Brookline Select Board Meeting - May 12, 2026
2026-05-12

[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