Select Board Work Session Pt. 2 - September 16, 2026
2026-09-16

[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.