Select Board Work Session Pt. 2 - September 16, 2026

0:00 seeking reappoint for for their seats

0:02 and then you have additional candidates.

0:05 What what we're saying then which I

0:07 think is a substantive change is that we

0:10 actually want to go through the

0:11 interview process for those new

0:13 candidates

0:15 even if

0:18 whatever whatever sense we have the the

0:22 uh incumbents are likely to be

0:24 reappointed

0:26 right so take the example that parks and

0:28 wreck has three candidates up each year

0:30 I think that's the the number

0:32 right then even If all three submit for

0:37 reappoint, if there are two additional

0:39 new candidates that put in, um, I I

0:43 personally would like to say like we

0:44 should interview them and then we can

0:46 have the conversation about who actually

0:48 gets nominated to fill those three

0:50 seats.

0:51 So, are we only setting a certain time

0:52 where we accept applications? Because if

0:54 they're not due for reappointment till

0:56 the end of August, say somebody applies

0:58 for this board in December, are we

1:00 holding their application until the

1:01 following reappoint period or do you

1:04 want to interview them in December when

1:06 they're up and keep them on the back

1:07 burner until August? And if there are no

1:10 current vacancies, but

1:11 why would it be up in December?

1:12 Not up in December. If they apply in

1:14 December, a new applicant, there are

1:16 zero vacancies, but there are maybe

1:18 three incumbents that will be up for

1:20 reappointment in August, but we have

1:22 somebody who applied say let's just say

1:24 January February keep

1:26 I mean if we interview someone in

1:27 February I'm not going to remember but

1:32 there could be a new selection

1:34 right so I would prefer in this case

1:37 that like we try especially since

1:39 summers are later right we're trying to

1:41 reappoint in September 1st so then most

1:44 of the interview should take place after

1:46 the election so like May through August

1:50 unless there's a vacancy

1:51 right I think if we have a window of

1:53 time that you apply or you send in that

1:57 you want to be reappointed in the May to

2:00 July time frame.

2:02 I like that it keeps it very concise.

2:04 Everybody applies from May to July and

2:06 then we can handle interviews or

2:08 reappointments and as

2:11 right and then the exception being an

2:12 actual vacancy in which case then we

2:14 want to put out like actually we need

2:16 someone to throw their head in. And the

2:18 one other exception would be those where

2:20 by state statute the term actually

2:21 doesn't start in September 1st. So we

2:23 have some where it ends in May. And yes,

2:26 we're and that's one of those that's one

2:28 of the our projects from boards and

2:30 commissions once we get this through is

2:32 standardizing that as well. Um where we

2:34 obviously ones that we can't by a

2:36 statute except you know you've got that

2:38 you've got that um Warren article that's

2:39 coming up for discussion today about the

2:41 T-board which will will help on that

2:42 front. Are there other committees other

2:44 than the TA board that are not that

2:46 demand a certain type?

2:47 Yes. Yes.

2:50 Now, Michael raised a question about do

2:52 we want to be interviewing incumbents if

2:54 we already know them and we think that

2:56 they're going to get it anyway. Um, and

3:00 I think that is a good question. And I'm

3:01 not sure that we necessarily would want

3:04 to do that, but I could envision

3:07 scenarios where the incumbents want to

3:09 be interviewed if they feel that they're

3:10 at a competitive disadvantage that we're

3:12 only interviewing new candidates.

3:14 Yeah. I mean, you could also just keep

3:15 it at chair's discretion and then like

3:18 it's a case by case basis of like if if

3:22 we feel that they need to, but then like

3:23 we're actually paying attention. At the

3:25 very least, we should have and I I know

3:27 I' I've made this case. I I think the

3:30 one instance I'm thinking of, people did

3:32 submit for reappointment, but I did not

3:34 see any of the forms when we had the

3:35 laundry list that we were voting on. Um,

3:38 but theoretically, when they were

3:39 submitting their application for

3:40 reappoint, we have the opportunity to

3:42 read it. Even if we're not interviewing

3:45 them to say, "What have you done? What

3:46 are you most proud about? Why do you

3:48 want to continue?"

3:50 And I do remember at a prior meeting you

3:51 brought that up. So, we might want to

3:54 also create a reappoint application.

3:56 Very simple. Not looking to make it

3:58 overly difficult, but more than a simply

4:01 I want another term.

4:03 So the application for reappointment and

4:05 for appointment are pretty much the same

4:07 and there are similar questions. There's

4:09 just one little tab that says new

4:11 application or reappoint, but it asks

4:13 the same question.

4:14 Yeah, some of these though come back and

4:15 just they're empty and everything

4:17 because they haven't filled out the

4:18 question. [laughter]

4:19 So that's the question. Do we make it

4:21 mandatory that they have to complete the

4:23 application in full? I don't think you

4:25 make it mandatory, but we can set the

4:28 expectation that if it is competitive,

4:30 it behooves them to fill out all of the

4:33 answers because otherwise we don't have

4:35 anything to judge them on,

4:36 right? And

4:37 that should be obvious.

4:39 It's not.

4:40 And and the the other the other piece of

4:43 this in order to I think make your life

4:46 a little easier is that if we're going

4:47 to do reappoints, we shouldn't we

4:50 shouldn't allow reappointments until

4:53 August 31st. We should have the same end

4:55 date for reappoint at the end of July so

4:58 that we then have the office.

5:02 So what do we want to do for the time

5:03 frame? Do we want it to be May 1st, July

5:05 1st, May 1st, end of July which would

5:08 give us because I'm a little worried

5:10 about if we leave it to end of July

5:12 because then we have to pack all this

5:13 into two meetings in August. So it

5:16 should probably be something like May 1

5:17 and July 1 is what I'm thinking.

5:20 I like that idea. Yeah, it's

5:23 we only have two meetings in August

5:24 typically,

5:25 right?

5:26 And sometimes you only have one

5:27 and sometimes only one. And if we're

5:29 going to be appointing and reappointing

5:31 for every board

5:33 in two meetings, only one more than two

5:35 meetings.

5:35 Yeah. [laughter]

5:36 Yeah.

5:37 And I mean some of these will not be

5:39 competitive, right? And like that will

5:41 expedite it, but then it does open it up

5:43 for

5:44 right like not necessarily automatically

5:47 reappointing someone for their 10th

5:49 term,

5:49 right? So, so I think the answer is

5:55 from the first starting at the first

5:58 meeting of the select board would be the

6:00 opening of applications and then closing

6:04 July one and then scheduation

6:11 in January, February. You'd like me to

6:13 hold it till May for till that period of

6:16 time. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think it's

6:19 fine to do it that way. Um, but if we're

6:21 explicit about the windows, I think that

6:24 the vast majority will apply within that

6:26 window.

6:26 Yeah.

6:27 Right. And it also makes the

6:29 communication of like what's open and

6:31 available more concentrated and will

6:35 make it easier for people to focus.

6:37 Yes.

6:37 But, you know, on our website, we talk

6:40 about openings and sort of encourage

6:42 people to apply whenever there's an

6:45 opening. So I think to figure out how to

6:48 if you shift that to only be vacancies,

6:50 right?

6:50 Actual vacancies like someone stepped on

6:53 in December

6:53 list that's on the Morton Commission web

6:56 page. There's a list at the top of all

6:58 the vacancies. I can pull it off.

7:00 But I I think in the past we sort of

7:02 blurred the line between vacancies and

7:04 those who are just not reapplying.

7:07 And I would like to keep it only for

7:09 [laughter]

7:10 right. a separate category helps and

7:12 vacancies would be handled in the manner

7:13 that Bernard is suggesting because those

7:15 come up at any point. It's harder to

7:17 predict, right?

7:18 Uh and then also it sounds like Chaz and

7:22 is going to work on having a list of

7:24 those positions that don't fall into

7:26 this September 1st

7:29 appointment date. Correct.

7:32 I I'm I'm trying to think if we need to

7:34 put

7:36 we we have this language around

7:38 structure the structure for building a

7:40 vacancy. I'm wondering if for example,

7:43 you know, I'm sure there's some some

7:46 committee that has a vacancy right now.

7:48 Do we need to publish a schedule for

7:51 taking applications for that vacancy so

7:54 that they don't just tread in?

7:58 Well, we can make it mirror what we're

8:00 doing for those that are on September

8:02 1st. So, it's a two-month block of time,

8:04 right? And then we'll interview them in

8:06 the third month.

8:06 Right. And if nobody applies in that

8:09 time, then we will create another

8:12 two-month block of time.

8:14 Right.

8:16 But if one person applies,

8:18 then we will interview them and

8:20 potentially appoint them.

8:22 These are just for those outlier. Yeah.

8:26 So vacancy whenever it comes up they'll

8:28 have the same two-month block of time to

8:30 apply and the presumption would be in

8:32 month three they'd be interviewed.

8:34 Okay.

8:34 Right. And if no if nobody has bought

8:37 then we

8:39 we have to keep extending it but if any

8:41 one person applies then they have to

8:43 leave.

8:45 Okay.

8:47 I think they're done.

8:48 And the idea is to funnel them into

8:50 short time windows instead of like six

8:52 months in advance sending you something.

8:55 Um, but it would be good to update the

8:56 vacancy current list because I know some

8:58 of the ones on there we just filled in

9:00 the last couple meetings.

9:02 Yeah. Um,

9:04 you said if they apply they have

9:07 priority. What do you mean by that? If

9:09 someone applies for vacancy and is a

9:12 horrible candidate

9:13 Yeah. We don't have we don't have we

9:15 don't have to appoint them.

9:16 Yeah.

9:17 Right. No, the idea is that if somebody

9:19 applied within that two-month window and

9:21 they're not totally horrendous

9:24 advantage,

9:25 right? I the point I was trying to make

9:27 is that we wouldn't just we wouldn't

9:30 just we would interview them and have

9:33 the discussion and either accept them or

9:35 reject them,

9:38 but we wouldn't say, well, we don't have

9:40 enough candidates to fill the position.

9:44 So, so the question is how do we reject

9:47 someone like that? And I guess it's

9:50 decision that uh the chair and um

9:54 well someone would have to move to vote,

9:57 right? And if there is no person moving

10:00 to appoint said individual, it could be

10:05 they don't have to be a horrible

10:06 candidate. They also could just not be a

10:08 good fit.

10:08 Yeah. Especially

10:11 some of these committees, we want

10:12 certain expertise and it's entirely

10:15 possible that we don't get it in the

10:16 applicant.

10:18 So, if you interview a candidate, do you

10:21 have to then put them on an agenda after

10:23 that for appointment or you can you just

10:24 say we just don't want them on the next

10:27 agenda? Even though you've interviewed

10:28 them, it doesn't necessarily mean they

10:30 have to go on an agenda for appointment.

10:32 Correct.

10:32 Correct. But theoretically in the

10:34 vacancy case, eventually we're going to

10:36 appoint someone to it and then we should

10:39 at least list all the people who have

10:41 applied. Um

10:43 so like it could right they will get a

10:47 hearing eventually.

10:48 I just want to make sure that the chair

10:51 has an opportunity to uh make sure that

10:54 we're not giving the impression that

10:57 someone who, for example, has a history

10:59 of being abusive to um staff or or for

11:02 some other reason is just totally

11:04 unacceptable.

11:05 No, we're certainly not obligated to

11:06 appoint someone we're not comfortable

11:08 with in any context.

11:13 But that does highlight the second point

11:15 that I wanted to, which is the code of

11:16 conduct, which

11:17 Yes. Um I I do think it is really

11:20 important that we are I don't remember

11:23 what page it's on. I'm sorry.

11:26 Uh I do think it is important that we

11:28 are specifying what we expect um our the

11:32 members of abortion commissions to how

11:35 how to act as a reasonable member of a

11:37 border commission. And the assumption is

11:40 uh there we can either take action or I

11:45 I'd probably say except for egregious

11:47 cases just not reappoint if someone is

11:49 not upholding what we expect as a code

11:52 of conduct.

11:54 Yeah, that's in the requirement section

11:57 as well as the code of conduct.

12:00 I don't know if that was on

12:01 Oh, sorry. Well, I have to I have to let

12:03 Joe

12:04 separate.

12:12 Yeah, that's in the requirements on page

12:13 five.

12:16 I believe

12:19 page we're saying that over and over

12:21 again.

12:21 Yeah. And I think that's an important

12:23 point to me.

12:40 I think some of you guys also had

12:42 comments on the code of conduct.

12:44 Yes, there were several different kind

12:45 of code of conduct comments as well as a

12:48 request from one board chair to add some

12:52 language to the code of conduct that we

12:54 should discuss.

12:57 Um, so right the code of conduct and

12:59 standards of service. Um,

13:01 what page is that?

13:03 Sorry, it's page nine. Yeah,

13:06 there's also a weird box around it. I

13:08 wasn't sure why.

13:09 Yeah, the box is around a lot of things.

13:11 Well, the there's a reference at the

13:13 very top about what that box means. And

13:16 that's actually where I raised the

13:17 question of whether or not you think

13:19 this section should be bought. Um it it

13:22 refers to those sections that uh may be

13:26 applicable to

13:29 um public bodies that are not appointed

13:31 by the select commission.

13:34 And that's

13:37 should be some other way of doing that.

13:41 Has the moderator signed onto this code

13:43 of conduct?

13:44 No.

13:44 Okay.

13:46 That's what I thought.

13:47 Yeah. So I think based on that probably

13:50 take the box out of the section we have.

13:55 Um so yeah there are a couple of

13:56 different comments here on this section.

13:58 Um David you raised this question on the

14:01 uh the second bullet. Members retain the

14:03 right to descent from any action may

14:04 vote against a measure. I added some

14:06 additional language. They may continue

14:08 to express public disapproval of the

14:09 public body's decision after a vote is

14:10 taken. However, once a decision is

14:12 formally adopted, the member must

14:13 fulfill our duty by refraining from any

14:15 actions public or private intended to

14:16 actively inhibit structure or deter

14:18 implementation of that legally adopted

14:19 decision. David, you had some there's

14:21 different language there, which

14:23 yes, I I [clears throat] accepted sort

14:26 of your proposed language. I added

14:29 a lot a lot more to it. I'm not sure

14:30 that we want it to be that long, but I

14:32 wanted to convey a couple of additional

14:33 concerns I had with it.

14:35 Yeah. And I think I think you're I

14:36 actually I like the the language that

14:38 you have here because it's it makes

14:41 clear why this is in here. Um and it's

14:44 it makes it differentiates between right

14:47 like you can you know you vote against

14:49 the measure it doesn't go the way you

14:52 want it to. You are entitled to you know

14:53 you entitled be mad about it. You're

14:55 entitled to go post on Facebook about

14:56 it. You can be you can be mad. Um but

14:59 what you can't do is you can't actively

15:01 subvert it. you can't like you know then

15:04 you know because that's not the point of

15:06 being on a once once the board speaks as

15:08 a body you're expected to abide by the

15:10 decision with the board. So I think

15:12 that's that's the distinction which is

15:13 you can be upset about it you can even

15:15 file a motion to reconsider. Well you

15:17 can't because you were on the losing

15:18 side unless unless someone else changes

15:19 their mind. Um you can't file the motion

15:21 but someone else can. So I'm sorry.

15:24 No. Yeah. Can you vote to not fund it?

15:26 Uh

15:28 I yeah I think that's

15:29 where I mean the Yeah. Well, I well, I

15:32 think I think that's that to me is a

15:34 question that I I don't think that's I

15:36 think that's a question for you on the

15:37 selector, right? Like I think if you

15:40 from my perspective if you serve on a

15:42 border committee that the select board

15:44 appoints and then you vote against

15:48 budget of the select board or you know

15:50 it is the advisory committee's budget

15:52 but if you vote against a pol if if you

15:55 vote or especially if you table a motion

15:57 that is actively opposed to the conduct

16:00 of your board you're basically saying

16:02 you know I'm going to I'm going to throw

16:04 it to the house right I'm going to take

16:05 it I'm you know do does the select board

16:08 want boards and committee members to be

16:11 doing that. Um, I think that's, you

16:15 know, they have the freedom of speech to

16:17 do that as, you know, you can't prevent

16:18 them doing it, but you don't have to let

16:20 them serve on a board if they're then

16:22 actively disrupting what it is that the

16:24 board intends to be doing.

16:26 I'm I'm trying to understand the the the

16:29 case here.

16:30 Kind of an example.

16:31 Yeah.

16:32 Select board approves a contract.

16:34 Advisory committee looks at the

16:35 contract. Advisory committee doesn't

16:37 agree with the contract. Advisory

16:39 committee not to fund the contract.

16:40 But the advisory committee is not bound

16:42 by this. This is someone

16:43 replace advisory committee with any

16:44 other board.

16:45 Yeah. But when you say with any other

16:48 board, what other boards like

16:51 get into this question of funding?

16:53 Well, park and wreck. So for example,

16:55 the Biva country contract, park and

16:56 wreck will be looking at that. They

16:58 might decide to go in another direction.

17:00 Would this proposed policy change

17:04 prevent them from being able to do that?

17:09 No.

17:10 But after the fact, right? So like your

17:12 your question is as a member of Parks

17:15 and Wreck, take this example, there's

17:17 going to be a losing faction.

17:19 Can a member of the losing faction then

17:23 because I'm less worried about proposing

17:25 something at town meeting like that's an

17:27 open process. That's an open vote. I am

17:29 however concerned about like uh if they

17:33 have any power to then prevent the

17:35 contract from being enacted.

17:37 Right. I'm I'm more worried about the

17:38 scenario that Amanda just laid out. This

17:40 does come up in a town meeting context

17:43 with a bonding a vote. Yeah.

17:44 So for example, when we have a debt

17:46 exclusion, we then need a generally a

17:49 twothirds majority of town meeting to

17:52 support it. And there's always a

17:54 contingent that votes no even though the

17:57 voters have passed it.

17:59 Mhm. [clears throat]

18:00 And so is this language looking to bar

18:04 obviously not town meeting just using

18:06 that as the illustrative example. Is

18:08 this language looking to bar town

18:10 meeting members from not bonding a

18:12 project? The the functional equivalent

18:13 of that.

18:14 No. Um I I I think what it's what this

18:17 is saying is right like you're

18:22 it's trying to thread the needle between

18:24 you can you can continue to express

18:27 disapproval of something but take man's

18:29 example right so the paper country day

18:30 pilot or the fields right if the parks

18:33 and recck commission votes not to do

18:35 that that's that's fine and then it is

18:38 what it is but say you were on the

18:40 losing side of that vote and you called

18:42 Beaver Country Day and said hang on like

18:44 don't do anything.

18:46 Well, that's a different that's another

18:47 part, isn't it?

18:48 Yeah, you can't do it.

18:50 Yeah, you couldn't do that for other

18:51 reason.

18:51 That's but that's also a different part

18:53 of the code of conduct. That's not part

18:54 two. I don't think I feel like that part

18:57 is the second to last bullet point of

18:59 the code of conduct, which I agree with

19:01 completely. Right.

19:05 Right. You don't want board and

19:06 commission members undermining the

19:08 decisions of board and commissions.

19:10 Right.

19:10 That that makes perfect sense. But like

19:12 a lot of times there are two votes.

19:14 There's the vote of approving a contract

19:16 where you can vote no and then there's

19:18 the vote of funding a contract where you

19:19 can also have the chance to vote no. If

19:22 the board votes yes on the proving the

19:23 contract, I would still like boards and

19:25 commission members to not be scrutinized

19:27 for voting no for the funding of that if

19:29 they voted no for the contract.

19:30 Yeah. And I I I think that's right. I I

19:32 think if that's what the if that's what

19:34 you wanted, then I think that's fine. I

19:36 mean that David's language might

19:37 actually help with that because you

19:39 basically are saying it's not construed

19:42 as limiting individual members from

19:44 revisiting this at a subsequent date or

19:47 a subsequent hearing. Um essentially

19:51 well kind of that's already blocked

19:52 because a because a member who votes no

19:55 can't bring a motion to reconsider.

19:57 Right.

19:57 Right. Okay. but like six months from

20:01 when

20:02 and this comes up sort of context of CIP

20:05 priorities and so I I don't want someone

20:10 to look at this if we don't have that

20:12 language it can look like we're limiting

20:14 people from

20:15 uh proposing a change once months have

20:18 gone by and the landscape has changed

20:20 fundamentally.

20:21 That makes total sense.

20:22 Yeah, that makes sense to me.

20:25 Um,

20:27 are we okay with this point? No, Mike.

20:29 Um, I'm just I'm just reading the the

20:32 added language about public body speak

20:34 with the body as such members may not

20:36 individually communicate the

20:38 municipality vendors or interested

20:39 parties regarding business of the

20:41 public.

20:42 That's the second to last bullet. If you

20:44 want to scroll down,

20:46 it's in the middle there.

20:47 It's in the middle.

20:51 Yeah. Yeah.

20:53 version I share with you right sorry

20:57 the question the question I have here is

20:58 because we include you know one of the

21:02 reasons that I that I I appreciate the

21:05 addition of this is this whole question

21:07 of contracting um and who speaks for the

21:10 town with regard to vendors in

21:12 particular um and I'm just wondering

21:16 my understanding is that the select

21:19 board is responsible for contracting yes

21:22 Um, and unless it specifically

21:26 authorizes, I mean, I'm not even sure if

21:28 it would ever do this, but if it were to

21:32 authorize

21:33 a a a another body to contract, then

21:38 that would be one thing. But this

21:41 language, as it is, seems to give the

21:43 chair of any other public body the

21:47 capacity to speak for that body with

21:50 vendors.

21:52 um regarding contracts.

21:55 Um and

21:57 that is concerning to me.

22:02 You're talking about this language about

22:04 the

22:04 So you would like to delete vendors from

22:06 that line.

22:07 Um

22:09 no. What um

22:11 I I think the concern

22:14 um that is trying to be addressed with

22:16 this language is having an individual

22:18 member call and create uh a certain

22:22 impression about having authority in

22:25 making a contract or in making some kind

22:28 of agreement with a vendor or other

22:31 interested party or business. Right.

22:33 So, I understand why the language is

22:35 there, but I agree with you that I'm I'm

22:38 somewhat troubled by the current

22:40 construction for a couple reasons. One,

22:42 I think it's empowering board chairs way

22:45 too much.

22:47 Secondly, I think it's potentially

22:49 subverting the opportunity for

22:52 individual members on bodies to be able

22:54 to u engage in research.

22:57 Sure.

22:57 In order to gather information to be in

22:59 a position to make an informed decision.

23:02 So I think we can address the concern

23:03 differently by requiring that if an

23:07 individual member is going to make these

23:09 kinds of contacts, they must explicitly

23:11 disclose that they are not speaking on

23:14 behalf of the body. Y

23:15 that they are not they do not have the

23:17 authority to enter into any agreement or

23:20 to influence the outcome of a

23:24 transaction in any way. So that it's

23:27 very clear that the purpose of the uh

23:30 communication is to learn is research

23:33 and if there's an affirmative obligation

23:35 to make those disclosures and maybe we

23:37 can have an actual disclosure drawn up

23:39 that's part of any such communication I

23:42 think we can have that protection about

23:45 not having members go rogue but by the

23:47 same token protect an individual

23:48 member's right to learn about a

23:51 situation. I also wouldn't mind uh the

23:54 an individual board member having to

23:55 disclose to their chair that they're

23:56 doing that research.

23:59 Well, I mean the language here is is

24:02 stronger than that that um it's not that

24:06 they just have to disclose but they

24:07 actually have to seek approval and I and

24:09 I think the stronger language is

24:11 appropriate.

24:12 I don't know if I agree with approve. I

24:15 don't locking that research getting

24:18 action behind the approval of the chair

24:20 of the board.

24:21 Well, it's not it doesn't have to be the

24:23 chair of the board. It could be

24:25 approval from anyone. I would prefer it

24:27 just be disclosure. I don't think you

24:28 need to get approval to go and talk to

24:30 somebody for research about a decision,

24:32 right? I agree with Anthony.

24:35 Um I'm trying to think of like the

24:37 context of

24:39 cases, right? So, let let's take the

24:40 dump truck contract, right? Um, I put my

24:45 vision zero hat on and I my approach to

24:48 making sure that we are confined with

24:50 vision zero is to bring it up in the

24:52 select board. But let's say someone on

24:53 the transportation board sees that and

24:55 says I'm going to go out of my way to

24:58 reach out to um who we are obtaining the

25:01 dump trucks from and tell them that they

25:03 need to have side cards. Um,

25:06 disclosing is not a great solution in

25:10 that that case, right? Like I guess you

25:12 could tell the T-board chair that you're

25:13 going to do that, but that doesn't help

25:14 us. Um,

25:16 but that breaks

25:18 but in your scenario though, you're

25:20 engaging in advocacy.

25:22 That's not research.

25:23 That's not research. So to me, the

25:25 exception is to information gather, not

25:27 try to influence, which is why I think

25:29 the disclosure needs to be very clear

25:32 about what the contact is and isn't so

25:36 that we're not in that gray area. But I

25:38 I think in the in those cases where

25:42 you're doing research that a better

25:46 avenue for doing that research for the

25:48 town overall is to do that research

25:51 through staff. Right? Staff should be a

25:54 neutral

25:56 I I see you shaking your head Anthony

25:58 but but we should be treating staff as a

26:02 neutral provider of information. So if

26:05 you have a question like does this con

26:07 does this dump truck contract include

26:10 sidecards right then you don't have to

26:14 go to the vendor and and disrupt the the

26:18 contract negotiations in ways that you

26:21 may not be aware of. You can go to staff

26:23 and that's what part of what staff's

26:25 role is.

26:27 So ideally that's how it would function,

26:29 but I'm not trying to cast dispersions

26:31 on any individual staff member. But

26:34 sometimes because of bandwidth issues or

26:37 a staff member is just not particularly

26:39 responsive and again not on them. It

26:41 happens. I understand it sometimes. I'm

26:44 that way too. Uh I don't want to leave

26:46 somebody hanging if they have a burning

26:48 question or they want to get

26:50 information. So we could encourage going

26:52 through staff where feasible, but there

26:55 may be times where someone feels that

26:57 they need that direct contact if they're

27:00 not getting the information they need.

27:01 But if somebody actually needs that in

27:04 order to make a decision and they go to

27:06 staff and they're unable to get the

27:08 information, then in the discussion of

27:10 that topic, it would be perfectly

27:13 legitimate for them to say, I tried to

27:15 get this piece of information which I

27:17 feel is very important to this question

27:19 and I didn't get this information. And

27:22 therefore, we should either defer the

27:23 question or I'm going to vote no because

27:27 because it's

27:28 I don't think the limiting factor of

27:30 what is in the bounds of a debate topic

27:33 should just be the information that is

27:35 coming from staff. And I think that

27:37 there should be other avenues to gather

27:39 information. One of them being the other

27:42 party of a contract. And I can think of

27:44 numerous examples where I'm in the

27:46 advisory committee and again just

27:48 because I've served on the advisory

27:49 committee where I reach out to staff for

27:50 information and I do not receive

27:52 information back a week plus and then I

27:56 come to an advisory committee me meeting

27:58 lacking information. So I don't want

28:00 there to be this friction barrier to

28:02 people who are trying to do you know

28:05 what are you thinking? I think we need

28:07 to set the advisory committee aside

28:08 because we're specifically talking about

28:11 select board

28:12 the select board authorizing. So so I I

28:15 appreciate your case but but I don't

28:18 think it's necessarily relevant for this

28:20 question.

28:21 You think the same principle doesn't

28:22 apply?

28:23 I I think it doesn't. And the reason I

28:25 think it doesn't is because when you

28:28 have contract negotiations between the

28:32 town and another party,

28:35 um it can be it can be um very

28:40 disruptive to those negotiations

28:43 for somebody on the other side to be

28:46 having to determine whether or not the

28:49 person that they're talking to who is

28:52 from a town body is like the authorized

28:56 person. Like that's that is that is a an

29:00 unfair position for the vendors.

29:03 It gives a vendor an opportunity to sort

29:05 of manipulate the negotiations

29:08 as well.

29:10 So I I agree with your concern, Michael,

29:12 but that's why I was suggesting a very

29:14 clear upfront disclosure. I'm not

29:17 speaking for the public body. I have no

29:20 say in the negotiation. I am purely

29:22 reaching out for information gathering

29:24 purposes and we can have something

29:25 crafted explaining all that and it must

29:28 be provided or it would be in violation

29:30 of the policy correct to lay all that

29:32 out because I do I do think Anony's

29:35 advisory committee example is germanine

29:37 because that can happen all the time the

29:39 numbers on various other boards it can

29:42 even in theory doesn't happen on this

29:44 select board but it could on a future

29:45 select board where we're not getting the

29:47 information that we feel that we need

29:49 and uh in order to govern effectively. I

29:52 think timeliness is important. And so if

29:54 we limit ourselves to only accepting

29:57 what a future staff, again, not the

29:59 staff, what a future staff might or

30:01 might not provide to us. Uh I I think

30:04 that's a disservice to the public

30:05 potentially.

30:06 And I agree with you. Yeah. Go ahead.

30:08 Isn't the select boards in a similar

30:10 position as the advisor as the advisory

30:12 committee? I mean, we we we're not

30:14 really talking about select board. We're

30:15 talking about committees.

30:18 Committees that advise the select board

30:20 essentially,

30:20 right? Yeah. Right.

30:21 You know, and I and I think, you know,

30:23 right?

30:24 There are examples that I can think of

30:26 with like

30:28 you know I could see it happening in in

30:32 you know ZAB or you know or you know the

30:35 transportation board or you know the

30:37 advisory committee of council on public

30:39 health where you you could have a

30:42 situation where

30:44 I don't know if you want to encourage

30:47 members doing their own research which

30:49 they are absolutely entitled to do to do

30:52 so in a way that that encourages or

30:55 implicitly condones that sort of direct

30:57 contact because every direct contact

30:59 with a vendor or another municipality

31:02 adds that layer of question as to who is

31:04 in charge here. Um you know

31:08 I might try to thread the needle. I

31:09 think if we have a policy that says

31:14 if if you sorry someone can legally this

31:17 better uh if if you need to get more

31:20 information in order to fulfill your

31:23 duty as a member of this board which is

31:25 what we're essentially asking first we

31:29 want you to ask staff for information if

31:31 you are not getting that information

31:32 from staff then tell your chair this is

31:36 what I'm going to ask and also by the

31:39 Now that I'm going to go down this this

31:41 pathway, I am going to disclose that

31:43 this is purely information gathering.

31:45 I'm not acting on behalf of the town.

31:47 You want to negotiate, go talk to the

31:49 town, [laughter]

31:51 but I need to be able to do my job as a

31:53 member of the board.

31:54 Is that like sequence of events

31:56 principle?

31:57 That sequence of events should be

31:58 encouraged. I I I don't think that

32:00 sequence of events should necessarily be

32:02 mandated to be honest. I think

32:05 I from my point of view I think it's

32:06 like actually totally I I think it's

32:08 totally reasonable to receive something

32:10 from staff as a board member and then

32:12 say okay when we look at the vendor I

32:14 want to go to the website I want to ask

32:16 them about other things about and then

32:18 you know and I agree with David where

32:20 there has to be an explicit explanation

32:22 at the upfront that [snorts] this is not

32:25 for any other reason other information

32:27 gathering and if it comes out that they

32:29 said anything other than they're in

32:30 complete violation of the code of

32:31 conduct and would

32:33 and there would be an issue here. But if

32:34 not, then I I don't see an issue.

32:36 And there can be even more layers of

32:38 protection such as if it's a written

32:40 correspondence, you have to CC the chair

32:42 of your board.

32:43 Love that.

32:44 And uh if [clears throat] it's going to

32:47 be an in-person meeting, you have to

32:49 tell the chair of the board, I'm looking

32:50 to arrange this so that there's an

32:52 opportunity for them to be there. So

32:53 there are other ways of adding even more

32:56 protections beyond the explicit uh

32:59 written disclosure that will be up

33:00 front,

33:01 right? Um I think I think more

33:05 importantly than the chair because

33:08 presumably the chair might themselves

33:10 want to do this easily

33:12 would be to have somebody either on

33:16 ideally on staff or the select board to

33:19 fulfill that to fulfill that the

33:24 auditing role or what where

33:26 I think that's that would be fine too

33:28 could have a requirement to uh copy the

33:31 relevant department head.

33:33 Yeah.

33:33 And it's a public record. Yeah.

33:35 That should be explicit.

33:36 I agree with that.

33:37 And there should be some place where

33:39 it's available to the public.

33:40 But if a meeting were to occur between a

33:42 chair or board vendor for the purposes

33:45 of information gap, are you suggesting

33:47 that a staff person like board member

33:48 needs to be present

33:50 to

33:50 be aware

33:52 aware is 100% given the opportunity to

33:54 attend.

33:55 I agree with that. GI given the

33:56 opportunity to attend because the staff

33:58 person may themselves be in the loop of

34:02 negotiating the contract.

34:03 I agree with that completely that being

34:06 board members. I

34:07 agree.

34:07 So I think the desire here is not to

34:09 make a a complete bar as this language

34:12 currently reads.

34:14 Um I think you've I mean you've

34:16 obviously been following a conversation

34:17 here. So, we're just looking to not

34:18 completely outlaw y the ability for

34:22 individual members to reach out

34:23 directly, but it's subject to this

34:25 litany of protection layers.

34:27 Right. I think I think what what Amanda

34:29 said, it seems to me that you guys you

34:31 you the board have kind of moved towards

34:34 that sort of as a nucleus and then

34:36 there's so we'll I'm I've been taking

34:38 notes and we'll we'll formulate some

34:41 changes here. Get back to you next week.

34:42 Right. We should we should also in those

34:44 changes to to a comment that Anthony

34:47 made um make it clear that um

34:51 information gathering research that

34:54 doesn't involve direct contact with with

34:57 other parties in all cases is allowed.

35:00 Yeah.

35:01 Right. You know websites looking at

35:03 other public records examining examining

35:07 contracts whatever.

35:08 Right. examining a contract with another

35:11 community.

35:13 Think about that, right? That's

35:14 that's fine. Okay.

35:16 Like as an example, we have so we have a

35:17 code of ethics for ICMA for professional

35:19 managers. And so if we get inquiries

35:21 from other communities, we are obligated

35:23 to inform the administrator in that

35:24 community that we are answering

35:26 questions. Perfect.

35:27 So that's kind of the similar thing that

35:28 we're talking about here.

35:29 That makes sense. That's perfect. Every

35:31 every time I get a call from and I do

35:32 get calls from, you know, city council

35:35 members in other communities, I call the

35:37 manager or the mayor and I said, "Just

35:39 so you know, um, this is happening."

35:42 Okay, that makes sense. That makes

35:44 sense.

35:46 That that's that's sort of a

35:49 professional. Well, no, it's it's it's a

35:51 third category. There's there's research

35:53 that doesn't involve other people.

35:54 there's research involving uh

35:57 counterparties that you might be

35:59 negotiating with and there's um there

36:03 are other parties that you might engage

36:05 with which is this

36:07 third category and maybe we should be

36:09 explicit about those three different

36:10 kinds of research.

36:12 Yeah.

36:12 So we'll we'll we'll do some tinkering.

36:14 I actually think I I think because now

36:16 this is getting more complex I think the

36:18 bulleted list format does this a

36:20 disservice. So I'd like to actually

36:21 revamp this a little bit. I'm going to

36:23 try and come back to you with a version

36:25 that's cleaner and more plain language

36:28 as opposed to the bulleted list. I also

36:30 think these some of these are some of

36:31 these have just because over time

36:33 they've been building have gotten a

36:34 little repetitive like yes, I get it. I

36:36 get it. We got to be civil and

36:38 constructive. Don't be abusive and

36:39 threatening. 100% yes. However, I don't

36:42 need to say that three times. So, I will

36:44 figure out a way. Um this is just this

36:46 is because this has been touched by now

36:48 like 20 different people. So

36:51 but but to Michael's point splitting out

36:52 those three kinds of contact

36:54 y

36:54 explicitly because like there are

36:56 different ways to deal with it.

36:58 Yeah. Yeah.

37:00 So we will we will hack through this and

37:02 we'll try and bring it back to you next

37:03 week on that on this issue but I think

37:06 we should continue to move through to

37:07 speak.

37:08 Yeah.

37:08 Were there other things that people have

37:11 flagged that we should discuss in this?

37:12 I had brought up this in the sense of

37:14 attendance.

37:15 Yes. Um, and one of the reasons I did

37:18 that is I I broadly generalized the case

37:21 for removal.

37:23 Yeah. So that's further down.

37:25 What page?

37:27 Um, that's right up above. Sorry. We

37:30 skipped ahead a bit to talk about the

37:31 code of conduct.

37:31 Middle of page nine.

37:32 Middle of page. Well, uh, sorry, middle

37:34 of if you we we actually start on seven

37:36 and the bottom of page seven, top of

37:38 page eight. Um,

37:42 so there's a new there's new language

37:44 about removal.

37:47 Now, previously it opened with this, you

37:49 know, shall attend at least twothirds of

37:50 the public body's meetings. Michael

37:53 raised the issue that having that in

37:55 there made it seem like that's the only

37:57 that's actually the only ground for

37:58 removal. Whereas this new language that

38:01 was proposed makes it clear select board

38:03 may remove and possibly replace members

38:05 who fail to uphold these guidelines or

38:06 have conflict of interest. should not be

38:08 used to penalize a person because they

38:09 express unpopular opinions in their

38:11 private capacity or to restrict the

38:12 exercise of a person's free speech

38:14 rights. Select board may remove member

38:16 asking in writing for a member etc. Um

38:18 so all this you know all this does is

38:22 say failure to uphold these guidelines

38:24 is grounds for removal and one of the

38:26 guidelines is you have to attend at

38:27 least two individuals.

38:34 All right, toward the varants of page 24

38:40 where it talks about public bodies must

38:42 hold meetings where people are

38:43 physically present in a public building.

38:46 I think it would be helpful to qualify

38:48 that language a little bit in this

38:49 hybrid age that uh to the extent that a

38:53 meeting is being held in person and must

38:56 be in a publicly accessible location.

38:59 Yep. because we obviously have some

39:01 meetings that are virtual only.

39:04 Yeah. But those would not be as

39:08 I I also think this is an opportunity

39:10 for you as board you know we have gotten

39:12 you know members of the public have

39:14 raised concerns that certain boards and

39:15 committees do not meet uh virtually.

39:17 They only meet um or they they do not

39:20 offer a hybrid option. They only meet in

39:21 person. Um and you know there are

39:25 reasons for this but my question to you

39:27 is um do you want to instruct your

39:31 boards and committees to hold hybrid

39:32 meetings?

39:34 I I personally do. We're in an era a

39:36 technological era where it is very

39:38 feasible to make meetings hybrid and it

39:43 expands accessibility and participation.

39:46 uh I worry a little bit about well I

39:49 understand in in one particular case had

39:52 to do with somebody's personal

39:53 technology but overall

39:55 uh there's the ability for meetings to

39:57 be hybrid and to not do so is shutting

40:00 out a certain segment of the population.

40:02 I agree. I work a full-time job. It'll

40:04 be very hard for me to attend these

40:05 meetings if

40:06 what committees are only meeting in

40:08 person.

40:09 There are some subcommittees and smaller

40:11 committees that only meet in person. Um

40:13 I think Zap is probably the biggest one.

40:15 Um,

40:17 they

40:19 didn't realize

40:19 that probably. So, one of the things

40:22 I've been realizing because I've been

40:24 sitting on the Commission on Disability

40:26 meetings and that like certain meetings

40:29 require a lot more staff involvement to

40:31 make them accessible. Um, we have a

40:34 number of committees that don't are not

40:36 manned by staff. Um, so is there a a

40:41 logistic way to make it easier for

40:44 volunteerrun committees to do hybrid

40:47 meetings? They might not necessarily

40:49 have all the accessibility, but like can

40:51 we like create a how-to guide to make it

40:53 like to to meet with IT staff in order

40:56 to be trained. So that I think the issue

40:58 is that not everybody does that. Um, but

41:00 I do think that we also don't have the

41:02 law fully in place for hybrid meetings.

41:06 So until this is like a formal part of

41:08 state law. We've been extending the law

41:10 that kind of began during COVID, but the

41:13 legislature has not finalized

41:16 um what hybrid meetings look like and

41:18 what the requirements would be. So we

41:20 may want to wait until we actually have

41:22 the law in place um to address the way

41:25 that we want our meetings to run.

41:27 Uh how long do you think that

41:29 going to ask Representative Pollo? They

41:31 keep picking the [laughter]

41:33 they keep reauthorizing the the co

41:35 authorization.

41:36 Can we write something aspirational in

41:37 the meantime that says until there's

41:40 like formal legislation we um encourage

41:44 heavily encourage all boards and

41:46 committees to have hybrid meetings and

41:48 to have the chair meet with IT staff to

41:52 make sure they know how to do that.

41:53 Yes, that's that's good.

41:55 I think the encouragement for hybrid

41:57 meetings is part of our ADA.

41:59 Yes.

42:02 Yes, I think really, you know, talking

42:04 about access, I think if you asked

42:06 Sarah, she would tell you that all

42:08 meetings should be hybrid. You know, we

42:10 should that it should be more than just

42:14 Are we worried if we say should be

42:18 hybrid but don't give specifics that it

42:21 might go in contrast to any of like I

42:24 don't I don't totally understand what we

42:26 need at the state level to demand it.

42:29 Yes. Not sure.

42:30 No, no. I think it's we're worried about

42:32 what might be prescribed by the law and

42:34 how that would conflict with what we're

42:35 trying to do.

42:36 The concern is going against state law,

42:38 but we can always have a higher minimum.

42:41 Yeah. Well, but I mean, I think our

42:43 concern is the reason why this hasn't

42:45 passed the legislature is because there

42:47 are small communities out there that are

42:50 that are not capable of running hybrid

42:53 meetings that are fully accessible, that

42:54 are ADA compliant and accessible. and

42:57 they every time this comes up in the

42:59 legislature those communities raise you

43:02 know objections and basically say this

43:04 is an unfunded mandate um if you're

43:06 going to do this then you have to give

43:07 us more money um and in Massachusetts as

43:10 you know there is a formal procedure for

43:12 suing the state and saying you you have

43:15 you have saddled me with an unfunded

43:16 mandate then I don't have to do this um

43:19 and that's why um that's why the

43:23 legislature has been hesitant so what

43:24 they've done is they've created this

43:26 permissive model where they said you're

43:28 allowed to have hybrid meetings, but

43:29 they've left it very loosey goosey as to

43:31 what hybrid meetings are. Um, and so as

43:36 a result of that, I think Melissa's

43:38 concern is we don't want to say yes, we

43:40 must hold hybrid meetings and then have

43:42 the state suddenly impose a definition

43:44 of hybrid meetings that is more arduous

43:46 than what we currently offer. Um,

43:49 so would it be helpful for us to define

43:51 what hybrid meetings mean to us?

43:54 I I'm thinking to your point that Sarah

43:57 would push that we mandate hybrid

44:00 meetings, but [clears throat] we don't

44:02 want to conflict with any potential

44:04 future definition of what hybrid means

44:06 or if the equipment failed, you know,

44:08 like if we knew that, you know, the room

44:11 that's always used for, you know, the

44:14 projector broke and it's going to take a

44:15 week to, you know, bring in.

44:17 Can we write something like barring

44:19 exceptional circumstances? Yes, we can

44:22 do this.

44:24 And then that gives us the problem if

44:25 that happens.

44:27 But then like barring exceptional

44:29 circumstances, uh all public body

44:32 meetings should be hyper.

44:35 And that example could be explicitly

44:37 provided if there's a technical failure.

44:40 Yeah,

44:42 we wouldn't necessarily want to have to

44:44 cancel the meeting. So I understand

44:45 that, but I I don't think that'll be

44:47 common. But still that

44:49 cyber cyber security issues will be

44:51 common,

44:52 right?

44:54 That's true.

44:55 I think that, you know, our IT team has

44:57 done a very good job of threading the

44:59 needle in terms of the Zoom settings

45:00 that we use that allow people to

45:02 participate, allow people to be, you

45:04 know, seen in the in the the list of

45:07 participants um but don't allow people

45:09 to Zoom bomb meetings. Um you know, you

45:12 do have to be careful. Um, you know, I

45:15 can I can think of, you know, the PCAC

45:17 got bombed a couple times, the MLK

45:20 celebration got bought bombed a couple

45:22 times. Um, but generally speaking, um,

45:26 there's strong protections in place. Um,

45:29 in and that are then wedded to a strong

45:32 public comment process that basically

45:34 means that people don't have the

45:35 [clears throat] right to come in and

45:36 disrupt a meeting at will.

45:38 All right, we are running a little

45:39 behind so probably. Okay. Um to that to

45:44 that point um about public comment um

45:48 there I noticed that there was

45:50 description in here about that's

45:53 basically said that all boards and

45:54 commissions should have a public comment

45:56 policy.

45:57 Um

45:59 my investigation which I trust is may

46:02 not be complete showed that there were

46:04 only four public comment policies aside

46:07 from

46:09 the select boards. Um though I will note

46:13 that some boards and commissions put you

46:17 know the the process for public comment

46:20 within their agendas [clears throat] and

46:22 I'm just wondering if if you have any

46:25 thoughts about whether that should be

46:28 either more explicitly enforced or um

46:32 whether or not we need to deal with that

46:34 at all.

46:35 I I have two thoughts on this. one is um

46:39 in general it's better to have a policy

46:42 than not. Um so I do think it is helpful

46:45 for boards and commissions to have

46:46 public com express public comment

46:48 policies. I also think that they're only

46:50 as good as how we enforce them. Um, and

46:53 so I think the other aspect of this is

46:55 you've if we are to mandate that boards

46:58 and committees have a public comment

47:01 policy, we also have to mandate that

47:02 they follow it to the letter because if

47:04 they don't and then there's an issue um

47:07 then you write the the issue of

47:10 selective enforcement comes up almost

47:12 immediately. Um, and you know, I don't

47:14 know if there's there's a, um, there's a

47:17 big case in front of the Supreme

47:18 Judicial Court out of Nucket now, um,

47:21 talking, you know, it's a followup to

47:22 the, um, what was that? Which town was

47:25 it? Uh, where the person got the public

47:27 comment and said, "You're all Hitler."

47:29 So, stop.

47:33 [laughter]

47:34 Sorry. Sorry.

47:36 It's not there, but it's still

47:38 It's still lingering. It's still

47:39 lingering.

47:39 Yeah. There's now a there's now a closer

47:41 case set out of Nantucket dealing with

47:44 public common policy and whether or not

47:47 um boards and committees have um you

47:50 know basically you know what what the

47:52 what the outer parameters are if you

47:54 offer public comment and some something

47:56 goes wrong um whether you have the

47:58 authority to stop it, whether you have

48:00 the authority to respond to it um you

48:03 know as it's as it's ongoing or you know

48:06 is if someone says something you don't

48:08 like in public comment and you say back

48:10 to them don't you know I don't agree

48:11 with you like are you intimidating them

48:14 um you know there's

48:16 you having strong policies and then

48:19 following them is really what saves us

48:22 from those types of discussions. So, I

48:25 would say yes. I don't I I would suggest

48:28 to other boards and committees that they

48:29 have public comment policy, but I would

48:31 also suggest that board chairs in

48:33 particular take the time to really read

48:35 them and, you know, talk through how

48:38 they how they enforce them um with town

48:42 council's office, with us because, you

48:45 know, that's that's an area where things

48:48 can get out of hand pretty quickly. And

48:51 because they are official bodies of the

48:53 town, you really don't want to be in a

48:55 situation where a board or committee

48:57 accidentally violates someone's first

48:59 amendment rights. Um

49:01 maybe we should do a template.

49:04 I think your your your current public

49:06 comment policy I think is pretty good.

49:08 Um

49:09 and we do point them in that direction.

49:11 Yes. I I guess I guess do we want to

49:14 take do we want to take a step further

49:16 and say in the absence of a specific

49:19 public comment policy adopted by a

49:23 public body, [clears throat] this is the

49:25 public body, the public comment policy

49:27 would apply.

49:28 That might be too differential.

49:30 I I well I would actually or maybe too

49:32 prescriptive and I I my concern is right

49:35 there are boards and committees out

49:36 there particularly the smaller ones that

49:38 operate in a more freewheeling manner.

49:40 Right. you show up, there's four people

49:42 there, you're you're a member of the

49:44 public, you're interested in it, you sit

49:45 down at the table with them, and you get

49:47 get to have a conversation. Like, that's

49:49 how they want to operate. So, I worry

49:51 that imposing the select board's public

49:54 comment policy, which is very

49:55 regimented, will deprive those boards of

49:57 the opportunity to do that. Um, and then

50:00 force them to think about, oh, you know,

50:02 now I have to draft my own policy. And

50:04 maybe, you know, maybe that's not a

50:05 terrible hardship, but I would maybe I

50:08 would suggest if we want to do this,

50:09 soliciting some feedback from your board

50:11 chairs um about how they do this and

50:14 what they need um so that we can be

50:16 responsive to what they're seeing on the

50:18 brand

50:19 and then do a simple template.

50:22 Yeah.

50:22 I mean, I I'm okay with the version that

50:26 currently exists. And to your point,

50:28 when I was on the bike advisory

50:29 committee, when we'd have a low turnout

50:31 meeting, we would just like say hello to

50:34 everyone who wasn't on the committee and

50:35 they would have like however long they

50:37 wanted to say who they were and why they

50:39 were showing up. Um because we often

50:42 didn't get very many people to show up.

50:44 Um, so I think there is reason to not be

50:47 overly prescriptive,

50:51 but but but we could do a template that

50:53 says that you must have opportunity for

50:57 public comment unless time restraints uh

51:01 prevent it. Um, and

51:05 I mean that's really all you need to

51:06 say. Oh, to instead of what the policy

51:10 is to encourage all boards and

51:12 committees to have a public comment

51:13 period.

51:14 Yeah.

51:14 I actually, you know,

51:15 make that as a policy

51:17 there. There too. I worry, you know, I

51:19 would want I would want some feedback

51:20 from your board chairs because I

51:22 Yeah,

51:22 I don't think I've I struggle to think

51:25 of a board or committee where they might

51:26 not want that, but it's possible. Um,

51:30 you know, um I think that, you know, for

51:33 example, I don't think you should have

51:34 public comment at the audit committee.

51:35 Um,

51:37 from the HR committee.

51:38 Yes. Or the HR board.

51:41 Yeah. I mean, does Blackboard Hamburg

51:44 says I believe if a public body chooses

51:48 to hold public comment.

51:50 Yes.

51:50 Right. So,

51:52 yeah.

51:53 Okay. But maybe I'll do some outreach

51:57 on the board.

52:02 Other suggestions, updates from board

52:04 members on this. This is all very

52:06 helpful. Thank you.

52:09 Um, so we have our marching orders. I

52:11 have some some editing and language to

52:14 do. Um, we'll plan to bring this back to

52:16 you next week. Um, I'll take the pen on

52:19 some of these changes. Um, and then I

52:23 think the the separate question of

52:25 public comment, Michael, maybe we we

52:28 hold we hold out and and update the take

52:32 the opportunity to update the handbook.

52:33 Yeah.

52:33 And then have a have a discussion

52:36 further down the line about public

52:37 comment policy more generally.

52:39 Yep.

52:41 I will be very curious to see how that

52:43 case from Nucket shakes out. I think

52:44 that will have a pretty significant

52:45 impact on whether and how communities

52:49 offer public comment.

52:58 Okay.

53:00 All right. So, no one else has anything

53:03 to add to this agenda item for now.

53:06 Okay, then let's move on to our next

53:08 item. 2030 road map website.

53:12 I'll pick this one.

53:13 All right. So, uh thank you select

53:16 board. Thank you, chair. I'm Charlie.

53:19 I'm the assistant town administrator for

53:20 finance and we have online our

53:22 communications officer, Christina Metaf,

53:24 who's going to be sharing her screen.

53:27 Um that is a little small Melanie. I

53:29 don't know if we can maybe um

53:32 remove the uh the

53:34 We can move it. Can you make that a

53:36 little bigger? Can we maybe full screen?

53:38 Double click it. If you double click in

53:40 the center, it might get blanket a

53:42 little bigger. And it's still not very

53:43 big. Uh well, if you have your laptop,

53:47 you can follow along online. Um

53:50 Christina, yeah, thank you so much. You

53:52 read my mind. I was going to say maybe

53:53 we zoom in a little. So, let me just set

53:54 the table. So, the select board

53:56 obviously voted its uh or or rather

53:58 approved its five-year roadmap this past

54:00 spring.

54:02 Charlie, can I ask a question? Go ahead.

54:04 This was put in the packet. What today?

54:07 Um, so that's a great question, Bernard.

54:10 I was just going to get to that.

54:11 Currently, the web page is not visible

54:13 on the town's website. We didn't

54:14 download a PDF to put in the packet, so

54:16 it's not in the packet right now. What

54:18 you're looking at on our screen here is

54:20 a backend view of the website. Um and so

54:24 currently there is no page on the town's

54:26 website for the road map and the staff

54:28 have been as part of this idea to update

54:30 the road map maybe quarterly um that if

54:33 the board agrees um we have been working

54:35 on a web page to be sort of a one-stop

54:38 shop on the select board's road map and

54:40 status of all the goals and objectives.

54:42 [clears throat]

54:42 So so in Bernard we didn't put this in

54:44 the packet in advance. We didn't give

54:46 you a chance to review. Uh we can try to

54:49 distribute a PDF. might not export very

54:51 well just to be honest with you. It may

54:53 not like print out very well and you'll

54:54 see why in a minute. Um, so

54:56 is there a way to give us access to the

54:59 back end if we wanted to give you

55:01 comments offline?

55:03 Um, I think that might be a little

55:04 complicated.

55:05 Yeah. So, we you know what we Michael

55:07 asked for this as well when we previewed

55:08 this for David um and Michael last week.

55:11 Um, and so we can try to print out a PDF

55:14 that to allow you to provide some more

55:16 in-depth comments. But hopefully, um, we

55:19 can take some feedback from you today,

55:21 make any changes you'd like, and what

55:22 we're really looking for is whether the

55:24 board is, you know, likes what they're

55:25 seeing, would like to go live with this,

55:27 and then make some updates, or if if the

55:30 board has some updates before we go

55:31 live. So, the very top of the screen is

55:33 just explaining what the road map is,

55:36 you know, when it's going to be updated,

55:38 um, how we're going to do progress. Um,

55:40 and I'm actually going to turn it over

55:42 to Christina to, uh, to start explaining

55:45 the contents of the page and some of the

55:47 questions we might still have for the

55:49 board.

55:53 So, Christina, feel free to jump in. You

55:55 able to hear us?

56:00 Was

56:04 this the problem we were having with

56:05 Michael?

56:05 We might have been um the odd thing is

56:08 that

56:10 maybe I change my speaker.

56:13 I can uh I can talk through it if

56:15 necessary. So um I have an idea which is

56:18 kind of long

56:22 and

56:24 pest test. Can you hear me?

56:35 Sorry about that

56:38 about now.

56:39 Hello.

56:40 Works.

56:41 Yeah, great.

56:43 Uh, good afternoon. Um, so like Charlie

56:46 said, this is the the page that we have

56:47 worked on together. So you saw the the

56:50 introduction to the roadmap tracker.

56:52 This is a status tracker and basically

56:54 gives you the definition. We worked on

56:56 some language. So we have the five

56:59 stages or the five uh status bars that

57:01 we have. So initiation, preparation,

57:04 development, implementation, and that

57:07 it's complete. And that could mean it's

57:08 completed or it's complete for that

57:10 point in the it's annually completed and

57:13 it's going to be ongoing to be

57:14 completed. Um, and so you'll see that

57:17 this uh these bars on the right hand

57:19 side, you'll see below um are part of

57:21 the visualization to to make it nice and

57:23 clean and easy to understand where we're

57:25 we're going. Um, again, like Charlie

57:27 said, we can try to export this for you

57:28 to to give you some uh additional uh

57:31 review of the language. Um, but we

57:34 really feel like the the five steps we

57:35 have are pretty fair in terms of the

57:37 steps and status that we're um for the

57:40 road map of progress that we're going to

57:42 the different departments and the select

57:43 board will take. um just some department

57:46 abbreviations so that if there's in the

57:48 in the tracker below that you'll see we

57:50 have some ones and just make not

57:51 assuming that everybody knows all of our

57:53 jargon and language and uh

57:54 abbreviations.

57:56 Um this button right here is the Excel

57:59 spreadsheet. So you can go through and

58:00 I'll just open that up. [gasps]

58:02 And so this one drive sheet is um active

58:06 for all the public to see and it has all

58:08 the individual goals but it also has the

58:11 full goals and it includes the goal

58:12 itself, the goal number, the strategy

58:15 behind the goal, the action, the

58:17 department that is responsible or

58:19 departments responsible for enacting

58:20 that the start the estimated start date.

58:23 Um, and then the progress bar. And then

58:25 you can see it's um

58:27 the and the percentage just that's a

58:29 calculation for the progress bar that

58:31 we'll actually be hiding. Um, and so on

58:34 and so forth. So I'm just going to take

58:35 us back. And so um, I think one of the

58:38 things that when Michael had brought us

58:40 sort of a template and his idea of what

58:42 we would like the this tracker to sort

58:45 of look like is to be able to sort it.

58:47 And so while we weren't able to sort it

58:48 on that main page, um having this Excel

58:51 ability, so you can go in and and sort

58:53 by um just you want to see goal one, so

58:56 you're able to sort just by goal one and

58:58 have that um done and so on and so

59:00 forth. You'd be able to sort by the

59:02 progress and so you could see the the

59:03 most completed or what's in stage two

59:06 versus stage four and so on and so

59:08 forth. You could really sort by um any

59:11 sort of uh again any one of the ones

59:14 that you want. So the action of the

59:15 departments that are responsible, start

59:16 date, etc. and so on and so forth.

59:20 Um the full narrative is available in

59:24 the PDF as well as in

59:27 this particular tab. It is long. So

59:29 that's why we put the tab. Um again we

59:33 have the key performance indicators, the

59:35 goals, the strategies and just that

59:37 narrative document that you had

59:38 approved.

59:41 Um, and so we'll go back up. Excuse me

59:45 for the fast scrolling.

59:48 So really the the thing we're here today

59:50 to have you give us feedback and

59:52 comments on is these um each goal has

59:55 its own separate tab. And so at the top

59:57 we have the goal one. It's the full um

59:59 at this tab. It's just like that that's

1:00:01 shorter like core services. Underneath

1:00:04 that the first text is just the the full

1:00:06 goal itself. And then we have the

1:00:08 strategies. So 1 A and 1 B. Um we did it

1:00:11 this way so that we could make this

1:00:13 tracker below a little bit easier to

1:00:15 read and um

1:00:18 uh be less crowded. So if you do click

1:00:22 on this link, it will take you to

1:00:24 something that will be a PDF. And so we

1:00:26 can actually look at it like this. It

1:00:27 might be a little better on the screen.

1:00:29 And so you have your goal, the action,

1:00:31 the department responsible,

1:00:33 start date, and the status of um these.

1:00:36 I just want to make a note that these

1:00:38 statuses are just to show you. They are

1:00:39 not the actual statuses of these current

1:00:41 goals. These are just for show. When we

1:00:44 go live, whenever the board approves

1:00:46 this, we will um uh for just the the

1:00:50 display, we will have them all at zero,

1:00:52 unless we have ones that we have

1:00:53 started. And then the next time that we

1:00:55 update it, if it the board agrees to a

1:00:58 quarterly approval or quarterly report,

1:01:01 um then we will the next time you'll see

1:01:03 this updated will be in December.

1:01:06 Um

1:01:09 so one of the in our review with Michael

1:01:11 and David on Thursday um we did add um

1:01:15 this here last updated September 2026.

1:01:18 So every time we go through and update

1:01:20 it we will update the date so that

1:01:21 people can see what's changed what's

1:01:23 evolved and have a record. So if

1:01:25 somebody prints it out in September and

1:01:27 we update it in December and they say oh

1:01:28 this is you know you said this was 40%

1:01:30 complete and um we only have 20. Well,

1:01:33 you did if they have the wrong um wrong

1:01:36 version or the not the most updated

1:01:37 version, we can say, "Yep, we updated

1:01:38 this in December and now it's at 40%

1:01:40 versus 20." Um

1:01:43 so, any comments, notes on this in

1:01:47 particular so far?

1:01:53 Great. Let's keep going. [laughter]

1:01:55 Um [clears throat]

1:01:56 Great. Uh a couple of other

1:02:00 points.

1:02:02 No, no, let me know. Why don't you get

1:02:05 through the whole thing and then

1:02:06 sure like something I just want to

1:02:10 repeat some points that I that

1:02:13 on Thursday for the rest of the board

1:02:15 and

1:02:17 like get the whole contest. So I think

1:02:19 one of the another one of the the notes

1:02:22 that we received um was that when we

1:02:24 have a zero when we don't have anything

1:02:26 that it's not started yet that currently

1:02:28 we left it blank as you can see for 1B

1:02:30 before um

1:02:33 and in Excel we tried to put like tried

1:02:36 to put like a um a pattern in there. It

1:02:38 did not technically work, but I in two

1:02:40 we could so I think deciding do we want

1:02:43 to leave a as a whole group um for

1:02:46 something that has not yet been for goal

1:02:47 that's not yet been started an action

1:02:49 that's not yet been started do we want

1:02:50 to leave that blank as in white or do we

1:02:52 want to leave put it black or is there

1:02:54 another color um I think that is a

1:02:56 question that I'd like uh some input on

1:03:00 um

1:03:01 and

1:03:03 we are still working another thing that

1:03:04 was brought up is this is all fully

1:03:06 accessible the screen reader works um

1:03:09 except for the the bar. So, we are

1:03:11 looking into um trying to see how we can

1:03:14 make that just because of the way it's

1:03:15 set up in Excel and the formula. It's

1:03:18 not technically um it's not reading it

1:03:20 as a text per se. So, um it is just

1:03:22 something that we'll we'll need to

1:03:23 figure out or maybe make a a small

1:03:25 change whether we um a suggestion if we

1:03:29 can't get that to be a screen reader

1:03:30 access is to maybe just change instead

1:03:32 of implementation to activ or initiation

1:03:36 to activation and then just put the

1:03:37 letters next to it so people can

1:03:38 understand you know 20% is activation or

1:03:41 the blue is activation the uh light the

1:03:45 yellow is um exc the the next one and so

1:03:49 on and so forth. So, um that is also

1:03:52 another uh thing that we're trying to

1:03:53 figure out, but we have a little bit of

1:03:54 time um before we need to make it fully

1:03:57 accessible to do that.

1:04:02 Um I think the only other thing is the

1:04:04 the KPI. So, we have our key performance

1:04:06 indicators. Um and we had discussed in

1:04:09 the meeting and hadn't really come to

1:04:10 the conclusion um or the ne sort of the

1:04:13 next idea of having a sort of a progress

1:04:16 tracker on or an update in this other

1:04:19 Whoops. um

1:04:21 uh column here to add another column of

1:04:24 the status of the key performance

1:04:26 indicator.

1:04:28 Sorry. So the

1:04:31 the new machine

1:04:34 say hi

1:04:37 did that

1:04:38 is that better.

1:04:43 Thought I muted it.

1:04:52 It's supposed to hear it.

1:04:55 Okay.

1:05:02 Connections.

1:05:04 Sound

1:05:07 mute.

1:05:10 Am I muted?

1:05:12 I'm not.

1:05:14 Okay.

1:05:32 Okay. Okay. I'm going have to turn this

1:05:35 off.

1:05:40 Okay. [laughter]

1:05:41 It's still on.

1:05:43 Okay. Uh, so I guess I mean I can go

1:05:47 through all of them. They look pretty

1:05:49 pretty much the same in terms of the

1:05:51 layout. Um, I think just because we have

1:05:53 this blown up a little bit that this is

1:05:55 going off screen a little bit, but on a

1:05:56 normal size screen, it should go through

1:05:58 all the way. Um, [clears throat] so I

1:06:02 just kind of go through here.

1:06:05 Um, Michael, I can keep scrolling

1:06:07 through and if any if you want to talk

1:06:09 about make your you know reiterate some

1:06:11 of the points and then

1:06:13 uh are the dates in the in the in the

1:06:16 start date are they

1:06:18 are they live meaningful

1:06:23 where did those dates come from?

1:06:24 So those are the dates that were voted

1:06:26 and sort of approved in so when we uh

1:06:30 approved the road map there was a cell

1:06:33 packer

1:06:33 this is new I don't And that was those

1:06:35 are the dates that were included at that

1:06:37 time. So they hadn't changed yet. And

1:06:39 you know we brought this version of the

1:06:41 road map. It's taken us a few months to

1:06:42 get here. And so we figured

1:06:46 between now and December

1:06:53 it was only working disconnected.

1:06:56 Oh, that's funny.

1:07:00 [clears throat]

1:07:22 styles.

1:07:28 Hello.

1:07:28 That should be fixed.

1:07:29 There we go.

1:07:30 Okay. [clears throat] Now, how do we get

1:07:33 back get you back to the meeting? Bard's

1:07:36 fix.

1:07:37 Yeah. Okay. This is enough. I can see

1:07:39 [laughter]

1:07:40 I apologize. Hit the love hands. There

1:07:42 you go. Now you should be able to see

1:07:43 the meeting hopefully. There you go.

1:07:45 Okay.

1:07:48 So many hats. [laughter]

1:07:51 Trying to make things easier with this

1:07:53 small thing and

1:07:56 understood.

1:07:58 Uh Charlie, we're continuing to talk

1:08:00 about the dates.

1:08:01 Thank you uh for reminding me Christina.

1:08:04 So those are the dates that were

1:08:05 approved and we you know we got the road

1:08:07 map to this point. We haven't updated

1:08:08 the dates yet because we really need to

1:08:10 do like a sort of communication out to

1:08:12 the town departments. We actually want

1:08:14 to do a training with them and ensure

1:08:16 that they're monitoring this stuff. So

1:08:18 the dates that are in there are just

1:08:19 they're basically the the the templates

1:08:21 and a lot of them start 7128, but we

1:08:24 envision by the December workshop going

1:08:27 through and updating the start dates and

1:08:29 progress for all of the goals and and

1:08:31 actions.

1:08:32 Basically bringing that back for you to

1:08:33 vote on as an update to the road.

1:08:35 Thank you.

1:08:37 So, they're just template dates for now.

1:08:45 Uh, I have one piece of feedback. Um, if

1:08:49 you're [laughter]

1:08:50 um with the, uh, key performance

1:08:52 indicator trackers, a lot of ours are

1:08:55 like

1:08:56 update to the select board at the annual

1:08:58 whatever. Um, so like I could foresee

1:09:01 just like linking to whatever updates uh

1:09:05 come on an annual basis that are already

1:09:07 being done so you're not creating more

1:09:09 work, but then there's already something

1:09:10 that is either coming before the select

1:09:12 board or coming before the

1:09:13 transportation board um that you could

1:09:15 just like

1:09:16 Yeah, to totally agree with that

1:09:18 feedback. Thanks for mentioning that. We

1:09:20 we would we envision as things on this

1:09:22 are completed adding those to this page

1:09:24 or to the Excel sheet right to the

1:09:26 finished products if there are finished

1:09:28 products. Yep.

1:09:29 No unnecessary new work,

1:09:30 right? Keep it all in one place. Y

1:09:35 a couple a couple of notes then. Um

1:09:38 first of all, this is a a substantial

1:09:41 amount of work. So, thank you both uh

1:09:44 Charlie, Christina, and to the IT staff,

1:09:48 James, who uh I who I know put in a lot

1:09:51 here. So, um thank you. Um, and you

1:09:56 know, thank you for putting the current

1:09:58 as of date in there. Um, it would

1:10:01 actually be helpful to have that as as

1:10:03 sort of like a subtitle right at the

1:10:05 very top so that when you first go to

1:10:07 the page, the overall page, you

1:10:10 understand what it's what its update

1:10:13 uh status is. Um,

1:10:16 that's that's really helpful for people

1:10:19 who are quickly trying to find out,

1:10:20 well, has it changed? Has it changed?

1:10:22 Has it changed? Um the second thing I'll

1:10:25 mention and and this is sort of a

1:10:26 broader convers conversation but um as

1:10:30 you know the cart also has a tracker um

1:10:34 it's a fivestage tracker um as opposed

1:10:37 to this which is fundamentally a

1:10:39 sixstage tracker um you know this uses

1:10:43 bars that one uses images

1:10:46 I can I can show it. So here's the

1:10:47 example of one. Yeah.

1:10:49 Right. Here's here's the example of um

1:10:52 and pre-planning in Karp's case

1:10:55 basically means it hasn't started yet.

1:10:58 Um [clears throat] so that's sort the

1:10:59 equivalent of blank. Um and the

1:11:02 difference between initiated and

1:11:05 uh whatever the first step the the

1:11:09 second step is um on road map.

1:11:12 Yeah. Initiation and planning.

1:11:14 A planning is really just captured in a

1:11:16 in a planning stage. um on the car. Um

1:11:19 and

1:11:23 I I think it's really really helpful for

1:11:26 those two and other trackers that we

1:11:29 develop over time to be consistent in

1:11:31 both their language um and their uh

1:11:35 visualization. Um because

1:11:39 for members of the public who are

1:11:41 looking at these, especially for

1:11:42 example, there should probably be a link

1:11:45 from uh this one to the cart for that

1:11:48 item that says implement the cart. Um

1:11:52 and so so when people go from one

1:11:56 tracker to the next, having consistent

1:12:00 uh visualization

1:12:02 um is in my mind really really

1:12:04 important. otherwise

1:12:06 agree

1:12:07 it it

1:12:09 less helpful um and I would just I would

1:12:13 just suppose that you move from

1:12:17 effectively six states to five um and if

1:12:20 you can give a visualization which is

1:12:22 maybe a uh well you could either adopt

1:12:26 the carp visualizations with the circles

1:12:28 that get filled in over time or if

1:12:31 you're going to stick well I'll just

1:12:33 leave it at that because I I think

1:12:35 that's a better solution.

1:12:37 So I have had conversations um and I

1:12:39 think u other members I think Melissa

1:12:41 and we had have conversations with

1:12:43 Alexandra about the carp and I think

1:12:44 we're waiting for this tracker to be

1:12:47 done and see what we came up with that

1:12:49 would be um something that you know this

1:12:52 I believe their tracker is done in GIS

1:12:54 so to make it a little bit more visually

1:12:56 appealing um versus this is done within

1:12:58 our website client and I think one of

1:13:00 the reasons that we are not you know um

1:13:03 using it outside I know that you know

1:13:05 you had done a couple the Karp as well

1:13:07 as the the tracker in I think built by

1:13:10 some some AI glad or something like that

1:13:13 and unfortunately we because of security

1:13:16 purposes we can't we couldn't just

1:13:17 implement that and for a couple

1:13:18 different other reasons but mainly it

1:13:20 was it security that was their concern

1:13:22 so which is why we did this so I think

1:13:24 now that we have um all the notes from

1:13:27 you know from you and again we can send

1:13:29 um the note the the PDFs and and get a

1:13:31 little bit more clearer feedback that

1:13:32 way we can you know launch this whenever

1:13:34 you are ready too. Um, but then we can

1:13:36 take that to, you know, we have the

1:13:38 spreadsheets, we have everything worked

1:13:40 out, so we can take that to the Karp and

1:13:42 Alexandra and have them modify that on

1:13:44 their end.

1:13:45 I do want to be really clear that as a

1:13:49 version one of this tracker. Um, I think

1:13:51 this is great and and we should like

1:13:55 bring it to the public and that

1:13:56 feedback. Um but uh I'm just I'm talking

1:14:00 about version two and version three and

1:14:02 you know how it improves and I think

1:14:04 that the quarterly schedule that you're

1:14:06 proposing is is a good one.

1:14:08 Great.

1:14:09 Yeah. And and we can do development

1:14:11 between quarters. You know few months is

1:14:12 enough time for us to make some changes

1:14:14 and if the board wants to see it align

1:14:16 with the car or vice versa we can we can

1:14:19 work on it.

1:14:22 All right. Anyone else?

1:14:26 Okay, we continue.

1:14:29 Well, I think that's what we have to

1:14:31 show you. If are there any is there

1:14:32 anything else you'd like to see on the

1:14:34 page? It's it's it's a pretty simple

1:14:36 layout. The idea being if somebody wants

1:14:37 to, they can get into the Excel sheet

1:14:39 and look around all they like or for the

1:14:41 average resident, this is supposed to

1:14:44 give them the flow of each goal. Um,

1:14:47 the only other feedback I would have is

1:14:50 actually putting the 2030 road map, the

1:14:54 document itself.

1:14:55 It's in there. It's in there. It's under

1:14:56 It's under the road map.

1:14:58 Oh, there's the narative.

1:14:59 And you should you should pull it up,

1:15:00 Christina, because actually Christina

1:15:01 took some time to do what I think was a

1:15:04 bit of Yman's work, updating the

1:15:05 formatting without changing any of the

1:15:07 content of the road map. uh and uh and

1:15:11 so it looks nice and pretty and uh and

1:15:13 it's I think it's you're absolutely

1:15:15 right that's necessary but also below

1:15:17 the PDF is the full text. So well that's

1:15:20 that's what Christina was showing is

1:15:22 that under that tab 2030 narrative

1:15:24 there's a PDF version and then the full

1:15:26 text of the road map is actually

1:15:28 included here as well. So as you make

1:15:30 updates and changes to it we'll paste it

1:15:32 in there. Um, but yeah, other than that,

1:15:35 quarterly sounds good. And if the first

1:15:38 posting after you're done getting

1:15:40 feedback from us is basically not it's

1:15:43 going to be void of information, you

1:15:46 could also foresee like asking a few

1:15:49 residents in the town for feedback on

1:15:51 the layout since right like the dates

1:15:54 aren't going to be

1:15:56 correct probably until December. So,

1:15:58 it's a good opportunity to sort of uh re

1:16:01 get feedback. Sure.

1:16:05 Any other thoughts? I mean, uh, I think

1:16:07 what we're looking for is a We don't

1:16:09 necessarily need a vote, but a yay nay

1:16:11 on whether we should launch this page

1:16:12 this week. Um,

1:16:14 I would say yes. I would say yes.

1:16:16 Great. That's awesome. Thank you so

1:16:18 much.

1:16:18 Thank you.

1:16:18 Thank you, Christina.

1:16:20 This is a lot of work, so thank you.

1:16:22 You're welcome.

1:16:24 Have a good rest of your meeting.

1:16:26 Thanks.

1:16:26 Thanks, Christine.

1:16:27 All right. So with that, we are about 10

1:16:30 minutes early to start lunch, but we can

1:16:31 start lunch.

1:16:33 Probably a good idea.

1:16:34 Yes.

1:16:37 And I'll resume at 1:00 with 2026 fall

1:16:41 special town warrant.

1:16:46 My client right now is in London, so

1:16:47 I've been on the go since 5:00 a.m.

1:16:49 right now. [laughter]

1:16:56 All right. So, our next agenda item is

1:16:59 the 2026 fall special town meeting

1:17:01 warrant. Review, approve, and execute

1:17:03 the warrant for November 17th fall

1:17:06 special town meeting.

1:17:10 All right. So, uh the warrant closed on

1:17:12 September 8th, I believe. Um we had 20

1:17:15 articles that were filed. Um uh we have

1:17:18 the usual unpaid bills, collective

1:17:20 bargaining, and our budget amendment. Um

1:17:23 then we have another budget amendment uh

1:17:25 filed around the reimbursement of legal

1:17:27 fees. Uh a resolution around uh the

1:17:30 reimbursement of legal fees. A proposed

1:17:33 bylaw amendment around um the foundation

1:17:36 of any investigation or complaint

1:17:38 initiated by the town. Uh proposed

1:17:41 change in the bylaw um to ban

1:17:43 cryptocurrency kiosks. Another bylaw

1:17:46 change banning public meetings on

1:17:48 election day. You'll be familiar with

1:17:51 the transportation board home rule

1:17:52 petition that uh the board had filed. Uh

1:17:55 a zoning bylaw proposal to eliminate

1:17:58 residential parking minimums in the TPA,

1:18:00 the trans transit parking overlay

1:18:02 district. Um we have uh DPW looking for

1:18:06 some easements around the Lincoln School

1:18:08 Safe Roots Program. Uh then we have a

1:18:11 bylaw proposal uh coming out of the

1:18:13 moderators committee for exterior

1:18:14 lighting. One is a general bylaw change

1:18:16 and the other is a zoning bylaw change.

1:18:19 And there's been extensive work with

1:18:21 staff on these proposals. Uh then we

1:18:23 have an amendment to the zoning bylaw uh

1:18:26 for cash in l of inclusion inclusionary

1:18:29 zoning payments in certain developments

1:18:30 in the Harvard Street corridor. Then we

1:18:33 have another zoning proposal to

1:18:34 establish a new Pleasant Street multif

1:18:36 family overlay district. Um and then a

1:18:39 memorandum of agreement that the board

1:18:41 filed um uh related to that proposal.

1:18:46 Then we have a resolution around the CPA

1:18:49 and affordable housing trust which we'll

1:18:51 be talking about later on today. Um

1:18:54 another resolution around uh the select

1:18:56 board's free cash policy related to the

1:18:58 affordable housing trust. A resolution

1:19:00 around the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

1:19:02 seal and flag. And then finally a

1:19:04 resolution around support of vision

1:19:06 zero. So those are your 20 articles.

1:19:10 Um the board has any questions or

1:19:13 discussion. Um it's ready for you to

1:19:15 execute.

1:19:17 Any questions?

1:19:19 All right. Seeing none, I move that we

1:19:21 approve and execute the warrant.

1:19:23 Before we do that, I should also

1:19:25 mentioned that we have a request from

1:19:26 the moderator to hold a hybrid meeting.

1:19:28 Um so I I think that you should vote on

1:19:31 the hybrid meeting first and then follow

1:19:34 that.

1:19:35 So we'll go a be first then. So, I move

1:19:37 that we approve a hybrid town meeting as

1:19:40 requested by the town moderator under

1:19:42 chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 as

1:19:44 amended. Chapter two of the acts of 2023

1:19:47 and chapter two of the acts of 2025.

1:19:51 Bernard,

1:19:52 yes.

1:19:52 Michael,

1:19:53 yes.

1:19:53 Amanda,

1:19:54 yes.

1:19:54 Anthony,

1:19:55 yes.

1:19:56 I also vote yes. And now I move that we

1:19:59 review, approve, and that we approve and

1:20:01 execute the warrant for November 17th,

1:20:03 2026 fall special town meeting. Bernard.

1:20:06 Michael,

1:20:07 yes.

1:20:07 Amanda,

1:20:08 yes.

1:20:08 Anthony,

1:20:09 yes.

1:20:11 Yes.

1:20:11 Thank you. Um, we did schedule a few

1:20:14 public hearings on Warren articles that

1:20:16 we thought you could easily kind of take

1:20:18 off your agenda if that's

1:20:21 we for your review and consideration.

1:20:23 Uh, the first one is article one, which

1:20:25 is for unpaid bills. Um, and I'm happy

1:20:28 to report. At this moment, we do not

1:20:29 have this.

1:20:32 All right. So, why don't we go ahead

1:20:33 then and bring this forward?

1:20:36 I I will jump in and say I I hate to do

1:20:39 this to you, but um it's notice for

1:20:41 1:15. Um so, I have to give you you give

1:20:44 three minutes when you open the public

1:20:46 hearing.

1:20:46 All right. Um I do have something that

1:20:48 you could we could talk about just

1:20:49 briefly to follow up on the conversation

1:20:52 about the 2030 roadmap in three minutes

1:20:54 if that's

1:20:55 um in addition to um everything else

1:20:58 that we um in addition to the 2030

1:21:01 roadmap update I had asked the

1:21:03 individual departments to provide um a

1:21:07 uh list of the other um long range plans

1:21:10 that they meant that they uh provide um

1:21:14 such as the open space and recreation

1:21:16 plan, the national resiliency plan, the

1:21:18 community health improvement plan, and

1:21:20 um provide suggestions on how often

1:21:23 those should be uh presented to the

1:21:25 slide board for updates and when those

1:21:27 updates should come. So, I am now in the

1:21:29 process of compiling that list. I need

1:21:32 two more departments to fill me in. Once

1:21:34 I have that, um I will actually try and

1:21:36 bring that back to you next week. But I

1:21:37 did want to flag for you because I had

1:21:39 mentioned we would be having this

1:21:40 discussion um that there is a long list

1:21:44 of crossindex plans with the 2030

1:21:46 roadmap. And so having a master list of

1:21:48 long-term plans uh along with the

1:21:51 schedule of when when select and how

1:21:54 select board updates are provided um I

1:21:56 thought would be helpful just in terms

1:21:58 of continuing to monitor and be

1:22:00 transparent about your goals and

1:22:01 objectives. So um more to come on that I

1:22:04 just wanted to like and let you know.

1:22:06 Right. [clears throat]

1:22:09 Before we open the Sorry, my

1:22:12 I was just going to say uh so yes, we

1:22:13 are noticed for 115, but maybe you can

1:22:16 go over articles 9, 17, 18, and then we

1:22:20 open the public hearing as to all of

1:22:22 them.

1:22:22 Sure. That's if that's uh how you'd like

1:22:24 to run. Um, article 9, uh, we put in

1:22:27 front of the board because we've already

1:22:28 had some substantial conversations about

1:22:30 this article because this is an article

1:22:32 that the board um, chose to file and

1:22:35 essentially it is modifying um, some of

1:22:38 the administrative requirements with the

1:22:40 transportation board um, allowing us to

1:22:42 raise parking fees beyond the $50. Um,

1:22:45 article 17, Roger will be here, well,

1:22:48 Roger is here um, to present uh, the

1:22:50 resolution around CPA and affordable

1:22:52 housing. I can turn it over to Roger. um

1:22:55 for your presentation if you'd like.

1:22:57 Sure.

1:23:04 Oh, so we're starting to talk about the

1:23:06 Warren article. So there are no unpaid

1:23:07 bills.

1:23:08 Everyone CPA.

1:23:09 Yep. And now we're CPA.

1:23:10 Y

1:23:15 [laughter] the table right next to me.

1:23:20 This is my grandson.

1:23:26 So, article 17, it number 17.

1:23:30 Um,

1:23:32 it's a uh non-binding resolution.

1:23:36 Um,

1:23:38 uh, unanimously supported uh by the HAB

1:23:41 with one abstension for good reasons. I

1:23:45 select the member. We'll wait. Um

1:23:48 [clears throat] although the boards and

1:23:49 commissions don't sponsor articles. Uh

1:23:52 so there's a tab individuals are the

1:23:54 many of them but not all of the

1:23:56 petitioners. Um [clears throat]

1:23:59 there um I think that the the genesis of

1:24:02 this quickly um was um a call it a

1:24:07 postmortem meeting um on the sixth

1:24:09 floor. Chaz was there, Bernard and

1:24:11 myself, uh, Carara, um,

1:24:17 I I'm not sure about town council, but

1:24:18 Nancy Heler and and, um, and David as

1:24:22 the chair and the vice chair of the, um,

1:24:25 this DPA committee. And um uh the

1:24:28 purpose of the meeting was kind of a

1:24:30 post-mortem of um the the town financing

1:24:33 of Walnut High phase one which um

1:24:37 it it it could have been better. Leave

1:24:39 it at that. and and um the end result of

1:24:42 the meeting was um I think at Chaz's

1:24:44 direction or request that we um uh on

1:24:48 our respective committees um begin as

1:24:50 soon as possible to seek um to improve

1:24:54 uh a better uh coordination and policy

1:24:57 for uh town uh sponsored funding the

1:25:01 town local contributions to um

1:25:04 affordable housing projects.

1:25:07 So we um we began that effort um that

1:25:10 that was um over over a year ago, well

1:25:12 over a year ago. And um

1:25:16 uh it it's it's been on again, off

1:25:19 again, but more or less continuing. Um

1:25:21 and this article

1:25:24 almost came to fruition in um at the

1:25:27 annual town meeting this past May.

1:25:30 um but um because we for lack of

1:25:33 progress in in moving towards some kind

1:25:35 of a a policy which I'll I'll explain a

1:25:38 little bit further and there looked like

1:25:41 there might be a little bit of hope and

1:25:42 we weren't anxious to have an article if

1:25:45 there could just be a direct um way to

1:25:47 arrive at um at a at a at a good

1:25:50 solution. So we put it off for six

1:25:53 months but um there really hasn't been

1:25:55 um uh any kind of progress since then.

1:25:58 So this this article is is a non-binding

1:26:00 resolution. Um

1:26:03 one hope is that it will um stimulate

1:26:06 some some some fruitful discussion uh

1:26:10 which would be good and uh but if it

1:26:12 doesn't um there's probably nothing

1:26:14 wrong with having it an open discussion

1:26:16 of how the town jointly funds from

1:26:20 various sources um very important

1:26:22 affordable housing projects. So um with

1:26:26 that kind of as a as a preamble um there

1:26:30 uh we do we do think that one of the uh

1:26:33 key aspects of such a policy is to have

1:26:36 as a goal the the multi-year buildup of

1:26:39 the town's uh affordable housing trust

1:26:43 um and what what we're calling um non

1:26:46 non-encumbered balances the availability

1:26:49 of some serious funding when major

1:26:51 projects um come along that need to be

1:26:53 funded.

1:26:54 There's actually a very very good uh

1:26:56 precedent for this because the town

1:26:58 already has and has had for I don't know

1:27:01 15 12 15 years a a free cash funding

1:27:04 formula which is designed for exactly

1:27:06 that reason and the framework uh

1:27:09 actually conceptually serves as the

1:27:11 basis for the uh proposed policy that is

1:27:14 the finality of this warning most of

1:27:17 which are a bunch of warehouses and

1:27:19 [clears throat] that is that um there's

1:27:22 a specific uh dollar vote

1:27:24 15 years ago it was $5 million for the

1:27:26 free cash. Anony's very well

1:27:30 familiar with all of this.

1:27:31 [clears throat] Um and for this purpose

1:27:33 there's been a lot of inflation. And so

1:27:35 there's a kind of a $10 million bogey

1:27:37 where um we're we're looking for a

1:27:40 policy where the CPA would be part of

1:27:43 the annual funding efforts up to the

1:27:46 point where the trust has a a $10

1:27:48 million uh unencumbered balance. And

1:27:51 after that, there would be no

1:27:53 expectations and no no particular policy

1:27:56 guiding this. All all

1:27:59 along the way, nothing legally binding.

1:28:02 The article is not the only thing that's

1:28:03 not binding. as a resolution, but the

1:28:05 proposed policy itself, which is called

1:28:08 um to to avoid [clears throat]

1:28:10 confusion, we were originally calling it

1:28:12 a memorandum of understanding or

1:28:13 agreement, but to the CPA uses that term

1:28:16 for other formalities. So, the current

1:28:19 document that that is is headed that

1:28:22 we'd like to see uh articulate this

1:28:24 policy is known as a statement of intent

1:28:27 simply. So the other reason uh I mean

1:28:31 the other other than the free cash

1:28:33 precedent as the as the framework is uh

1:28:36 as I mentioned this morning um walnut

1:28:38 high phase one which um you may have

1:28:40 seen just got its funding committed from

1:28:43 the state after a six-month delay. um

1:28:47 the um the expected town contribution of

1:28:51 the phase 2 cost will be close to $10

1:28:54 million and who knows with inflation

1:28:56 it's several years off but the the top

1:28:59 priority for the town's affordable

1:29:01 housing trust specific priority once we

1:29:05 have gotten as we did this morning the

1:29:07 include the the expanding use commitment

1:29:10 done will be walnut high phase 2 there

1:29:13 are a lot of other things that are in

1:29:14 the queue that you're aware of. Fischer

1:29:16 Hill, Babcock Street parking lot, Ken

1:29:18 Station Street, but they're they're a

1:29:20 little less well formulated than Walnut

1:29:22 High Phase 2. So, we we think that the

1:29:26 the um the policy should in include CPA

1:29:30 uh intended annual contributions to do

1:29:34 this.

1:29:35 Um there's a central um entity called

1:29:37 the community preservation coalition

1:29:39 that keeps an incredibly rich database

1:29:42 since the very beginning of CPA. It's

1:29:45 annual. It's by every individual city

1:29:48 and town that does CPA and then it's by

1:29:51 the various of the three categories

1:29:52 including affordable housing and it

1:29:55 describes every single grant that's in

1:29:57 there. The only reason I mentioned that

1:29:58 other than it's a fun place to look if

1:30:00 you want to see what's going on with

1:30:02 housing is that um um

1:30:06 non project specific grants are are

1:30:09 quite different than project specific

1:30:11 grants and there are at least 10 cities

1:30:15 and towns in the metro Boston area that

1:30:18 have a current practice I I can't say

1:30:20 whether it's a formal document or or

1:30:22 informal but uh of annually funding

1:30:25 their housing trusts on a nonp project

1:30:28 specific reason. So we're we're not

1:30:31 proposing that Brookline do anything

1:30:33 different than at least 10 other

1:30:35 communities are doing. Um another

1:30:38 another thing that has been important we

1:30:41 think from the beginning uh if you're

1:30:43 familiar with affordable housing

1:30:44 financing at the state level they have

1:30:46 an expression they use one-stop

1:30:49 one-stop shopping. a qualified applicant

1:30:51 can go do one stop at the state and it

1:30:55 covers their state and federal and

1:30:57 various programs. We think that the town

1:30:59 should be user friendly for qualified

1:31:01 applicants in a similar way. They should

1:31:04 only have to go to one stop and that

1:31:07 should be the trustees and the trust

1:31:09 fund. You all will be the final

1:31:10 approvers of course for a what are very

1:31:13 complex um uh and large um requests from

1:31:17 the town uh for their projects. Um at

1:31:21 present um they have to go to two places

1:31:24 two separate um comm uh committees

1:31:27 boards and two separate vetting

1:31:29 processes. Um we don't think that's the

1:31:31 best in the best interest of the of the

1:31:33 town if we want to promote affordable

1:31:34 housing and be user friendly.

1:31:36 [clears throat] Um,

1:31:39 the original town bylaw that created the

1:31:41 hat back in the 1980s, whoever did it,

1:31:44 and I know David Treat was involved, if

1:31:46 you remember, David Treat was very um

1:31:48 very um preant. Um they uh they created

1:31:53 the trust at the same time and

1:31:54 inclusionary zoning as well and the HAB

1:31:58 members as the trustees of the trust. um

1:32:00 in the bylaw itself and I think this is

1:32:02 unique for town boards and commissions.

1:32:05 Uh the skill sets that are required for

1:32:08 the HAB to maintain uh at uh at the

1:32:11 individual have member level are

1:32:13 actually spelled out with regard to

1:32:15 affordable housing as a specialty

1:32:16 finance development programming design

1:32:20 uh and legal. And um Brookline is a

1:32:24 remarkable place that o over the time

1:32:26 since the HAB was formed how we we've

1:32:28 been able to have uh there's quite an

1:32:30 alumni group from the HAB and the

1:32:32 current membership as you heard this

1:32:33 morning have have these skills and there

1:32:36 and and [clears throat] the range of

1:32:38 those skills. So, it stands to reason

1:32:40 that um the one-stop shop should be

1:32:43 vetted by the trustees of the trust. Um

1:32:49 uh unlike the CPA which is um kind of

1:32:53 has a rigid annual time cycle, uh the

1:32:55 housing trust can move expeditiously

1:32:58 uh when um an application is received

1:33:02 and a commitment is made. And as you saw

1:33:04 this morning, uh the other funding

1:33:07 cycles of especially the state might not

1:33:09 run to the same cycle as the town where

1:33:12 the trust and the select board need to

1:33:14 make the kind of preliminary commitment

1:33:16 that you that you um made uh this

1:33:20 morning on a on a time constrained

1:33:22 basis. So um just the last thing very

1:33:26 quickly is what what what is the

1:33:27 proposed formulation? Um um it is um

1:33:32 pretty simple. It is uh for non-p

1:33:35 project specific funding that the CPA uh

1:33:39 as a statement of intent um

1:33:43 grant the annually the the lesser of

1:33:47 onethird of what their um revenue going

1:33:51 into the cycle is the lesser of that or

1:33:53 $1 million.

1:33:55 However, uh the condition on that is

1:33:58 that that number is is netted out or

1:34:01 subtracted from that would be the amount

1:34:03 of any project specific grant. So if

1:34:06 they uh if there was a $1 million

1:34:09 project specific grant in a given year,

1:34:11 the expectation for non-project would be

1:34:13 zero.

1:34:15 um uh if there was uh no project

1:34:18 specific grants then it would be the

1:34:20 lesser of one/ird or or or $1 million to

1:34:23 and context the the CPA uh that

1:34:26 generally uh gets including their state

1:34:29 share about $4 million a year under the

1:34:32 current formula. Um so I I think hope I

1:34:36 haven't gone on too long but that's the

1:34:38 that's the essence of this. We're

1:34:40 looking forward to um to uh productive

1:34:44 dialogue uh hopefully stimulate it, but

1:34:47 my most recent sense from the CPA

1:34:50 leadership is they're they're not even

1:34:54 thinking about this concept. So, um

1:34:57 that's I guess that's where I'll stop.

1:35:00 So, a question I have for you, in the

1:35:02 language of the resolution, there's a

1:35:05 reference to ongoing conversations with

1:35:07 the CPA community, but that the two

1:35:09 groups have not landed on an agreed upon

1:35:13 formula. Uh, just now you said that

1:35:16 they're not agreeing to the concept, if

1:35:19 I understand you correctly.

1:35:20 Right.

1:35:20 All right. So, our talks going in the

1:35:23 wrong direction, you'd say if

1:35:24 I don't think so. Um uh the uh the first

1:35:27 written version of this uh you know was

1:35:30 a draft then then anou um uh a little

1:35:34 over a year ago and [clears throat] u

1:35:37 there was very little pickup on it. Um

1:35:40 more recently we actually uh formed you

1:35:43 know formally I guess because it's a

1:35:45 it's the meetings are posted now a joint

1:35:47 subcommittee consisting of um myself and

1:35:51 Steve Iikin. Steve is our designated HAB

1:35:56 representative on the CPA committee and

1:35:58 then David Loyer is the vice chair and

1:36:01 Nancy Heler is the chair. We've had a

1:36:03 couple of meetings

1:36:06 um frail friendly cordial enough but um

1:36:09 it's it's hard to get the first rung of

1:36:12 any kind of a a statement of intent

1:36:14 where it it it has any meaningful annual

1:36:18 contribution to the trust for the

1:36:19 buildup purposes. Is your sense that the

1:36:22 concern on the part of the CPA committee

1:36:25 is premised on they don't like the

1:36:27 definition of being obligated to uh fund

1:36:31 to particular levels that the formula

1:36:33 would prescribe

1:36:35 each year. Is that the issue? They don't

1:36:37 want to have any required spending

1:36:40 allocations yearbyear.

1:36:42 Well, there's there I've I've had uh and

1:36:44 not only in our meetings, but I've had

1:36:46 relatively recent one-on-one

1:36:47 conversations with both the chair and

1:36:49 the vice chair. Um I I think that's one

1:36:51 of the reasons. Uh but it's it's it's

1:36:53 not the only one. Um uh I I think that

1:36:57 they um they they feel um that they

1:37:02 they uh they have three constituencies

1:37:05 and they need to show uh results. Uh I

1:37:10 mean that one of the things so that the

1:37:12 multi-year buildup of funds sitting

1:37:15 isn't consistent with uh what appears to

1:37:18 be the way they view their their

1:37:21 purpose. Another thing um

1:37:24 is that um they um they have a the CPA

1:37:28 rules and regulations for giving grants

1:37:30 are very elaborate and they are

1:37:35 putting the H have uh uh seeking of a

1:37:39 grant for this purpose and any grants in

1:37:42 uh precisely the same uh box if you will

1:37:45 as every other application whether it's

1:37:47 the town or some private party and and

1:37:50 competitive is very important to them

1:37:52 and I this I respect all of this they

1:37:53 rank they they they go through a lot of

1:37:55 process uh but this central group that

1:37:59 uh the community preservation coalition

1:38:02 that um sort of is the go-to for all

1:38:04 knowledge and advice they provide uh

1:38:07 standard grant forms on their website

1:38:11 for uh grant for cities and towns to ad

1:38:14 adapt to their own uses and they

1:38:17 actually have two standard forms. One is

1:38:20 for uh 99% of the grants or most of the

1:38:24 grants and the other is a separate

1:38:26 structured format for granting the

1:38:29 housing their housing trusts uh uh you

1:38:33 know funds. It it's it's quite

1:38:36 different. Um so uh they really want us

1:38:40 and and you know we we we must follow

1:38:42 all the regulations. We have to apply

1:38:44 every year. Uh we've got to say what we

1:38:47 want and why. And in this case, it will

1:38:49 be non- project specific, but we we

1:38:51 would say we've got to have this done by

1:38:53 a month from now. Walnut High is the the

1:38:56 main everything I just said. I won't

1:38:58 repeat it. Um their process, however, is

1:39:01 it would be kind of predictable.

1:39:04 We we believe if each year that's all

1:39:07 that happens and then they go through

1:39:09 the process of ranking

1:39:11 where in the the deck will a non-p

1:39:13 project non-specific application for

1:39:16 funds rank compared with

1:39:19 urgent current needs from a variety of

1:39:21 other housing and non-housing sources.

1:39:24 It it it will almost inevitably not make

1:39:26 the cut when you look at how much more

1:39:28 is being asked and how much they're

1:39:30 going to grant every year. So we feel

1:39:32 like this would be a complimentary

1:39:33 policy and I I I I want to say hopefully

1:39:37 that as this goes through the this today

1:39:39 and and others who review this that it's

1:39:42 not well why why should somebody else

1:39:45 have to resolve a dispute. Um it I hope

1:39:48 it is looked at as as the need for the

1:39:50 town in the town's interest to have a

1:39:53 policy on affordable housing funding

1:39:55 that's best for the town.

1:39:57 [clears throat]

1:39:58 And

1:39:59 um one comment, one question. Um it

1:40:02 makes a lot of sense for everything that

1:40:04 we've heard of of financing related to

1:40:07 this that uh the housing trust often

1:40:10 needs to expend larger ticket uh items

1:40:14 than what can normally be requested from

1:40:16 the CPA committee just based on the

1:40:18 funding cycle. And so the ability to

1:40:21 acquire funds over multiple years makes

1:40:23 a lot of sense. Um,

1:40:26 my question has to do with uh when the

1:40:31 CPA committee is evaluating housing

1:40:34 proposals that come through. It's not

1:40:36 just the housing trustbased proposals

1:40:39 that they're evaluating. They're

1:40:40 evaluating other nonprofits. How what

1:40:44 effect do you think this warrant article

1:40:46 would have on ECDC getting funding or

1:40:49 any other nonprofit developer that's

1:40:51 going to the CPA? It's a great question

1:40:54 and and it really runs to the heart of

1:40:55 and and this is one of the comments that

1:40:58 they've made as well. Um the the

1:41:00 [clears throat] draft statement of

1:41:01 intent actually other than um us seeking

1:41:05 some kind of a a non-binding formula, it

1:41:09 it seeks to um align

1:41:13 what should be best done by the HAB with

1:41:16 its skill sets and other kinds of grants

1:41:18 don't require those skill sets. A

1:41:21 perfect example of it, and it's not the

1:41:22 only one, is rental assistance.

1:41:24 That's a social service housing related,

1:41:28 if you want to call it that. We have no

1:41:30 special expertise on that. We we've done

1:41:32 rental assistance. The CPA has done

1:41:34 rental assistance. There's no

1:41:36 coordination. I mean, there's, you know,

1:41:39 other than the staff knows basically

1:41:42 what's going on. Um, we we think that um

1:41:45 that that would be perfectly fine for

1:41:47 the CPA to to do all of that if they

1:41:49 wish to. and the formula should allow

1:41:52 enough funding. It should be anticipated

1:41:54 that that could be done. Um likewise

1:41:57 very small um bricks and mortar projects

1:42:01 um there there's things going on now

1:42:03 windows for the the HA existing projects

1:42:06 a roof rep um some

1:42:10 preservation funding is a little dicey

1:42:13 but it can be done through the CPA and

1:42:15 if it couldn't we we could certainly do

1:42:17 it. Um in in the uh in the case of the

1:42:20 BCDC, we both funded the same project on

1:42:24 that, but that was a probably an example

1:42:26 where the required expertise wasn't

1:42:29 there at the beginning and we kind of

1:42:31 went in and bailed it out at the end. Um

1:42:34 so we we'd like to see the formula allow

1:42:37 for and and describe what kinds of

1:42:40 things housing wise the CPA

1:42:43 can and should be doing completely on

1:42:45 their own. where it will be uh and and

1:42:48 there's a I plugged a number $2 million

1:42:51 but it could be anything anything bigger

1:42:53 than that

1:42:54 that the town is involved with that that

1:42:57 in in is complex

1:42:59 but that should be where the trust fund

1:43:01 gets the buildup from. So u the the

1:43:05 formulation in the resolution is is is

1:43:09 you can almost call it a placeholder.

1:43:11 It's it's ambitious. if they're

1:43:13 describing is if it was adopted if they

1:43:15 would completely fail in their mission.

1:43:18 So there ought to be room for

1:43:20 conversation on this. But but you're

1:43:22 absolutely right.

1:43:23 Can I add on that point quickly? Um with

1:43:26 uh [clears throat] they have a three P

1:43:29 three-pronged mandate and in the first

1:43:33 year of their mandate they spent way

1:43:36 more than onethird on housing. Yes.

1:43:38 Right. And so they've had to deviate

1:43:41 other years to do less on housing in

1:43:44 those years, right? Like the second year

1:43:45 they did a lot more towards open space.

1:43:47 In the next year they did a lot more

1:43:48 towards historical. So it wasn't a

1:43:50 strict 33% breakdown each year, right?

1:43:53 And so [clears throat]

1:43:55 with that being said,

1:43:57 how do you respond to the idea that this

1:44:00 is locking them in a specific format of

1:44:04 the CPA? That the law doesn't

1:44:07 necessarily

1:44:09 uh doesn't necessarily advise it to be

1:44:11 that. You know what I mean?

1:44:13 That's one reason it cannot be binding.

1:44:15 First of all, yeah. Second of all, and

1:44:16 they they do make another fair point. um

1:44:21 fif a little over 50% of their acred

1:44:24 funding has been for housing. So it's

1:44:26 not that they are anti-housing. They're

1:44:29 big supporters of the BHA in particular

1:44:32 um and and and done well would be BCDC.

1:44:36 So um to the extent that um project

1:44:39 specific grants that they choose to make

1:44:43 um

1:44:45 um that those would be um you know

1:44:48 subtracted but the there's there's we're

1:44:51 looking for the balance where there

1:44:53 remains a non-binding process for

1:44:55 building the fund up to some cap that

1:44:58 will will work

1:45:00 where so was Nancy Keller also bringing

1:45:01 a warrant article I it's not in the

1:45:03 warrant so was she also working on

1:45:05 something. Was that going on? Was that

1:45:06 Well, there was a public meeting last

1:45:07 night of the CPA committee that I I

1:45:10 observed. She referred to a warrant

1:45:13 article. Um, and she said that there's

1:45:16 no information available about it, so

1:45:19 she couldn't speak to it last night.

1:45:21 Okay.

1:45:21 Since they have this article, I was uh a

1:45:25 little bit puzzled. What other warrant

1:45:26 article is there?

1:45:28 Okay. So, we don't got to go there, but

1:45:29 I'm guessing what's the current

1:45:30 deviation between the two committees or

1:45:33 the the housing advisory board and the

1:45:35 uh CPA committee? And what's the real

1:45:38 hard line? Is they do they not want any

1:45:41 um formalized or not even formalized um

1:45:44 agreed upon handshake deal contribution

1:45:47 to the HAB? Sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was

1:45:50 I was going to suggest too that uh you

1:45:52 know, one thing we can do here uh is to

1:45:55 um have maybe a representative from the

1:45:57 CPA committee come to your next meeting

1:46:00 uh and so we can get their position.

1:46:02 Yeah, I was hoping they'd be here. Would

1:46:03 you be okay with that today?

1:46:05 Absolutely.

1:46:06 Yeah. The next part I had was about

1:46:08 Sorry if anyone else has any more

1:46:09 questions. Could I just go one more?

1:46:10 I'll follow you.

1:46:11 The last thing is the $10 million mark.

1:46:13 [clears throat]

1:46:13 Um feel like we've been down this road.

1:46:16 Is there a reason? I know. I know. Would

1:46:19 there be a reason we don't take

1:46:22 you? You chose 10 million because it was

1:46:25 5 million adjusted for inflation

1:46:27 basically, but I didn't go anywhere near

1:46:28 this you did. So,

1:46:30 do you think it would be do you think it

1:46:32 would be worth it to just say instead of

1:46:34 10 million you could well actually

1:46:37 depending on how the select board feels

1:46:40 on my proposal for the change to the

1:46:42 free cash policy in response to war

1:46:43 article 18. If say for the free cash

1:46:46 waterfall for April 18th, the cap so to

1:46:50 say on the affordable housing trust fund

1:46:51 for free cash moves from instead of

1:46:54 being 5 million to 2.5%

1:46:57 of prior year net revenue. Would you be

1:46:59 okay making that similar change in this?

1:47:01 I would say so. Yes. Yes. Yes. And we've

1:47:03 we've talked about going back quite a

1:47:06 ways.

1:47:06 Yes, we have.

1:47:08 Yeah. Go ahead, Michael. Um

1:47:10 the the 10 million just real quick was

1:47:12 not just a a plug on inflation but it

1:47:15 was after asking the VHA what they

1:47:17 thought they were going to need for the

1:47:18 long

1:47:19 perfect

1:47:21 I know it's called

1:47:24 um

1:47:27 um so yes I agree it would be great to

1:47:30 have a representative from the CPA

1:47:32 committee here a lot of my questions I

1:47:35 think

1:47:36 questions like do you have any idea what

1:47:38 that what the annual funding of the CCA

1:47:40 is over

1:47:42 about four million a year.

1:47:43 About four million a year. Is it is it

1:47:45 is it relatively steady or is it have a

1:47:48 wide variance?

1:47:50 Well, it's um of course it's 1% of of

1:47:53 the uh it's a 1% search charge. So to

1:47:56 the extent you can project annual tax

1:47:59 revenue will be the state match. That's

1:48:01 really yeah the the town's revenue will

1:48:03 be easy to predict. the state match may

1:48:05 not be

1:48:07 and that 4 million in twins but

1:48:10 um I'd have to look and see what the mix

1:48:12 is.

1:48:13 Okay. Um this the second is um Anthony

1:48:17 made a reference to the 1/3 oneird and

1:48:21 distribution and he referred to that as

1:48:23 a mandate and I just want to be clear as

1:48:26 to like if it is a mandate and you don't

1:48:28 think it is

1:48:30 then where is it coming? No, it um

1:48:33 that's I'm glad you raised it. If I

1:48:35 described it as a mandate, I certainly

1:48:36 didn't mean to. The only mandate is the

1:48:38 is the 10% minimum for each CPA of the

1:48:42 buckets. Um it's uh it's not a mandate

1:48:45 actually. Uh the CPA has a a plan, a

1:48:51 written plan. It's actually extracted

1:48:53 from the housing production plan. So I

1:48:54 one thing I failed to mention, our plans

1:48:56 are totally aligned. there's no no

1:48:59 difference in sort of philosophy on

1:49:00 priorities and the like. Um they they

1:49:03 have an informal policy uh which is you

1:49:07 know off off repeated uh uh of one-third

1:49:10 one-third and uh because they have

1:49:13 funded more they uh in effect feel like

1:49:16 they have to catch up now and fund more

1:49:19 non-housing to bring it back to balance.

1:49:22 But but that's more of a uh I think

1:49:25 being presented or or shared more of a

1:49:27 political argument. We have to be fair

1:49:29 to I'm I shouldn't be speaking for them,

1:49:32 but this is what they're saying. Be fair

1:49:34 to our three constituencies who voted

1:49:36 to, you know, pass the CPA.

1:49:40 So, there's no formal policy about that.

1:49:42 Um,

1:49:45 we have a lot of mandate.

1:49:46 Yeah. Right. Right. Um,

1:49:53 as you say, it sounds this sounds as

1:49:55 much like a political argument as as

1:49:58 anything else. Um,

1:50:02 so I'm I'm just wonder I'm just

1:50:04 wondering

1:50:05 how

1:50:07 how this this foreign article which is a

1:50:11 resolution and and non-binding

1:50:14 sort of intersects with that informal

1:50:19 policy in terms of their

1:50:24 how how their processes unfold.

1:50:28 I I think one of the one of the um soft

1:50:30 spots that has has to do with what

1:50:32 Amanda raised, you know, the the formula

1:50:34 in the article uh backs out um project

1:50:38 specific grants through the trust fund

1:50:42 of CPA monies, but um there the question

1:50:45 of how much and how to take account of

1:50:48 grants on housing that are not putting

1:50:52 through the trust, but that should not

1:50:54 be mandate. Newton has actually a a

1:50:56 written policy where um I got a quote

1:50:58 here somewhere, but that the trust fund

1:51:00 is the in Newton the Newton tr housing

1:51:03 trust fund is the arm the housing arm of

1:51:06 the CPA committee. Um we're not actually

1:51:09 trying to go that far. Go ahead.

1:51:14 In terms of non-project specific grants,

1:51:17 you mentioned how

1:51:19 it would be difficult [clears throat]

1:51:20 for you to envision a scenario where the

1:51:22 CPA committee would prioritize a

1:51:25 non-project specific over a project

1:51:27 specific. In terms of other CPA

1:51:30 communities, uh do they commonly

1:51:33 designate a uh certain amount threshold

1:51:37 for non-specific?

1:51:39 I've tried to track down any sort of

1:51:41 data on that including the head of the

1:51:43 CPC and anybody else

1:51:45 that's housing partnership of Shelley

1:51:47 Garing. Um there's no hard data on that.

1:51:50 All you can really see in the in the in

1:51:52 the descriptions of the grants and from

1:51:55 these 10 uh comm community communities

1:51:58 they call it an their annual

1:52:01 it is non project specific their annual

1:52:04 uh uh grant or annual funding of their

1:52:07 trust.

1:52:09 in one way or another, but but um beyond

1:52:11 that, it's hard to get at any data on on

1:52:14 formulas or the like.

1:52:17 All right. Any other questions?

1:52:20 All right. Well, this is docketed for

1:52:23 public hearing. So, I'm going to open

1:52:26 the public hearing for articles 1, 9,1

1:52:30 17, and 18. But why don't we first focus

1:52:33 on anyone who has input on artifice 17

1:52:37 since we have Roger here.

1:52:39 We haven't gotten the description yet of

1:52:41 18.

1:52:43 Okay, that's right. So 1, nine, and 17.

1:52:48 Would any members of the public like to

1:52:50 be heard on articles 1, nine or 17?

1:52:57 All right,

1:52:59 that case we can go ahead and close the

1:53:01 public hearing for 1 nine and 17.

1:53:04 Just with the caveat for 17 that you'll

1:53:06 probably want to you may you may choose

1:53:09 to reopen it just based on if if the CPA

1:53:11 come if representative of the committee

1:53:13 comes next week,

1:53:14 right? We can always reopen public

1:53:15 hearings.

1:53:17 Okay. Uh thoughts by select board

1:53:20 members

1:53:22 on one nine or 17?

1:53:24 So assuming article one just won't be

1:53:26 moved.

1:53:27 No action is still yes. No no actions.

1:53:32 Any additional thoughts?

1:53:35 I think I agree a lot with the spirit of

1:53:36 what the resolution is trying to do. I

1:53:38 think the HAB is the proper place for

1:53:40 new development to get um a hearing for

1:53:44 town funds for them to structure

1:53:45 affordable housing development. I

1:53:47 definitely think that's the right way to

1:53:48 do it. I just want to be careful that we

1:53:50 don't step on the toes of the CPA

1:53:52 committee too much where we force uh

1:53:56 guidelines on them. That is not

1:53:58 specifically in our perview to

1:53:59 necessarily enforce or mandate. That is

1:54:02 my concern. Um but um I'm in line with

1:54:05 the resolution pretty much completely.

1:54:07 We're not supposed to support anything

1:54:08 on there,

1:54:09 right? It's a nonbinding resolution,

1:54:10 right? So,

1:54:11 but non-binding resolutions can

1:54:14 sometimes create a perception of an

1:54:17 expectation of something being followed,

1:54:19 especially if town meeting ends up

1:54:21 adopting it. Uh, so I I agree with you,

1:54:25 Anthony, that I like the goal that's

1:54:27 being articulated by this one article,

1:54:29 but I'm not sure that the specific

1:54:31 mechanism is necessarily the right way

1:54:33 to go about it. Uh and I think that we

1:54:37 will be addressing how we can ensure

1:54:39 that the affordable housing trust has a

1:54:42 uh robust amount in it and so that we're

1:54:45 replenishing it as much as we can when

1:54:47 we discuss article 18 and there might be

1:54:50 some ways to potentially reformulate war

1:54:53 in article 17. Uh Anthony was already

1:54:57 insinuating possible revisions that you

1:55:00 seemed open to. Uh, so I think this will

1:55:03 be an ongoing process, but I'm candidly

1:55:06 not necessarily wedded to this

1:55:08 particular version. I do share concerns

1:55:10 about telling another committee how

1:55:13 they're to allocate uh their monies.

1:55:17 The CPA, it seems

1:55:20 sensitive to the different branches of

1:55:22 Brookline government. they see

1:55:24 themselves as more

1:55:27 answering to or aligned with the town

1:55:29 meeting because that's where they have

1:55:30 to go for their approvals and they see

1:55:33 the trust as being a creature of the

1:55:35 select board for par parallel reasons.

1:55:38 So um hopefully the dialogue of how to

1:55:42 arrive at the the best policy um doesn't

1:55:46 have the perception that the select

1:55:47 board is putting its hand to truly on on

1:55:50 that scale for that for that reason. Um

1:55:53 uh after the warrant article was filed,

1:55:54 I don't want to leave you with a

1:55:55 misimpression. In the most recent, uh

1:55:58 discussion, um [snorts] David did voice

1:56:03 a sort of a formula. So it looked like

1:56:06 the article might have begun triggering

1:56:08 some thought about that. So I don't want

1:56:11 to leave you with an absolute.

1:56:13 Actually, it didn't amount to much. it

1:56:16 was extremely small dollars and it was

1:56:18 tied to the the uh free cash formula

1:56:22 which didn't make sense to me.

1:56:23 Okay.

1:56:25 Um just general thoughts. I I agree that

1:56:29 in an ideal world I would like there to

1:56:32 be a resolution that was not by way of

1:56:34 this warrant article so that the housing

1:56:37 trust could get regular allocations from

1:56:39 the CPA because of the way you fund

1:56:42 things, right? like the ability to

1:56:44 disperse funds not at one time a year

1:56:46 but any time and larger quantities makes

1:56:49 a lot of sense. Um but I would love if

1:56:51 there ends up being a resolution that is

1:56:53 not this. Um the only positive to this

1:56:57 particular resolution or some version of

1:56:59 it coming before town meeting is I do

1:57:01 not think we as a as the various town

1:57:05 bodies have had a particularly robust

1:57:07 discussion about how CPA funds should be

1:57:09 spent. Um, even within this we're we're

1:57:12 asking whether a third a third a third

1:57:14 is actually mandate. Is that a policy?

1:57:17 If that is a policy, who set that

1:57:19 policy? Does that actually align with

1:57:21 the select board or town meeting? Um,

1:57:24 that piece is unclear. So, I do think

1:57:26 there is a positive that could come from

1:57:28 the conversation of how to split that

1:57:32 funding among the buckets as like a

1:57:34 general idea. Um, but I would encourage

1:57:38 and if we have someone from the CPA

1:57:41 committee come before us next week, I

1:57:43 would also encourage them to sit down

1:57:45 and work something out so that we get

1:57:46 some way of regularly building up the

1:57:49 housing trust with CPA funds

1:57:52 in some way, shape or form. David did um

1:57:55 make an an kind of an extended and in

1:57:57 our recorded HAB meeting um when we

1:58:00 discussed this we we invited his

1:58:02 participation which he did as well and

1:58:04 he he spoke in some level of detail on

1:58:09 how he was looking at it but

1:58:11 we do need Nancy involved

1:58:15 and [clears throat] is there some way

1:58:16 that we can uh communicate to her that

1:58:18 we really really need her at our next

1:58:21 meeting? Yeah, [clears throat] I mean

1:58:22 car K car and I have been talking about

1:58:23 this. We will we will ensure that

1:58:25 okay

1:58:28 because we need to know how she's going

1:58:30 to react.

1:58:32 You had you had one go with her directly

1:58:35 you go.

1:58:37 Um

1:58:39 I I would I would raise this question

1:58:42 only because because of the non-binding

1:58:44 nature of this for formula formula for

1:58:48 change. Um yeah, and Melissa, please

1:58:52 correct me if I'm making a technical

1:58:53 error. Um but there is also a fund for

1:58:58 uh stashing money for conservation land

1:59:01 um which um you know given the other

1:59:05 mandates of the CVA um could be

1:59:10 potentially incorporated into the

1:59:12 formula as part of the negotiating

1:59:14 technique to bring the CBA on board with

1:59:17 a more rounded

1:59:19 proposal for non project.

1:59:23 Yeah, that that's a recent development.

1:59:25 Um and if they chose to do that, they

1:59:27 have so many immediate calls from

1:59:31 applicants on their fund. Um they would

1:59:34 have to think about whether they want to

1:59:36 build that one up as well. But but it's

1:59:38 a good point.

1:59:41 I I do agree it would be helpful to have

1:59:43 that broader conversation about how we

1:59:44 want to allocate CPA funds as a

1:59:47 community because I'm I'm skeptical that

1:59:52 town meeting as a whole would have the

1:59:54 belief that it should be 1/3

1:59:57 and the mandate is mentioned is actually

1:59:58 a 10% minimum in each category. Uh my

2:00:03 guess is that the community most values

2:00:06 the affordable housing and open space

2:00:08 buckets and historical preservation

2:00:12 uh while important to many probably

2:00:14 wouldn't necessarily require the same

2:00:16 allocation as the other two. Uh so I

2:00:19 think having that conversationally

2:00:20 important

2:00:20 that's where this database is extremely

2:00:23 insightful because um if you you can you

2:00:25 can sort and filter any way you want and

2:00:27 if you look at uh inner communities that

2:00:29 are largely built out Somerville,

2:00:31 Cambridge, Newton um

2:00:35 they are relatively high you know more

2:00:38 like ongoing you know in in half or in

2:00:42 that area. uh the outer areas like you

2:00:44 know conquered Lincoln etc. they not no

2:00:47 surprise they tend to be more in the the

2:00:50 uh the open space side of things. So

2:00:52 that data is available and um and we are

2:00:57 our peer communities are more than

2:00:59 onethird on housing as far as I can see.

2:01:02 We're not looking for that. But

2:01:04 all right. So, we'll uh certainly have

2:01:06 more conversations about Warren Article

2:01:09 17 as the town meeting season unfolds

2:01:12 and uh we'll see if there's some f some

2:01:15 friendly amendments that come forward.

2:01:17 Uh but thank you very much for the

2:01:18 presentation.

2:01:19 Thank you all very much.

2:01:20 Thanks. Do you want to stay here for the

2:01:22 next Do you have time? All right. You

2:01:23 want to stay at 2:30 here at quarter 3.

2:01:26 So, please [laughter]

2:01:29 sure. Thank you. There

2:01:30 there are

2:01:32 There's at least one vote we could take

2:01:33 now. So I I move that we not move

2:01:37 article one for approval of unpaid bills

2:01:39 of a prior fiscal year.

2:01:42 Yes.

2:01:42 Can you make it a no action motion?

2:01:44 No action. I move no action on war

2:01:46 article one approval of unpaid bills of

2:01:48 a prior fiscal year. Bernard

2:01:49 I

2:01:51 Anthony

2:01:52 I

2:01:53 and I also vote and we'll give Amanda a

2:01:56 chance to vote when she comes back

2:01:57 later. All right. So why don't we

2:01:59 discuss article 18?

2:02:00 Sure. Can I share my screen? I just

2:02:02 joined the um Zoom room.

2:02:04 Yeah,

2:02:05 I should just also note in your packet

2:02:07 there um we had some additional

2:02:08 materials that came in today. There's an

2:02:10 email from Deborah Brown who's the

2:02:12 petitioner. She couldn't make it today,

2:02:14 but she's been working with Anthony on a

2:02:15 compromise. Um and that's what Anthony

2:02:17 is presenting. And then we also pulled

2:02:19 your slides into the packet as

2:02:20 well.

2:02:20 Oh, you did? Perfect. Thanks. Um some of

2:02:22 the slides I won't be showing just

2:02:23 because they're not necessary for the

2:02:24 full conversation. Um uh so let me share

2:02:26 my screen now. And also I want to

2:02:28 mention that uh BCDC also sent a letter

2:02:33 in favor of my proposal as well.

2:02:36 Let me show.

2:02:43 Oh, I didn't think about this. If I

2:02:44 wanted to share this.

2:02:50 Yeah, but I have notes that I won't be

2:02:52 able to look at while I do this.

2:02:54 Think for a second.

2:02:56 Um,

2:03:00 I got to go through the whole thing. So,

2:03:04 first, um, I do have to go the whole

2:03:07 thing. Hold on. I'm sorry. This is a

2:03:09 mess.

2:03:11 Uh, let me, um,

2:03:18 scroll down.

2:03:19 So, now you see my PowerPoint window,

2:03:21 right?

2:03:23 You see in presentation mode? Yep.

2:03:25 Now, if I

2:03:29 I think I'm going to leave it out of

2:03:30 presentation mode, which might annoy you

2:03:32 guys, but I need it so I could see what

2:03:34 I'm looking at. Okay.

2:03:36 Um, so,

2:03:46 do you want one of us to pull this

2:03:47 presentation up for you, Anthony?

2:03:48 That would be that would be very

2:03:49 helpful. Yeah.

2:03:50 Thanks. Sorry.

2:03:51 Yeah, that's okay. I just need to pull

2:03:53 the agenda up. I'm used to having an

2:03:55 extended monitor, not the

2:03:58 stop sharing. Perfect.

2:04:03 Second

2:04:04 advanc slides

2:04:10 out.

2:04:19 All right. Thank that one. presentation

2:04:21 mode

2:04:22 should be oh there we go

2:04:24 lovely okay so um literally this is

2:04:27 going to be a script to give the public

2:04:28 some information as well as to the

2:04:30 select board so if I'm repeating stuff

2:04:31 that the select board and staff already

2:04:33 knows it's more for the public um

2:04:36 Brooklyn um has had issues establishing

2:04:38 a strong base of affordable housing for

2:04:41 many decades in 1987 Brooklyn took a

2:04:45 really powerful initiative by passing a

2:04:47 home rule petition to create the

2:04:48 affordable housing trust fund

2:04:50 years before the state granted the

2:04:51 express authority for municipalities to

2:04:53 do so. Um Brooklyn's initiative was

2:04:56 actually the inspiration for state law

2:04:57 chapter 44 section 55C which um provides

2:05:01 the detailed statutory basis um on which

2:05:04 the affordable housing trust fund now

2:05:06 rests. Um you can go to the next slide I

2:05:10 think actually two more.

2:05:12 One more

2:05:15 I'm going to force you to go all over

2:05:16 the place. One more. No worries.

2:05:18 One more. One more. Perfect. Um, so our

2:05:22 free cash policy related to the

2:05:24 affordable housing trust fund has

2:05:25 changed significantly over time. Between

2:05:28 2007 and 2012, free cash contributions

2:05:32 to the affordable housing housing trust

2:05:33 fund worked as the following. Affordable

2:05:35 housing trust fund to support the town's

2:05:38 efforts towards creating and maintaining

2:05:39 affordable housing. Free cash shall be

2:05:41 appropriated into the affordable housing

2:05:43 trust fund according to the following

2:05:44 schedule. Now on this schedule, this was

2:05:46 from 2007 to 2012, it was when free cash

2:05:50 exceeds 6 million, 5% shall be allocated

2:05:54 to the affordable housing trust fund. So

2:05:56 6 when the free cash exceeds 6 million,

2:05:59 5% shall be allocated. That was 5% of

2:06:02 the total free cash that got allocated

2:06:05 the affordable housing trust fund. When

2:06:07 free cash exceeded 7.5, it was 7.5%

2:06:10 shall be allocated the affordable

2:06:12 housing trust fund. Again, I'm eff I'm

2:06:14 really emphasizing the 77.5%

2:06:18 shall because as we'll see in the later

2:06:20 language, it has a much different metric

2:06:23 for how much what percentage goes in.

2:06:25 When the free cash exceeds 10 million,

2:06:27 10% shall be allocated to the affordable

2:06:30 housing trust fund. So, [clears throat]

2:06:31 like I said, notice that the percent of

2:06:32 free cash that went towards the

2:06:34 affordable housing trust fund changed

2:06:36 depending on nominal caps.

2:06:41 Did we got it? Go back to the meeting.

2:06:49 We're in 2007 to 2012.

2:06:55 That

2:06:58 waiting time

2:07:03 bottom left.

2:07:07 Leave computer. That's the way. Okay,

2:07:10 great. effects here to get out there.

2:07:13 I would love it.

2:07:14 Sorry guys.

2:07:14 No, you're good.

2:07:16 So 2007 we had this amount of free cash

2:07:19 that got allocated changing based on the

2:07:22 nominal amount of money um that we had

2:07:24 in free cash. Um this policy is deeply

2:07:28 flawed and was not prepared for future

2:07:30 changes as eventually inflation would

2:07:32 eat away at all these nominal gains and

2:07:34 make them all but practically useless.

2:07:36 It also was too strict in its monetary

2:07:39 assignments and reduced our ability to

2:07:41 properly fund our capital improvement

2:07:42 program. Why is that? So again, 10%

2:07:46 shall be allocated. In the modern

2:07:48 language,

2:07:50 uh actually let me get in the modern

2:07:52 language. I'll just skip a little bit

2:07:53 ahead. In the modern language, we have

2:07:55 the language to support the town's

2:07:57 efforts towards creating and maintaining

2:07:58 affordable housing, 15% of remaining

2:08:02 free cash shall be appropriated. So we

2:08:05 change the language from from 7.5% of

2:08:08 free cash period to 15% of remaining

2:08:12 free cash. Now why is that important?

2:08:14 That means that no matter what happened

2:08:16 on any given year, we were doing 7.5% of

2:08:19 free cash in the affordable housing

2:08:20 trust fund. The town realized that this

2:08:22 was leading to an underfunding of our

2:08:24 capital improvement plan. So we moved

2:08:26 the capital improvement plan above it in

2:08:28 the free cash waterfall and then said

2:08:30 only out of what is remaining after the

2:08:33 CIP gets funded do we contribute 15% of

2:08:36 what is left out of free cash into the

2:08:40 affordable housing. Right. So if we have

2:08:42 $15 of free uh if we had $15 of free

2:08:46 cash I got to go through the exam.

2:08:48 Yeah. It doesn't matter if you had Yeah.

2:08:50 So now, while prioritizing CIP funding

2:08:52 was a sound financial decision, the

2:08:55 introduction of the 5 million nominal

2:08:56 cap, this was in 2013, has significantly

2:08:59 limited Brookline's capacity to create,

2:09:01 sustain, and attract affordable housing

2:09:04 projects. Now go three slides back.

2:09:07 [laughter]

2:09:09 Uh, one more.

2:09:11 There you go. Okay. Um when this cap was

2:09:13 established, inflation in construction

2:09:15 materials was not a pressing concern as

2:09:18 the previous decade saw relatively

2:09:19 stable costs. However, postco inflation

2:09:22 has dramatically increased construction

2:09:24 material expenses, eroding the

2:09:26 affordable housing trust fund's ability

2:09:27 to fulfill its mandate. Since 2013, when

2:09:31 this $5 million cap was first

2:09:33 implemented, the producer price index

2:09:35 for construction materials indexed in

2:09:37 1982 stood at 208.4.

2:09:40 Today in 2026,

2:09:42 the index stands at I can't read it.

2:09:45 What whatever

2:09:46 352

2:09:47 352 that means that this sector has seen

2:09:49 an inflation rate of 59.19%

2:09:52 over that time period. With this level

2:09:54 of inflation and the 5 million nominal

2:09:56 cap, the affordable housing trust fund

2:09:57 can only accumulate 62.8%

2:10:01 of its previous purchasing power and

2:10:04 still receive free cash. Um,

2:10:07 then I want to talk about

2:10:10 You can go one more slide

2:10:12 forward.

2:10:13 Yeah,

2:10:15 actually you can go all the way to the

2:10:16 end, I think.

2:10:17 All the way to the very end.

2:10:18 Yeah, all the way to the very end. I

2:10:19 don't think I need anything else. There

2:10:20 we go. Um, so Deborah's proposal, um,

2:10:25 I'm really glad she brought this back to

2:10:27 our attention. Um, and I I commend her

2:10:29 very much for working on this. uh the

2:10:33 and a lot of what she built was was you

2:10:36 know like a a redo of a lot of this

2:10:38 analysis I actually did two years ago

2:10:39 for this um but as being on the select

2:10:43 board and on the advisory committee

2:10:44 since then I've I've realized that tying

2:10:47 this metric the the cap per se to the

2:10:51 producer price index like law article 18

2:10:53 suggests is poor financial policy for

2:10:56 the simple reason that we don't tie CIP

2:10:59 funding uh to a cement index or we don't

2:11:03 tie um our DPW to a diesel index. We tie

2:11:07 them to percents of previous revenues.

2:11:09 Especially for the capital improvement

2:11:10 plan, the goal is 6.6% of capital

2:11:13 improvement. The goal for the liability

2:11:15 fund is 1% or something like that. It's

2:11:17 not the inflation rate of attorneys

2:11:19 fees, right? That's that that's how we

2:11:21 set these types of uh limits on our free

2:11:24 cash. So in order to keep up with the

2:11:28 pace of inflation um but do so in a

2:11:31 fiscally responsible way that say in a

2:11:33 recessionary year um economic growth

2:11:36 declines and you know we have this

2:11:38 policy that says we're supposed to do

2:11:39 15% of free cash up to this amount. Um

2:11:43 well what if we just don't have that

2:11:45 money and we end up underfunding

2:11:47 everything else at the exp

2:11:50 uh we underfund everything else in

2:11:52 benefit of the affordable housing trust

2:11:54 fund when we're just working on daily

2:11:55 operation. So my proposal now is uh the

2:12:00 select board should approve a policy

2:12:02 change that ties the affordable housing

2:12:04 trust fund cap to 2.5% of prior year net

2:12:06 revenue. Why do I say 2.5? The reason I

2:12:10 say 2.5 is I took five million in 2013.

2:12:13 I looked back at what was that of net

2:12:16 revenue of 2013 2012. It was like 2.44.

2:12:20 I I round it up and I went to 2.5. And

2:12:23 so that's the form that's the

2:12:24 formulation of how I got to 2.5. So the

2:12:27 only meaningful difference that this

2:12:30 proposal suggests is at the very very

2:12:32 end of the affordable housing trust fund

2:12:34 free cash language. It says um

2:12:39 as calculated now uh 15% of remaining

2:12:43 free cash shall be appropriated into the

2:12:45 affordable housing trust fund if the

2:12:47 unreserved balance in the affordable

2:12:49 housing trust fund as calculated in the

2:12:51 town's financial system is less than

2:12:53 2.5%

2:12:54 of revenue instead of less than $5

2:12:58 million. So I would just clarity your

2:13:00 net revenues the way that we

2:13:03 and so that's the compromised position

2:13:06 that BCDC has agreed to, Deborah has

2:13:09 agreed to and I'm proposing here today.

2:13:13 Um

2:13:15 sorry right around my right around the

2:13:17 numbers. So this could be just a select

2:13:19 board policy.

2:13:20 Yeah. This is not like if we were to

2:13:23 pass I know we're not going to pass

2:13:24 anything today, but if we're going to

2:13:25 pass some sort of policy um then the

2:13:29 warrant article 18 would not be moved.

2:13:31 She will not move.

2:13:32 Um and then in dollar amount what would

2:13:36 the cap be this year or last year?

2:13:39 I don't really know.

2:13:40 So um it's around 7.5 to 8 million.

2:13:43 That's essentially the new trigger.

2:13:45 And that's basically makes it equal to

2:13:47 inflation from 2013.

2:13:52 And

2:13:52 oh, and actually one more point I want

2:13:53 to add just because Roger brings up the

2:13:55 good point of walnut needing $10

2:13:58 million. It's very clear that a lot of

2:14:00 these projects require a lot more

2:14:02 capital accumulation um than what it

2:14:05 needed back in 2013. It's very clear

2:14:07 that these projects need more time to

2:14:08 increase capital. Um and I think this

2:14:10 will allow it to do it.

2:14:13 And and just to two questions number one

2:14:17 is when is prior year net revenue

2:14:22 established

2:14:24 so that like when we're calculating this

2:14:27 number it

2:14:29 uh we have the necessary data.

2:14:32 So um for the upcoming budget cycle it

2:14:35 would be fiscal 26 data.

2:14:37 So this is tied to the appropriation. So

2:14:40 it's whatever budget year you're looking

2:14:41 at minus one.

2:14:44 Okay.

2:14:44 So if we're appropriating an FY, right?

2:14:46 So it' never be a case where we wouldn't

2:14:48 have that number.

2:14:49 No, no, it's always calculated. It's the

2:14:50 how we base our CP policies, our reserve

2:14:53 fund policies, and our liability

2:14:54 policies.

2:14:55 Got it. Okay. So it's the same number.

2:14:57 Great. Um the second question I had is

2:15:01 the 15% of remaining

2:15:05 pre-cash. free cash is still in place,

2:15:09 right?

2:15:10 Between these two triggers, uh these two

2:15:13 limiting factors, the 15% and whatever

2:15:15 the maximum number was, do we have any

2:15:18 patterns

2:15:19 thus far about which figure actually uh

2:15:23 is met on when we executed the policy

2:15:27 over time?

2:15:28 So, we've been able to provide uh an

2:15:31 infusion of free cash pretty

2:15:32 consistently over the past, you know, 10

2:15:35 years. I would say that there have been

2:15:36 a couple of instances where the

2:15:38 threshold wasn't met. We may have missed

2:15:40 one year. I think there was one year

2:15:42 where we didn't hit the threshold, but

2:15:44 we still recommended an appropriation in

2:15:46 front of town meetings. So, this is a

2:15:48 select board policy. If you want to go

2:15:49 above or below that, that's up to you as

2:15:51 well.

2:15:52 So, when you say we met the threshold,

2:15:54 you mean we topped up off the the

2:15:57 affordable housing trust fun to to 5

2:15:59 million every year? So that the the

2:16:02 balance fell below 5 million and so the

2:16:04 policy got triggered

2:16:05 right but we but in triggering the

2:16:08 policy there are two limits one is the

2:16:10 15% of remaining free cash limit and the

2:16:13 other is the $5 million. So which one of

2:16:16 those two typically gets triggered?

2:16:18 So it's the balance in the affordable

2:16:20 housing trust fund. So if the balance

2:16:21 falls below then you are dedicating 15%

2:16:25 of whatever you've whatever is left from

2:16:28 free cash after you allocate the first

2:16:29 few priorities in the free cash

2:16:31 waterfall. So it's the unreserve fund

2:16:34 balance target. It's the liability fund

2:16:36 target. It's the um reserve fund target.

2:16:39 It's the CIP target and then once those

2:16:42 things have been addressed then

2:16:44 whatever's left

2:16:46 15% of that total would go towards the

2:16:48 affordable housing trust fun. And so

2:16:50 just to clarify, Michael, most years, at

2:16:52 least that I have seen, the 15% is

2:16:54 triggered. It was very rare. You know,

2:16:56 we I think there's only been one time in

2:16:58 the past few years where we didn't have

2:16:59 the 15% um trigger. And then uh but I

2:17:03 can't speak to how often that gets us up

2:17:04 to the five million.

2:17:05 No, it the goal is not to bring it to 5

2:17:07 million. It's just that there's an

2:17:09 infusion of cash when that when the

2:17:11 balance falls. So if for example we had

2:17:14 a you know uh $35 million prej whatever

2:17:19 some really large number

2:17:21 then that would trigger to the 5

2:17:23 million.

2:17:24 No it would it would be maximum of the

2:17:26 15%

2:17:27 until it hits 5 million and then it

2:17:30 stops

2:17:31 [gasps]

2:17:33 feel free to talk through a scenario.

2:17:34 You know what I mean? So, for example,

2:17:37 let's just say if the affordable housing

2:17:38 trust fund has $0 in it, right? Um, and

2:17:41 you know, there's 15% of of what's left

2:17:45 after the free cash waterfall. Let's say

2:17:46 it's $700,000 or something like that,

2:17:48 right? So, the $700,000 would go in. Um,

2:17:51 if it was at 4.5 million, if the balance

2:17:54 is at 4.5 million, only $500,000 would

2:17:56 go. You know what I mean? It's up to a

2:17:58 cap of 5 million.

2:18:00 No, that's not how Oh, I'm sorry.

2:18:01 [laughter] Like so.

2:18:03 So essentially what once you So let's

2:18:07 say that you have free cash of $10

2:18:09 million

2:18:10 and you've got $2 million going to run

2:18:12 reserve fund balance. You have $2

2:18:14 million going to the reserve fund. $2

2:18:17 million going into the liability fund,

2:18:21 right?

2:18:21 Um and where am I at? Six billion. So $2

2:18:25 million going to the CIP. You've got $2

2:18:27 million left. Right?

2:18:28 15% of that 2 million would go to the

2:18:30 affordable housing trust if if it was

2:18:32 triggered by the low balance in the

2:18:34 fund.

2:18:35 So if for example the affordable housing

2:18:38 trust had $5 million in it then you

2:18:41 would get nothing. And if it had $4

2:18:44 million then you would get 15% of that$2

2:18:47 million which is roughly $300,000.

2:18:50 Correct. I wasn't going to have 4.99

2:18:52 million.

2:18:53 If you still if you had 4.99 million you

2:18:55 still would get whatever 15% of

2:18:57 No. No,

2:18:58 no, it would stop at 5 million.

2:19:01 The balance is below $5 million that

2:19:03 gets triggered.

2:19:03 That that's that's what I got from there

2:19:06 is no second cap. The cap is just when

2:19:08 it's triggered.

2:19:09 Correct.

2:19:09 There's only

2:19:15 [laughter]

2:19:16 the sponsor of the article is Brown.

2:19:18 Okay.

2:19:19 So, yeah. So really the question

2:19:22 is has is the cap the reason we are not

2:19:27 getting as much funding to the

2:19:29 affordable housing trust fund and what

2:19:30 you're saying is in most years past

2:19:34 um no that is not the case. Uh but now

2:19:37 current day it it is an issue that I

2:19:39 think people are concerned about

2:19:41 especially if the CPA provides an

2:19:43 infusion of free cash into the

2:19:44 affordable housing trust fund. So

2:19:46 there's a question of whether or not it

2:19:47 needs to be recalibrated anyway,

2:19:50 right? And if you're trying to

2:19:52 accumulate $10 million for

2:19:55 walnut high,

2:19:58 then you then you're not once you hit 5

2:20:02 million, you're not going to be able to

2:20:04 get any more time money by our current

2:20:06 free cash waterfall,

2:20:08 right? But we have in the past if we

2:20:10 especially if we've had a really flush

2:20:12 year for free cash which um you know

2:20:15 isn't isn't something we're anticipating

2:20:18 happening in the future but um to the

2:20:20 extent that we felt that there was

2:20:21 flexibility we've recommended additional

2:20:23 funding for the affordable housing

2:20:24 trust.

2:20:25 Right. That's that's that's uh option

2:20:28 six where you can do many places.

2:20:32 Um there's my my gut reaction because I

2:20:35 had actually flagged this as as being an

2:20:37 issue earlier was because my

2:20:39 understanding is you very rarely need

2:20:41 200,000 for something. You all need 10

2:20:45 million plus for a lot of these things

2:20:46 that the housing trust is doing. So

2:20:48 conceptually even if we're not hitting

2:20:50 the cap a lot I would like to see the

2:20:53 cap raised so that you can bank funding

2:20:56 to a us more usable point. Um I like

2:21:01 this is as good of a way of doing it as

2:21:03 any. But um I think it's almost a

2:21:06 separate conversation than the CPA

2:21:08 funding because I think if we are going

2:21:11 to get the housing trust to any sort of

2:21:13 sufficient funding, you're probably

2:21:14 going to need funding from both.

2:21:17 Sounds like if you align them like

2:21:19 you're it's the same dollar amount um

2:21:21 and it's well short of the 10 million

2:21:23 that I phase 2 might need. uh then

2:21:27 you're then you're shutting off the

2:21:29 total spigot from both sources well

2:21:31 short of the $10 million.

2:21:33 And also it sounds like historically the

2:21:36 cap at 5 million wasn't the reason we we

2:21:39 weren't we wouldn't have gone

2:21:40 significantly over 5 million regardless

2:21:43 despite the cap being at 5 million to

2:21:45 the trigger. Correct.

2:21:47 We we've um we've been over 5 million.

2:21:50 And I mean, we're, as I mentioned this

2:21:51 morning, we were at 6 and a half before.

2:21:55 Uh,

2:21:56 but now it's back and forth.

2:21:57 Yeah. Now, now it's down again. So, I'm

2:21:59 I'm not sure if there's a definitive

2:22:02 answer to that.

2:22:03 Well, I feel like from my point of view,

2:22:05 yes,

2:22:06 it's it forces the HAB.

2:22:10 Yeah, I don't want to speak for the hat,

2:22:11 but I feel like the incentive it feels

2:22:13 like the incentives are to take smaller

2:22:16 projects to stay below 5 million so you

2:22:19 keep getting money from free cash.

2:22:21 Whereas, if you know you have this

2:22:23 capital buffer where you can keep

2:22:25 growing, you can then use that to

2:22:27 attract bigger projects. And we all know

2:22:29 the multiplier effect when it comes to

2:22:31 this type of stuff. So I feel like that

2:22:33 that question it can't really be faced

2:22:36 with a counterfactual because if they

2:22:38 had the larger cap they might have saved

2:22:40 more and done bigger projects whereas

2:22:42 they knew that they wouldn't have gotten

2:22:43 money if they didn't spend it so they

2:22:45 spent it.

2:22:47 I appreciate that point but I I think

2:22:49 I'm asking a little more in terms of the

2:22:51 free cash available and what that 15%

2:22:54 amount looks like.

2:22:55 Would we ever have gotten to the 10

2:22:59 million?

2:23:00 No. the the I would say the largest

2:23:02 infusion that the um trust has gotten is

2:23:05 somewhere maybe $2 million. So there's

2:23:08 never been like a $5 million infusion or

2:23:10 anything like that.

2:23:11 There's a third source. So theoretically

2:23:13 because we get some lump sum

2:23:15 unpredictable variable amounts from

2:23:17 inclusionary zoning fees and and now

2:23:19 that with the recent bylaw change we

2:23:22 were split forward and we supported that

2:23:25 there could be more volatility and more

2:23:27 of that. So you could get a low seven

2:23:30 figure infusion from a reasonably sized

2:23:33 project from inclusionary zoning that

2:23:35 could if and if we weren't spending

2:23:37 money at the same time it could

2:23:40 theoretically reach 10 million without

2:23:41 free cash or without even

2:23:44 I do definitely appreciate your point

2:23:46 about how the artificiality in a way of

2:23:49 the 5 million creates a disincentive of

2:23:53 sorts to spend on larger projects. So, I

2:23:57 like the idea of eliminating cap.

2:23:59 Uh, what is still a little unclear to me

2:24:01 though is the 2.5% figure. If we track

2:24:06 the last 10 years, what would that look

2:24:09 like? How much would we have in the

2:24:11 affordable housing trust had we been on

2:24:13 the system you're proposing? You have

2:24:15 some ideas to that delta.

2:24:17 You have to know how much you spending.

2:24:19 And and to that point, because it sounds

2:24:21 like most years we've been putting money

2:24:23 in, are we uh solving the wrong problem,

2:24:28 um if if the problem is that most of the

2:24:31 time we're talking about hundreds of

2:24:33 thousands, not millions going into the

2:24:35 housing trust, right? Maybe tens of

2:24:37 thousands. I don't

2:24:38 No. So I mean I'll just give you so you

2:24:40 know in 2016 163 2017

2:24:45 158 2018 576 19 545 20 this was the year

2:24:50 that we didn't the policy wasn't

2:24:52 triggered we still put 200,000 down 21

2:24:56 726

2:24:57 22 80,000 23 427 24

2:25:03 25 2.1 million

2:25:05 not 24 being zero why was the reason for

2:25:08 that

2:25:08 because the policy wasn't triggered

2:25:09 because it was over 5 million. So it

2:25:11 would have received a contribution in

2:25:13 the year of 2024.

2:25:15 But it was two things though. It it was

2:25:17 over 5 million and there must have been

2:25:20 some other reason why in for block six

2:25:24 where you have the discretion. We

2:25:25 decided not to put any money.

2:25:27 We had the schematics for the Driscoll

2:25:29 school. So that's what we ended up we

2:25:30 spent a million dollars on.

2:25:32 So So it was more than it was more than

2:25:34 just the $5 million cap. But the total

2:25:37 two things together

2:25:38 for 2024 the total special appropriation

2:25:41 in the sixth level was how much was

2:25:44 that?

2:25:45 So 22 million

2:25:47 in 2024

2:25:48 22.7

2:25:49 so that 22.7 million there should have

2:25:51 been 15% of that that went to the

2:25:53 affordable housing trust fund that

2:25:55 didn't because we have this cap

2:25:58 but it would have been 15% after those

2:26:00 other categories.

2:26:00 No 22% sorry was free cash 22 million.

2:26:04 So what we appropriated was 22 million.7

2:26:07 all of free cash.

2:26:08 So that is only what we appropriated. We

2:26:10 usually um leave $2.6 million

2:26:13 unappropriated.

2:26:14 Okay.

2:26:14 Um I'd have to look back.

2:26:15 So that 22 do we know what what it was

2:26:18 before we hit the affordable housing

2:26:20 trust fund point

2:26:22 like after the first four?

2:26:23 Yes. After the first four buckets.

2:26:26 Um so 2.25 million was um was left.

2:26:30 What? Yes. Was available. So 15% of that

2:26:33 15% of that should have gone to the

2:26:35 affordable housing would have gone to

2:26:36 the affordable housing trust fund under

2:26:38 this cap

2:26:39 right but it didn't because of the

2:26:42 because we hit the cap and then we had

2:26:44 2.5 million for the subsequent

2:26:48 the subsequent category where we had

2:26:50 discretion and the town made a decision

2:26:53 to take all of that money and put it

2:26:55 into

2:26:58 question

2:27:00 Right. But

2:27:02 are you counting the CIP money that went

2:27:04 in after?

2:27:06 Yes.

2:27:06 So wait, so take that out.

2:27:08 So like the 2.5 million in 2024 included

2:27:12 what we put towards the CIP in bucket

2:27:14 six.

2:27:14 Yes.

2:27:17 Yeah. See,

2:27:18 I I just think I I think what would be

2:27:20 helpful is I just want to make sure that

2:27:22 this 2.5 formula actually comes out

2:27:24 ahead of what we've been doing. I

2:27:26 understand cap. Well, the cap, if we

2:27:29 remove the cap, obviously then we're

2:27:31 contributing every year. But beyond

2:27:33 that, is the 2.5 always going to be more

2:27:36 than the 15% of the residual in free

2:27:38 cash?

2:27:39 No. So the 2.5 I keeping 15%.

2:27:42 Okay.

2:27:43 All that's happening is it's moving the

2:27:44 the 5 million the 2.5. That's what's

2:27:48 happening here.

2:27:50 Is your is your ultimately goal is your

2:27:52 goal ultimately be that the cap never

2:27:56 gets hit?

2:27:58 My goal is that I want the affordable

2:27:59 housing trust fund to be able to

2:28:01 accumulate more capital over time to

2:28:03 attract bigger projects.

2:28:05 I don't know. But I think the best

2:28:06 estimate that I could do politically was

2:28:09 we agreed on 5 million back in 2013 and

2:28:11 I took the estimated revenue of 2013 at

2:28:15 5 million and got that percentage. And

2:28:17 so I I figured that that was the most

2:28:18 politically viable way of raising this

2:28:20 by like three good million dollar.

2:28:21 But I'm wondering if the the number you

2:28:24 should be changing is the 15%.

2:28:27 Well, that that that that damages our

2:28:29 discretionary even more so than what I'm

2:28:30 proposing.

2:28:31 Yes. But if the goal is to like I I I

2:28:36 actually think raising the cap by thumb

2:28:38 amount like is better than not raising

2:28:41 the cap, right? The exact amount doesn't

2:28:43 matter so much to me. But it seems to me

2:28:45 that apart from the one year that you

2:28:48 had 2.4 million somehow uh being given,

2:28:52 everything else is like under 200,000.

2:28:55 Um which is not nothing, but in terms of

2:28:59 getting us to the Walnut Street project,

2:29:01 it it doesn't get us close. And so if

2:29:04 the problem we are actually trying to

2:29:05 solve is to have a more steady flow of

2:29:08 cash into the housing trust, then we

2:29:11 need something in addition to that.

2:29:12 [clears throat]

2:29:13 Well, I agree.

2:29:15 I just wanted to make up one correction

2:29:16 because I um just was looking at my

2:29:18 other my revenue spreadsheet. So we in

2:29:21 24 we appropriated $20 million. 13.1 was

2:29:25 for CIP. 767 was for operating reserve.

2:29:29 3 381 was for liability fund. 4.5

2:29:32 million was for stabilization fund and

2:29:35 then 1.9 1.09 million was for um the

2:29:39 deficit that we had related to COVID. So

2:29:41 that was um what we used the the funds

2:29:43 for,

2:29:45 right?

2:29:45 But to Amanda's point about if the goal

2:29:48 is to get to 10 million.

2:29:50 So even if we did not have the cap back

2:29:54 in 2024, that still would have only

2:29:57 added 330 something thousand, which is

2:30:01 is something, but it's doesn't get you

2:30:03 to 10 million either. But I I think the

2:30:06 other issue and you know I've talked a

2:30:07 little bit about this um with Anthony is

2:30:09 that you know we do you know there are

2:30:11 other priorities that are not in the

2:30:12 waterfall that we still try to address.

2:30:14 So in years past we've put additional

2:30:16 money towards pensions, additional money

2:30:18 towards ops. We have a workers comp

2:30:20 trust fund that sometimes needs an

2:30:21 infusion of free cash and injured on

2:30:23 duty trust fund that sometimes needs an

2:30:25 infusion of free cash. So we'd still

2:30:27 want that flexibility. We understand

2:30:29 that house affordable housing is a

2:30:30 priority of the town, but there are also

2:30:32 some other accounts that also are

2:30:34 beneficial to have some free cash

2:30:36 occasionally uh infused in it.

2:30:42 So, I do think we're hearing it.

2:30:44 I'm sorry there there's one issue here

2:30:46 when when I'm looking at the

2:30:49 No, maybe there isn't. Maybe I'm wrong.

2:30:51 Keep going what you're saying. I was

2:30:52 just going to say that I think at bare

2:30:53 minimum we seem to have agreement that

2:30:55 maybe we don't need to have this cap so

2:30:58 that we're contributing each year. Uh

2:31:00 but the broader question is how do we

2:31:02 get more money into the affordable

2:31:04 housing trust? Well,

2:31:09 I I I am very hesitant to increase that

2:31:12 15% number because of what Melissa just

2:31:16 said and also because you know we also

2:31:19 have a bunch of CIP projects that people

2:31:21 are interested in getting more funding

2:31:22 for whether it's large roadways or

2:31:24 bicycle infrastructure etc. So I'm not

2:31:28 sure that

2:31:30 free cash policy is the answer to that

2:31:33 question. Real quick, when I look at the

2:31:35 free cash for fiscal year 2024 budget,

2:31:38 y

2:31:38 on page 10, it says free cash

2:31:41 certification 22.7 million. Right.

2:31:44 Correct.

2:31:44 And we only allocated 20 million of

2:31:46 that.

2:31:46 Yes.

2:31:47 So then point one is operating budget

2:31:50 reserve 767,000.

2:31:52 Y

2:31:53 point two is unreserved fund balance 7.2

2:31:56 million.

2:31:57 Yep.

2:31:58 Then the next point is liability

2:32:00 381,000. And then the CIP is 4.6

2:32:04 million.

2:32:04 That's the that's the policy amount. But

2:32:07 then we put additional funding towards

2:32:08 CIP.

2:32:09 And we would not That's exactly my

2:32:11 point. And then we put $0. So when the

2:32:14 affordable housing tr when the free cash

2:32:15 hits the affordable housing trust fund

2:32:17 waterfall, it's supposed to take 15% of

2:32:20 12.9 million. And we didn't take any of

2:32:23 that into the affordable housing trust

2:32:25 fund and put 12.9 back into the CIP.

2:32:28 Well, because of the cap. Maybe maybe um

2:32:31 maybe we should keep the 15% and and for

2:32:33 now because we know we've got favor 15%.

2:32:36 No, no, but maybe we should leave that

2:32:37 at but but for now eliminate the cap

2:32:40 because if we if we reduce it

2:32:42 substantially below 10 million, we might

2:32:44 be cutting off our nose to spite our

2:32:46 face.

2:32:46 Well, I'm suggesting raising it to like

2:32:48 eight right now because right now what's

2:32:50 what's 15% of what?

2:32:51 But if it's but if it's lower than 10,

2:32:53 you could be shutting off all the water

2:32:55 before we get too short. if we want to

2:32:58 keep this path open um knowing that for

2:33:04 all the reasons Michael mentioned

2:33:05 changing 15% is challenging

2:33:07 right but if we want to allocate a

2:33:10 certain amount of free cash on a regular

2:33:12 basis um then I might be in favor of

2:33:15 just eliminating the cap instead of

2:33:18 trying to put an arbitrary amount

2:33:19 because you're already limiting how much

2:33:21 you're giving based on the 15%. So we're

2:33:24 it would just be literally every year

2:33:27 15% of step four of the waterfall.

2:33:30 So this is this is where the compromise

2:33:32 kind of comes in where I don't want to

2:33:35 completely eliminate the cap because I

2:33:37 recognize the fiscal constraints of the

2:33:38 CIP and we've we like in the past like

2:33:41 2012 like we tried that with no cap and

2:33:44 then we underfunded our CIP. So I'm

2:33:46 trying to find a happy middle ground.

2:33:48 But but if we're but if we change the

2:33:50 formula back when you were given the

2:33:52 history of it

2:33:53 and we're we're below the CIP and the

2:33:55 waterfall if there's no cap it would

2:33:58 no because we are relying on special

2:34:00 appropriations.

2:34:01 So the reason why the policy changed was

2:34:04 because the advisory committee at the

2:34:06 time was not happy that the fund got an

2:34:09 infusion without anything regarding the

2:34:11 status of the ballots. And so that's why

2:34:13 the policy changed because it used to

2:34:14 just get triggered automatically and

2:34:17 they didn't like that there was nothing

2:34:19 kind of that acknowledged the actual

2:34:21 balance in the fund and that's why the

2:34:23 policy changed

2:34:24 and to addition to that I like the idea

2:34:25 of there being a maximum because I want

2:34:27 pressure on the HAB to spend it

2:34:30 like I'm trying to find this medium of

2:34:32 we want pressure for them to spend but

2:34:34 we want to give them room to increase

2:34:36 capital and I just want to finish off

2:34:37 that other point in 2024 if this method

2:34:41 that I'm proposing here would have been

2:34:42 around the affordable housing trust fund

2:34:44 would have received $2 million in 2024

2:34:48 because it was it's 12 it's 15% of 12.9

2:34:51 so that's a $2 million

2:34:52 is that

2:34:54 is it I thought that we were told it's 2

2:34:56 something

2:34:56 no it was not it was 12.9

2:34:58 wait a minute wait a minute in the first

2:35:00 in the first four

2:35:04 tranches of the free cash policy in 2024

2:35:07 what was the total of that

2:35:09 can I say I have in front of me

2:35:11 okay

2:35:11 the total was 12.952

2:35:13 million

2:35:14 for those four

2:35:15 for those five tanches affordable

2:35:16 housing being zero.

2:35:18 Okay. Well, and for Yes. after four it

2:35:21 was 12.95 and the total allocation was

2:35:23 20 million

2:35:24 was 12.952

2:35:27 and the total allocation was 20.7

2:35:30 20.7. So you subtract those you get

2:35:32 about 8 million and then you take 15% of

2:35:34 that.

2:35:35 Yes. I'm sorry. 15% of that I apologize.

2:35:38 15% of nine 15% of 9834.

2:35:46 Yeah, it would be one and a half.

2:35:50 If you had applied the CPI to the 5

2:35:54 million from the time the 5 million was

2:35:56 adopted and you applied the CPI, would

2:35:58 it be more than

2:35:59 CPI? No,

2:36:00 it wouldn't be more than the 7.8 million

2:36:02 much lower would have been much lower.

2:36:04 our property values have increased a lot

2:36:05 more and that's what's causing our

2:36:07 revenue to come in faster than

2:36:09 inflation.

2:36:10 Even though uh even though we were told

2:36:12 during the co uh when we tried to do

2:36:13 Kent Station they they it looked like

2:36:16 they had gone up like 50%.

2:36:18 That was PPI for construction materials.

2:36:21 So like you're looking at a specific

2:36:23 sector of the economy is experiencing

2:36:24 inflation. So that's the PPI. That's the

2:36:26 metric that I showed up there. Right.

2:36:28 So if we would have capped it to if we

2:36:30 would have tied this to PPI that number

2:36:31 would be 8.3.

2:36:33 or 8.6

2:36:36 larger.

2:36:36 We are only talking about raising the

2:36:38 cap and just taking the other

2:36:41 conversation off. Um it would be helpful

2:36:46 in my head to have some numbers

2:36:48 [clears throat] from the HAB that said

2:36:50 in terms of large ticket items what the

2:36:54 average spend has been over the last 10

2:36:56 years.

2:36:57 You know, they've been much smaller than

2:36:58 the 10 million. Although we know Ken

2:36:59 Station by the time we put it up on the

2:37:01 shelf was 12 million and that was right

2:37:04 at the end of COVID. So the BHA isn't

2:37:06 the only one but they are aberrations on

2:37:10 the high side. You know most of the

2:37:11 others that we've done have been two

2:37:13 three four million in in that range.

2:37:15 You said something Anthony I'm trying to

2:37:18 understand about incentives of the have

2:37:21 to you you want to make sure there are

2:37:22 incentives for have to spend the money.

2:37:25 Is that actually a problem that we have

2:37:27 right now? No, but I think what the cap

2:37:30 forces them to do is to spend money

2:37:33 because the hat knows that if they're

2:37:35 not under five million, then they're

2:37:37 going to be spending money.

2:37:38 You're saying the current cap is an

2:37:40 incentive to do something that we

2:37:42 actually don't want to incentivize.

2:37:44 Well, it's not it's not that black or

2:37:46 white. It means I want there to be some

2:37:48 gradient where that right now I believe

2:37:50 that the HAB is too too on the side of

2:37:53 needing to focus on keep their balance

2:37:54 below 5 million.

2:37:56 Understood. And I want to give them more

2:37:57 leeway to accumulate more capital until

2:37:59 they hit that pressure.

2:38:01 I can't say that we have consciously

2:38:03 done that. Yes, you know that might be

2:38:04 what it appears. Yeah, we we've we've

2:38:07 funded what has been qualified.

2:38:09 Um if my my one of my worries would be

2:38:12 if we are feel some compunction to spend

2:38:16 um we will start spending on unleveraged

2:38:18 worthy but unleveraged uh things. I

2:38:21 mean, if you don't feel encumbered to to

2:38:24 spend right now, then you won't have an

2:38:26 issue with this proposal at all.

2:38:28 Yes. But but the thing that I'm

2:38:30 wondering, similar to what Amanda, I

2:38:33 think, was saying is

2:38:37 why do we need to go through all of all

2:38:39 of this rigor rule to establish a cap?

2:38:42 Because

2:38:44 because setting a nominal cap slowly

2:38:46 erodess the maximum purchasing power of

2:38:48 the HAB, [gasps]

2:38:50 right? But having no cap doesn't do

2:38:52 that.

2:38:53 Well, having Okay. So, but having no cap

2:38:56 but having no cap underfunds the CIP

2:38:58 over time, which is partially past

2:39:00 experience,

2:39:01 but if you're still doing 15% like Yeah.

2:39:03 theoretically on like the two years in

2:39:06 recent history that we haven't fund

2:39:08 funded the waterfall, you're going to

2:39:10 underfund other things. But

2:39:12 I'm a lot less worried about that and

2:39:14 I'm not at all worried about pressuring

2:39:16 the HAB to spend money. I don't think

2:39:18 they're going to be like hoarding money

2:39:20 for unknown reasons apart from I know I

2:39:23 need 10 million for this big project

2:39:24 coming up. Um so like a cap to me

2:39:28 doesn't really make sense. Like I cannot

2:39:32 see if if we thought at some point in

2:39:35 time uh if we are lucky enough to house

2:39:37 a housing trust that have has $100

2:39:39 million like great let's go put a cap on

2:39:42 it. But like,

2:39:43 so [laughter] this is interesting

2:39:44 because this is a lot more liberal than

2:39:46 my proposal and something I would

2:39:47 absolutely sign off on. So now how how

2:39:50 does the fine what is the what's the

2:39:52 finance on this because

2:39:55 because now this is way better than my

2:39:56 proposal which I agree with. So

2:39:59 it's the board's policy. So

2:40:03 I guess yeah

2:40:04 the only other if you're looking at

2:40:06 options the only other thing and the

2:40:07 perfect the perfect theoretical model or

2:40:11 actual model if you is index is always

2:40:13 better than not if you have rising costs

2:40:15 but but another one which would be

2:40:18 simpler in a way would be just have a

2:40:20 policy that that you have a fixed cap

2:40:22 and you revisit it every so many years.

2:40:24 Yeah it's

2:40:25 that's what I originally suggested.

2:40:29 forgets about policies anyway.

2:40:30 Then don't have a policy, right?

2:40:33 I would be in favor of eliminating a cup

2:40:35 and also with the assumption that that

2:40:37 alone is not going to get us to 10

2:40:39 million. So like it eliminates this like

2:40:42 disincentive to [laughter] like like to

2:40:44 not stockpile enough funding, but like

2:40:46 we still do need to fix in other

2:40:48 mechanisms and probably not through cash

2:40:50 how to get more funding into the

2:40:52 housing. Although we did this

2:40:53 recalculation now one and a half million

2:40:55 is a lot better than

2:40:56 Yeah, that is right.

2:40:57 That's that's a sign. So Melissa, I

2:40:59 think the board is going to need an

2:41:01 analysis of how much less would have

2:41:04 gone into the CIP

2:41:05 if we didn't have a cap over the last

2:41:08 decade or

2:41:09 Yeah, I would I would say that probably,

2:41:10 you know, the fiscal 24 will be the one

2:41:12 year where we would have had to add

2:41:14 every year we have appropriated money to

2:41:16 the affordable housing trust. But now

2:41:17 you need Okay, this is But what I'm just

2:41:20 Okay, what I'm just thinking of No, I

2:41:23 guess I guess I guess we don't need a

2:41:24 capital.

2:41:25 Yeah.

2:41:26 Well,

2:41:28 are there Let's ask the Let's ask the

2:41:31 question. Are there other sort of I mean

2:41:35 fiscal fiscally beneficial reasons like

2:41:38 um our creditors will look unfavorably

2:41:42 if we don't have a cap or you know

2:41:45 there's some really terrible economic

2:41:47 situation that we are not set up to

2:41:51 address. I would say that if there's

2:41:53 something that happens with our other

2:41:55 trust funds that are not currently part

2:41:57 of the policy that we wanted to

2:41:59 prioritize ahead of affordable housing,

2:42:01 that would be when we would run into an

2:42:02 issue.

2:42:03 Oh, question. Will this affect OPED?

2:42:06 So, OPED is not currently in the

2:42:09 waterfall. We could also amend the

2:42:10 policy to create that. That could be

2:42:12 another enhancement to the policy to add

2:42:15 a stop at the OPED fund before we visit

2:42:18 other priorities as well. you'd have to

2:42:20 decide which which came first.

2:42:23 [laughter]

2:42:23 I think I

2:42:25 but that's another way that's another

2:42:26 way to go around it. But I mean I think

2:42:28 that um you know we fund our I injured

2:42:30 our duty trust um with operating revenue

2:42:33 but sometimes we boost the fund with

2:42:35 free cash. Um so th those would be

2:42:38 things that I'd be concerned about. Um,

2:42:39 in years past we have put more money

2:42:42 towards pensions and opeds, but we are

2:42:44 really focused on trying to improve the

2:42:46 town's overall fund balance. Once we've

2:42:48 been able once we're at a better place

2:42:51 there, then we'll probably look to

2:42:53 redirect.

2:42:54 When you say the town's fund balance, do

2:42:56 you mean like the stabilization funding

2:42:57 of

2:42:58 undeserved fund balance overall

2:43:01 position?

2:43:04 All right. If uh why don't we give

2:43:05 members of the public a chance to

2:43:07 participate if they would like. So, I uh

2:43:10 open the public meeting public hearing

2:43:12 for war article 18. Do any members of

2:43:16 the public want to be heard? Go ahead,

2:43:17 Regina.

2:43:19 Um I've gone to a lot of meetings over

2:43:21 the years, but you hear about the free

2:43:23 cash tied into the AAA rating and I'm

2:43:27 wondering if

2:43:30 I'm not hearing a word about the AA

2:43:32 rating that Michael came close to it

2:43:34 just now. Um,

2:43:36 I think that's a very important film to

2:43:39 look at in terms of any decision making

2:43:42 about tying up anything or raising

2:43:44 anything. Number one, that's most

2:43:47 important. Number two, I'd like to think

2:43:50 that this inflation

2:43:52 is going to go down after the tariffs

2:43:55 are removed.

2:43:57 At some point they will be and

2:44:01 responding to a policy at a time of

2:44:04 crisis which in a country right now it

2:44:06 is. You're going to see um you're

2:44:09 talking about the houses being increased

2:44:11 but people are not going to be able to

2:44:13 maintain their homes because they can't

2:44:14 buy a lot of the goods that raise the

2:44:17 value of their home because of the

2:44:18 tariffs. So, I'm not sure this is a

2:44:21 precious time to do something that um

2:44:25 ties anything down, but the AAA rating

2:44:27 was another reason

2:44:29 on the AAA rating point. None of the

2:44:32 fund balances that get touched by free

2:44:34 cash be uh all the free all the balances

2:44:37 that get touched by free cash that

2:44:39 affect the AAA bond rating happen far

2:44:41 beyond the affordable housing trust

2:44:42 fund. So, like us contributing to

2:44:45 pensions, right? We contribute to

2:44:47 pensions

2:44:47 that's coming out of operating revenue.

2:44:48 we were requesting additional funding to

2:44:50 try and kind of deal with some actuarial

2:44:54 shifts

2:44:54 and we could revisit that because that's

2:44:56 a high priority for me to prioritize

2:44:58 pensions and opeds. Um

2:45:00 uh but like the operating budget

2:45:02 reserve, unreserved fund balance,

2:45:04 liability reserve, those are things that

2:45:06 contribute to the AAA bond rating.

2:45:08 Correct. And capital improvement plan

2:45:10 does not. Correct.

2:45:11 Well, being well capitalized.

2:45:12 Yes. And [laughter] but so but yeah when

2:45:15 you say v capitalize how like basically

2:45:17 showing that you're investing in your

2:45:19 capital.

2:45:20 Yes. But so the things that affect the

2:45:22 AAA bond rating would not change based

2:45:24 off of this policy change on a very high

2:45:27 level. When we talk about pensions and

2:45:28 opeds we can get to that and we can have

2:45:29 some hard conversations about what needs

2:45:31 to be done and how much it needs to be

2:45:32 prioritized because I think they do need

2:45:34 to be prioritized substantially.

2:45:36 um the AAA things

2:45:38 and and just to that end Anthony you

2:45:40 know u Melissa was mentioning some other

2:45:42 funds that are also reserves right that

2:45:45 are at the bottom of the free cash

2:45:47 policy right that they're at they're at

2:45:49 the end those do affect the AAA rating

2:45:51 as well like having you know more in

2:45:53 some of those funds helps the AAA rating

2:45:55 as well but we have been monitoring the

2:45:57 amount of our reserves as a percent of

2:45:59 our revenue right each year um and uh

2:46:03 and we can flag to the board if that's a

2:46:05 problem and then You can always change

2:46:06 the allocation to the AHTF in order to

2:46:09 address that if you needed to.

2:46:10 I agree. So,

2:46:11 yeah.

2:46:12 All right. Would any other members of

2:46:14 the public like to be heard on Warren

2:46:16 Article 18?

2:46:20 Let's see. None.

2:46:22 Uh, we [clears throat] didn't really

2:46:24 discuss Warren Article 9 very much. Uh,

2:46:29 are we prepared to already take a vote

2:46:30 on that or do we need more discussion?

2:46:32 You voted to file the article. That's

2:46:34 why we put it on for this week because

2:46:35 you've already had that conversation.

2:46:38 But if you want to wait a week to vote,

2:46:39 that's fine, too.

2:46:40 I'm fine with voting now if we want to.

2:46:42 I think other members close the hearing.

2:46:46 We already closed it as clear.

2:46:51 Um, the only thing I can I would be

2:46:54 interested in is if anyone on the

2:46:56 transportation board had an opinion they

2:46:58 wanted to share with us before we voted.

2:47:01 All right. So, we can hold off.

2:47:04 All right. Any further Sorry, go ahead.

2:47:07 Any further discussion on warrant

2:47:09 article 18 for now?

2:47:12 All right. So, I'll close the public

2:47:13 hearing for warrant article 18, but of

2:47:15 course, we'll reopen it because this is

2:47:17 an evolving process. So, thank you very

2:47:20 much for the explanations on the warrant

2:47:21 articles and for your input. Roger,

2:47:23 thanks for your fostering Regina.

2:47:26 And with that, we will move to our next

2:47:28 agenda item, boards and commissions

2:47:31 appointments. Question of appointing

2:47:33 members to the Brooklyn Youth Council

2:47:35 for one-year terms expiring August 31st,

2:47:39 2027.

2:47:41 Do any board members have thoughts about

2:47:43 these appointments requests?

2:47:48 Who recommended these?

2:47:50 Christina is the lead on the seven zone.

2:47:52 She's online if you guys have any

2:47:54 questions. Um precincts 5 through 8 9

2:47:57 through 12. These were the only two

2:47:59 applicants for those precinct groups. Um

2:48:01 the other one Christine put out a

2:48:03 survey. The remaining town meeting

2:48:05 members who choose their their

2:48:07 candidates. She put a survey out. So far

2:48:10 I think she said

2:48:12 respond responses. Um so until she

2:48:16 responded

2:48:17 for 13 through 17 for the the candidates

2:48:22 we we held those.

2:48:25 All right. So with that, I will move

2:48:28 that we appoint Arav Patel, Salana

2:48:32 Hanok, Francesca Monteur, and Nathan Min

2:48:37 to one-year terms on the Brooklyn Youth

2:48:39 Council. Nerf,

2:48:40 yes.

2:48:41 Michael,

2:48:41 yes.

2:48:42 Amanda,

2:48:42 yes.

2:48:43 Anthony,

2:48:44 yes.

2:48:44 And I also vote yes. With that, we will

2:48:47 now move to our final agenda item, which

2:48:49 is a tour of the emergency author

2:48:52 section.

2:48:55 Yes.

2:48:57 So, we're going on a physical park.

2:48:58 Yes.

2:49:00 Are we bringing the owl with us? Do we

2:49:02 have an extension table or

2:49:06 fire station to officially close the Is

2:49:09 that station?

2:49:11 No, it's at the municipal service

2:49:12 center.

2:49:13 Hammond Street right on right here. TWWR

2:49:16 next.