
1:11:33 Chaz. This is Jonathan.
1:11:34 Hi John.
1:11:35 Hi David voted David had them take a
1:11:38 vote to authorize the execution of the
1:11:40 MOA already. Okay. Now you are voting to
1:11:43 uh recommend approval amend your
1:11:46 approval of the um of uh special town
1:11:50 meeting one article two.
1:11:52 Okay. So, it's favorable a motion for
1:11:53 favorable action then. Okay.
1:11:54 Yeah.
1:11:55 Sorry.
1:11:56 Maybe maybe maybe we should be clear and
1:11:58 we glossed over this too too quickly. Um
1:12:00 but the changes that were made to STM1
1:12:04 warrant article 2 um consisted of the
1:12:07 removal of certain conditions for the
1:12:10 MOA which were no longer applicable
1:12:13 because of negotiations in the MOA. So,
1:12:17 they've been reviewed by the moderator
1:12:18 to be within scope. Um and those are the
1:12:22 changes that we are voting to recommend
1:12:25 favorable action on.
1:12:27 Yes.
1:12:28 So moving favorable action on STM1
1:12:31 article two
1:12:34 still yes.
1:12:35 Michael
1:12:36 yes
1:12:36 and thank you for that clarification.
1:12:38 Amanda
1:12:39 yes.
1:12:39 Anthony
1:12:40 yes.
1:12:40 And I also vote yes.
1:12:43 So thank you Meredith. So, we will now
1:12:46 move to boards and commissions
1:12:48 interviews. And first up is the
1:12:51 Preservation Commission, Vaseli Demenov.
1:12:55 He's online.
1:12:56 All right. Yes, I'm here.
1:13:02 Good evening, everyone. Thank you for
1:13:04 the opportunity to interview today.
1:13:07 Uh, my name is Vaselov and I'm a
1:13:10 Brookline resident, interpreneur, and
1:13:12 licensed construction supervisor. I
1:13:15 co-ounded a local window and door
1:13:17 company and uh have experience working
1:13:20 with homeowners on renovation and
1:13:23 preservation sensitive projects.
1:13:26 Um, I'm also actively involved in the
1:13:28 community um through volunteer work with
1:13:31 Brookline Tribes and Brookline Food
1:13:33 Pantry and I'm interested in serving on
1:13:36 the board because I care about Brook
1:13:38 Lines architecture
1:13:40 and would like to contribute a practical
1:13:42 and balanced perspective that uh
1:13:45 supports both preservation and the needs
1:13:47 of residents.
1:13:51 All right, any questions?
1:13:56 Go ahead, Amanda.
1:13:58 How do you see the role of the
1:14:00 preservation committee um and the desire
1:14:04 of a lot of Brookline residents to make
1:14:06 their homes more environmentally
1:14:08 sustainable?
1:14:10 How do you see balancing that on that
1:14:11 committee?
1:14:13 And you know through my experiences cons
1:14:16 in construction and u working with
1:14:18 homeowners um I see that uh the
1:14:24 preservation commission should like uh
1:14:26 you know the define the balance between
1:14:29 you know saving um the architectural uh
1:14:32 character and uh for sure the
1:14:36 residential needs
1:14:38 but uh to save historical um design of
1:14:43 the Any
1:14:46 other questions? Michael,
1:14:48 um, thank you. Thank you very much for
1:14:50 your application. Um, first of all, I'm
1:14:53 wondering, have you attended any
1:14:55 meetings of the preservation commission?
1:14:58 Yes, I already attended few meetings and
1:15:00 um I met with um two members from
1:15:03 preservation commission with Elizabeth
1:15:05 and Elton
1:15:06 and um I reviewed um all the rules on
1:15:10 the website and I'm pretty excited to
1:15:14 join the board if if possible and um I
1:15:17 like to volunteer and contribute more to
1:15:22 our great community.
1:15:24 Great. Um I'm wondering in the in the
1:15:27 meetings that you saw or the reading
1:15:29 that you did whether there were any
1:15:30 areas of improvement in the processes of
1:15:33 the preservation commission um that you
1:15:35 would care to offer.
1:15:38 uh it's always the gap to for for
1:15:40 improvement you know and u in any kinds
1:15:44 uh for sure I need to spend more time um
1:15:47 to know more how the processes works in
1:15:49 the commission and uh what to suggest
1:15:54 thank you
1:15:56 in reviewing your resume I see that
1:15:58 you've been uh an entrepreneur in the
1:16:01 agricultural equipment and parts
1:16:04 business and I'm wondering how your
1:16:07 professional life would help inform some
1:16:09 of your work on preservation commission.
1:16:12 Um it was a huge part of my life before
1:16:15 I moved in states. So I spent 10 years
1:16:17 with a John Deere um in my home country
1:16:21 in Kazakhstan and um right now it's not
1:16:25 more like just a hobby for me uh to do
1:16:30 the you know the consulting for for the
1:16:33 farmers. Um I'm uh fully right now
1:16:36 involved in the construction and u
1:16:38 business. That's it.
1:16:42 All right. Thank you. Any other
1:16:43 questions?
1:16:46 All right. Seeing none, typically uh
1:16:48 what we do is we will interview
1:16:50 candidates and then at a subsequent
1:16:51 meeting after everybody's been
1:16:53 interviewed, we will vote. We won't be
1:16:56 voting tonight, but thank you for
1:16:58 coming. Thank you for applying and uh we
1:17:00 appreciate your interest.
1:17:02 Thank you so much. I appreciate your
1:17:04 time.
1:17:05 All right. Next we have Lars Anderson
1:17:09 Rank Design Review Committee interviews.
1:17:13 And first up is Robert Franklin.
1:17:20 Thank you.
1:17:22 I am Robert Franklin.
1:17:24 Um I was approached by I think the
1:17:27 director of recreation at one point
1:17:29 because I have a lot of involvement.
1:17:31 People know me from the Lars Anderson
1:17:33 rink asked if I would be interested in
1:17:35 serving in some way fashion on the
1:17:38 design review committee and I said I was
1:17:41 uh flattered and enthusiastic to do so.
1:17:43 So I submitted an application and I came
1:17:46 here today to answer questions if
1:17:47 anybody had any.
1:17:51 All right, any questions?
1:17:56 Amanda,
1:17:57 can you expand a little bit on on your
1:17:59 role with with the rig right now?
1:18:04 Um,
1:18:05 or with Lars right now? Yeah.
1:18:07 What what what is my involvement? Well,
1:18:10 I'm 78 years old and I uh skated at the
1:18:14 rink the day it opened in I think 1955.
1:18:19 And very very often afterwards, I don't
1:18:22 think I've ever missed a season except
1:18:24 when I was away at school. um in college
1:18:26 and so forth. Um it's very very
1:18:30 important to me, dear to my heart. Um a
1:18:33 lot of friendships over the years have
1:18:34 been developed from the rink. My
1:18:37 grandmother uh and grandfather who my
1:18:39 grandmother's a wonderful cook, so I
1:18:41 spent a lot of time with her as a
1:18:42 teenager and she lived on Rockwood
1:18:44 Street um just on the Brook on the
1:18:47 Boston side of the line. Um I don't know
1:18:50 if you're familiar with Rockwood. sort
1:18:52 of it's parallel to Avon. Avon is at the
1:18:56 bottom of the ski hill at Lars Anderson
1:18:59 and um there was a little right of way
1:19:02 through the woods that I could walk to
1:19:04 the rink and I spent just a lot of time
1:19:06 there. A lot of my relationships with
1:19:09 Brooklyn people although I was living I
1:19:11 grew up in Boston. and I lived in
1:19:12 Jamaica plane until 1968 when my parents
1:19:16 moved to Brooklyn. And then I became a
1:19:19 Brookline uh homeowner in uh 198 well 34
1:19:25 years ago, whenever that was, and
1:19:26 brought up my family here. My children
1:19:30 uh went to Baker School and I had a
1:19:32 daughter who went to Brooklyn High
1:19:34 School and she was on the first Brooklyn
1:19:36 High School girls, if I can say that,
1:19:39 women's hockey team. Um, uh, I played,
1:19:44 uh, hockey as a youngster and through
1:19:47 high school and as an adult. Um, another
1:19:50 son, another daughter who all played
1:19:52 hockey. Although my interest isn't
1:19:54 really that enthusiastically based on
1:19:57 hockey. Um, I see that as a sort of
1:20:00 remote adjunct to what Lars Anderson
1:20:03 rink serves to the public and to the
1:20:05 Brooklyn residents. Um, I don't want to
1:20:07 certainly don't want to overemphasize
1:20:09 that. I don't think that rink is really
1:20:10 very suitable for a big hockey program.
1:20:13 Although my kids went through the
1:20:14 Brooklyn youth hockey program and and it
1:20:17 was very important to them. Am I getting
1:20:19 anywhere in the realm of what
1:20:21 That's great. I just wanted to hear a
1:20:22 little bit more about it.
1:20:23 Sure. Sure. Yeah.
1:20:26 Thank you.
1:20:26 Yeah.
1:20:27 Bernard,
1:20:27 so do you have any ideas or concerns
1:20:30 about the design particularly since
1:20:33 you've raised the issue of it
1:20:34 suitability for hockey?
1:20:37 Sure. Um, I don't think I'm really deep
1:20:39 enough into it yet. Um, in terms of the
1:20:42 the design review committee, I'm
1:20:44 certainly in my own mind deep into a
1:20:47 certain a couple of issues that I think
1:20:48 are important. Some of which I
1:20:50 understand have been resolved. One of
1:20:51 which is I would not like to see the
1:20:53 rink covered. I think it is what it is
1:20:56 and it's limited but beautiful as to
1:20:59 what it is. Um, I personally am of a
1:21:03 minimalist style of of u uh approach.
1:21:09 Uh, I don't like to see things overdone.
1:21:11 I don't like to see money wasted. I
1:21:12 don't think it's necessary at the rink.
1:21:14 I think it's important to recognize the
1:21:17 rink for what it is and not to pretend
1:21:19 that it's going to be something much
1:21:21 more involved or glamorous than than
1:21:24 what it is. It's a very, very unique.
1:21:26 I've skated a lot of places and there's
1:21:28 nothing like skating on a Friday night
1:21:31 under the stars or the moon rising over
1:21:33 the city of Boston in the east and it's
1:21:35 just magic. Um, so I would be getting
1:21:39 more and more into it on the committee
1:21:40 and finding out what other people felt
1:21:42 and try to be understanding of other
1:21:44 people's points of view and then add my
1:21:46 own to it based on what I heard and
1:21:48 learned.
1:21:51 Thank you. I'm not a skater, but your
1:21:54 the image that you gave of uh of under
1:21:57 the stars of the moon rising above.
1:22:00 I skated yesterday.
1:22:01 I'll go out I'll just go out there and
1:22:03 stand around.
1:22:04 Yeah.
1:22:06 Uh in your application, you talk about
1:22:08 your experience with design and
1:22:11 construction in your professional life.
1:22:13 Can you elaborate on that a bit more?
1:22:14 Uh professionally, I'm a lawyer,
1:22:16 although now retired about three or four
1:22:18 years. Um, but I have a I've owned
1:22:22 property. I've owned my own home. Um,
1:22:24 when I purchased in Brooklyn on the
1:22:26 Graange Street, I moved into a house
1:22:28 that had uh two bedrooms. Um, and I had
1:22:32 three children and a wife along with me.
1:22:34 So, it was a little inadequate. I
1:22:36 remember my son, who was, I think, at
1:22:38 Baker School or began Baker School when
1:22:40 we moved in, was sleeping on a floor
1:22:43 somewhere that eventually became my
1:22:44 office. But the second floor of the
1:22:46 house um was raw space and I drew a
1:22:50 design and um submitted it to the
1:22:54 appropriate authorities here at the town
1:22:57 and then was involved in the building
1:22:58 there. I owned a house in Martha's
1:23:01 Vineyard and did renovations. I've done
1:23:02 renovations over the years. I was
1:23:04 perhaps miscast as a lawyer. I like to
1:23:06 work with my hands. I like visual
1:23:09 approaches to things and looking at
1:23:12 blueprints and designs and cost cutting
1:23:15 is very important to me. Not to be cheap
1:23:18 but to be sensible and thoughtful about
1:23:20 how money is spent effectively.
1:23:24 Anyone else?
1:23:27 All right. Well, thank you for uh your
1:23:29 application and for submitting to this
1:23:31 interview and our questions.
1:23:32 You're welcome. Thank you for the time.
1:23:35 Next we have Wadner Oji.
1:23:44 Good evening. Uh my name is Wadner O and
1:23:48 u I live close to uh right next to Lars
1:23:52 Anderson Park and thank you for the
1:23:56 opportunity to discuss my interest in
1:23:59 serving on the community.
1:24:02 Uh I'm interested because I value
1:24:07 thoughtful
1:24:09 context design what it is you look at
1:24:12 the community whatever you're going to
1:24:14 fit put there it's reflect the character
1:24:18 so laws understand is a beautiful park
1:24:23 and my kids always go there whatever the
1:24:25 season is uh I go there with them to
1:24:29 ride a bike in the winter time we go to
1:24:32 ice skating. So I love the park. Um, so
1:24:37 I am interested because I
1:24:41 care I care deeply about preserving and
1:24:46 enhancing
1:24:48 Lars Under Park unique
1:24:52 character and while allowing
1:24:56 thoughtful
1:24:58 growth design which reflect not the only
1:25:03 the structures. There are a lot of
1:25:04 structures in Lars and park including
1:25:07 the ice wing so that they can fit there.
1:25:10 And then recently last night there was a
1:25:14 beautiful picture
1:25:16 uh about Lars. You see the design it's
1:25:18 so beautiful. So that's what I want to
1:25:22 use my
1:25:24 experience on the zoning board of appeal
1:25:27 and as was my I have been a lawyer for
1:25:30 approximately 20 years with the
1:25:32 government. So you when you look at a
1:25:37 the design of structure not just the
1:25:39 appearance of it you have to look at
1:25:42 whether it's the sustainability of it
1:25:45 whether it is accessible or whether it's
1:25:48 connected to the community. That's what
1:25:50 I intend to do to use my experience to
1:25:53 look at whatever the design the
1:25:55 architecture put in front of me. I have
1:25:57 to look at whether it's going to fit
1:25:59 there. It's a beautiful place and I
1:26:02 loved it.
1:26:04 And nobody recommend me to be here
1:26:06 today. I received a letter that was sent
1:26:09 to my wife. My wife looked at say you
1:26:11 should apply for it.
1:26:13 That was on April 16.
1:26:16 It was dated it was April 6. And then
1:26:19 later on I receive another email.
1:26:22 They're looking for individual to apply
1:26:24 as a public board member. This is when I
1:26:27 thought about it. I said why not?
1:26:31 I have appreciation
1:26:34 for the park and as well as for the rank
1:26:37 and even though we're gonna improve it
1:26:41 but it has to fit within the character
1:26:44 of laws under sin park and also we have
1:26:48 to make sure that it is accessible it is
1:26:52 usability
1:26:54 and again connected to the community so
1:26:57 that we can use it everybody in Blean
1:26:59 can use it and I will entertain any
1:27:01 question that you guys may have.
1:27:04 Any questions?
1:27:07 Go ahead, Bernard.
1:27:07 Do you have any ide
1:27:11 uh the skating rink could be more
1:27:13 accessible to a broader
1:27:16 range of people in Brooklyn? I It's kind
1:27:18 of isolated down in South Brooklyn. Um
1:27:22 any thoughts in terms of
1:27:25 Oh, sorry.
1:27:30 any thoughts in terms of uh ideas uh for
1:27:33 for making it more accessible as you
1:27:36 mentioned
1:27:36 the idea making it more accessible would
1:27:38 be if the town would be willing to
1:27:41 create some kind of public
1:27:43 transportation at a specific time for
1:27:46 example in the winter time and the town
1:27:49 can have a special vehicle available at
1:27:52 a specific locations that you know
1:27:56 publicize so that the town every
1:27:59 resident of the town will know a
1:28:00 specific location they can actually use
1:28:03 public transportation. Initially as a a
1:28:07 resident next to Lars Anderson Park, I
1:28:09 was really concerned when initially they
1:28:12 were talking about putting a highest
1:28:14 rank all season used because where I
1:28:17 live, I live on 147 Newton Street. That
1:28:21 intersection a lot of traffic and I was
1:28:24 looking I was really concerned with
1:28:26 that. And when they had the first
1:28:28 meeting about the the rank what to do
1:28:31 with it and I spoke out at the first
1:28:33 meeting one of the suggestion is make it
1:28:37 accessible through public
1:28:38 transportations
1:28:40 and I think that that's where the town
1:28:42 is uh is leading to toward the vision
1:28:45 zero net zero
1:28:48 toward that if you reduce the traffic
1:28:51 you have public transportation available
1:28:54 you can reduce the traffic in increase
1:28:56 the use of that facility and
1:29:02 in I live in precinct 15 there's two
1:29:05 major there's the golf course and
1:29:07 there's laws in this in park and the ice
1:29:09 rink is one of the most usable facility
1:29:13 in the town especially by young kids and
1:29:18 I have a family that usually visit they
1:29:22 visit us they usually come in in the
1:29:25 winter time from Canada. When when they
1:29:28 come to the to the winter time in the
1:29:30 can from Canada, I usually take them to
1:29:32 uh to the ice rink to skate with my my
1:29:35 my my daughter and my son. So, it's
1:29:38 beautiful, especially when the when the
1:29:41 time the sunset, you can see the sunset
1:29:44 glowing on the park on the ice. It's a
1:29:46 beautiful place to be in the winter
1:29:49 time. So I'm really connected to that
1:29:53 project and I would like to to be part
1:29:56 of the review community,
1:29:58 the design review community so that I
1:30:00 can shape it so that it can sit where it
1:30:03 is and it it is accessible, usable and
1:30:07 it's connected to the community. Thank
1:30:10 you.
1:30:11 Uh, now you already mentioned this
1:30:14 somewhat in your opening remarks, but
1:30:16 how does your current experience on the
1:30:18 zoning board of appeals help inform how
1:30:21 you would act as a member on this
1:30:24 committee? Is there some specific
1:30:25 experience that you think will be
1:30:27 particularly useful?
1:30:29 Yes. Uh I have been on the zoning board
1:30:31 of appeal for approximately
1:30:34 uh four years right now and I have seen
1:30:37 a lot of uh uh projects that come in
1:30:40 before the ZBA board and one of uh the
1:30:44 whenever I seen a project I usually see
1:30:46 is it fit and within the within the
1:30:50 community as well is it meeting the the
1:30:52 larger community goals. So you have to
1:30:55 come in with a balanced approach to it
1:30:58 statics massing you have to wait with
1:31:01 the massing whether that project it's
1:31:03 fit in the massing and then you have to
1:31:06 look at the set the static the access
1:31:08 accessibility of the project you have to
1:31:12 look at all take the all those I I
1:31:14 usually see review it in a holistic
1:31:17 approach so I see there's a need for a
1:31:21 certain project okay it's reflect
1:31:24 modernity modernity and as well as I
1:31:27 have to preserve the character of the
1:31:30 neighborhood. So I have to balance both
1:31:32 and at the end I try to come in with a
1:31:35 consensus that achieve the goal the
1:31:39 larger goal and as well as preserving
1:31:42 the character of the neighborhood and
1:31:44 that will be the character of LZ Under
1:31:47 Park and then with the larger community.
1:31:50 Thank you.
1:31:50 Thank you. Anyone else with questions?
1:31:53 All right, seeing none, thank you for
1:31:55 the interview. Uh, we I just want to
1:31:58 provide some broader context for what's
1:32:00 taking place here. So, the select
1:32:02 board's taking an important step forward
1:32:04 in the replacement and upgrade of the
1:32:07 outdoor ice skating rink at Lars
1:32:09 Anderson Park and the supporting
1:32:11 infrastructure around it. This project
1:32:14 also includes the stabilization and
1:32:16 historic restoration of the original
1:32:19 Anderson era elements within the project
1:32:21 area which are an important part of the
1:32:24 park's history and character. This is an
1:32:27 exciting and long-awaited project for
1:32:29 the town. It reflects years of work by
1:32:31 the park and recreation commission, town
1:32:33 staff, community members, and many
1:32:35 others who have helped evaluate the
1:32:37 future of the rink. Uh, by way of brief
1:32:40 background, in 2020, after the
1:32:43 refrigeration system at the Lars
1:32:45 Anderson Park ice rink failed, the Park
1:32:47 and Recreation Commission established an
1:32:49 ice rink task force to evaluate future
1:32:52 options for the facility. A preliminary
1:32:55 feasibility study was conducted in 2022
1:32:58 and the ice rink programming study was
1:33:00 completed in 2024.
1:33:03 Based on those findings, the park and
1:33:05 recreation commission voted to advance a
1:33:08 single open air rink and the select
1:33:11 board supported locating the replacement
1:33:14 rink at the existing site. In May 2025,
1:33:19 town meeting approved community
1:33:20 preservation act funding to advance
1:33:22 design work, public engagement, and the
1:33:25 preparation of construction documents
1:33:27 for the rink on the existing site.
1:33:31 This project is unique because it brings
1:33:33 together recreation, public buildings,
1:33:35 landscape, historic preservation, park
1:33:38 planning, and community use. For that
1:33:40 reason, the design review committee has
1:33:42 been structured to reflect a broad and
1:33:45 collaborative process. The design review
1:33:48 committee will include representatives
1:33:49 from the building commission and the
1:33:51 park and recreation commission who will
1:33:54 serve as chairs along with the select
1:33:55 board representative and uh members of
1:33:58 the preservation commission and planning
1:33:59 board. It will also include key
1:34:01 stakeholders including friends of Lars
1:34:03 Anderson Park youth hockey and two
1:34:06 members of the public and we just heard
1:34:08 two members of the public interview for
1:34:11 those spots. The role of the design
1:34:13 review committee will be to guide the
1:34:15 concept design phase, and help ensure
1:34:17 that the project meets community needs,
1:34:20 respects the site's historic character,
1:34:22 and aligns with the town's broader
1:34:24 goals. This phase will also allow the
1:34:26 town to refine project costs and better
1:34:29 understand potential construction
1:34:31 funding and grant opportunities. The
1:34:35 design review committee will serve in an
1:34:37 advisory role. It will make concept
1:34:39 design recommendations to the building
1:34:40 commission, park and recreation
1:34:42 commission, preservation commission, and
1:34:45 planning board. The design will
1:34:47 ultimately be reviewed and approved by
1:34:49 the select board. Once the concept
1:34:52 design is approved, the consultant team
1:34:54 will proceed with detailed design,
1:34:56 preparation of construction documents,
1:34:58 bidding, and necessary permitting. There
1:35:01 will be several public meetings as a
1:35:03 part of this process. And whether you
1:35:05 are a member of this committee or not,
1:35:07 all are of course welcome to attend and
1:35:10 opine.
1:35:12 Uh these meetings are scheduled for May
1:35:15 18th,
1:35:16 June 22nd, and July 30th. Additional
1:35:20 public meetings will be announced as
1:35:22 needed. These meetings will give
1:35:23 residents, user groups, neighbors, and
1:35:25 other stakeholders opportunities to
1:35:27 learn about the project, provide
1:35:29 feedback, and help shape the design as
1:35:31 it develops. The goal is to move through
1:35:33 a thoughtful, transparent concept design
1:35:36 process that produces a clear, buildable
1:35:39 plan, one that modernizes the rink,
1:35:42 respects the historic Anderson elements,
1:35:44 and improves the surrounding landscape
1:35:47 and infrastructure.
1:35:49 Uh now I do have some procedural
1:35:51 questions uh from town council regarding
1:35:56 what specifically is needed of us as a
1:35:58 board tonight because I see that the
1:36:01 first meeting is scheduled for May 18th.
1:36:04 Uh and we don't have another select
1:36:06 board meeting before May 18th. Typically
1:36:10 we would have
1:36:12 another meeting before we would actually
1:36:14 vote on those who have applied to be on
1:36:16 this board. And furthermore, I'm not
1:36:19 sure whether we're expected to vote the
1:36:21 full roster from uh these other
1:36:24 categories that have been identified as
1:36:26 serving on the committee. So perhaps we
1:36:28 could have some more clarity on process
1:36:30 from town council
1:36:32 and you may want
1:36:33 and and also are there other applicants
1:36:35 that have applied?
1:36:37 Yes, there were. So if you look at the
1:36:38 memo, there were other applicants that
1:36:40 applied. the parks and recck commission
1:36:42 conducted the initial um interviews and
1:36:44 analysis and have presented a proposed
1:36:46 slate to you which you can accept to
1:36:48 modify send back. Um you know it's it's
1:36:51 up to the ultimately up to the select
1:36:52 board to determine. Um
1:36:54 but we we we don't know these other
1:36:56 applicants
1:36:57 but the the goal was to have the parks
1:36:59 and recck commission you know because
1:37:01 it's their project make a recommend a
1:37:03 slate recommendation to you know similar
1:37:05 to how like you know if I'm appointing a
1:37:07 department head I make a recommendation
1:37:09 to you. I don't send you a slate of
1:37:10 candidates and you can accept or reject
1:37:12 um that candidate.
1:37:13 I I guess my concern is that we don't
1:37:16 have a basis for accepting or rejecting
1:37:19 what what is presented to us because we
1:37:21 don't know what the alternatives are.
1:37:23 Well, you have the rest of the
1:37:24 applicants in the packet. Um and you
1:37:27 know, in the same way that right, we
1:37:29 don't have six finalists interview for a
1:37:32 position that has that level of uh uh
1:37:37 review previously. Um the process here
1:37:40 was to have the parks and recck
1:37:42 commission review a slate and present it
1:37:44 to you obviously which with you know
1:37:48 it's but it is ultimately your call as
1:37:50 to you know how to how to move forward
1:37:52 on this but Tim Davis the rec director
1:37:54 is online um I believe um uh this is Joe
1:37:58 Kalan and town council um so perhaps if
1:38:02 we could hear from town council about
1:38:04 the legal aspects of who will be
1:38:08 appointed appointed, why, when, the
1:38:09 timing and the process.
1:38:14 So, um Joe Kelly on town council, but um
1:38:18 if Tim uh is able to answer those or
1:38:20 start to answer those questions, uh I'd
1:38:22 defer to him, but if he's unable to,
1:38:24 then I'm happy to.
1:38:26 Thanks, Joe. Uh good evening everybody.
1:38:28 Tim Davis, director of recreation for
1:38:29 the town. Um so the the hope tonight was
1:38:33 that the full slate of individuals that
1:38:35 were uh included in the memo to you
1:38:38 would be appointed to the DRC uh this
1:38:40 evening. Uh Mr. Pearlman, as you
1:38:42 mentioned, the first uh DRC meeting is
1:38:45 next week. Um so we are on a tight
1:38:47 timeline with this. Um so there were the
1:38:49 two members of the public that you uh
1:38:51 interviewed tonight. to uh members at
1:38:54 large who applied uh for the seats as
1:38:56 mentioned for the youth hockey
1:38:57 representative as well as friends of
1:38:59 large Anderson Park and then the four uh
1:39:02 committee commission chairs um that are
1:39:05 filling those seats as well uh park and
1:39:07 w commission chair, building commission
1:39:08 co-chair, preservation and planning
1:39:10 board representatives. So um all those
1:39:13 names in front of you tonight in hopes
1:39:15 to be uh approved to to serve so that we
1:39:17 can begin the process with the uh hired
1:39:20 architect uh as early as next week.
1:39:24 So, so I understand the ask, but I'm a
1:39:27 little concerned that uh technically we
1:39:30 don't have an item on our agenda to
1:39:33 appoint the full roster or even their
1:39:35 names. I know that it's in our memo, but
1:39:38 all we have on our agenda is
1:39:40 interviewing two candidates.
1:39:45 Joe, you want to opine on this?
1:39:47 Sure. Um, so I would feel more
1:39:51 comfortable if you waited. Um, but if
1:39:53 there's an emergency that um, the DRC is
1:39:56 under a timeline that um, you know, not
1:40:00 meeting it not being able to meet its
1:40:02 first meeting would affect its kind of
1:40:04 critical path. Then you know they that
1:40:07 may constitute an emergency that the
1:40:09 chair had not anticipated. I think the
1:40:12 better pe path would be to put the
1:40:15 entire slate on um the next um select
1:40:18 board meeting un unless you feel that or
1:40:21 Tim can weigh in that there's going to
1:40:23 be some emergency that uh the DRC would
1:40:26 not be able to meet and do business on
1:40:28 its first scheduled meeting.
1:40:31 I thanks Joe. I I don't want to say that
1:40:33 there would be an emergency. I think we
1:40:34 are all under the understanding. We want
1:40:36 to make sure we're by the book and as
1:40:37 clear as we can be on this process. So
1:40:39 if the select board feels more
1:40:41 comfortable uh putting it to the next
1:40:42 agenda, um I'm okay with that. I can
1:40:45 support that and report back to the the
1:40:47 commission appropriately.
1:40:48 So I I would feel a lot more comfortable
1:40:50 proceeding in that manner. I'm not
1:40:52 trying to create undue delay, but
1:40:54 hopefully everyone uh who ultimately
1:40:57 gets selected for this committee could
1:40:58 be even available the week of May 25th.
1:41:01 That's a slight delay off the schedule
1:41:03 and that way we could vote the full
1:41:06 roster and have some more time to think
1:41:08 about uh the two interviews we had
1:41:11 today. I personally think you both did
1:41:13 well so it's not an indictment on the
1:41:14 two of you, but there's certain legal
1:41:16 processes that we really ought to be
1:41:18 adhering to.
1:41:19 So your recommendation is we push it to
1:41:20 the 19th push the vote to the 19th.
1:41:22 Yes.
1:41:22 Is there anything else that members of
1:41:24 the select board would like to see or
1:41:25 hear from uh before we uh on that date
1:41:29 so we come prepared? Yes. Although even
1:41:31 before before then perhaps we can have
1:41:33 an answer to this today. I'm curious who
1:41:36 made the decision about the different
1:41:39 categories that will be a part of this
1:41:42 group. So for example, there is a spot
1:41:45 that is reserved for youth hockey which
1:41:48 is a private entity and I'm curious
1:41:50 whether there is prior precedent for
1:41:53 having uh representation exclusively for
1:41:57 a private entity on a public committee.
1:42:01 So this the makeup of this board was we
1:42:04 discussed it um internally with staff
1:42:06 and then we vetted it with the parks and
1:42:07 recck commission and so forth to to get
1:42:09 uh consensus on what this is. And I want
1:42:11 to emphasize when we say youth hockey we
1:42:13 didn't mean a particular youth hockey
1:42:16 organization. We think you know the use
1:42:18 more broadly of the space for hockey is
1:42:21 not just limited to you know um you know
1:42:24 one particular organization but it is a
1:42:26 use that the that the uh rink is used
1:42:29 for and so we wanted to be mindful of
1:42:32 the fact that you know many people have
1:42:35 competing stakes in this but not
1:42:37 necessarily competing stakes but stakes
1:42:39 that need to be harmonized. Um and so
1:42:41 one of the pieces of feedback that we
1:42:43 received during this process was to um
1:42:46 in addition to all the important things
1:42:47 that have been raised about preservation
1:42:49 and making sure that you know the
1:42:51 question about should the rink be
1:42:52 covered and so forth is are the
1:42:54 interests of the people who use this
1:42:57 space for recreational hockey since it's
1:42:59 not a regulationized thing by any means
1:43:02 and is is not going to be. Um but are
1:43:04 those people being heard and addressed?
1:43:06 And so that was the effort there.
1:43:09 But it's not it's not a suggestion that
1:43:10 you know one particular body uh or or
1:43:13 private entity be given as an exclusive
1:43:15 seat. It was about a stakeholder you
1:43:17 know maybe a parent maybe someone who
1:43:19 works in that in that field.
1:43:21 All right. What what do others think in
1:43:24 terms of the slotting of different
1:43:26 positions and categories?
1:43:34 I I guess I guess my thinking is that
1:43:38 you know there there is a broad set of
1:43:40 staff with it's like half the commission
1:43:44 right um and you know for for outside
1:43:48 voices and you know I think that that
1:43:50 balance is generally is reason uh I
1:43:54 think that that balance is reasonable.
1:43:59 Anthony,
1:44:00 I agree. But I think the point that uh
1:44:02 David, you're trying to get at is like
1:44:04 why were these parameters around the
1:44:07 makeup of the board not previously voted
1:44:10 on by the select board? Is that kind of
1:44:12 where you're going? Is like why why
1:44:14 didn't we have a why didn't the select
1:44:16 board have a say into what the makeup of
1:44:18 the board would look like?
1:44:19 Yes.
1:44:19 And I think I agree with your um kind of
1:44:22 formulation of that's not really how we
1:44:24 should be doing business. I don't think
1:44:26 um but I appre like I I think we should
1:44:28 take the staff recommendations extremely
1:44:30 seriously u but I don't think it's it's
1:44:33 best practice um and I think I agree
1:44:35 with you David.
1:44:37 All right
1:44:39 so in this the the is a little I mean
1:44:42 ordinarily yes I 100% agree with that.
1:44:44 Um we don't we usually present char
1:44:46 draft charges to you and suggestions on
1:44:49 you know who should the board be made up
1:44:51 with and you know you then vote those. I
1:44:53 think the difference here is that the
1:44:54 parks and recck commission is a um a
1:44:57 statutory body, it has, you know,
1:44:59 authority over this stuff. Um you know,
1:45:02 even though on the park side of it, it
1:45:05 is still largely advisory. Um the parks
1:45:08 and recck commission does have a role to
1:45:09 play in this, which is why we presented
1:45:11 the makeup of the of the commit of the
1:45:14 POS commission to the parks and recck
1:45:16 commission. Um but as you pointed out,
1:45:18 ultimately it is the select board's
1:45:20 decision on how to go how to move
1:45:21 forward here. So the structure of the
1:45:23 committee was vetted by parks and wc.
1:45:24 Parks and recck said, "Yep, that makes
1:45:26 sense to us. We can bring that to the
1:45:28 select board for their approval."
1:45:30 And did parks and wreck or the staff
1:45:33 bring the charge to the select board for
1:45:37 approval at any point?
1:45:40 I'm trying to we had a conversation
1:45:41 about this I know but I don't remember
1:45:43 the exact we could we'll pull the
1:45:44 minutes from that that discussion of
1:45:46 when we talked about um the design
1:45:49 review process of this because I know
1:45:51 there was a vote to put David um in as
1:45:55 the select board representative dealing
1:45:57 with this particularly with the
1:45:58 commission committee of seven um but I
1:46:01 don't recall
1:46:03 specifically Tim I'm not sure you have a
1:46:05 recollection of this either um
1:46:07 not a specific date unfortunately I know
1:46:09 it was discussed. So, like you said, we
1:46:11 can go back and pull the minutes for
1:46:12 sure.
1:46:12 Yes, we we can pull the minutes, but my
1:46:14 recollection is that was just a vote
1:46:16 about who's serving on the committee of
1:46:17 seven. Not really what would happen with
1:46:19 the design committee, how many spots,
1:46:21 who would serve on it, which categories.
1:46:23 And I'm I'm not sure that we typically
1:46:26 reserve a spot for a certain viewpoint.
1:46:28 So, maybe it's not explicit to youth
1:46:32 hockey as a private entity, but to a
1:46:34 specific viewpoint, I find a little
1:46:36 curious. Of course, when uh trying to
1:46:38 balance different interests, we would
1:46:40 take into consideration making sure that
1:46:43 all stakeholders are being represented.
1:46:45 So, I understand it there. But having an
1:46:47 explicit carveout seems a bit different.
1:46:50 And I'm not sure that's how we typically
1:46:52 comprise our boards. And and by the way,
1:46:54 the other thing is that typically the
1:46:58 micro
1:46:58 microphone.
1:47:04 The other thing is that typically we get
1:47:06 recommendations from the chair of of the
1:47:08 commission or committee. Um as opposed
1:47:11 to, you know, this is what you should
1:47:14 vote on. And I don't think that happened
1:47:16 here, right? So
1:47:18 well, in this case, the full committee
1:47:19 voted,
1:47:21 right?
1:47:21 The full parks and recck committee.
1:47:22 Yeah. But typically it's a
1:47:24 recommendation to the select board. We
1:47:26 get information and we make the
1:47:27 decision.
1:47:28 Yes. And that's that's what's happening
1:47:29 here. It's ultimately your call. Um and
1:47:32 well, it wasn't presented that way in in
1:47:34 this you tonight.
1:47:38 Well, it looks like we're going to be
1:47:40 taking this up again at May 19th. Yep.
1:47:42 So, there will be
1:47:44 further discussions with staff to try to
1:47:46 sort this out. But I mean, you know, I
1:47:47 think the one last thing I'd say about
1:47:49 the viewpoint issue is there's also a
1:47:50 space reserved for the friends of Lars
1:47:52 Anderson Park, which I think frankly is
1:47:54 a is is not just a viewpoint. It is an
1:47:56 organization, right? It's it's a
1:47:58 so I don't think you can say, you know,
1:48:01 it's not appropriate to have hockey,
1:48:03 which is not any particular group, but
1:48:05 then have a particular group, a
1:48:07 non-governmental
1:48:09 entity on the commission as well. I
1:48:11 think they they represent interests. Um,
1:48:16 and I just think that it is important
1:48:18 for us to think about, you know, all the
1:48:20 use cases of this without having any one
1:48:22 use case potentially overwhelm the uh
1:48:25 the operation just to make sure that
1:48:27 everyone is heard. Um, no, I certainly
1:48:30 agree there. We want to have viewpoint
1:48:32 balance. I just don't know about
1:48:34 specific carveouts for a certain
1:48:36 viewpoint and that applies to friends of
1:48:38 Lars as well.
1:48:40 Michael,
1:48:41 um I'm just wondering as a matter of
1:48:43 precedence, um if there are other
1:48:47 projects or committees, you know, I'm
1:48:49 thinking I'm thinking about the Chesn
1:48:52 Hill Commercial Area Community Advisory
1:48:53 Group. I'm wondering were there
1:48:55 carveouts for the Washington Street
1:48:57 project that reflect the various
1:48:59 interests along Washington Street? Um I
1:49:02 I suspect that there were. Yes. Um, and
1:49:06 so I don't think that that that uh estab
1:49:10 that having people representing specific
1:49:12 viewpoints on a larger committee is
1:49:14 something unique to this particular
1:49:16 process.
1:49:19 All right. So, we'll bring this back and
1:49:21 obviously if individual members of the
1:49:23 board have questions in the interim or
1:49:25 um if there's anything that we can give
1:49:26 you to update this or if there's
1:49:29 specific materials or comment you want
1:49:31 to see at the next meeting, let us know
1:49:32 and we'll bring it to you.
1:49:34 Okay, thank you.
1:49:36 May I dismiss?
1:49:37 Yes. Thank Thank you. Sorry for keeping
1:49:39 you up at the lecture in so long, but
1:49:41 thank you.
1:49:44 All right, that brings us to our next
1:49:46 agenda item, 2030 roadmap update and
1:49:50 possible vote on the 2030 road map.
1:49:54 Abby, if you'd like to come up.
1:49:55 Are we going to have a vote? I thought
1:49:57 no. So we we we actually we discussed
1:49:58 this um we put it on the agenda in case
1:50:01 there in case there was but we realized
1:50:03 with two new select board members who
1:50:05 have not had you know time to work
1:50:07 through it um and you know uh Michael
1:50:10 sent some comments today as well um
1:50:12 which I think are worth reviewing and
1:50:14 discussing. Um a vote would be be more
1:50:17 appropriate at the next meeting. Um but
1:50:19 we wanted to update you on the progress
1:50:21 and talk a little bit about all the work
1:50:23 that's gone into this and where we stand
1:50:25 now and any additional thoughts um that
1:50:29 you all have as we uh continue to work
1:50:31 on this. So this is the uh 2030 roadmap
1:50:35 uh presentation and um just a reminder
1:50:39 um the goal of this is to develop is to
1:50:43 develop a means for the select board and
1:50:46 staff to be proactive in not just
1:50:50 reactive in determining what our
1:50:51 mid-range goals are as a community. You
1:50:54 all set the agenda. you set the goals
1:50:57 and objectives and we on staff are
1:50:59 tasked with implementing those goals and
1:51:01 objectives um and figuring out what the
1:51:04 measurements of success are to report
1:51:06 back to you. So we want to capture those
1:51:08 shared priority areas of yours in this
1:51:11 document and guide us uh you know all
1:51:15 all both members of staff but also the
1:51:18 select board itself as it continues to
1:51:20 have policy discussions uh in their
1:51:22 work. um and to do that through changing
1:51:25 environments, which can be tough. Um but
1:51:28 we want to come up with guiding
1:51:29 principles and metrics that we can use
1:51:31 to measure those guiding principles so
1:51:33 that um there's the opportunity um for
1:51:37 staff to focus on longer range projects
1:51:40 um and uh be confident that they are in
1:51:44 alignment with the community's
1:51:45 priorities. Um, I think a lot of this
1:51:48 stemmed out of these, you know,
1:51:50 conversations that were had about
1:51:52 projects that were longer range. You
1:51:54 know, folks coming in, you know, at like
1:51:56 with a project that was like an 18month
1:51:58 to two-year horizon coming to the select
1:52:00 board, you know, maybe a year into it
1:52:02 and having the select board's priorities
1:52:05 have changed in that period of time. Um
1:52:08 again there's no fault of the board for
1:52:10 that but trying to figure out where the
1:52:12 kind of loadar um uh priorities are so
1:52:16 that we can follow those uh and not run
1:52:19 a foul of your what what you want from
1:52:21 us um on those longer range projects is
1:52:23 really an aim of this process.
1:52:27 So um we hired Abby to facilitate the
1:52:30 development and Abby has been uh is now
1:52:33 more than familiar with the Brookline
1:52:35 process of doing business. uh and has
1:52:37 really um just been a remarkable uh
1:52:40 partner in this. We want to thank her
1:52:42 and CBI for all the work they've done.
1:52:44 Um it started with brainstorming and
1:52:46 idea generation um way back in the fall,
1:52:49 interviews with the select board, the
1:52:50 select board office and department
1:52:51 heads. A review of all of our existing
1:52:54 goals and plans. Some departments have
1:52:56 very detailed goals and objectives. DPW
1:52:58 is is an example. Planning is an
1:53:00 example. Some do not. Uh and that's
1:53:02 okay. it's it's just the you know some
1:53:04 of them the processes that they follow.
1:53:06 Um we tried to use to that to develop
1:53:09 values goals and strategies um through
1:53:12 workshops iterative review with the
1:53:14 select board and the select board office
1:53:16 and department heads thinking about how
1:53:17 to prioritize things. In the past when
1:53:19 we've talked about this folks have said
1:53:21 everything is a priority which means you
1:53:23 know nothing is a priority. Uh and so we
1:53:25 try very hard to figure out what needs
1:53:27 to be done now versus what needs to be
1:53:29 done in the long term. And you can see
1:53:31 that in the uh the uh roadmap tracker
1:53:34 talking about what needs to be done
1:53:35 when. Um and then decisions on
1:53:38 implementation and update processes.
1:53:40 Who's responsible for the things that
1:53:41 you put into the road map and what are
1:53:44 the metrics that we are going to use for
1:53:45 to measure that success and when are we
1:53:47 going to update you about them?
1:53:49 So here are some of the key elements.
1:53:51 You have to have values to inform goals
1:53:53 and decision- making. What do we believe
1:53:55 in? We have to have actual goals. You
1:53:57 need to think about strategies to
1:53:59 operationalize those goals. Then we need
1:54:00 to actually come up with actions to meet
1:54:02 those strategies. Um actions are the
1:54:04 most likely thing to change over the
1:54:06 five-year timeline and those are the
1:54:07 things that are actually assigned out.
1:54:08 Okay, department A, you're going to
1:54:10 handle this. Select board as our elected
1:54:12 representatives, you're going to handle
1:54:13 this. Um but those things can change. Um
1:54:16 and that's okay. Um that's why we have
1:54:19 these regular touch points for feedback
1:54:20 and thinking about how best to implement
1:54:23 them. But what we as you get higher up
1:54:25 in that hierarchy, we want to try and
1:54:26 think of ways, you know, things that are
1:54:29 foundational, things that can um can be
1:54:34 um
1:54:36 can continue to guide um the town
1:54:38 regardless of kind of where, you know,
1:54:42 where things wind up um in terms of how
1:54:44 votes are taken and so forth. That's not
1:54:46 to say that priorities can't change.
1:54:47 Priorities can change and they should
1:54:48 change in response to the community, the
1:54:51 community's voice. But we want to think
1:54:52 of that in terms of practical things
1:54:55 like how do we get the work done? How do
1:54:57 we get the basic work done of running a
1:54:58 community? Um what are those sort of
1:55:01 loadar uh guide uh guiding uh lights
1:55:05 that we need to follow? And then you
1:55:07 have these key performance indicators.
1:55:08 What do we you know how do we measure
1:55:09 success? KPIs
1:55:11 very it's consultant lingo. Uh
1:55:15 so this is the expanded sort of uh
1:55:17 framework here. Um you can see here this
1:55:20 is a sample of what the document looks
1:55:22 like. Um here's a goal. Here are the
1:55:25 strategies. Um and here are the actions
1:55:27 and you can see where they're assigned
1:55:29 and where in the timeline they fall. Um
1:55:32 so you have for example this this goal
1:55:34 of develop uh deliver core services
1:55:36 reliably and efficiently within the
1:55:38 limits of the available resources.
1:55:40 Pretty broad uh pretty agreeable. Um but
1:55:43 okay, how do we do that? One of the
1:55:44 strategies is to document and
1:55:46 communicate to residents the strength of
1:55:47 town services and improve transparency
1:55:49 on our performance. Do people know what
1:55:51 it is that we're doing? Do people know
1:55:53 that uh how how those things are going
1:55:55 for them? Uh can they see where things
1:55:57 are good and where things need
1:55:58 improvement? So you can see um the uh uh
1:56:02 then the actual actions down here um are
1:56:05 for example document the required base
1:56:06 services that each department provides
1:56:09 um the level of service, the enforcement
1:56:10 requirements and so forth. And then you
1:56:12 see the KPIs down there. Um the KPIs are
1:56:15 department set service goals by by the
1:56:18 end of FY27, a dashboard developed to
1:56:20 track service provision by the end of
1:56:22 FY29, and then the reporting dashboard
1:56:24 is published at least annually. So those
1:56:26 are your KPIs and the targets there.
1:56:29 So the values of Brookline are being
1:56:32 were in the current draft are being a
1:56:34 welcoming, accessible, accepting and
1:56:36 diverse community, being a predictable
1:56:38 and stable place for residents,
1:56:39 visitors, and businesses. And the values
1:56:41 of government are these continuous
1:56:43 improvement of efficiency and outcomes,
1:56:45 transparency and responsiveness,
1:56:47 decision-making that incorporates
1:56:48 feedback from affecting stakeholders,
1:56:50 broader community based on the best
1:56:52 information available and conducted in a
1:56:54 fiscally responsible manner, good
1:56:56 governance, collaboration across
1:56:57 departments and public bodies,
1:56:59 commitment to the values of diversity,
1:57:00 equity, and inclusion for all and
1:57:02 excellence in service provision and a
1:57:04 growing economy.
1:57:06 Here are the seven core goals. Deliver
1:57:09 core services to residents as we talked
1:57:11 about earlier reliably and efficiently
1:57:13 with the resources we have. Strengthen
1:57:15 the alignment of goals and practices.
1:57:17 Improve efficiency and strengthen
1:57:19 governance. Increase our fiscal health
1:57:20 and stability. Improve communication and
1:57:22 engagement. Increase the racial and
1:57:24 economic diversity of Brookline.
1:57:26 Maintain and improve the quality of our
1:57:28 infrastructure and improve the town's
1:57:30 ability to mitigate climate change and
1:57:32 increase the resilience of our assets to
1:57:34 climate change.
1:57:37 So here are the how we talk about
1:57:38 tracking progress and updating the 2030
1:57:40 roadmap. Um the select board office um
1:57:43 our office will track progress on the
1:57:45 KPIs and the status of each action
1:57:47 annually in the first quarter of the
1:57:49 year. Um the select the first quarter of
1:57:52 the uh of the year we will update and
1:57:54 review the road map annually at the
1:57:56 March select board workshop. Um you know
1:57:58 you have these quarterly workshops
1:58:00 that's the first one of the year of the
1:58:02 calendar year. uh and then the updated
1:58:04 2030 roadmap will guide the development
1:58:06 of the fiscal year goals at the summer
1:58:07 select board workshop. So if you've
1:58:09 updated some of the 2030 roadmap that
1:58:12 then becomes the basis for the following
1:58:14 fiscal year's goals which you actually
1:58:15 begin working on um once the fiscal goal
1:58:18 once the uh once town meeting has met
1:58:21 and the uh the budget is set for the
1:58:23 upcoming fiscal year you already start
1:58:25 talking about in this case it will be
1:58:27 FY28 in June of this year.
1:58:30 Here's
1:58:34 a sample of the road map tracker. Um,
1:58:37 right now everything says not yet
1:58:38 started because we haven't started. Uh,
1:58:40 it's not done yet. Um, but you can see,
1:58:42 you know, everything has a timeline.
1:58:44 Everything has a start date and a
1:58:45 targeted end date. Um, and it basically
1:58:47 puts in all of those actions from the
1:58:50 road map into this uh, one document that
1:58:53 we can then use to track and update
1:58:55 regularly.
1:58:57 You can see here timeline. Everyone
1:58:59 loves a Gant chart. I love a Gant chart.
1:59:00 Um, it talks a bit about how these
1:59:03 things go. Um, this is not really a Gant
1:59:06 chart. I'm sorry because it doesn't list
1:59:08 prior things, but it it looks like a
1:59:09 Gant chart.
1:59:11 Um, but it u it talks about, you know,
1:59:14 when these things are expected to be
1:59:15 done. Um, and who is responsible for
1:59:18 them. It's clear, it's uh it's colorful.
1:59:20 It helps uh figure out uh who's
1:59:23 responsible for what.
1:59:26 And that's where we are currently. Um,
1:59:29 and I think as we talk about this, we
1:59:32 welcome input from the board, uh, and
1:59:35 continue to work through it. Abby, do
1:59:37 you have anything you want to add?
1:59:38 Yeah. Could I maybe set this up a little
1:59:39 bit?
1:59:40 Yes, please.
1:59:40 Hi, everyone. Abby Fen with the
1:59:42 Consensus Building Institute. I'm a
1:59:43 facilitator and a mediator there. We're
1:59:45 a nonprofit based in Cambridge. Um, it's
1:59:47 nice to be with you this evening. I've
1:59:49 had the pleasure of working with the
1:59:50 Select Board over the last year or so
1:59:52 and some of the department staff and
1:59:54 heads. Um, and to the new select board
1:59:57 members, hello. It's great to meet you.
1:59:59 Um, we are at the point with this
2:00:01 document where we're trying to tie it
2:00:03 up. Like we've done a lot of work on it.
2:00:06 As Chaz mentioned, it is intended to
2:00:08 withstand some turnover as much as it
2:00:10 can. This is a great case example for us
2:00:13 to try. Um, that said, it seems very
2:00:15 important for you both to get a chance
2:00:17 to weigh in on it at this point. I think
2:00:21 and David tell me what you want in terms
2:00:23 of timing for this but I'd love to hear
2:00:26 I don't know Anthony or Amanda if you've
2:00:28 had a chance to look through and if you
2:00:29 have big thoughts that you want to share
2:00:31 that you think would be useful for
2:00:32 discussion otherwise I invite you to
2:00:36 meet with me over the next week and we
2:00:38 can see what we can like tweak in here
2:00:40 and if it's a bigger conversation that I
2:00:43 think others like board members might
2:00:45 want to discuss maybe we bring that to
2:00:46 the May 19th meeting. I know um Michael
2:00:50 sent some thoughts today. I don't know
2:00:52 if people have had a chance to review
2:00:54 those. I have a sense of like I think
2:00:55 three of them might warrant some
2:00:57 conversation, but um at least and others
2:01:00 I think are small ones that we can just
2:01:02 incorporate. Um and then I want to hear
2:01:04 also from Bernard and David if you have
2:01:06 any mean thoughts. So I'm hopeful for
2:01:07 tonight we can kind of say at the big
2:01:09 level reactions that need discussion and
2:01:12 then if there are more specific edit
2:01:14 tweaks um we can meet an email over the
2:01:17 next week. Yes, please do. So, looks
2:01:19 like Anony's chomping at the bit to go
2:01:21 right ahead. No,
2:01:21 I just I I I agree with all the values
2:01:23 of the document. I think a lot of the
2:01:25 KPI metrics that you've included on here
2:01:26 are really good. Um, I like that we've
2:01:28 included KPI metrics from the housing
2:01:30 production plan. That's they have some
2:01:32 pretty, you know, hard quantitative
2:01:33 metrics in there. Um, uh, so I like
2:01:36 seeing that as a measure for success.
2:01:38 Um, but there are just two things that I
2:01:40 that I think uh could be helpful
2:01:42 additions. And this might be too much
2:01:44 minutia for now, but you know, I'm
2:01:46 seeing this for the first time this
2:01:47 week, so I'm just getting getting at it.
2:01:50 Um, one thing that I noticed in part six
2:01:52 when it says maintain and improve
2:01:53 infrastructure quality, um, when I
2:01:56 served on the capital subcommittee uh,
2:01:59 in the advisory committee, um, one of
2:02:01 the big issues that the Department of
2:02:03 Public Works uh, faced was um, their uh,
2:02:07 currently high amount of empty
2:02:09 positions. And so I think one of the
2:02:11 actions that I would like to see or even
2:02:13 a KPI metric maybe um would filling
2:02:16 those empty positions in the highway
2:02:17 department um the commissioner
2:02:19 highlighted that a lot of that uh a lot
2:02:21 of like you know the reduction in
2:02:23 sidewalk uh sidewalk and concrete laying
2:02:26 and and blacktop going down is is due to
2:02:29 those uh open positions. So I I would
2:02:31 like to see those filled. Um and then
2:02:33 and we could develop strategies on how
2:02:35 to accomplish that. I have some ideas
2:02:36 but we don't got to go into them now. Um
2:02:38 and then also the expenditure and
2:02:40 revenue study committee um highlighted
2:02:42 some areas for costsaving um both
2:02:46 related to green energy. One of which I
2:02:48 think is super interesting that I think
2:02:50 can be added to an action in section 7
2:02:54 when we're talking about uh improve the
2:02:55 town's ability to mitigate climate
2:02:57 change. Uh in the expansion revenue
2:02:59 study committee they highlighted um
2:03:01 battery storage um for uh a demand
2:03:04 charge. Um, and I think that that is
2:03:07 something that we should be looking
2:03:08 into. Um, I think that we'll be able to
2:03:11 handle peaks and valleys of electricity
2:03:14 demand. And so I think that that belongs
2:03:16 in that section, too. But I'll I'll stop
2:03:17 there.
2:03:19 Thank you.
2:03:20 Um,
2:03:21 yeah, I I have a few points, but I'll
2:03:23 try to lump them into general
2:03:25 categories, and some of them I saw that
2:03:27 Michael already highlighted. Um, so the
2:03:29 first one is to E2F. uh develop a
2:03:34 legislative agenda for town meeting. I
2:03:36 would assume that most town meeting
2:03:38 members would bristle at the idea that
2:03:40 the select board would be coming up with
2:03:43 their agenda. Um and especially
2:03:46 when you are surveying town meeting and
2:03:48 the advisory committee that's doing
2:03:50 something that doesn't currently occur
2:03:51 as far as I know um to even do that.
2:03:55 Well, uh the second piece that I will
2:04:00 highlight is in goal three. Um actually
2:04:03 Paul Ser hit on this what and I had
2:04:05 already made notes on it which is um for
2:04:10 90% of the time 95% of the time the way
2:04:13 you get commercial development is
2:04:14 through mixeduse development. And so I
2:04:16 think it is misleading to say seek out
2:04:19 commercial development. Um you will seek
2:04:22 out mixeduse development with a focus on
2:04:25 enhancing the ability to create
2:04:26 commercial development. Um but I I think
2:04:29 in and of itself housing will be a part
2:04:31 of it because that's what usually makes
2:04:33 it pencil out. Um
2:04:36 then
2:04:38 uh in
2:04:41 I'm going down to goal six on
2:04:46 infrastructure
2:04:49 um
2:04:50 on infrastructure quality. Um
2:04:55 hidden in there we discussed roadway
2:04:57 safety and vision zero. Uh none of our
2:05:00 metrics are actually tracking it other
2:05:01 than um no fatalities. The vision zero
2:05:04 plan has a pretty clear action plan
2:05:07 associated with it and I think uh if we
2:05:10 actually want to make progress on
2:05:12 increasing the safety of our roadways we
2:05:14 need to make real changes to
2:05:16 infrastructure um and we will not know
2:05:19 how far we get if we don't track it. Um
2:05:23 so both tracking uh vision zero but also
2:05:27 uh acknowledging the fact that um we
2:05:31 need to figure this out and this will
2:05:33 come up with the budget and and other
2:05:36 things when people are trying to get at
2:05:38 this. How do we fund infrastructure
2:05:41 improvements that lead to increased
2:05:42 safety? Uh especially for those who are
2:05:45 pedestrians and on bikes and um even
2:05:49 those who are driving the cars um to
2:05:51 make our roadways safer at the same
2:05:54 time. Um and then the last piece that I
2:05:57 will add, I believe it was also
2:05:59 Michael's point, which is um the Karp um
2:06:03 on environmental policy. Um, again, that
2:06:06 literally makes an action plan. So, we
2:06:09 don't need the road map to recreate our
2:06:11 environmental milestones. We can use the
2:06:14 ones that are highlighted as priorities
2:06:16 to then track progress against. Um, and
2:06:19 so I think you could clean it up and use
2:06:22 those as as the focal points um to
2:06:25 actually make real progress on on the
2:06:27 goals that we have expressed interest
2:06:28 in.
2:06:30 I can send more detailed things to you
2:06:32 because I have a bunch of notes on here,
2:06:34 but it falls in those categories.
2:06:36 Perfect.
2:06:36 Yeah, please do. Anyone else? Michael.
2:06:39 Um so so there's an interesting part of
2:06:42 this conversation uh with regard to to
2:06:46 the vision zero comments and um so I
2:06:50 will note in one of the points that I
2:06:52 made in my feedback document um with
2:06:55 regard to the strategy around improving
2:06:57 road safety was to mirror the select
2:07:02 board goal that was related to
2:07:04 infrastructure work which currently
2:07:06 reads establish and fund an accelerated
2:07:08 target for roadway maintenance um and
2:07:12 have a similar goal with regard to
2:07:14 roadway safety. Um and I realize that
2:07:18 just as this first strategy doesn't uh
2:07:22 doesn't reference the RAMPP, the roadway
2:07:26 asset maintenance
2:07:29 uh management and maintenance program.
2:07:32 Um neither does uh section B where it
2:07:35 says improve road race safety
2:07:37 necessarily reference vision zero
2:07:39 directly. So I guess one of the
2:07:41 questions that I have for you Abby would
2:07:43 be interested in your feedback on is uh
2:07:47 whether in situations like this whether
2:07:49 it's in the infrastructure work or the
2:07:51 roadway safety work or in goal number
2:07:53 seven um whether it is worth um
2:07:57 referencing those plans directly as the
2:08:00 blueprint for our action items and
2:08:03 therefore our dashboards
2:08:05 etc. Um, and I guess the comprehensive
2:08:08 plan is probably referenced elsewhere in
2:08:10 here and would fall into the same bucket
2:08:12 once once it comes to the select board.
2:08:16 Um, or whether we should be actually
2:08:18 looking at specific actions that the
2:08:21 select board should be taking relative
2:08:23 to those plans like establishing fund
2:08:27 and accelerated target for roadway
2:08:28 maintenance, which is something that is
2:08:31 is a particular role of the select board
2:08:34 relative to those plans. Um because for
2:08:36 example the KARP um you know the KARP
2:08:40 has uh it's a 10-year plan as it's going
2:08:43 to be presented here next week. Um and
2:08:45 vision zero I believe is a plan that
2:08:47 runs through 2035. Um so these plans
2:08:51 have sort of implicit uh funding goals.
2:08:56 But if the select board doesn't also
2:08:58 step up and take on those goals as well,
2:09:02 then it's going to be really hard for
2:09:03 those plans within those departments to
2:09:06 be driven. Um, and I think that we have
2:09:10 uh both an obligation and an opportunity
2:09:12 to align
2:09:15 uh our actions and the financing and
2:09:18 budgeting with those plans in the
2:09:22 context of this roadmap.
2:09:26 Yeah, I would just on that and then
2:09:27 maybe go to David and Bernard. I would
2:09:29 like we did for the comp plan and the
2:09:31 housing production. Thank you. And the
2:09:33 comprehensive plan and the housing
2:09:34 production plan, I'd try to reference
2:09:37 existing plans that you've already
2:09:38 approved or likely will approve very
2:09:40 soon rather than recreating it here. We
2:09:43 want it to be pretty streamlined. And so
2:09:46 maybe we need to add something on the
2:09:47 the Karp and then the RAM
2:09:52 the RAM MP.
2:09:54 Yeah. and the vision zero.
2:09:56 Yeah. Okay. Uh David or Bernard, curious
2:10:00 if you have any in your kind of review
2:10:02 of this finalish document if anything
2:10:05 stood out that you want to see change.
2:10:06 I think what Amanda said about setting
2:10:09 up a um
2:10:11 speak into the microphone, please.
2:10:12 Oh, I'm sorry.
2:10:15 I think Amanda's comment about um
2:10:17 telling town meeting about what what the
2:10:20 legislative agenda should be is is is a
2:10:22 good comment. And I thought we had
2:10:24 addressed that in the last go round.
2:10:28 So I mean just just look and see if if
2:10:30 we had already addressed that issue and
2:10:32 and a little more clear as to you know
2:10:35 what we're talking about.
2:10:38 If I if I can
2:10:40 if I can add to that I I think I mean I
2:10:43 raised the question and I'm not sure if
2:10:45 you're also raising the question whether
2:10:47 our roadmap should whether our
2:10:51 legislative agenda the select board's
2:10:52 legis legislative agenda should actually
2:10:55 involve
2:10:57 surveying advisory committee and town
2:11:00 meeting members given that they are the
2:11:02 legislative body as opposed to the
2:11:06 select board sort of presenting for
2:11:08 their consideration,
2:11:10 right?
2:11:11 The legislative agenda that we developed
2:11:14 in concert with whether it's public
2:11:16 surveys or our department heads or you
2:11:20 know our vision zero climate plans etc.
2:11:23 I do think there's almost two questions
2:11:25 here that are being raised. One is
2:11:27 should town meeting members um and
2:11:30 advisor committees be surveyed when
2:11:32 developing your own? And I think per
2:11:34 Michael's comments and yours Amanda no.
2:11:36 So we should take that out as an
2:11:37 example. There's like a number of you
2:11:39 know plans you should consult and
2:11:41 whatnot. So we could remove that. And
2:11:43 then the second question is should you
2:11:45 have your own legislative agenda of what
2:11:46 you want to see happen each year and
2:11:48 that I think is still on the table.
2:11:50 Chaz.
2:11:50 Yeah. I would just say that that and
2:11:51 that mirrors some you know what goes on
2:11:53 at the state level. Right. The governor
2:11:54 has an agenda requires the legislator
2:11:57 legislature to say yes. Um and so the
2:11:59 governor will present an agenda to the
2:12:01 legislature. the legislature will look
2:12:02 at it, poke holes in it, move it around,
2:12:05 modify it, pass it as they see fit, and
2:12:07 then the governor has to say, "Well, I
2:12:08 either agree I agree with this or veto
2:12:10 it." Except you don't even have a veto.
2:12:11 So, uh, there you go. Um, but the the
2:12:15 the thing that I think is important, I
2:12:17 agree we that surveying maybe not the
2:12:20 right term, but one of the things that I
2:12:22 think is actually done we've done better
2:12:24 over the last couple years is be more
2:12:27 connected to the leadership of the
2:12:29 advisory committee. And I think that
2:12:31 really has made a difference in terms of
2:12:33 building a better you know functioning
2:12:36 town government um when it comes to um
2:12:40 being in alignment early and I think you
2:12:42 know examples where there have been
2:12:43 hiccups in that have been where either
2:12:45 through timing issues or what have you
2:12:48 we haven't been on the same page because
2:12:50 they and then they feel like oh we
2:12:52 didn't get any notice about this and
2:12:53 that's you know they're the finance
2:12:55 committee um and town meeting and you
2:12:57 know town meeting relies on that and so
2:12:59 I do think it is important to keep them
2:13:01 engaged in the process especially if
2:13:03 there are things coming up that are of
2:13:05 major importance to you the select board
2:13:08 that we can continue to have those kind
2:13:09 of conversations early and often you can
2:13:12 say look this is really a priority of
2:13:13 the board you know this is you know or
2:13:16 for example you know when we were
2:13:18 dealing with you know tough collective
2:13:19 bargaining issues right we talked about
2:13:21 the fire department and minimum staffing
2:13:22 like we had a meeting you know I I made
2:13:24 sure that the leadership of the advisory
2:13:26 committee knew hey this is coming down
2:13:28 the pike it's going to be a big and you
2:13:30 should, you know, I'm not telling you
2:13:32 how to feel about it, but I'm telling
2:13:33 you this is an issue that's coming up
2:13:35 and will need to be discussed. And so,
2:13:37 um, having that connection is really
2:13:39 important. Um, and I think actually
2:13:41 builds goodwill and and and make sure
2:13:44 that we are, um, better aligned, uh,
2:13:47 within the obviously, you know, the
2:13:49 separation of powers, uh, and the
2:13:52 ability of the legislative branch to
2:13:54 ultimately pass law.
2:13:56 A different verb here I think is
2:13:59 warranted.
2:14:00 I I like that idea of different verb
2:14:02 because I also agree that the executive
2:14:04 our our the select board here should
2:14:07 have a legislative agenda and it should
2:14:09 be pronounced early in the process um of
2:14:11 what we want to see so that the advisory
2:14:13 committee has time to digest the
2:14:15 executive boards kind of what they're
2:14:18 picturing um and then make changes and
2:14:20 adjust through the legislative process
2:14:21 as it needs to. But I I I agree with a
2:14:23 lot of what you said, Chaz, like that um
2:14:25 by having a legislative agenda, we're
2:14:27 giving the legislature a lot of time to
2:14:30 react to what the select board may do in
2:14:32 the future, which I think is really
2:14:33 beneficial for the working relationship
2:14:35 between the advisory committee and the
2:14:36 select board.
2:14:38 So I I agree with Michael's suggestion
2:14:41 on this point mostly. The the one caveat
2:14:44 is I do think having check-ins with town
2:14:46 meeting can be important because there's
2:14:49 a tendency well-intentioned but there's
2:14:51 a tendency for there to be last minute
2:14:53 amendments sometimes a town meeting and
2:14:56 if town meeting members are apprised of
2:14:58 what we're working on and what the
2:15:00 legislative agenda is then that can be
2:15:03 helpful because then town meeting
2:15:04 members don't feel ambushed and
2:15:07 obviously they do have opportunities to
2:15:09 come to select board meetings to
2:15:10 participate in board and commission
2:15:12 meetings But still, it doesn't hurt to
2:15:14 make sure that they are given some of
2:15:17 these big picture updates from time to
2:15:19 time. So, I agree with Michael that
2:15:21 surveying is not really appropriate, but
2:15:23 I think check-ins can be helpful.
2:15:26 Uh, and then when we're done with this
2:15:29 subtopic,
2:15:30 uh, I want to address, uh, Paul Ser's
2:15:34 suggestions from public comment. I know
2:15:36 you brought this up as well, Amanda. Uh
2:15:38 I think they make a lot of sense for us
2:15:40 to incorporate his uh suggested edit
2:15:45 which would add to that sentence we have
2:15:47 in goal in goal three and include
2:15:49 seeking out mixed use including
2:15:51 commercial in residential opportunities.
2:15:57 Okay.
2:15:58 So, what I think our next step is here
2:16:01 is that I will uh incorporate the
2:16:04 feedback from this evening into an
2:16:06 updated draft and I can I'll do that
2:16:08 this week and send it out again. Um, and
2:16:10 then especially Anthony and Amanda, if
2:16:12 you want to talk to me about I can try
2:16:14 to give backstory if that would be
2:16:15 helpful on where how we landed at
2:16:18 certain places. Um, does anyone have any
2:16:21 concerns with what Michael shared that
2:16:24 they want to flag? Otherwise, I'll go
2:16:26 ahead and incorporate those edits.
2:16:31 I think I heard some seconding of of
2:16:33 some of the points.
2:16:34 I haven't had enough of a chance to read
2:16:36 through it all. So, if I do, I'll email
2:16:38 you.
2:16:38 Okay, perfect. and and ju just as a a
2:16:43 matter of positioning I think what
2:16:46 David's comment was in terms of uh uh
2:16:51 not surveying but some other form of
2:16:54 interaction it has it's it's somewhere
2:16:57 within goal four improve communication
2:16:59 to and engagement with residents but
2:17:01 maybe residents should be expanded to
2:17:04 residents and other stakeholders um and
2:17:07 that should include other
2:17:09 areas of government.
2:17:11 Okay.
2:17:12 There could be consideration of alerting
2:17:16 at least one town meeting member in
2:17:18 every precinct of uh what it is we're
2:17:21 doing to sort of keep various
2:17:22 delegations apprised of select board
2:17:25 developments. Whe whether we want to uh
2:17:28 publicly acknowledge this or not, I
2:17:30 think every precinct has a deacto town
2:17:32 meeting captain. And so reaching out to
2:17:35 each delegation so that they maybe have
2:17:38 conversations amongst themselves about
2:17:40 our legislative agenda and have check-in
2:17:43 points. I think that can be helpful.
2:17:44 Except it's so easy to send it to
2:17:46 everyone. Why would you just send it to
2:17:48 one?
2:17:49 No, I we can do it on the town meeting
2:17:50 list serve. I agree. It's not mutually
2:17:52 exclusive.
2:17:53 Yeah.
2:17:54 Yeah. I mean, the the other thing that
2:17:56 that I would add, just from my own
2:17:58 experience working with uh Chestnut
2:18:01 Hill, um is that I actually had
2:18:07 delegation meetings with various
2:18:10 with many of the precincts uh most um
2:18:14 and in just in terms of communicating on
2:18:17 that one issue, it was very helpful and
2:18:19 it may be worth considering that kind of
2:18:24 uh activity um with regard to either the
2:18:28 road map or our legislative agenda or
2:18:31 some other
2:18:32 activity.
2:18:32 Yes, I would very much support expanding
2:18:34 that structure.
2:18:35 Yeah.
2:18:36 Okay.
2:18:37 Um very logistically, Anthony and
2:18:39 Amanda, do you have emails yet with the
2:18:42 town?
2:18:43 Yes, you do.
2:18:43 We do.
2:18:44 Yes.
2:18:45 Okay.
2:18:46 We seem to have access.
2:18:48 That's news to me. I didn't know that.
2:18:49 Okay.
2:18:49 Okay. I'll work with Jazz and others to
2:18:51 figure out how to get in touch with you
2:18:53 all
2:18:54 and otherwise I think I will see you all
2:18:56 next week. We'll send out some draft an
2:18:58 updated
2:18:59 draft next week for hoping to vote on it
2:19:01 really just so you can keep moving and
2:19:03 start the fun part which is
2:19:04 implementing.
2:19:06 Okay. Thank you.
2:19:07 Thank you.
2:19:08 All right. Thank you. And that brings us
2:19:11 to our next agenda item, which is a
2:19:14 public hearing on the FY2027
2:19:17 community development block grant.
2:19:25 Okay.
2:19:28 Can you hear me? Great. Okay.
2:19:32 So, I am going to share my screen
2:19:34 quickly.
2:19:44 Give it a second. Great. Uh, thank you
2:19:47 all for having me here tonight. For
2:19:49 those of you who don't yet know me, my
2:19:51 name is Jake Collins and I am the
2:19:54 community planner in the planning
2:19:56 department's housing and community
2:19:58 development division. I am here tonight
2:20:01 to discuss the fiscal year 27 federal
2:20:04 year fiscal federal fiscal year 26 HUD
2:20:08 annual action plan the town of Brooklyn
2:20:11 primarily focuses on our CDBG work
2:20:13 although we do get home funds. So, as
2:20:16 some of you may recall, my colleague
2:20:18 David Guzman brought the draft annual
2:20:20 action plan to the select board last
2:20:23 month, and now we are here requesting um
2:20:27 that you approve the submission of the
2:20:29 plan to HUD, as well as a few associated
2:20:33 actions in advance of our May 15th
2:20:36 deadline.
2:20:38 So, I won't read through the annual
2:20:40 action plan objectives. Um, but I will
2:20:44 point out that our available funding has
2:20:46 increased $17,000 this year, which is
2:20:50 actually a big success. Um, generally we
2:20:53 see decrease in funding, even a moderate
2:20:56 increase like 17,000 allows us to better
2:20:58 support our sub recipients.
2:21:02 Um, for those of you who have not been
2:21:04 along with us on the ride through this
2:21:06 CDBG cycle, um, here's a timeline. Um,
2:21:10 we had a request for proposal in
2:21:12 January, opened in January of last year.
2:21:14 The CDBG advisory committee then
2:21:17 deliberated on the responses
2:21:21 and um, developed allocations.
2:21:25 We drafted the annual action plan. It
2:21:27 requires 30-day public review.
2:21:30 uh we published it widely and we did not
2:21:32 receive any com uh comments and so here
2:21:36 tonight we are really just looking for
2:21:38 final approval and a vote from you
2:21:40 before submitting it.
2:21:43 As a reminder, we've kind of identified
2:21:45 four um priority areas in the action
2:21:48 plan. Um this year we have been able to
2:21:51 allocate money under the affordable
2:21:52 housing category as well as public
2:21:54 services.
2:21:59 And here is the updated uh recommended
2:22:02 allocation chart um which reflects the
2:22:05 $17,000
2:22:07 increase. Um we used the or we asked for
2:22:11 guidance from the CDBG advisory
2:22:13 committee on how best to allocate this
2:22:15 additional funding. Um what really
2:22:17 happened was that all eligible public
2:22:19 services got approximately $880 uh
2:22:23 dollars um added to their total
2:22:25 allocation
2:22:27 um when they were applicable and that's
2:22:29 basically to maintain the 15% cap. Uh
2:22:32 the rest of the funds the remaining
2:22:34 funds went to BHA for their capital
2:22:37 projects at the high street at their
2:22:39 high street veterans development. So,
2:22:42 they received roughly 15,000. Um,
2:22:45 otherwise, everything else remains
2:22:47 unchanged.
2:22:50 And here's just some language for the
2:22:52 vote. I'm happy to answer any questions
2:22:58 at this time. Thank you. All right. Any
2:23:02 comments from anyone?
2:23:05 All right. Seeing none, I move that we
2:23:08 approve the submission.
2:23:09 It is a public hearing.
2:23:09 Oh, I'm sorry. This is a public hearing.
2:23:11 So, let's first open it up to any
2:23:13 members of the public who would like to
2:23:15 be heard on this.
2:23:18 Aman Lynen Boy online has her hand
2:23:20 raised.
2:23:21 All right, go right ahead.
2:23:22 Yeah.
2:23:24 Hi. Um,
2:23:26 so I um saw the draft fiscal year plan,
2:23:30 please.
2:23:30 Oh, Amy Lindenboy, precinct 5 resident.
2:23:35 Um, so I saw the um that this was
2:23:39 discussed at an earlier meeting. um with
2:23:41 I think with advisory in April, but and
2:23:46 then I thought that there was going to
2:23:47 be a public comment period, but I get
2:23:50 all the email from town and everything.
2:23:52 I'm signed up to receive everything and
2:23:54 I never saw any notice of that it was
2:23:56 public comment period was actually open
2:23:58 and that you know it was the the final
2:24:01 copy was ready for review
2:24:03 because they had presented something at
2:24:04 that meeting which was on April 7th
2:24:06 which
2:24:07 was not um didn't look like it was a
2:24:09 draft version and um so some those same
2:24:13 issues remain in the most recent version
2:24:15 that I found and I wasn't able to um you
2:24:19 know um figure out when that would
2:24:20 happen. and I saw that this public
2:24:22 hearing was happening. Um, I didn't know
2:24:24 it was part of a select board meeting.
2:24:26 Um, so even though most of my comments
2:24:29 are related to something that you'd
2:24:30 probably want to have in writing, um,
2:24:33 I didn't know any other way to make a
2:24:34 comment.
2:24:36 So,
2:24:37 yes, we published in a local newspaper
2:24:39 as well as on social media and I believe
2:24:41 through our, um, community development
2:24:43 list serve. I'm happy to accept your
2:24:46 comments and discuss them with you um,
2:24:48 either now or offline. Uh, I wanted to
2:24:51 have something to add.
2:24:55 Hi, good evening. I'm Wana Lindo Smith.
2:24:58 I'm the housing and community planning
2:25:00 director and I would like to address
2:25:03 your question. We when we were at the
2:25:05 select board on April 7th, we did state
2:25:08 that it's um it is being published for
2:25:11 30 days in the um newspaper. So um and
2:25:15 we have had it on our website for the
2:25:18 longest time. all all of April. So,
2:25:20 there was plenty of time. You could have
2:25:23 um we've said you could have reached out
2:25:25 to us um when David made his um
2:25:29 presentation on April 7th. And on the
2:25:31 draft, it also says that you can reach
2:25:34 out to us with any questions or comments
2:25:36 that you may have. Now, my I have one
2:25:40 question for you. What the comment that
2:25:43 you you what you've just said. Um, is
2:25:46 there a particular question you'd like
2:25:48 us to answer that we may not have
2:25:50 answered um in the annual plan?
2:25:54 Um, yeah. And I'm talking about the
2:25:56 longer document that is part of the
2:25:58 materials for this meeting. The the
2:26:01 longer um document, not the not the um
2:26:04 what do you call it? PowerPoint. I'm
2:26:06 talking about the document that was part
2:26:08 of the um meeting packet. Yeah,
2:26:10 that longer document was also published
2:26:12 when we when we came to the select board
2:26:14 on April 17 um April 7th, I'm sorry.
2:26:18 That that was also the the shorter
2:26:20 document was just for um presentation
2:26:23 purposes to the select board. The longer
2:26:26 one was
2:26:27 um available. We um made that available
2:26:30 from the day we published it. And
2:26:32 unfortunately, you weren't you hadn't
2:26:34 seen it, but it was there. No, no. I I
2:26:37 did see it, but I I I didn't think it
2:26:39 was um I was since it was draft, I
2:26:41 thought there was some point where there
2:26:42 was going to be another version that
2:26:44 would come out, and I would comment on
2:26:45 that, but it's okay.
2:26:47 So, um yeah, so I didn't know that
2:26:49 because it said draft, but um anyway, so
2:26:52 I did have a question about on something
2:26:54 on on the page of that draft.
2:26:57 The thing about the draft that we we
2:26:59 have we posted that draft, it it's the
2:27:03 same thing that we have. We haven't had
2:27:06 any changes except the dollar amount
2:27:08 because when we did that, we did that on
2:27:11 um last year's allocation that we got
2:27:14 because we hadn't received our new
2:27:17 allocation. So, the only thing that
2:27:19 actually changed on in that draft is the
2:27:22 amount of money for each um activity
2:27:25 that we're going to be um that we're
2:27:27 funding. All right. The the purpose of
2:27:30 this public hearing is not to have a
2:27:32 dialogue. Uh we appreciate your
2:27:34 question. We understand your point.
2:27:37 But if if the if the individual has a
2:27:39 specific I think she's trying to get to
2:27:40 a specific question that she has.
2:27:41 If you have a specific question, go
2:27:42 right ahead.
2:27:44 Okay. So um well, I have two question.
2:27:48 Well, one is first is a question and one
2:27:50 is um just to clarify
2:27:53 and I have to give you some time to get
2:27:55 over there, but I think it's on page uh
2:27:57 like 58. It's right underneath the list.
2:28:00 It's right underneath table six. in the
2:28:02 document where it has a list of the the
2:28:04 project information.
2:28:07 So there's a list there 1 through 13 in
2:28:09 the draft anyway. And then in the and
2:28:12 then it has a little paragraph under
2:28:14 that says describe the reasons for the
2:28:15 allocation priorities and any obstacles
2:28:18 to addressing underserved needs.
2:28:21 And I just have a question about um for
2:28:25 this thing I just have a question about
2:28:26 the math
2:28:28 um because it says staff recommended the
2:28:30 allocation maximum amount of public
2:28:32 services for public services 15%
2:28:36 or $25,23700
2:28:41 after subtracting $429,293
2:28:45 for staffing and administrative costs
2:28:48 blah blah blah an estimated 7337
2:28:51 Separator 20 is available. So it it
2:28:54 looks like I get a negative number
2:28:55 there. So I'm confused.
2:29:00 I think it might just be trying to say
2:29:01 that that we need $733,720,
2:29:07 but I'm not sure.
2:29:08 Oh. Um All right. Let me explain this
2:29:11 really quickly. The um the public
2:29:13 services does get 15% of the $1.3
2:29:16 million that we do get. So we allocated
2:29:19 it as best we could um among the four or
2:29:23 five the four public services that had
2:29:25 applied um we gave them as as much as we
2:29:28 could um the the I'm sorry the admin
2:29:34 part of it the to run the program 429
2:29:38 that that stayed that didn't change the
2:29:41 the 733,000
2:29:44 that you're referring to um that goes
2:29:47 for housing projects um capital capital
2:29:51 um needs projects and these are what
2:29:53 they are the um the BHA two life had
2:29:56 something everyone that submitted an
2:29:58 application did get funded um they
2:30:02 pretty much the only person that didn't
2:30:04 get well two two of them didn't get 100%
2:30:07 funded and that was the BHA because
2:30:10 their their need is like over a million
2:30:12 dollars so we don't have that much so we
2:30:14 gave them as much as we could and the um
2:30:17 to life had asked for 40 40,000 is it?
2:30:22 Yes. And the the board when they went
2:30:24 through all the stuff that needed to be
2:30:26 done, the board decided that 29,000
2:30:29 would be best suited for a particular
2:30:31 thing. Um the
2:30:35 um the Brooklyn um elevators, the
2:30:38 community, Brooklyn community mental
2:30:40 health, they need an elevator in there
2:30:42 because they serve a lot of underserved
2:30:44 folks and
2:30:45 Yeah.
2:30:46 Right. So they got the maximum whatever
2:30:48 they asked for that's what we have
2:30:49 there.
2:30:50 Okay. I just I guess I'm trying to
2:30:52 understand the purpose of the po report
2:30:54 is something that the draft act the
2:30:56 action plan is something that you have
2:30:58 to submit to HUD.
2:30:59 Yes. We're telling that this plan tell
2:31:01 HUD what we are going to be doing this
2:31:04 year with the funds that they are they
2:31:06 have allocated to us. That's what the
2:31:08 plan is about. We have to tell them what
2:31:10 we're going to do with it. If we don't
2:31:11 they won't give it to us.
2:31:14 Uhhuh. And you're going to have to turn
2:31:15 turn that to them on the 15th.
2:31:17 Yes, we have to submit it by the 15th.
2:31:20 Okay. Um I think that's um that's
2:31:22 sufficient. Thank you for um the
2:31:24 information.
2:31:24 Now, I have one quick thing. Um if if
2:31:27 you'd like to know more on on how the
2:31:29 CDBG program runs, we're very happy to
2:31:32 help you. You can come. We're in the um
2:31:34 planning department and you can ask for
2:31:37 David Jake or Wana. will be happy to sit
2:31:39 with you and go through in detail so you
2:31:42 can better understand because this is
2:31:43 something that happens pretty much every
2:31:45 year. Um I don't know when um the
2:31:48 federal government would say they're not
2:31:49 giving us any more money, but for now
2:31:51 we're getting it. So if you need more
2:31:54 information, please stop by and see us,
2:31:57 call. We're happy to sit and talk with
2:31:59 you.
2:32:00 Okay. Thank you.
2:32:01 All righty. Thank you so much.
2:32:04 What
2:32:05 one quick thing? Oh, go ahead, please.
2:32:07 No, go ahead.
2:32:09 No, I just This is something besides
2:32:11 this vote.
2:32:11 All right. I just wanted to check. Do
2:32:13 would anyone else like to be heard while
2:32:15 we still have the public hearing open?
2:32:20 There's no one online.
2:32:20 There's no one online with their hand
2:32:22 raised. No one in the room who would
2:32:24 like to participate. So, I'll now close
2:32:26 the uh public hearing and go ahead.
2:32:29 Um I just want to say thank you very
2:32:32 much for the nice words that were said
2:32:33 earlier. I do appreciate it. It makes me
2:32:36 feel good. Thank you so much.
2:32:38 Very welcome. 40 plus years was it of
2:32:40 service of the town?
2:32:41 Started when I was age 20 22.
2:32:44 Oh, you telling us your age now?
2:32:49 Yes. And I've stayed since then.
2:32:52 Awesome.
2:32:52 Well, thank you very much for the 40
2:32:54 plus years you've put in uh in serving
2:32:56 the town of Brooklyn.
2:32:57 It was my pleasure. Really,
2:33:01 thank you.
2:33:02 All right. And with that, if we can
2:33:03 return to the slide with the question.
2:33:08 All right. So, I move that we approve
2:33:10 the submission to the FY2027 CDBG annual
2:33:14 action plan to the US Department of
2:33:16 Housing and Urban Development. We
2:33:18 authorize the chair to execute the
2:33:20 application for federal assistance SF424
2:33:24 and other certifications required for
2:33:26 submission of the annual action plan and
2:33:28 authorize the director of planning
2:33:30 community development to execute
2:33:32 environmental review or other
2:33:33 programmatic documents required for
2:33:35 federally funded projects on behalf of
2:33:37 the town.
2:33:38 Can I ask a question?
2:33:39 Go ahead. Uh the SF SF424
2:33:44 has attachments in terms of um required
2:33:48 certifications.
2:33:50 Have have those changed to include some
2:33:53 of the crazy stuff that's coming out of
2:33:55 the administration?
2:33:56 Um it didn't not this year it didn't
2:33:59 change.
2:33:59 Okay, good.
2:34:01 Looking forward
2:34:02 actual application. The 424 is the
2:34:05 actual application um to HUD.
2:34:07 Right.
2:34:09 All right, Bernard, your vote.
2:34:11 Yes.
2:34:12 Michael,
2:34:12 yes.
2:34:13 Amanda,
2:34:14 yes.
2:34:14 Anthony,
2:34:15 yes.
2:34:16 And I also vote yes. So with Thank you
2:34:19 very much.
2:34:20 Thank you all.
2:34:20 You're welcome. Have a good night.
2:34:22 You too.
2:34:22 Thank you for 41 years.
2:34:24 Most welcome.
2:34:26 So now we will move to our next agenda
2:34:28 item, which is a continuation of
2:34:30 violation hearings for category 3,
2:34:33 lodging houses. So, I'll reopen the
2:34:36 public hearing uh specific to the vote
2:34:39 possible vote on consequences for a
2:34:42 lodging house license at 1459 Beacon
2:34:45 Street. Yes. And I know we have the
2:34:47 owner here as well. Thank you for coming
2:34:49 back. I know it's it's not easy to come
2:34:50 to these evening meetings. So, we
2:34:51 appreciate you coming. Um at this
2:34:53 juncture, uh the building department,
2:34:56 why don't I why don't we have an update?
2:34:58 Is there any update from you?
2:35:00 Of course. Of course there is. Yeah.
2:35:02 Good evening. First, I'd like to say
2:35:04 congratulations to Amanda and Anthony
2:35:06 for your new positions on the select
2:35:08 board. And good evening to the panel of
2:35:12 the select board. Sorry to see you go,
2:35:14 Mr. Green.
2:35:16 Pardon me.
2:35:17 Sorry to see you go, Mr. Green.
2:35:19 Oh, I'm still here.
2:35:20 But you're still here. Okay, good to
2:35:22 know.
2:35:23 And And he has the burden.
2:35:25 I know. Well, is it a burden
2:35:28 sometimes?
2:35:29 Doing They're all doing a great job, I
2:35:30 think. Anyway, so yes, since the last
2:35:33 time we met, I contacted several
2:35:36 I'm sorry. Could you please introduce
2:35:37 yourself for the record?
2:35:38 I'm sorry. Cynthia Papus, precinct 17.
2:35:41 Can you hear me?
2:35:42 Yes.
2:35:43 Beautiful. Okay. So, yes, I contacted
2:35:45 several uh structural engineers. They
2:35:47 told me the same thing, which made sense
2:35:49 to me. Need a mason to take it apart, to
2:35:53 assemble it, to see what is going on
2:35:55 inside.
2:35:57 I have contacted I spoke to before I
2:36:01 decided I spoke to several some not so
2:36:03 great and I uh did get a um I'm going to
2:36:09 read this but I guess I don't have to
2:36:12 a restoration company that is pull
2:36:14 they're pulling the uh permit to open it
2:36:17 up and then have their structural they
2:36:20 work with a structure I guess he has a
2:36:21 structural engineer that he wants to use
2:36:24 which is fine with me and he's going to
2:36:27 after they open it up, they're going to
2:36:28 look at it and decide what it needs and
2:36:32 work from there. I'm very excited about
2:36:34 getting it repaired and getting it up
2:36:36 and running as the lodging house again
2:36:39 because we have such a great need for
2:36:41 rooms in Brooklyn. We h This is why we
2:36:44 miss out on a lot of conventions. um
2:36:46 years ago. These young people probably
2:36:48 don't remember the Hines Auditorium in
2:36:51 CPPley and um they had to turn away so
2:36:55 many great events uh you know which is
2:36:58 bad for this city, the state, whatever.
2:37:01 So um we've had people stay here from
2:37:04 all over the world.
2:37:07 We've been there for 65 years going on
2:37:10 66.
2:37:12 It was always filled and um it will be
2:37:17 again. We've had people from uh we've
2:37:20 had for instance a lovely lady her name
2:37:23 was Tashika Tanaka. She's one of the
2:37:26 best violinists in the world who used to
2:37:28 come she came every year for 40 years
2:37:30 with her entourage to play with Yoyo Man
2:37:33 in the Boston Symphony down in Boston.
2:37:36 And um
2:37:37 it's funny because I recently just had
2:37:39 three one one call and two emails from
2:37:44 previous tenants who still contact me
2:37:47 and uh from one from Peru, one from
2:37:50 Argentina.
2:37:51 So So just with with respect to what you
2:37:53 were referencing at the outset about
2:37:56 disassembly and possible repairs, do you
2:37:58 have an update on a timeline for when
2:38:01 you might such?
2:38:02 You know, that's my that's my you know,
2:38:04 let me
2:38:06 contractors,
2:38:08 you have to kind of put the kid gloves
2:38:10 on because if you rub them the wrong
2:38:13 way, they will hang up on you and say,
2:38:16 "Find somebody else." So, I can't I can
2:38:18 only push it so far. I kind of asked
2:38:20 like, "Oh," he says, "Well, I'm I'm
2:38:22 working on a project right now, but it's
2:38:24 almost over." And he's blah blah. And I
2:38:26 said, you know, what do you think? You
2:38:28 know, maybe like two weeks. So, that's
2:38:30 where we're at right now. I don't want
2:38:32 to lose him. Um,
2:38:34 so you feel that you have someone who
2:38:36 can take care of this within two weeks?
2:38:38 I didn't say that they can fix it in two
2:38:40 weeks, but they
2:38:41 started within two weeks.
2:38:41 Yes. I I'm hoping between two and three.
2:38:44 Yes.
2:38:44 And as part of that mitigation, you're
2:38:46 saying they're going to open it up,
2:38:48 which means presumably they'll put
2:38:49 netting up. They'll make they'll they'll
2:38:50 make it safe.
2:38:51 Oh, yes. Oh, it's safe right now. To be
2:38:53 honest with you, it is. It is. It is
2:38:56 stabilized very well with the I'm not
2:38:59 saying it doesn't need to be repaired.
2:39:00 I'm not I'm not arguing that at all. I'm
2:39:02 just saying that it is safe. I wouldn't
2:39:04 stay there. I wouldn't have my tenants
2:39:05 stay there if it wasn't. It
2:39:08 I I hear you. But the building
2:39:09 department doesn't agree.
2:39:10 I know. I know. But they should, you
2:39:12 know. Okay. Whatever. Yes, I understand.
2:39:14 What What is the building department's
2:39:16 recommendation at this time?
2:39:17 So, the building department has
2:39:18 recommended that she take the action
2:39:20 that she's taking, which is bring in a
2:39:21 structural engineer, bring do this work.
2:39:23 We understand that it takes time um to
2:39:25 get an engineer on the premises, but it
2:39:27 sounds like you're moving forward.
2:39:28 I don't I don't think it's so much the
2:39:29 engineer. I think it's the Masons
2:39:31 because as you know um or if anybody
2:39:34 doesn't know this that contractors that
2:39:37 work exterior buildings, they book
2:39:40 people in the winter. They they line up
2:39:42 their projects in the winter which makes
2:39:44 sense. They don't want to wait for
2:39:46 someone to call them in the spring when
2:39:48 the time is going by because you know we
2:39:50 have such short
2:39:52 summers, springs and well spring if you
2:39:54 want to call it spring. Yeah, summers.
2:39:56 So
2:39:56 all right. So
2:39:57 limited time to work outside.
2:40:00 So on this then if you're if you're
2:40:01 telling us two to three weeks, why don't
2:40:03 we do this? Why don't I recommend if the
2:40:05 board is amendable to this? It sounds
2:40:06 like it's moving forward. We want to be
2:40:08 respectful of this and but you know,
2:40:10 appreciate it.
2:40:10 The the 100% number one concern that I
2:40:13 have here is safety. Um and you know, as
2:40:16 um Mr. Warren mentioned last time,
2:40:18 right, we had we had a sight of a
2:40:20 building collapse. It was a very serious
2:40:22 matter. I understand your feeling on it.
2:40:24 The building department has asked you to
2:40:25 do something. It sounds like you're
2:40:26 moving to do it, which is good. That's
2:40:28 what needs to happen. Um, but the
2:40:31 building department will check back in
2:40:32 with you in two weeks time. Okay.
2:40:35 See where things are.
2:40:35 Sure.
2:40:36 If we're not making progress, you may
2:40:38 need to come back here a third time. And
2:40:39 at that point, we may need to talk about
2:40:41 whether or not the license is renewable.
2:40:43 Okay.
2:40:43 So,
2:40:44 okay. Well, yeah,
2:40:45 I understand your concern. I've worked
2:40:47 with contractors before. I've worked
2:40:48 with a lot of contractors. I get I get
2:40:50 it. Um, but they can you
2:40:54 they know they know we need them more.
2:40:56 You know what I mean? Yes. And you you
2:40:59 can do do your utmost to get a firm
2:41:02 timeline out of
2:41:03 Absolutely. I will. Yes.
2:41:04 Anthony,
2:41:04 I'm I'm wondering if it will be possible
2:41:06 uh to request um uh a notice of
2:41:10 interaction between uh the the
2:41:13 contractor and the individual as soon as
2:41:16 possible within like you know a oneweek
2:41:18 time to making sure that the engagement
2:41:21 um is ongoing.
2:41:22 Sure. Why don't you send us Can you say
2:41:23 uh you have an email address?
2:41:25 I do. Okay. Why don't can you mind
2:41:28 sending the select board office just an
2:41:29 update where you are uh by on uh next
2:41:32 Tuesday?
2:41:33 Next Tuesday. Okay.
2:41:34 And let us know that you've reached out
2:41:35 to the contractor.
2:41:36 Absolutely.
2:41:37 Thank you.
2:41:38 Okay. You're welcome.
2:41:39 All right. Thank you.
2:41:41 All right. Uh so we'll we're we're
2:41:43 holding this in obeyance. Um and
2:41:49 we will the building department will
2:41:50 reach out to you if for some reason
2:41:51 there's a need to take it up again. I'll
2:41:53 let the board know. The board will
2:41:54 decide what to do about it. I I did
2:41:56 email early on to Nicole and just said
2:41:58 at that time it was right after the
2:42:00 meeting and I said to her that not said
2:42:02 to her but emailed her and told her that
2:42:04 I was looking for the people I need to
2:42:06 get this going.
2:42:07 Just let us know where you are a week
2:42:08 from now if you
2:42:09 I will.
2:42:09 Thank you.
2:42:10 Thank you so much. Have a good evening.
2:42:11 All right. Thank you. And we already
2:42:12 closed the uh public hearing on this. So
2:42:15 we will now move to our next agenda
2:42:18 item. Contract renewal blue bikes.
2:42:21 Question of entering into a 5-year
2:42:23 contract.
2:42:23 Excuse me, David.
2:42:24 Yes. Were we going to take up item 40?
2:42:27 We will. That'll be after the blue bike
2:42:28 item.
2:42:29 I see.
2:42:30 Okay.
2:42:31 So, contract renewal blue bikes.
2:42:33 Question of entering into a 5-year
2:42:35 contract plus two two-year renewal
2:42:37 options with Lift Bikes and Scooters LLC
2:42:41 to operate the regional Blue Bikes Bike
2:42:43 Share System. Do we have anyone who will
2:42:45 speak to this? Sam DS is online.
2:42:48 Hey, good evening. Uh, can you guys hear
2:42:50 me? Okay.
2:42:51 Yes.
2:42:53 Uh, I'll reiterate what other people
2:42:55 have said. Congratulations to Amanda and
2:42:56 Anthony and cong congratulations to
2:42:58 chairperson Pearlman and thank you to
2:43:01 Bernard Green. Uh, it's been a pleasure.
2:43:03 Um, my name is Sam DS. I am the deputy
2:43:06 director of engineering for the town.
2:43:09 I've been with the town now going on
2:43:11 four years and I've been very involved
2:43:12 with the blue bikes um,
2:43:16 system uh, as a proud owner and original
2:43:19 member. Um, Brookline was one of the
2:43:22 four original municipalities who started
2:43:24 the bike share system uh back in 2012
2:43:27 with Cambridge, Somerville, uh, and
2:43:29 Boston. Um, and tonight I am here. Um,
2:43:33 I'm happy to give the board a quick
2:43:35 overview of Blue Bikes. Uh, before we,
2:43:38 uh, dive into the contract request,
2:43:41 uh, I will just share my screen
2:43:44 briefly.
2:43:49 So, for those of you who do not know
2:43:51 about uh Blue Bikes, uh we currently
2:43:53 just hit uh our 600th station across the
2:43:57 13 municipalities that uh own uh and
2:44:01 maintain the network. Um we have
2:44:05 expanded into Watertown,
2:44:07 uh as far north as Salem, uh Newton, uh
2:44:11 Quinsey is about to to join, uh the
2:44:14 network in the next year. Um, and so
2:44:17 this is a system that is owned by
2:44:19 Brooklyn and the other municipalities.
2:44:21 Um, we are, um,
2:44:25 uh, we are purchasing the stations and
2:44:27 the bikes and we are asking Lyft to
2:44:29 manage the day-to-day operations of this
2:44:32 system that currently, um, sees over 4
2:44:35 million rides taken per year. Uh, since
2:44:39 2020, we have registered over 22 million
2:44:42 rides across uh, the network. Uh so the
2:44:45 blue bike system really plays an
2:44:47 integral role in in transportation
2:44:50 uh for the for the greater Boston uh
2:44:53 area. Uh it's the reason why so many
2:44:56 different uh grant programs from the
2:44:58 state level and as high as the the
2:45:01 federal uh federal level uh fund the
2:45:04 expansion of this network because it
2:45:06 offers 247
2:45:09 um access to to transportation.
2:45:13 Uh we have been uh working on an
2:45:15 expansion plan uh that went through
2:45:17 robust public process and the
2:45:19 transportation board recently uh and we
2:45:21 partnered closely with uh Boston
2:45:23 University uh around that planning. Uh
2:45:26 I'm not here to talk about that tonight.
2:45:28 Um uh as I mentioned there are many
2:45:30 grant programs that are are funding the
2:45:33 current expansion of this. Uh we are
2:45:35 very fortunate to have received uh a
2:45:38 legislative earmark from representative
2:45:39 Vlo as well as a number of mass DOT uh
2:45:43 grants and as I mentioned an upcoming uh
2:45:46 federal highway grant through their
2:45:48 congestion relief program uh that
2:45:50 awarded the the greater Boston um area
2:45:55 um I believe it was $20 million um in
2:45:59 funding. Um so the um the last uh last
2:46:06 contract with Lyft which previously was
2:46:08 known as Motivate
2:46:10 um started in 2017 and ran a similar
2:46:13 course of a 5-year contract with two
2:46:15 two-year renewals. Uh we went through a
2:46:18 very uh robust RFP process uh and a
2:46:21 blind evaluation
2:46:23 um for um for proposals to operate the
2:46:27 blue bikes network. Uh this includes
2:46:29 maintaining the bicycles, maintaining
2:46:31 the stations, uh operating customer
2:46:34 service, um and it's a it's a it's a
2:46:37 large undertaking. And so uh through
2:46:40 this RFP process, uh the 13
2:46:43 municipalities work together, uh and we
2:46:45 have uh decided to continue with Lyft
2:46:48 for uh the additional uh fiveyear plus
2:46:51 two two-year renewal options. Uh and the
2:46:54 contract that I'm asking for the select
2:46:56 board to enter into tonight uh was
2:46:59 originally agreed to by the city of
2:47:01 Boston and subsequently has been also
2:47:03 signed by the city of Somerville uh and
2:47:05 the city of Cambridge. Uh the other
2:47:07 municipalities are still working to
2:47:09 finalize their contracts. Uh but uh we
2:47:12 are the core four uh municipalities and
2:47:16 um I'd be happy to answer any questions
2:47:20 um that you all have about this uh uh
2:47:22 opportunity to renew the contract with
2:47:24 Lyft to continue to maintain and operate
2:47:28 uh the town's uh portion of the blue
2:47:31 bikes broader network. Thank you.
2:47:35 Any questions?
2:47:37 Michael,
2:47:38 um I'm wondering if you can share the
2:47:42 amount of of revenue from this program
2:47:45 that goes to the town. Um and what
2:47:48 percentage of that revenue flows back to
2:47:51 the operators uh as part of this
2:47:53 contract?
2:47:56 I will do my best to to answer that. So
2:47:58 um each year um it of course our revenue
2:48:01 uh is continuing to grow as writership
2:48:04 uh numbers grow as well. Uh the town
2:48:07 sees approximately 15 to $20,000
2:48:10 uh in revenue uh every year uh that goes
2:48:14 back into an operating fund uh that is
2:48:17 held by Lyft. Uh this is to cover
2:48:19 expenses, unexpected expenses that might
2:48:21 come up if a station breaks. Uh we're
2:48:24 able to use this um that revenue uh to
2:48:27 fix, you know, fix the system uh replace
2:48:30 bikes if they break. Um that revenue uh
2:48:34 is also only 15 to $20,000 because we
2:48:37 currently are uh subsidizing
2:48:40 uh uh we are currently in a a model that
2:48:44 subsidize subsidizes rides for both
2:48:47 income eligible members um town
2:48:49 employees uh and also uh the new ebikes
2:48:53 that have been introduced or the e
2:48:54 assist bikes. Um so all the 13
2:48:58 municipalities have agreed to subsidize
2:49:01 um a certain percentage of uh cost to
2:49:05 help help maintain a low level a low
2:49:08 enough level that it entices wrership uh
2:49:11 but also not at the expense of not
2:49:12 generating any revenue. Um so I hope
2:49:16 that somewhat answers the revenue
2:49:18 question. Uh and then in terms of the
2:49:21 the annual costs that go to Lyft, I will
2:49:25 have to cycle back or circle back with
2:49:27 you on the exact dollar value that Lyft
2:49:30 gets from operating uh the system. Uh
2:49:33 but I know that it's been agreed to by
2:49:36 um our fellow municipalities.
2:49:39 Thank you.
2:49:41 Of course.
2:49:42 Anyone else with questions or comments?
2:49:47 All right. Seeing none, I move that we
2:49:51 approve the 5-year contract with Lift
2:49:53 Bikes and Scooters LLC to operate the
2:49:56 regional Blue Bikes Bike Share System.
2:49:59 Bernard,
2:49:59 yes.
2:50:00 Michael,
2:50:01 yes.
2:50:01 Amanda,
2:50:02 yes.
2:50:03 Anthony,
2:50:04 yes.
2:50:04 And I also vote yes.
2:50:06 All right. Thank you very much.
2:50:07 Thank you very much. I appreciate your
2:50:09 time.
2:50:10 And with that, we will now move to item
2:50:13 4.
2:50:17 which is the question of approving
2:50:19 increases in various fines and fees
2:50:21 including parking fines as recommended
2:50:24 by the transportation board.
2:50:26 Sure. So we have two sets of proposed
2:50:28 fine increase uh fine and fee increases
2:50:30 for you. The first is around parking
2:50:32 fines and the second is around building
2:50:34 permit fees as well as the fees for uh
2:50:36 certificates of occupancy. Um the um
2:50:40 motor vehicle parking fines is uh one
2:50:43 that came before you. um uh a while ago
2:50:47 um in back in April. Um this was
2:50:50 envisioned as part of the uh budget for
2:50:52 FY27. This increase in fines and fees as
2:50:55 a means of offsetting any potential
2:50:57 override that would be put to the
2:50:58 voters. The single largest source of
2:51:01 potential increase here is in parking
2:51:03 fines. Our parking fines have not been
2:51:05 raised since 2007. um they are in most
2:51:09 cases uh between $25 and $30 for various
2:51:13 violations. Other communities including
2:51:15 Boston have raised them to 40 and
2:51:16 beyond. The question about a fine is
2:51:19 unlike a fee which is supposed to be
2:51:21 assessed only for to provide the cost of
2:51:23 the service, the fine is about deterring
2:51:25 behavior. So it's a question of um is it
2:51:28 is the fine commensurate with the
2:51:30 behavior you're intending to deter. Um
2:51:32 ultimately, um and then the other aspect
2:51:35 of this is that the state caps the
2:51:37 amount of any fine um in Brooklyn that
2:51:41 is basically not an initial fine is not
2:51:43 to exceed $50. Um if it's paid uh beyond
2:51:48 21 days of the date of the ticket um but
2:51:50 before it gets reported to the motor
2:51:52 vehicle registar then that increases to
2:51:54 $55 and then after that once that report
2:51:57 is in we can't charge more than $70. So
2:52:00 those are the caps for the fees and f uh
2:52:02 for the fines. So with that in mind, um
2:52:04 in your packet is a memo uh reflecting
2:52:07 all fines that are not currently at $40.
2:52:11 Um and we are recommending that you
2:52:13 increase those fines to $40 in all
2:52:16 instances except for parking on a
2:52:18 sidewalk or parking in a crosswalk.
2:52:20 there. The transportation board
2:52:22 recommended and we on staff agreed um
2:52:24 that given the severity of that and the
2:52:26 desire to deter that behavior that an
2:52:28 increase to $50 would be more
2:52:30 appropriate under those circumstances.
2:52:32 So that would be the maximum potential
2:52:33 fine that we could levy. Um the
2:52:35 transportation board, this is, you know,
2:52:38 transportation board is also a creature
2:52:39 of special act, a special statute. Um it
2:52:43 has certain roles and responsibilities
2:52:45 that it plays, but there's also a role
2:52:46 for the select board to play. Last time
2:52:48 we raised fines, we asked the T-board to
2:52:52 make a recommendation to the select
2:52:53 board and the select board to ultimately
2:52:55 vote on it. And that was the process we
2:52:56 followed here. The T-board has
2:52:58 recommended unanimously uh that the fee
2:53:00 that the fine schedule in your packet be
2:53:02 adopted. Um and um under these
2:53:06 circumstances um we are going to take
2:53:08 some of the money that we anticipate
2:53:09 raising from these increased fines and
2:53:11 reinvest it directly in parking control.
2:53:15 um you know the work that needs to be
2:53:17 done to ensure that we are doing better
2:53:19 at um collecting uh collecting fees
2:53:23 appropriately. Um uh assessing fines
2:53:26 appropriately um not uh losing out uh
2:53:30 when someone appeals successfully
2:53:32 appeals a ticket because a meter is
2:53:34 broken etc. Trying to get a trying to
2:53:36 build a better process around ensuring
2:53:38 that our parking structure is
2:53:41 appropriately managed and maintained.
2:53:43 Um, and that includes looking at
2:53:45 Passport as a system. Um, there aren't
2:53:47 that many other mobile parking games in
2:53:50 town. It's it's not a racket, but it's a
2:53:52 it's a it's a closed market. Uh, and so
2:53:54 we're trying our best. We But part of
2:53:56 that is assessing whether or not we
2:53:59 re-evaluate that reevaluate that
2:54:00 relationship, talk to competitors, talk
2:54:03 to Park Mobile, which is the other big
2:54:04 game in in the region. Um, and just
2:54:07 really assess the landscape there. So
2:54:09 reinvesting directly in that, but some
2:54:11 of this money will also flow through
2:54:12 general revenue as it has uh for a
2:54:15 while. We anticipate that it will bring
2:54:17 in around a million dollars of
2:54:18 additional revenue. Um most of which
2:54:20 will flow through the town school split.
2:54:23 Okay. All right.
2:54:25 Yeah. Um you mentioned
2:54:30 mentioned problems with the parking
2:54:31 meters. Is some of this money going to
2:54:33 go to maintaining parking meters so that
2:54:36 you people can't appeal based on a
2:54:40 broken parking meter?
2:54:41 So, one of the things that I'm working
2:54:42 on right now, we're we're building cross
2:54:44 departmental working groups um in the
2:54:46 departments to try and figure out these
2:54:48 issues. And so yes, one of the one of
2:54:50 the things that I want to do here is sit
2:54:52 down with police, DPW, treasury and
2:54:54 figure all that out because right now
2:54:57 how parking used to work was basically,
2:54:59 you know, someone who really liked
2:55:01 parking took it on and it was about the
2:55:02 person and not about the process. And
2:55:04 right now there's a vacuum in there. Um
2:55:06 it's not that anyone it's not that
2:55:08 anyone isn't doing their job. It's just
2:55:10 that no one's one job is oh I got I got
2:55:13 to I got to be the parking zar. I got to
2:55:14 deal with this. it was just something
2:55:16 that people a succession of individuals
2:55:18 took on in the town and worked on and
2:55:20 that's obviously not a sustainable
2:55:21 model. So a part of that is building out
2:55:24 processes internally to then ensure
2:55:27 because there is a um there is a line
2:55:29 item in the budget for parking meter
2:55:31 replacement um and it's about making
2:55:33 sure that that money is is that the
2:55:35 right amount of money? Do we need to
2:55:36 increase it? Do we need to change the
2:55:38 replacement schedule? All those are
2:55:40 questions that we want to answer.
2:55:41 Okay, one other question. Um
2:55:45 Um, excuse me. Quarters or parking
2:55:48 meters paid with quarters? A lot of
2:55:52 people really really want to continue um
2:55:56 being able to put quarters in the
2:55:57 meters.
2:55:58 Yeah.
2:55:58 Um, any plans to change that?
2:56:01 No.
2:56:01 Okay, good.
2:56:02 I am I'm one of those people. Um,
2:56:05 I am too.
2:56:05 I don't like it tracking where I park.
2:56:07 Uh,
2:56:09 Anthony.
2:56:10 Um, so I understand that the the new
2:56:12 fine structure um and be capped out at
2:56:14 $50, correct?
2:56:15 Yes. Y Okay. So, I see the majority of
2:56:17 them are brought to 40 except for on
2:56:20 sidewalk and in crosswalk.
2:56:22 Um, I just did quick inflation
2:56:24 calculator. $30 in 2007 is $48 today.
2:56:28 Yeah. So, what that means is we're
2:56:30 saying that the social harm of a parking
2:56:32 limit permit violation is less in 2007
2:56:36 than what it is today with this current
2:56:38 fee structure. I'm not really
2:56:40 comfortable with that.
2:56:41 I think I think the I I think all the
2:56:44 fines should be put to $50 to be
2:56:45 perfectly frank. I mean, one of them is
2:56:47 double parking. I can't think of one of
2:56:49 the more one of the more dangerous
2:56:50 things on here is double parking in
2:56:52 regards to cycling or anything else um
2:56:54 and pedestrians trying to cross. I think
2:56:55 there's a lot on here that could justify
2:56:57 moving up to 50. Um, and I don't think
2:56:59 I'm super comfortable with the current
2:57:01 fee structure, um, given the fact that
2:57:03 the majority of these are under where
2:57:04 inflation would put them in 2007.
2:57:06 And I think so the other big thing here
2:57:08 that we got to keep an eye on, right, is
2:57:10 what where other communities are. That's
2:57:11 a big and so, you know, and we're going
2:57:13 to talk about this when it comes to
2:57:14 building permit fees, which is a
2:57:16 different rubric, um, but it's a similar
2:57:19 thing. What do other communities do?
2:57:21 Right now, Boston does have fines that
2:57:23 go above $40. There's some that are in
2:57:25 the 70s, some in the $90 range, but they
2:57:28 got a special act at the legislature to
2:57:29 do that. Um, right now, our special act,
2:57:32 our own little special act of the
2:57:33 legislature, which we haven't amended,
2:57:36 says that we can't go above 50 and the,
2:57:39 you know, the structure here and we're
2:57:41 following what Cambridge has recently
2:57:43 done, right? Cambridge recently
2:57:44 increased a number of their fines to
2:57:45 $40. So, we feel comfortable saying, you
2:57:48 know, if Cambridge is doing it, we can
2:57:50 do it. Newton, by contrast, is still at
2:57:52 25 for a lot of their fines and fees.
2:57:54 Um, so Somerville is a little higher.
2:57:57 One of the kind of second part of this
2:57:58 and the thing that I talked to the
2:58:00 transportation board about because I I
2:58:01 take your point. Um, it may well be time
2:58:04 for us to submit a request to the
2:58:06 legislature to increase the amount that
2:58:08 we're able to pay to find. Um, you know,
2:58:11 to both do what we're doing now, which
2:58:14 is to increase it commensurate with, you
2:58:16 know, comparable communities, but also
2:58:18 then go to the state and say, "Look,
2:58:20 you've kept us at $50.
2:58:23 Clearly, there are social goals that are
2:58:24 not being met here. And when you adjust
2:58:26 for inflation, by increasing to $40, the
2:58:29 the real dollar value is still lower
2:58:31 than it was um in 2007.
2:58:33 Do do you think that it's worthwhile to
2:58:35 put them all at 50 in the meantime, or
2:58:36 do you think it's it's not worth that?
2:58:39 I think it's a risk. Like, as with
2:58:41 anything, it's a risk. Okay. Right. Um I
2:58:44 I don't think it's I don't think it's
2:58:47 irrational. I wouldn't be like, "Oh, no,
2:58:49 no, don't do that." Um, but I do think
2:58:51 that you're more likely to make it stick
2:58:53 when you have a clear comparator that
2:58:55 you can point to and say, "Hey, that,
2:58:57 you know, we're just doing what
2:58:58 Cambridge did. We're not we're just
2:59:00 doing what Somerville did. We're doing,
2:59:02 you know, we're not where Boston is, but
2:59:04 we're not Boston. We can't get away with
2:59:06 putting some of these things at 70."
2:59:08 So, I feel more comfortable
2:59:10 um at the $40 range, but I'm I wouldn't,
2:59:13 you know, I'm not rejecting it out of
2:59:15 hand. I'm not saying no no like if
2:59:16 that's what the board wants to do,
2:59:18 that's okay. I just think it runs more
2:59:19 of a risk. Um
2:59:21 I'd like to hear what my colleagues
2:59:22 think on that.
2:59:25 Anyone want to be heard on
2:59:26 what what is the risk?
2:59:27 Well, that someone will Well, for one
2:59:29 thing, as as someone pointed out, I
2:59:31 don't think this is the transportation
2:59:33 board. I think it was at I think it was
2:59:34 here. Um someone pointed out people are
2:59:36 more likely to appeal a ticket that is
2:59:38 of a higher dollar value. Um, some
2:59:40 people are likely to, you know, eat the
2:59:42 cost of a $25 ticket, but if they say
2:59:44 the ticket is $40, it's just there's
2:59:47 there's a psychological barrier that may
2:59:48 be crossed there. And I think it might
2:59:50 be more likely to be crossed at 50 than
2:59:51 40. Um, but again, that's just armchair
2:59:54 psychology. I don't have any data on
2:59:56 that. Um, I I would be
3:00:00 and then once you enter into that
3:00:01 challenge process, then you have this
3:00:03 question of is the fee proportional to
3:00:06 the offense? uh is the is the fine sorry
3:00:08 proportional to the offense uh is
3:00:10 proportional to the harm that's being
3:00:11 caused. And what we talked about with
3:00:14 the transportation board is yeah we have
3:00:15 this policy that we really want to
3:00:18 incentivize safety on sidewalks and in
3:00:20 crosswalks. So parking on sidewalks or
3:00:23 in crosswalks is a particularly um
3:00:26 antisocial anti-pedestrian activity that
3:00:28 we want to limit. Um once you start
3:00:31 increasing that across the board, you
3:00:33 know, you're going to have to make the
3:00:34 argument that yes, as a as a ma as this
3:00:37 matter, um you know, we are, you know,
3:00:41 it it's um it's commensurate with the
3:00:43 with the offense in question and
3:00:45 reasonable under the circumstances. The
3:00:47 big argument that you have going for
3:00:48 you, and the reason why I wouldn't say
3:00:49 no to $50, is that the legislature let
3:00:52 you do it. Um the legislature passed a
3:00:54 special act 20 some odd years ago saying
3:00:58 you can bring your fines up to $50 if
3:01:00 you so choose. Um and I think that is
3:01:04 strong evidence for the argument that
3:01:07 the comm you know the the the state
3:01:11 considers that to be a reasonable
3:01:13 penalty for what they call all other
3:01:15 offenses which I as I read the statute
3:01:17 it's not well written. It's basically
3:01:18 anything other than parking in front of
3:01:20 a hydrant which is more expensive. Um,
3:01:22 so we have the uh benefit of two
3:01:25 transportation board members gracing us
3:01:27 with their presence and I would like to
3:01:31 invite them to come up and address this
3:01:34 if they would like briefly.
3:01:40 No pressure, guys.
3:01:41 Yeah, I don't want to step on your toes.
3:01:42 I'm sorry.
3:01:50 So question on
3:01:52 so go ahead introduce yourself and also
3:01:54 transportation board member council town
3:01:56 meeting member in 16
3:01:58 and just if the if you would like to
3:02:01 address what your thinking was in this
3:02:04 vote in this fee structure
3:02:06 um we know that it's a balancing act
3:02:10 like Chaz says as far as uh about 5% of
3:02:15 tickets violations ations uh are
3:02:19 they they win the appeal. Um whether
3:02:22 it's a broken meter or for whatever the
3:02:25 reason uh the appeal process is not hard
3:02:29 because you can use the app. Um so uh
3:02:32 there is that balancing act and how fast
3:02:35 we do increase the fines. Um I think
3:02:37 double parking Anthony is a major issue
3:02:40 in and around Koolage Corner ext you
3:02:42 know but we see it everywhere. Uh um
3:02:45 we're planning to work with Tommy
3:02:47 Vatello this summer on a home rule
3:02:49 petition with the idea of being able to
3:02:52 come back uh and be able to address some
3:02:56 of these safety concerns because uh
3:02:58 Somerville has had a lot of success with
3:03:01 some substantial fines um with their
3:03:04 safety stick program that they have and
3:03:07 uh what has been the net result is the
3:03:09 violations don't happen. uh so people
3:03:13 quickly learn uh you know with the stick
3:03:15 uh that you know safety is above all
3:03:17 what we're trying to achieve here with
3:03:19 the violations. So anyways, Brian,
3:03:23 thank you.
3:03:25 Good evening. Uh Brian Kaine, I have the
3:03:26 great honor to chair the trans station
3:03:28 boards. Congratulations all first of all
3:03:30 or condolences as the case may be.
3:03:34 Seriously. Um so uh Anthony um we also
3:03:38 wanted to go to 50. There was a lot of
3:03:40 discussion about that at the
3:03:40 transportation board for everything.
3:03:42 Where we sort of came down was um a
3:03:45 couple of things. One is we needed we we
3:03:47 thought there was wisdom in having
3:03:50 somewhere to go 40 to 50 assuming the
3:03:53 home rule doesn't pass. We've had
3:03:55 various luck with home rules uh in the
3:03:57 past. So we we thought it was important
3:03:59 to have somewhere to go. Uh Chaz, I'm
3:04:01 going to also uh ask you I I think there
3:04:04 was also something about there was a
3:04:06 limit as to the amount of a search
3:04:10 charge that could be added if someone
3:04:12 didn't pay. Right. And that was a big
3:04:15 reason why I think we wanted to stay at
3:04:17 40.
3:04:17 Yeah. It's it's this it's this issue of
3:04:19 you can't raise the you can't put on the
3:04:21 search char the search charges under
3:04:23 this structure are you know are kind of
3:04:26 have follow the logical pattern $15
3:04:28 after 21 days $15 after it gets reported
3:04:30 to the registar. If you go up to 50 you
3:04:32 have less room to go up after 21 days
3:04:35 right. So there's less of an incentive
3:04:36 for them to pay on time because it's
3:04:38 like you know what's five bucks? Um as
3:04:40 long as I get it in before the state
3:04:41 gets it. I don't have to pay 70 bucks.
3:04:43 So, we we sort of felt that that plus
3:04:45 having the the need for some some room
3:04:46 to grow um made sense to go to 40 except
3:04:49 for those two areas which we felt were
3:04:51 particularly egregious. Um but yeah,
3:04:55 very much agree. Um and the the
3:04:59 legislation as the town administrator
3:05:00 said is is pretty terribly written. So,
3:05:02 we we got to definitely clean that up.
3:05:03 So, thank you.
3:05:04 All right. Thank you. Any further input
3:05:06 questions? Amanda?
3:05:08 Um I would say if anyone is
3:05:11 thinking of not going with Anony's
3:05:13 suggestion of raising it to 50 across
3:05:16 the way, adding double parking to the
3:05:18 higher value, I would certainly get
3:05:20 behind. Um, in all of the conversations
3:05:23 we had running, like from people who
3:05:26 never bike to people who drive
3:05:29 everywhere, everyone hates double
3:05:30 parking because of the risk that it it
3:05:32 brings to everyone.
3:05:33 Michael, uh, before you sit down,
3:05:36 Richard, um, I have a question. And I
3:05:38 know you did some detailed analysis
3:05:41 about, you know, which of these fines
3:05:44 were uh uh more common to be issued. And
3:05:48 I'm just wondering where double parking
3:05:50 fits in the sort of overall scheme. Is
3:05:52 it a is that a highly issued ticket or
3:05:55 or not?
3:05:55 It's in the top 10. Yep.
3:05:57 It is in the top 10.
3:05:58 Yeah. I would say it's if I had to guess
3:06:00 from memory, it's about number six or
3:06:02 seven.
3:06:03 Yeah. Okay. So, so I I guess in answer
3:06:06 to your question, Amanda, I'm I'm more
3:06:09 persuaded by the sort of the the issue
3:06:13 of the gap between the 40 and the 50.
3:06:16 So, I would I would be
3:06:19 agreeable to raising the amount
3:06:22 specifically for double parking, but I
3:06:24 think that the work that they're
3:06:26 planning to do with the legislature and
3:06:30 getting a home rule petition and us
3:06:31 getting behind that and then and then
3:06:34 sort of re re-evaluating this question.
3:06:37 Um, at that point makes more sense.
3:06:41 Anthony,
3:06:41 I think I think I I could I make a
3:06:44 motion for a recommendation? Sure. Yeah.
3:06:46 I think I I would make a motion to raise
3:06:48 all rates to 45 and then double parking
3:06:50 to 50. And I think I would make that
3:06:52 motion as the select board's
3:06:54 recommendation to the transportation
3:06:55 board.
3:06:56 And go ahead.
3:06:58 So you actually So you you you actually
3:06:59 set the rates so you don't have to send
3:07:01 it back to the transportation board. I
3:07:02 don't want to. Oh, then that's that
3:07:03 that's what I would that's what I would
3:07:04 do. I I would set it at 45 across the
3:07:06 board and then 50 for double parking. I
3:07:08 think that leaves enough room to go up
3:07:10 10 bucks for when you're when you're
3:07:11 late. Um trying to incentivize the
3:07:14 payment. Um but then also it's not
3:07:16 leaving money on the table. Um
3:07:19 of course,
3:07:21 uh crosswalks at 50 or 45?
3:07:24 Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I apologize. Um the
3:07:26 two that are at 50 stay at 50. Double
3:07:28 parking goes up to 50 and then
3:07:29 everything else goes to 45. I think that
3:07:32 uh gets more money into the revenue. I
3:07:34 think it will incentiv uh disincentivize
3:07:37 bad behavior and I think it catches all
3:07:39 these fines up to inflation from where
3:07:41 2007 was or at least the best we can.
3:07:45 So I make that motion.
3:07:46 All right. Anyone else want to discuss
3:07:48 this motion?
3:07:49 I just want to ask Chaz whether he what
3:07:53 he thinks the impact of of just nudging
3:07:55 us a little higher than Cambridge would
3:07:58 be in terms of our ability to collect
3:08:01 It's it's yeah I I think it it makes
3:08:04 sense. I think it's you know I think
3:08:05 it's doable. I think it's worth doing. I
3:08:07 also think um that you know the one the
3:08:12 one other thing I'll say is right the
3:08:13 the risk here if a fine is overturned is
3:08:17 that there's going to be some sunk
3:08:18 costs. Right now when you vote this I'm
3:08:20 going to email the chief of police and
3:08:22 be like start printing those ticket
3:08:23 books. Let's go. Uh we got to start we
3:08:25 got to start issuing these fines. Um,
3:08:27 and if we have to do it again, like
3:08:29 that's just a cost. That's that's going
3:08:30 to be a onetime sunk cost. That's that's
3:08:32 difficult. That's my that's my primary
3:08:37 that's my secondary concern. My primary
3:08:38 concern is that we then have confusion
3:08:39 for that period of time where we where
3:08:42 the fines are low. Um, but um, you know,
3:08:48 I think theoretically you could I mean
3:08:50 is Joe, are you on?
3:08:56 may not have been expected to be p
3:08:57 pulled up.
3:08:58 Sorry.
3:08:59 Um,
3:09:01 could we structure a motion such that
3:09:03 the select board votes fees or fines,
3:09:06 sorry, I'm confusing these words, fines
3:09:08 at $45, um, but that if any of those are
3:09:11 found to be unreasonable, that they
3:09:13 spring back to 40.
3:09:16 Sure. And you know it's in the concept
3:09:18 of a sever by the way Joe Callahan town
3:09:21 council and uh uh you caught me before.
3:09:24 So let me uh say to everybody uh
3:09:26 congratulations on uh to Amanda and
3:09:29 Anthony for your um election and now
3:09:32 service on the board and thank you
3:09:33 Bernard as being chair and
3:09:35 congratulations David to being chair.
3:09:37 But um Chaz to to your point um you know
3:09:42 think of it as a severability clause. Um
3:09:44 so you know we that's frequently
3:09:46 included in bylaws or or statutes that
3:09:48 if this is uh deemed uh by any court of
3:09:53 you know a competent jurisdiction to be
3:09:54 unlawful
3:09:56 then you can fall back to the previously
3:09:59 um you know enacted uh levels of the uh
3:10:02 fines.
3:10:04 Okay. So we could structure it that way.
3:10:05 Yeah.
3:10:06 What do what do you mean unreasonable?
3:10:08 So if a court were to say oh no 50 $45
3:10:12 court. Yeah. But why why would a court
3:10:14 say that $45 is unreasonable since we
3:10:17 have authority to go to 50?
3:10:18 I mean, that's where I'm that's where I
3:10:20 feel like you are. You that's your
3:10:21 strongest argument is that the
3:10:22 legislature has said you can go up to
3:10:24 50. Um, but the argument that they would
3:10:26 make in in in response is look at other
3:10:28 communities. Look at where every look at
3:10:30 where everyone else is. Look at Newton
3:10:32 staying at 25. You know, are you really
3:10:34 disincentivizing the behavior any more
3:10:36 than Newton is um by saying
3:10:38 that's not a legal argument, is it?
3:10:40 Yeah. It's, you know, ultimately it's
3:10:42 about whether or not it's it's it's a
3:10:44 rational and reasonable deterrent
3:10:46 because remember the point of fines is
3:10:48 not revenue. The point of fines is to
3:10:49 deter the behavior. Um, and so the
3:10:53 question then becomes, is it
3:10:55 disproportionate to the offense?
3:10:56 Yeah,
3:10:58 I I would I would say in support of
3:11:00 Anony's argument though that given the
3:11:04 inflation adjusted value of the fines in
3:11:08 2007
3:11:10 that
3:11:11 that the argument that inflation
3:11:13 adjusted the number actually hasn't gone
3:11:15 up is
3:11:16 right like the social pain is the same
3:11:19 the social pain is the same but our fine
3:11:21 structure is less than the social pain
3:11:23 we just signed it in 2007
3:11:25 so I I also appreciate that inflation
3:11:27 argument so I I think we can go ahead
3:11:29 and vote on Anony's motion Bernard
3:11:31 so wait can I can I can I can I offer
3:11:34 one can I can I offer the the the
3:11:36 severability sort of language you give
3:11:38 me just a second so I make sure that we
3:11:39 got it we have Yeah, no worries.
3:11:43 And then while Chaz is drafting, if I
3:11:44 may.
3:11:46 Yeah, I'm sorry.
3:11:47 Um to address Bernard's concern about a
3:11:51 legal challenge. Um I think the best
3:11:53 kind of legal challenge that someone
3:11:54 could make, which I'm not worried about
3:11:56 at all, but it's um where Chaz is kind
3:11:59 of tripping over fee and fine. Um so if
3:12:02 this is a fine, we'd certainly be able
3:12:04 to charge up to what we're uh authorized
3:12:06 by statute. That's a pretty easy
3:12:08 defense. Um, someone might argue though
3:12:11 it's not a fine but it's a fee and then
3:12:13 we have to then u meet the Emerson
3:12:16 College test about the money that we're
3:12:18 bringing in is used only for the
3:12:20 purposes of um, you know that tax
3:12:23 collection or that you know fine uh, fee
3:12:25 collection. U, but where the intent is
3:12:28 to have this money go back into parking
3:12:30 enforcement. We would have a very strong
3:12:32 case even if a court were to think of
3:12:34 this fine as a fee uh, and meet the
3:12:37 Emerson College test. So,
3:12:39 got it.
3:12:40 Can never stop anybody from suing, but I
3:12:41 feel very strongly that this is a
3:12:43 pretty, you know, strong defensible uh
3:12:45 action.
3:12:45 Cool.
3:12:51 Robert, I'm getting really jealous of
3:12:52 that coke you have, man.
3:12:53 Pardon me.
3:12:54 Getting really jealous of that coke you
3:12:55 have, man.
3:12:56 Keeps me awake.
3:13:00 Experience. I love it.
3:13:02 It's my first lesson. All right, we have
3:13:04 uh Chaz working on the wording of the
3:13:07 vote and then we will make it
3:13:08 momentarily.
3:13:09 Yep. Sorry.
3:13:09 It's okay. We're good.
3:13:40 And after we vote on this, we will then
3:13:42 move to uh various Warren article
3:13:45 discussions and we will hear from the uh
3:13:50 sponsors of the warrant articles as well
3:13:52 as anyone who is offering amendment.
3:13:59 All right, I got I got language.
3:14:03 Hopefully Michael can
3:14:05 Do you want you Why don't we move on to
3:14:08 the building permit fees and then we'll
3:14:09 let
3:14:10 Yeah, good call. Yeah.
3:14:11 All right, good call.
3:14:12 So, now we move into the world of fees
3:14:14 as opposed to fines. Um, building permit
3:14:17 fees. Um,
3:14:18 the town of Brookline has not raised
3:14:20 building permit fees in recent memory.
3:14:22 Um, by record, Dan Bennett, our building
3:14:25 commissioner, is retiring this year
3:14:26 after many, many years of service. He
3:14:28 first came to the town in 1993. At that
3:14:31 point, building permit fees were still
3:14:33 $20 per $1,000 of construction value or
3:14:36 fraction thereof. Um, similarly,
3:14:39 certificates of occupancy were $50 per
3:14:41 dwelling unit. Um, since then,
3:14:44 obviously, the regulatory environment
3:14:45 has grown significantly more complex.
3:14:48 Um, there's a lot more for building
3:14:50 inspectors to do. there's a need for
3:14:52 their services more. They are working
3:14:53 longer hours. They're doing more complex
3:14:55 things. They are positions that are
3:14:57 being re-evaluated in terms of how we
3:15:00 pay them and whether we need additional
3:15:02 resources and so forth. Um so there is a
3:15:05 critical need for the fees to be
3:15:08 commensurate with the costs. Um and so a
3:15:12 slight increase in the building permit
3:15:14 fees is appropriate under the
3:15:16 circumstances we feel. Now I think the
3:15:18 obvious question is it's been since
3:15:19 1993. Yeah.
3:15:21 Why on earth is it only $1? And the
3:15:24 answer is because $1 adds up um per
3:15:28 thousand of construction value. And
3:15:30 right now, no other community has
3:15:32 breached that $20 cap. We would be the
3:15:34 first community to go to $21.
3:15:36 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
3:15:37 Yeah. No, it's okay.
3:15:38 No, I just want to say that fee
3:15:40 structure makes a lot more sense of
3:15:42 dollar per 10,000 of construction
3:15:44 because that's almost adjusting it for
3:15:46 inflation in of itself because
3:15:48 construction costs are increasing over
3:15:50 time. So that fee structure makes way
3:15:51 more sense and kind of alleviates the
3:15:53 inflation concern I had about the
3:15:55 parking fine.
3:15:56 Right. And in this case in particular,
3:15:57 we will be we will be pioneers here. To
3:16:00 be fair, we were pioneers last time.
3:16:02 Other communities crept up to
3:16:04 Brookline's
3:16:05 fee structure and are now there. Um they
3:16:08 are now at $20 per thousand construction
3:16:10 value. Can you give an example just so
3:16:12 that I can wrap my head around what a
3:16:14 normal construction fee would be like
3:16:17 for I I don't know whatever example you
3:16:19 want to give. I just don't understand
3:16:21 per thousand. Well, I mean, so take, you
3:16:23 know, ordinarily, you know, the value of
3:16:26 the constru like the value of a home
3:16:27 renovation constru, you know,
3:16:28 construction project, it might be a
3:16:30 couple hundred dollars um for a minor
3:16:32 minor renovations and so forth. But when
3:16:35 you think of big projects like the
3:16:37 projects in Hancock Village, that was
3:16:39 hundreds of thousands of dollars um of
3:16:42 revenue to the town that then went into
3:16:45 free cash um and became a major source
3:16:47 of uh um revenue for the for the um
3:16:51 community because it exceeded the uh
3:16:53 expected uh revenue coming in from
3:16:55 building permits. So building permits
3:16:58 because they scale like that um the
3:17:00 bigger the project, the lumpier the
3:17:02 source of income. It is a highly
3:17:04 volatile source of income for the town.
3:17:06 If you look at the five-year average, it
3:17:08 bounces. Um, so
3:17:11 I just think it's interesting because I
3:17:12 remember three years ago, we were
3:17:14 talking about this huge influx of free
3:17:15 cash and it was because of building
3:17:16 permit fees. That's right. And at town
3:17:18 meeting there was a presentation where
3:17:19 we had a talk about, okay, we know free
3:17:21 cash is big right now, but it's because
3:17:22 these building permit fees, they won't
3:17:23 be there forever.
3:17:24 Right. Right.
3:17:25 Combination of building permit fees,
3:17:26 ARPA, the federal money being in the
3:17:28 bank and earning interest, you know,
3:17:30 there are all sorts of things on that
3:17:31 front. So yeah, I hope that answers your
3:17:34 question.
3:17:36 And the other aspect of this that the
3:17:37 building commissioner flagged is right
3:17:40 certificates of occupancy. Again, the
3:17:43 when someone asks for a certificate of
3:17:45 occupancy, applies for a certificate of
3:17:46 occupancy, there's a final inspection
3:17:47 that needs to take place. That's
3:17:49 significantly more complex than it used
3:17:51 to be. Um, and it costs more of the
3:17:53 inspector's time, more of the
3:17:54 inspector's effort. So, it makes sense
3:17:56 to bring this into the modern era and
3:17:59 say it's should be $100 a unit.
3:18:06 Other questions?
3:18:09 All right. So, do we have the language?
3:18:11 This one. Yes. I have both I have both
3:18:12 votes now. This is the easier. This is
3:18:14 the easier one. Okay. Do you want to do
3:18:15 buildings first or we'll do building?
3:18:17 Sure.
3:18:18 All right.
3:18:19 voted to increase fees for construction
3:18:22 related permits listed in the town
3:18:23 administrator's memo of May 8th, 2026
3:18:26 from $20 per $1,000 of construction
3:18:29 project value or fraction thereof to $21
3:18:32 per $1,000 of construction project value
3:18:35 or fraction thereof. and to increase
3:18:38 application fees for permanent and
3:18:40 temporary certificates of occupancy from
3:18:42 $50 per dwelling unit to $100 per
3:18:44 dwelling unit. Such fee increases to
3:18:46 take effect no earlier than July 1,
3:18:48 2026.
3:18:50 Bernard,
3:18:51 yes.
3:18:52 Michael,
3:18:52 yes.
3:18:53 Amanda,
3:18:54 yes.
3:18:55 Anthony,
3:18:55 yes.
3:18:56 And I also vote yes.
3:18:58 Okay. And now the complex springing one
3:19:00 for parking. uh voted to increase all
3:19:04 fines for parking violations not
3:19:06 currently set at $45 to $45 except for
3:19:10 parking in a crosswalk or parking on a
3:19:12 sidewalk which are to be increased to
3:19:13 $50. And to increase all fines, parking
3:19:17 fines unpaid after 21 days that are not
3:19:20 currently at $55 to $55.
3:19:23 and to increase all fines reported to
3:19:26 the registar uh that are not currently
3:19:28 at $70 to $70.
3:19:32 Michael, you have a question.
3:19:33 I have a question. Do we have any
3:19:35 parking fines that are higher than those
3:19:37 numbers?
3:19:38 We do.
3:19:39 That would be lowered because you used
3:19:42 as of as opposed to not less than
3:19:44 language for the $45 designation.
3:19:47 I used increase though.
3:19:50 So there are for example parking in
3:19:53 front of hydrant is $100,
3:19:54 right?
3:19:55 So increase fines for all parking
3:19:57 violations. I could say and supposed to
3:20:00 not currently add I could say below $45.
3:20:02 So amend the motion below $45 to $45.
3:20:05 Below $55 to 50
3:20:07 and one more. Do we include the double
3:20:09 parking up to 50?
3:20:10 Sorry. Thank you. uh adding as well add
3:20:12 in double parking to $50 and further
3:20:14 voted that in the event that any such
3:20:17 fine for parking violations set at $45
3:20:20 as a result of this vote is held
3:20:21 unreasonable by a court of compet
3:20:23 jurisdiction that said fine be lowered
3:20:25 to $40. Uh such fine increases to take
3:20:28 effect no earlier than July 1st 2026.
3:20:31 All right. So do we have that language
3:20:33 straight now for the vote?
3:20:35 Uh question. Are there a lot of people
3:20:37 parking on sidewalks?
3:20:39 That's not as common.
3:20:40 I've seen that.
3:20:41 Yeah. I mean, it's I mean, so it's it's
3:20:43 it's it's up there, though. Um, you
3:20:45 know, we had in 2024 there were 125.
3:20:48 Wow.
3:20:49 I I see it.
3:20:50 Yeah, I see it a lot.
3:20:51 You know, where you see it is out by
3:20:52 Baker. Um,
3:20:53 okay. Amanda, you had a question.
3:20:56 Oh, I was just going to say in delivery
3:20:57 drivers in Brooklyn,
3:21:00 unfortunately.
3:21:02 All right, Bernard, your vote.
3:21:03 Yes.
3:21:04 Michael,
3:21:05 yes.
3:21:05 Amanda,
3:21:06 yes.
3:21:06 Anthony,
3:21:07 yes. and I also vote yes.
3:21:09 Thank you very much. We'll be back with
3:21:11 a couple more fines and fees over the
3:21:12 next couple weeks, but they're less
3:21:14 complicated than this. So, we got we get
3:21:15 the get the big ones out of the way. So,
3:21:16 thank you.
3:21:17 All right. And with that, we will now
3:21:19 move to warrant articles. So, first up
3:21:22 is article 8, the FY27 budget.
3:21:26 Uh Melissa Goff is online, I believe.
3:21:29 Good evening. Um so, the last time the
3:21:32 board uh took up Article 8, you did not
3:21:35 have the advisory committee motion under
3:21:36 this article. You do have that now and
3:21:38 that is in your packet. A few things
3:21:40 have changed since the last time you
3:21:42 took this up. Uh we have a final free
3:21:45 cash number. So there are revised
3:21:46 recommendations that are articulated in
3:21:49 the AC report. I'm happy to go through
3:21:51 those with the board if you want more
3:21:53 particulars about that particular item.
3:21:55 Um they also had not voted yet on the
3:21:57 CIP, but we had a sense of where they
3:21:59 were going with that and some of the
3:22:00 adjustments that they did make to the
3:22:02 CIP allowed us to deal with the um
3:22:05 reduced free cash estimate that we had.
3:22:07 Um then you also should have in your
3:22:10 packet uh a memo from me uh outlining
3:22:13 some of the language changes that the
3:22:15 advisory committee made and some
3:22:16 recommended um motions around those
3:22:19 changes as well. Um and then you also uh
3:22:22 under conditions of appropriation have
3:22:24 two motions that have come in this week.
3:22:26 One from Andrew Fish Fischer and a
3:22:28 Marissa vote which should be in your
3:22:30 packet. Um another one today from uh
3:22:32 Paul Warren, Mike Sandman, and Brian
3:22:35 Kaine. Uh that should also be in your
3:22:37 packet. Uh and then after we deal with
3:22:39 the conditions of appropriation, um we
3:22:41 do have uh an item that uh the board um
3:22:45 would need to weigh in on. Uh, one of
3:22:47 the things that the advisory committee
3:22:48 also did was to um reduce the town
3:22:52 council budget by 31,000 and take that
3:22:54 money and add it to the council on aging
3:22:56 budget. So, that's kind of the brief
3:22:58 overview. Um, and if you want to kind
3:23:00 of, you know, ask questions or, you
3:23:02 know, go into this further, I'm happy to
3:23:04 answer any other other questions you
3:23:06 might have. So, one of
3:23:07 um I should also I should just also
3:23:09 mention that um uh one of the language
3:23:12 changes um that they did take was to
3:23:14 strike uh an appropriation that we had
3:23:17 for um lighting at the golf course. You
3:23:19 should also have materials in there from
3:23:21 advisory committee member Murphy and
3:23:24 then also a memo from the recreation
3:23:26 director uh as well and I believe that
3:23:28 they are both here in this meeting as
3:23:30 well.
3:23:32 Thank you. I was just about to ask about
3:23:34 the amendments for lighting at the golf
3:23:36 course. Thank you for bringing that up.
3:23:38 All right. So,
3:23:40 regarding the
3:23:43 condition of appropriation, since we
3:23:45 have uh some of the petitioners of those
3:23:48 amendments here, perhaps we can invite
3:23:50 them up to speak to them. So, uh
3:23:52 Marissa, are you going to be speaking as
3:23:55 to the
3:23:58 Fiser amendment? Fisher votes amendment.
3:24:07 Hi everyone. I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a
3:24:09 town meeting member in precinct 6. Um
3:24:12 nice to see you all and there some
3:24:14 musical chairs that have happened here
3:24:16 since the last time I was up here. Um
3:24:20 uh so um Andy Fischer and I have filed a
3:24:23 condition of appropriation on the
3:24:25 rehabilitation of streets budget item
3:24:28 that asks um uh what does it say? It
3:24:32 says um that any money spent on
3:24:35 rehabilitation of streets should um if
3:24:38 if the streets that are being worked on
3:24:40 are part of what's called the um high
3:24:42 priority network in the vision zero plan
3:24:45 um which those streets are the I think
3:24:47 28% of streets in Brooklyn that are the
3:24:51 identified as the highest priority
3:24:53 because they have um I think it's like
3:24:55 100% of the um pedestrian crashes and
3:24:59 and um it's there's there's text in
3:25:02 there, but these are these are the
3:25:03 streets that have been identified as the
3:25:04 highest priority for vision zero
3:25:06 treatments um to uh save lives for um
3:25:10 when there's a vehicle crash. And um so
3:25:13 if any work is being done on those
3:25:15 streets, then um that that work should
3:25:19 include the vision zero treatments
3:25:21 unless approved by the transportation
3:25:23 board. Um, so the the reason for um for
3:25:28 saying this is because we want to make
3:25:30 sure that um we want to make sure that
3:25:32 these vision zero treatments are are
3:25:35 moving forward. Uh we want to make sure
3:25:37 that if we're doing work on these high
3:25:38 priority streets that we are um
3:25:40 servicing all road users and every um uh
3:25:46 mode of transportation in our community.
3:25:48 Um, we do not want to bind town staff's
3:25:53 hands. We don't want to make it
3:25:55 difficult for them to um to work on
3:25:59 these streets, but we do want to make
3:26:00 sure that there's a public meeting from
3:26:02 the transportation board and a a public
3:26:04 process um where we're weighing the
3:26:07 costs and benefits of doing those vision
3:26:10 zero treatments that have been
3:26:12 recommended. Um, and you know, maybe it
3:26:14 doesn't make sense to install all of the
3:26:18 protected bike lanes or safety humps or
3:26:19 something, whatever it is. Um, but that
3:26:22 that decision would be made at a public
3:26:24 meeting of the transportation board
3:26:26 where we hear the the costbenefit
3:26:27 analysis and then the transportation
3:26:29 board could say, you know, it at this
3:26:32 time it doesn't make sense to put in
3:26:34 that that bike lane. We're going to wait
3:26:36 a couple of years. Um, but the idea is
3:26:39 that there would have to be a decision
3:26:42 not to do those things and that's the
3:26:45 gist.
3:26:46 Now, the $100,000 threshold, do we know
3:26:49 what percentage of projects and
3:26:52 repavings that would capture?
3:26:55 Um, I don't think the condition of
3:26:58 appropriation
3:26:59 um relates to the $100,000 threshold,
3:27:03 but I I don't know. I
3:27:04 think that might be the normal condition
3:27:06 of appropriation.
3:27:08 That's standard language that we have
3:27:09 that anything over $100,000 requires
3:27:11 board approval. That's on every
3:27:13 appropriation. Okay.
3:27:14 Special appropriation.
3:27:17 Shoot, Commissioner of Public Works. Uh
3:27:20 that would cover nearly all of the
3:27:23 capital projects
3:27:27 and and I will
3:27:28 $100,000. I will say, you know, I've
3:27:31 spoken to um Commissioner Chute about
3:27:33 this and um and I know that there are
3:27:36 some other folks who have another
3:27:38 condition of appropriation and um to the
3:27:40 extent that you know that uh
3:27:42 Commissioner Shute feels that this is
3:27:45 still too restrictive on on staff um
3:27:48 we're very willing to work with her um
3:27:51 to to change the language. The goal here
3:27:54 is really to um to give town meeting a
3:27:56 way to say that we want this money to be
3:27:59 spent um where feasible to further our
3:28:02 vision zero goals, not just to only
3:28:05 repair the street without without taking
3:28:08 advantage of the opportunity to make the
3:28:11 road safer for both um pedestrians and
3:28:14 cyclists. And um so, you know, we're
3:28:16 we're very willing to have have a
3:28:18 conversation to change this. Um,
3:28:21 but that's that's the the the draft text
3:28:24 that we've filed. So,
3:28:26 right. And I appreciate that. The reason
3:28:27 I asked about the 100,000 though is it
3:28:29 whether we're going to expect that
3:28:32 almost every project has a public
3:28:34 hearing at the transportation board. So,
3:28:36 that's why it's helpful to know what
3:28:38 your typical costs are. Anthony,
3:28:42 so if I'm I'm confused on the uh
3:28:46 parameters because is it a $100,000
3:28:48 threshold threshold or is it if it apply
3:28:51 if it's outlined in the rehability if
3:28:54 it's outlined in the major artery
3:28:56 network of 28% of streets. So even if
3:28:58 it's greater than $100,000, if it's not
3:29:01 in that artery network, it would not
3:29:02 apply to this condition of
3:29:04 appropriation. Correct.
3:29:07 Um sorry, I'm it's been a long day.
3:29:09 There are a lot of negative double
3:29:11 negative.
3:29:11 I apologize. I apologize.
3:29:13 So, the condition of appropriation that
3:29:14 Andy and I filed um is is does not have
3:29:19 anything to do with the cost um of the
3:29:22 project. It's it's just Yeah.
3:29:23 Can I try to clarify? Um based on the
3:29:26 way this is written, the bold underlined
3:29:28 text is the added part that they are
3:29:31 doing, which is the condition. And the
3:29:32 $100,000 is in their original text which
3:29:35 says any project over $100,000 has to
3:29:37 come before the select board for
3:29:39 approval.
3:29:40 I understand that part, but I'm
3:29:41 wondering about the volume for
3:29:42 transportation board.
3:29:43 So the the volume has nothing to do with
3:29:45 the threshold. It has to do with the
3:29:46 streets. Um so I get your question, but
3:29:49 I I don't know that any of us can answer
3:29:51 that because it has to do with which
3:29:53 streets are on the high priority network
3:29:55 on the vision zero plan. um and how many
3:29:58 of those are assumed to be coming up for
3:30:02 repaving on a yearly basis.
3:30:06 So I so I think that it says any work so
3:30:11 theoretically we you talked about these
3:30:12 patching contracts, right? You're are
3:30:15 you are you then saying that even
3:30:17 routine patching work needs to get
3:30:18 approved by the transportation board the
3:30:21 public hearing?
3:30:23 Um, if it were to be taking place on one
3:30:27 of these high priority streets, um, then
3:30:30 I I suppose that would I mean, yes,
3:30:34 according to the the text here, I I
3:30:36 guess one one option would be for the
3:30:38 transportation board to just give
3:30:40 approval at the beginning of the year or
3:30:42 or for someone to provide some some
3:30:44 language about how to define those small
3:30:47 patching jobs. Um,
3:30:49 yeah, but I mean, yeah, you you see you
3:30:50 see the complexity there, right? It's
3:30:52 it's you know, basically these streets
3:30:54 become untouchable um without a hearing.
3:30:57 Um and that's that's not workable from a
3:31:01 So, we've got to think about how you how
3:31:04 you differentiate that out. Um because I
3:31:07 and I can we can try and think about
3:31:10 what that looks like, but yeah, I just I
3:31:11 worry, you know, there's an emergency
3:31:15 pothole somewhere. The transportation
3:31:16 board meets on once a month, so we can't
3:31:19 have a situation where the streets can't
3:31:20 be touched absent a
3:31:23 So,
3:31:25 Anthony, sorry. Go ahead. I
3:31:28 I I was just going to say I'm I'm
3:31:30 interested in hearing the other the
3:31:32 other amendment described and sort of
3:31:34 looking at the intent.
3:31:35 Yeah.
3:31:36 And I I was just going to say, Chaz, I I
3:31:38 I agree with that a lot. Um, and so like
3:31:40 I'm I'm super amendable to the idea of
3:31:45 if we're doing like a whole repaving of
3:31:47 a street, then we should take in vision
3:31:49 zero. uh when we're doing that process
3:31:53 um not necessarily, you know, throw
3:31:54 everything at it and given the
3:31:55 Washington Street treatment, but to do a
3:31:57 little bit of something like that, I'm
3:31:58 amendable to that, but I I take Chaz's
3:32:01 point with the language of it being too
3:32:03 restrictive to staff of even the
3:32:05 smallest thing needing a transportation
3:32:07 board approval. That does get me
3:32:08 worried. So, I think there will have to
3:32:10 be some language change on that.
3:32:14 Amanda, you had something else?
3:32:16 I I liked Michael's idea of hearing them
3:32:18 both in in tandem. Um, but I I would be
3:32:21 curious to see I I'm envision there
3:32:23 could be language change to separate out
3:32:25 Chaz's point of like pothole filling
3:32:28 versus like full street work.
3:32:32 All right. So, why don't we hear from
3:32:34 uh Paul Warren?
3:32:39 Paul Warren, town meeting member from
3:32:41 Precinct One. First, I do uh want to
3:32:44 congratulate Amanda and Anthony on their
3:32:47 election. uh welcome to the select board
3:32:50 uh and Bernard for your service uh and
3:32:53 your uh your your work and partnership
3:32:56 over the years and David and Michael for
3:32:58 your leadership roles. Um Amy's
3:33:01 wondering where I where I am tonight. I
3:33:03 thought you were done. Um it's not true.
3:33:07 Um I do want to I have some prepared
3:33:09 remarks just to keep me on track. Um I I
3:33:12 first uh do want to recognize that the
3:33:16 petitioners that brought this forward uh
3:33:18 the the amendment that you just heard um
3:33:21 uh the Andy and and Marissa you know
3:33:25 their amendment does identify something
3:33:27 that's really important and that's our
3:33:30 vision our commitment to vision zero um
3:33:33 and highlighting that we haven't yet
3:33:35 really figured out how to integrate that
3:33:37 into our roadway um and how to co
3:33:41 coordinate our street work with those
3:33:43 with the investments in our streets with
3:33:46 um with the vision zero program. Um by
3:33:49 the way, this amendment is brought
3:33:50 forward by the chair of the
3:33:52 transportation board who's standing next
3:33:54 to me. Uh and also the former chair of
3:33:56 the vision zero committee, Michael
3:33:58 Sandman. Um so we're kind of partners um
3:34:02 in crime on this. But I do want to uh
3:34:03 acknowledge that I think we have a
3:34:05 common goal in mind here and really what
3:34:08 we're doing is coming forward to see if
3:34:09 there's a path forward that can
3:34:11 accommodate the issue that they're
3:34:12 raising but also come up with a solution
3:34:15 uh that could be kind of proactive and
3:34:17 and and systemic. Um, I do want to
3:34:20 highlight that, uh, Brian, Michael,
3:34:23 Sammon, and I two and a half years ago,
3:34:26 uh, met with Commissioner Chute, um,
3:34:29 our, uh, transportation engineers, our
3:34:32 consultants, and we spent a lot of time
3:34:34 looking at complete streets and the the
3:34:36 various set of policies that affect our
3:34:38 roadways with the intention of figuring
3:34:41 out how to rationalize our our
3:34:43 investments. And over the past 18
3:34:45 months, the select board and the
3:34:47 transportation board has adopted four
3:34:50 policies uh related to this and
3:34:52 governing how our streets are planned,
3:34:54 maintained uh and made safer. They
3:34:57 include the traffic calming policy, the
3:35:00 roadway asset management, maintenance
3:35:02 and preservation policy, otherwise known
3:35:04 as the uh ARP, the no the the RAMP, the
3:35:07 ramp is the acronym for that. Our
3:35:10 complete streets policy and our vision
3:35:12 zero action plan. Together, they
3:35:14 represent a genuine commitment for safer
3:35:17 streets. But these four policies don't
3:35:19 currently work together in a systemic
3:35:22 way. Vision Zero calls for safety
3:35:24 treatments on up to 28% of our streets.
3:35:27 And this is defined, we've heard about,
3:35:29 as the high priority network. The
3:35:31 traffic calming policy prioritizes
3:35:33 streets using crash data and v uh and
3:35:36 vulnerable road user exposure. Yet, the
3:35:38 ramp and complete streets explicitly
3:35:41 require that safety and calming
3:35:43 investments be funded and designed on
3:35:45 separate tracks from pavement
3:35:47 rehabilitation. So, the traffic calming
3:35:50 policy even acknowledges this tension,
3:35:53 noting that its own procedures do not
3:35:55 apply when large complex uh complete
3:35:58 street projects are involved. The result
3:36:00 is a gap and there's no owner for that
3:36:03 gap. Uh, a corridor can be repaved and
3:36:05 the safety investments vision zero calls
3:36:08 for on the same street can be left
3:36:10 behind and that's a problem. um not
3:36:12 because anyone chose to ignore them, but
3:36:14 because there's really no process in
3:36:16 place uh to connect the two. And I think
3:36:18 that's what the petitioners of the the
3:36:20 other amendment are trying to do.
3:36:22 They're trying to do it through funing
3:36:24 everything through uh through the
3:36:25 transportation board. So, this amendment
3:36:28 that uh that we're bringing forward, um
3:36:30 the amendment doesn't slow down paving
3:36:33 or restrict how this uh appropriation is
3:36:35 spent. The 5.2 2 million still proceeds
3:36:38 in full uh under the authority of the
3:36:41 commissioner of public works. But what
3:36:43 it does add is one condition that the
3:36:45 DPW and the transportation board form a
3:36:49 working group. That would be the
3:36:51 trigger. That's the condition to develop
3:36:53 a prioritization and communication
3:36:55 process that integrates all four
3:36:58 policies into a coherent framework. one
3:37:01 that identifies priorities, aligns
3:37:03 expectations, supports public
3:37:05 engagement, and allows rehabilitation
3:37:08 work to proceed in a timely and
3:37:09 cost-effective manner. The benefits
3:37:12 pretty straightforward. Residents will
3:37:13 know not just when their street will be
3:37:15 repaved or redone, but what safety
3:37:18 improvements are coming and how those
3:37:19 decisions are being made. DPW and the
3:37:22 transportation board will have a clear
3:37:23 shared process for coordinating
3:37:25 investments rather than managing each
3:37:27 policy in isolation. And Town Meeting
3:37:30 will be better positioned to fund those
3:37:31 programs with confidence. And Brooklyn
3:37:34 has the ability to build to take these
3:37:36 strong policies that we've already
3:37:38 developed and integrate them into uh a
3:37:41 process and a solution that's much more
3:37:43 transparent uh to the community and also
3:37:45 making our roadways safe without slowing
3:37:48 down and stopping uh this important work
3:37:50 that is to maintain our roadways. And as
3:37:52 I think someone said earlier, maybe it
3:37:54 was Michael at the beginning of the
3:37:55 meeting, Michael Sammon said, you know,
3:37:57 it's dangerous to drive down our roads
3:37:59 when there's a pothole and a crack
3:38:00 that's not filled and you know, these
3:38:02 things that get in our way. It would be
3:38:04 nice if it was a protected bike lane,
3:38:05 but even having a smooth surface would
3:38:07 be a great uh a great improvement. So,
3:38:10 that's the amendment that we're asking
3:38:11 for your consideration. and it's more
3:38:13 processoriented
3:38:14 still uh creates a trigger for the
3:38:16 appropriation and we'll put the work in
3:38:19 place to make sure that for the next CIP
3:38:21 we'll have those procedures in place.
3:38:23 Did you want to say something M?
3:38:25 Uh if I might. Uh thank you. Uh Brian
3:38:27 Kaine, chair of the transportation
3:38:28 board. Um the reason I am a co-itioner
3:38:32 on this amendment and let me just echo
3:38:34 everything Paul said. Um we we agree uh
3:38:37 I I Marissa and I spoke before we all
3:38:40 want to get to the same place which is
3:38:41 safer streets in Brooklyn. That's the
3:38:43 goal. It's really a question of how do
3:38:44 we get there. The reason why I am not in
3:38:48 support of the original amendment and
3:38:50 supporting the revised amendment or what
3:38:52 we're calling this um the administrative
3:38:55 burden that would be put on my board is
3:38:58 is simply almost unworkable. Um we do
3:39:02 not have the staff support that the
3:39:03 select board has. We meet monthly. Um,
3:39:06 and getting my folks to meet monthly is
3:39:10 not always easy with with folks
3:39:12 schedules. I'm not telling you folks
3:39:13 anything you don't know. But the
3:39:15 administrative burden that would be
3:39:16 placed on my board to try and oversee
3:39:18 and approve and have a public meeting on
3:39:20 every single expenditure over $100,000,
3:39:22 which we've just heard is almost every
3:39:24 single project. I is simply too much
3:39:26 with the current resources and the
3:39:28 current structures that we have right
3:39:29 now. We I want to get to the same place
3:39:32 that the original petitioners want us to
3:39:34 get to. We share that same vision, safer
3:39:37 roads. We are going through a
3:39:38 prioritization process. When I heard the
3:39:40 work that you folks were doing with your
3:39:42 2030 roadmap, it sounds very similar to
3:39:45 the work that we're doing in the
3:39:46 transportation board, trying to merge
3:39:48 and meld all these things together and
3:39:49 find a path forward that is proactive
3:39:51 and very clear to everyone who's looking
3:39:53 in as to why we're doing what we're
3:39:55 doing. We all want to get to the same
3:39:57 place. I'm just asking you to please not
3:39:58 place this this immense administrative
3:40:01 burden on on the transportation board.
3:40:04 It really will harm our ability to get
3:40:06 things done. Thank you.
3:40:10 Any questions, input from other members?
3:40:13 Amanda,
3:40:14 question. So, I I do really appreciate
3:40:17 the process argument. I think it would
3:40:19 be great to have a cohesive process. Um,
3:40:22 and I'm glad that you're putting that in
3:40:24 as something to do. My worry is that if
3:40:28 um if the version that Marissa and Andy
3:40:31 didn't put forward doesn't pass, there's
3:40:34 nothing that influences the road work
3:40:36 that's happening in the next year. And
3:40:39 there's nothing time bound that says
3:40:40 when this process will finish, when that
3:40:43 will influence the next decisions on CIP
3:40:46 funding for roads. Um so I think I I do
3:40:52 not know how to wordsmith this. I would
3:40:54 love to have a situation where we could
3:40:56 do process and address the more
3:40:58 immediate need of what's happening. Even
3:41:00 if it's having DPW come before the
3:41:03 T-board and say these are the next six
3:41:05 streets that are coming up and also by
3:41:07 the way two of those are on the high
3:41:10 action or high priority network in
3:41:12 vision zero um to do something in the
3:41:15 short term as well as the long-term
3:41:17 process stuff.
3:41:18 So if I might Mr. Chairman um I agree
3:41:21 100%. Uh there we will be done with our
3:41:24 prioritization work this summer. Uh
3:41:26 we've begun the we we've started this in
3:41:28 January. We are 100% in agreement that
3:41:31 this has to happen fast. There are and
3:41:34 there have been some projects that have
3:41:35 fallen between the two processes. We all
3:41:38 know what I'm talking about. Harvard
3:41:39 Street. Uh and that's unfortunate and I
3:41:42 I take responsibility for that. Put that
3:41:43 on me. Um we I don't want that to happen
3:41:47 again. I don't think any of us want that
3:41:48 to happen again.
3:41:50 what we will have what what will come
3:41:52 out of this prioritization process based
3:41:54 on the scoring in the rubric that has
3:41:55 been created by the way which I want to
3:41:57 come and explain to you folks and have a
3:41:59 whole presentation about uh will
3:42:02 absolutely seemingly put most of the
3:42:04 high priority streets that are on the
3:42:07 vision zero network which by the way we
3:42:09 we all spearheaded here and I think we
3:42:10 all agree with those will be the
3:42:13 priorities that will I believe will come
3:42:14 out of our prioritization scoring
3:42:16 process which means we will be coming to
3:42:18 you folks and to town meeting starting
3:42:20 in September for the first time the
3:42:21 transportation board will weigh in on
3:42:23 DPWC requests through this process by
3:42:25 the way and I imagine that a lot of what
3:42:28 we will be asking for we don't know but
3:42:30 I imagine will be those high priority
3:42:32 corridors I agree with you and as I said
3:42:34 I think we all want to get to the same
3:42:36 place it's really just a question of how
3:42:37 do we get there
3:42:40 and Amanda I would add one thing thanks
3:42:42 Brian that again you know this this work
3:42:45 is been uncovered that it's going right
3:42:47 it's already it's already started but I
3:42:49 I take your comment um seriously that
3:42:51 you know the way this was originally
3:42:53 written it was saying that it needed to
3:42:55 be done before the CIP was submitted for
3:42:57 the next year. Um and then I got
3:42:59 feedback from the moderator that it had
3:43:01 to be a gate. Um and so I've rephrased
3:43:03 it as a gate which was you had to have a
3:43:06 you know appoint a committee before the
3:43:08 money could be released. So it, you
3:43:10 know, if if the transportation board and
3:43:13 the commissioner DPW create this working
3:43:16 group to work to actually document and
3:43:18 do the work that they're already doing,
3:43:19 but I think it's going to be more
3:43:20 formalized and visible in the CIP um as
3:43:22 a condition of appropriation. You could
3:43:24 actually amend this tonight uh to
3:43:27 actually time bound it and say the
3:43:29 work's got to be completed by before the
3:43:31 submission of the next uh CIP that
3:43:34 includes road work that you could then
3:43:35 time bound it that way.
3:43:38 Michael.
3:43:39 Um I'm wondering uh if the commissioner
3:43:43 can speak to Amanda's question about
3:43:47 like what are the roadways that are
3:43:50 upcoming
3:43:52 uh just in terms of uh management,
3:43:56 maintenance and preservation. I believe
3:43:58 that there is a there is a listing or a
3:44:03 spreadsheet um that at one point
3:44:06 enumerated the set of streets that were
3:44:08 being uh uh worked on in various years.
3:44:12 Um and I'm wondering whether that list
3:44:15 is being maintained and has been updated
3:44:17 and is available for review and
3:44:21 incorporation into this process.
3:44:26 Thank you very much. Uh great question.
3:44:28 Erin Chude, Commissioner of Public
3:44:30 Works. And uh just by way of a little
3:44:34 bit of background, it was probably four
3:44:37 years ago where the select board um
3:44:41 really put maintenance of the town's
3:44:44 roads at the top of their priority list
3:44:48 and directed public works to to develop
3:44:51 a strategy to um maintain these assets.
3:44:56 And so um you heard about uh this
3:44:58 working group with uh select board
3:45:01 members, chair of the transportation
3:45:02 board to try to figure out how do we
3:45:04 maintain our roads and yet also at the s
3:45:07 same time push forward and prioritize
3:45:10 all of our complete streets uh work. So
3:45:14 we have in terms of our roadway um
3:45:18 maintenance and management plan uh and
3:45:21 that's supported by this roadway asset
3:45:23 preservation maintenance and management
3:45:25 policy. Uh a conditions assessment that
3:45:28 is uh done on the roads uh we've been
3:45:31 doing it about every 3 years. We just
3:45:33 completed it and it uses artificial
3:45:36 intelligence. It actually takes um
3:45:39 images of our entire roadway network and
3:45:41 applies a um value condition value 0 to
3:45:45 100 on every block segment. Uh that's
3:45:49 all been mapped and we're presenting all
3:45:52 of that at the transportation board uh
3:45:55 tomorrow evening. So I welcome you to
3:45:57 attend. We also presented this
3:45:58 information to the advisory committee uh
3:46:02 during our budgeting process this year.
3:46:04 We presented it last year to the select
3:46:06 board. There have been some um
3:46:08 modifications and and updates uh with
3:46:10 the new data that we have, but we've
3:46:13 really every year we've been um
3:46:15 presenting that through the budget
3:46:16 process to show what that 5-year plan
3:46:18 looks like and what the conditions
3:46:20 analysis look looks like. And we have a
3:46:22 dashboard on our um web page where you
3:46:25 can actually see the map um with those
3:46:28 segments. Uh what we're looking to do is
3:46:32 to annually present this full um asset
3:46:36 management plan for maintenance to the
3:46:39 transportation board and then move into
3:46:42 our prioritization
3:46:43 um process for the transportation CIP
3:46:46 projects. Um so we'll look at traffic
3:46:49 calming pl projects, we'll look at
3:46:51 vision zero, we'll look at our complete
3:46:53 streets. We have a whole slew of of
3:46:56 really important transformative projects
3:46:58 that are underway now. And then we want
3:47:00 to have sort of design and construction
3:47:02 moving forward each year within the
3:47:05 5-year CIP so that everyone can see
3:47:07 what's coming up. We also have developed
3:47:10 guidelines for community engagement. So
3:47:13 all of this needs to come together. It
3:47:15 is uh going to be a new way for the
3:47:17 transportation board and transportation
3:47:20 staff to approach and communicate all of
3:47:23 these projects proactively. Um I want to
3:47:28 thank Marissa who reached out to me uh
3:47:31 with the amendment and wanted to talk
3:47:33 about how do we do this? You know DPDW
3:47:36 understands uh the goals behind this
3:47:38 amendment. Vision zero complete streets
3:47:41 our bike safety accommodations all of
3:47:43 that. They're not only town goals, but
3:47:46 um many of this DPW led the way uh and
3:47:50 partnered with um the community in terms
3:47:53 of writing, managing, and leading these
3:47:55 policies. So, we're very much on board.
3:47:58 I think it's really not an issue of
3:48:00 where we're trying to go. It's we agree
3:48:03 on the destination. The issue is how we
3:48:05 realistically get there. And um
3:48:08 historically the town has been in a
3:48:09 place where it really has um been very
3:48:12 difficult to move forward. Um
3:48:14 rehabilitation and maintenance in terms
3:48:16 of asset management is different and
3:48:20 distinct from um infrastructure changes
3:48:23 or changes operationally around how we
3:48:25 share the road. And that's why we're
3:48:27 putting this um sort of clarity forward
3:48:30 in terms of community engagement because
3:48:34 while it all seems um very
3:48:36 straightforward
3:48:38 um Washington Street for example which
3:48:39 is a major um major construction
3:48:42 initiative with a lot of changes in
3:48:44 curve line but that community engagement
3:48:48 process and the need to really work
3:48:50 through all the issues added two years
3:48:54 um to um when we're going to put a
3:48:56 shovel in the ground on that project.
3:48:58 And so we just want to make sure we're
3:49:00 not losing the overall condition of the
3:49:04 assets um because we need to maintain
3:49:07 this in a state of good repair. And that
3:49:09 is equally important for safety, for
3:49:12 liability, and for um the town's uh
3:49:17 financial solveny. Because if we let the
3:49:19 roads degrade to a po point where they
3:49:21 are all full reconstructions, it will be
3:49:24 incredibly ownorous for this town and we
3:49:27 really won't even then be in a position
3:49:29 to move forward with u multimmoal
3:49:32 projects. We're just going to be hanging
3:49:33 on uh to keep our roads. So I think it's
3:49:37 I think it's really important that we
3:49:39 have this process but I don't think we
3:49:41 really I don't think we should conflate
3:49:44 uh basic maintenance and operations
3:49:48 and asset management with our bigger
3:49:52 picture vision zero complete streets
3:49:54 multimodal
3:49:55 and I think another sort of just little
3:49:59 point because we had the the question
3:50:00 around the crack sealing you know crack
3:50:02 sealing our roads is helping prevent
3:50:05 vent um water infiltration. So as you
3:50:08 see seams opening, they can be large,
3:50:09 they can be small. So it's preserving
3:50:11 the longevity. The patching does the
3:50:13 same. The potholes and filling the
3:50:15 potholes does the same. And when we have
3:50:18 those contracts, it's like a pruning
3:50:20 contract for trees. We don't know
3:50:22 exactly how many tree, you know, which
3:50:24 trees we'll be pruning through the
3:50:26 course of the year, but we know on
3:50:27 average the volume of trees that we're
3:50:29 going to need to prune and the capacity
3:50:32 that we have both in terms of funding
3:50:34 and staff to do that. So, it's it's
3:50:36 similar uh in terms of um preventative
3:50:41 maintenance and best practices.
3:50:44 Michael,
3:50:45 um first of all, thank you very much. Um
3:50:48 and this is this is obviously uh a lot
3:50:52 of thought has been put into how to
3:50:54 improve our processes and also how to
3:50:56 communicate them. Um, I think that one
3:51:00 of the challenges that was uncovered in
3:51:02 the Harvard street process was the fact
3:51:05 that the timing of the of the
3:51:09 maintenance work um, relative to the
3:51:13 community's understanding of that timing
3:51:15 and their their ability to identify
3:51:20 I mean, as you say, not necessarily
3:51:22 large changes, but I know that there are
3:51:24 some uh, small safety improvements ments
3:51:28 um that are that are incorporated into
3:51:30 that project. Um that there was a ch
3:51:33 that there was a challenge within the
3:51:35 community of understanding that timing
3:51:37 and understanding the capacity to impact
3:51:42 um to make changes along the lines of of
3:51:47 to meet our vision zero goals. And so
3:51:50 the thing that I'm trying to establish
3:51:52 is that moving forward, you know,
3:51:55 Harvard Street has been contracted and
3:51:58 it's design has been voted on by the
3:52:00 T-board and is set. I'm just trying to
3:52:02 establish that moving forward that the
3:52:05 projects for 27, the projects for 28
3:52:09 have also been established and are
3:52:11 accessible by the public. So that to the
3:52:15 extent that whether it's you know curb
3:52:17 extensions or ballards or um other other
3:52:23 uh improvements to the existing
3:52:25 infrastructure that those can be well
3:52:28 understood within the context of the
3:52:31 RAMP
3:52:33 and I I just want to make sure that
3:52:35 that's gets communicated to the public
3:52:38 um so that people can understand that
3:52:40 and weigh in appropriately through the
3:52:42 transportation board process. processes
3:52:45 um that are already in place and are
3:52:46 being developed in the course of this
3:52:48 prioritization.
3:52:51 Yep. Absolutely. So that will um they'll
3:52:56 be presented. I think that they're clear
3:52:58 in terms of it's in a list format with
3:53:02 the streets and a year. There's a little
3:53:04 caveat in terms of outy years um are
3:53:08 subject to change. Uh you know, so we're
3:53:11 going to revisit this every year.
3:53:12 there's development work, utilities
3:53:14 work, um you know, other things may come
3:53:18 up that that cause a shift in uh the
3:53:21 roads that will um you know, be moving
3:53:25 forward as part of the maintenance.
3:53:28 And uh as you mentioned, there are we
3:53:31 think a lot of safety improvements that
3:53:34 are happening as part of the Harvard
3:53:38 street uh rehabilitation project that
3:53:42 don't change the way people share the
3:53:45 road um but puts more protections in
3:53:48 place um in terms of you know the better
3:53:51 striping and ballers and daylighting
3:53:53 intersections and rapid flashing beacons
3:53:56 and um improvements in terms of uh bus
3:54:00 stops and greater visibility overall.
3:54:03 So, we see those as opportunities with
3:54:06 these maintenance projects that are
3:54:09 pretty easy for us to
3:54:12 to apply and move forward. Um when we
3:54:16 get into
3:54:18 projects that require community process,
3:54:21 then we're going to have to build in
3:54:22 time. um we're gonna have to build in
3:54:24 time and those projects and initiatives.
3:54:28 We also want to build in a supplemental
3:54:30 funding source to be able to uh fund
3:54:35 those other um improvements uh that
3:54:38 we're looking to build. So that's
3:54:40 something that that's why we're working
3:54:41 to develop this CIP
3:54:44 um together with the T board. So not
3:54:46 only is it transparent, but we're
3:54:48 understanding the time it's going to
3:54:49 take and the dollars it's going to take
3:54:51 to implement
3:54:53 Thank you.
3:54:55 Any other questions, comments from board
3:54:57 members?
3:55:00 All right.
3:55:00 Let me just make a quick one. I don't
3:55:02 think I will finish having this
3:55:04 conversation now. So I just want to to
3:55:07 plant the idea and you not apart from
3:55:09 the budget amendments but I want to
3:55:11 plant the idea that um we should be
3:55:14 thinking creatively of when we spend
3:55:16 money how we can utilize some of these
3:55:18 smaller scale changes so that not every
3:55:20 improvement goes to sort of the
3:55:22 Washington street
3:55:23 way of two-hour process two two-year
3:55:26 process and so I think even if we end up
3:55:30 supporting um Paul Warren's amendment um
3:55:35 that should be looking at how to speed
3:55:36 this up and make it a much more
3:55:38 transparent process. Um, so that we can
3:55:41 actually move forward on these things
3:55:42 and not get into this separate pools of
3:55:45 money discussion because we think
3:55:46 everything has to be huge and really
3:55:48 expensive to make safety improvements.
3:55:51 Agree.
3:55:52 Can I just um add one more uh thing? You
3:55:56 know, the proposals that are in front of
3:55:57 you tonight for the budget, I would like
3:55:59 you to take a position on. I know that
3:56:01 there's talk about potential language
3:56:03 changes for these particular um items,
3:56:05 but that we are running out of time in
3:56:07 terms of the deadline in order to file
3:56:09 an amendment to the budget. So, um I
3:56:12 would want to be able to transmit
3:56:14 something to the advisory committee so
3:56:15 that when they take this up, they
3:56:16 understand how the board feels about it.
3:56:18 All right. So, given that constraint,
3:56:20 I'll take that recommendation. I think
3:56:23 that uh both amendments are are very
3:56:27 well-intentioned to have the same goal
3:56:29 in mind, just different paths on how to
3:56:31 get there. I found uh Brian Kaine's
3:56:34 remarks as transportation share quite
3:56:38 compelling that this would be a
3:56:39 tremendous administrative burden on his
3:56:42 board to have essentially everything
3:56:44 road related funneled through the
3:56:46 transportation board. Uh by no means is
3:56:49 that an indictment on this vote, Mr.
3:56:51 Fischer who again have the same goal in
3:56:54 mind as Paul Warren, Brian Kaine, and
3:56:56 Mike Sandman who used to chair the
3:56:59 vision zero uh committee. So obviously
3:57:02 this is uh a shared goal by all. So I
3:57:05 would like us to support the amendment
3:57:09 brought to us by Paul Warren, Brian
3:57:11 Kaine, and Mike Sandman. Uh and
3:57:14 certainly I agree with you Amanda that
3:57:15 we want to make sure that this isn't
3:57:18 just talk but that there's action that
3:57:20 goes along with it and the way it's
3:57:22 structured there is that uh trigger as a
3:57:25 condition of appropriation that at a
3:57:28 minimum this working group is created
3:57:30 and gets started on on work they've
3:57:33 already done informally to an extent but
3:57:36 this would formalize that process and I
3:57:38 think that's a good approach to take
3:57:39 there is also nothing that would
3:57:41 preclude further conversation s between
3:57:44 the uh petitioners of the uh Fiser vote
3:57:48 amendment and the Warren Kaine Sandman
3:57:52 amendment from perhaps further
3:57:53 refinement as we approach town meeting.
3:57:56 Uh as even our two uh new members well
3:57:59 know even on the day of town meeting
3:58:02 sometimes we have additional votes and
3:58:04 changes if those uh become necessary.
3:58:07 So, I would like to move the uh
3:58:10 favorable action on the Warren Kaine
3:58:13 Sandman amendment.
3:58:14 Before we do, I I'm so sorry. Just a
3:58:16 quick I have like a legal question. Is
3:58:18 it possible for us to put a timeline on
3:58:20 how long that that committee can stand
3:58:23 for before because I'm I'm afraid of
3:58:25 just creating a process that just drags
3:58:26 everything out way too long with too
3:58:28 many more meetings. And so, I'm
3:58:29 wondering if the select board can say we
3:58:31 we approve of this, but we want to say
3:58:32 like you get four meetings. I don't know
3:58:34 if that's
3:58:35 I think we would do that by by
3:58:38 amending the amendment to include
3:58:41 okay
3:58:42 some language.
3:58:43 I I also think too there you you want to
3:58:45 be careful about setting a
3:58:48 setting that end date or at a number of
3:58:50 meetings in particular. Okay. Um, and
3:58:52 that's I I think that's something that
3:58:54 you as a board can do via executive
3:58:56 action that I think is that actually
3:58:59 winds up being both more flexible in the
3:59:01 long run, but also then like you can ask
3:59:03 us for example like hey it's been three
3:59:06 months what is the progress
3:59:07 as long as we have that tool.
3:59:08 Yes.
3:59:09 You were like you're the executive you
3:59:11 run the show. So
3:59:12 I still would love to have a with the
3:59:15 goal to have the process done by the
3:59:17 next CIP planning process. I I don't
3:59:20 know how you word smith that but like
3:59:21 instead of a time bound it's a milestone
3:59:24 bound
3:59:25 um constraint
3:59:26 so it looks like Paul might have some
3:59:29 suggested language
3:59:32 the as I think I had mentioned ear thank
3:59:33 you Amanda um that I had uh had original
3:59:37 language which said that this would be
3:59:39 done um uh in time for the submission of
3:59:44 the 20 what would be the next year the
3:59:46 2027
3:59:46 28
3:59:48 the annual 27 27 um
3:59:50 28 28
3:59:51 28 Well, but it would be for the annual
3:59:53 town meeting in 27.
3:59:54 Oh, yes. Sorry. The annual meeting.
3:59:55 So, so you could you could just tweak
3:59:57 the language. There's probably a a
3:59:59 couple of commas in here that would um
4:00:02 would so it says form a working group
4:00:04 which will develop and prioritize and
4:00:06 communicate process that integrates the
4:00:10 um the public enhance the public way and
4:00:12 then at at the end of the sentence
4:00:14 instead of having a period have a comma
4:00:15 that says uh and is completed uh prior
4:00:19 to the submission of the CIP for
4:00:22 FY28.
4:00:22 FY FY28.
4:00:24 All right, that sounds good for me. I
4:00:25 like that. All right. I would say I
4:00:27 would say adoption of the CIP that gives
4:00:29 you the time up until town.
4:00:30 So Chaz, it's just at the at the end of
4:00:32 the under you you know it development.
4:00:34 Wait, but if if it's the adoption of the
4:00:37 CIP, then they're not having a say into
4:00:40 the makeup of the CIP because the
4:00:42 process is
4:00:42 it should be the sub I would I would
4:00:44 suggest Chaz that
4:00:45 so submission the reason why submission
4:00:47 is not submission when submission at
4:00:49 because remember the CIP work begins in
4:00:51 the fall,
4:00:52 right?
4:00:52 Um
4:00:52 that that's what I was going for. So, so
4:00:55 one one quick thought I I would the way
4:00:56 I originally had it was that it was
4:00:58 completed by the time of the annual
4:01:02 2027 town meeting. So, if it's done,
4:01:06 why don't you have it completed by the
4:01:07 if you want it sooner, why don't you
4:01:09 have it completed by the submission of
4:01:10 the fin of the 2028 financial plan,
4:01:13 which is in February.
4:01:15 So, if I could just add, you're our
4:01:17 appointing authority. We're going to do
4:01:20 this. We're going to do it quickly. So
4:01:22 feel free to put in the language, but
4:01:24 just know you have my absolute
4:01:26 commitment that we will get this done by
4:01:29 the by the fall.
4:01:30 So I like Amanda's approach of having
4:01:31 the explicit language in there, not
4:01:33 because we don't trust you, but for
4:01:35 for uh public purposes so that people
4:01:38 have an understanding of what the
4:01:39 timeline will be for that reason.
4:01:43 So it looks like Michael's typing up the
4:01:44 precise language
4:01:47 plan for uh by the town administrator,
4:01:53 right?
4:01:53 Y
4:01:55 for fiscal year 2028.
4:01:59 Yeah.
4:01:59 Okay. So the the proposal uh
4:02:04 is to amend
4:02:08 um after the words uh governing the
4:02:10 maintenance enhancement of the public
4:02:12 way which previously ended with a period
4:02:14 to add the phrase to be completed before
4:02:18 the submission of the financial plan by
4:02:21 the town administrator
4:02:23 spelled correctly for fiscal year 28.
4:02:27 All right. So moved. Any further
4:02:29 discussion? All right. Bernard,
4:02:31 yes.
4:02:32 Michael,
4:02:33 yes.
4:02:34 Amanda,
4:02:34 yes.
4:02:35 Anthony,
4:02:36 yes.
4:02:36 And I also vote yes.
4:02:38 Will the petitioners of that amendment
4:02:40 take that language and resubmit it to
4:02:42 the take accept it as a friendly
4:02:43 amendment and resubmit to the moderator?
4:02:46 So, um, I can submit that. This is now
4:02:48 the board's motion. So, I can submit
4:02:50 that to the moderator. Um if the if the
4:02:53 petitioners are okay with that then they
4:02:55 can just support the select board's
4:02:56 motion under this particular um item.
4:03:00 We've got it language.
4:03:02 Thanks to everyone on this. Thank you to
4:03:04 Andrew and Marissa and to the team over
4:03:07 there and the group. Very helpful.
4:03:10 All right. So next up related to article
4:03:13 8, the uh $31,000 reduction.
4:03:18 Chair, can we take a break? Sure. We're
4:03:20 going to be here into the next day right
4:03:24 now.
4:03:24 All right. Why don't we take a
4:03:26 five minutes?
4:03:26 Five minute break is fine. All right.
4:03:32 You want to be real
4:10:32 Heat.
4:10:52 Hey, Heat.
4:13:12 As uh Bernard Green used to say, welcome
4:13:15 back to our vast television audience.
4:13:18 And we will now take up
4:13:20 19 people.
4:13:21 Uh again, Warren Article 8 FY27 budget.
4:13:26 We will go with the amendment for
4:13:28 lighting at the golf course. Who will
4:13:31 present that? So I the petitioner of
4:13:34 that amendment is currently at the
4:13:36 advisory committee but Tim Davis is here
4:13:38 from Wreck if you have questions about
4:13:40 the process from Wreck as is Justin
4:13:43 Lawson who's the head of the golf
4:13:44 program.
4:13:46 I mean ideally I'd like to hear from the
4:13:48 proponent of the amendment or someone
4:13:49 who has uh her position.
4:13:52 Yeah.
4:13:53 Did you did did we receive an email from
4:13:55 her?
4:13:55 You did. It's in your packet. your
4:13:56 packet there's a in your packet there's
4:13:58 a memo from Jocelyn to the board that uh
4:14:01 describes the um rationale behind the
4:14:04 decision to uh not move the item.
4:14:06 We do have a memo. So that's fine if
4:14:08 others are satisfied with that as the
4:14:11 basis of our explanation of her
4:14:13 amendment. Uh so does Tim Davis want to
4:14:17 speak?
4:14:20 Good evening everybody again. Uh Tim
4:14:22 Davis, recreation director for the town
4:14:23 of Brooklyn. I am joined tonight by
4:14:25 Justin Lawson, general manager over at
4:14:27 the golf course to help answer any
4:14:29 questions that you'll have tonight after
4:14:30 our conversation. Um, and again, caught
4:14:33 me off guard earlier just like everybody
4:14:34 else. So, I echo everybody's compliments
4:14:36 tonight. Um, thank you Bernard for your
4:14:38 guidance and participation over the
4:14:40 years with the rec department and Mr.
4:14:42 Brono, Dr. Zimmerman, we look forward to
4:14:44 working with you and welcoming you into
4:14:46 the recreation department. Dr. Zimmerman
4:14:48 being a frequent flyer already, so glad
4:14:50 to see you again. Um so as mentioned in
4:14:53 my memo in response to the advisory
4:14:55 amendment
4:14:57 um and the purpose of my note to to shed
4:14:59 light on arate um which is the requested
4:15:02 transfer and allocation of funds from
4:15:04 the golf course retained earnings for
4:15:06 future future capital planning in this
4:15:08 case being the potential for lighting
4:15:10 the golf course driving range to expand
4:15:12 that recreational opportunity in town.
4:15:15 But um even just as important um ensures
4:15:19 further financial stability of the
4:15:21 course. Um it as mentioned late last
4:15:25 month uh the advisory board voted to
4:15:28 strike the warrant article and took a
4:15:29 vote of no action on the transfer. Uh
4:15:32 that was due to concerns expressed about
4:15:34 the project and perceived inaction of
4:15:36 the department to address the initial
4:15:38 concerns that the the community had. Um
4:15:41 and also the want to have a more robust
4:15:44 public process. Um this project from the
4:15:47 beginning has been and continues to be a
4:15:50 planned uh public process. Our first
4:15:52 meeting was um notified our our first
4:15:56 meeting included notification to
4:15:57 abutters uh notification to neighbors um
4:16:00 and included significant public comment
4:16:02 um and our future meetings will do the
4:16:04 same um until we seek final support from
4:16:07 the park and rec commission on this
4:16:08 project to move forward. Um really the
4:16:11 concerns that were brought up and shared
4:16:12 by the committee uh and also residents
4:16:15 in the neighborhood regarding the
4:16:16 impacts um of this project such as dark
4:16:19 skies compliance and environmental
4:16:20 impacts were valid um and heard and the
4:16:24 department's been working Justin and I
4:16:26 um and our whole department really have
4:16:27 been working on these concerns since
4:16:29 they were shared to us uh in December.
4:16:31 Um and we recognize that we're now in
4:16:33 May. Um, and the explanation for that,
4:16:36 as was explained at advisory, simply
4:16:38 comes down to the fact that the actual
4:16:41 lighting plan from the vendor we have is
4:16:43 not to our satisfaction. Um, and not to
4:16:46 a level where we know the town would
4:16:47 find it favorable. Um, the delay has
4:16:50 been unexpected and we're doing all we
4:16:52 can to work through that process. um
4:16:56 because at the last thing we want to do
4:16:57 is is bring back something to the town
4:16:59 that's that's incomplete or or causing
4:17:01 more more uh questions than than
4:17:04 answers. Um this project also, as a
4:17:06 reminder, is is funded out of the golf
4:17:08 course enterprise retained earnings, so
4:17:10 no impact to the town's operating fund.
4:17:12 um seeking the funding now um prior to
4:17:15 the final approvals of the project um as
4:17:18 is customary with most capital items um
4:17:21 just um allows us the timeline to
4:17:23 procure what what is needed. Um so if
4:17:26 those funds are released this this town
4:17:27 meeting u making them available for us
4:17:30 to move forward on the project. um if
4:17:32 this project is found unfavorable um
4:17:34 that money would simply go back into
4:17:36 retained earnings of the golf course um
4:17:38 and be spent on further future
4:17:40 operations or or future future capital.
4:17:43 Um so really we're the the concerns
4:17:46 brought forward around that public
4:17:48 process and around the response of of
4:17:50 what we're working on um are are really
4:17:53 all being met and and being planned. Um,
4:17:56 so you know, we just wanted to to offer
4:17:58 our our side of it. Um, as I know you
4:18:01 need to take a position, as Melissa
4:18:02 mentioned, getting close to town
4:18:04 meeting. Um, we're trying our best to be
4:18:07 good stewards of of the ground, good
4:18:08 stewards of the property, good stewards
4:18:10 of the neighborhood, um, while expanding
4:18:12 these opportunities in town. Um, and I
4:18:15 will, uh, and I'll toss it to Justin if
4:18:17 you want to make any comments, Justin,
4:18:19 related to that. But again, here to
4:18:20 answer any questions um, on on this
4:18:23 piece.
4:18:26 Yeah, Tim, thank you very much. Uh
4:18:29 folks, uh Justin Lawson, uh general
4:18:31 manager at the Brooklyn Golf Course. Um
4:18:33 as Tim alluded to, and I'll keep it my
4:18:35 comments brief and short, um you know,
4:18:37 we've been uh learning and responding to
4:18:41 a lot of the feedback that we've uh
4:18:43 received during our public process. and
4:18:46 uh we just haven't uh found the solution
4:18:48 yet to come back to the park and
4:18:50 recreation commission and continue that
4:18:52 public process uh with uh the
4:18:54 modifications and that sort of stuff
4:18:55 that we felt would be uh warranted to
4:18:58 present. So um thanks for the
4:19:00 opportunity to be with you all and and
4:19:02 uh appreciate what you do.
4:19:03 I would add one one more thing which is
4:19:05 it's not uncommon for projects to be in
4:19:07 this position when they go in the CIP,
4:19:09 right? It's not uncommon for us to be in
4:19:11 a situation where we say we think we're
4:19:13 going to be ready for this at some point
4:19:14 in the fiscal year, but we acknowledge
4:19:16 that there is a process that needs to be
4:19:18 followed before we actually do it. Um,
4:19:21 and so it's not as though putting this
4:19:25 on the CIP is writing a blank check to
4:19:28 the recreation department to build this.
4:19:30 It still requires approval of the parks
4:19:33 and recck commission. It still
4:19:34 ultimately requires you all to approve
4:19:35 the contract. it requires all of that
4:19:37 process to go forward before anything
4:19:39 happens there. So, the idea that it's
4:19:42 it's
4:19:44 it's not common for a project because
4:19:48 there's a concern about a process that's
4:19:51 that is in the process of being followed
4:19:53 but hasn't been followed yet. It's not
4:19:55 common for it to be yanked from the CIP.
4:19:57 That's not generally what happens.
4:20:01 Michael, you had a question or comment.
4:20:03 Yeah, I do I just wanted to clarify sort
4:20:06 of to Chaz's point. There's something in
4:20:09 in this um appropriation. It's like a
4:20:12 $300,000
4:20:13 amount that says it's if it's for any
4:20:17 contracts more than $100,000, it will
4:20:19 come before the select board. And I just
4:20:21 wanted to confirm that there will be uh
4:20:27 what there will be a contract that's
4:20:29 over $100,000.
4:20:31 Uh
4:20:33 in terms of in terms of fulfilling this
4:20:36 this project.
4:20:37 Yes.
4:20:37 Okay.
4:20:38 Yes.
4:20:40 So it will definitely come back to the
4:20:42 select board.
4:20:42 Yes.
4:20:43 So I appreciate that it'll come back to
4:20:45 the select board and the acknowledgment
4:20:47 that the issues raised in the uh Murphy
4:20:52 amendment are are valid that still need
4:20:54 further vetting and analysis. My concern
4:20:59 relates more to the timing with the
4:21:01 return of a dark skies related bylaw
4:21:05 because as uh you may recall there uh
4:21:09 was a referral to a moderator's
4:21:11 committee to address dark skies that
4:21:14 will probably be coming back to us at
4:21:17 the November town meeting and that may
4:21:21 or may not have an impact on the
4:21:24 proposal regarding
4:21:26 uh extended hours at the driving range
4:21:29 and I would like to make sure that those
4:21:31 are in harmony. I I think that
4:21:34 procedurally that's a distinction from
4:21:38 uh what you were saying about that we
4:21:40 don't necessarily pull something from
4:21:42 the CIP just because all of the study
4:21:46 hasn't been completed. Here we have a
4:21:48 reasonable certainty that something that
4:21:51 will have a likely will have an impact
4:21:54 in some manner on a proposal is coming
4:21:57 back before us in November. So why
4:21:59 wouldn't we time both of these votes for
4:22:03 November to make sure that they're in
4:22:05 concert with one another?
4:22:07 I would I mean I'll let the project team
4:22:10 answer some of that, but I think a part
4:22:11 of this is right dark sky regulations
4:22:14 there. We have you know draft municipal
4:22:16 ordinances out there that we are
4:22:18 following that we're capable of of
4:22:20 providing. um when you start the
4:22:22 process, when you start the the
4:22:25 development of the design and so forth,
4:22:27 you can say to a developer to the
4:22:29 designer that you want it to be
4:22:30 compliant with the town's future Dark
4:22:32 Skies principles and all of those
4:22:34 things, but if you wait until November
4:22:37 to even know whether or not you're going
4:22:39 to go forward with it, you can't do any
4:22:41 of the other things that you would be
4:22:42 ordinarily be doing to bring the project
4:22:45 forward. um other aspects of the design
4:22:48 for example um the environmental impact
4:22:50 and so forth that needs to be done. So I
4:22:54 think you know putting you know
4:22:56 basically saying we can't do anything
4:22:59 until we get a dark skies bylaw through
4:23:02 is unnecessarily limiting to what they
4:23:05 could be doing while they're waiting for
4:23:06 the dark skies bylaw to come forward.
4:23:09 But would we want to expend resources on
4:23:12 something that may not be able to be
4:23:14 realized ultimately?
4:23:15 Well, if that happens, then it falls
4:23:17 back to free cash, right? And the work
4:23:18 that can be done in those circumstances
4:23:21 is still valuable work. It's valuable
4:23:23 information for the golf course. It's
4:23:25 helpful to them in terms of their
4:23:27 operations and it doesn't have a
4:23:29 negative financial impact on the town,
4:23:31 right? Because it's the use of the golf
4:23:33 course's retained earnings. Um, so Tim
4:23:36 has a comment on timing as well.
4:23:39 Well, that and just no, that's okay. And
4:23:42 to the to the dark skies piece of it,
4:23:44 we're design the design of this project
4:23:46 and the from the beginning has been dark
4:23:47 skies compliant. We're aware of the
4:23:49 draft in mind. The vendors that we're
4:23:51 utilizing for this are aware of the
4:23:53 draft and have extensive experience when
4:23:55 it comes to dark skies. So, we we hear
4:23:58 that concern and and that has been kind
4:24:00 of at the forefront of everything we're
4:24:02 doing when it comes to the design of the
4:24:04 project. Just to to point that piece
4:24:06 out.
4:24:07 Yeah. and dark dark skies doesn't mean
4:24:09 you can't have light. It's just as
4:24:10 guidelines in terms of how to reduce the
4:24:13 amount of light that sort of seeps out
4:24:15 into other areas. And I I guess the
4:24:19 answer it was just given by Tim that you
4:24:22 know they're designing it to meet those
4:24:24 guidelines.
4:24:25 All right. So
4:24:26 I assume those guidelines are are what
4:24:28 is going to be in our bylaw.
4:24:30 So as Bernard Okay, sorry. Go ahead,
4:24:31 Anthony.
4:24:32 No, it's fine. I I just have some money
4:24:34 related questions. Uh, so the project,
4:24:36 how much is it? $300,000, Tim. Is it's
4:24:39 in that range, right?
4:24:40 It's in that range.
4:24:42 And that's coming from our capital
4:24:43 improvement plan budget.
4:24:44 So, no, it's coming from golf.
4:24:46 Go ahead, Melissa. Sorry.
4:24:48 It's coming from the golf enterprise
4:24:49 fund. So, they're they're using their
4:24:52 retained earnings to fund the project,
4:24:54 but it will be transferred out of the
4:24:55 golf budget to a special appropriation.
4:24:57 I understand. So, this isn't touching
4:24:59 town money.
4:25:00 No.
4:25:01 Okay. That changes my calculus. Okay.
4:25:03 Noted. Thanks.
4:25:06 I was just going to ask a logistics
4:25:08 question. The only reason in my head
4:25:10 that you would not move this article is
4:25:13 if there was a chance that lighting
4:25:14 would not occur. Um and it seems like
4:25:18 the
4:25:19 whoever is making I don't know who's
4:25:21 making the decision. I guess that's the
4:25:22 question as to whether lighting is
4:25:25 possible because if um if lighting is
4:25:28 going to happen and they are going to
4:25:30 try to do it in a dark skies compliant
4:25:32 manner already then I don't understand
4:25:35 the weight on releasing money. Yeah.
4:25:38 Um but is is the thought that like the
4:25:40 select board could just say like no
4:25:42 lights on the golf course.
4:25:45 I don't I I think it's more right. It's
4:25:48 it's a question of where are the where
4:25:50 are the checks on the process, right? I
4:25:51 think that's really what it is. It's not
4:25:53 it's less, you know, do you think
4:25:54 there's a risk and more, you know, who
4:25:57 who controls when a project gets to
4:25:59 start. Um, and you know, I I I
4:26:03 understand the concern here because
4:26:04 there is this uncertainty about, you
4:26:06 know, dark skies, but I think I would
4:26:08 hope that, you know, the assurance of
4:26:10 wreck and the fact that there are checks
4:26:12 on this, right? If it if the if it
4:26:13 doesn't check out, right, if we come
4:26:15 back to you and we're like, we know we
4:26:16 said we'd be dark skies compliant, but
4:26:18 just kidding. Here's here are flood
4:26:19 lights. um that wouldn't fly, right?
4:26:22 Parks and Recck wouldn't approve it and
4:26:24 you wouldn't approve it. Um so I think
4:26:28 that's the kind of comfort in terms of
4:26:30 the control over the appropriation that
4:26:32 we're talking about. And I think that's
4:26:34 really what I I don't want to speak for
4:26:36 the petitioner, but I feel like that's
4:26:37 what kind of motivates this concern is
4:26:39 once you once you put it in the CIP, do
4:26:41 you lose all control over it? And is it
4:26:43 possible that they're going to pull a
4:26:45 fast one and install flood lights on the
4:26:47 golf course and we won't have any
4:26:48 opportunity to say anything about it?
4:26:50 And I think in I would hope that in this
4:26:52 conversation the answer to that is no.
4:26:54 You know, we are making a firm
4:26:56 commitment that we're not going to do
4:26:57 that.
4:26:58 Michael, uh, in fairness, you know, and
4:27:01 I spoke with the pet the petitioner
4:27:05 today and yesterday on this and other
4:27:07 matters. Um, in fairness, I think I
4:27:11 think there's there's larger concern
4:27:15 about things other than just the
4:27:17 lighting and things that the lighting
4:27:19 would engender in terms of more activity
4:27:21 at the golf course at later hours in a
4:27:23 residential neighborhood, etc., etc.
4:27:25 Sure.
4:27:26 Um, but I but
4:27:28 to to the point you made, Amanda, I
4:27:30 don't I don't I think that we still have
4:27:32 the controls in place. Um and so um we
4:27:38 don't need to use this as the blocking
4:27:41 gate for consideration of those and the
4:27:44 other issues.
4:27:45 And I will also say that those
4:27:46 conversations have been had though,
4:27:48 right? Those have been had at the parks
4:27:49 and wreck level. Um and those have been
4:27:51 had as part of the presentation of the
4:27:53 wreck budget. When REC presents its
4:27:55 budget, it's presented to the select
4:27:56 board. It's been it's been talked about
4:27:58 now for two years. This idea of we put
4:28:00 lights on the course, it's a on the
4:28:02 driving range. It is a major benefit.
4:28:04 It's a major boon. We understand that
4:28:06 there are drawbacks. There are potential
4:28:08 things that need to be considered. We
4:28:10 need to take the neighbors into
4:28:12 consideration and make sure that we're
4:28:13 not shining lights in their houses and
4:28:15 all of those things that are critically
4:28:17 important to being, you know, a good
4:28:18 neighbor in that neighborhood. Um, and
4:28:20 we have to deal with the impact on, you
4:28:22 know, bird migration, all of that stuff,
4:28:24 which is what the dark skies compliance
4:28:26 is. Um, but those are discussions that
4:28:29 have happened. Um, and I don't I do
4:28:30 think that the will currently, at least
4:28:34 on the at the parks and recck level and
4:28:36 at the in prior iterations of the select
4:28:39 board, has been we should go forward
4:28:41 with this. Now, if that changes, that
4:28:43 changes. That's okay. Um, but I I don't
4:28:46 think we're in a position now where
4:28:48 there's disagreement over does the
4:28:52 project should the project go forward. I
4:28:54 think the parks and recck commission,
4:28:55 and Tim, you can correct me if I'm
4:28:56 wrong. Um the parks and recreation the
4:29:00 parks and recck commission has heard the
4:29:02 concerns expressed that they are valid
4:29:04 concerns but still feels comfortable
4:29:06 moving along with the project at this
4:29:08 stage with the idea that those concerns
4:29:10 will be addressed. So the uh
4:29:12 petitioner's amendment in her memo she
4:29:16 states that the parks and recreation
4:29:19 never explicitly voted on lighting at
4:29:21 the golf course at any point as part of
4:29:23 the master plan. Is that inaccurate?
4:29:27 That's not inaccurate. No, that's that's
4:29:29 not inaccurate. Um this this project is
4:29:32 in response to to demand and again
4:29:35 looking for other avenues on the golf
4:29:37 course to be financially stable. Um as
4:29:39 our um as the needs and the the the
4:29:43 course and the site itself has
4:29:44 progressed. Um where we are with the the
4:29:47 park and rec commission, they've had an
4:29:48 initial uh review of the project.
4:29:51 They've had the initial public hearing
4:29:52 of the project. um they've you know sent
4:29:54 their concerns to us as well as as well
4:29:56 as the neighborhood. Um so we are they
4:29:59 haven't given their official stamp of
4:30:00 approval to move forward. Um but that
4:30:02 will be you know hopefully the next
4:30:04 public meeting that we have to address
4:30:06 their concerns as well as everybody else
4:30:07 to to get the project going.
4:30:09 So I just think we're putting the
4:30:11 proverbial cart before the horse if park
4:30:13 and wreck hasn't even appedined on
4:30:14 something that is in their jurisdiction
4:30:18 essentially. Why would we move ahead of
4:30:21 them? Isn't this in the mini CIP though?
4:30:27 Did they vote to support this as part of
4:30:28 the overall review of the CIP programs?
4:30:31 O
4:30:31 overall review of the CIP. Correct. Yes.
4:30:33 Yeah. So this was included in the CIP
4:30:35 for this year. Um last
4:30:38 we we call it the mini CIP. Parks and
4:30:40 Rec does an evaluation of all the
4:30:41 projects under its purview that included
4:30:43 this. Um and
4:30:46 right so this was part of the parks and
4:30:48 wreck mini CIP moving forward. Could you
4:30:52 They also hold a public hearing on all
4:30:53 their CIP requests. This is the same
4:30:55 process that Erin is trying to replicate
4:30:56 with the transportation board, but it's
4:30:58 been in place for park and wreck for
4:31:00 decades.
4:31:02 Could you detail the uh opportunity cost
4:31:06 of not being able to proceed right away
4:31:09 and taking steps toward having uh
4:31:12 nighttime lighting?
4:31:15 Justin, go ahead.
4:31:16 Go ahead.
4:31:19 I just want to touch on why there's kind
4:31:22 of urgency with the vote now. Um it has
4:31:25 to do with construction timeline. Uh if
4:31:28 we have to wait till November town
4:31:31 meeting for funds to be appropriated,
4:31:34 then we can go out to bid after the
4:31:35 funds are appropriated. If there's no
4:31:37 funding, we really can't go out to bid
4:31:40 uh until it takes place. And then in
4:31:42 terms of snowfall and that sort of
4:31:44 stuff, the construction window then
4:31:45 would go into the golf season to put
4:31:47 lights up. And looking at based on what
4:31:50 we're hearing from the manufacturer,
4:31:52 it's about a month worth of work to do
4:31:54 lights. And that would be uh financially
4:31:58 uh very detrimental to our current
4:32:00 daytime operations to do this project.
4:32:02 So, it's ideally,
4:32:04 you know, slated to do a October to
4:32:07 November when we're, you know, the least
4:32:09 busiest uh during the the the current
4:32:12 golf season the way the calendar year
4:32:14 works out. So, um that's kind of also,
4:32:18 you know, a big reason why um we would
4:32:21 like to have the vote and then let park
4:32:23 and recck make their decision
4:32:25 ultimately.
4:32:26 Anthony.
4:32:27 Um, do we have a do you have an
4:32:29 expectation on revenue generation uh
4:32:32 yearly after this investment?
4:32:34 Yeah. So, conservatively, we looked at
4:32:37 it very conservatively. Um, and right
4:32:39 now we calculated about $157,000
4:32:42 annually
4:32:44 um in in additional revenue that would
4:32:46 be realized.
4:32:47 Is that is that uh is that is that net
4:32:50 after cost of operation during the
4:32:51 hours?
4:32:53 No, that would be gross. the the the
4:32:55 cost of the operation would be, you
4:32:57 know, very minimal manpower. Uh we can
4:33:00 operate at the range with one or two
4:33:02 staff persons. Uh and then the cost of,
4:33:05 you know, the energy cost would be not
4:33:07 very expensive because they're all LED
4:33:09 lights. So, it's not a it's not a huge
4:33:11 uh energy b.
4:33:13 Okay. But you couldn't give me a number
4:33:15 on what it takes to to get me to a net
4:33:18 estimate.
4:33:20 I I don't have that information. We
4:33:22 haven't gone that granular because we're
4:33:23 still finalizing how many actual lights
4:33:26 and uh the final design of the lighting
4:33:29 package.
4:33:30 I gotcha. I'm just trying to I'm just
4:33:31 trying to make sense of I I I understand
4:33:33 like the the golf course wants to expand
4:33:35 its revenue generation in order to
4:33:37 protect its services and I totally get
4:33:40 that. Um, I'm just trying to see if this
4:33:42 is the right path given the community
4:33:44 feedback is fairly not it's not
4:33:47 positive. And so I'm trying to just see
4:33:50 if this is a a good way to invest the
4:33:53 capital you have from my that's the
4:33:56 that's the calculation I'm trying to
4:33:57 make in my mind right now. But thank
4:33:59 you.
4:33:59 And I see Anony's point, but but I add
4:34:02 to that just the procedural order we're
4:34:04 going in. It sounds like the reason you
4:34:07 want this vote now is so you can begin
4:34:10 construction to make the lighting
4:34:12 happen. And we don't even have direction
4:34:15 from uh park and recreation yet that
4:34:17 they even want to go in this direction
4:34:19 specific to lights. There was sort of a
4:34:20 broader uh increase revenue, but not
4:34:24 necessarily the how to do it. And if the
4:34:27 very next meeting it sounds like or very
4:34:29 soon Park and Wreck is going to take
4:34:31 this up, I would prefer that we wait for
4:34:35 their specific recommendation on this.
4:34:37 And I appreciate what you're saying that
4:34:39 you don't want a lot of delay and maybe
4:34:41 park and wreck can get to it before town
4:34:43 meeting even.
4:34:45 Uh looks like you have something to say.
4:34:47 No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
4:34:48 No, that that's basically it.
4:34:50 Yeah,
4:34:51 the sequencing.
4:34:51 Yeah, I think the sequencing is is
4:34:53 problem. you don't have another meeting
4:34:54 before the deadline closes on budget
4:34:56 amendments, right? So, you won't have
4:34:59 the opportunity to take,
4:35:02 you know,
4:35:04 you we would ideally like you to take a
4:35:07 position on this beforehand. Um, and I
4:35:09 think the the the last
4:35:11 to to your point, right, the the
4:35:15 opportunity cost of
4:35:18 or the the potential cost of saying yes
4:35:21 here, I think is amilarated by the fact
4:35:23 that, okay, suppose
4:35:26 we do this, parks and wreck meets, you
4:35:29 know, after town meeting or whenever
4:35:31 they're next scheduled to meet and they
4:35:32 say, you know what, we we've we've
4:35:34 changed our mind. We know this was in
4:35:35 the mini CIP, but we don't see a way of
4:35:37 clear on this. So, we're going to say
4:35:38 no, no, we're not going to do this. At
4:35:40 which point, okay, the money is not
4:35:43 impacting other town projects because
4:35:45 it's coming out of a different source of
4:35:46 funds. It will it will stay in the CIP
4:35:50 um or where it can be reappropriated um
4:35:52 for other purposes. Um and the project
4:35:55 just won't move forward. Um there won't
4:35:57 be a cost um to doing nothing on this
4:36:02 other than, you know, the time invested
4:36:05 to date in moving forward on it. But to
4:36:08 the point of the rec team, if they don't
4:36:10 have the ability to move forward once
4:36:12 they get a green light on it until
4:36:14 November, that's pretty significant and
4:36:16 that's why we're in the position that
4:36:18 we're in. Um, so I'm sorry.
4:36:22 I I just had a logistics question. Um,
4:36:25 this is not AC puts forward the main
4:36:29 budget.
4:36:29 Yes. And if they do not have this
4:36:31 article of appropriation, it would have
4:36:33 to come for from the select port in
4:36:36 order for town meeting to vote on it
4:36:37 or some or another member of town
4:36:39 meeting. Yes.
4:36:40 We would be amending the budget. Yes.
4:36:42 We would be amending the budget which is
4:36:44 why we have the same deadline. Yes. That
4:36:46 we would need to do.
4:36:47 Correct.
4:36:49 Okay. And um one other clarification of
4:36:53 what you said, it's coming out of the
4:36:55 golf revolving fund and if we approve
4:36:59 like if town meeting approves it and the
4:37:03 recreation department or us in one of
4:37:05 these checks is like nope this can't go
4:37:07 forward that money goes back and can be
4:37:09 spent on non-gul related expenses.
4:37:12 I don't
4:37:13 we essentially close the account out in
4:37:15 November. we would basically ask town
4:37:17 meeting to revert the funds back to the
4:37:19 golf enterprise fund
4:37:20 because it can't be used for non-golf
4:37:22 purposes.
4:37:24 I'll just finish with here. I I don't
4:37:26 think I'm comfortable voting on it
4:37:27 without seeing a net revenue calculation
4:37:29 on the money generated because I'm not
4:37:30 convinced that it's a good investment.
4:37:32 So that that's kind of my position.
4:37:36 I'm very comfortable voting on it.
4:37:38 I'm very comfortable voting on it as
4:37:40 well.
4:37:40 Yes, this this is and we can't uh nickel
4:37:43 and dime, you know, them. I mean the the
4:37:45 the costs are according to uh Justin
4:37:49 relatively minor. Whether that's
4:37:51 you know
4:37:52 25% less or 10% less. I mean it's still
4:37:55 a good a good deal for for the golf
4:37:58 course.
4:37:59 Do we know when specifically Park and
4:38:01 Wreck will be taking this up head on?
4:38:04 Jim, we yeah we don't know specifically.
4:38:06 Again, we're we're still flushing out
4:38:08 the actual design and we're having some
4:38:10 holdups with that. So, you know, we're
4:38:12 hopeful in the next few months, but I I
4:38:14 can't dedic I can't um dedicate myself
4:38:16 to an exact date right now,
4:38:18 unfortunately.
4:38:19 Could we perhaps try to bridge this gap
4:38:22 by including another condition that
4:38:24 before the golf course takes any action,
4:38:27 there be a meeting by park and wreck
4:38:29 where they do a thumbs up, thumbs down
4:38:31 on this approach?
4:38:33 So, so are you asking basically the part
4:38:37 the
4:38:38 the golf course to not start their other
4:38:42 processes environmental review and and
4:38:46 so on.
4:38:47 No, spec specifically the moving toward
4:38:50 construction of apparatuses for lighting
4:38:53 until we know that's the direction Park
4:38:55 and Recck will even go in. And
4:38:56 apparently that's imminent. But they
4:38:58 can't do that without going back to
4:39:00 parks and wreck and us anyway.
4:39:03 Right. I
4:39:03 there's a there's an easier way to solve
4:39:05 this is um if you take the language and
4:39:07 instead of having the $100,000 threshold
4:39:10 just have any contracts to be approved
4:39:12 by the park and rec commission and the
4:39:13 select board.
4:39:16 That way anything that is related to
4:39:18 this project would need to go through.
4:39:20 All right. I think that can work.
4:39:22 I I just don't want staff time to be
4:39:25 wasted if parks and wreck shoots this
4:39:28 down in two weeks. I know, but at the
4:39:29 same time, I appreciate the that the
4:39:32 golf course would like to be able to
4:39:34 move sooner if they do get that
4:39:35 approval. I just don't want them wasting
4:39:36 resources if this is going to be
4:39:39 completely blocked off to them as a
4:39:41 path.
4:39:41 But I think you can hear in Justin's,
4:39:44 you know, Justin is being modest, I
4:39:45 think, but like that from a from an
4:39:47 operations perspective, this means a lot
4:39:49 to the golf course. um it's it's a
4:39:51 priority for them. But that with that
4:39:52 said, if it's not a priority for the
4:39:54 community, then it won't happen. Um and
4:39:56 that's that's that's the brakes. You
4:39:58 know, the what the community wants goes.
4:40:00 Um
4:40:01 but I think Melissa just suggested
4:40:03 wording that would be this except
4:40:05 getting rid of over $100,000.
4:40:08 Yep.
4:40:09 Yeah.
4:40:09 And that basically means right before
4:40:10 anything moves forward, parks and wreck
4:40:12 has to give a sign off. That's the other
4:40:14 thing, too. This is this is now we're
4:40:15 getting into like budget 301. But when
4:40:18 it comes to Rex's budget, parks and
4:40:20 wreck actually has a lot of control over
4:40:21 it. Um, in a way it doesn't over the
4:40:23 parks department. So that there there is
4:40:26 enforcable
4:40:28 action there because it's a wreck
4:40:29 project.
4:40:30 Okay. Can we have a motion?
4:40:33 I can make the the motion to appropriate
4:40:35 $300,000 or any other sum to be expended
4:40:37 under the direction of the recreation
4:40:39 director with uh with any necessary
4:40:42 contracts to be approved by the select
4:40:44 board and parks and rec commission for
4:40:46 lighting at the golf course driving
4:40:47 range.
4:40:48 If I could just amend that slightly, the
4:40:51 are any other sum gets struck when we
4:40:53 have an actual budget motion. So that
4:40:54 language would just be um you just need
4:40:57 to strike or any other sum. It's
4:40:59 300,000.
4:41:00 Appropriate 300,000 to be expended under
4:41:02 the direction of the recreation director
4:41:04 with any necessary contracts to be
4:41:07 approved by the select board and parks
4:41:08 and recck commission for lighting in the
4:41:10 golf course driving range.
4:41:11 Okay.
4:41:12 Okay,
4:41:12 I'll make that.
4:41:14 All right, Bernard.
4:41:15 Yes.
4:41:16 Michael,
4:41:17 yes.
4:41:18 Amanda,
4:41:19 yes.
4:41:19 Anthony,
4:41:21 no.
4:41:25 You can vote no. Oh, I mean I I I think
4:41:28 I'll go no. I I appreciate the direction
4:41:31 this went, but still I I prefer
4:41:34 sequencing wise that we would have heard
4:41:35 from parks and wreck first, and I don't
4:41:37 know why they haven't voted on this yet.
4:41:41 But the the yeses have it,
4:41:43 right?
4:41:45 Okay. So, with that,
4:41:47 the final piece in the budget that um
4:41:49 I'd like the board to weigh in on is the
4:41:51 uh change in town council's budget. They
4:41:54 um the advisory committee has reduced
4:41:56 their budget by 31,000 and added that to
4:41:58 the council on aging. If you have the
4:42:00 combined reports in front of you, um you
4:42:03 would want to look on page 8-18
4:42:06 where they provide some narrative that
4:42:08 talks about uh what led to that
4:42:10 decision. And I can um I'll copy the
4:42:12 link for the combined reports in case
4:42:14 you need to access it and put that in
4:42:16 the chat.
4:42:20 Does the Council of Aging did they
4:42:22 request more of a budget?
4:42:24 No, they actually don't. That's not what
4:42:26 they want.
4:42:29 What Council on Aging doesn't want the
4:42:31 additional money.
4:42:31 The director So,
4:42:32 so the the the Council on Aging thinks
4:42:35 that the the the Council on Aging is
4:42:38 very supportive of additional funding
4:42:40 for transportation and members of the
4:42:43 Council on Aging um are also advisory
4:42:46 committee members. when they made the
4:42:47 motion, the intent was to fund for
4:42:49 transportation. Um, they did not talk to
4:42:51 the director in advance of of that
4:42:53 making that motion to understand what
4:42:56 the priorities of the department might
4:42:58 be. Um, I believe if Emily was given the
4:43:00 chance to formulate a budget proposal,
4:43:02 it likely would be um to help with some
4:43:04 administrative burdens that they have uh
4:43:06 at the Council on Aging. But um I
4:43:09 believe that the council is
4:43:12 um you know supportive of this. Um but
4:43:15 obviously you know I always when people
4:43:18 are making budget motions it's always
4:43:20 good to talk with the department head in
4:43:21 advance so that you can understand how
4:43:24 the realities of how this would be
4:43:25 implemented
4:43:26 right so I should I should the senior
4:43:29 center the director of the senior center
4:43:31 is not supportive of this she would
4:43:33 rather if she going to give her extra
4:43:34 money she'd rather it go somewhere else
4:43:36 but this is also not
4:43:40 we we haven't had this happen before um
4:43:42 for obvious reasons we haven't had a
4:43:44 situation where someone has said, "We're
4:43:46 going to take money from one department,
4:43:48 give it to another department." Um, not
4:43:50 for any specific project, but because we
4:43:54 don't think that department is spending
4:43:55 its money wisely.
4:43:57 And can someone answer to the risk of
4:44:02 taking money from town council's budget?
4:44:04 So, town council's budget is town
4:44:07 council is a good steward of money. He
4:44:10 turns back money on a regular basis, but
4:44:12 he has plans that he would like to
4:44:14 continue to expand outward. He would
4:44:15 like to continue to have legal interns
4:44:17 and continue to do, you know, these
4:44:19 projects. It just it creates less of a
4:44:21 cushion. Um, you know, we don't know
4:44:24 what the, you know, expenses will be in
4:44:27 any given year in terms of his budget
4:44:29 for outside investigations or needing
4:44:32 outside counsel or what have you. So, if
4:44:34 you reduce this,
4:44:36 you know, um, you know, the other thing
4:44:38 he's expressed interest in is he would
4:44:40 like to reclassify some of his staff and
4:44:42 he would take money out of this line
4:44:44 item to do it, but he wouldn't have that
4:44:46 money anymore, so he couldn't reclassify
4:44:48 staff. So, those are the those are the
4:44:50 concerns that he's raised. Michael,
4:44:52 um has is there any argument
4:44:56 for making this transfer besides
4:45:00 um the AC's
4:45:04 uh opinion of
4:45:07 the town council's capacity to do their
4:45:10 job?
4:45:12 I don't see anything in the report. I
4:45:14 don't know what their what the
4:45:15 discussion was like.
4:45:16 It's just retaliation.
4:45:17 Yeah. Yeah.
4:45:18 So, let's be honest. Let's Let's
4:45:21 And that's a bad precedent.
4:45:22 Yeah, it's a terrible precedent.
4:45:25 All right. So, I think we see the will
4:45:28 of the board here. Uh so, does somebody
4:45:30 want to make a motion on the AC
4:45:34 amendment
4:45:35 regarding the 31,000 reduction to the
4:45:37 office?
4:45:38 How how would we make a motion that says
4:45:39 no? Would it be no action on on the
4:45:42 amendment or
4:45:43 Well, it's not an amendment. It's their
4:45:44 budget. Um well, when when we've had
4:45:46 these issues in the past, how we've
4:45:50 the select board just submit a
4:45:51 substitute motion. Right.
4:45:52 I would provide amended budget tables
4:45:54 that essentially um restores the
4:45:56 original appropriation recommendations
4:45:58 which um provided 31,000 to town council
4:46:01 and would reduce 31,000 in council on
4:46:03 aging
4:46:04 and that's and that would be part of an
4:46:06 omnibus substitute motion that you would
4:46:08 make including the
4:46:09 we'd have to make a clean motion to the
4:46:11 board. Yeah, we would basically have the
4:46:13 motion which would replicate most of the
4:46:14 advisory committee motion but you would
4:46:16 have two distinct changes here. you
4:46:18 would have the um the change in the uh
4:46:21 budget amounts for town council on aging
4:46:23 and town council and then you also have
4:46:25 the motion that you just adopted um on
4:46:27 the roadway uh work as well.
4:46:32 So what do we need to vote? Thank you so
4:46:35 much.
4:46:35 You would just vote to make a substitute
4:46:36 motion that that um that it restores
4:46:40 $31,000.
4:46:41 I I move we make a substitute motion
4:46:43 restoring $31,000 to town council
4:46:46 by reducing the council on aging budget.
4:46:48 by the same amount
4:46:49 and including the CIP.
4:46:53 Do we need to do that?
4:46:54 You've already made those. We can
4:46:55 consolidate all of these proposals into
4:46:58 a single omnibus motion.
4:46:59 Any further discussion?
4:47:00 I'm just going to flag that that will
4:47:02 mean a certain discussion is going to be
4:47:04 on the floor of town meeting.
4:47:05 Um, and just everyone should be aware of
4:47:09 that coming.
4:47:10 Yes.
4:47:11 Well, I mean, my hope my hope would be
4:47:12 that we that discussions are had prior
4:47:15 to that. Um, and maybe we can avoid that
4:47:17 conversation. Maybe we can
4:47:19 maybe we can work something out.
4:47:20 There's still time.
4:47:21 Okay. All right. Bernard, your vote.
4:47:24 Yes.
4:47:25 Michael,
4:47:25 yes.
4:47:26 Amanda,
4:47:27 yes.
4:47:27 Anthony,
4:47:28 abstain.
4:47:29 And I vote yes. All right. With that, we
4:47:33 will now move on to article 9, FY27 CPA
4:47:39 appropriations.
4:47:41 Oh, article 9.
4:47:42 Easy as it should be.
4:47:45 Well, you could decide to make it easy
4:47:46 or not. The advisory committee
4:47:48 essentially voted to divide the
4:47:49 question. So, I do have their motion. Uh
4:47:52 it would require several series of votes
4:47:54 should um the board choose to do this.
4:47:56 Um your current position now is the
4:47:58 petitioner motion which is included in
4:48:00 the combined reports which is just one
4:48:02 vote for all the recommendations under
4:48:04 the CPA. Um, so the board can decide
4:48:07 whether that whether or not they want to
4:48:08 support dividing the question or whether
4:48:10 they want to keep with the motion that
4:48:12 they currently have in the combined
4:48:13 reports.
4:48:14 Did AC vote down any of the projects or
4:48:17 did they
4:48:17 I don't believe that they did. I think
4:48:19 they just wanted to make sure that there
4:48:20 was an opportunity for everyone to weigh
4:48:22 in separately on each project like they
4:48:24 did with the CIP.
4:48:25 And I certainly see the merits to that
4:48:27 position. So my position would be we
4:48:29 adopt the AC motion on this.
4:48:31 I agree.
4:48:33 Any other thoughts?
4:48:35 I don't have a strong opinion. I do
4:48:37 think it's worth us thinking about the
4:48:39 division between categories for the CPA
4:48:42 and this might be a way to get town
4:48:44 meeting to start thinking about how they
4:48:46 get awarded.
4:48:48 The the other thing u my question which
4:48:50 I know the answer to is what does the uh
4:48:53 CPA committee think of this idea? Do
4:48:56 they have an argument for or again? I
4:49:01 think that they if the if town meeting
4:49:03 is supportive of dividing the question,
4:49:04 I think that that would probably change
4:49:06 the way that they formulate their motion
4:49:08 going forward.
4:49:11 I'm sorry, formulate their motion going
4:49:13 forward in subsequent town meeting
4:49:15 in the same manner. Basically, if this
4:49:17 is the desire of town meeting is to have
4:49:19 the question divided so that they can
4:49:20 individually vote projects, then I would
4:49:22 imagine that that would inform the way
4:49:24 that they work going forward.
4:49:25 Okay. So, so you're saying that they
4:49:26 don't really have a really strong
4:49:29 objection to do this or you not
4:49:32 if the motion is going to be made every
4:49:33 year to divide the question in this
4:49:34 manner in order to be able to do this
4:49:36 then I would imagine that they would
4:49:37 probably want to just move forward and
4:49:40 and present it in that way.
4:49:42 Okay. All right. So I'll go ahead and
4:49:44 move that we adopt the advisory
4:49:47 committee motion for article 9 for a
4:49:50 divided question.
4:49:51 Bernard,
4:49:52 yes.
4:49:53 Michael,
4:49:54 yes.
4:49:55 Amanda,
4:49:55 yes.
4:49:56 Anthony,
4:49:57 yes.
4:49:57 And I also vote yes.
4:50:00 Um I procedurally we probably should
4:50:02 have had you reconsider your earlier
4:50:03 motion and then take
4:50:06 So first
4:50:08 I uh move that we reconsider our prior
4:50:11 vote on article 9 FY27 CPA
4:50:14 appropriations.
4:50:15 Yes.
4:50:16 Michael
4:50:18 Amanda.
4:50:18 Yes.
4:50:20 Anthony.
4:50:20 No. Yes. I'm just kidding.
4:50:22 And I also uh vote yes. Just as a as a
4:50:25 technical matter, the two of you may
4:50:27 want to consider abstaining because you
4:50:29 weren't here for that vote.
4:50:32 I I think town council, can we have an
4:50:34 opinion on that?
4:50:35 And this has come up before with new
4:50:37 members.
4:50:37 Oh, right. If you're recon.
4:50:38 Oh, yeah. That's interesting.
4:50:40 So, good evening, Joe Call and Town
4:50:43 Council. Actually, I have a memo uh in
4:50:46 draft forum to uh advise people about
4:50:48 abstaining, and you do not have to.
4:50:50 Okay. uh
4:50:52 you know there's there's uh there's
4:50:54 requirements when you do but if it's
4:50:56 just simply um that I wasn't here before
4:51:00 you can rely on kind of the good faith
4:51:03 of the board before or the staff uh in
4:51:06 preparing minutes but you're not
4:51:07 obligated to abstain just because you
4:51:10 weren't um you know at the meeting
4:51:12 before. There is what's called the
4:51:14 Mullen rule which applies to planning
4:51:16 boards and kind of permitting but that
4:51:18 doesn't apply. Um, so my advice is if
4:51:22 you can, you know, trust the staff and
4:51:24 your prior board, you could, uh, you
4:51:26 know, vote on the on the on the question
4:51:29 before you, even if you weren't here at
4:51:30 that meeting before.
4:51:32 All right. Thank you. Okay. So now then
4:51:36 we can vote on adopting the advisory
4:51:38 committee's motion for article 9 FY27
4:51:41 CPA appropriations.
4:51:42 Yes.
4:51:42 Bernard,
4:51:43 yes.
4:51:44 Amanda,
4:51:45 yes.
4:51:45 Anthony,
4:51:46 yes.
4:51:46 And I also vote yes. Thank you, Melissa,
4:51:49 for catching that. So, with that, we
4:51:51 will now move on to article 11,
4:51:53 committee on town organization and
4:51:56 structure, charge, and composition.
4:51:59 I'm going to turn this one over to Dick
4:52:00 Benoa, who I think provided you with an
4:52:02 update and a memo.
4:52:07 Thank you very much. And I see that
4:52:09 Rebecca Stone is also here, the uh lead
4:52:12 petitioner on this article. Um,
4:52:17 Rebecca, I'm happy to just do a quick
4:52:19 summary if uh if that's okay with you.
4:52:23 Be more than happy to have you do that,
4:52:24 D. Thank you.
4:52:25 Okay. Uh, I'm Dick Ben, town meeting
4:52:28 member, precinct 14, and a member of the
4:52:31 committee on town organization and
4:52:33 structure. Let me add my congratulations
4:52:36 to the uh new board in terms of the new
4:52:39 members and the new positions. Um and uh
4:52:44 turning uh very quickly to article 11
4:52:49 um there has been agreement uh between
4:52:51 the petitioners, the advisory committee
4:52:54 and CTO and S and uh that agreement is
4:53:00 uh set forth on page 550
4:53:05 out of 573 of your packet for today's
4:53:09 meeting. Um the vote uh is is there both
4:53:13 in uh the form that shows the changes
4:53:16 from the existing uh warrant uh the
4:53:19 existing bylaw and also in a clean
4:53:22 format. Uh according to Sandy Gatsby who
4:53:25 will be moderating this warrant article
4:53:28 uh what you see on page 550 to 551
4:53:33 will be considered the main motion. Uh
4:53:36 the uh explanations uh for the changes
4:53:41 from the uh original warrant article uh
4:53:45 are set forth in the original filing uh
4:53:51 by CTOS for the combined reports. That's
4:53:54 on page 545 of your packet. Uh in
4:53:58 addition to that uh petitioners uh
4:54:00 determined uh to retain uh appointment
4:54:04 by the moderator uh before the uh
4:54:07 warrant article reached CTO and s
4:54:10 subsequent to that uh the advisory
4:54:13 subsequent to the CTO and S vote that's
4:54:16 uh reported on page 545 in the combined
4:54:20 reports um there was action by the
4:54:23 advisory committee which made a couple
4:54:26 of clarify ing edits. Uh CTO and S
4:54:30 accepted those this past Monday. So at
4:54:33 that point, uh COS, the advisory
4:54:36 committee, and the petitioners were all
4:54:38 in agreement. I am happy if you would
4:54:41 like to go through the halfozen or more
4:54:45 changes from the original warrant
4:54:47 article, but they are uh set forth um in
4:54:51 your packets starting on page 545.
4:54:56 If I could just add one one clarifying
4:54:59 thing. Thank you, Dick, for for
4:55:00 summarizing the um the roller coaster
4:55:03 we've been having um on this one. Um the
4:55:07 bottom line is that the that the main
4:55:10 motion now before you for um I hope your
4:55:14 approval um focuses in the change to CTO
4:55:19 and S's general duties. it basically we
4:55:23 went back to original language in a
4:55:26 couple of different places to retain
4:55:28 abilities to do reviews on a on a
4:55:31 periodic basis at their discretion um
4:55:34 that that CTOS already had. So
4:55:38 essentially we went back to the original
4:55:40 um version of CTONS's bylaw and simply
4:55:43 added the requirement for a dennial
4:55:46 review of government and structure. Um
4:55:49 so that's what's changed here. It's the
4:55:52 core of what we wanted. Um, which is why
4:55:54 petitioners are are fine with this
4:55:56 version. Um, and it gives CTONS the
4:55:59 ability to um to do to determine the
4:56:02 scope of those reviews. Um, which
4:56:04 believed was was implicit in the
4:56:06 original language, but CTONS wanted
4:56:09 spelled out and so it's spelled out. Um,
4:56:12 there you go.
4:56:14 All right. Any questions or comments by
4:56:17 board members?
4:56:18 So, everyone's on board with the same
4:56:20 version.
4:56:21 It appears that way.
4:56:24 Yes, everyone's on.
4:56:25 Yes.
4:56:26 All right, then. I move favorable action
4:56:29 on warrant article 11 as amended.
4:56:32 Did we already vote on this one before?
4:56:34 Yes,
4:56:34 we did. Okay. So, first move to
4:56:37 reconsider our decision, our prior
4:56:40 decision on article 11. Bernard,
4:56:42 yes.
4:56:43 Michael,
4:56:44 yes.
4:56:45 Amanda,
4:56:46 yes.
4:56:47 Anthony,
4:56:48 yes.
4:56:48 I also vote yes. All
4:56:50 right. Now, I move favorable action on
4:56:52 article 11 as amended.
4:56:55 Yes.
4:56:55 Bernard says yes.
4:56:57 Yes.
4:56:58 Anthony,
4:56:59 yes.
4:56:59 And I also vote yes. Thank you very much
4:57:02 to the petitioners.
4:57:05 Thank you.
4:57:06 With that, we now move to article 12.
4:57:14 We put article 12 on because we were
4:57:16 anticipating that the advisory committee
4:57:17 would be taking a position. I don't have
4:57:19 a report from them yet, so I have
4:57:20 nothing to share with you. So, we can
4:57:22 just skip this and have it at your next
4:57:24 meeting.
4:57:25 All right. I love that. Article 13. And
4:57:29 we have
4:57:29 So, article 13. Um, I think the town
4:57:32 clerk has joined us, but um the advisory
4:57:34 committee does have a motion under this
4:57:36 article. They turned it into a
4:57:37 resolution. Um, so I have that on my
4:57:39 screen right here, so you can see um
4:57:41 what the advisory committee voted.
4:57:48 All right. Thank you. And we also have
4:57:51 the petitioner for war article 13
4:57:54 present as always whether she's a
4:57:56 petitioner or not. Uh Regina, would you
4:57:59 like to be heard on this?
4:58:08 Thank you. Froley, the petitioner uh for
4:58:11 13.
4:58:13 I'm keeping my article as a bylaw for
4:58:16 now, but I've been very pleased with
4:58:19 Harry Boes and the efforts on the part
4:58:21 of the advisory committee to push this
4:58:24 along because the consensus was
4:58:27 universal that there needs to be some
4:58:28 evening hours. The the compromise was to
4:58:33 give the clerk a lot more time to get it
4:58:35 together. Uh I haven't heard a word from
4:58:37 the clerk since I've done this, so this
4:58:40 is the first I'm hearing he's even
4:58:41 online.
4:58:43 So, if there's any questions, I'd be
4:58:45 glad to answer.
4:58:47 Michael,
4:58:48 so I just want to make sure I understood
4:58:50 what you said. Um, did you you said
4:58:53 you're keeping the bylaw version for
4:58:55 now. Does that mean you're not accepting
4:58:57 the amendments from the AC?
4:58:59 I'm keeping my options open.
4:59:02 Several people on the committee voted no
4:59:05 to Harry's amendment because they wanted
4:59:08 me to keep the um keep it as a bylaw.
4:59:11 So, I'm keeping the option open for now
4:59:14 and you do what you're going to do.
4:59:16 Okay.
4:59:17 But I'm very pleased with the efforts
4:59:19 that uh Harry has made.
4:59:21 All right. We we have the town clerk on.
4:59:24 Uh Ben, if we could have your opinion on
4:59:26 the Warren article, your thoughts.
4:59:30 Uh sure. I I I shared much of my uh my
4:59:32 thoughts in the uh memo that I uh sent
4:59:35 to the select board. I think a couple
4:59:36 weeks ago, you guys had a meeting
4:59:38 shortly before the election. and I was
4:59:39 unable to attend due to it conflicting
4:59:41 with the deadline for vote by mail
4:59:42 ballots uh to be sent out. Um but uh in
4:59:46 the memo I outlined some of the cost
4:59:48 constraints uh that this would impose on
4:59:50 the clerk's office. Um even if it was a
4:59:52 situation where we simply offered
4:59:53 overtime to staff um it would run close
4:59:56 to $10,000 and a budget that my office
4:59:58 currently doesn't have. Um as well as
5:00:00 some of these staffing constraints. uh
5:00:02 would be likely subject to collective
5:00:04 bargaining and there's been a general
5:00:05 shift among staff uh away from being
5:00:08 interested in uh taking overtime even
5:00:10 when it is paid at that overtime rate.
5:00:12 So having staff available for these
5:00:14 evening hours uh would be uh a burden on
5:00:17 the clerk's office. Um at the request of
5:00:19 the advisory committee, I reached out to
5:00:20 a number of neighboring and peer
5:00:22 communities um to ask them how they
5:00:24 operate evening hours. Um num a number
5:00:27 of our neighboring communities, Boston,
5:00:29 uh Newton, they do not offer evening
5:00:31 hours. Uh Welssley used to offer evening
5:00:33 hours, but they saw low utilization. So
5:00:35 they've actually stopped offer offering
5:00:37 evening hours as well. And those
5:00:39 communities I was able to speak to uh
5:00:41 which were mostly peer communities uh
5:00:43 Belmont, Plymouth, Dam, Arlington, and
5:00:45 Lexington uh all shared three things in
5:00:48 common. Uh the first was that in no
5:00:51 situation is only the clerk's office
5:00:53 open uh evening hours. In many cases,
5:00:55 it's actually the entire town hall, or
5:00:57 at least many departments within town
5:00:58 hall. In all of those communities, they
5:01:01 uh accommodated this by adjusting the
5:01:03 operating hours of town hall itself,
5:01:05 often either opening later, closing
5:01:07 earlier, or being closed entirely on
5:01:09 Fridays. Um, in all of these
5:01:12 communities, the clerks uh when they
5:01:14 corresponded with me indicated that
5:01:16 utilization of evening hours at the
5:01:18 clerk's office was actually very low. Uh
5:01:20 we've put a number of our services now
5:01:21 are available online or available
5:01:24 through the Dropbox um and don't require
5:01:26 a visit to town hall um and that they've
5:01:28 seen in their communities um that
5:01:30 there's more utilization for example in
5:01:32 the treasurer's office paying bills or
5:01:34 with the human resources department
5:01:36 doing um onboarding work um but they're
5:01:38 not seeing that kind of traffic in the
5:01:40 clerk's office. Um, so I'm happy
5:01:42 obviously to explore uh the possibility
5:01:45 to have conversations with the union
5:01:47 about what those potential costs could
5:01:49 be. Um, but we want to make sure that we
5:01:51 are uh allocating our very limited
5:01:54 budget um to the highest needs and the
5:01:56 highest uh ways that we can serve serve
5:01:58 the public. Um, one other note that I
5:02:01 will have, there will likely be other
5:02:02 knock-on costs, um, that are also worth
5:02:04 exploring. Um, both in terms of the
5:02:06 actual application, uh, you know, things
5:02:08 like having to, uh, have, uh, electric
5:02:11 costs for extra hours the town hall is
5:02:13 open, custodial costs, um, potential
5:02:15 safety concerns of having, uh, the town
5:02:17 hall open with only one department
5:02:18 present. Um, as well as concerns for uh
5:02:21 how the CL clerk's office is going to
5:02:23 staff some of its other
5:02:24 responsibilities, especially related to
5:02:26 things like elections uh and town
5:02:28 meeting where staff is already uh
5:02:31 working uh excessive amounts of overtime
5:02:34 um and uh working quite extensively uh
5:02:36 not even at town hall, often over at the
5:02:38 high school during town meeting um and
5:02:40 how that can be uh accommodated within
5:02:43 uh a requirement of having two staff in
5:02:44 the clerk's office uh away from those
5:02:46 responsibilities. So, I certainly hear
5:02:50 the the concern, the request. Um, I'm
5:02:52 proud of the efforts we've made uh in
5:02:54 the clerk's office since COVID to make
5:02:56 sure our resources are available online.
5:02:59 Um, there is only one item that the
5:03:01 clerk's office uh one service the
5:03:02 clerk's office has available to the
5:03:04 public that requires in-person
5:03:06 attendance. Uh, and that is filing a
5:03:07 marriage intention. Um, other than that,
5:03:09 uh, we've put everything online.
5:03:11 Everything is available by Dropbox and
5:03:13 I'm very proud of the work that's been
5:03:14 done there. Um, so that's some of the
5:03:16 background on it and obviously I'm happy
5:03:17 to answer any of the board's questions.
5:03:19 So could you expand a little on the
5:03:22 overtime ramifications and costs of
5:03:26 having evening hours if for example
5:03:29 uh Brookline adopted the model where you
5:03:32 town hall opens later uh where it's the
5:03:35 same number of hours. So it's not
5:03:36 necessarily adding hours onto a person's
5:03:39 workload, but shifting them around and
5:03:41 maybe staggered start times. Sure. So,
5:03:45 uh, so if there was a change wholesale
5:03:47 in the operating hours of town hall, um,
5:03:50 so that staff stayed at their, you know,
5:03:52 regular within the regular confines of
5:03:53 working hours, uh, I would have to speak
5:03:55 with the union. I'm not sure if having
5:03:56 one longer day might impact bargaining
5:03:59 because, uh, my understanding is that
5:04:01 overtime can kick in after a certain
5:04:02 number of hours worked in a day. Um,
5:04:05 but, uh, that would require a full shift
5:04:07 in the timing of a town hall. Um, it's
5:04:10 been kind of generally understood during
5:04:12 the advisory committee and and I believe
5:04:14 this very much so that having the town
5:04:16 clerk's office open at the same hours as
5:04:18 the rest of town hall is very important.
5:04:20 Um, I don't think it would be
5:04:21 appropriate, for example, uh, for the
5:04:23 town clerk's office to open at 11:00
5:04:25 a.m. on Thursday and stay open late uh,
5:04:28 while the rest of town hall is still
5:04:29 open at 8 a.m. Um, because you'll then
5:04:31 have three hours where uh, people might
5:04:32 come in and we actually do see a decent
5:04:34 amount of usage uh, in the morning. and
5:04:36 that's typically our busiest time in the
5:04:37 clerk's office. Coming in with the
5:04:39 expectation the clerk's office is open
5:04:40 and it is not otherwise. Um so reducing
5:04:43 hours of the operations of town hall is
5:04:46 a much larger conversation and one that
5:04:48 uh would involve much more than my
5:04:50 department. Um but uh uh that would be a
5:04:53 way to do this without having to do the
5:04:55 overtime within the current requirements
5:04:57 of our operating hours 8 to 5 Monday
5:04:59 through Thursday 8 to 12:30 on Friday.
5:05:01 Um it would be imposing additional
5:05:03 overtime. And my understanding when this
5:05:05 was implemented before was that uh staff
5:05:07 were paid overtime for working those
5:05:09 extra hours.
5:05:11 What about staggered hours for
5:05:13 employees? So it's longer hours in
5:05:16 general that the clerk's office is open,
5:05:18 but for any individual employee, their
5:05:21 hours aren't changing. So you'd have two
5:05:22 shifts within the same day, for example.
5:05:25 Certainly. One of the reasons why we do
5:05:27 not like doing that is because of the
5:05:29 volume of work that comes into the
5:05:31 clerk's office. We typically see our
5:05:33 largest uh amount of visits, whether
5:05:36 it's at the counter, on the phone, uh
5:05:38 happen in the morning between the hours
5:05:39 of 8 and 10. So having us be short
5:05:42 staffed during those hours um would
5:05:44 really compromise our ability to
5:05:46 effectively serve the public. And that's
5:05:48 why we uh are I am uh very hesitant to
5:05:52 have half staff essentially run at that
5:05:54 time. There's a requirement because uh
5:05:57 of the union uh work that's done by
5:06:00 staff at the front of house that it
5:06:02 needs to be covered by union staff. Uh
5:06:04 my office has three and a half uh union
5:06:07 staff uh currently assigned to it. So if
5:06:10 you were to have two of those come in
5:06:11 late uh to cover the evening hours, you
5:06:13 would be essentially running one and a
5:06:15 half person covering the front counter
5:06:17 um which uh is a very low number for the
5:06:20 workload that we see especially during
5:06:21 the morning hours. And in terms of
5:06:24 sorry, just my last question. In terms
5:06:26 of the traffic to uh the clerk's office,
5:06:29 do you formally track this? Is it
5:06:31 anecdotal?
5:06:33 Uh we don't have formal tracking
5:06:35 numbers. Uh much of it is anecdotal. Um
5:06:37 we could certainly pull numbers such as
5:06:39 if there's uh date stamps on the
5:06:41 transactions that go through. Um but for
5:06:43 the most part, basically from when staff
5:06:45 clock in until lunch, uh what they are
5:06:47 handling is front of counter and phone
5:06:49 call work. For the most part, we aren't
5:06:51 able to shift staff over to back of
5:06:53 housework until after the lunch break
5:06:55 because that's when we do see a lull in
5:06:57 traffic. So I will say anecdotally as
5:06:59 the general operations of the clerk's
5:07:00 office things like uh you know going and
5:07:03 processing a large number of dog
5:07:04 licenses that came in online that work
5:07:06 is generally done in the afternoon
5:07:08 because that's when we see a lightning
5:07:09 of the foot traffic that's actually
5:07:11 coming into the clerk's office while
5:07:13 that foot traffic is much heavier uh in
5:07:15 the morning and typically doesn't allow
5:07:16 staff uh to come away from the counter
5:07:18 or come away from the phones.
5:07:20 Thank you. Any other questions for
5:07:22 I have a couple of comments I'd like to
5:07:23 add. I will go to you eventually. Just
5:07:25 letting everyone ask Ben just people had
5:07:26 an opportunity to ask you questions. Go
5:07:28 ahead.
5:07:28 My my question is whether your idea of
5:07:31 having people come in late um and and
5:07:34 then work in the evening is outside of
5:07:36 the scope of this article. I this just
5:07:39 says town clerk office will offer at
5:07:42 least two additional office hours. Um
5:07:46 well so I'm not I'm not sure it's even
5:07:48 relevant, but maybe it is. I I'm not
5:07:50 proposing specific textual changes to
5:07:53 the Warrant article, just trying to
5:07:54 understand the different ways that I get
5:07:56 the clerk's office could fulfill the
5:07:58 terms of the article as written.
5:08:00 Yeah,
5:08:01 I think David's line of questioning
5:08:04 lends credence to the idea of passing
5:08:07 the supporting the resolution, allowing
5:08:10 the town clerk to figure out how he
5:08:11 could possibly logistically accomplish
5:08:13 it. Um, and then come back to us and be
5:08:15 like, "Hey, this is how I could do it if
5:08:17 you really want it." Um,
5:08:20 But that isn't our option to say no
5:08:23 action on the on the warrant article.
5:08:27 Yeah. On the warrant or on the on the on
5:08:29 the bylaw version. Yeah.
5:08:33 Which one is before us or on both?
5:08:36 Both are before you? There are competing
5:08:38 motions.
5:08:39 All right. Regina, you had some more
5:08:40 comments.
5:08:40 Yes. Um, a couple of you heard me say
5:08:43 this, but there were two new people here
5:08:44 and they may not have heard me say this.
5:08:47 Um, I went out and spoke at length with
5:08:50 former town clerk Pat Ward, who for
5:08:53 30some years had the evening hours. He
5:08:57 did not think it was a problem. He said
5:08:59 that it cost him overtime for about two
5:09:03 months
5:09:04 and then he made it a condition of
5:09:06 employment and they rotated so that the
5:09:09 staff would rotate as to which one
5:09:12 stayed at the counter. And of course,
5:09:13 the town clerk or his assistant has to
5:09:16 usually be there for any questions that
5:09:19 the staff is not always trained to
5:09:21 answer, as many of us know. So, he did
5:09:24 not see that as a big cost the way we're
5:09:28 hearing it here because it it wouldn't
5:09:30 end up being uh time and a half later.
5:09:34 Did Did he give you any indication as to
5:09:36 utilization of those evening hours?
5:09:39 Um he said it was very busy and and
5:09:41 several people town meeting members
5:09:44 because town meetings were not done on
5:09:46 Zoom as they consistently seem to be now
5:09:49 but in fact every night of the week
5:09:50 there was something going on at in
5:09:53 person at town hall. Many of us use
5:09:55 those services. Um I have found that
5:09:58 when I've gone in even during the day to
5:10:01 see if they if I could look up meetings
5:10:04 unfortunately staff had not kept a book.
5:10:07 They didn't know what I was talking
5:10:08 about, but it used to be kept all the
5:10:10 time at the counter and you could tell
5:10:11 what meetings were on that day, what
5:10:13 time they were, etc., etc. So, that was
5:10:16 one of the main things that many of us
5:10:17 used used it for. Um, but ultimately,
5:10:21 this is a service to the public. It
5:10:23 would need time to catch up on it, but
5:10:26 ultimately
5:10:28 um we need to be able to provide a
5:10:31 service. And if every other community is
5:10:33 doing it, and we always did it very
5:10:36 successfully and it was within budget,
5:10:39 why are we not even considering doing
5:10:42 it? At least the clerk has made it very
5:10:44 clear he doesn't want to do it.
5:10:45 Michael,
5:10:46 um I'm wondering in your conversations
5:10:48 with the clerk whether um whether you uh
5:10:54 established of the services that were
5:10:57 being offered and people took advantage
5:10:58 of the in the evening. How many of those
5:11:01 services are currently available online?
5:11:06 I'm not sure, but I'm the worst person
5:11:08 to say go online. I don't believe in it.
5:11:11 I think that we should make it for I
5:11:14 have constituents who don't have a
5:11:15 computer
5:11:17 and I I have to call one in particular
5:11:20 to tell her anything because she she is
5:11:22 adamant about not having one. So, I
5:11:25 mean, you have to to go to the least
5:11:27 common denominator for some things when
5:11:29 it's a public good. And I think in this
5:11:31 case, allowing people to be able to have
5:11:34 their job and be able to show up for
5:11:37 only two hours. The clerk, the previous
5:11:39 clerk had it for three hours every
5:11:41 Thursday night. So, I've only asked for
5:11:43 a couple because when I researched the
5:11:45 other communities, they were all
5:11:46 offering only two hours. And I thought
5:11:49 I'd stay within that, not go back to
5:11:51 Pat's original three hours. Thank you.
5:11:54 Yeah.
5:11:56 Any further questions,
5:11:58 comments?
5:12:00 I would just jump in. I I want to jump
5:12:02 in on behalf of Ben because he is a
5:12:05 department head, but he's different than
5:12:07 other department heads. So, he's more
5:12:08 constrained in terms some he's free in
5:12:10 some ways, but he's constrained in
5:12:11 others. He's elected um as opposed to
5:12:13 appointed, but he is a department head,
5:12:15 which means in some ways he answers to
5:12:17 the structure of the select board
5:12:19 office. Um I just really worry about a
5:12:22 slippery slope here. I don't think we
5:12:24 should be legislating the hours that
5:12:25 offices are open. That's a core
5:12:27 operational function. Um the town clerk
5:12:29 is elected to set those hours. People
5:12:32 disagree with those hours, they can vote
5:12:33 for a different town clerk.
5:12:38 So my position on this is I am uh very
5:12:43 supportive of the gap that the
5:12:45 petitioner is trying to fill. However, I
5:12:49 agree with the town clerk that there are
5:12:51 various ways that need further
5:12:54 exploration to figure out what would be
5:12:57 the most sensible approach to fill that
5:12:59 gap if we decide to move in that
5:13:01 direction. So I am more comfortable with
5:13:04 the advisory committee's version of
5:13:06 article 13 that essentially expresses
5:13:09 support for the sentiment behind this
5:13:12 warrant article but would not create
5:13:14 spec would not specifically legislate it
5:13:16 to uh the town administrator's point. Uh
5:13:20 so I would like to move favorable action
5:13:23 on the advisory committee version of
5:13:25 warrant article 13 and this one we
5:13:27 haven't taken up so no need for
5:13:28 reconsideration first. Any further
5:13:30 discussion?
5:13:33 All right, Bernard.
5:13:34 No, because I'd like to say no action on
5:13:37 both of them, but so no.
5:13:39 Okay,
5:13:40 Michael,
5:13:43 come back to me.
5:13:45 Oh, we can do that. Amanda,
5:13:48 no.
5:13:49 All right, Anthony. And I also vote yes.
5:13:54 So my you know, that's the that's the
5:13:56 downside of this.
5:14:02 Um,
5:14:04 I'm going to vote no.
5:14:06 All right.
5:14:07 If that passes, as you just voted,
5:14:10 you'll be the only town in the greater
5:14:12 128 area that doesn't offer evening
5:14:14 hours. Keep that in mind, please.
5:14:17 So, um, can I just clarify, David? Um,
5:14:20 you vote the the motion to support the
5:14:23 AC motion failed, but I still need the
5:14:25 board to take a position. So if you um I
5:14:28 think Bernard is intending on moving no
5:14:30 action. I just want to make sure I'm
5:14:31 following.
5:14:32 I move no action on the warrant article
5:14:35 uh 13 uh in its original form as a
5:14:39 bylaw.
5:14:40 All right. Bernard,
5:14:41 yes.
5:14:43 Michael,
5:14:43 yes.
5:14:44 Amanda,
5:14:45 yes.
5:14:46 Anthony,
5:14:46 yes.
5:14:47 I also vote yes.
5:14:50 All right. With that, we will move on to
5:14:54 warrant article 22. the proposition two
5:14:57 and a half resolution and we have uh one
5:15:00 of the co-etitioners here, Bradford
5:15:02 Kimble.
5:15:03 You have the other one online.
5:15:05 All right, we have both.
5:15:06 Yep.
5:15:08 Good evening everybody. Uh Bradford
5:15:10 Kimble, TMM precinct 1 and one of the
5:15:13 co-petitioners of Warren Article 22
5:15:15 along with Rob Shown uh TMM1 who's on
5:15:18 Zoom as well. Uh we came to the select
5:15:21 board a couple of weeks ago. Um, but I'd
5:15:23 like to give sort of a a re resummarize
5:15:26 what our warrant article does, why we
5:15:27 think it's a good idea, and sort of
5:15:29 where we stand. Um, so our warrant
5:15:31 article, warrant article 22, as amended
5:15:34 on the combined as available on the
5:15:36 combined reports 22-6, calls for the
5:15:38 select board to create a new town
5:15:40 committee that would study the
5:15:41 feasibility and possibility of creating
5:15:44 what we call a municipal core services
5:15:46 cost index. essentially a single
5:15:48 statistic that would track the effect
5:15:50 that would track the effect of inflation
5:15:52 on the town's budgets whether it comes
5:15:54 from uh employee compensation, capital
5:15:58 costs, utilities increases, uh etc. And
5:16:00 so we think this is a good idea because
5:16:03 this singular metric would show the gap
5:16:05 between cost growth and existing
5:16:06 services. And the proposition 2 and a
5:16:08 half levy cap improved override
5:16:10 discussion providing a real helpful
5:16:12 benchmark and singular statistic that
5:16:14 would help uh that would help with
5:16:16 transparency enables comparison to peer
5:16:18 communities and provides an important
5:16:20 data source for any discussions about
5:16:21 Proposition 2 and a half in town and
5:16:24 also regionally and beyond statewide.
5:16:26 Um, and we also think it fits really
5:16:28 well with sort of the select board
5:16:29 2030's roadmap commitment to
5:16:31 transparency, having the singular metric
5:16:33 that tracks the effect of inflation on
5:16:35 the budget. Um,
5:16:37 so that's sort of uh where we are.
5:16:39 That's the that's the summary. And uh my
5:16:42 co-partitioner Rob Shown met with the
5:16:43 town administrator this afternoon. Thank
5:16:45 you for for doing that. So he might be
5:16:47 better equipped to answer some questions
5:16:48 that arose in that meeting as well. Um
5:16:51 we also want to specify that this
5:16:53 committee's charge would be limited and
5:16:54 specific. It's to create a singular
5:16:57 metric and we think that this committee
5:16:58 could do it and that the town and
5:17:00 townwide town citizens have the
5:17:02 capability to produce this metric with
5:17:04 hopefully minimal effort from town
5:17:05 staff. Though we acknowledge that the
5:17:07 town administrator um has some concerns
5:17:09 about that as well.
5:17:12 All right. Any questions or comments
5:17:15 from board members? Anthony. Only
5:17:17 comment I have is I love the idea as
5:17:19 someone who reads the CPI prints the
5:17:22 minute they come out from the Bureau of
5:17:24 Labor Statistics and is genuinely
5:17:26 excited for non non-farm payroll stats.
5:17:28 Any municipal indices like this uh are
5:17:30 right up my alley. I believe they're
5:17:32 super important for good government. Um
5:17:34 I love quantitative metrics like this
5:17:35 that helps us communicate the growth of
5:17:38 costs. Um and I think it's really a good
5:17:40 way to bring the discussion of Prop 2
5:17:43 and a half up to the focal point. And uh
5:17:45 I think it's a great idea.
5:17:47 All right. So, at when we last discussed
5:17:49 this Warren article, there were some
5:17:51 concerns about staff bandwidth for uh
5:17:56 interacting with the tracking of this
5:17:58 with those who would be monitoring the
5:17:59 tracking of this. Could you comment more
5:18:01 on that?
5:18:01 Yeah, I just I I think and I agree that
5:18:04 it's a value it would be this is a the
5:18:06 idea is valuable. Um the idea is
5:18:09 valuable. The aims of this are laudable.
5:18:12 to try and you know get some get some
5:18:15 data and use it to good ends. Um the
5:18:19 concerns that I have are one I do think
5:18:21 that it would require more staff time
5:18:23 than the petitioners think. Um it's
5:18:25 almost always the case. It's not it's
5:18:27 not their fault. I but I think it is the
5:18:29 reality of the situation that when you
5:18:30 create a committee you have two choices.
5:18:33 You can let the committee do its own
5:18:34 thing which can result in the committee
5:18:36 then getting away from you and doing
5:18:38 something that you may not want it to
5:18:40 do. or you can staff it. Um, and that
5:18:43 requires someone to be at every meeting.
5:18:45 That requires someone to to keep people
5:18:48 on task. That requires going back and
5:18:50 forth on this. Um, and you know, it just
5:18:55 creates a situation where I'm going to
5:18:57 have to send someone to this committee's
5:19:00 meetings and do the kind of work
5:19:04 necessary to ensure that the committee
5:19:06 is accomplishing the goals that you've
5:19:08 set it out to accomplish. Um, and I
5:19:12 don't know who that person would be,
5:19:13 frankly. Um, and I
5:19:18 think that
5:19:21 the and the other kind of concern that I
5:19:23 have on this one is kind of to what end?
5:19:25 Um, as I was saying to Rob who and we
5:19:28 had a really good conversation about
5:19:29 this, the one of the co-etitioners, um,
5:19:31 ironically, Brookline to some people on
5:19:34 the outside is a success story of Prop 2
5:19:37 and a half. Rline passes overrides on a
5:19:40 regular basis by wide margins. We are
5:19:42 proof that the system works to them. Um
5:19:44 if a community wants higher taxes, they
5:19:46 can vote for higher taxes. So if our
5:19:49 goal in this is to change the perception
5:19:52 of Prop 2 and a half and to demonstrate
5:19:55 that it exacerbates the tension between
5:19:57 the halves and the have nots, you know,
5:19:59 I'm very grateful to the voters for what
5:20:01 they did to to fund our municipal
5:20:04 budget. I think it is a huge vote of
5:20:06 confidence in local government. I think
5:20:08 it makes a huge difference in the
5:20:09 community. It's just it it is it is a
5:20:12 really heartwarming story. But then I
5:20:14 compare it to Malden where the need was
5:20:17 acute and the vote was not there. And I
5:20:19 compare it to Chelsea where they can't
5:20:21 even do it. You know, where the concept
5:20:24 of asking the people who live in Chelsea
5:20:26 for more money is just impossible. Um,
5:20:29 and I say that's,
5:20:34 you know, if if all we're doing is
5:20:35 indexing in Brooklyn, we're not really
5:20:38 providing information that's going to
5:20:40 change the minds of the people whose
5:20:42 minds need to be changed on this. I
5:20:45 would rather, if we were to do this,
5:20:48 work on building a regional index. I
5:20:50 would rather work with the met
5:20:53 Metropolitan Area Planning Council um
5:20:55 who run the Metro Mayor's Association
5:20:58 which is now up to I think 18 members
5:21:00 and it includes a diverse array a basket
5:21:02 of communities. It includes Chelsea, it
5:21:04 includes Malden, it includes Everett, it
5:21:06 includes Lynn, it includes Arlington, it
5:21:09 includes Brainree, it includes Boston.
5:21:11 Um, and I think the conversation that
5:21:16 we've had in those in those meetings
5:21:18 about Prop 2 and a half and what could
5:21:20 be done to address it at the regional
5:21:22 level um have been productive. Um, and I
5:21:25 would be happy to take the subject of
5:21:27 this and bring it to that body and say,
5:21:29 "Hey guys, like we pay we pay dues to be
5:21:32 part of this organization. Um, can we
5:21:34 work together and and build this index
5:21:36 on a regional level?" Um, but I think
5:21:39 just the information from Brooklyn is
5:21:42 not necessarily going to be helpful in
5:21:44 the broader discussion. And I don't
5:21:46 necessarily think on the education
5:21:48 level, although I think Rob, you know,
5:21:50 Rob can prove me wrong on this, but the
5:21:55 lesson that I took from this election is
5:21:56 that it was a turnout election. Um, and
5:21:59 that I don't think a lot of people's
5:22:00 minds were changed on the doorstep about
5:22:03 the override. Um, I think it was a
5:22:05 question of getting the base out. And in
5:22:07 this instance, the base that was gotten
5:22:09 out was a base that was very pro-
5:22:11 override. Um, and again, I'm grateful
5:22:15 for that. But I don't necessarily know
5:22:17 how our the benefit the costbenefit
5:22:20 analysis of getting that additional
5:22:22 information out there is going to change
5:22:24 people's minds because I think the
5:22:25 conversation is still going to be the
5:22:27 same that it's always been since Prop 2
5:22:28 and a half was passed, which is I don't
5:22:30 want my property taxes to go up. This is
5:22:32 all I have. or I need property taxes to
5:22:34 go up because this is how we fund the
5:22:36 services. So, I see that uh
5:22:38 co-patitioner Rob Shown has his hand up.
5:22:40 Go ahead.
5:22:41 Yeah, just I I don't think CHZ takes
5:22:44 enough credit for the job that that he
5:22:46 and other people did in communicating
5:22:49 ahead of the election the benefits of
5:22:52 voting yes. And I know personally I I
5:22:54 told Chad Chad Chaz this is I had just
5:22:57 had conversations with friends of mine
5:22:59 that were firm no voters and by
5:23:02 explaining this inflation issue I was
5:23:05 able to change I believe I mean I wasn't
5:23:07 in their in the voting booth with them
5:23:09 but I feel like I did manage to change
5:23:11 some minds. So, I'm thinking ahead to
5:23:13 like, you know, we're probably going to
5:23:14 have future override votes and I feel
5:23:16 like this would be a tool that would be
5:23:19 really helpful in future override
5:23:21 discussions in Brooklyn. And then the
5:23:23 other thing I would say is that while,
5:23:25 you know, I was surprised that the the
5:23:27 margin that the override did pass by,
5:23:30 you know, I feel like it still was a
5:23:32 very divisive vote. I mean, we still had
5:23:35 what, 40% people vote no. And you know,
5:23:39 there's a lot of people in town that are
5:23:41 are still kind of sore about, you know,
5:23:44 about the override. And so, you know, I
5:23:47 would like to do if there's something we
5:23:49 can do to change some of their minds by
5:23:51 helping them explain the inflation
5:23:53 component of these budget situations. I
5:23:57 think that would be a great thing.
5:23:59 Go ahead.
5:24:00 Yeah, I think uh addressing the town
5:24:02 administrator's first point, uh this
5:24:04 committee, right, is is not necessarily
5:24:05 intended to be a long-lasting body. It
5:24:07 has a very specific charge, the creation
5:24:09 of one metric, you know, which could be
5:24:11 broken down into several metrics, but it
5:24:13 doesn't advocate or make specific
5:24:14 recommendations outside of that specific
5:24:16 mandate. So, it's extremely limited in
5:24:18 scope to this one metric that we think
5:24:20 would be extremely useful. Uh the second
5:24:22 point regarding sort of um objections
5:24:27 regarding the override and also regional
5:24:28 and versus local distinctions is that we
5:24:30 envision this committee as being a a
5:24:33 combination of starting local
5:24:35 conversations that that educate voters
5:24:37 and educate the town and educate
5:24:38 decision makers in town but also
5:24:40 starting this starting the step for
5:24:42 creating sort of regional change. We
5:24:43 don't necessarily think that this
5:24:44 committee is a political tool, but it is
5:24:47 also true that the Massachusetts
5:24:49 Municipal Association's recommendations
5:24:51 for reforming Prop 2 and a half all
5:24:53 essentially rely on the decisions of
5:24:55 municipalities opting in. Whether it's
5:24:57 multi-year overrides or whether it's
5:25:00 having municipalities opt in to an
5:25:02 adjustable levy cap, these are likely
5:25:04 not recommendations that would be passed
5:25:06 in sweeping fashion statewide, but
5:25:07 recommendations that could be adopted by
5:25:09 individual municipalities. So if
5:25:12 Brooklyn has this index, it would
5:25:13 provide a really strong foundation to
5:25:15 see how how does one municipality sort
5:25:17 of tackle the effect that inflationary
5:25:19 pressures have on the budget. And then
5:25:21 the second part about voter education is
5:25:23 that I think a common objection to the
5:25:25 override was why not just cut waste? Why
5:25:28 not cut discretionary spending? And I
5:25:29 think this metric would help voters
5:25:31 understand what is discretionary
5:25:33 spending and then what is re what are
5:25:35 the cost drivers that are that come from
5:25:37 inflation. And there's a there's a
5:25:38 difference there.
5:25:40 Michael.
5:25:41 Um,
5:25:43 so first of all, thank you both of you
5:25:46 uh for bringing this question forward.
5:25:49 Um, and you had mentioned before, you
5:25:51 know, the issues of transparency in the
5:25:53 road map. Um, and I'm one of the things
5:25:56 that I'm a little bit concerned about in
5:25:59 the way that you've you've sort of
5:26:01 structured the Warren article at this
5:26:03 point is that you know there's a set of
5:26:06 data that you need in order to create
5:26:10 this index. Um but but in terms of of
5:26:15 sort of the message of the index, you
5:26:17 know, I think what what the town
5:26:19 administrator is saying is that that the
5:26:21 message that you will get is relatively
5:26:24 well understood and can be reasonably
5:26:26 well articulated. So I'm I am concerned
5:26:30 that by setting up this index as
5:26:33 something that we maintain over time
5:26:35 that the cost of maintenance over time
5:26:38 will uh overtake the value of producing
5:26:42 that index you know in order to you know
5:26:46 establish the argument that you're
5:26:48 trying to make. Um and so one of the
5:26:51 things that I am wondering about is uh
5:26:54 and I and I don't expect an answer right
5:26:57 now but I'm wondering whether there is
5:26:59 some way to separate the question of
5:27:03 what is the data that the town needs to
5:27:06 expose in order to produce this
5:27:10 particular index and is there a way of
5:27:14 uh of exposing or releasing or sharing
5:27:17 that information
5:27:20 such that it is generally available not
5:27:23 only for this index but for the
5:27:25 potential of other transparency ideas
5:27:28 that are that are brought forth by the
5:27:31 public.
5:27:33 I think the one the one area here where
5:27:35 you're going to have the biggest problem
5:27:36 is with the schools. The schools are
5:27:38 going to have to play ball with this.
5:27:40 Um, and one of the biggest drivers of
5:27:43 school costs, as David knows, is special
5:27:48 education and transportation,
5:27:50 particularly for medically fragile
5:27:51 students. Um, and I think you will run
5:27:54 into a great deal of resistance from the
5:27:56 school committee to give you that data
5:27:59 because the school committee will say
5:28:01 there are privacy issues involved even
5:28:03 at the statistical level. And um it
5:28:07 creates this idea that special education
5:28:10 is something they're you're going to see
5:28:11 all the numbers and you're going to see
5:28:12 special education volatile
5:28:14 year-over-year but generally going up
5:28:16 sometimes by double digits even as a
5:28:19 result potentially of one student moving
5:28:20 into the district. And people are going
5:28:22 to say well there's your waste. That's
5:28:25 not waste. That's a kid you know that's
5:28:27 someone who needs to be cared for. Um I
5:28:30 worry that that that you when you talk
5:28:33 about the data that is to be provided
5:28:34 that that's an area where you may wind
5:28:37 up inadvertently
5:28:39 um needing to do remedial education um
5:28:42 because when you see numbers go up by
5:28:45 that I eyepopping amount or down by that
5:28:47 eyepopping amount um people say what's
5:28:50 going on here um and maybe that is
5:28:52 helpful in the long run um but you know
5:28:55 I've just you know I I I I
5:29:00 want us to be mindful of the fact that
5:29:02 we are required to provide everyone with
5:29:04 a free and appropriate public education.
5:29:06 Um and that sometimes means spending a
5:29:08 lot of money. Um so it's I I think the
5:29:11 school you'd run into resistance from
5:29:12 the schools when it comes to what needs
5:29:14 to be given. And I think that then does
5:29:17 unnecess does potentially make this more
5:29:20 of a political project, right? You know,
5:29:22 how are we how can we get information
5:29:24 from the schools? Why aren't the schools
5:29:25 giving us this information? If the
5:29:26 schools want an override, they better
5:29:28 give us this information. Um, I could
5:29:30 see that getting ugly.
5:29:33 Yeah. I mean, actually, it's not just
5:29:37 the schools. I mean, it's the town, too.
5:29:39 I mean, our procurement rules increase
5:29:41 cost of of everything, and that creates
5:29:45 sort of a political uh situation where
5:29:47 people think that uh there's waste in
5:29:50 town services.
5:29:51 Yeah. But I I think that's easier to
5:29:52 explain explain though. I think you know
5:29:54 and you know we when we were on
5:29:56 expenditures and revenues we did this
5:29:58 exercise on the town side. I think Dick
5:29:59 Ben did a really good job of presenting
5:30:01 for example here's all the town budgets
5:30:03 that went up since last override by more
5:30:05 than two and a half%. Can I can I
5:30:06 understand why? And we had to answer
5:30:08 that question. It was a good question to
5:30:10 ask and it was a good exercise for us to
5:30:12 be able to answer that and say yep this
5:30:14 went up by this amount for this reason.
5:30:16 Um and you could see that when you did
5:30:18 that exercise that there wasn't waste or
5:30:21 bloat. there wasn't just, you know,
5:30:22 adding positions that the budgets went
5:30:25 up for good reasons, but when you looked
5:30:27 at them from numbers on a page, it might
5:30:29 have looked like, whoa, what's what's
5:30:30 that huge increase doing there? So,
5:30:32 building an building an index that
5:30:35 accurately reflects
5:30:37 um you know the the costs, but then also
5:30:40 does the work of educating um is is
5:30:42 tough.
5:30:44 Not impossible, but is is going to take
5:30:47 some doing. Could you explain why you
5:30:49 see value to this exercise at a regional
5:30:51 level rather than just at the hyper
5:30:54 local? I think that then impacts it then
5:30:56 demonstrates that it is not just rich
5:30:59 towns, poor towns, towns that are towns
5:31:02 that have commercial development, towns
5:31:03 that don't have commercial development.
5:31:05 This is a problem across the
5:31:07 Commonwealth and it's going to require I
5:31:10 mean to your point about the MMA
5:31:11 solutions I I think what the legislature
5:31:13 is going to say to those opt-in
5:31:15 solutions is that exacerbates a have and
5:31:16 have not problem. It's the same reason
5:31:18 why they don't allow us to raise the
5:31:20 meal tax and the hotel tax. That's why
5:31:21 they're not letting us do the governor's
5:31:24 um proposals on um municipal um uh x
5:31:29 taxes um because they know that there
5:31:32 are communities that have that stuff and
5:31:33 communities that don't. um and they
5:31:35 don't want us to be continually leaping
5:31:37 out ahead. But if we're able to
5:31:39 demonstrate that no, there is a through
5:31:40 line here. Doesn't matter if you're
5:31:42 Brainree or or Brookline, um you we the
5:31:46 problems we we experience are universal.
5:31:49 Um then there is a universal solution.
5:31:52 Um whether that's something like what
5:31:53 New Jersey has where they exempt health
5:31:55 care from their version of Prop 2 and a
5:31:57 half like that's that's a potential
5:32:00 solution that I could see working with
5:32:03 the political will there but that has to
5:32:05 be butressed by the right information.
5:32:11 Anyone else?
5:32:14 Amanda,
5:32:15 I I like the idea of this and I hear
5:32:17 what you're saying and I hate committees
5:32:20 just as a general rule. if there's a
5:32:22 different way to do it. Um, I don't know
5:32:25 that I I can wordsmith what the solution
5:32:28 I would like to see is, but I kind of
5:32:30 like where Chaz was going of saying if
5:32:33 you could make the and we maybe work
5:32:37 with the petitioners offline to say um
5:32:41 essentially a resolution directing
5:32:43 the select board or yeah to uh get in
5:32:47 conversations across the region to
5:32:50 create this sort of uh information
5:32:53 structure.
5:32:54 um so that it would accomplish the goals
5:32:56 of the petitioners um but more more in a
5:32:59 regional fashion and also wouldn't
5:33:01 involve a committee members that may or
5:33:04 may not know what they're talking about
5:33:06 uh for lack of a better way and to be
5:33:08 able to do it a little bit more quickly.
5:33:10 I'm not sure
5:33:13 to to your point on the regional
5:33:16 approach. Sometimes there have been uh
5:33:20 town meeting members and others who come
5:33:21 forward and say, "What are we getting in
5:33:24 return for our Norfick County dues?" And
5:33:26 uh Elizabeth Childs does a nice job of
5:33:28 explaining that. But I wonder if we take
5:33:30 this regional approach, could some of
5:33:32 our dues money to Norfick County go
5:33:35 toward this effort of what you're
5:33:38 concerned about with uh with staff uh
5:33:42 bandwidth and then maybe do it on a
5:33:44 countywide basis? I would love to talk
5:33:45 to the county commissioners about that.
5:33:47 Um, I can send them an email. Um, and I
5:33:49 think regardless of where this goes, I I
5:33:52 do, like I said, I think this is a good
5:33:54 idea. And so I'm more than happy to
5:33:56 continue to work with the petitioners on
5:33:58 this. You know, I think if this moves
5:34:00 forward, that's fine. I mean, it is what
5:34:02 it is. And so I'm not,
5:34:04 as I told the petitioners, I'm I'm I'm
5:34:05 okay with this. Um, but I would prefer
5:34:09 that we do it on a regional level. And
5:34:11 so regardless of how this moves forward
5:34:13 at town meeting, I've made a commitment
5:34:14 to the petitioners that I'm going to
5:34:15 reach out to MAPC and talk to them about
5:34:18 this and see where we get. So, you know,
5:34:21 and David, we have no say over the
5:34:22 Norfick County assessment. It gets taken
5:34:24 off the cherry sheet. So, we don't even
5:34:25 get a get a choice. It's our
5:34:27 We don't get We don't We don't get a say
5:34:28 in in in giving our money away to
5:34:30 Norfick County, but we can ask them to
5:34:32 use it for certain purposes.
5:34:33 Right. That's what I mean. I'm not
5:34:34 suggesting we remove it, but given that
5:34:36 we're paying dues, maybe this could be a
5:34:38 task we give them in part.
5:34:43 Michael,
5:34:43 I'm I'm wondering two things. Um the
5:34:46 first thing I'm wondering is whether
5:34:48 this is something you know when we talk
5:34:51 about a committee and the cost um if we
5:34:55 decide to continue the work of the
5:34:56 expenditures and revenue study committee
5:34:59 whether this is the kind of analysis
5:35:03 that would be appropriate for that
5:35:04 committee to take on such that it
5:35:07 wouldn't require additional staffing
5:35:09 support for setting up another
5:35:11 committee. So that's that is my first
5:35:14 question. Um, and the second question is
5:35:18 given your commitment to continue
5:35:20 working on this and that the article
5:35:23 itself is a is a motion to refer this to
5:35:27 a the select board. It seems kind of
5:35:29 silly to offer a motion to referral
5:35:32 since this is already sort of a motion
5:35:34 to refer something in and of itself
5:35:36 whether um the select board actually
5:35:39 needs to take a position on this warrant
5:35:41 article at all.
5:35:46 Well, I mean, we don't absolutely have
5:35:47 to, but I think typically we do take a
5:35:50 position on almost every Warren article,
5:35:52 which I know is a change from a few
5:35:53 years ago. There was a brief period
5:35:54 where some Warren articles were not.
5:35:57 We tried to create a system whereby, you
5:36:00 know, we we we don't didn't have to take
5:36:02 a position on whether the Cuban blockade
5:36:05 was
5:36:05 right. Right.
5:36:07 But I think I think this is something
5:36:08 that is very relevant to our our work as
5:36:11 we're hearing about uh staff time.
5:36:14 I I agree that it is relevant to our
5:36:16 work. I just I just think that with with
5:36:19 Chaz's commitment and the the things
5:36:22 that are being handled administratively
5:36:26 that I'm not sure that it's necessary
5:36:29 for us to weigh in on whether or not the
5:36:33 legislative body thinks that this is a
5:36:35 value independent of the work that's
5:36:38 already been has already committed to
5:36:40 do.
5:36:41 Right. I I wonder whether we need to
5:36:44 take a position on this tonight at least
5:36:46 because it sounds like the petitioners
5:36:50 might have some flexibility around
5:36:52 whether this becomes a regional exercise
5:36:55 given this feedback. You the two of you
5:36:57 may want time to think about that. We
5:36:59 don't absolutely have to vote on this
5:37:01 tonight and perhaps some further
5:37:03 refinement if that's a direction you
5:37:05 want to go in. Something to think about
5:37:06 of course. Uh, so my recommendation will
5:37:09 be that we not vote on this tonight, but
5:37:12 possibly we take it up at a future
5:37:14 meeting.
5:37:16 We're good with that.
5:37:17 Okay.
5:37:18 Y
5:37:19 All right. So, why don't we move on then
5:37:22 to warrant article Thank you very much
5:37:25 to the two of you.
5:37:26 So, why don't we move on now to warrant
5:37:28 article 23 to see if the town will adopt
5:37:31 a resolution to increase stipens for
5:37:33 select board members.
5:37:35 And do we have the petitioners online at
5:37:37 this point?
5:37:38 I believe I did see Marissa, but I I
5:37:40 wanted to let you know that the advisory
5:37:42 committee did vote to refer this to a
5:37:44 moderator's committee with the request
5:37:46 that there be a report back in 2028.
5:37:52 All right. I see that Marissa Vote is
5:37:54 on.
5:37:56 Go right ahead if you'd like to address
5:37:58 us.
5:37:59 Yeah. Hi. Um Marissa Vote, town meeting
5:38:02 member in precinct 6. Um I'm joined by
5:38:05 my co-patitioner Jonathan Golden. Um
5:38:08 yeah, so we um initially filed this
5:38:12 warrant article. I'm just going to take
5:38:13 a a step or two back um for our new
5:38:17 select board members um uh sake. So we
5:38:21 initially filed this um to significantly
5:38:24 increase stipens for select board
5:38:26 members and um and introduce school
5:38:30 committee stipens for the first time. Um
5:38:32 this is a resolution. Um the stipens
5:38:36 would not go into full effect until um
5:38:40 FY30.
5:38:42 Um which would give the town some time
5:38:44 to find um potential revenue source. Um
5:38:49 we discovered during the course of the
5:38:52 warrant article review process that um
5:38:55 the it was it was difficult to quantify
5:39:00 the expected cost of the um
5:39:04 of the pension obligations that would in
5:39:06 that we might incur by offering stipens
5:39:09 above $5,000. So, we have now um amended
5:39:13 the article to offer stipens of $4,999
5:39:18 for all select board and school
5:39:20 committee members. Um,
5:39:23 and we also have some language in there
5:39:26 um that would refer that would not not
5:39:30 refer that would create a moderator's
5:39:32 committee to study the other outstanding
5:39:34 issues um of things like um how much the
5:39:39 pension obligations would be. uh make
5:39:42 recommendations for how to increase the
5:39:44 revenue um or where expenses could be
5:39:47 cut that would offset the the cut the um
5:39:50 the costs of these increased stipens. Um
5:39:54 and also that the committee would uh
5:39:57 consider additional compensation beyond
5:39:59 that $4,999
5:40:01 um stipen amount. And um I just wanted
5:40:05 to add that for so for the select board
5:40:08 um the stipens were for members are
5:40:10 $3,500 a year and for the chair is
5:40:12 $4,500.
5:40:14 That level was last set in 2011. So um
5:40:17 if you kind of take uh the official um
5:40:23 federal calculator for inflation um I
5:40:26 forget where it I think it's the Bureau
5:40:27 of Laborers labor or um but but whatever
5:40:30 it is um that $3,500 in 2011 would be um
5:40:35 like $5100 or so in today's money, never
5:40:38 mind in um FY30 when um these stipens
5:40:43 would go into full full effect. So, um,
5:40:47 you know, this is really, at least for
5:40:49 the select board side, it's really just
5:40:51 bringing the stipen amounts up with
5:40:53 inflation and then creating school
5:40:56 committee sipments for the first time.
5:40:58 Um and so I would just encourage you to
5:41:01 support um our version which also you
5:41:06 know does provide for a moderator's
5:41:08 committee to study um you know some of
5:41:10 the outstanding questions but uh allows
5:41:13 us to go on record of saying we support
5:41:15 these increased stipens once we figure
5:41:18 out um all of the the implications and
5:41:21 to figure out a way to pay for them.
5:41:26 Let me make sure I understood that last
5:41:27 part. So, you're supportive of the
5:41:29 advisory committee's motion.
5:41:31 We are supportive of discussing these
5:41:35 issues in a moderator's committee, but
5:41:38 we want um we are presenting our own
5:41:42 petitioners version because we uh think
5:41:45 it's important to have that affirmative
5:41:47 vote on this the text of the resolution
5:41:50 that says that we want the increased
5:41:52 stipens.
5:41:54 So, can I just be clear, Merc, are you
5:41:56 submitting a revised motion for town
5:41:58 meeting? Because I I only have your
5:41:59 original article.
5:42:00 We have a Yeah, we have a final version
5:42:02 that we submitted to the moderator
5:42:04 yesterday.
5:42:04 Okay, great.
5:42:06 And um John Karen is moderating this
5:42:09 article.
5:42:12 I'll forward it to you now.
5:42:14 Great. Thank you.
5:42:15 All right. Any questions, comments from
5:42:17 anyone on the board?
5:42:19 I was I have comment. Um, I feel like if
5:42:22 we're going to abstain on any warn
5:42:24 article, this is the one we should be
5:42:26 doing. Just it seems a pretty clear
5:42:28 conflict of interest.
5:42:30 So, I uh agree with you in spirit. Town
5:42:33 council explained at a prior meeting
5:42:35 that we actually could vote on this, at
5:42:38 least those of us who would be facing an
5:42:41 election before it would be implemented.
5:42:43 So, that might be different for the two
5:42:44 of you. Uh, but for the other three, we
5:42:49 technically could. But in spirit, I
5:42:51 agree. It's something I'm uncomfortable
5:42:52 with as well. So, I would be inclined to
5:42:54 abstain on this. I I don't know how the
5:42:58 two others who technically could vote on
5:43:01 this feel.
5:43:02 And we're talking about pennies,
5:43:05 right? And and you know, it's principle.
5:43:07 do do does a town respect what we do and
5:43:10 and be willing to to uh you pay for it
5:43:15 uh or not? So, I'm I'm comfortable
5:43:18 voting on this. It's not not as if it's
5:43:22 bringing a lot of it would be bringing a
5:43:24 lot of money to our pockets.
5:43:28 That that is true and I and I'm sort of
5:43:30 in the in the same boat that you are. Um
5:43:35 I mean I I think I think the the
5:43:38 original motion and the the whole
5:43:40 question of to at what level we should
5:43:43 be uh the town should be compensating
5:43:47 select board members and school
5:43:49 committee members is like probably
5:43:52 worthy of of some committee con
5:43:56 considering um
5:43:59 as as they're proposing. So, I I think
5:44:02 I'm sort of in the same boat. I I mean I
5:44:04 don't feel any more or less valued based
5:44:07 on this particular increase to $4,999
5:44:11 because I also believe that the people
5:44:16 the people who would actually be uh
5:44:18 affected by by this change as to whether
5:44:22 or not they feel like they have the
5:44:24 capacity to enter, you know, to run for
5:44:28 these positions and and to perform the
5:44:31 the duties thereof. Um I mean the
5:44:35 difference between 3500 and 499 is not
5:44:39 going to change that population in any
5:44:41 any meaningful way.
5:44:47 All right.
5:44:48 You already said that we can't anyway.
5:44:50 So it's a question of
5:44:52 say you can't.
5:44:54 All right. So
5:44:55 you say we can't or they can't.
5:44:57 Uh the two of us can. I'm not 100% sure
5:45:00 on you.
5:45:00 Okay. Okay. So, I'm not sure we can vote
5:45:04 on this before we actually see the
5:45:06 language. Right. Right.
5:45:07 In case we put it off.
5:45:09 Yeah.
5:45:09 Okay. Why Why don't we hold this off to
5:45:11 a future meeting? Uh, also clarify who
5:45:14 can actually vote on it. I think only
5:45:15 two of us can.
5:45:17 Um,
5:45:19 it it's hard to know until we see the
5:45:21 language. We should see the AC's motion
5:45:23 and we should see the
5:45:25 the um petitioners revised motions.
5:45:29 Agreed. I I see Marissa, you have your
5:45:31 hand raised again. Did you have
5:45:33 something else?
5:45:34 Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that um
5:45:37 we're going to be voting separately on
5:45:39 the select board siphon part of the
5:45:41 article and the school committee part of
5:45:43 the article at town meeting. So, you
5:45:46 know, you could as a board decide to
5:45:49 weigh in on one or both parts.
5:45:53 So, did did the moderator endorse
5:45:56 dividing the article in that manner?
5:45:59 Yes, they have. And
5:46:00 that was that was the intention when we
5:46:02 when we filed it. I just made an oopsie.
5:46:05 All right. So, do we want to take a
5:46:06 position on school committee stipens?
5:46:10 Again, I think we should see the
5:46:12 language before we answer that question.
5:46:15 All right. Agreed. Anyone else have
5:46:17 strong opinions otherwise? All right.
5:46:19 Then we will take this up at a future
5:46:22 meeting. Thank you again to the
5:46:23 petitioner for coming on and talking to
5:46:26 us about your warrant article.
5:46:28 Uh, article 24 has been withdrawn. So,
5:46:31 you need to uh reconsider and move vote
5:46:35 no action if that's what you want to do.
5:46:37 So, I will move that we reconsider
5:46:40 warrant article 24 for no action.
5:46:47 Can I actually move this? So what what
5:46:49 was the
5:46:50 the original vote was uh Paul Warren's
5:46:53 on Paul Warren's amended language um
5:46:56 which just took out the words evaluate.
5:46:59 Um so if you voted for that you were in
5:47:01 the majority you could
5:47:02 Yes. All right. I did vote for that. All
5:47:04 right. So, I move reconsideration on
5:47:06 Warrant Article 24 to see if the town
5:47:08 will adopt a resolution which advocates
5:47:11 public body's usage of a town email
5:47:12 address to archive electronic
5:47:15 communication when generating public
5:47:17 records. Bernard,
5:47:19 did I vote for that or not? Well, I'm
5:47:22 You did. You voted for it. Michael was
5:47:24 the only one who was
5:47:25 Michael was the only one who didn't.
5:47:26 Yes.
5:47:26 Okay. Um, yes,
5:47:28 Michael. This is for reconsideration so
5:47:31 that you can open up and vote no action
5:47:33 because
5:47:33 can I can I vote yes?
5:47:34 Yes.
5:47:36 Amanda?
5:47:37 Yes.
5:47:38 Anthony?
5:47:38 Yes.
5:47:39 And I also vote yes. All right. Uh I
5:47:44 move that we recommend no action since
5:47:46 the warrant article is being withdrawn.
5:47:48 Bernard,
5:47:48 yes.
5:47:49 Michael,
5:47:50 yes.
5:47:50 Amanda,
5:47:51 yes.
5:47:52 Anthony,
5:47:52 yes.
5:47:53 And I also vote yes. With that, we move
5:47:55 to article warrant article 25. Last one.
5:47:59 Exactly. Resolution response of federal
5:48:01 immigration enforcement and police
5:48:04 protocols. Do we have one of the
5:48:06 petitioners, one or more of the
5:48:08 petitioners available?
5:48:10 You should have material in your packet
5:48:12 coming from Chi-Chi. Um, she did revise
5:48:14 her motion. The board's current position
5:48:16 is no action. And I think you also
5:48:18 received comments from public safety
5:48:20 about the composition of the committee
5:48:22 that's recommended in the revised
5:48:24 motion. Yeah, I will forward this to you
5:48:26 too since your email addresses aren't up
5:48:27 yet, but both chiefs have weighed in and
5:48:29 they're not they they are concerned that
5:48:33 the current version of the so the
5:48:34 original version that the site board
5:48:35 voted no action on was a resolution
5:48:37 calling for a number of things. This new
5:48:39 version calls on the select board to
5:48:41 appoint a committee to address whether
5:48:43 or not they should be doing these
5:48:44 things. Um and it lists a number of
5:48:46 people who should be on the committee at
5:48:49 a minimum. Um
5:48:51 the chiefs still don't like this. Um
5:48:55 they point to the fact that some of the
5:48:58 whereas clauses continue to, you know,
5:49:00 make accusations that they don't agree
5:49:01 with. They continue to say that it's um
5:49:06 and they're concerned that by basically
5:49:08 dictating the membership of the
5:49:10 committee and putting so many people on
5:49:12 there that, you know, it's pre-ordaining
5:49:14 a certain outcome. Um, and you know, if
5:49:18 this were to go forward, their
5:49:20 recommendation would be if you were
5:49:22 inclined to support it, which they would
5:49:24 recommend you not be, um, that you would
5:49:27 strike that language about who's on the
5:49:29 committee, and you could decide for
5:49:31 yourselves who the committee would be.
5:49:32 But again, the ultimate recommendation
5:49:34 of both the fire chief and the police
5:49:36 chief for the reasons that they've
5:49:37 stated um many times previously is that
5:49:41 this is just it doesn't it it's it's a
5:49:44 well-intentioned attempt to address
5:49:48 issues of national importance. But
5:49:51 unlike Warren Article 17 that tries to
5:49:54 implement a policy that we've been that
5:49:56 the select board voted on, it tries to
5:49:59 do tries to basically refight a bunch of
5:50:01 old battles. That's their position on
5:50:03 it. We've had these conversations about
5:50:05 the brick before. We've had these
5:50:07 conversations about Yuasi before. Um the
5:50:10 conversation about fingerprinting is
5:50:11 new. Um but to the chief's point, we'd
5:50:14 lose our accreditation if we stopped
5:50:15 doing that. Um so um you know, in in all
5:50:20 of these cases, I'm supportive of the
5:50:23 chiefs on this issue. So just to be
5:50:25 precise about the proposed membership,
5:50:28 it would be a select board member, a
5:50:30 member of the commission for diversity,
5:50:31 equity, inclusion, and community
5:50:33 relations, a member of the police
5:50:35 commissioners advisory committee, an
5:50:37 expert on immigration law, and
5:50:40 representatives for immigrant
5:50:42 communities doesn't state how many,
5:50:44 right? But again, how many people is
5:50:45 that already? How many how many more
5:50:47 people you know the the chief of
5:50:49 police's point was none of those people
5:50:52 are necessarily you know how many how
5:50:54 many people who have technical expertise
5:50:55 about these issues. how many people, you
5:50:58 know, and then and then at what point,
5:51:00 you know, how big is your committee? You
5:51:01 know, are you going to appoint 13
5:51:02 people, 15 people, 20 people? Like,
5:51:05 you've already stacked a large number of
5:51:07 people um to be put on this committee
5:51:11 and then there's the impetus to say,
5:51:12 well, all right, we got a bunch of
5:51:14 people already. Why add more?
5:51:15 Well, it looks like the select board
5:51:16 would choose.
5:51:17 Yes.
5:51:18 I think Anthony, I think, had his hand
5:51:20 up first. Go ahead, Anthony.
5:51:21 Um I I just had a question about the
5:51:22 fingerprinting thing. If the if the
5:51:24 federal government requests data from us
5:51:27 that we currently have,
5:51:29 aren't we legally obligated to give that
5:51:31 data?
5:51:32 In most cases, not all. Um, it depends
5:51:34 on for what purpose. You know, we don't
5:51:36 share agree. We don't share data with
5:51:37 ICE, right?
5:51:38 But but we don't proactively share data
5:51:40 with ICE,
5:51:41 right?
5:51:41 If they request data from us, isn't it
5:51:43 like federally mandated that we have to
5:51:45 give data
5:51:45 if they subpoena it or if they if
5:51:47 there's a court order? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
5:51:49 So when they say we can't share
5:51:51 fingerprints, isn't that like
5:51:52 immediately that's just illegal?
5:51:54 Well, what they're what they're asking
5:51:55 for is is more nuanced than that. It is
5:51:58 this it's right now if you are arrested,
5:52:00 you're booked, you're fingerprinted, and
5:52:02 when you're fingerprinted, that is those
5:52:03 your fingerprints are run through a
5:52:05 database. And that d and when that
5:52:07 database is run, it triggers hits. And
5:52:09 one of the things that it triggers hits
5:52:11 in is ICE's containers. And so whenever
5:52:14 that happens, and this has happened now
5:52:15 six times in the last year, we get a
5:52:17 phone call from ICE saying, "Hey, you
5:52:20 guys, you guys have someone who has a
5:52:21 civil detainer out. Please hold that
5:52:23 person until we get there." And we say,
5:52:25 "No, we do not cooperate with you. Do
5:52:28 not do that. Goodbye." We hang up the
5:52:29 phone.
5:52:30 A followup on that. You said six times
5:52:32 it happened.
5:52:33 Yes.
5:52:33 In the last year.
5:52:34 In the last year. Yeah.
5:52:35 Um do we know the composition of
5:52:39 uh of those six people?
5:52:41 Yeah. I mean I I can I don't want to
5:52:43 yeah I can I can give you the details of
5:52:44 the individual cases but in all of these
5:52:46 cases these were incident in incidental
5:52:48 to arrest. Um and it wasn't like I don't
5:52:53 think in any situation it was it was a
5:52:56 you know it was not for example it was
5:52:58 not a situation where someone was cited
5:53:00 and then it was escalated to an arrest
5:53:02 for no reason. Right. It was they were
5:53:04 they were being
5:53:05 they were being booked on serious
5:53:07 offenses. Um, and so that's what you
5:53:09 know we when we run prints, that's what
5:53:12 happens is that it's not that we are
5:53:14 actively sending these to ICE and
5:53:15 saying, "Hey,
5:53:16 do you have anything on this person?"
5:53:18 It's when we query the federal database,
5:53:20 they know that we're querying it and
5:53:21 they see that, "Hey, we've we've got
5:53:23 someone on that list."
5:53:24 Got it.
5:53:26 Anyone else? Bernard.
5:53:27 Yeah. Um, a couple things. I agree with
5:53:29 the chief that the structure of the
5:53:30 committee is is um is inappropriate.
5:53:34 However,
5:53:36 this this Warren article does some
5:53:38 questions and that is you know brick is
5:53:40 a problem and you know the fact that the
5:53:43 chief says that they're errors in fact
5:53:45 in the recital in the warrant article
5:53:47 means that will tell us what those
5:53:49 errors are and and I think we have an
5:53:51 obligation
5:53:54 I think we should we don't have an
5:53:55 obligation we should um be a little
5:53:59 aggressive in terms of finding out
5:54:02 information about you who who who is the
5:54:06 brick keeping records on the racial and
5:54:08 and other composition of those people uh
5:54:11 and and all the other questions that
5:54:13 that are are asserted as well as some
5:54:16 that aren't in in the Warren article.
5:54:18 I'm not sure you know what what that
5:54:20 means we do but
5:54:23 um you it may mean that you know the
5:54:26 criteria or that the committee set up if
5:54:30 any committee is set up has to have some
5:54:32 direction in terms of you know what it
5:54:35 does and that has to include getting
5:54:38 some transparency out of out of brick. I
5:54:40 mean they're going to say oh this is law
5:54:42 enforcement we have to keep this
5:54:44 confidential.
5:54:45 I think we have to really push back on
5:54:47 that. Well, but to that point then why
5:54:50 can't that be the select board? Um, you
5:54:53 know, I think it means more coming from
5:54:54 you than it does from a committee. Um,
5:54:57 if you say to us on staff, hey, we want,
5:55:00 you know, we want to hear from the
5:55:01 brick. Um, when we don't want Okay.
5:55:03 a form letter. Um,
5:55:05 I think we ought to do that and and I
5:55:07 ask you that.
5:55:08 Yes. And I and I and we are we can do
5:55:10 that. Absolutely. Um,
5:55:12 also, is this a question that the police
5:55:14 commissioner's advisory committee can
5:55:15 take up?
5:55:18 Because to Amanda's earlier point about
5:55:21 creating more and more committees, yeah,
5:55:22 if we have existing committees that are
5:55:24 compatible with addressing certain
5:55:26 issues, why not assign certain tasks to
5:55:29 committees that already exist?
5:55:30 Yeah. And I think that's true certainly
5:55:32 for the brick. I think fori is a
5:55:34 slightly different beast, right? It's
5:55:36 more about emergency management than you
5:55:38 know it has a policing element to it,
5:55:39 but it is broader. The ambit is broader.
5:55:42 Um, and you know, that's that's really,
5:55:44 you know, the area that I'm I I I I
5:55:48 share a lot of Chief Sullivan's concerns
5:55:50 about this idea that UASI is an inherent
5:55:53 evil. Um, it's not. Um, the the
5:55:58 conditions that the administration has
5:56:00 tried to put on it have been enjoined.
5:56:02 Um, and the the the fact that money from
5:56:07 the UASI grant goes to things that we
5:56:09 don't like is not an excuse to deny
5:56:15 ourselves those funds that go to things
5:56:17 that we need. Um, particularly for
5:56:20 emergency management um and and you know
5:56:24 disaster rate of preparedness. So that
5:56:27 that's an area too where I feel like
5:56:30 there's been there's been a lot of
5:56:31 effort to explain what YASI is and what
5:56:34 it does and why how we spend it and why
5:56:36 it exists. And the response that I feel
5:56:38 like we're getting is well that's all
5:56:40 well and good but also funds the brick
5:56:42 and therefore is inherently tainted and
5:56:44 we shouldn't take it. Um and I just
5:56:47 don't agree with that. Anthony,
5:56:50 um could we just do a quick overview of
5:56:51 the current ICE uh cooperation policy
5:56:54 that we have because I went to the
5:56:56 select board meeting where we where you
5:56:58 guys discussed the uh issuance of
5:57:00 general order 43, I believe, and I spoke
5:57:03 on behalf of passing that general order
5:57:05 or reaffirming it that was originally
5:57:07 passed in 2017. And can we go through
5:57:10 that again and just specify what that
5:57:12 does on the record here tonight?
5:57:13 Sure. So, General Order 43 in the police
5:57:15 department says we do not participate in
5:57:18 civil immigration enforcement in any
5:57:19 way. We do not participate in raids. We
5:57:21 do not particip we do not provide
5:57:23 material support to civil immigration
5:57:25 enforcement in any way. Um, we don't do
5:57:28 any of that. Um, you know, we will abide
5:57:31 by a valid judicial order. Um, so if
5:57:34 someone shows up with a court order, not
5:57:36 an administrative order, and says you
5:57:38 have to do you have to provide us with
5:57:39 X, then we will do it. We will follow a
5:57:41 lawfully issued subpoena. But we're not
5:57:44 cooperating with ICE or any, you know,
5:57:46 CBP or any of those folks in civil
5:57:49 immigration enforcement in any way.
5:57:51 And that basis of general order 43 is
5:57:53 perfectly in line with like the
5:57:54 anti-comandeering doctrine that goes all
5:57:56 the way back to like the fugitive slave
5:57:58 act of like northern states not wanting
5:58:00 to catch uh runaway slaves. It's the
5:58:03 same exact principle at stake here. So
5:58:06 what is the petitioner's I'm I'm just
5:58:08 trying to understand that what the
5:58:09 petitioner is asking for is I see a lot
5:58:11 of resolution demands at the state
5:58:14 level. I see a lot of that and then I
5:58:16 see the the other two organizations that
5:58:20 you brought up and what is I'm trying to
5:58:22 understand the direct benefit
5:58:24 of of the of that on our immigrant
5:58:27 community.
5:58:28 Yeah. So the the brick is a regional
5:58:30 intelligence gathering group. It's was
5:58:33 founded in the aftermath of the Boston
5:58:35 Marathon bombing and it is designed to
5:58:37 ensure that you know we have a bunch of
5:58:38 little municipalities surrounding a big
5:58:40 municipality. It's designed to ensure
5:58:42 that we are sharing regional
5:58:43 intelligence and that we're all up to
5:58:45 date on what's going on and that we were
5:58:46 able to crosscoordinate. I mean that
5:58:48 shooting in Cambridge, right? Like we
5:58:50 got an immediate warning from the brick
5:58:51 on that and they were, you know, hugely
5:58:55 responsible for a lot of that
5:58:56 coordination in terms of effort there,
5:58:58 coordinating between the state and MIMA
5:59:00 and the Massachusetts emergency
5:59:02 management and so forth. Um so the brick
5:59:07 with that said the when the brick was
5:59:10 founded um there were concerns that they
5:59:14 were keeping a database that it was easy
5:59:16 to get into and hard to get out of
5:59:18 right where if you were um associated
5:59:23 with a gang then brick would put you in
5:59:25 a database and that would mean that you
5:59:26 were eligible to be surveiled that you
5:59:29 were you know that there were there were
5:59:31 more um that that you were subject to
5:59:34 heightened scrutiny. Um, and there was
5:59:36 nothing you could do about it.
5:59:37 And the criteria for being a gang member
5:59:39 was very loosey goosey.
5:59:40 Right. Right. They did not have strict
5:59:42 restrictions on who, you know, how to
5:59:44 how to determine who was a gang member.
5:59:46 They did not there was no due process
5:59:48 involved in it. Um, you know, you often
5:59:51 didn't know that you were in the
5:59:52 database until they picked you up. Um,
5:59:55 they're like, "Yeah, we have you on
5:59:56 suspicion of gang activity." Um and um
6:00:01 ultimately um there were you know there
6:00:05 was a very serious situation in which
6:00:07 someone was held on suspicion of being a
6:00:08 gang member and was charged with crime.
6:00:11 Um there were immigration there were
6:00:13 immigration consequences for it. Um it
6:00:15 really was a pretty devastating case and
6:00:18 ultimately the state or the federal
6:00:21 courts were very um uh damning of the
6:00:25 bricks operations in that regard. Um,
6:00:27 and as a result of that, Boston passed a
6:00:30 number of laws, including the Trust Act
6:00:32 in 2019 that was basically designed to
6:00:36 reform the brick and bring it into
6:00:40 compliance with these requirements.
6:00:43 Since then, I understand that the ACLU
6:00:46 and other organizations still feel like
6:00:48 the brick does not have adequate
6:00:49 oversight. And I think that's what the
6:00:51 petitioners I mean I'm are are arguing
6:00:53 is that the brick still does not have
6:00:55 the amount of oversight that they uh
6:00:58 that they need that they're still not
6:00:59 being fully disclosing of of all of
6:01:01 this. Um what I will say though is that
6:01:04 since then there have been discussions
6:01:06 at Boston's level about leaving the
6:01:07 break. At one point the city council did
6:01:10 I oh no sorry that was the city council
6:01:11 voted to stop accepting Yuasi briefly
6:01:13 and then reversed itself. Um but you
6:01:16 know there have been discussions about
6:01:19 the brick at Boston at the Boston level
6:01:22 since it's their center and we just we
6:01:25 share it with them
6:01:26 and they have not taken those steps.
6:01:30 They have definitely held hearings. They
6:01:31 have called for greater oversight but
6:01:33 the mayor has not called for the brick
6:01:34 to be abolished. Um and the mayor just
6:01:37 got reelected. Um so I think there's a
6:01:40 strong argument to be made here to
6:01:42 Bernard's point. oversight is critical
6:01:45 and we are I don't think there's
6:01:47 anything wrong with us requesting that
6:01:49 that oversight be maintained
6:01:51 but I think it's a step too far to say
6:01:55 you know we call on the select board to
6:01:57 to to step out of the brick um when it
6:02:00 is a crucial regional intelligence
6:02:02 gathering tool
6:02:04 I think the other thing is that unless
6:02:05 we we show town meeting that that you
6:02:09 know we know what was going on in the
6:02:11 brick they'll pass you know, this
6:02:14 warrant article something worse. So,
6:02:15 I agree,
6:02:16 Amanda.
6:02:17 Well, I was I was gonna ask one if AC
6:02:20 has like heard this to see if we're
6:02:23 going to do something. Two, if we need
6:02:24 to decide tonight. Um, and then Well,
6:02:28 you're figuring out that answer. Um
6:02:30 there's some really uh valid concerns
6:02:34 based on what we have seen around the
6:02:36 country
6:02:36 and I think it would behoove us to be
6:02:40 able to come up with a version that we
6:02:43 can support um that speaks to the
6:02:45 concerns. Um, and I I don't know that
6:02:48 the petitioners would be willing to work
6:02:51 with folks on the select board or a
6:02:53 person on the select board, but to come
6:02:55 up with some version that and maybe it's
6:02:58 the keep most of the things petitioning
6:03:01 to the state legislature plus a
6:03:05 commitment on Bernard's point of actual
6:03:08 oversight at the level of the select
6:03:10 board um that maybe we would get buy in
6:03:13 from the petitioners on Um because I I
6:03:17 do think something like this is likely
6:03:18 to pass um because of the very real
6:03:22 fears people have on what they see on
6:03:24 their TVs.
6:03:25 Yeah, I do agree with that.
6:03:27 I mean, the idea of having the PCAC do
6:03:30 this probably makes a lot of sense
6:03:32 provided we give them clear guidance as
6:03:35 to what they need to do. I mean it's not
6:03:38 just you decide whether we should be in
6:03:40 Brook or not but you know specific
6:03:43 answering specific questions as to how
6:03:46 Brook operates and you know that the you
6:03:49 know who who who's in their database you
6:03:52 know criteria for getting in the
6:03:53 database all those issues
6:03:54 the only thing I will say about that
6:03:56 committee is that the folk the
6:03:58 petitioners of this Warren article and
6:04:00 the folks who see themselves as
6:04:02 immigrant advocates are very
6:04:04 underrepresented on that committee and
6:04:06 I'm Not sure how you sort of mesh that
6:04:09 other than to acknowledge that you're
6:04:11 going to need to do explicit outreach to
6:04:14 folks that are not already on the
6:04:16 committee if that's where um that lands.
6:04:18 So it it does sound like there is
6:04:21 majority sentiment at least three maybe
6:04:24 more. Uh go ahead Michael.
6:04:27 Okay. Um so just in in the sense of
6:04:30 where we are um number one I I agree
6:04:34 with Chaz here that the the the
6:04:38 UASI program
6:04:41 is is just
6:04:44 is not something that we should be
6:04:46 considering leaving for the reasons that
6:04:47 you described. So leave that. um and the
6:04:51 issue of the fingerprinting likewise you
6:04:54 know there are questions of
6:04:55 accreditation and so forth and you know
6:04:58 I don't like the fact that our finger
6:05:01 the fingerprinting
6:05:03 uh process leads to information by ICE
6:05:07 getting to into ISIS's hands that we
6:05:09 don't necessarily want it to but you
6:05:12 know that's that's that's a that's a
6:05:15 problem with ICE right that's not a
6:05:17 problem with books processes
6:05:19 So to to those to those two points, I
6:05:22 wouldn't want to see a warrant us to
6:05:24 develop a warrant article that included
6:05:27 that that left those things
6:05:30 in the context of the warrant article.
6:05:32 Now with regard to the brick
6:05:34 specifically um one question I have and
6:05:39 and I'm really not there there are two
6:05:41 sides to this question but I want to
6:05:43 raise it anyway is the question of
6:05:45 whether or not you know we want to focus
6:05:49 our oversight of the brick for example
6:05:52 like what's in your database and how do
6:05:54 you manage and how do you determine who
6:05:57 goes in and who's gone in thus far to
6:06:00 Brookline specifically
6:06:02 or we want to necessarily take
6:06:05 responsibility for all of the
6:06:07 communities because I mean from Chaz
6:06:10 from your description of the chronology
6:06:14 here it sounds like there was a lot of
6:06:16 problems with with the brick and
6:06:20 information getting in there through
6:06:21 Boston. Um I I believe at one point
6:06:25 there was some talk about um the use of
6:06:29 SRO's um in terms of providing reports
6:06:33 that added people to the brick database.
6:06:36 And I'm and I also believe like we don't
6:06:39 have SRO's right now within Brookline.
6:06:42 So I'm just curious as to whether
6:06:45 there's a disparity there and equally,
6:06:49 you know, whether or not we as a town
6:06:52 should care about that disparity or we
6:06:54 should take a position that, you know,
6:06:56 there are people being harmed by this in
6:06:58 other communities as well and our
6:07:01 oversight responsibilities
6:07:03 um should care for those concerns also.
6:07:09 All right. So it sounds go ahead B.
6:07:12 Yeah, we we we can't say we only care
6:07:15 about Brookline people. Um and and it's
6:07:18 not a question of you know whether we're
6:07:21 we're doing something.
6:07:24 The question really is transparency of
6:07:26 brick in general.
6:07:28 Okay.
6:07:28 They wanted to be a secret secret type
6:07:31 organization. Um because you know we we
6:07:34 know that there's a lot of danger in the
6:07:36 world today and brick is a piece of it
6:07:40 um or can be a piece of it. Um the the I
6:07:45 I guess I have a question for Chaz and
6:07:47 that is uh the fingerprinting um piece
6:07:50 of this um distinguishes misdemeanors
6:07:54 from minor fingerprinting of minors.
6:07:58 Do you have the same problems with
6:08:00 denying uh the um release of
6:08:04 fingerprints of minors as you do of the
6:08:07 uh
6:08:08 Unfortunately, yes, because we have
6:08:10 people who lie and claim to be minors.
6:08:12 Um we've we've had that happen in recent
6:08:15 memory. Um, it's it's a tactic that's
6:08:18 used
6:08:21 and if you if it gets out that I won't
6:08:24 get fingerprinted or my my I won't I
6:08:25 won't get run through the database if if
6:08:27 I claim to be 17.
6:08:29 Everyone's going to claim to be 17.
6:08:31 Could I also make a strategic point that
6:08:33 this type of stuff, which I am highly in
6:08:35 favor of in trying to block our
6:08:37 cooperation with ICE at all levels
6:08:39 possible, um, is seeming to be better
6:08:42 handled through general orders. Um, and
6:08:44 I think that is a good sentiment that we
6:08:47 should try to get out to town meeting
6:08:49 because I've I've seen the success of
6:08:50 that. And I think it's also uh just
6:08:54 strategically more effective in the
6:08:55 practicality of it um rather than uh uh
6:09:00 these types of resolutions that are
6:09:02 calling for like the most extreme which
6:09:04 then uh damages the position in the
6:09:08 public's eyes which makes Brooklyn a
6:09:11 target for other things, you know. So I
6:09:13 think that I think that the general
6:09:15 order way of going about this is
6:09:16 probably for the better.
6:09:18 Just in terms of what we're specifically
6:09:20 considering tonight, it's whether first
6:09:22 to reconsider article 25 because select
6:09:25 board already voted on a prior version
6:09:27 of warrant article 25. So first we would
6:09:29 have to vote to
6:09:31 reconsider and then uh perhaps appine on
6:09:34 the current draft. It sounds like at
6:09:37 least three members were interested in
6:09:40 approaching the petitioners about a
6:09:43 compromise select board version
6:09:47 or isn't there an option of us sort of
6:09:49 setting up a or or or
6:09:53 uh directing the PCAC
6:09:56 to do this and making it possible for
6:09:59 the petitioners to withdraw their motion
6:10:01 if PCA what we set up is is going to
6:10:06 satisfy their concerns.
6:10:07 So, we can certainly do that. In
6:10:08 addition, but in the context of Warren
6:10:10 Article 25, which is what we're
6:10:12 discussing now, I think it sounds like
6:10:15 none of us agree with the exact wording
6:10:18 is currently constituted. So, I don't
6:10:20 think we need to take a vote on
6:10:22 reconsideration given that we're not
6:10:25 necessarily on board with the current
6:10:27 version. And from there, if a non-quorum
6:10:32 wants to meet with the petitioners to
6:10:34 try to reach agreement on something
6:10:36 andor separately, uh this doesn't
6:10:39 involve or article 25 at all. We can be
6:10:41 uh inspired by some of the sentiment
6:10:43 behind it and ask the police
6:10:47 commissioner advisory committee to take
6:10:49 this up or any other body we think would
6:10:51 be appropriate or select board directly
6:10:53 asking for uh some
6:10:56 briefing
6:10:56 meaningful
6:10:57 briefing.
6:10:59 Those aren't mutually exclusive options.
6:11:02 Is it is it possible or even worth
6:11:04 considering just proposing a set of
6:11:08 amendments and and sort of offering them
6:11:11 ourselves?
6:11:13 We could do that too, but we don't have
6:11:16 an actual draft at this time of what
6:11:18 that
6:11:19 somebody would have to develop a draft.
6:11:20 I'm not the person to help develop this,
6:11:22 by the way. I do not understand the
6:11:23 weeds the way some of you guys do. I I
6:11:25 would be willing to develop a draft um
6:11:27 if if I could work with you guys in a
6:11:29 non-corm basis, right?
6:11:31 Yeah, I'll work with you.
6:11:32 Yeah, thanks.
6:11:33 Okay.
6:11:33 Yeah,
6:11:36 I would suggest you reach out to the
6:11:37 petitioners and
6:11:38 Yeah.
6:11:38 both both chiefs and make sure you know
6:11:41 maybe there's a grand
6:11:42 a grand reun weaving weaving of the of
6:11:45 the words here.
6:11:47 Threading the needle.
6:11:48 The needle. Well, and it it's helpful
6:11:50 because we understand sort of public
6:11:53 sentiment, maybe more so than the the
6:11:55 chiefs are in Yes. terms of that to be
6:11:58 able to come up with something that
6:12:00 works.
6:12:00 Yes. Yeah. All right. Any further
6:12:03 discussion on article 25?
6:12:06 Sounds like we have a plan of action
6:12:07 here.
6:12:08 Okay. And let's talk maybe tomorrow or
6:12:10 something.
6:12:10 Yeah, I'll call you.
6:12:11 By the way, uh there's a um
6:12:14 a ceremony for the police department.
6:12:16 Yes. On at the library tomorrow. Yes.
6:12:18 Do we have I mean it's an award
6:12:20 ceremony. Do we have any print out of
6:12:22 what the awards are for?
6:12:23 Yes, I can get you all that. The chief
6:12:25 has sent you that, but I'll make sure
6:12:26 you I'll reforward it. Michael,
6:12:28 I I I apologize for doing this. Um but I
6:12:32 am I am just a little worried as a
6:12:36 matter of process and Joe has to weigh
6:12:39 may have to weigh in on this. But if the
6:12:42 two of if the select board has
6:12:44 collectively agreed that the two of you
6:12:46 are going to work on this then it sounds
6:12:48 like we just formed a subcommittee um in
6:12:51 which case there are OML issues to be
6:12:54 considered and I don't know if we have
6:12:56 just done that.
6:12:58 I'll pick one of you then.
6:13:00 Well what okay why don't we have one
6:13:02 official point person but there's
6:13:04 nothing that would prevent two of us
6:13:07 from talking to them.
6:13:10 Yes, you can't you can't seriously
6:13:11 individually
6:13:13 seriously debate.
6:13:14 Um but no, Michael's point is well
6:13:16 taken. Um
6:13:18 why don't we why don't we
6:13:23 Why don't you ask Anthony to take point
6:13:26 in talking to the petitioners? Why don't
6:13:28 you talk to the chiefs
6:13:29 and see if you can't get the chiefs and
6:13:31 the petitioners to the table?
6:13:32 That's a great idea.
6:13:33 Okay, that's a great idea.
6:13:36 All right, sounds good. Thank you for
6:13:37 raising that. I'll try to draft some
6:13:38 some language.
6:13:41 Perfect.
6:13:42 All right. Okay. So, with that we
6:13:47 a moment. So, with that we no lot we do
6:13:49 not have any further warn articles to
6:13:50 address. We have no more agenda items
6:13:52 other than a second opportunity at
6:13:56 public comment which for our two new
6:13:57 members. We uh allot 15 minutes at the
6:14:00 beginning and then any overage on that
6:14:04 there's an opportunity to speak at the
6:14:05 end. Go ahead. Thank you, David. Uh,
6:14:07 Regina Frolley from precinct 16. First
6:14:10 of all, um, this was a very important
6:14:14 discussion, but it's not an emergency,
6:14:16 and that would be the only reason that
6:14:18 it wouldn't be on the agenda. There's
6:14:21 nothing here.
6:14:22 Mike, I can
6:14:22 25. Excuse me. Nothing on the
6:14:25 25 is on the 25 is on the published
6:14:27 agenda.
6:14:28 Huh?
6:14:28 25 is on the published agenda.
6:14:31 Not on mine that I was handed.
6:14:32 You have an ear. You have an earlier
6:14:34 version of it. It's on our agenda.
6:14:36 You still have to do it within 48 hours
6:14:38 if it's not an emergency. So, I don't
6:14:41 know when you did it that it couldn't
6:14:43 have been provided to me yesterday that
6:14:44 it was changed, but it's important for
6:14:48 you to know that it has to be here and I
6:14:50 don't know if the petitioners were
6:14:51 notified that they were going to have
6:14:54 their article discussed. Um, there's the
6:14:57 second point I want to raise because I'm
6:14:59 really concerned about this
6:15:01 procedurally.
6:15:03 Um,
6:15:05 I was never notified that other than my
6:15:07 seeing this last night when I went
6:15:09 through the packet. I was never notified
6:15:11 you were discussing my article. It was
6:15:13 standard practice for 26 years that
6:15:17 people got notified that we're going to
6:15:19 be discussing it and they'd be in the
6:15:20 room. It was very clear that several
6:15:22 people seemed to know about it. I did
6:15:24 not unless I saw it myself. I would like
6:15:27 the courtesy of all petitioners
6:15:30 being notified in advance that we're
6:15:32 going to be discussing your article on
6:15:34 the Tuesday night board of select.
6:15:37 Right. Understood. Thank you for letting
6:15:39 us know.
6:15:39 I beg pardon.
6:15:40 Understood. Thank you for letting us
6:15:42 know that you weren't notified. Sorry
6:15:43 about that.
6:15:44 Absolutely. And sec. And finally, um, if
6:15:47 it weren't for Dick Banker tonight, I
6:15:50 would not know that there were over 500
6:15:52 pages in my packet because I had none of
6:15:54 the ones he referred to. Mine ended in
6:15:57 the 400s. So, I'm getting a packet
6:15:59 that's incomplete to begin with after I
6:16:01 fought so hard to get the packet to
6:16:03 begin with. So I would like those
6:16:06 missing pages is looks like it's about
6:16:08 well I don't know where where it ended
6:16:10 with you but it ended with what he said
6:16:13 545 I think
6:16:15 and mine ended about 485.
6:16:17 So to that point my packet goes up to
6:16:21 564 pages but the page numbers that Dick
6:16:24 Benoa was referring to didn't seem to
6:16:26 match up with the page numbers I have.
6:16:28 So
6:16:29 and and if you look at the combined
6:16:31 reports online
6:16:32 Yes. Go ahead. The packet has maybe
6:16:36 eight iterations and it gets changed
6:16:38 right up until the meeting when Regina's
6:16:40 packet is printed. It's usually
6:16:42 presented to her on Monday.
6:16:43 Okay.
6:16:43 Um
6:16:45 people are, you know, are told that
6:16:47 packets change. We cannot print 500
6:16:49 pages five minutes before a meeting. It
6:16:51 is impossible for our staff to keep up
6:16:53 with that. Just wanted to address that.
6:16:56 But it also meant that my article 13
6:16:59 also wasn't in there. So again, along
6:17:02 with not being notified, the actual uh
6:17:05 text wasn't there before me, nor were
6:17:07 any of the articles I heard discussed
6:17:09 tonight. So I'd like appreciate that
6:17:12 that be dealt with.
6:17:14 All right. I I definitely agree that
6:17:16 petitioners ought to be notified of when
6:17:17 their warrant articles are being
6:17:18 discussed.
6:17:19 Yes. And the other point is has didn't
6:17:21 rise and I'm grateful to what Michael
6:17:23 said. Um, there's a bylaw, I don't think
6:17:26 it's been changed, that if you're going
6:17:28 to vote for reconsideration, and it
6:17:30 sounds like this article 25 would have
6:17:33 been a reconsideration of your original
6:17:35 vote, you have can't do it without
6:17:37 notifying the petitioners in advance to
6:17:39 give them a chance to speak and be here.
6:17:42 So, I don't know if you've done that,
6:17:44 but again, it wasn't in on my agenda.
6:17:48 All right. Do we have anyone else who
6:17:50 wants to participate in public comments?
6:17:52 Anyone
6:17:58 online?
6:18:01 All right, seeing none, that concludes
6:18:03 our meeting for the night.
6:18:04 Thank you.
6:18:06 Good job. You guys out of here before
6:18:08 the
6:18:09 change of midnight.
6:18:12 For us.
6:18:14 Oh my goodness.
6:18:20 Recording stopped.
6:18:22 So they
6:18:25 they voted to cut out single short-term
6:18:28 rentals as
6:18:31 they voted to remove TM subdist
6:18:36 12 to 10
AI-touched surfaces are labeled; verify against the official record. The tape is embedded from YouTube, never rehosted.