Select Board Work Session - June 16, 2026

0:05 Good morning, everyone.

0:06 All right. Well, good morning, everyone.

0:07 Welcome to our annual summer workshop.

0:12 At workshops, we get together and have

0:14 more of a free-flowing conversation,

0:17 generally around longer-term goals.

0:19 Although today, we do also have some

0:23 business-as-usual items at the outset,

0:25 so it's a bit of a mix.

0:27 So, why don't we dive right in? First

0:29 up, we have approval of miscellaneous

0:32 items, licenses, and contracts.

0:35 Uh

0:36 1A is question of approving the meeting

0:38 minutes from June 2nd.

0:42 Did anyone uh seek to amend those

0:45 minutes?

0:47 All right. Okay, so I move then approval

0:49 of the meeting minutes from June 2nd.

0:53 Bernard?

0:54 My vote.

0:54 Aye.

0:55 Amanda?

0:55 Aye.

0:56 Anthony?

0:57 Yes.

0:57 And I also vote yes.

1:00 Next, why don't we take 1B

1:05 through

1:08 1

1:11 C.

1:14 S in omnibus fashion, although I would

1:17 like to maybe remove

1:20 Oh, never mind. Okay, let's take that in

1:22 an omnibus fashion.

1:24 What one quick flag, one key just needs

1:26 to be postponed. That's a 1-day

1:28 entertainment license for Jeremy Black

1:30 and T. They're going to move when they

1:32 want to be there. So, they're going to

1:34 come back to you on the 3rd. So,

1:36 everything except 1P.

1:38 All right. So, 1B through 1S, not

1:40 including 1P.

1:42 Yeah, I'd like to just pull up and

1:44 really discuss but just confirm that

1:47 the UMass grant we're talking about

1:49 relates to fiscal year '23,

1:52 and that does not have any of the

1:55 My

1:55 that we're concerned about with respect

1:57 to

1:59 administration's new and efforts to

2:03 attack immigrants.

2:04 Yes,

2:05 and that mainly because I think people

2:08 get really upset and agitated about US

2:11 immigrants and we just want to give

2:13 assurances that this is not one of those

2:15 that are going to leave

2:18 while we're going to cause enough

2:20 problems.

2:20 That is great.

2:22 And we should note that in the minutes.

2:24 Yeah.

2:26 So

2:27 one other question.

2:29 There are just in general a number of

2:34 authorizations to hire

2:37 and I'm just wondering

2:39 are these by and large authorizations to

2:42 hire that are made possible by the

2:43 override?

2:44 Yes. I mean in the absence in the

2:47 absence of the override we would be

2:48 looking at which of these positions we

2:50 would not be filling.

2:52 So yes.

2:54 For

2:56 for communications purposes it would be

2:58 helpful to have a list of positions that

3:01 we're able to fill through the over

3:03 because of the override.

3:05 I'm just so wet. Tell me numbers know

3:07 where their override dollars are going.

3:10 Sure, happy to do that. I mean it's you

3:11 know it's to me

3:14 can be difficult in the sense that right

3:15 we we had proposed positions to cut in

3:18 the event of a no override scenario.

3:21 Like for example, you look at the

3:22 sustainability natural resources

3:23 position of EP guide.

3:26 Yeah, had we had the override not passed

3:28 we we we didn't specifically say that

3:30 position would be cut in FY 27, but

3:33 because the sustainability division

3:35 would sunset [clears throat] in FY 28

3:36 we'd likely leave that position

3:38 unfilled. So there are there's some

3:40 nuance there, but we can definitely you

3:42 know try and demonstrate try and show

3:44 you know what positions we're able to

3:46 fill as a result of having funds.

3:48 Fill or maintain?

3:49 Maintain.

3:50 Right.

3:51 Right to that point that Michael just

3:52 made about maintain and it would be

3:54 helpful to know how many of these

3:56 positions were we already seeking to

3:58 fill as opposed to how many are new as a

4:01 result of having additional dollars.

4:03 Well, the good news is none none of

4:05 these are new positions right now. The

4:07 newer positions are going to come

4:09 [snorts]

4:09 later in the year as in FY27.

4:12 So, once the fiscal year turns over, we

4:16 start looking at some of those new

4:17 positions. That's what you'll see. These

4:18 are positions that we already have that

4:21 need to be filled.

4:22 Okay. I also Sorry, go ahead.

4:23 Yeah, so just just to button that up.

4:27 As a matter since I'm not going to be

4:29 here between now and the next meeting,

4:30 if if we could prepare some sort of

4:33 announcement to to this effect that

4:36 these are positions that we're because

4:38 of the override for the next meeting, it

4:40 would be helpful.

4:42 Sure.

4:45 All right, I have a question about 1C.

4:47 It's a relatively minor question, but

4:49 I'm just curious why collection services

4:51 and a reference librarian would be K-7

4:55 as opposed to K-12.

4:57 Like the job grade. Oh, it's a job

4:58 grade, not academic. It's a good

5:00 question. Yeah, it's a good question.

5:01 No, they're it's a job grade. Yep. Okay.

5:04 And then regarding 1R, so 1R proposes

5:08 approval of a design advisory team

5:11 for the Chestnut Hill commercial overlay

5:12 zoning district and it sets number of

5:15 positions by category. The specific

5:18 individuals who would comprise the

5:21 design advisory team have not yet been

5:23 selected, correct?

5:24 Correct.

5:25 So, there will be an application process

5:27 for that. People will be notified

5:29 publicly and then there will be a

5:32 selection process.

5:33 Yes.

5:35 The only thing that I would amend on

5:36 that

5:38 1R it says the proposed slate includes

5:40 it should say the proposed slate

5:42 includes at a minimum

5:44 because

5:46 that was a that was a very important

5:48 point.

5:49 All right, so let's Well, how long do

5:51 you think it until that entire committee

5:53 is staffed?

5:54 How long does that normally take?

5:56 I mean, that's your role. Uh the

5:57 planning board will move forward on

5:59 this. Um so it's it's a it's a statutory

6:01 requirement to sign advisory teams, but

6:03 the planning board will

6:06 will make that appointment. And so you

6:07 as part of this, you got that um letter

6:09 in your packet, uh proposed letter in

6:11 the packet that will be sent to the

6:13 chair of planning board that we and you

6:16 know, move as expeditiously as they can.

6:18 Okay. I understand.

6:19 Um

6:20 just just so everybody is aware, the

6:22 reason that I wrote that letter is

6:25 because there is an element in the

6:27 memorandum of agreement that says that

6:30 the select board will advocate for a

6:33 design advisory team that includes all

6:35 of these roles. So, this is all language

6:37 that's taken directly from the

6:38 memorandum of agreement.

6:40 And at the minimum was in the MOA?

6:42 Yes, at the minimum was in the MOA.

6:43 I just have one general comment.

6:45 Go ahead.

6:46 If you can, I I know this isn't that all

6:48 right, but I would like us to shift a

6:51 little

6:52 less prescriptive in boards going

6:54 forward because I have found as I've

6:56 been like digging into all the boards,

6:58 there's some really active volunteers in

7:00 the town, which is like great for them,

7:02 but like it would be great to not have

7:04 the same like five people on like 20

7:06 boards because we've written the

7:08 descriptions similarly.

7:10 Um so, in as much as we have the ability

7:12 to recruit new faces to some of these

7:14 boards and committees, uh that would be

7:16 great.

7:19 All right, so

7:21 Go ahead.

7:26 Go ahead, you can unmute.

7:38 All right, I guess we can go back to

7:39 you.

7:40 Uh so, I'm going to

7:42 amend then my motion. So, one approval,

7:45 I move that we approve items 1B through

7:48 1S excluding 1P and 1R as amended by

7:51 Michael.

7:54 Sorry, thank you. I apologize

7:57 Hold on, Jonathan.

7:59 [clears throat]

8:02 Okay, can you hear me now?

8:03 We can't hear you.

8:06 Okay.

8:08 Well, he's being

8:09 Hold on, one second.

8:13 All right, try again, Jonathan.

8:15 Uh, can you hear me now?

8:16 No, but you're being picked up by the

8:19 transcript, so

8:21 Okay.

8:21 Your sound is coming up on the screen.

8:23 You'll get a robot lawyer.

8:24 Make sure that the Assume is set to use

8:26 the owls to sound.

8:31 So, we'll put the audio settings in the

8:32 Zoom.

8:32 But, there's an X next to the um

8:35 speaker Make sure the speaker icon.

8:38 Okay, so I pull that up again.

8:40 Great, so then do the same thing you

8:42 just did where you had the unmute it.

8:44 Are you Are you looking down in the

8:45 lower left?

8:46 Yeah, no, I'm on the pop-up.

8:49 And then

8:50 See, there's an X right in that line.

8:54 And then it's muted.

8:55 Make sure to choose Echo Canceling.

8:56 There you go. Now, go back. We should

8:59 have just had to change your sound

9:00 device. Now, you have to unmute it.

9:01 There you go.

9:03 How about now? Can you hear me?

9:05 There it is.

9:06 Okay.

9:08 This is

9:09 now I just wanted to to address

9:11 Anthony's question in an additional way.

9:14 The design advisory team doesn't really

9:16 kick into effect until the the plans are

9:20 submitted and the city realty won't be

9:22 submitting any plans until the zoning is

9:23 approved by the AG. So, there's not a

9:26 need to necessarily staff this team

9:29 right away.

9:30 Got it. Thank you.

9:32 Uh, just a question I have.

9:34 So, for our aren't design advisory teams

9:37 the purview of a planning board as

9:39 opposed to select board.

9:42 I

9:43 You usually, yes, um but we um

9:47 for standard major impact projects.

9:49 However, for this one we agreed that the

9:52 the MOA says that the select board will

9:54 will be appointing it.

9:55 It

9:56 It specifically says that the select

9:57 board will advocate.

9:58 Advocate.

9:59 not say that the select board will

10:02 will specify.

10:04 Right. We are advocating to the planning

10:06 board for this.

10:07 Okay.

10:07 In in as a result of the negotiation

10:10 with the neighbors and city real team

10:12 attorney.

10:13 All right. So, the select board is

10:14 simply in an advocacy role here and

10:17 planning board will still be running the

10:18 design advisory team.

10:19 That's correct.

10:20 Okay.

10:22 All right. So, with that we were

10:23 mid-vote. Bernard voted yes. Michael?

10:26 Yes.

10:26 Amanda?

10:27 Yes.

10:28 Anthony?

10:28 Yes.

10:29 And I also vote yes.

10:31 All right. With that we will move to

10:34 item number two, temporary extended

10:36 hours for on-premise alcohol licenses.

10:40 Discussion possible vote on

10:41 conditionally authorizing holders of

10:43 alcoholic beverage service licenses to

10:45 remain open until 3:00 in the morning

10:48 following World Cup matches. Now, this

10:50 was brought to my attention by Chris

10:53 Muddy who had informed me that El Pinol

10:56 in particular was interested in staying

10:58 open late during the World Cup because

11:02 there are some matches that are

11:03 beginning at 11:00 p.m. Eastern, even

11:06 midnight Eastern. And they want to be

11:08 able to show games to various patrons. I

11:11 don't know whether other restaurants

11:12 have expressed interest. I know Public

11:14 House has been showing World Cup games,

11:17 Sunset Cantina, several places. So,

11:19 there might be

11:21 several local businesses that might want

11:23 to avail themselves of this opportunity.

11:26 I certainly am inclined to support this.

11:29 It's It's recommended to us by someone

11:32 who's obviously very active in our local

11:35 business community.

11:37 And then I did short play. So the

11:39 as as as with everything there, you

11:40 know, we're good a good lesson on how to

11:42 how rushing things sometimes makes them

11:44 more difficult than they need to be. The

11:46 state legislation rushed this through

11:48 and what the law actually says is places

11:50 you know, places with alcohol all night

11:52 long licenses can stay open an hour

11:54 late. So really So in order for this as

11:58 it's as the law is written, it basically

12:01 means if you were if your current

12:02 closing hours are 1, it could be 2. If

12:05 your closing hours are 2, they could be

12:06 3. What what we can do in practice is

12:09 you because you are the licensing

12:10 authority.

12:11 You know, we could draft a motion that

12:13 basically says

12:15 if places wish to stay open, you know,

12:17 hourly they currently are until 3:00,

12:20 um subject to approval from the

12:23 um police department, um then they can

12:25 if they can do that. So we did some

12:27 research and figured that out, but it is

12:29 just, you know, the the law as it's

12:31 drafted is a little awkwardly phrased.

12:33 So you you just have to basically say

12:35 for the pendency of the World Cup,

12:37 if

12:38 uh holders of alcohol licenses wish to

12:41 stay open until 3:00,

12:43 they can subject to police department's

12:46 And I think we did check with the police

12:47 department and they seem generally

12:49 supportive of this.

12:50 Yes, Chief Pastor is online. Um we

12:52 talked to Lieutenant Brother who's the

12:53 licensing official and and and we all we

12:56 all had a conversation. Michelle had a

12:58 conversation. We all think, you know, we

13:00 don't we don't have any objection to it

13:01 in principle. Um we just want to make

13:03 sure that it still applies, you know,

13:05 for example, if they have past history

13:08 and so forth. We just want to make sure

13:09 that they know that they can,

13:12 you know, just staying open until 3:00

13:13 is not a license to them, for example,

13:15 to overcrowd the bar or something. Um so

13:18 Does this include outdoor dining?

13:21 No, outdoor dining stops at 11:00, um no

13:23 matter what.

13:25 What

13:26 What are bars normally allowed to be

13:28 open? Good question.

13:30 So, in most areas, so

13:34 town wide the rule is generally

13:36 midnight.

13:37 You have a certain areas that the select

13:40 board designated

13:41 entertainment zones.

13:44 Which corner, St. Mary's,

13:47 JFK Crossing and

13:49 Push Corner,

13:51 Broadway Village, Washington Square and

13:54 um

13:55 I think so, man.

13:56 Yeah, no sorry, that's right. That's the

13:58 usual spot.

13:58 Yeah, come at.

13:59 Yeah, so those are the four areas where

14:02 you can stay open the latest one.

14:04 But the board did ask that anyone

14:07 wanting to stay open until 2:00 needed

14:09 to come directly to the select board

14:11 directly to the licensing board to get

14:12 an approval.

14:13 So, theoretically some places can stay

14:16 open until 2:00, but in practice what

14:18 happened, for example, you just approved

14:20 on the

14:21 this latest agenda a new business on

14:23 Comm Ave. They wanted to stay open until

14:25 3:00. Taco Bell next door to them stays

14:27 open until 3:00. I think that's

14:29 they were

14:30 They were an exception. It was that was

14:33 moved in under under prior licensing

14:35 rules. They had to tell them

14:37 you know, the latest you can go is 1:00

14:41 unless you want to come to the board and

14:42 ask for 2:00.

14:43 So,

14:45 Um

14:45 But we do have a policy. That I I'm I'm

14:46 just thinking more broadly if we want to

14:49 support our local businesses and

14:52 supporting nightlife. If we do have a

14:54 policy that they can come ask us to stay

14:56 open until 2:00 outside of the book

14:58 time. Yes.

15:01 Are we talking about local World Cup

15:03 matches or

15:05 broader?

15:06 Any any World Cup game people want to

15:08 watch at a bar.

15:09 Usually yeah, the late night ones tend

15:11 to be the ones that are on the west

15:12 coast

15:13 starting at midnight our time.

15:17 All right, so I move approval of

15:20 authorizing holders of alcoholic

15:21 beverage service licenses to remain open

15:23 until

15:24 3:00 a.m. on the nights of World Cup

15:27 matches.

15:28 I just said that was it.

15:29 Uh go ahead.

15:33 Sorry, that that was my question about

15:35 where we Is it Was it just going to be a

15:36 blanket approval until July 31st or was

15:39 it Did it need to be the night of a that

15:41 a World Cup match was being broadcast?

15:43 [clears throat] I I I just

15:44 All right. Well, how do we want to

15:44 handle that?

15:46 Do you have a recommendation there?

15:48 I would recommend that you do it on the

15:49 night of World Cup matches being

15:50 broadcast.

15:51 Um that's fair. People understand that.

15:53 The only other thing I would just add to

15:54 your note is that if we

15:56 subject to the police department's

15:58 approval. Um and that's a very That's

16:00 very easy, right? You know, someone can

16:01 call our office. The police department

16:04 can run the you know, run the record,

16:06 make sure they're not a past infraction,

16:08 talk to them about the requirements, and

16:09 then we can move the approval forward.

16:10 So, it's a very basic process, but it's

16:13 not costly as far as I know. At least

16:15 twice as At least twice as asking so we

16:17 should just rather submit claim that's

16:20 Is it Is it Is it the steps that they

16:21 have to do?

16:22 Yes, absolutely.

16:23 Yeah.

16:23 Rochelle was already Rochelle and her

16:25 twin brother already talked to me about

16:26 this.

16:27 All right. So, subject to police

16:29 authorization, conditionally allowing

16:31 holders of an alcoholic beverage service

16:33 licenses to remain open until 3:00 in

16:35 the morning on the nights of World Cup

16:37 matches.

16:39 Bernard?

16:40 Yes.

16:40 Michael?

16:41 Yes.

16:41 Amanda?

16:42 Yes.

16:43 Anthony?

16:43 Yes.

16:44 And I also vote yes.

16:46 All right. So, with that, we will move

16:47 to boards and commissions appointments.

16:50 Question of appointing

16:53 A.J. Formenti to the Brookline

16:56 Disability Commission.

16:59 Can we say how many applicants and how

17:01 many seats when we're discussing

17:03 this? Is this just one for one?

17:07 Let me pull up the

17:09 [laughter]

17:15 That is for the Brookline Disability

17:17 commission.

17:18 I think there are two vacancies on

17:20 disability and you will have somebody

17:22 coming forward, I believe, on the 30th

17:24 for another interview. I just want to

17:27 verify. There is actually just one

17:29 vacancy currently.

17:30 How many total applicants do we have?

17:33 Two. I believe there's one other if we

17:35 just figure five.

17:38 She was She came in after this was on

17:40 the agenda.

17:42 All right, then I I recommend we

17:43 probably hold off on that so we can

17:45 interview the other candidate.

17:46 I can't get onto our shared drive to

17:49 tell you

17:50 who the other applicant is.

17:53 That's fine, no matter who it is. I

17:54 think we owe it to that person to give

17:56 them an opportunity to be heard.

17:58 Uh item 3B.

18:00 Um

18:01 Go ahead.

18:01 Is it Is this Is this is an open seat?

18:04 This is not replacing a vacancy.

18:07 Correct.

18:07 I'm sorry. Replacing somebody whose term

18:09 is expiring.

18:10 Right, there is currently one vacancy.

18:14 All right. 3B is the question of

18:16 appointing Shawn O'Neil to the Brookline

18:18 Commission for Women. Similar question.

18:21 How many available spots? How many

18:23 applicants?

18:26 She is the only applicant that I'm aware

18:28 of and there are three vacancies.

18:32 All right, I think we can move forward

18:34 there.

18:36 Um

18:36 any discussion?

18:39 All right, so I will move that we

18:40 appoint Shawn O'Neil to the Brookline

18:42 Commission for the women.

18:44 Bernard?

18:45 Yes.

18:45 Michael?

18:46 Yes.

18:46 Amanda?

18:47 Yes.

18:48 Anthony?

18:48 Yes.

18:49 And I also vote yes.

18:51 Next is question of appointing Handan

18:55 Baradaran to the Brookline Commission

18:58 for the arts.

19:00 So once again, how many vacancies? How

19:02 many applicants?

19:13 There are three vacancies.

19:15 You have another person two other people

19:17 being interviewed on your 30th agenda,

19:20 but there are three vacancies currently.

19:23 I will note that on her application in

19:27 the packet at least

19:30 the primary phone and the email address

19:32 are not redacted.

19:33 Oh, thank you for that.

19:36 Also, I is this the applicant who also

19:38 applied for conservation?

19:40 She is.

19:41 And then how many applicants do we have

19:43 for conservation? How many cuz I don't

19:46 just speaking for myself, I'm not sure I

19:49 would want to

19:50 appoint somebody to two commissions. And

19:53 so if she has a strong preference for

19:55 one and then we prefer her for the other

19:57 then maybe we might want to hold off.

19:59 So there's two current vacancies on

20:00 conservation. You do have additional

20:02 applicants that are going to be on the

20:04 June 30th agenda.

20:06 All right.

20:07 Um

20:08 Do we know what her preferences between

20:10 Commission for the Arts and

20:12 Conservation?

20:12 Reach out.

20:14 All right.

20:16 My suggestion would be maybe we wait cuz

20:17 conservation is more competitive, but

20:20 I'm not sure which one she prefers. And

20:23 if we were to appoint her Commission for

20:25 the Arts, I'm not sure we would appoint

20:26 her to a second commission.

20:28 Makes sense.

20:29 All right. 3D is question of appointing

20:34 Vasily Demencov to the Preservation

20:36 Commission. So once again, how many

20:39 vacancies? How many applicants?

20:41 Two vacancies. He's the only applicant

20:43 and Preservation Commission does

20:46 recommend his appointment. He has been

20:48 attending meetings.

20:49 All right.

20:51 Any further discussion? No? Okay, so I

20:54 will move that we appoint Vasily

20:56 Demencov to the Preservation Commission.

20:58 Bernard?

20:59 Yes.

20:59 Michael?

21:00 Yes.

21:00 Amanda?

21:01 Yes.

21:02 Anthony?

21:02 Yes.

21:03 And I also vote yes.

21:05 All right, so with that we will move to

21:06 review of boards and committees

21:08 handbook. Review of all currently active

21:11 boards and committees appointed by the

21:13 select board.

21:14 So you can see in your packet you have a

21:16 list actually of every little body that

21:18 you appoint. And then

21:20 we got to reduce that.

21:21 Um this you know that says that's the

21:24 that's the the proposed appointments for

21:26 the liaison. So this is

21:29 This is just the list of my

21:30 appointments.

21:33 As you can see

21:34 Do you guys take down the pedestrian and

21:36 bicycle

21:37 Yeah, so we that that should be we look

21:39 at that.

21:39 Which one?

21:40 The pedestrian and bicycle is actually

21:41 appointed by the transportation.

21:47 I have to update Granite Pass then

21:48 because they have it as select board

21:50 appointed committee.

21:52 It said friends.

21:54 Do we need to add a a 911 committee

21:57 after our voter town meeting?

21:58 If that's if you know we were talking

22:00 about that in

22:02 we have the town meeting action yes.

22:05 Okay.

22:06 If that's again it's a resolution but if

22:08 you want to follow along with that

22:09 resolution yes.

22:10 And then also there would be the

22:11 committee related to warrant article 22.

22:14 Yep.

22:15 So

22:17 later on today when we discuss the

22:18 actions of town meeting if you choose to

22:20 create those committees then the step

22:22 would be to build a charge and then once

22:24 the charge is created then we would talk

22:25 about appointments.

22:27 I don't actually know if the current

22:28 version of version of past article

22:30 22 requires a committee. Sorry about

22:32 that. Coordinating with an APC and the

22:35 main office there.

22:36 Got it. Got it. Thanks.

22:38 Um of this list

22:41 do you have an idea of how many of them

22:44 are essentially vital?

22:47 Yes.

22:48 Um so look at this list.

22:50 Um

22:51 some of them are you know fairly active.

22:54 So some of these are statutory like that

22:55 kind of assessors. You have to have

22:58 you have to have retired boards.

23:01 Some of these are quite active. Um,

23:03 you know,

23:04 the um,

23:06 the example of parks and recreation and

23:08 so forth. Um, and then some of these are

23:10 more like the um, surveillance

23:12 technology and military type of thing.

23:14 Produced a report in 2021 and I don't

23:16 think it or 2022 or

23:19 Or I have here.

23:20 Yeah.

23:21 I don't remember.

23:21 Yeah. Um, but it hasn't met since.

23:24 Um, but then COVID hit so less than

23:26 2021.

23:27 Okay.

23:28 Um, so I think, you know, when we

23:31 you know, we think about and you know,

23:32 the real estate property asset board is

23:34 out there but we haven't actually

23:36 staffed it because we're we want to have

23:37 that discussion with you. Um, but you

23:40 know, the Vision Zero Committee has

23:41 produced a report so technically its

23:44 work is complete but there've been

23:46 because there've been discussion about

23:48 what's you know, the

23:49 role of Vision Zero is in our

23:52 uh, town usage, we wanted to have that

23:54 uh, available and potentially revise

23:56 that. But yeah, I mean, when you think

23:58 about um,

24:00 electronic communication review

24:02 committee, right? That hasn't met. I

24:04 don't know when that last met. Um, so

24:06 when you think about committees that

24:08 haven't met for a year or more,

24:10 um,

24:11 you're looking at

24:13 right, the

24:15 electronic communication review

24:16 committee, the CIO oversight committee,

24:21 the information technology advisory

24:23 committee,

24:24 um,

24:25 the um, open committee,

24:27 um,

24:28 the

24:31 I'm thinking um,

24:33 the surveillance committee, the taxation

24:36 aid committee,

24:37 um,

24:38 register of voters

24:39 Register of voters has met.

24:40 Um,

24:42 Right.

24:43 What is the climate action committee?

24:45 [clears throat]

24:46 Before ZAB existed that was a committee.

24:49 I don't know. Climate action committee

24:50 has not met.

24:51 I I served on that. Eon Zabel is a

24:53 school committee rep.

24:54 And that's

24:56 basically got replaced by ZM.

24:58 And the sustainability we said.

24:59 Right.

25:01 Okay.

25:02 So,

25:03 from all of the ones that you're

25:05 mentioning, maybe it's worth discussing

25:07 which one results select board wanted to

25:10 revive any of them and like whatever

25:12 there is not interested in reviving and

25:14 sort of makes sense to me that those so

25:16 we don't have a lot of duplicate

25:18 committees. Chance of many.

25:20 So, the two that come to mind and this

25:22 somewhat overlaps with the discussion

25:23 around liaison assignments. There have

25:25 been a lot of questions around

25:27 surveillance recently that have been

25:29 brought to select board in the context

25:31 of flock cameras, in the context of

25:34 super boards, and also sometimes around

25:37 increased school surveillance.

25:39 Uh the current group of K principles

25:42 seem to want more surveillance and so

25:45 this is

25:46 a foreseeable discussion that I think

25:48 we'll need to be revived. And I'm

25:50 suggesting that

25:52 Anthony end up being the chair of the

25:55 surveillance committee. Bernard used to

25:57 serve in that capacity and he's willing

25:59 to hand that off to Anthony.

26:01 So, I'd like to see that revived. I

26:03 think it's an important topic that's

26:04 coming up in a lot of different contexts

26:06 I just mentioned. Another one would be

26:07 Vision Zero.

26:09 I was just talking about that.

26:11 That's also something that maybe we

26:12 should

26:13 or committee that we should incorporate

26:15 the information technology advisory

26:17 committee and sense committee into

26:20 merge.

26:20 Yeah. That makes sense.

26:22 It's sort of the same.

26:23 There's a lot of people that are

26:24 interested in sort of as we start having

26:27 meetings for AI question how it's used

26:29 and so in terms of like setting policy

26:32 that like

26:33 that's worth building in there as well.

26:35 I I actually think those those two might

26:37 actually be a benefit for being

26:38 separated out.

26:39 If you want if you cuz that that is a

26:41 separate question, right? AI and it's a

26:43 broader question than just surveillance.

26:45 It's a question

26:47 what are our policies we have now policy

26:49 on AI, we have a policy on you know,

26:50 usage. We we

26:53 have all that, but I think to the extent

26:55 the community wants to be engaged in

26:56 that conversation about

26:58 how is our data being used and so forth,

27:00 I think that actually probably belongs

27:02 in its own space, unless you disagree.

27:04 I'm not sure I agree because a lot of a

27:08 lot of the question and power from

27:11 surveillance comes from

27:13 basically comes from its

27:15 interpretation through AI.

27:17 Um, and so if you're going to end up

27:20 with a jurisdictional problem of like,

27:22 is the AI associated with surveillance

27:25 different than the AI

27:27 um, associated with other things.

27:29 Um, I I guess the the the question is in

27:34 my mind is does the information

27:36 technology advisory committee have full

27:38 enough plate that they need potentially

27:41 a subcommittee to deal with this or

27:43 Yeah, I mean they haven't met more than

27:44 you know, that's that's a dormant

27:45 committee. It hasn't met.

27:47 Yeah, but

27:47 And since they're both dormant

27:49 I think the AI question is the is the

27:51 entire pipeline of data collection to

27:52 data usage. So I think and surveillance

27:54 is involved in that. So I I think it

27:56 would benefit from being one to be

27:57 honest.

27:58 Okay. I I agree and to the extent that

28:00 there may be areas where

28:02 don't have overlap, there could maybe be

28:04 a subcommittee, maybe there could be a

28:07 separate report if need be, but they do

28:09 seem to overlap quite significantly.

28:11 Yeah.

28:11 I need I need to run out really quick

28:13 for a work meeting, but I want to just

28:16 call out the OPEB and I think that that

28:17 should probably be revived given

28:20 given the pension payoff timeline in

28:22 2030, right?

28:23 Well, I think that's a definitely

28:23 discussion for town school partnership

28:25 because I think the schools have to have

28:27 be a part of that as well. I think it's

28:29 a good I do think it's important to have

28:31 that conversation, but I wonder if we

28:32 need a separate committee for learning

28:34 as opposed to

28:35 [clears throat]

28:35 having the decision makers really be

28:38 have having the discussion. Regardless.

28:40 [clears throat]

28:40 Okay.

28:41 You're you're you're raising sort of an

28:43 interesting issue, right? It's like

28:44 making town school partnership and some

28:47 things from the SRC came up there as

28:49 well. Just like in much more robust

28:51 committee that is like dealing like

28:55 not just saying, okay, schools get this

28:57 town this, but like actually dealing

29:00 with these issues that are joint.

29:01 Yeah.

29:02 Um I would really like to see that.

29:03 I would I would too. I think your town

29:05 school partnership

29:07 because of the

29:09 NRC's work and because of the capacity,

29:13 I think it's really fallen off from

29:15 where it could or should be. And because

29:17 you know, frankly the schools have

29:19 lacked capacity and that until now with

29:22 you know, the ballot finally having the

29:23 the full slate of you know, support

29:25 network.

29:27 Um

29:28 you know, the TSP used to be much more

29:29 active. It used to be, you know, was the

29:32 kind of driving force behind the town

29:34 school split and the you know, the

29:36 revenue projections and the policies

29:38 around pension and so forth. And so

29:41 having it come back to that sort of

29:43 stronger position and is really is

29:46 really important.

29:47 Um well, making sure that the town and

29:49 schools are talking to one another and I

29:51 you know,

29:52 know what they're doing in terms of

29:54 Just quickly as Anthony's leaving the

29:55 room. So, Anthony also is a part of

29:57 taking on surveillance and folding in

29:59 information technology and AI. If maybe

30:01 you want to work on creating a new

30:03 charge for it as this is going to be

30:04 expanded. And

30:07 that also will be one of your major

30:09 projects.

30:09 For sure. Do we have a an example of the

30:11 previous charge?

30:12 Yes.

30:12 Yeah.

30:13 Okay.

30:13 Um one thing that I one thing that I

30:15 would also add, um

30:17 I'm assuming this might fall to the

30:19 information technology advisory

30:20 committee, but I know that uh Christine

30:23 and Matt Caff has talked about a website

30:25 refresh,

30:26 um which I presume would also fall in

30:29 would it fall into that committee's

30:32 review or somewhere else?

30:35 So, last time we did a refresh, I think

30:37 I I actually ended up having some like

30:39 user group meetings with like town

30:41 meeting members and things like that to

30:42 get ready back on the changes. I would

30:44 envision a kind of similar process to

30:46 that.

30:47 It's not we didn't have a communications

30:49 officer at that moment, right?

30:52 She was around when we did the last

30:54 refresh that we did, yes.

30:55 Okay.

30:56 And in terms of this old pabs discussion

30:58 and some of these other items, I think

30:59 what we might want to do is

31:03 sort of have an indentation and have

31:05 some of these older groups underneath

31:07 some others where they're folding in and

31:08 merging.

31:09 Mhm.

31:09 So that we [clears throat] have an

31:10 understanding of uh where we're going to

31:13 be developing new charges.

31:15 Yeah.

31:16 Um with regard to the Vision Zero, what

31:20 I realize we're bouncing around a lot.

31:22 Right.

31:24 Um but with regard to the Vision Zero

31:26 committee, um so the Transportation

31:29 Board held a workshop last Friday um

31:32 that talked about a lot of um

31:36 sort of how they're going to merge

31:39 Vision Zero, complete streets, the iron

31:41 here, all those things. Um I am a little

31:44 worried that if we have a separate

31:47 standalone Vision committee Vision Zero

31:49 committee, that it will sort of become

31:52 another

31:54 another sort of stream of

31:56 decision-making independent or separated

31:58 from the Transportation Board. And it's

32:01 really the Transportation Board that at

32:02 this point I think has adopted the

32:05 Vision Zero committee and is charged

32:08 with integrating that into the other

32:12 And and

32:13 with the other issues that they face in

32:15 terms of managing our roadways and um

32:18 and the uh

32:20 the road map frankly the road map 2030

32:22 goals that we also have.

32:24 Right? So

32:25 um

32:26 I would actually recommend that we not

32:28 have a standalone committee there and

32:30 specifically charge make sure that the

32:32 Transportation Board is incorporating

32:35 that work into their overall road

32:38 because I think that will

32:39 I

32:40 agree with that especially since the

32:42 Vision Zero is committee was essentially

32:45 like the folks that are involved in the

32:47 transportation board running at the

32:48 subcommittees

32:49 that are already like part of this

32:51 discussion. The one caveat is and I know

32:53 we put this in Terra 2030 roadmap and

32:56 my asking of like reporting back on on

32:58 milestones, but I would like to see some

33:02 sort of annual reporting to this light

33:03 board of like what we used to get the

33:05 bike advisory committee was a monthly

33:07 crash report and what happened and I

33:10 don't

33:12 but I would like to see at least like a

33:13 yearly update of like

33:16 this is what our streets are producing

33:17 in terms of crashes around town and

33:20 where they're happening.

33:21 I don't think that we necessarily need

33:23 the Vision Zero committee

33:26 unless we need an impetus to get that

33:28 information to this light board.

33:31 I was looking at revival of the Vision

33:33 Zero committee more in the context of

33:35 the recent budget amendments for where

33:38 there's going to be communication

33:41 with DPW around roadway repairs and

33:45 making sure that

33:47 Vision Zero is part of the

33:48 implementation in what we're doing with

33:50 our roadways. Now, that could be

33:52 structured differently. I just want to

33:54 make sure that somebody is picking that

33:56 up.

33:57 Right and I and I think based on at

33:59 least what from what I saw

34:02 last Friday, it's really the transport

34:05 Okay, that's really the transportation

34:06 board because they're the only ones

34:08 they're the ones who are doing the sort

34:09 of integration of that concern with the

34:12 other concerns.

34:13 I guess since I didn't make that meeting

34:15 and I I think that wanted to.

34:17 Are they interpreting when we get to the

34:20 outcomes from town meeting, right?

34:22 Discussion later on. Are they actually

34:26 having the charge to staff that says for

34:28 every street that's coming up in the

34:30 next year

34:31 staff is going to present Mission Zero

34:35 proposals. Do we need to have an extra

34:37 impetus from the select board saying

34:39 this was passed by town meeting and

34:41 therefore we can expect this to happen

34:43 or is that already message already

34:45 Um so let me put my conditions of

34:48 appropriation to each to affect

34:50 essentially um you know I I I always say

34:53 that it's really the agreement between

34:55 the department that's in charge of um

34:57 executing the special appropriation and

35:01 the whoever's mandating the the specific

35:03 condition. So you know I feel like

35:05 that's under the purview of Commissioner

35:06 Shoe

35:07 um and that she's you know she's made an

35:10 agreement that this condition is is

35:12 something that she can work through with

35:14 the various parties and things like

35:15 that. So that that I kind of see as

35:18 um under her domain at this point.

35:20 Right. But she has made that clear that

35:22 this is something that she can do. She

35:24 doesn't need an extra guidance from

35:25 anyone.

35:26 Right. The the the purpose the

35:29 what I took out of that meeting is that

35:31 there is developing an alignment between

35:35 DPW specifically its transportation

35:37 division and the transportation board on

35:41 establishing a prioritization for

35:43 roadways

35:44 uh

35:45 roadway safety improvements broadly and

35:48 and coordinating those in the way that

35:51 town meeting has asked with the RAMP the

35:54 RAMPP

35:56 um so that and the five-year RAMPP

36:01 construction plan

36:04 will then be shared and everybody will

36:06 know it and it will be coordinated with

36:08 all of the select board members. And

36:09 that's how those things have been being

36:11 discussed.

36:13 Um and I guess the only other question I

36:15 have from that standpoint is

36:18 um

36:20 what will come before the select board

36:22 is budget, right?

36:24 Is contract approval.

36:25 Well yes yeah yeah but also uh yeah I

36:27 see they'll also do that. But in terms

36:30 of making sure that

36:32 I know this was a fight at a town

36:34 meeting, which

36:36 and

36:37 was not the appropriate channel to do

36:39 but to increase the pedestrian budget to

36:42 start to like address a lot of our our

36:45 pedestrian walkways.

36:47 And I want to make sure that there is

36:49 some sort of information flow from

36:52 either staff or the T board to the Spike

36:55 Board and or AC that says,

36:58 "Okay, we are not going to be able to

37:00 meet our Vision Zero goals if we don't

37:02 increase funding for this." So that we

37:04 know that and have can take that into

37:07 account in decision-making.

37:08 Right. So, my unders- my understanding

37:11 of the

37:13 of

37:15 the way that the the funding for this

37:17 prioritization plan is going to

37:19 ultimately occur is that they need to

37:21 develop the prioritization plan first

37:24 and then advocate either as part of the

37:26 CIP or as part of operating funds for

37:29 the various components. And David

37:32 Trevette, for example, brought up the

37:33 question of like

37:36 can we advocate for more money

37:37 specifically for safer pedestrian uh

37:42 corners and with crosswalks, etc. Um

37:45 and and there've also been advocacy for

37:50 improved bicycle infrastructure. And all

37:52 of those things, um as they get

37:55 coordinated into the prioritization

37:57 plan, will be reflected in the funding

37:59 requests for those priorities as they

38:01 come through.

38:02 So, this is very much similar process

38:04 that parking park and rec commission

38:06 does for the prioritization of parking

38:08 improvements. So, instead of parks, it's

38:09 now roadways. So, it's kind of the same

38:12 um process that Aaron is kind of the

38:14 equivalent of setting up.

38:15 And there will be Yeah, but my my

38:18 biggest concern is that we're we're

38:20 going to set these expectations at the

38:21 level of this select board for for green

38:24 banking and Vision Zero and then not

38:26 actually give the resources in order to

38:28 do that.

38:29 Um

38:30 Well, that's why I think the

38:31 prioritization plan for roadways has to

38:33 come to the select board uh early in the

38:36 budget process so that we can

38:40 we can validate

38:42 That's a very good point. Yes. So, if

38:44 that is the case then I I can agree with

38:46 with Michael on not necessarily having a

38:48 need for a Vision Zero committee. Um I I

38:52 do still raise that I would love to

38:54 figure out a way to get annual reporting

38:56 on crashes and I don't know who that

38:58 should come from. I know

39:00 um

39:02 Sergeant Hatch and

39:03 I forget what

39:07 uh

39:08 used to staff the bike advisory

39:09 committee and now someone else does, but

39:11 like someone in the police department is

39:13 tracking this and they have

39:15 the ability to map out where these

39:17 happen um and it would be great to sort

39:20 of get an annual update on that. Um I I

39:23 don't know if we can make that happen.

39:24 Sorry for looking at you.

39:24 No, no, that's fine. I think, you know,

39:26 we can definitely communicate that to

39:28 both police and DPW that that's

39:29 something that the board's interested

39:30 in.

39:30 Yeah.

39:31 All right, so it sounds like there's a

39:34 general consensus perhaps to not proceed

39:36 with a Vision Zero committee assuming

39:37 that this work can get done within the

39:40 transportation board. That's me.

39:42 Um

39:43 getting back for a moment to the OPEB

39:45 discussion and where we're going to

39:47 combine some of these

39:49 committees. So, OPEB's, ERSC that can

39:53 fold into town-school partnership. Is

39:56 there anything else that we feel should

39:58 fold into town-school partnership?

40:04 Is not the structure seats?

40:06 Uh well, you know, taxation meeting

40:07 taxation meeting's not bad.

40:09 One a year.

40:10 What was that, sir?

40:11 So, that was just to establish the

40:13 policy for um there is a voluntary

40:16 contribution that taxpayers

40:18 [clears throat]

40:18 can make It's um and I don't think that

40:21 that's being

40:23 being done. So, I think the policy

40:25 around the distribution of additional

40:27 taxpayer money

40:29 um for

40:30 uh those purposes, I think that's what

40:31 the committee was initially established

40:33 to do was create the policy. But, I I

40:35 think they're they're done because their

40:37 work is complete.

40:38 Yeah. So, to the extent that anything

40:40 left in that jurisdiction, I see that

40:41 falls into TSP. So, I think all all

40:44 three of those

40:46 I declare closed.

40:48 So, I have a question. Sure. Why do we

40:50 have a separate tree planting and tree

40:52 protection committee? Are those bylaws?

40:54 They're in the bylaws. So, that is that

40:57 is why there's two different

40:58 Uh is there

41:03 in the in the effort to streamline, is

41:05 it possible to consider a bylaw

41:07 amendment to combine them?

41:08 Yes, sort of.

41:10 We could we could do that if that's what

41:12 the board wants to propose for the fall

41:14 meeting.

41:15 Okay.

41:15 Do you Do you see the perviews as

41:17 sufficiently overlapping or are these

41:19 truly distinct groups?

41:21 I think you know, they they are distinct

41:23 functions, but I think that they they

41:24 overlap. You know, there is the missions

41:27 are are distinct, but I think that there

41:29 are a lot of similar same players, same

41:31 same concepts, um

41:33 same overall goal which is to maintain

41:35 our tree canopy.

41:37 So, yes, I think that can happen. I will

41:39 say that the tree protection committee

41:43 does serve uh you know, statutory

41:46 function in the bylaws, that's

41:47 important.

41:47 That's the tree planting committee.

41:48 Right. Isn't the tree That's it. There

41:50 you go.

41:51 They've been around for a very long

41:52 time.

41:53 Essentially help choose the species of

41:56 trees that the town

41:57 Oh, I was

41:58 [laughter]

41:59 Isn't there also a statutory

42:00 requirement, for example, to hold

42:02 hearings when we use public trees?

42:05 And that's in the tree planting

42:06 committee.

42:07 Planting committee.

42:08 Yes.

42:10 So, I think

42:11 For the MBTA

42:13 C line accessibility project?

42:15 Wasn't it the tree protect

42:17 It has to be protection.

42:18 I thought it was the tree protection

42:19 committee.

42:21 I think I think it was too.

42:23 Okay. So, I think [laughter] what we

42:25 should clarify clearly is that there's a

42:27 lot of overlap. And if it is not too

42:29 difficult, I think it would streamline

42:31 it to have basically one tree committee.

42:34 Yeah. And and we should just make sure

42:37 that members of those two committees are

42:39 aware of what we're doing.

42:40 Oh, yes. And

42:41 there you go. Both of them.

42:42 Well, and and we should make sure that

42:44 the size of that committee is

42:46 sufficient. Is it to

42:49 We should consider what the appropriate

42:51 size of that committee is relative to

42:53 the

42:54 to the

42:56 members of those two committees.

42:57 So, we So, I just want to read for the

42:59 description of the tree planting

43:00 committee, which has been established in

43:02 1886. So, it is the um

43:06 the longest-standing tree planting

43:07 committee in the nation. So, I don't

43:09 think we want to get rid of that. Um but

43:11 they advise the tree warden on the

43:12 species and placement of street trees

43:14 and and to hold public hearings for

43:15 street tree removal requests. So, that

43:18 is the description there. The tree

43:20 protection committee was created in

43:22 2016.

43:23 Um

43:24 and they

43:27 Uh

43:29 This was a referral motion referred the

43:31 subject matter of Article 11 to the

43:33 select board for the appointment of a

43:34 committee with members to be chosen from

43:35 the public and appropriate town

43:36 committees having the necessary skills

43:38 and expertise to evaluate the best way

43:40 to provide

43:41 tree protection in the town, including

43:43 whether there should be a zoning or

43:44 general bylaw amendment. So, it sounds

43:47 like there was a specific charge for

43:48 this committee, whether or not they're

43:50 still active, I don't I don't know, but

43:52 they're

43:53 They might not be active.

43:54 They may have already served their

43:55 purpose by providing recommendation for

43:58 the tree protection bylaw.

43:59 Who's the chair of the tree protection

44:00 committee?

44:01 Uh it's uh let's see It says Elizabeth

44:04 Erdmann. Um

44:05 I am I am certain that she chaired the

44:09 tree protection for the seeds

44:11 accessibility project.

44:14 It doesn't say that she's the chair, but

44:15 she's the first person listed here.

44:18 And Human Resources.

44:20 That's tree protection.

44:21 Yeah, in terms of membership size, so

44:23 tree protection has three members.

44:26 And no, excuse me, tree protection has

44:28 six and tree planting has three.

44:32 Is there overlap in the membership?

44:33 Somebody who's on both?

44:34 Probably.

44:37 Yeah, Elizabeth Erdman's on both.

44:39 Looks like there are four members on

44:41 tree planting.

44:43 What is the tree warden?

44:45 Okay, yeah. So there's a possibility

44:47 that the tree protection committee is is

44:50 quiescent and so therefore like we just

44:52 have the tree planting.

44:53 I don't think I don't think it is, but

44:56 but that I still think we can combine

44:58 them.

44:59 The last official record we have of that

45:01 meeting is in 2021.

45:03 Of the tree protection committee?

45:04 Yes.

45:10 All right, any other

45:13 committees

45:14 that we feel we could remove or combine?

45:17 What about the Human Resources Board?

45:24 So yes, I have

45:26 I

45:27 put it this way.

45:30 A lot of

45:32 communities have moved away from being

45:33 resources to boards. The Human Resources

45:35 Board was created in

45:38 in in the '40s

45:41 back when the town was run primarily by

45:44 volunteers.

45:45 And they handled a lot of the HR

45:48 function of the town. And over time as

45:50 the town became more professionalized,

45:52 fewer and fewer functions were made

45:54 Human Resources to them. But it's still

45:56 featured by laws, and it does two it

45:59 does serve two important functions. One,

46:01 it

46:03 reviews job new job descriptions or new

46:05 job reclassifications and determines

46:07 whether or not they're appropriate

46:09 before we move on to before they are

46:11 allowed to be posted. And the other

46:13 thing it does is it services an

46:14 intermediary hearings that when there

46:17 are grievances filed by a union.

46:20 And that's built into all of the union

46:22 contracts. So that in step two of the

46:24 grievance process is the human resource

46:26 department. Now,

46:28 one of the reasons why I

46:31 hoped that we

46:33 were going to be able to talk about

46:34 moving the HR board because we were

46:35 having trouble filling that position.

46:37 They have to be residents of Brookline

46:39 and have to have HR experience, but they

46:41 can't be conflicted out. So often times

46:43 we would say, "Oh, hey, you're a labor

46:44 lawyer." And they'd say, "Yeah, well, I

46:46 may be representing someone who has an

46:48 interest, and therefore [clears throat]

46:49 I can't take this job." So it was very

46:51 hard to find recruits. We were down, we

46:53 were we were at bare minimum for quite a

46:56 while, and we were about to lose it.

46:57 Thankfully, someone did step up, so it's

46:59 no longer as big of an issue this year.

47:01 But it is still something I would like

47:03 us to see look at. But what I learned in

47:06 so doing is that really the way that

47:09 that's going to have to happen is it's

47:10 going to have to come through union

47:12 negotiations first. Um the

47:14 we're going to go through collective

47:15 bargaining. We're in collective

47:17 bargaining now with FAST, and that's

47:18 progressing. We will be back in

47:20 collective bargaining when these expire

47:22 at the end of all of the meetings for me

47:24 in in the next calendar year because FY

47:28 they're

47:29 sorry.

47:30 Um these expire these agreements expire

47:32 at the end of FY '27. So

47:35 once it is bargained, once we bargain

47:38 that,

47:39 um it'll change. Um

47:42 it would become effective on passage of

47:43 a bylaw revising it. And so I think

47:46 that's the order of operations we would

47:48 need to go through.

47:49 Is this already on your radar in terms

47:51 of collective bargaining with all these

47:53 different groups?

47:54 Yes. And again, you know, there's

47:56 nothing against people on the human

47:57 resource department. They've I mean

47:59 they've done incredible work

48:01 um but you know, it it is a

48:05 it's a it's a remnant of a different

48:08 form of government operation. Um yeah, I

48:11 understand some people say, well, it's

48:12 great. We should have we should you

48:14 know, we should be returning to that. We

48:15 should have more volunteers running

48:16 functions of government. But I don't

48:18 think HR is a volunteer function. I

48:20 think that's a weak link in our process

48:21 in the city.

48:23 Um

48:24 But again, that's that's that. It's not

48:26 because of the people doing it. The

48:27 people doing it are doing a great job.

48:28 What I worry about is what happens when

48:30 those people retire.

48:32 So that's something we will discuss in

48:34 the future.

48:35 Yes.

48:36 So this is this is roadmap item two

48:40 action 2D1 for year one

48:44 of

48:45 of the road

48:46 Mhm.

48:47 [clears throat]

48:47 uh is to consolidate and eliminate

48:49 public bodies.

48:50 Yeah.

48:51 Um and so

48:54 we you may not be able to get it done in

48:56 year one because of the of the order of

48:58 operations that you described and we

49:00 should probably adjust the road map

49:01 accordingly.

49:02 Well, I think you're getting a lot of

49:03 the other ones.

49:04 Yeah.

49:05 Uh

49:06 you know, certainly I do you know, it's

49:07 my hope, you know, that we're able to

49:11 come up with a better grievance process

49:13 that the union served but that the union

49:15 sign it doesn't hold. Um

49:18 and if that happens in year one of the

49:20 road map, um

49:22 you know, we will be at the bargaining

49:24 table once this contract expires. Um

49:27 It Joey drives next year. So um

49:31 it's not impossible.

49:33 But [clears throat] you know, in terms

49:34 of yeah, right, you may have a tail in

49:36 terms of the HR department.

49:38 That's fine.

49:39 So we're saying that the newly formed

49:42 surveillance and AI committee or

49:44 whatever we're calling it is going to

49:45 take IT advisory, the Sims, and

49:49 surveillance.

49:51 Does that also include the electronic

49:53 communication? is

49:54 that committee was prior to COVID, prior

49:57 to when we had a distribution of

49:59 electronic packet when everything was

50:01 still done on paper.

50:02 So that one we can sunset?

50:04 Yes.

50:04 Okay.

50:06 The last meeting was literally the day

50:08 before the shutdown.

50:09 [laughter]

50:10 Sorry, I'm like trying to go through all

50:11 of them right now to know which we need

50:13 to sunset.

50:14 electronic communication

50:16 I think that's the first alphabetically

50:18 that is not going to be

50:20 um

50:21 consumed by a different

50:23 committee.

50:24 And I'm And I'm presuming that the

50:26 overarching committee of the of what you

50:29 described Amanda

50:30 would be

50:32 the information technology advisory

50:34 committee that would have all of these

50:36 various functions, I think.

50:43 Okay, so then going down alphabetically,

50:46 expenditures and revenues goes to the

50:48 newly formed town school along with both

50:50 heads.

50:52 Um

50:56 Pedicab gets taken off. Um

51:04 What did we say with registrars of

51:06 voters?

51:06 That is That's required and they're town

51:10 clerk um

51:12 He essentially manages, staffs the

51:14 committee, but it's um required by law

51:16 as well. So the board just has

51:18 appointing authority.

51:18 But the registrar is certified for

51:20 election. You know, for example, if

51:21 there's any If there's a writing vote or

51:23 if there are contested ballots, the

51:25 registrars they they will be sitting in

51:26 the town clerk's office looking at

51:29 And the retirement board

51:31 It's also a required. It's also

51:33 statutory requirement.

51:35 Okay,

51:37 uh solid waste is active.

51:39 Yeah.

51:40 Taxation aid is more of a volunteer.

51:43 It falls under

51:44 Um and it and tree protection is either

51:47 being sunseted or absorbed by tree

51:50 handling to be determined. And so that

51:53 leaves the real property asset or

51:56 physical Oh, wait. Is there anything at

51:58 the bottom here? Oh, and climate

52:00 Uh

52:02 I don't think I said that, but to be

52:03 good with that.

52:03 Right. Climate action.

52:05 Climate action is is being sunseted.

52:08 Um

52:09 and so then that leaves the discussion

52:11 of real assets which would be the first

52:14 one to go.

52:15 to explain. Um

52:18 so, in last

52:21 um

52:23 last year, we had the we had a

52:25 conversation

52:27 um

52:28 in the winter.

52:29 Uh this came up around the discussion of

52:31 Two Park Road. The Two Park Road came to

52:33 market funding part of my mind and

52:35 um and there was a push, a really sudden

52:37 push among some members of the community

52:40 where we should buy it. We should buy

52:41 that and do something there. Um and we

52:45 um because the select board is the body

52:48 that determines, you know, whether to

52:50 buy or to leave it alone. How to act

52:53 uh even though town meeting has to agree

52:55 funds, funding mechanism, and so forth

52:57 is in the executive negotiates those uh

53:01 those potential deals.

53:03 Um we kind of

53:06 we we felt like

53:08 there wasn't a good process in place for

53:11 determining when and whether the select

53:14 board would make decisions like that. I

53:17 mean, it all seemed very ad hoc. Um

53:19 you know, something comes on the market,

53:21 well, you know, should we jump on that?

53:22 You know, why not? You know, it it it

53:25 and then it consumes a lot of energy for

53:26 the select board and kind of number of

53:28 meetings in executive session where we

53:29 discuss whether or not we want to buy

53:31 that property. Um

53:33 and what struck us at the time was

53:36 maybe we should have a committee of some

53:38 kind, a standing committee that deals

53:42 with real property more generally. Real

53:44 property is a thing.

53:45 legal term basically meaning

53:48 land.

53:49 Something you can't move.

53:51 As opposed to a personal property like

53:52 your phone.

53:53 And also

53:55 things like uh

53:58 right to purchase

54:02 Yeah.

54:03 Which are very important.

54:04 Yes. All of those things relating to

54:05 land use or land land acquisition. And

54:09 so

54:10 um we built a charge

54:13 and for a standing committee that would

54:15 be responsible for setting those

54:17 policies and then um

54:20 making recommendations to the select

54:22 board when opportunities arose I or sell

54:26 property.

54:27 Um

54:27 and we had a good discussion and I think

54:29 at the time the board's feeling was

54:33 we don't want to create and David

54:35 Bernard you were had part of this

54:36 conversation so correct me if I'm

54:37 misrepresenting but the feeling sense of

54:39 the board at the time and sense of the

54:41 board was we don't want to create a

54:42 standing committee that has this

54:44 responsibility because it could be

54:47 perceived as sort of an outside

54:49 you know, power base, right? It's

54:51 something that beyond outside of the

54:52 select board that um people could lobby,

54:55 people could you know, try and influence

54:57 in some way.

54:59 Uh and their recommendations would carry

55:01 a lot of weight. We didn't want We don't

55:03 want to necessarily create that

55:05 opportunity. We would rather continue

55:06 investing the authority even though the

55:10 select board would still be the final

55:12 authority in this. We wouldn't want to

55:14 create a circumstance where another

55:17 board was out there that people might be

55:19 able to go and lobby for a specific

55:21 outcome. Um

55:22 What we What the board instead said was

55:25 when we reach a lull in the conversation

55:28 about all this other stuff we should

55:30 look at creating a time limited

55:32 committee with the specific purpose of

55:34 developing policy about real property um

55:37 for the select board to use. So, rather

55:40 than having a standing committee that

55:41 would, you know, review that would

55:43 develop these policies and then make

55:44 recommendations about specific property,

55:47 they would just have them charged with

55:48 developing policy for the board to

55:50 review and, you know, recommend on

55:54 um

55:55 that would then

55:56 uh

55:57 be used that the select board would then

55:58 use to determine whether or not if

56:00 opportunities came up to buy or sell

56:02 property, what to do. So,

56:04 Didn't we also talk about the search

56:06 back working group that

56:09 among the other issues are

56:11 what property do we own?

56:12 Yes.

56:12 And monitoring that and and being aware

56:15 of that as well as aware of other

56:17 properties that could be um on the

56:20 market coming on market.

56:21 Yes, and so we've done that. Um we did

56:23 that that process is now finished

56:25 internally. We now have, uh a long list

56:29 of everything we own, um

56:31 which we can give to you or all it's

56:33 it's a, you know, it's actually a

56:34 spreadsheet. Basically, every real asset

56:36 that the town owns. We also have, you

56:39 know, we report the easements that we

56:41 own, you know, rights of access and so

56:42 forth, which is a longer, you know,

56:44 process, longer document. Um

56:47 and so we we know what we have. Uh

56:50 and then the question is more

56:53 do you want to do you still are you is

56:55 the board still interested in creating

56:58 either a purpose-built committee that

57:00 develops policy and then dissolves or a

57:02 standing committee that develops policy

57:04 and then is

57:06 charged like the building, you know, the

57:08 building committee is the building

57:09 commission. The building commission

57:11 when projects come up is responsible for

57:14 a lot of that um

57:16 manage and it is viewed um

57:20 you know, I think Brookline does a

57:21 really good job with its building

57:23 commission about having a good view as a

57:25 um

57:26 you know, straight shooting, you know,

57:28 uh it's not very

57:30 it's it's not

57:32 subject to you political pressure. Um

57:35 It's very much focused on what the

57:36 bottom line is.

57:39 So, um

57:41 we wanted to have that discussion with

57:42 you now since we've done the internal

57:44 work and this seems like a good

57:46 opportunity to bring this back as you

57:47 were all down discussing

57:49 opportunities for growth and

57:51 development, whether you want this board

57:52 or some version of it um to come back in

57:55 and if so, what for.

57:56 So, at a minimum, I think that the work

57:59 that you're outlining is absolutely

58:01 critical both toward our long-term

58:04 planning, but also immediate because

58:06 when you at the outset of your

58:08 explanation, uh you uh mentioned 2 Clark

58:12 Road as sort of the impetus for

58:14 considering creation of this board and

58:16 there was a lot of concern that

58:18 sometimes we are caught flat-footed when

58:21 these uh opportunities arise and

58:24 oftentimes if we're only trying to uh

58:27 make a decision at the 11th hour, it's

58:30 already too late. And so, having this

58:33 work on an ongoing basis so that we're

58:36 actually identifying opportunities

58:38 before they're widely known and before

58:40 there's a lot of uh competition and

58:42 before it's maybe too late because we

58:45 have certain statutory requirements we

58:46 need to adhere to and

58:48 ultimately, depending on the scope of

58:50 the project, how many we have to get

58:51 involved, it's not so simple for us to

58:53 come in at the last minute if we really

58:55 want something. And that's why I think

58:58 we need to be very deliberate and uh

59:01 preemptive where possible. So, I do

59:03 think it needs to be

59:05 standing, but whether it's a committee

59:08 or it's a work group, um I'm I'm not

59:12 necessarily wedded to the details of how

59:14 it happens, but I want to make sure it

59:15 does happen.

59:17 Well, and how do you set it up so that

59:20 um

59:21 things come before the select board. I'm

59:24 assuming we can put them before

59:26 executive session because you don't want

59:28 to like tip your hand that we're

59:29 interested in the property.

59:31 Right.

59:31 Without naming what property we're

59:33 discussing in executive session.

59:35 Unless you have to My understanding

59:36 Jonathan can correct me is that when you

59:39 the open meeting law requires it. You

59:41 can discuss it in executive session. You

59:43 can discuss the acquisition or

59:44 disposition of property. But if you are

59:46 looking at a specific property, then you

59:48 do need to list in the agenda what it is

59:50 you're looking at.

59:51 What if we're looking at one or more

59:53 properties in a certain area?

59:55 I think you can do

59:56 Yeah.

59:57 We'd always rely on Jonathan for our

59:59 [laughter]

1:00:00 whether or not we could list it or not.

1:00:09 One potential way to finesse it somewhat

1:00:12 is if there is a particular purpose that

1:00:14 we're seeking to fill in acquiring new

1:00:17 land.

1:00:18 Sort of articulating it that way.

1:00:20 Yes.

1:00:21 Because then it seems like it's more of

1:00:22 a broader discussion about what would

1:00:24 fit the need rather than a specific

1:00:26 property. Although I would think

1:00:28 obviously in the course of that

1:00:29 discussion specific properties might be

1:00:31 brought up.

1:00:32 But if it's not known ahead of time what

1:00:34 it is specifically we would be

1:00:36 discussing in terms of a particular

1:00:39 site, then that might be

1:00:41 a path forward there.

1:00:43 Or if you have a site sort of like

1:00:45 quarterly check-in where whatever might

1:00:48 be of interest.

1:00:49 Someone comes and sort of presents

1:00:52 before the select board. Um

1:00:55 I I was just trying to think of the one

1:00:57 like the the way forward to Yeah, if

1:00:59 it's a working group or

1:01:02 or individuals or

1:01:03 I don't know if if sort of the

1:01:06 economic development

1:01:08 planners have the most insight uh

1:01:11 it might be more useful than

1:01:14 volunteers in the town to to serve this

1:01:17 purpose.

1:01:18 So they do often know what going on of

1:01:21 course, but at the same time there's

1:01:22 staff that follow our direction. And so

1:01:25 if we don't have some kind of regular

1:01:27 check-in, at least, about what our

1:01:29 priorities are, staff might not

1:01:32 necessarily know what information to

1:01:34 channel to us.

1:01:37 So that's why I think at a minimum we

1:01:39 want some kind of work group model.

1:01:42 Yeah.

1:01:44 Yeah, I'm trying to think about this in

1:01:46 the context of all of our other plans,

1:01:50 um,

1:01:51 whether it's the comprehensive plan, the

1:01:53 open space plan,

1:01:55 um,

1:01:57 the housing production plan,

1:01:59 um,

1:02:02 and and and try just want to make sure

1:02:05 that when we craft the charge of this

1:02:08 committee, um, and maybe it needs to be

1:02:12 staffed with people, uh, from who are

1:02:15 uh, responsible for those plans so that

1:02:17 they can advocate for them

1:02:18 appropriately. Um, but

1:02:23 but it it would be important that this

1:02:25 group sort of not sort of develop a real

1:02:29 asset management policy that is in

1:02:32 conflict with all of those other uh,

1:02:34 existing plans.

1:02:36 Right, I worry about that, too. I'm

1:02:37 actually less concerned about the policy

1:02:40 part and more the practical. So if

1:02:42 there's an opportunity that presents

1:02:44 itself, we want to be prepared to act.

1:02:46 And it's important that we are

1:02:49 deliberate in that process and not just

1:02:52 being reactive when again the cost is

1:02:55 higher, there's more competition, and

1:02:58 the statutory logistics complicated. And

1:03:00 to your point, we want to make sure that

1:03:02 those who are actively involved in

1:03:04 specific, um, development projects and

1:03:08 also are working with open space, for

1:03:10 example, that those voices are being

1:03:14 heard so we know what it is we're aiming

1:03:15 for.

1:03:17 Right. I mean, just as as another sort

1:03:19 of use case,

1:03:21 um besides the Amity School, um you

1:03:24 know, there was discussion at the uh

1:03:26 Economic Development Advisory Board last

1:03:28 night regarding the Center Street lots.

1:03:31 A fair bit of discussion, um which is of

1:03:33 course currently a town-owned property,

1:03:36 and you know, there was discussion about

1:03:38 you know, what should it be used for?

1:03:41 Uh do we do we implement a ground lease?

1:03:44 And it seems like that this is also an

1:03:46 intersection point.

1:03:47 Right.

1:03:48 In terms of economic development and

1:03:51 what this board would do. But,

1:03:54 my hope in in creating the policies

1:03:57 would be that the policies would help us

1:04:01 act on individual instances in more of a

1:04:04 timely way.

1:04:05 So, that we weren't caught flat-footed.

1:04:07 So, I would I would hope that we,

1:04:10 you know,

1:04:11 if we are going to set something some

1:04:14 something up to analyze specific

1:04:17 uh

1:04:19 uh cases, that we have a set of policies

1:04:22 established to do that.

1:04:24 Right.

1:04:25 And the policy might be as simple as we

1:04:29 think that a parcel of X size might

1:04:32 become available, bring it to the

1:04:34 attention of select board.

1:04:35 That could be a component of it, so that

1:04:37 we're aware of what the uh practical

1:04:39 opportunities are in a given month.

1:04:41 Right. Or assign the Planning Department

1:04:44 to bring those to the select board on

1:04:47 on whatever the appropriate basis is.

1:04:49 Because this does come up a lot. So, you

1:04:51 just raised Center Street, couple years

1:04:53 back Pine Manor came up, and

1:04:56 realistically it was too late for us to

1:04:57 do anything. Um

1:05:00 Poletick has come up multiple times,

1:05:02 Chestnut Hill Benevolent Association has

1:05:04 come up, and

1:05:05 uh

1:05:06 so, we do need to really

1:05:09 I agree with you, we need to be very

1:05:10 active in this area.

1:05:11 And I think too, this is this

1:05:12 conversation is helpful just in terms of

1:05:14 a broader communication policy here,

1:05:16 too. If you if it's the

1:05:18 sense of the board that if large part

1:05:20 when large parcels come available, the

1:05:21 board wants to give the town should be

1:05:24 informed of you know, this opportunity

1:05:26 so that we can

1:05:27 be part of the process, then I think we

1:05:30 should we we can have ways of

1:05:32 communicating that out to

1:05:34 to the current parcel [clears throat]

1:05:35 holders.

1:05:36 And it could also be based on the

1:05:37 certain needs that we're looking to

1:05:39 fill. So, for example, with open space,

1:05:42 if uh there are two or three houses that

1:05:45 are next to each other that go for sale

1:05:47 that go on sale at the same time and

1:05:49 it's in a part of town that doesn't have

1:05:50 a park,

1:05:51 that's worth knowing because that could

1:05:53 possibly be an opportunity. And And even

1:05:55 if it's not for open space, but for

1:05:56 something else. So, just knowing even

1:05:59 when it's relatively small dollars,

1:06:02 not that houses here are cheap, but

1:06:03 macro level from a town perspective, if

1:06:05 it's relatively small dollars and you

1:06:07 see that there are adjacent parcels that

1:06:10 that form a larger property for some

1:06:12 kind of use, I would want to know about

1:06:14 that.

1:06:16 Agreed.

1:06:16 Yeah. I mean, any any property owner

1:06:19 would presumably want to let the town

1:06:21 know if for no other reason than it

1:06:24 creates one more

1:06:26 Good.

1:06:27 bidder for for the properties.

1:06:32 Yeah, and I I will just give my soccer

1:06:35 parent hat for a second to that like the

1:06:38 the last open space plan also referenced

1:06:40 the last recreation

1:06:42 master plan

1:06:44 to give the averages of just how short

1:06:46 we are in terms of athletic field space

1:06:48 for the town.

1:06:49 And

1:06:52 being aware of that, again, there's

1:06:54 multiple uses that needs, right? Like,

1:06:56 but depending on where in town it is, a

1:06:59 couple of houses

1:07:00 worth can do a lot of good there.

1:07:02 Right. Another example would be if a

1:07:04 house goes for sale next to a school.

1:07:07 Uh, because our schools, long-term,

1:07:09 realistically, are going to need to

1:07:10 expand as population grows. So, being

1:07:13 thoughtful about that type of planning

1:07:15 when the opportunity presents itself, at

1:07:17 least being made aware of it. Maybe we

1:07:18 decide we're not going to proceed, but

1:07:20 we should at least know.

1:07:21 This might get too granular, but is is

1:07:22 it possible you just mentioned like some

1:07:24 good parameters only, oh, if when this

1:07:27 thing comes up near a school, this

1:07:29 should be done for that or this and I

1:07:31 would like the idea of the of the of the

1:07:33 committee or hearing or working for

1:07:35 whatever you said, um, would develop

1:07:37 those parameters beforehand. Right. I

1:07:39 think that's a pretty good idea. To be

1:07:40 on the like like and then we could

1:07:42 approve those parameters.

1:07:43 Yes.

1:07:46 So, what I'm hearing from you is you

1:07:47 would like this committee to exist. You

1:07:49 would like it to develop a proposed

1:07:51 policy for when how when when

1:07:54 assets come on the market or or when it

1:07:56 is I think the other aspect of this is

1:07:59 when is it appropriate to attempt to

1:08:00 dispose of assets that is that are in

1:08:02 control.

1:08:03 Yes, bidirectional. So, also when we

1:08:05 have property that we own and we feel

1:08:07 that uh,

1:08:09 maybe we would be better off selling it

1:08:11 to also have uh, parameters around

1:08:15 when or why.

1:08:18 Yes, and I think to limit the the you

1:08:20 mentioned the lobbying aspect. That

1:08:23 could be difficult cuz this committee's

1:08:25 recommendations could carry heavy

1:08:27 weight. I think it would be worth it to

1:08:28 not have the committee give

1:08:29 recommendations just to give analysis

1:08:31 and then we give the recommendation

1:08:33 based off their analysis. They're like

1:08:34 this committee doesn't give a

1:08:35 recommendation, just gives us the facts

1:08:37 and then we make the recommendation.

1:08:39 Or or gives us the policy which may

1:08:42 which may direct the recommendation

1:08:45 process.

1:08:46 That's whether it's through the planning

1:08:47 department or

1:08:49 or somewhere else.

1:08:51 Yeah.

1:08:51 I also think that if we are going to do

1:08:53 any staff this with any sort of

1:08:55 volunteers, getting people who

1:08:57 understand real estate, um, would be the

1:08:59 same for it. I know

1:09:01 I know a few people in in town that have

1:09:04 a wealth of knowledge. I'm sure there

1:09:05 are others, but

1:09:07 I understand it way better than like

1:09:09 those of us in this room.

1:09:10 Yeah, we had we had we had a charge

1:09:11 ready to go. It was pretty pretty good.

1:09:13 It even had a roster names and

1:09:15 everything. It really

1:09:16 We had heavy hitters on it.

1:09:18 So, I think it's But I again, I will

1:09:20 want to contact those people, but also

1:09:22 I'll run that by you all again. And if

1:09:24 you have additional names or if you

1:09:25 think there should be a revised

1:09:27 composition, by all means.

1:09:29 Um

1:09:30 Beyond parameters of when something

1:09:32 would be brought to our attention, what

1:09:34 are some other elements, policy elements

1:09:37 that you would like to see?

1:09:38 I would like to see

1:09:40 I would like to see um

1:09:41 I mean I would I would I would like to

1:09:43 see ROI analysis on any project that's

1:09:45 going through. I think that's important

1:09:47 to always focusing on that. I know open

1:09:48 space you're not going to have an ROI

1:09:49 analysis on that.

1:09:50 Um you'll have like a social benefit,

1:09:52 but

1:09:53 um I think if you're going to make an

1:09:54 economic case, I want to see the

1:09:56 cost to return.

1:09:58 I feel like we don't always get that on

1:09:59 some of these projects.

1:10:01 The other thing in terms of the policy

1:10:03 creation is to be explicit about a set

1:10:07 of plans that are points of

1:10:10 consideration

1:10:11 in in the analysis.

1:10:14 I mean I

1:10:15 I still wish I had researched this topic

1:10:17 better and we'll get to it when we're

1:10:19 talking planning, but public private

1:10:21 partnerships are something that like I

1:10:23 don't think we've done as much work as

1:10:25 we could have as a town.

1:10:27 And it would be great if if

1:10:30 there was a policy on this property

1:10:33 would be good for that because of why.

1:10:36 Like I understand it especially when

1:10:39 addressing sort of the workforce housing

1:10:42 issue in that you're not going to easily

1:10:45 get

1:10:46 state or federal funds for

1:10:50 that tier of housing. And so, you need

1:10:53 to offset it with

1:10:54 private funds. And so, that that kind of

1:10:58 project might make a lot of sense for

1:10:59 public private partnerships.

1:11:02 But a policy sort of around that I think

1:11:04 would be quite good.

1:11:07 Yeah, I will say yeah, and on that

1:11:08 front, you know, as we talk as we

1:11:10 transition the conversation planning,

1:11:12 that is possible, right? You know, the

1:11:13 town can within the scope of the

1:11:16 procuring law issue an RFP basically

1:11:19 say, "Town wants to go into business

1:11:21 with a private developer to develop

1:11:25 workforce housing and here is what the

1:11:26 town is willing to do to to make that

1:11:28 happen. Here are the subsidies that the

1:11:30 town is willing to provide." You know,

1:11:32 you've got you know,

1:11:33 in thinking of it, you have to you know,

1:11:35 craft it carefully so you're talking

1:11:37 about this is an example of a good, you

1:11:39 know, the community needs this workforce

1:11:40 housing, it needs to have people

1:11:42 working in the town, you know, living in

1:11:44 the town, and working in town and all

1:11:45 that. But you know, there is a way to

1:11:47 develop that and other communities have

1:11:49 done that. Other communities have have

1:11:51 partnered with private developers to

1:11:53 build projects like that.

1:11:55 And I think we can do that not just with

1:11:57 respect to housing, but also recreation.

1:11:59 So something I have been having some

1:12:02 discussions with planning about is that

1:12:05 when we're pursuing MOAs for mid-level

1:12:09 to large-scale development projects,

1:12:10 perhaps considering that the developer

1:12:14 will put in

1:12:15 indoor tennis courts on the roof of the

1:12:17 apartment building, whatever it might

1:12:18 be, whatever recreational need we're

1:12:20 looking to fill that might fit at that

1:12:22 site. I think there are potential

1:12:24 opportunities there that we should look

1:12:25 at.

1:12:29 Yeah, I'm thinking of Hancock Village in

1:12:31 the Horlick League

1:12:33 preservation

1:12:34 is an example of that as well. And the

1:12:36 tennis courts in Beacon.

1:12:37 Right.

1:12:40 This might be a little shooting for the

1:12:41 moon, but

1:12:43 as per these private public partnerships

1:12:45 and stuff like that, um

1:12:47 I I would love to increase the municipal

1:12:48 solar capacity wherever it's possible.

1:12:50 So, um you know, if we can say like the

1:12:52 whole private building you're going to

1:12:53 build here with this land, you know, we

1:12:56 will put solar panels on your roofing

1:12:57 and we own the energy and that's per the

1:12:59 agreement. I think that that's something

1:13:01 that we should pursue like every

1:13:02 possible avenue.

1:13:04 I think Jared, you have you have a solar

1:13:06 working group.

1:13:06 Yeah.

1:13:07 Right, it's working on those questions

1:13:08 now.

1:13:08 Okay, cool.

1:13:09 Yeah, he's running you know, he's

1:13:11 thinking about it. It's a good flag.

1:13:12 Yes, that's definitely on our our radar.

1:13:14 So.

1:13:15 One question I have there is not to

1:13:16 oppose this.

1:13:17 Yeah.

1:13:17 Uh occasionally the fire department has

1:13:21 expressed concerns about solar roofs. Uh

1:13:24 so, how how does that work in terms of

1:13:28 are there new solar designs that are

1:13:30 less concerning from a fire safety

1:13:32 perspective?

1:13:32 I can talk a little bit with the chief

1:13:34 about that. I don't I don't have

1:13:36 familiarity off the top of my head with

1:13:37 how that how those designs have

1:13:39 improved. I mean, in general, right?

1:13:41 Electrification has resulted in

1:13:42 increased fire risk. Um you know,

1:13:44 electric cars when they catch fire, they

1:13:46 don't go out.

1:13:48 Um that's a

1:13:49 it's a serious concern. It's one of the

1:13:51 things that has driven up the cost of

1:13:53 putting still within budget but I'm

1:13:54 worried about like, you know, the cost

1:13:55 of the Pierce project too and it's been

1:13:57 you know, we're going to have we're

1:13:58 going to have to resprinkle that garage

1:14:00 for the electric vehicles which is, you

1:14:03 know,

1:14:04 very expensive. Um so,

1:14:07 all all of this electrification work

1:14:09 does increase

1:14:12 risk and therefore increase the cost for

1:14:14 mitigation, but that is something that

1:14:17 we're trying to take into account when

1:14:18 we think of this project. It's a new

1:14:19 This is specifics on that solar panels

1:14:21 and fire risk. I'm not aware of so, I'll

1:14:23 ask the chief to brief you on all kinds

1:14:24 of things.

1:14:25 Okay.

1:14:26 Well, if we're encouraging uh developers

1:14:30 to solar panels up on the roof, there is

1:14:31 also a cost to that.

1:14:33 Yeah.

1:14:33 I mean, it's a period of time

1:14:35 uh you recover that cost.

1:14:37 Yeah.

1:14:38 Well, I think too Right, you think too

1:14:39 about the

1:14:40 It's not uh uh

1:14:41 free

1:14:42 No, no, no, free maintenance.

1:14:43 Yeah, that's the question, right? You

1:14:44 just always have to do that analysis.

1:14:45 Right, and and

1:14:47 and it's not just solar panels either. I

1:14:49 mean there the car the climate action

1:14:52 resilience plan which maybe is one of

1:14:54 the things that should be listed on that

1:14:56 list. The plans you know has a whole

1:14:58 bunch of strategies, you know, starting

1:15:01 with fossil fuels believe that we can

1:15:03 build into the negotiation process of

1:15:06 any arrangement that we care to bring

1:15:09 forward.

1:15:10 I will say that the reason I bring up

1:15:12 the solar thing isn't just from like a

1:15:14 climate perspective of fighting climate

1:15:16 change. It's also from a money saving

1:15:18 perspective. And that's like the main

1:15:20 that that's the main

1:15:20 But but remember it's another regulation

1:15:23 that are imposing on development that

1:15:25 could slow down our goals.

1:15:28 That makes sense too.

1:15:29 And drive up costs.

1:15:30 Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah.

1:15:33 Yeah.

1:15:33 Okay. Um I'm going to attempt to focus

1:15:36 us a little bit because I do think these

1:15:38 are interesting questions, but it turns

1:15:40 the charge of

1:15:42 the new committee. Is there anything

1:15:44 else that we want incorporated in it? Or

1:15:47 are we all in agreement that this is

1:15:49 something that should be formed?

1:15:53 Are we

1:15:53 are we just talking at this point about

1:15:55 the policy side as opposed to the

1:15:58 recommendation side?

1:16:00 If this is

1:16:01 I I would be fine with that as because

1:16:02 that I think would mollify the concerns

1:16:05 from a year ago about whether who's

1:16:08 really making the decisions, who's

1:16:10 really making the recommendations. So if

1:16:11 it's solely about crafting policies

1:16:15 including around the parameters of when

1:16:17 something is brought to our attention.

1:16:19 Uh and also

1:16:22 Well, I guess that would be the safest

1:16:23 way to limit it.

1:16:25 To go beyond that is really

1:16:26 recommendation.

1:16:27 Yeah, I think that I think that's

1:16:28 enough.

1:16:29 Okay.

1:16:30 Um I have I have thoughts here. Um we

1:16:33 will take this back um and we'll come

1:16:35 back before you and probably later this

1:16:37 summer.

1:16:38 Um

1:16:39 once that happens

1:16:41 if the charge looks good and the you

1:16:43 know, membership looks good. We can

1:16:45 get that moving.

1:16:46 Cool.

1:16:47 Right. And and make sure that we also

1:16:49 put in there

1:16:50 right for using using that using for

1:16:53 example a CDBG money to extend the time

1:16:56 and more

1:16:58 as leverage to to get that type of

1:17:01 agreement.

1:17:03 All right. So,

1:17:05 any discussion of recruitment and

1:17:07 outreach efforts for boards and

1:17:08 committees?

1:17:10 One thing that I'll flag is that I

1:17:12 want to start earlier in that I would

1:17:14 like as

1:17:15 as much as possible to

1:17:18 go outside of Brookline 100 for staffing

1:17:20 boards and committees.

1:17:21 That that we've been saying that for

1:17:23 years.

1:17:24 Yes, exactly.

1:17:26 Do you

1:17:27 I think one one thing that

1:17:31 is worthwhile is actively promoting

1:17:34 which terms not only we have which

1:17:37 committees not only have vacancies but

1:17:38 have terms expiring. I know we have a

1:17:43 or beginning of September.

1:17:45 And I don't think we should always

1:17:46 default to reappointing folks to

1:17:49 committees even if they've done a great

1:17:50 job.

1:17:51 So, thinking about how we can get the

1:17:53 word out to different circles. And I

1:17:56 don't know

1:17:57 as much as your communications go out if

1:17:59 the

1:18:01 um

1:18:02 as the

1:18:04 ever puts out things saying like we

1:18:06 actually really want new voices coming

1:18:07 on the committees

1:18:09 just to try to like shin up some general

1:18:11 interest in folks that are not used to

1:18:13 things.

1:18:14 Yeah.

1:18:14 I know what Sorry. Sorry. I was just

1:18:16 going to say

1:18:17 my first year on select board I said the

1:18:18 same thing. The the response The

1:18:20 response that I received and I won't

1:18:22 name names was do we really want to

1:18:24 spend that much time interviewing

1:18:28 all the time for every position that

1:18:29 expires and it would be an enormous

1:18:31 amount of time. But, I still agree with

1:18:34 you at least to an extent so we want to

1:18:35 be

1:18:36 bringing in more voices, including many

1:18:38 more people, and I'm not sure why we

1:18:41 have this tendency to automatically

1:18:43 reappoint people, and I don't say that

1:18:45 because I don't value who we currently

1:18:47 have, but precisely for that reason

1:18:49 about having other voices, and

1:18:51 especially where somebody is on five

1:18:54 committees or boards,

1:18:56 could they maybe give up one and let

1:18:58 somebody else in the club? I think

1:18:59 possibly so.

1:19:01 I agree with you. I don't think we

1:19:02 should necessarily always reappoint.

1:19:05 I think if you if you're

1:19:07 What would be your parameters for that?

1:19:11 Would you like us to effectively trial a

1:19:15 period where we don't or not reappoint

1:19:18 people who are interested in being

1:19:19 reappointed? Would you like us to

1:19:22 focus on people who are on more than one

1:19:24 board or committee? Would you like us to

1:19:27 I'm really if we're hiring like if we

1:19:30 are appointing to preservation, right?

1:19:32 And we know that five people have have

1:19:35 applied, I would like to interview those

1:19:37 five at the same time.

1:19:38 And in the discussion of that is well,

1:19:41 two of these also serve on three other

1:19:43 committees.

1:19:44 Right? Then that gives us a little bit

1:19:46 of oversight into who we might want to

1:19:48 appoint from from preservation.

1:19:49 And in terms of interviewing on the same

1:19:51 day, one challenge that's been coming

1:19:53 up, and it came up even today, is it

1:19:56 seems that

1:19:57 application process on a rolling basis.

1:19:59 And so, we've interviewed a few people,

1:20:01 and then somebody else crops up, and I

1:20:03 think we might want to set deadlines

1:20:05 around this. Start applying on this

1:20:06 date, application needs to be in by Y

1:20:09 date, and you're going to interview,

1:20:12 maybe give a little flexibility over two

1:20:14 days.

1:20:15 But, let's try to keep this process a

1:20:17 little more

1:20:19 organized.

1:20:20 Is there Is there any I'll tell you,

1:20:23 I I listen, I I I come from a generation

1:20:24 of the workforce where normally my first

1:20:26 screening interviews are me recording

1:20:28 myself, talk about myself before you get

1:20:30 an interview. Is there any possibility

1:20:32 that we could do use that to streamline

1:20:34 this where we don't have to have an

1:20:36 interview right away for all these

1:20:37 candidates? They can get screened.

1:20:39 then then you start limiting to limiting

1:20:42 your

1:20:43 audience to

1:20:44 people who are in your generation.

1:20:46 Yeah, I get that. I get that. I get

1:20:47 that.

1:20:47 I get that. I get that.

1:20:49 To to go back to your question, Chaz, I

1:20:52 I don't want to necessarily be

1:20:54 actively trying to remove people, but I

1:20:56 think

1:20:57 announcing to the broader public

1:20:59 opportunities to apply for positions,

1:21:01 whether it's a vacant position or

1:21:04 because a term's expiring, even if we

1:21:06 don't select that person, at least we'll

1:21:08 they'll be on the radar and there are

1:21:09 opportunities to make them associate

1:21:11 members and they can spend a year sort

1:21:14 of getting more familiar because

1:21:15 sometimes in these interviews, we learn

1:21:17 that the person has maybe watched once,

1:21:20 maybe not at all. And so, is that

1:21:22 person, that new applicant,

1:21:25 do they really know what they're getting

1:21:26 themselves into? And so, maybe a way to

1:21:29 get some of those new voices on as an

1:21:30 associate member for a year and then

1:21:33 maybe somebody decides that this new

1:21:35 member is ready to go and they uh step

1:21:38 off.

1:21:39 Uh but there could be a way to handle it

1:21:40 that way. We even do that with select

1:21:42 board members, as you know, that

1:21:43 sometimes a former select board member

1:21:46 stays in charge of a committee and then

1:21:47 there's a current select board member

1:21:49 who'll be a liaison. And I think that's

1:21:50 fine because uh they've developed a

1:21:53 certain level of expertise and

1:21:54 relationships and we should value that.

1:21:57 So, I I don't look at this as a way to

1:21:59 get rid of people, but to bring more

1:22:00 people on.

1:22:01 Yeah, I think so. The the other aspect

1:22:03 of that though and it's that was raised

1:22:05 last time we had this conversation was

1:22:07 do you want to

1:22:09 do you want to you you guys set

1:22:10 expectations accordingly, right? If you

1:22:12 post these as available and list them

1:22:14 like every other listing,

1:22:16 yes, they're like open listings, but you

1:22:18 know that there's someone who is

1:22:20 currently serving who wants to keep

1:22:21 serving um and the chances of that

1:22:24 person of a new person being appointed

1:22:25 are low, are they going to be

1:22:27 disappointed by the process and showing

1:22:29 up and then saying, well, why did I go

1:22:31 through this if, you know, at the end of

1:22:33 the day I'm not going to get appointed.

1:22:35 It's just going to be the same person

1:22:36 who is really

1:22:36 We could maybe consider offering

1:22:38 associate membership and just be up

1:22:40 front about it.

1:22:42 Yeah, may I I I don't

1:22:46 I've talked to you even like a few

1:22:48 committee chairs who are long serving

1:22:50 and they've said that they don't assume

1:22:53 that they're going to be reappointed.

1:22:54 Like I talked to someone last night who

1:22:56 was like, "Hey, I resubmitted it because

1:22:58 I'm coming and I put in my application."

1:23:01 So, I I don't think that there's always

1:23:04 the assumption. Uh

1:23:07 Some people will assume that, but I I do

1:23:09 think it is important to highlight both

1:23:11 for currently serving as well as

1:23:14 um new voices that like we will consider

1:23:17 that and it's not automatically, right?

1:23:20 Like you might get someone to the two

1:23:22 board who's been working for the MTA for

1:23:24 30 years or whatever, cuz right? Like

1:23:26 and they might be new to this and that's

1:23:29 like it might mean that we want to add

1:23:31 them as opposed to one of the the

1:23:33 current members. And so, I I don't want

1:23:35 to rule out new people just because

1:23:37 they're new people.

1:23:41 Do reappointments

1:23:43 all come to the select board or do are

1:23:46 there any that are processed

1:23:48 administratively?

1:23:49 No, you If you If you appoint a body,

1:23:52 uh if you appoint to the body, then you

1:23:53 reappoint when their term is up.

1:23:55 I understand.

1:23:56 Board has varied on whether or not

1:23:58 people that are seeking reappointment

1:23:59 are also interviewed. So, that that

1:24:01 varies

1:24:02 That's a separate question, but

1:24:03 ultimately the decision does come to the

1:24:05 board.

1:24:08 So, what I hear you saying potentially

1:24:11 is

1:24:12 we should be posting all vacancies.

1:24:14 Um

1:24:15 even if we are even if the individual

1:24:18 who is currently serving has expressed

1:24:20 an intent to re reapply.

1:24:23 Or should we just reapply? Uh and see

1:24:25 what we get.

1:24:26 I think though that I would maybe

1:24:28 include a note about

1:24:31 traditionally incumbency has been

1:24:33 heavily favored because your point about

1:24:35 the

1:24:36 or maybe make it associate member

1:24:38 opportunity and express that if you are

1:24:41 not named a member, you may be named an

1:24:42 associate member cuz I don't want to be

1:24:44 setting false expectations either.

1:24:46 Yeah.

1:24:47 But at the same time I don't want to

1:24:48 totally preclude opportunity to bring in

1:24:50 new voices.

1:24:52 I [clears throat] think that I think

1:24:53 that uh information like that probably

1:24:57 belongs more in the handbook than in our

1:25:00 posting of

1:25:02 positions because just as a matter of

1:25:05 practice

1:25:06 I think it will be easier for us to

1:25:10 maintain if we keep the postings

1:25:14 consistent and straightforward.

1:25:17 I just don't know that the average

1:25:19 applicant's going to look in the

1:25:20 handbook. I think they're going to see

1:25:22 this position might be available and

1:25:23 just apply. So I think maybe we need

1:25:25 them both.

1:25:26 I'm I'm not sure that's a

1:25:28 problem.

1:25:31 I mean because as you say, you know,

1:25:33 what we're what we're trying to do is

1:25:35 source more applicants, right?

1:25:36 Ultimately. And you know, if somebody

1:25:39 sees that like

1:25:41 20

1:25:42 there are 20 different positions open

1:25:44 and they look at them and

1:25:46 they apply for one and it turns out that

1:25:48 that one is

1:25:50 already has an incumbent that we're

1:25:52 likely to hold

1:25:53 then you know, what we should have is a

1:25:56 strategy in those cases for encouraging

1:26:00 that person to look at the rest of the

1:26:02 list because you know, we had somebody

1:26:04 today that we actually deferred because

1:26:10 for the Commission for the Arts, right?

1:26:11 Because you know, they'd applied to

1:26:13 multiple items and And we had a better

1:26:16 way of managing people who are trying to

1:26:20 uh

1:26:22 participate, um

1:26:24 then I think that we could

1:26:27 we could be more consistent in our

1:26:28 policy because I don't think we want to

1:26:30 signal I don't think we want to signal

1:26:32 either way that incumbency is a gives

1:26:35 you a right of first refusal on the seat

1:26:38 or we're not considering incumbency and

1:26:41 yeah, you could end up sending both

1:26:43 either message.

1:26:44 That's fine, [laughter] but but I do

1:26:46 like the idea of highlighting somewhere

1:26:48 that there's an associate member

1:26:49 opportunity.

1:26:50 Absolutely.

1:26:51 Because I I think that brings more

1:26:52 people on board. This came up very

1:26:54 recently in the context of Lars Anderson

1:26:55 rink. We ended up liking more people

1:26:58 than there were spots, we expanded it.

1:27:00 We can't always expand it, but also

1:27:01 there we named an associate member.

1:27:03 Uh and I think that's a good way to

1:27:05 bring in new people.

1:27:08 So, maybe

1:27:10 we go back to this.

1:27:11 If you're we will we will post vacancies

1:27:14 even if there are incumbents in the

1:27:15 position who've expressed an interest in

1:27:17 applying.

1:27:18 One thing I may maybe just put the

1:27:19 difference here is that we have a

1:27:21 general statement on the application

1:27:23 page that [clears throat] says, we ask

1:27:25 everyone you know, we ask everyone to

1:27:26 apply including people who currently are

1:27:28 in a position you can apply.

1:27:31 Uh if you are not selected

1:27:33 even if you feel that you may not be

1:27:35 selected uh but you have an interest, we

1:27:37 strongly encourage you to apply. There

1:27:39 are other opportunities such as

1:27:40 associate non-voting memberships that

1:27:42 may be available even if you are not

1:27:44 selected position.

1:27:46 And the way to make an associate

1:27:47 membership a little more attractive, I

1:27:49 know that some boards allow associate

1:27:51 members to vote if a regular member's

1:27:53 not there at a particular meeting.

1:27:55 Yes, there's associate there's our

1:27:56 alternate.

1:27:57 That's alternate.

1:27:58 Those are all terms.

1:27:59 Yes.

1:27:59 Yeah, I I I agree. I like the idea of

1:28:01 alternates rather than associates just

1:28:03 because it does make it more appealing.

1:28:05 There's lots of meetings where someone

1:28:07 won't show up.

1:28:08 Exactly. Okay, so alternate members.

1:28:09 Okay. Some of those probably would need

1:28:11 to be um

1:28:13 if they're creatures of the by-law, it

1:28:14 may not be

1:28:16 it may not be able to add it without

1:28:17 actually amending the by-laws.

1:28:18 Okay. But for a lot of a lot of the

1:28:21 bodies that you have created,

1:28:23 um just as your executive capacity,

1:28:25 that's easy to do. So,

1:28:27 And what you're saying is just now is

1:28:28 like

1:28:29 some of these are there will be

1:28:31 incumbents and so you're warning them so

1:28:32 they're not going to get caught off

1:28:33 guard and if they're curious about the

1:28:35 committee, they'll look up and see whose

1:28:37 term is up and they'll know who the

1:28:38 incumbents are. Right.

1:28:39 Right.

1:28:40 But also you're not waiting that same

1:28:42 rule automatically um

1:28:45 re- renominate incumbents.

1:28:48 And in my conversations with some uh

1:28:51 long-time incumbents,

1:28:53 the reason that they continue to apply

1:28:55 is because they're not even they feel

1:28:57 that no one else is interested. That's

1:28:58 part of it. It's not always that they

1:29:00 want to continue serving.

1:29:01 Yeah.

1:29:04 [clears throat]

1:29:06 All right. Any further discussion around

1:29:09 the terms of changes to the boards and

1:29:11 committees handbook and outreach

1:29:14 efforts.

1:29:14 Go ahead.

1:29:14 Yeah, I sent to um

1:29:16 Melanie some changes I proposed.

1:29:20 And can you pull it up on the board

1:29:21 there?

1:29:23 Just for but that I can read them.

1:29:27 Can you do that?

1:29:31 I just saw them.

1:29:34 I'll have

1:29:38 My outlook is not

1:29:41 fully operating.

1:29:43 Okay.

1:29:43 I'm I'm just want to make sure did we we

1:29:46 finish up with the list and what's the

1:29:48 next action item

1:29:49 for the list of boards and commissions?

1:29:51 So, I think yes. We I have a list of

1:29:54 four what we're

1:29:55 um

1:29:56 either consolidating or recommending the

1:29:59 uh

1:30:02 getting down. What I would suggest is

1:30:04 that we send out formal notification to

1:30:06 those that the posted members of the

1:30:09 sports committees to give them notice

1:30:11 that this is happening. If there's any,

1:30:13 you know, comment that they want to make

1:30:14 or concern that they have about it that

1:30:16 they can bring to you. And then on the

1:30:17 30th, you can take a formal vote to

1:30:20 consolidate certain boards and

1:30:21 committees or close the others. So, you

1:30:23 don't have to vote today, but you know,

1:30:24 you give us time to notify people who

1:30:26 would be impacted by

1:30:28 and get your back on the 30th.

1:30:31 Does that sound

1:30:31 Yeah. Yeah, and if you get all that

1:30:33 feedback by the 30th,

1:30:35 that would be great.

1:30:35 Yes, we will do our best.

1:30:39 Are you able to do this?

1:30:40 I am.

1:30:41 I'm having some technical difficulties.

1:30:43 And my Outlook is just being slow to

1:30:45 open right now.

1:30:45 Let's try it the 20th century way.

1:30:49 Um so, I I'd like to add under page page

1:30:53 five under requirements

1:30:56 a new one.

1:30:57 Um and this is, you know, intended to

1:31:00 address the issue of um committee

1:31:03 members treating each other and staff

1:31:05 badly,

1:31:06 which is has been a problem uh for many

1:31:09 years

1:31:10 in my experience.

1:31:11 So, a new uh requirement under uh

1:31:15 on requirements,

1:31:17 be comprised of members who will treat

1:31:19 other members of the public body, town

1:31:21 staff, and residents with respect and

1:31:23 courtesy. And this is mentioned a few

1:31:25 times throughout the handbook. I think

1:31:28 it's important that where we're talking

1:31:29 about uh requirements for membership to

1:31:33 emphasize it at the beginning.

1:31:39 All right.

1:31:40 That also says as we're reevaluating

1:31:43 reappointments, if we know that that

1:31:45 person is not doing that, that might be

1:31:47 a reason not to reappoint him.

1:31:50 And then on page seven,

1:31:52 there's [clears throat] sort of an

1:31:54 inconsistency between the first sentence

1:31:56 and the second sentence.

1:31:57 Um and so, in the second sentence, um it

1:32:01 should

1:32:03 Okay.

1:32:04 It's up there.

1:32:05 Oh, it's up there. Okay.

1:32:07 Okay.

1:32:07 Um so there I'm I'm concerned about in

1:32:10 the first

1:32:12 in the first sentence we talk about

1:32:14 there being two reasons for removal, not

1:32:17 attending meetings and a conflict of

1:32:19 interest. But then in the second

1:32:20 sentence we talk about not attending

1:32:23 meetings or history of absence or other

1:32:26 legal concerns as opposed to a conflict

1:32:29 of interest. I mean other legal concerns

1:32:31 could mean a lot of things

1:32:33 and I think it's a dangerous phrase to

1:32:35 use.

1:32:35 like they've gone to gone into

1:32:37 incarceration?

1:32:39 No, that they they they've said

1:32:41 something online that that is unpopular.

1:32:48 So

1:32:48 What is what is the point of that line

1:32:50 if the member does not resign within 1

1:32:52 month of being asked and there's a well

1:32:54 documented history of absence?

1:32:57 Or other legal concerns.

1:32:58 that legal concern is like if we if we

1:33:00 put in there

1:33:01 So

1:33:02 it has always been an open question in

1:33:04 this town as whether or not once you

1:33:05 appoint someone you have the ability to

1:33:07 remove them.

1:33:08 Uh

1:33:10 My take on it has been the power to

1:33:13 appoint usually inherently includes the

1:33:15 power to remove. Not everyone sees it

1:33:16 that way.

1:33:18 Uh

1:33:18 there is no specific language in in the

1:33:21 bylaws or the town administrator act

1:33:23 that controls my job vis-a-vis your jobs

1:33:27 that says if you appoint someone you

1:33:29 also

1:33:30 have the right to remove.

1:33:31 Um so

1:33:34 with that said

1:33:36 absence

1:33:38 is a

1:33:40 this language was intended to create a

1:33:41 way in which absence would chronic

1:33:43 absence here is basically be taken as a

1:33:45 de facto resignation.

1:33:48 If you are not doing the job of the

1:33:50 committee and you don't show up to the

1:33:52 meetings then you are presumed to have

1:33:55 resigned there.

1:33:57 And in order to make that as clear as

1:33:59 possible, we would have to go on record

1:34:01 and say, "Hey, you've been absent for

1:34:03 putting such a time. Can you please step

1:34:05 down?"

1:34:07 If that person does step down,

1:34:10 then if there's a well-documented

1:34:12 history of Basically, if you have proof,

1:34:14 you can say, "Yeah, I know this person

1:34:15 really has been a no-show and not." Or

1:34:17 there's a concern that the work of the

1:34:18 committee might not be done otherwise.

1:34:20 For example, there's a lot of quorum

1:34:23 issues as a statutory requirement that

1:34:25 needs to be fulfilled, like I don't

1:34:27 know, is that the planning board or is

1:34:28 that the zoning board of appeals?

1:34:30 Again, unlikely, but it could happen

1:34:32 because those [clears throat] committees

1:34:33 are well-attended, but theoretically,

1:34:35 there could be a situation where a

1:34:37 committee Like we've had trouble with

1:34:38 the audit committee getting a quorum,

1:34:40 for example.

1:34:41 Um we need the audit committee to

1:34:42 function.

1:34:44 Um so,

1:34:45 being able to say in that instance,

1:34:47 "Listen,

1:34:49 you've got You know, we've got to be

1:34:50 able to do something here or you're not

1:34:52 coming to meetings, so we're going to

1:34:53 consider the seat vacant."

1:34:55 Um that's the purpose

1:34:56 of everything. So,

1:34:59 Uh really, the focus is on absenteesism.

1:35:02 I guess your question is like, "Do we as

1:35:04 a board want the ability to remove

1:35:07 um members of committees for anything

1:35:09 other than not showing up?"

1:35:11 I think it has to be conflict of

1:35:12 interest or conflict of what?

1:35:14 I would like to add another one. If they

1:35:16 treat someone on the board or town staff

1:35:18 poorly, like you were saying as a

1:35:19 requirement. If that happens, I feel

1:35:22 like we have an obligation to consider

1:35:24 removing

1:35:25 I you know, I I agree with that.

1:35:27 Um but I think it's the question of do

1:35:29 you have the authority?

1:35:30 Well, do we have the authority?

1:35:32 And so, you know, I think you could you

1:35:35 could assert that authority, but when it

1:35:37 comes up, that would be a case of first

1:35:38 impression. I don't think that there

1:35:40 would be a legal challenge to that. But

1:35:41 again, I don't I you know, in some ways,

1:35:43 maybe it's better to have that settled.

1:35:45 I mean, it's better to have that

1:35:46 question settled.

1:35:47 Well, you can you can also settle that

1:35:49 by introducing a bylaw.

1:35:51 You could.

1:35:51 [laughter]

1:35:52 Well, that's interesting. I I think that

1:35:55 that might be a bylaw worth taking out

1:35:56 because I agree that probably the one

1:35:58 that's going to come up the most often.

1:36:00 I think it's going to be very rare that

1:36:02 somebody is going to apply for a board

1:36:03 and not show up. It's happened and I

1:36:04 remember we actually did get a

1:36:06 resignation on a fairly high-profile

1:36:08 board a couple years ago because of

1:36:10 this.

1:36:11 But overall, I think most people attend.

1:36:14 Uh

1:36:15 where it comes up is the disrespect to

1:36:16 other members.

1:36:17 I also have another question.

1:36:18 Um

1:36:19 I feel like I don't agree with that

1:36:21 sentence.

1:36:23 Um that you want to add removal shall

1:36:25 not be used to penalize a person.

1:36:28 Um

1:36:28 You mean the third

1:36:30 Yeah, the third. Because

1:36:32 I'm just going to take the extreme just

1:36:34 so like I understand the principle,

1:36:35 right? If

1:36:37 someone's on a diversity commission

1:36:39 and then they join the clan.

1:36:41 I would like to remove them. You know

1:36:42 what I mean?

1:36:43 But then you have a problem of, you

1:36:45 know, being pulled apart and infringing

1:36:47 on their freedom of

1:36:49 speech.

1:36:50 But then they're no longer they're

1:36:52 they're no longer

1:36:53 That was a that was a teachable

1:36:54 But we we had an investigation into this

1:36:57 and we know how the investigation turned

1:36:58 out and you can consider someone's

1:37:01 conduct if it's in conflict with the

1:37:03 commission and the charge of the

1:37:05 commission. So so I don't see I don't

1:37:08 see anything inherently wrong with what

1:37:10 you're saying, but to Anthony's point,

1:37:13 there are times where somebody could

1:37:14 construe it as being penalized, but if

1:37:17 it goes against the charge of the

1:37:18 commission, that's always going to be

1:37:20 relevant. And that's what the

1:37:22 investigation found.

1:37:23 Yeah.

1:37:23 So if you're the rule is as I understand

1:37:26 it and Jonathan might chime in on this

1:37:28 too, right? Usually, right. The

1:37:31 members of public bodies have a first

1:37:34 amendment right to speak out on matters

1:37:35 of public concern against the public,

1:37:37 right? You don't You don't lose your

1:37:38 first amendment rights just because you

1:37:39 come but uh you know, you're you're you

1:37:42 know, so forth. So yes, you can show up

1:37:44 to public comment and say what you want.

1:37:46 Theoretically, um the limit of that is

1:37:48 if you were on a if you were in a policy

1:37:50 making position

1:37:52 or otherwise had a role that requires

1:37:54 you to do certain things and you express

1:37:57 an opinion or something that makes it

1:37:59 clear that you can't do the job that it

1:38:00 was appointed for,

1:38:03 then there is the opportunity to say,

1:38:06 right, your statement is in conflict

1:38:08 with what we asked you to do.

1:38:10 So

1:38:11 I have a question. To take it to a

1:38:12 different context because I think it

1:38:14 might be

1:38:15 Let's say someone appointed to the

1:38:18 preservation commission is like

1:38:20 I really don't understand why we have

1:38:22 all these local historic districts.

1:38:24 I don't think we should have that many.

1:38:26 Could that then be construed to take

1:38:29 this person off the preservation

1:38:31 commission because

1:38:33 they are in conflict with the mission of

1:38:36 that, but also that might be an

1:38:38 important perspective to have on that

1:38:40 committee.

1:38:40 I think that's that's why you get into

1:38:42 these very different

1:38:44 you know,

1:38:45 it's and that's not an issue, right? I

1:38:46 think that person could argue, no, like

1:38:49 it's really pretty important for the

1:38:50 preservation commission to have

1:38:54 a voice from someone who yeah, it's not

1:38:56 I'm not saying I just believe in

1:38:58 preservation's mission. I'm just saying

1:38:59 I think that they are on the side you

1:39:01 know, of

1:39:02 over preserving.

1:39:05 That's

1:39:06 that's well within the balance of the

1:39:08 charge of the commission.

1:39:09 I think that that then becomes a I think

1:39:11 that also almost becomes a political

1:39:13 question at that point where you're

1:39:15 like, where where is you know, the

1:39:17 extreme example I gave is just so easy

1:39:20 to see like, okay, this the charge is

1:39:23 like to do this and your conduct is

1:39:26 indicating you don't believe in this.

1:39:28 Whereas you can make an argument where

1:39:30 you know, the preservation committee

1:39:31 with that edge case you just or that

1:39:32 case that you just said like that that

1:39:34 that's a possible position that can be

1:39:36 politically argued. Whereas the the

1:39:38 reverse is not and I think giving us the

1:39:40 safety to have that.

1:39:42 I need to give a slight spin to Amanda's

1:39:44 example. If a member of the Conservation

1:39:47 Commission is saying all open space

1:39:49 areas should be turned into toxic dumps.

1:39:51 Yeah, that would be a problem.

1:39:53 That would be

1:39:53 [laughter]

1:39:54 Yeah, and then then then we'd have the

1:39:55 That that would Yeah, then the then the

1:39:57 doors I think there was a little bit of

1:39:58 a gray area.

1:40:00 If they said that then they got to go.

1:40:02 So, I guess

1:40:04 two things. One, can we go back to the

1:40:06 the removal of the the middle one that

1:40:09 you wanted to

1:40:10 Who to

1:40:10 The second one.

1:40:11 The the second one. Um,

1:40:13 I do like the idea of either by bylaw or

1:40:17 elsewhere adding the condition of that

1:40:19 you cannot treat other members of the

1:40:21 committee with respect towards the

1:40:23 mission. Respect that we have the

1:40:24 ability to remove them.

1:40:26 Um, and that instead of the vague legal

1:40:29 reasons.

1:40:29 Right. Yeah, I got that one.

1:40:31 And then the last one, um, I do think um

1:40:39 Yeah, having a sentence along those

1:40:41 lines that clarifies

1:40:44 um, exactly what is free speech. I I I'm

1:40:46 not very

1:40:47 [laughter]

1:40:48 But like, what is

1:40:50 direct opposition, right? Dumping the

1:40:53 toxic dump in the Conservation

1:40:55 Commission is clearly against the

1:40:57 mission. But I want to make sure that we

1:40:59 are not touching the gray zone and

1:41:02 making it a political decision for the

1:41:04 select board to say

1:41:06 this is against the mission when it's

1:41:08 like it's gray.

1:41:09 So, I think Bernard's language is is

1:41:11 fine, but there should probably be

1:41:13 another sentence about Yeah, after

1:41:15 reading it again it is fine. It it can't

1:41:16 go against the expressed mission of the

1:41:19 commission you're serving on.

1:41:21 Yeah.

1:41:22 Okay. Again, you will run problems, I

1:41:24 think. For example, someone on ZBA who

1:41:27 may believe that uh

1:41:29 um

1:41:30 fossil fuels in certain situations is an

1:41:33 important source of energy. Does that

1:41:36 that going to disqualify them from Z

1:41:38 app?

1:41:38 Well, I think that's where we're at.

1:41:39 It's It's It's tough to craft a policy

1:41:42 that covers all these edge cases. But I

1:41:44 think in that instance, right, I think

1:41:45 you make the argument that

1:41:47 Again, take take the extreme of, you

1:41:49 know, conservation toxic waste. But I

1:41:52 don't necessarily think if the mission

1:41:54 of Z app is to reach fossil fuel freedom

1:41:56 and someone says, "I don't think it's

1:41:59 feasible to do that because X, Y, and Z,

1:42:01 and but I'm still in favor of moving

1:42:04 towards fewer fossil less fossil fuels.

1:42:06 And net zero is specifically net because

1:42:10 there are ways to

1:42:12 incorporate fossil fuel.

1:42:13 Yeah, the word certain kind of made it

1:42:16 okay because if someone if someone were

1:42:18 to join Z app and then like, you know, a

1:42:19 year later they're like, "I don't

1:42:20 believe in climate change at all." Then

1:42:22 that'd be a problem. That's different

1:42:23 from that. Right, that'd be a problem.

1:42:25 But, you know.

1:42:27 I mean, if someone were to say that they

1:42:29 implement, for example, in certain third

1:42:31 world countries,

1:42:33 fossil fuels are better than burning

1:42:35 coal or burning wood. Um I mean, that

1:42:39 That That goes against the idea of net

1:42:41 zero for for the such fossil fuels, but

1:42:45 um

1:42:48 I mean, that's an example of how it can

1:42:50 be

1:42:51 It can be abused. Exactly. It could be

1:42:53 abused. Now, I I I think I understand

1:42:55 that. It could.

1:42:56 So, we can we can try and

1:42:58 work with town council to draft the

1:43:00 threats that we're worried about.

1:43:02 We may not We may not get it right, you

1:43:03 know. It is It is

1:43:06 You

1:43:07 As As we live in the world, eventually

1:43:08 you'll come up with some wild edge cases

1:43:10 where you're like, "Oh, yeah, we didn't

1:43:11 think of that." Um

1:43:13 Right.

1:43:13 Yes, I I I like that suggestion of

1:43:15 having town council maybe draft

1:43:17 uh some language around there that uses

1:43:19 Bernard's but adds that caveat

1:43:22 around going directly against the

1:43:24 mission of the board. And there's

1:43:26 there's case law on this. So, even just

1:43:27 reading the case law on it and seeing

1:43:29 how judges have I've it.

1:43:30 Yeah.

1:43:32 Yeah, and then in terms of

1:43:34 uh treating other members badly.

1:43:36 Yeah.

1:43:36 I think that should be a separate

1:43:38 sentence.

1:43:40 And because it's really different from

1:43:41 what I think that we're trying to get at

1:43:43 with respect to

1:43:44 That makes sense. That's what the

1:43:45 eventual issue is.

1:43:45 Yes, it

1:43:46 That makes sense.

1:43:46 So, just just so I understand sort of

1:43:49 the the impetus behind this,

1:43:52 are you trying to be to establish more

1:43:57 explicit criteria for removal

1:44:01 such that when those criteria in the

1:44:05 opinion of the board

1:44:07 occur, that removals become less

1:44:10 controversial?

1:44:12 No, what I'm trying to do is prevent

1:44:14 another CC Liu situation. In other

1:44:16 words,

1:44:18 I respect where you're coming from with

1:44:19 you.

1:44:19 No, no, I

1:44:21 I but in that situation,

1:44:24 um

1:44:25 I mean, you you decided to

1:44:27 that situation was politically

1:44:29 controversial. Um and ultimately the

1:44:32 decision was made not to reappoint her.

1:44:35 No, we

1:44:37 it was two to two, so there was no

1:44:39 action.

1:44:40 The reappointment failed, but

1:44:43 Because you never reappointed someone

1:44:44 else into the into the position. She's

1:44:46 remained.

1:44:47 Yeah. Right, but

1:44:50 but the reason why it

1:44:53 it was politically controversial, right?

1:44:57 There was there was politics involved.

1:45:00 And

1:45:03 I I guess what I'm wondering is whether

1:45:08 you know, we should certainly be

1:45:10 crafting guidelines, which is what this

1:45:11 document is, but I'm I'm

1:45:15 I'm wondering whether

1:45:17 trying to establish all the edge cases

1:45:21 is actually is is a worthwhile exercise

1:45:24 because ultimately, even if we establish

1:45:27 those edge cases, there's still going to

1:45:29 be politics involved in all these

1:45:32 cases. And the select board is going to

1:45:35 have to sort of negotiate that there's

1:45:38 politics

1:45:39 I agree with Michael, but to your

1:45:41 original question, I I do like the idea

1:45:43 of making it very clear when we might

1:45:46 remove someone. I think having that type

1:45:48 of transparency helps. And I also like

1:45:50 your idea of uh possibly doing this via

1:45:54 bylaw. That would be the safest rather

1:45:56 than just asserting it now.

1:45:58 Yeah. Well, the only thing that I was

1:46:00 proposing in bylaw is to establish

1:46:02 clearly that the select board has

1:46:06 removable powers.

1:46:07 can has the power to remove

1:46:09 Right. But yeah, based based on specific

1:46:11 criteria for removal.

1:46:13 Well,

1:46:14 Or meet that

1:46:15 I didn't

1:46:16 I didn't I didn't say I didn't say that

1:46:18 because I'm not sure because if you say

1:46:22 according to specific criteria,

1:46:24 Then

1:46:25 then you're going to get

1:46:26 specific or specific reasons, then

1:46:29 you're going to get into a political

1:46:31 argument about well, did that reason

1:46:33 actually apply in this case? Was it an

1:46:35 appropriate reason? And I don't think

1:46:36 you can avoid the politics. So, you

1:46:39 might as well just accept the fact that

1:46:41 you have politics here and and give

1:46:44 yourself the latitude to and the

1:46:47 future boards the latitude to apply the

1:46:49 politics as they see fit. Because

1:46:51 ultimately, we are being judged, you

1:46:54 know, with elections and so forth on our

1:46:58 capacity here.

1:46:59 So, I think right to your question of a

1:47:00 bylaw,

1:47:01 so here's the pros and cons of a bylaw.

1:47:03 The pro bylaw is provide it provides

1:47:06 certainty without needing a legal case

1:47:09 to test it. Um it um

1:47:13 sets clear sets clear parameters. I

1:47:16 think if you were to go with a bylaw,

1:47:18 you would really want to Michael's

1:47:20 point, you would want to just have it be

1:47:21 as as possible. The select board has the

1:47:23 ability to appoint and remove

1:47:25 individuals from bodies that it that it

1:47:28 oversees. And leave it at that. So, so

1:47:31 you create at-will appointments. You

1:47:33 could be removed for any reason or no

1:47:35 reason. Can I Can it be removed for any

1:47:37 legal reason? Um so, that's that gives

1:47:41 you the broadest latitude.

1:47:43 But I don't want them to be able to

1:47:45 remove for any reason. I think that puts

1:47:47 every appointment in this political

1:47:50 territory that you're going to get

1:47:51 people lobbying because they don't like

1:47:53 the direction for the Lars Anderson

1:47:54 right, right?

1:47:56 I I don't think you can avoid that. I

1:47:58 think you can. I Can I Can I give Can I

1:48:00 give try to give like a just just a

1:48:01 federal example just cuz I know more

1:48:02 about it, right? So, like when we

1:48:05 established the Federal Trade

1:48:06 Commission, you could the the president

1:48:09 could appoint, Senate approve, but could

1:48:10 not remove except for cause. And that

1:48:13 that was like the law for until

1:48:15 recently,

1:48:16 which is now gone, the Humphrey Executor

1:48:18 decision in '36 whatever. So, that's now

1:48:20 gone, but that's what applies to the

1:48:22 Federal Reserve Board, where you can't

1:48:24 remove a member of the Federal Reserve

1:48:25 without cause. And I think that it's,

1:48:28 you know, our job to define what cause

1:48:30 is, and I think we can in the handbook.

1:48:32 Yeah.

1:48:32 And I think that, you know, we could

1:48:33 change the bylaws and say will not be

1:48:34 removed for without cause. And our cause

1:48:36 can be absenteeism, conflict of

1:48:38 interest, being mean to people in board

1:48:39 meetings, or going against directly the

1:48:42 charge of the commission, plainly. And I

1:48:44 think that that's I think that's fair.

1:48:46 I agree with you. That's good. Yeah.

1:48:48 Yeah.

1:48:48 I like that.

1:48:50 for cause for for cause clause in there.

1:48:52 Yeah, and we could define for the causes

1:48:54 in this handbook. We can define causes

1:48:56 here.

1:48:57 Right. So, you get that gives you some

1:48:58 certainty.

1:48:59 Um I think then

1:49:00 you know, I would want to run this

1:49:02 through CTOS.

1:49:04 Um want to run it through the

1:49:05 traditional process that you run it

1:49:06 through bylaws. And I think you'll get

1:49:08 some pushback.

1:49:09 Um I think you will get folks who will

1:49:13 potentially say, you know, I don't you

1:49:15 know,

1:49:16 we don't we know, there there should be

1:49:18 an independent, you know, there should

1:49:20 be a check on select board. They

1:49:21 shouldn't be able to veto unless they

1:49:22 appoint someone. They should have the

1:49:24 protection of that position until their

1:49:25 term expires, etc. So, you might, you

1:49:29 know,

1:49:30 you're you're being

1:49:32 at your

1:49:33 you're putting town meeting into a

1:49:34 separation of powers discussion. And

1:49:37 just as you don't like having your power

1:49:39 circumscribed, you know, town meeting,

1:49:41 town meeting doesn't like having its

1:49:42 power circumscribed by you. And so, you

1:49:44 you may wind up in a

1:49:46 or or, you know,

1:49:48 you you may wind up in that discussion

1:49:50 with town meeting, which is fine. Um

1:49:51 maybe it needs to happen.

1:49:52 That's a good discussion.

1:49:53 I agree. I think it's a good discussion.

1:49:55 I think it's a safer path because it

1:49:57 shows that we were soliciting public

1:49:59 input. We were trying to get buy-in to

1:50:01 what we're doing because this is an

1:50:02 authority that we believe we inherently

1:50:04 have anyway.

1:50:05 Right.

1:50:05 So, we don't necessarily, from a

1:50:07 technical perspective, our argument is

1:50:09 we have this power anyway, but despite

1:50:11 that, we want community buy-in. We want

1:50:13 to be transparent about what it is we're

1:50:15 doing, why we're doing it,

1:50:17 Right.

1:50:17 and the parameters around what a for

1:50:19 cause removal would be.

1:50:20 Right.

1:50:20 And so, I think there are the the big

1:50:22 questions

1:50:23 you you have two

1:50:25 focuses. One will be is it

1:50:28 do you do do the question is the

1:50:30 question of what cause means live in

1:50:32 bylaw or in regulations? Is it that is

1:50:34 is it your job to interpret what cause

1:50:36 means or is it town meeting's job? So,

1:50:38 that will be I think the subject of some

1:50:40 discussion.

1:50:41 And I think you're going to want to, you

1:50:43 know, be prepared to discuss it because

1:50:45 I do think, you know,

1:50:46 you should you should be able to define

1:50:48 it in regulations. But, town meeting may

1:50:50 disagree. So, you should be ready for

1:50:52 that conversation.

1:50:53 So, are we okay with a version going

1:50:56 into the handbook for now with the

1:50:59 assumption that to do the bylaw change

1:51:01 is going to be a longer route.

1:51:03 Yeah. Yeah, I I'm comfortable with that.

1:51:06 But, I think, right, the the other big

1:51:07 thing, right, is if this goes through,

1:51:09 if you put it on the put it on the

1:51:11 agenda for town meeting, the warrant for

1:51:12 town meeting and it fails, uh doesn't

1:51:15 pass, then um

1:51:18 board of committee members have a

1:51:19 stronger argument that they can't be

1:51:21 removed

1:51:22 because they will use the winning if it

1:51:25 does go to the board, they will then use

1:51:26 that legislative history to then say,

1:51:28 "See, you know, the select board said

1:51:30 that they didn't do this, but it went to

1:51:32 town meeting and it didn't pass. So,

1:51:35 um

1:51:36 I I personally do think I do think we

1:51:38 need to do this. I don't think we

1:51:40 currently have the authority. I I think

1:51:42 that. And I think that we can propose

1:51:45 the amendment to the bylaw as I've

1:51:47 described for like four cause removal.

1:51:49 Um and then, you know, politically if

1:51:52 necessary, where town meeting says, "No,

1:51:53 we need more specifics."

1:51:56 I I don't think it's improbable or

1:51:58 ridiculous to say we can throw those

1:52:00 into an amendment and say, "Listen,

1:52:02 these are the four things that we have

1:52:03 in

1:52:04 So, that would be something to check

1:52:06 with the model of

1:52:07 Yes.

1:52:08 Yeah, stop. Yeah, right.

1:52:09 Also, just from a practical perspective,

1:52:12 I don't think we have ever removed

1:52:14 anyone that I can recall. So, I it this

1:52:17 probably this hopefully will not come

1:52:19 up, but for transparency purposes, I

1:52:21 think it's beneficial for having the

1:52:23 discussion. Again, the example you

1:52:24 raised was not reappointing someone. It

1:52:26 wasn't a removal. No one proposed

1:52:28 removal.

1:52:29 Yeah, but

1:52:30 the

1:52:30 obligation was that you could do that.

1:52:33 Right. I I would like to take away the

1:52:35 lobbying effort from people

1:52:37 in that a similar circumstance to be

1:52:39 like, "Well, really you need to like

1:52:41 like remove the appointment of this

1:52:43 individual because I don't like them for

1:52:44 X, Y, or Z."

1:52:46 And remember,

1:52:47 the GG situation is not the only

1:52:49 situation we face.

1:52:50 Right.

1:52:51 during the George Ford

1:52:53 era, there was a lot of pushback against

1:52:57 people who did not agree with the

1:52:59 particular lines of thinking um about

1:53:02 policing.

1:53:03 But to make his point, that's going to

1:53:04 come up no matter what. It's just the

1:53:07 the nature of

1:53:08 being a political body.

1:53:10 And I think I think defining some

1:53:11 parameters actually gives us a lot of

1:53:13 defense. Because when we say like these

1:53:15 are the four things, if it's not one of

1:53:16 those four things, stop talking to us

1:53:18 about it. It's over it. You know?

1:53:21 Um okay, so this is all really helpful.

1:53:23 Um we have I have proposals in here that

1:53:26 are reasonable.

1:53:28 Uh I don't think the last one was

1:53:29 controversial on page 24. You know,

1:53:31 person who's a bunch of citizen that

1:53:32 makes good sense. There's just some

1:53:34 language without a a shed that I would

1:53:36 like to fix. Um it's it's ambiguous as

1:53:40 to, you know, the um

1:53:42 you know, if someone is how someone

1:53:44 stays on a board past their term. They

1:53:46 just reach me to fix that language

1:53:47 there.

1:53:48 To conform to our current practices etc.

1:53:51 That's basically it. It's more of a

1:53:52 scrivener's error. We'll fix that.

1:53:55 Is there anything else that other

1:53:56 members have identified?

1:53:59 So we will redline this. Um we'll talk

1:54:01 to the town council's office. I don't

1:54:02 know what the turnaround will be. Joe's

1:54:04 out right now. I don't know. He and

1:54:06 Jonathan both have done some research on

1:54:07 this. So I want to

1:54:09 make sure that

1:54:10 um

1:54:11 they have an opportunity to look. So

1:54:13 it'll probably be after the 30th, but it

1:54:15 won't be too far.

1:54:16 Okay. And

1:54:19 And at the same time look into the bylaw

1:54:21 process.

1:54:21 Yes.

1:54:23 All right, so we're starting to fall

1:54:24 behind a little bit. So let me move on

1:54:25 to the next item.

1:54:27 Okay, next item hopefully relatively

1:54:28 quick. Item five.

1:54:29 Yeah, supportive housing trust actions.

1:54:32 5A, question of authorizing $146,000

1:54:35 of housing trust funds to be utilized

1:54:37 for the salary and related employee

1:54:38 benefits of the senior housing planner

1:54:40 position for fiscal year 2027.

1:54:45 The only thing that I I would flag is I

1:54:47 don't want this to be a one-time fix. I

1:54:49 don't think that we should be in

1:54:51 perpetuity funding

1:54:53 Yeah.

1:54:53 that kind of thing in the housing trust

1:54:55 funds. So that is the expectation. Um we

1:54:57 talked about that year two we would be

1:54:59 looking at uh Ed funds to restore the

1:55:02 position on the general fund.

1:55:06 Any further discussion? I do have some

1:55:08 further discussion, not about these

1:55:09 things specifically, so if you want to

1:55:10 take a vote on this, but then I have a

1:55:11 discussion about the affordable housing

1:55:11 trust fund in general. Sure, we can vote

1:55:13 on this first.

1:55:14 So, let's vote on 5A.

1:55:15 Uh I move that we authorize $146,000 of

1:55:18 housing trust funds to be utilized for

1:55:19 the salary and related employee benefits

1:55:21 of the senior housing planner for fiscal

1:55:23 year 2027.

1:55:24 I have a

1:55:25 I have a question.

1:55:26 I thought that the housing advisory

1:55:28 board authorizes funds for this funding.

1:55:30 No, we pay them. So, we weekly update.

1:55:32 We Yeah.

1:55:33 It's two votes. Usually they vote first

1:55:35 and then the select board votes.

1:55:36 I see. I see.

1:55:37 Got it.

1:55:37 Okay, so

1:55:38 Yeah.

1:55:39 They're requests, right?

1:55:40 Right.

1:55:41 Yeah.

1:55:41 Their vote is necessary, but not

1:55:42 sufficient. Um

1:55:44 Got it.

1:55:45 So, Bernard, vote yes. Michael?

1:55:46 Yes.

1:55:46 Amanda?

1:55:47 Yes.

1:55:47 Anthony?

1:55:48 Yes.

1:55:48 And I also vote yes.

1:55:50 Uh 5B was your con- related to 5B.

1:55:53 That's the question of voting to approve

1:55:55 unencumbering $3.75 million from

1:55:58 from the affordable housing trust fund,

1:56:00 and Cara has something to say on that.

1:56:01 Go ahead.

1:56:02 We can vote on this one. Thank you.

1:56:03 Thanks to Lincoln Lincoln Hallowell

1:56:05 in the background. Um this already

1:56:07 happened in March, so apologies for

1:56:10 All right.

1:56:10 having done your due diligence.

1:56:11 I do have a question about the

1:56:12 affordable housing trust generally.

1:56:14 This goes back to something I brought up

1:56:15 a year ago with the $5 million rule

1:56:19 where we only give 15% to affordable

1:56:21 housing trust fund if the affordable

1:56:23 housing trust fund is under $5 million.

1:56:26 I brought up it then that the $5 million

1:56:29 number was first instigated first

1:56:31 initiated in 2013 and has not caught up

1:56:34 with inflation, and I was wondering if

1:56:37 we could talk about maybe amending that

1:56:39 policy to make it more fluid the way we

1:56:42 do CIP as a percent of net year prior

1:56:44 year revenue or the same way we do

1:56:46 liability or stabilization.

1:56:48 I think So, you're talking about

1:56:50 amending the cash

1:56:51 Yeah.

1:56:52 the waterfall cash policy

1:56:53 the waterfall policy.

1:56:56 We can't I don't think that's this.

1:56:58 Yes, but that's that's

1:56:59 But I I would like to have that

1:57:00 discussion and maybe we could bracket it

1:57:02 Let's let's notice that for a future

1:57:04 agenda because yeah, we can have that

1:57:05 discussion.

1:57:05 Okay.

1:57:06 Now, I I do have a somewhat vague

1:57:09 recollection of you presenting that to

1:57:10 us before.

1:57:11 Yes.

1:57:12 Uh, I don't recall the details of why we

1:57:14 didn't go for it before.

1:57:16 There were there were members of the

1:57:17 board at the time that felt that given

1:57:19 the infusion of CPA funds to support

1:57:21 affordable housing that maybe the policy

1:57:23 should be changed in the other way and

1:57:25 that maybe free cash was not needed to

1:57:27 support um, the affordable housing trust

1:57:30 fund but obviously the prerogative of

1:57:31 the board has shifted again so we can

1:57:34 revisit the fiscal policies and see what

1:57:36 the board uh, would like to

1:57:37 And because we'll set this over for a

1:57:39 future agenda item, I'll also just say

1:57:41 it probably won't be a problem for the

1:57:42 next couple years because if if the if

1:57:44 the city realty project goes in, we're

1:57:45 going to be far beyond whatever 5

1:57:47 million dollars of inflation would be in

1:57:49 the affordable housing trust fund

1:57:50 probably so I don't know the direct

1:57:52 effects to be honest but I we can talk

1:57:53 about that later.

1:57:55 There's a process here.

1:57:56 Right, that's coming down the way as

1:57:57 well.

1:57:58 I also think I also think I also think

1:58:00 correctly

1:58:01 We saw this really acutely this year.

1:58:03 There's a lot of pressure on the fine

1:58:05 free cash right now.

1:58:07 I mean it's

1:58:07 Like we're fortunate to be pulling down

1:58:09 a number that we're pulling. Um, like

1:58:11 the the the

1:58:13 the the the good times, the sort of New

1:58:15 Orleans the small time rule that we had

1:58:17 that we had. Yeah, it's coming to an end

1:58:20 and there's we saw in the CIP in

1:58:22 particular this year there's a lot of

1:58:24 pressure on

1:58:26 using that tail end of the waterfall to

1:58:28 make ends meet in terms of the projects.

1:58:31 So I think we should we should have that

1:58:32 conversation. I I think we should show

1:58:34 you how in practice that will work but

1:58:37 how that will work out in practice

1:58:39 because it will result in projects

1:58:40 coming off the CIP.

1:58:41 I get that.

1:58:42 And so we just got to, you know, balance

1:58:44 that out.

1:58:44 And keep in mind I

1:58:46 quick question then we can move on. I

1:58:47 apologize. CIP we spent

1:58:49 the The

1:58:50 was 6.6 and we only did six this year.

1:58:52 Yes.

1:58:53 Yes. So, going on for the for the

1:58:55 balance of this override cycle, we're

1:58:56 down to 6.

1:58:57 Yeah.

1:58:58 Which is the all the way to 23rd.

1:59:01 Yes. For the duration of the override

1:59:03 cycle, yes.

1:59:04 Oh.

1:59:05 In order to balance the budget, yeah.

1:59:07 That stinks.

1:59:07 Okay, noted.

1:59:09 I will I will Yeah.

1:59:10 You know, so I but I I will say that

1:59:12 that's still

1:59:14 that's still good, right? That's still,

1:59:15 you know, other communities don't even

1:59:17 have policy like that at all.

1:59:18 Yeah.

1:59:19 Um so, it is one of the reasons why

1:59:20 we're triple A, right? To be able to

1:59:23 expressly make sure that our capital

1:59:25 projects are funded to a certain to a

1:59:26 certain level.

1:59:28 Um

1:59:29 Other communities really should rely on

1:59:31 free cash to make ends meet.

1:59:32 Um we

1:59:34 do a better job of that.

1:59:35 Okay.

1:59:36 So, 6% is good, but I wouldn't go lower.

1:59:39 Yeah.

1:59:40 All right, Bernard.

1:59:40 Yeah.

1:59:42 I I know we we voted this

1:59:44 back in I think January or March or some

1:59:46 month.

1:59:47 I thought there was a reason why we were

1:59:49 putting it back on the agenda.

1:59:51 Um

1:59:52 am I am I mis- misremembering?

1:59:55 I I don't know, but I've also uh texted

1:59:57 Roger, but I can't think of any.

1:59:59 Okay. Okay.

2:00:00 Are you are you sure?

2:00:01 So, it is currently it is currently

2:00:03 uncovered.

2:00:04 What? Currently there's 3.75 uncovered,

2:00:07 not the whole 7.5 million.

2:00:09 All right. So, with that, why don't we

2:00:11 move on to item number six, which is

2:00:13 discussion of future development project

2:00:15 opportunities with the planning

2:00:17 department.

2:00:19 We'll be able to do a presentation for

2:00:21 us.

2:00:23 And uh Alex Albert, as you can see, is

2:00:25 here as

2:00:26 well, which is a very thankful for.

2:00:28 Well.

2:00:29 [laughter]

2:00:30 Alex, how are you doing? Nice to see

2:00:31 you.

2:00:32 Do you want to sit down here?

2:00:33 Yeah.

2:00:41 You want to see if she can share your

2:00:42 screen?

2:00:43 Thank you.

2:00:44 Can you pull this over so she can tell

2:00:46 you?

2:00:48 I have a lot of notes on that folder.

2:00:50 the city.

2:00:50 So, he

2:00:51 got his ladder up.

2:00:55 Uh

2:01:03 I missed that last statement.

2:01:32 Okay.

2:01:37 I don't need to make the screen bigger

2:01:38 or zoom in.

2:01:40 There you go. Thank you. I just want to

2:01:42 make sure we have captioning where it's

2:01:43 not covering your presentation. Perfect.

2:01:46 Thanks.

2:01:47 So,

2:01:48 um thank you for carving out some time

2:01:50 to talk

2:01:51 about

2:01:52 development opportunities. There's a

2:01:55 short memo that was in your

2:01:57 packet that you all got on Friday. And

2:01:59 this presentation is hot off the press,

2:02:01 but we wanted to make sure that it's

2:02:02 posted

2:02:04 um for the public as well.

2:02:07 This image, by the way, is um

2:02:09 just west of Marion Street as it comes

2:02:12 to Beacon Street looking east towards

2:02:15 the city of Boston.

2:02:18 So, uh what I'm looking from you today

2:02:21 um is whether there's any priorities

2:02:24 that you are going to see needs. Any

2:02:26 priorities you'd like to reorder. And

2:02:28 secondly, if there's um

2:02:31 both love to start the conversation to

2:02:33 know

2:02:34 um what would be the most helpful for

2:02:35 any language boards. Uh ladies on the

2:02:38 spot.

2:02:41 This is a very small text graphic. You

2:02:43 don't need to read any of the words.

2:02:46 Can't see anything.

2:02:47 [laughter]

2:02:47 The colors will tell you everything.

2:02:49 Although it does look a little bit busy,

2:02:51 I I agree.

2:02:53 The kind The years are going across left

2:02:56 to right. So then black bolded

2:02:59 rectangular column is 2027.

2:03:03 And the green is for each of these large

2:03:05 development projects when the money

2:03:08 starts flowing in for a project. What

2:03:10 comes before that the those orange

2:03:12 rectangles are

2:03:14 years where construction

2:03:17 happened. And the yellow is the

2:03:19 permitting. That's both permitting and

2:03:21 planning board and ZBA, but also

2:03:22 building permitting.

2:03:24 And there is usually a year between the

2:03:26 ZBA permit and the money pulling the

2:03:28 building permit cuz they have to get the

2:03:30 construction documents and that kind of

2:03:31 thing. So this is just a graphic showing

2:03:33 all of

2:03:35 the things that have to happen before

2:03:37 that yellow permitting

2:03:39 color and pink here are the number of

2:03:41 years that each of the projects took for

2:03:44 pre-zoning work. No, how to get the

2:03:46 zoning in place.

2:03:48 And

2:03:50 there's been different economic cycles

2:03:52 in in Brookline.

2:03:54 We're not seeing a lot of cranes in the

2:03:55 whole Boston metro area right now, which

2:03:57 is

2:03:58 not surprising.

2:03:59 But up until COVID, you can see kind of

2:04:02 a steady march of pre-zoning work,

2:04:04 permitting, and then new construction

2:04:06 coming online until we hit COVID. And I

2:04:09 don't think it was just because of

2:04:10 COVID, but we also had

2:04:13 at least but we had two

2:04:16 big development zoning efforts that did

2:04:19 not have enough support to move forward.

2:04:21 And those are kind of the middle here.

2:04:22 You can see those white boxes

2:04:25 coming after that, right? That nothing

2:04:26 came of that those efforts. One is the

2:04:29 Lower Boylston

2:04:31 rezoning work, and the other one is

2:04:32 Temple Place,

2:04:34 which for a hot second Um, we were

2:04:36 thinking maybe lab use. In the long run,

2:04:39 I'm very glad that it didn't go

2:04:41 anywhere, that we didn't carry out here

2:04:42 in the buying place,

2:04:44 um, because that same developer is, um,

2:04:46 looking at doing housing,

2:04:48 um, so they're likely to lost commercial

2:04:49 space in the development, you know, so

2:04:51 hopefully for housing over there.

2:04:53 So,

2:04:54 um, that is that. Moving forward, some

2:04:57 of the work that was done, like with the

2:04:59 adjustments to the, um,

2:05:01 River Road zoning, that was done a while

2:05:04 ago, we're starting to see that come to

2:05:06 fruition. Um,

2:05:08 Claremont

2:05:09 has submitted an application or

2:05:11 pre-application, um,

2:05:13 for housing with, um, the next couple of

2:05:16 parcels next to the hotel, which you can

2:05:18 see in the River Road development plan

2:05:19 out. So, that permitting is started, the

2:05:21 zoning way. There's also larger projects

2:05:24 that you all on the select board may not

2:05:26 hear about if you're not here in the

2:05:27 neighborhood, but things like, uh, 40

2:05:29 Kent Street has been going through

2:05:31 permitting for a couple years now. It

2:05:33 didn't require zoning to move forward,

2:05:36 but did require some variances. Is that

2:05:38 right?

2:05:38 Yes, variances.

2:05:39 And some, um, very creative thinking,

2:05:41 like four four dumpsters, right?

2:05:43 Yes, and they did also change the

2:05:45 project, um,

2:05:47 kind of at a late stage to provide more,

2:05:51 um,

2:05:51 small units.

2:05:54 So, that's coming online, and then, um,

2:05:56 Chestnut Hill West is already, um,

2:06:00 starting the

2:06:01 the talks, filling in, setting up

2:06:03 pre-application meetings, and that kind

2:06:04 of things. So, that's great to see that

2:06:07 kind of, um, pattern coming back again

2:06:09 where we're seeing next steps happening

2:06:11 at all these only work. And we'll come

2:06:13 back to this, uh,

2:06:15 later.

2:06:17 This slide is actually from a couple

2:06:18 years ago, but I think just helpful,

2:06:20 especially for maybe some of the newer

2:06:22 select board members. So, all these

2:06:24 projects take time. This was a slide

2:06:25 that was part of my budget presentation

2:06:27 to the select board in

2:06:29 for fiscal 25.

2:06:31 Um, and at the time I was asking

2:06:35 answering Mike Seaman's question of how

2:06:37 do you prioritize your work these kind

2:06:39 of bigger projects.

2:06:41 Um, and so here you know, this isn't

2:06:43 exact, but there's basically two axes.

2:06:45 Is there already documented community

2:06:47 support? And then on the x-axis, what's

2:06:50 the

2:06:51 um, efficient use of resources? What you

2:06:53 know, how are we going to get the most

2:06:54 effectiveness um, based on the resources

2:06:56 we're spending?

2:06:57 And again, this is kind of

2:06:59 department-wide, not just

2:07:00 development-specific initiatives. And

2:07:02 then the size of the circle is how big

2:07:04 you can make this. So, at the time,

2:07:07 right,

2:07:08 the Brookline Housing Authority wanted

2:07:09 high-density development because we

2:07:11 rezoned that as part of the MBTA work.

2:07:14 That was an as-of-right project. It only

2:07:15 took them a couple months to permit it.

2:07:17 They saved millions of dollars compared

2:07:19 to their other project with no hearing

2:07:21 history.

2:07:22 Um, that was both you know, well

2:07:24 community supported as well as a brand

2:07:25 new development on the St. Mary's Street

2:07:27 line. And then on the lower end of the

2:07:29 spectrum, um, at the time, uh, broadly

2:07:32 expanding accessory dwelling units. At

2:07:34 that time, there wasn't a lot of

2:07:35 community support to do that. Um, and it

2:07:38 it would have um,

2:07:40 not been a very efficient use of

2:07:41 resources because of community support

2:07:43 display. So, that's just a couple years

2:07:45 ago.

2:07:47 The other piece just kind of graphically

2:07:49 is that many of these projects

2:07:52 interrelate with other um, efforts. Um,

2:07:54 and sometimes we forget where they

2:07:56 began. Stuff that Coolidge Corner um,

2:07:59 Center Street block exploratory study

2:08:01 that I think you all were talking about

2:08:03 earlier today. That was grounded right

2:08:05 after COVID. Um, it's been talked about

2:08:07 since

2:08:08 the '60s of doing something quote

2:08:10 something with the Center Street block,

2:08:11 but it was grounded after COVID um,

2:08:14 when the business community and the

2:08:16 residents

2:08:17 did an um, economic development of

2:08:19 Coolidge Corner and um,

2:08:22 there's this one here, J and K area that

2:08:24 you'll have a hundred plan.

2:08:26 Um, that was funded by the state.

2:08:27 There's many recommendations in there

2:08:29 like some of the grants and our

2:08:32 work that we did. There's pop-up

2:08:33 businesses that were ARPA funded.

2:08:36 Parking and curb utilization study

2:08:38 that's been done.

2:08:40 Actually that was related to parking

2:08:42 fees that you just voted on a couple

2:08:44 weeks ago.

2:08:46 There's a new road at the Center Street

2:08:47 lots exploratory study first part done

2:08:50 and there's some good conversation with

2:08:52 the Economic Development Board last

2:08:53 night about next steps.

2:08:55 They're going to meet on that with our

2:08:56 time and it won't be that huge

2:08:58 late summer or early fall.

2:09:02 Another example here is that

2:09:04 Kent Street Station Street senior

2:09:06 housing

2:09:07 project. Some of you may not even know

2:09:09 that that was a thing

2:09:10 but that got to you know the request for

2:09:13 creation went out. They even went

2:09:15 through development negotiation. The

2:09:18 negotiation happened 2019-2022.

2:09:21 Washington Street complete streets

2:09:23 project was coming into concepts and

2:09:26 those two things combined there's a lot

2:09:28 of community concern about parking

2:09:30 availability.

2:09:31 So we took a pause in partnership with

2:09:33 DDW.

2:09:34 Did a parking study in both Washington

2:09:36 Square and Putnam Village. We're now

2:09:39 ready to resume both the Kent Street

2:09:40 senior housing

2:09:42 as well as 40

2:09:45 Kent Street and another address. There's

2:09:47 a

2:09:48 property between Kent and

2:09:50 Station Street that's actively for sale

2:09:53 and it's also adjacent to something like

2:09:56 So we could mix and match those

2:09:58 together.

2:10:01 You all had asked for some of what has

2:10:04 and this has come up in the Economic

2:10:05 Development Committee.

2:10:07 If we were to look at only new

2:10:09 development to offset the need of our

2:10:13 fiscal revenue gaps that we have

2:10:15 what would that look like?

2:10:17 So

2:10:18 taking the construction since you know

2:10:21 for the last 15 years or so, larger

2:10:23 projects. Um condominiums, apartments,

2:10:27 other growth areas, Brookline Place, I

2:10:29 think, office campus development, and

2:10:31 then hotels. We've had several of those.

2:10:34 The middle column is the

2:10:36 estimated net fiscal impact, so that's

2:10:38 net of cost, but that's also net of the

2:10:41 of what the land was throwing off of

2:10:43 property taxes before the redevelopment

2:10:45 happens.

2:10:46 So, net net net everything. And they

2:10:49 range wide widely. Um

2:10:52 with apartments, for example, whether or

2:10:54 not there's ground floor retail,

2:10:57 um does seem to make a shift of, you

2:10:59 know,

2:11:00 kind of factor of safety of whether

2:11:01 that's going to be a fiscally positive

2:11:04 um

2:11:05 property in any given year,

2:11:07 um compared to primarily school age

2:11:09 children.

2:11:10 Um so, condos, Brookline Place, the

2:11:12 hotels,

2:11:14 it's a very wide range, anywhere between

2:11:16 7 and 22,000 per thousand square foot of

2:11:18 building.

2:11:20 Um and the last column here is the

2:11:23 um looking at by land. So, middle column

2:11:25 is kind of by housing unit or per

2:11:27 thousand square feet of building. The

2:11:29 third column is what's the

2:11:31 net impact divided by square foot of of

2:11:34 the property.

2:11:35 The third column is all positive, so

2:11:37 that is revenue.

2:11:39 That is net revenue.

2:11:40 Not cost to the town.

2:11:41 Correct. So, that include that has

2:11:43 already deduct cost, and it's also

2:11:45 already deducted um

2:11:47 the property value prior to development,

2:11:49 and um

2:11:51 caveats that is it did not deduct for

2:11:53 residential properties, they deduct for

2:11:54 commercial properties. The residential

2:11:56 properties, you see this is no deduction

2:11:58 of pre-development value. So,

2:12:00 If you have any of a question, go ahead.

2:12:01 Um I need I I need a little more context

2:12:04 to understand the numbers here. So, when

2:12:05 I look at the apartments, some with

2:12:07 ground floor retail, and it says

2:12:09 estimated annual net fiscal impact,

2:12:11 1,750 per home,

2:12:14 um to 5,400. What's making up the gap?

2:12:17 Is it number of bedrooms per unit size?

2:12:20 Um it's that. It's also uh primarily

2:12:23 um yes, what you just said. It's the

2:12:25 school-age children that are in

2:12:26 Yes, and that's derived from bedrooms

2:12:29 per unit, right?

2:12:30 Yes. Um not it's not a perfect linear

2:12:32 situation, but

2:12:34 for example, Hancock Village, that kind

2:12:36 of townhome style um developments on the

2:12:38 edge where it's, you know, beautiful

2:12:40 walking distance to the middle school,

2:12:42 sees almost one school-age children per

2:12:44 unit. Um the rest of the the apartments

2:12:47 in this scenario are more like

2:12:50 like one

2:12:52 very, very low towards school-age

2:12:55 children.

2:12:55 Okay.

2:12:56 Further, because of what we learned from

2:12:58 Hancock Village,

2:13:00 is there a way Now, is there a way to

2:13:03 not just say

2:13:05 number of bedrooms equals or sorry, it's

2:13:08 not a linear relationship, right? So,

2:13:09 number of bedrooms times whatever

2:13:11 non-linear factor equals number of

2:13:13 school-age children. Is there a possible

2:13:14 to include miles to school district that

2:13:17 could maybe help you get closer to what

2:13:19 might be true?

2:13:20 Um I have looked at that. There's

2:13:23 There's so many factors like how tall is

2:13:25 the building? How many units are in the

2:13:27 building?

2:13:28 Um you know, if it's an eight-story

2:13:30 condo townhome, it just is a different

2:13:33 feel than a 40- or 60-unit apartment

2:13:36 building. But families are in both.

2:13:38 Yeah.

2:13:38 But we do

2:13:39 have so far have seen more school-age

2:13:41 children in things that are more like

2:13:43 condos than single-family.

2:13:45 But even that isn't true like so

2:13:47 perfectly because like the Crowninshield

2:13:50 development, we're seeing no school-age

2:13:52 children enrolled in public schools at

2:13:55 those townhomes um

2:13:57 on the end of Crowninshield. Maybe

2:13:58 they're going to private school. I you

2:14:00 know, I don't know.

2:14:01 I mean, I'm really interested in that

2:14:02 specific case. Could you send

2:14:06 uh a memo about how much tax revenue

2:14:08 that one building gives us to the town?

2:14:10 Yeah, I what I can do is share that with

2:14:12 you. I would rather not

2:14:14 None of us want people going around and

2:14:16 saying this development has kids and

2:14:18 therefore it's bad.

2:14:19 Yeah, yeah, I get that. Okay, got it.

2:14:21 Thank you so much. Thanks.

2:14:23 Michael,

2:14:24 uh quick question. In the third column,

2:14:26 um

2:14:27 does that incorporate

2:14:30 open space or is that just the land is

2:14:33 that presumed that these buildings

2:14:36 uh

2:14:37 uh cover the entire

2:14:39 area?

2:14:40 That's just the net impact divided by

2:14:42 the square feet of the land. So, does it

2:14:44 it's agnostic to what the ground

2:14:45 coverage is.

2:14:47 It's just saying if you think of that as

2:14:48 real estate, like what is your per

2:14:50 square coefficient is that

2:14:53 development throwing off dollars

2:14:55 compared to the land it's on.

2:14:57 So, it says

2:14:59 So, it says include the open space.

2:15:00 Yes.

2:15:01 And this third column, are these

2:15:03 averages or are these medians or

2:15:06 Um so, lowest to highest um

2:15:09 development performance and also taking

2:15:12 into to effect um

2:15:14 So, we have no apartment building in the

2:15:16 entire town that is a net

2:15:18 negative financially.

2:15:21 Built in the last 15 years. Remember

2:15:23 this is an estimate. Remember that, you

2:15:25 know, in one year we could have more

2:15:27 enrollment. So, caveat, caveat, caveat,

2:15:29 but yes.

2:15:30 I'm going to add a I'm going to I might

2:15:31 add another piece of homework here and I

2:15:32 apologize. Could I cut you off?

2:15:34 No, go ahead.

2:15:35 Yeah. Um can you can we get like a a box

2:15:37 and whiskers plot of all the

2:15:38 developments that stretches from either

2:15:41 end?

2:15:41 Um I can give you the data and you can

2:15:43 probably

2:15:44 That's perfect.

2:15:45 [laughter]

2:15:47 I would love to collaborate with

2:15:47 anybody.

2:15:48 I think this is happy place because it's

2:15:49 interesting.

2:15:50 Yeah. Okay, that's awesome. Thanks.

2:15:51 Also, with that apartment

2:15:52 to see your results.

2:15:53 With that apartment's column, I'm

2:15:55 curious with 60 cents to 970 is a very

2:15:57 wide span.

2:15:59 Yeah.

2:15:59 Uh so, in addition to bedrooms, would

2:16:01 you say that whether the building has a

2:16:03 retail component is a significant factor

2:16:05 there?

2:16:05 The retail component is a piece of it.

2:16:07 Um

2:16:10 the highest apartment value, I believe,

2:16:13 is um

2:16:15 in North Brookline. It's a taller

2:16:17 building.

2:16:18 Um

2:16:19 You know, that the highest amount is

2:16:21 actually um

2:16:24 Is it 40 Coolidge and 429 Harvard? I'm

2:16:27 just not good at addresses.

2:16:28 429 Harvard. Well, I don't have my notes

2:16:30 in front of me right now. I'm forgetting

2:16:32 that. I think it's 420 Harvard and 49

2:16:33 Coolidge. So, that's a

2:16:35 larger site that went through some

2:16:39 adjudication at the courts and came back

2:16:40 taller than the city wanted. Um so, it's

2:16:43 a taller building.

2:16:45 Do they have retail?

2:16:46 They do have retail. Yeah.

2:16:48 Okay.

2:16:48 And And does this specifically

2:16:51 exclude either BHA or other 100%

2:16:54 affordable buildings, or those in this?

2:16:57 Um that is not in this. I didn't

2:17:00 consider that as a development field for

2:17:03 this discussion and development

2:17:05 Right.

2:17:05 scenario because, you know, text them.

2:17:08 The reason I'm asking about the uh

2:17:10 retail component for this

2:17:12 uh apartment span is as we discuss

2:17:15 future development and also

2:17:17 uh meeting our goals for the housing

2:17:18 production plan, I think it's helpful to

2:17:20 know how can we get more of these

2:17:22 apartment buildings closer to that 970.

2:17:25 And is that about building height? Is it

2:17:27 about having first floor retail?

2:17:29 Uh what are those factors that make it

2:17:31 970 as opposed to 60 cents?

2:17:32 Yeah.

2:17:33 Mhm.

2:17:33 I'd I'd be glad to

2:17:35 touch explore more. I have not seen a

2:17:38 bright bright line that would

2:17:40 that I would feel confident

2:17:40 recommending. We should do this instead

2:17:42 of that. But, there's some trends that

2:17:44 are obvious. The other thing that that's

2:17:45 important for me to say,

2:17:47 especially as a planner,

2:17:49 is that if the town were to make any

2:17:50 land use decisions

2:17:53 based on bedroom size

2:17:55 or avoiding doubles, that would likely

2:17:57 lead

2:17:57 Yeah.

2:17:58 um open to less thoughtful outcomes. So,

2:18:00 we just need to be careful with our

2:18:01 language, even though we're exploring in

2:18:04 a minute.

2:18:05 Sandboxes to learn more, but we don't

2:18:07 want to be

2:18:09 taking any actions or causing any action

2:18:11 that we believe that are in

2:18:14 Right, but even just from a purely

2:18:16 factual perspective, because obviously

2:18:18 we want to be welcoming to families of

2:18:20 all sizes, but to the extent that there

2:18:23 obviously are some certain economic

2:18:25 consequences to know how we can

2:18:27 compensate for that

2:18:29 in the design or in what we allow for

2:18:32 potential uses.

2:18:35 Okay, this is a good conversation.

2:18:37 I I just like the fact that you're

2:18:39 essentially showing, and I wanted to

2:18:40 highlight David's point, which is that

2:18:43 worst case scenario, new apartments are

2:18:46 still a net positive play cat.

2:18:48 It's a minimal net positive.

2:18:50 Yeah.

2:18:50 And we have a caveat caveat.

2:18:53 Okay, yes.

2:18:54 Not Harris at always.

2:18:55 In the last 15 years.

2:18:56 In the last 15 years, but it it does get

2:18:58 you thinking, okay, what things are,

2:19:00 depending on the site, can get you

2:19:02 closer to the 970, but I think a lot of

2:19:04 times in discussion people throw out the

2:19:06 fact that new housing is a negative. In

2:19:09 the negative.

2:19:10 We don't have the actual children.

2:19:12 I do know we all can't be the same, but

2:19:15 can't we identify the uh 55 plus type

2:19:18 home in the area and the

2:19:21 uh we have like it and then

2:19:23 um Route 9.

2:19:24 Yes.

2:19:25 So, take that out this

2:19:27 and look at what [clears throat] what

2:19:28 the other

2:19:29 apartments are.

2:19:30 to put Yeah.

2:19:32 I have a question with regards to the

2:19:34 condominium versus apartments. It was

2:19:36 I thought this, and I might be wrong,

2:19:38 but after

2:19:40 I thought condos were less tax positive

2:19:45 as compared to apartments, because I

2:19:47 thought most condos benefit so much from

2:19:50 the standard housing deduction

2:19:52 that that reduces their net tax

2:19:55 liability, whereas that doesn't apply to

2:19:58 apartments. This shows the opposite of

2:20:00 my assumption. That was just my

2:20:02 assumption.

2:20:03 I need to check on that. So this that

2:20:06 value comes from

2:20:08 tax paid and from the assessor's big

2:20:10 database based on but I'm not sure

2:20:13 whether that includes deduction or not.

2:20:16 Got it.

2:20:16 So I should double check.

2:20:17 Sort of the other variable in there is

2:20:19 some retail is listed on both.

2:20:21 Do we have more retail on the condo side

2:20:24 than on the apartment side or is that

2:20:26 about even?

2:20:28 I think there's only two condo

2:20:31 projects in this data set so it

2:20:34 I think they both have have ground floor

2:20:35 retail but I can double check.

2:20:37 Okay.

2:20:41 So

2:20:42 um

2:20:43 And it's like this one moment. One other

2:20:44 question on ground floor. We talked a

2:20:46 lot about ground floor retail but I'm

2:20:47 noticing

2:20:48 there seems to be with increased

2:20:50 popularity of having the first two

2:20:53 floors be retail and we we even see that

2:20:56 in Coolidge Corner where when I was an

2:20:58 elementary school student at the then

2:21:00 devotion was Barnes & Noble on the

2:21:01 second floor and now it's Healthworks

2:21:03 but that model's existed a while and is

2:21:06 that something that we're also looking

2:21:07 at to try to maximize revenue because

2:21:10 second floor retail seems to be

2:21:12 workable.

2:21:13 Or is it second floor commercial?

2:21:14 Commercial. Commercial.

2:21:15 Yeah. It um something that City Realty

2:21:17 has been proposing as well. I I don't

2:21:20 know enough to know the current market

2:21:22 for that kind of thing from the

2:21:23 construction but I think it would be a

2:21:25 good question to ask in that

2:21:27 market study that I I'll get to in a

2:21:29 second that I'd like for us to do

2:21:30 because I I don't

2:21:31 I don't know that.

2:21:32 Everything that's said brings up another

2:21:33 point in my mind there. With the

2:21:34 Pleasant Street thing that was recently

2:21:37 pulled from the warrant

2:21:38 because there's new there's other work

2:21:40 that needs to be done on that. I I feel

2:21:42 like I recall them wanting to put their

2:21:44 office like their regional office in

2:21:46 that building, right? And I think that

2:21:48 that's a really good example of

2:21:50 two-floor commercial space availability.

2:21:52 So yeah, we'll just pause there.

2:21:57 So, um one or more of you asked,

2:22:00 "Melissa,

2:22:01 did you come up with Melissa, you should

2:22:02 explain this number, so

2:22:03 Yeah, I mean, I have a a couple of

2:22:05 slides also that talks about kind of,

2:22:07 you know, looking at the next 3-year

2:22:09 cycle after this current 3-year period.

2:22:12 Um no noting that the further out that

2:22:14 we get, the less ac- less accurate we

2:22:16 are. Um you know, I came up with a range

2:22:19 of 25 to 28 million for the next 3-year

2:22:21 period, and there are a lot of

2:22:23 assumptions built into that, um and a

2:22:25 lot of factors that could change, um but

2:22:27 just as a way to give Cara kind of a

2:22:28 number to work with, um that that's kind

2:22:31 of where we are right now.

2:22:32 Wait, help me. What is the 25 to 28

2:22:34 mean?

2:22:34 So, that is essentially the next gap uh

2:22:38 over the next 3-year period after this

2:22:39 current override cycle is up.

2:22:41 Okay, so you So, you're suggesting the

2:22:42 next override cycle will need to be a 25

2:22:46 to 20 No, is it That's what I'm not

2:22:47 understanding.

2:22:48 It's the next shortfall over the three

2:22:51 year the three year period after this

2:22:52 current override cycle

2:22:53 The structural deficit after this

2:22:55 current override,

2:22:57 that would be the rough estimate.

2:22:59 Wow, is that based on what I said?

2:23:01 Well, and so, if I can, it looks like

2:23:04 this slide is saying what you would need

2:23:06 to develop in order to offset the

2:23:09 predicted difference.

2:23:10 Does this Does this

2:23:12 uh

2:23:13 Does this include um a base run rate of

2:23:18 new growth?

2:23:19 So, new growth is $2 million through

2:23:21 that that assumption because there's

2:23:23 nothing kind of in the pipeline

2:23:24 currently, and without kind of more

2:23:27 positive news about a change in the way

2:23:28 that the economy is,

2:23:30 That's the

2:23:31 So, the So, the So, the answer is yes,

2:23:33 it includes a baseline.

2:23:34 Yeah.

2:23:36 Wait, what was

2:23:37 Here, I can Let me pull up I

2:23:39 What were the What were the assumptions?

2:23:40 Yeah.

2:23:41 Yeah, I mean, you just switch quickly

2:23:42 switch

2:23:42 I just want to understand what the

2:23:43 difference was between what I said

2:23:45 and that this is the next

2:23:47 [clears throat] fiscal hole.

2:23:48 We could instead instead have more cuts.

2:23:50 Well, I'm sorry. Sorry. I understand.

2:23:53 I understand. I understand.

2:23:54 There is a gap of 25 to 28 million.

2:23:56 I understand. Thank you.

2:23:58 And and and Melissa will say this, but

2:24:01 it is very early to be making that call.

2:24:03 Yeah, of course.

2:24:05 [laughter]

2:24:05 Make that call so we can have this

2:24:07 conversation.

2:24:08 Yeah, we need to have the conversation.

2:24:09 Right. And the reason we're doing that,

2:24:10 understanding all these caveats and this

2:24:12 very preliminary, is I think that this

2:24:15 board has a lot of interest in trying to

2:24:19 engage in long-term planning so that

2:24:21 over the long haul, probably not in 3

2:24:23 years, but over the long haul, we might

2:24:25 be able to

2:24:27 extricate ourselves from 3-year override

2:24:29 cycles. And so we need to use some kind

2:24:31 of baseline, fully understanding that

2:24:33 it's very rough.

2:24:35 Right.

2:24:36 Yeah, so these are kind of some of the

2:24:37 base assumptions

2:24:39 in that estimate. So, 2 million in new

2:24:42 growth,

2:24:43 1 and 1/2% increase in local receipts, 2

2:24:46 and 1/2% increase in state aid,

2:24:49 free cash at the same kind of level that

2:24:51 we've been seeing that meets the policy

2:24:52 targets. Obviously, Jess just

2:24:54 kind of spotlighted that that as we kind

2:24:57 of shrink our revenues,

2:24:59 you know, that that potentially could

2:25:00 change. A 5% increase in school

2:25:03 appropriations. Obviously, we have we're

2:25:05 about to have a new deputy

2:25:06 superintendent for administration and

2:25:08 finance. We'll have revised projections

2:25:10 once once he has kind of

2:25:12 gotten his feet under him.

2:25:14 2% cola for town departments, 2 and 1/2%

2:25:17 for non-personnel increases. And then

2:25:20 beyond the 3 years, we have a 12%

2:25:22 assumption for the 3 years in the

2:25:24 override the current override, hoping

2:25:26 that the group health

2:25:28 landscape would change that we wouldn't

2:25:30 see double-digit increases, but still

2:25:32 feeling like 7 and 1/2 was a decent

2:25:35 enough effort.

2:25:36 So then, just some things that could

2:25:38 change the outlook either on on positive

2:25:40 or the negative side.

2:25:42 You know, obviously if we saw kind of a

2:25:44 resumption of some of the economic

2:25:46 activity that would generate additional

2:25:48 new growth. If we change the 8317 for

2:25:52 group health, that would have a lot of

2:25:54 positives

2:25:55 in the outlook as well.

2:25:57 And then change in policy about the use

2:26:00 of the pension run off, we'll be having

2:26:01 more conversations about that.

2:26:04 State aid obviously there's been a lot

2:26:06 of conversation about prop two and a

2:26:07 half and the state's contribution to

2:26:10 cities and towns and whether or not it's

2:26:12 efficient.

2:26:14 There will also be kind of a

2:26:16 committee looking at chapter 70 as well

2:26:18 statewide. And then obviously energy is

2:26:21 always kind of a question mark in terms

2:26:22 of what's happening in the in the

2:26:24 overall market and and what potentially

2:26:26 the town could do

2:26:27 for savings as well. And then you know

2:26:29 on the negative,

2:26:31 a deeper economic recession, JLMC award

2:26:34 that would be beyond our ability to pay,

2:26:37 additional mandates for new services,

2:26:41 and then school growth factor in excess

2:26:43 of 5% utility. So these are kind of

2:26:46 This is awesome.

2:26:47 things that could shift but

2:26:50 that range caveat caveat like like Cara

2:26:52 said,

2:26:53 is what we kind of just started working

2:26:56 through.

2:26:56 So it seems like the standard

2:26:57 distribution roughly for that number 25

2:27:00 to 28 million could like it could easily

2:27:03 go 10 million in either direction.

2:27:05 Yes, based on those

2:27:07 For Adams, yes.

2:27:07 Yeah, yeah. Okay.

2:27:09 But for purposes of this exercise, is

2:27:12 [laughter]

2:27:12 is Cola 2%?

2:27:14 So that is what we currently have in our

2:27:16 model.

2:27:17 Yeah.

2:27:18 Yeah, for like FY27 it's one we're right

2:27:22 Understood, thanks.

2:27:24 Now I will say

2:27:25 Right, what?

2:27:27 But we have to ask ourselves

2:27:29 [laughter]

2:27:30 Right, inflation is higher

2:27:31 Yeah.

2:27:32 So that's it's it's tough it's tough on

2:27:35 our on our staff.

2:27:36 Yeah.

2:27:36 That's really

2:27:37 You have to change the name of it if

2:27:38 that's

2:27:39 You're you're right. It's not really a

2:27:40 growth

2:27:40 I get it.

2:27:41 It's a wage adjustment.

2:27:42 Yeah.

2:27:44 Okay.

2:27:45 So, now that we've understood the

2:27:46 headlines of

2:27:48 [laughter]

2:27:49 Right.

2:27:50 Um this slide is actually quite easy.

2:27:51 It's the same slide. It's just that the

2:27:53 third um

2:27:55 column is saying over that period

2:27:57 period, if you were to make up a

2:28:00 delta from just one of these 400 units,

2:28:03 what would that be like?

2:28:05 So, you could make that up with what you

2:28:06 chose by

2:28:08 adding 15 to 2,000 1,500 to 2,000 condos

2:28:12 in 3 years. You could do that by adding

2:28:14 4,600 to 6,000 apartments. You could do

2:28:17 that by adding 10 to 11 more workplaces.

2:28:20 [laughter]

2:28:22 Do that by adding 14 to 16 more hotels.

2:28:24 I don't know if there's a market for

2:28:25 that name. But, you know, it's gives you

2:28:27 a sense of that as well, which I think

2:28:29 is a helpful exercise. And of course, a

2:28:32 reasonable thing to do too.

2:28:34 Start looking at this more and thinking

2:28:36 what would be easy to next give it to

2:28:38 the board.

2:28:40 I think that this slide does

2:28:42 um

2:28:43 force us a little to recognize that

2:28:45 growth is not the only

2:28:48 way we solve this.

2:28:49 So,

2:28:52 But,

2:28:53 It's a tool.

2:28:54 It is a tool that can decrease that

2:28:55 number.

2:28:56 Yes.

2:28:56 And there's the OPEB's element which

2:28:58 will help

2:29:01 So, we're only looking at the growth

2:29:02 part. So, I don't want to strike too

2:29:04 pessimistic a

2:29:05 Yeah.

2:29:08 Okay. Okay. So, compared to what you're

2:29:10 saying, apartments and condos moving up

2:29:12 whatever between 1,500 to 16,000 over 3

2:29:15 years, that's like

2:29:18 whatever 500 to

2:29:20 5,000

2:29:21 homes adding a year.

2:29:24 Um and right now we're around 4,500.

2:29:27 That's what we've been building

2:29:28 apartments in the last 3 years.

2:29:33 If we go one more slide?

2:29:35 Absolutely.

2:29:37 Okay. And then do we have that the next

2:29:39 slide broken down by housing type?

2:29:41 We do. I don't have that with me today

2:29:44 cuz the way we track it for the joint

2:29:45 planning agency is not by ownership but

2:29:47 by

2:29:48 bedroom count. So,

2:29:50 Okay.

2:29:50 it's all we have to do something like

2:29:52 that.

2:29:52 Got it. And this net new homes, the 499,

2:29:55 is that including single family or is

2:29:56 that just apartments and those?

2:29:58 I'm sorry.

2:29:59 Is that everything?

2:30:00 family and they are net new homes. So,

2:30:02 if a single family is demolished and a

2:30:03 new single family is built,

2:30:05 that is a net new single family.

2:30:06 Okay.

2:30:07 I see. The reason I ask that is if we

2:30:10 end up taking on multiple projects at

2:30:13 once as opposed to doing a smaller

2:30:16 number each year,

2:30:18 that that top line about around 1,500

2:30:22 uh new units. So, if we're already at

2:30:25 500 and we do triple the number of

2:30:27 projects we do now, that actually does

2:30:30 seem realizable. Not not within the next

2:30:32 3 years, but but longer term, that type

2:30:34 of trajectory Yeah.

2:30:36 could be done.

2:30:36 If they're all communist.

2:30:38 If they're all like that.

2:30:39 I get it.

2:30:41 I think it will. Yeah, it's not

2:30:42 It's a good exercise to consider.

2:30:45 I'll see the trajectory now.

2:30:48 [laughter]

2:30:51 So, uh

2:30:52 this slide is in the same color coding

2:30:54 as at the very beginning. So, um

2:30:58 as I presented this up front, and past

2:31:00 letter discussions are the permitting

2:31:02 priorities, this has been fairly

2:31:05 all we can hope for right now for our

2:31:07 staff, please. Um

2:31:09 um so, getting those projects through to

2:31:12 you actually be able to start

2:31:13 construction. We've got some some very

2:31:15 large projects happening in this current

2:31:19 fiscal '27

2:31:20 um started already. So, one is the

2:31:22 Claremont owned property I was telling

2:31:24 you about at 25 500 of road.

2:31:26 That's housing with commercial on the

2:31:28 ground floor. They are also asking for a

2:31:30 variety of variances, so to be

2:31:33 determined.

2:31:34 Um two Brooklyn Place Children's

2:31:36 Hospital is coming back into a mend with

2:31:39 special permits

2:31:40 so they can finish the commercial space

2:31:42 on the ground floor.

2:31:44 Um that would be an effort that a lot

2:31:46 of, you know, revenue at the end but

2:31:48 some.

2:31:49 Um 40 Kent Street is underway and then

2:31:52 uh City Building 2 as I said is as I

2:31:55 understand it they're pre-application

2:31:56 work with the town and the building

2:31:58 department and all the fire, you know,

2:32:01 I mean they may go to the planning board

2:32:03 uh end of August for the preliminary

2:32:06 presentation. That's nice. Pretty fast.

2:32:09 Quick question on two Brooklyn Place. So

2:32:11 they've uh

2:32:12 finishing the commercial space, does

2:32:13 that suggest that there is going to be a

2:32:16 little more effort to filling it?

2:32:18 Yes, it means that they have

2:32:20 um

2:32:21 a tenant in hand for two Brooklyn Place.

2:32:23 They don't yet for one Brooklyn Place

2:32:25 which is also unfinished,

2:32:27 um but they would like the permitting

2:32:29 flexibility to

2:32:30 have these uses um

2:32:32 in between two.

2:32:33 Do we know the category of commercial

2:32:35 for that tenant?

2:32:36 I don't know, but I think they're

2:32:38 talking about medical office or that

2:32:39 space.

2:32:41 Okay.

2:32:44 Um

2:32:45 so built in priorities is that committee

2:32:47 pre-zoning, those pink rectangles we saw

2:32:49 earlier. Um it's about finishing things.

2:32:52 We have finished Third Street

2:32:54 um last discussion. We got to talk about

2:32:56 that last night. We'll

2:32:58 get back to you probably by the end of

2:32:59 summer.

2:33:00 Uh the Kent

2:33:02 uh Webster discussion, this is a new

2:33:05 one.

2:33:06 Um again this is the town on Washington

2:33:08 Walk that's behind like the Starbucks

2:33:10 building and the convenience store and

2:33:12 the behind the village.

2:33:14 Which is adjacent to two parcels that

2:33:17 are currently for sale.

2:33:19 Um so my balloon that I'm floating to

2:33:22 you all is I imagine we want to explore

2:33:26 working

2:33:27 with the potential buyers to do a a

2:33:30 joint ownership or at least explore

2:33:31 those conversations.

2:33:33 I know you guys in the town plan as

2:33:34 well.

2:33:36 That's slightly for the parking, the air

2:33:37 rights, whatever.

2:33:39 That

2:33:40 parcel combined is about the same size

2:33:42 as well in terms to get the sense of how

2:33:44 they do this.

2:33:46 Third is third priority is we started

2:33:49 making Kent Station student housing

2:33:52 which is on the other side of

2:33:54 Kent Street and we might even want to

2:33:56 talk about whether those two sites could

2:34:00 be in partnership with each other in

2:34:01 some creative way. Again,

2:34:03 specific ideas we should

2:34:05 talk about that sometime.

2:34:09 The disposition of parking is one

2:34:12 one obvious

2:34:14 potentially obvious

2:34:17 way in which they could talk.

2:34:19 That could be the other project.

2:34:21 Froze. Okay. There was a lot of thing

2:34:24 that went into it and then we basically

2:34:27 didn't do anything because of concerns

2:34:29 of the program.

2:34:30 In terms of the parking, and also staff

2:34:33 from both in our our department as well

2:34:35 as DPW I remember Tom Cranes had a town

2:34:38 meeting saying I promise you I'll figure

2:34:40 out a way to change the parking around

2:34:41 the playing field and then he left.

2:34:44 [laughter]

2:34:45 Many things including COVID. Yeah.

2:34:47 In terms of these parking concerns, I

2:34:49 was talking to Catha Sideman the other

2:34:52 day and she made what I found to be a

2:34:53 very insightful comment that we don't

2:34:55 talk much about which is differentiating

2:34:58 the type of parking. Is it destination

2:35:00 parking or is it residential parking?

2:35:02 And and that can be very helpful to know

2:35:04 in terms of assessing the need. Often

2:35:06 times in these conversations we just

2:35:08 look at parking generically. Uh

2:35:11 but knowing if it's destination or

2:35:13 residential has high impact in terms of

2:35:15 how many spaces you need.

2:35:17 And that could be useful in this

2:35:18 project.

2:35:19 Yeah.

2:35:21 Um and then I thought it was important

2:35:23 to put on here other activities. Not

2:35:26 everything that we're doing, but other

2:35:27 activities that um

2:35:28 in the long run support development

2:35:30 priorities as well. You know, that's not

2:35:32 our only objective. So, finishing the

2:35:34 comprehensive plan.

2:35:36 And the second one I wanted to pause and

2:35:39 make sure you all hear um good We're

2:35:42 thinking We need to talk about this with

2:35:44 EDA and then other ranges boards, but

2:35:46 we're thinking it probably makes sense

2:35:48 in January to do a commercial market

2:35:50 study so that we have updated

2:35:52 information about what is realistic for

2:35:55 commercial

2:35:57 growth these days in Bothell. And that

2:36:00 would probably look a lot different on

2:36:02 Canyon Park than it would in Bothell.

2:36:04 Um

2:36:06 on Bothell East, you know, but

2:36:08 that would be good to know what those

2:36:09 are. And also

2:36:11 um

2:36:12 to get some more information from those

2:36:14 industry experts to be able to question

2:36:16 about like when are people doing the

2:36:17 same floor for commercial space.

2:36:20 You know, the breweries were a big hot

2:36:21 thing that kind of went through, but

2:36:23 what's the next thing that's like a

2:36:24 brewery that could support larger ground

2:36:26 floor spaces?

2:36:27 Um and then also talking with our

2:36:30 institutional partners and then um

2:36:33 just making sure that there's not any

2:36:35 accessory uses that they wish they could

2:36:37 do add on even if not on their property.

2:36:41 Um

2:36:41 you know, we don't know until we ask

2:36:43 them.

2:36:46 When did we last go through this

2:36:48 exercise?

2:36:51 Do a commercial market study?

2:36:52 Yes.

2:36:53 I don't think we

2:36:54 I'm not aware of

2:36:56 one being done. There was a vibrancy

2:36:58 study that was done

2:37:01 15 years ago, but not with

2:37:04 uh real estate experts. It was more

2:37:05 about like retail demand compared to

2:37:08 households and how much of that is

2:37:10 uh uh, leakage leaving the town. Kind of

2:37:13 back of the envelope but not all

2:37:14 commercial uses. We've also used Gamble

2:37:17 Associates

2:37:18 just a district vast and to the task of

2:37:20 ourselves in Flint. Like, could we do

2:37:23 another hotel in North Portland? Could

2:37:24 we do another hotel in South Portland?

2:37:26 Um, because she had experience in those

2:37:29 but not town wide and not all uses at

2:37:31 once but um

2:37:33 Have we looked at whether neighboring

2:37:35 municipalities have conducted similar

2:37:37 studies and if so, what that data

2:37:39 reveals and I don't say that as to

2:37:41 preempt undertaking our own commercial

2:37:44 study but it could still offer helpful

2:37:46 information in the interim. Newton is

2:37:48 somewhat similar, the more suburban

2:37:51 parts of Boston like West Roxbury.

2:37:53 Yeah, it's a good question. I need to

2:37:54 look around some more to understand that

2:37:56 more.

2:37:57 I'm only aware of

2:37:59 um

2:38:00 other communities that are, you know,

2:38:02 looking for anything anywhere like some

2:38:03 of the bigger communities doing things

2:38:06 for their downtown which is a similar

2:38:08 valid market study for

2:38:10 you know, the size of Portland or for

2:38:12 um, suburban communities saying this

2:38:14 industrial park is no longer working,

2:38:16 what should we do with this?

2:38:17 Okay, I know that Needham in particular,

2:38:19 they've been doing a lot of uh, work

2:38:20 around their town center and development

2:38:23 there and adding more multi-family

2:38:25 housing and mixed use so maybe seeing

2:38:27 what their studies showed might help

2:38:29 inform just as a bridge to when we get

2:38:31 to conducting our own.

2:38:32 Yeah, I haven't seen a lot of

2:38:35 reports showing commercial buildings

2:38:37 anywhere

2:38:39 of last year two but um

2:38:42 you know, that equals Boston.

2:38:44 And how long do you expect such a study

2:38:46 to take?

2:38:48 Um

2:38:49 I think because this is meant to be a

2:38:51 staff subject and not, you know, all

2:38:53 that.

2:38:55 public community process and we're just

2:38:57 getting data. I think it could be fairly

2:38:59 quick. I don't know.

2:39:01 Great.

2:39:04 Um, so coming out of that I would like

2:39:06 to see, you know, what the reality is.

2:39:08 My guess is it might make sense for us

2:39:11 to talk but I come to you and talk about

2:39:14 budget first. Just on 28th next spring,

2:39:16 I wouldn't be surprised if I would

2:39:17 support a net carbon neutral building.

2:39:18 It's a nice

2:39:19 area that's um

2:39:22 thinking about a corridor rather than

2:39:23 just one site at a time um that has some

2:39:26 potential and that's also real estate in

2:39:28 the adding commercial tax space, not

2:39:30 just residential.

2:39:35 Um, I know we are over time. So this is

2:39:38 um

2:39:40 very small I believe it

2:39:41 This Yeah, this is one of this is a

2:39:42 priority I think we need

2:39:44 Yes.

2:39:44 Okay.

2:39:45 Very productive.

2:39:45 Yes, you tell me when to go faster. So

2:39:48 this is a very very small image which is

2:39:51 a draft map

2:39:53 um and that's all capitalized draft

2:39:56 [laughter]

2:39:57 from the comprehensive plan steering

2:39:59 committee. It is the second version and

2:40:00 they're probably going to re-rate it,

2:40:02 you know, at least two or three more

2:40:03 times.

2:40:04 Um

2:40:06 broadly speaking, this is taking

2:40:08 community um

2:40:10 input to date and saying, "Okay, when we

2:40:13 look at the town as a whole, what are

2:40:15 the areas where we want to support that

2:40:18 might see some change but might be more

2:40:19 about supporting what that was there?

2:40:21 That's those 10 areas most of the town.

2:40:24 Um what are areas that we we expect or

2:40:26 we want to direct significant change?

2:40:29 Um and that's that dark purple which

2:40:31 you're seeing a lot of

2:40:33 come out but also in some spots like on

2:40:35 site or some Route 9. There's still some

2:40:38 dark spot or you know, the famous MBTA

2:40:41 yards. That would be amazing. Don't

2:40:44 think it's going to happen. Uh TJ Maxx,

2:40:46 there's nothing you know, surprising

2:40:47 here. Um some parcels along

2:40:51 Harvard Street that were those larger

2:40:53 parcels that the community wanted to

2:40:54 carve out of the Harvard Street zoning

2:40:56 like Stop & Shop and TJ Maxx um sites

2:40:59 like those. And then there's there's a

2:41:01 color in between that's more of like a

2:41:02 magenta color and that's somewhere

2:41:04 between

2:41:05 um you know, high change and solid

2:41:08 change. So, for example, Washington

2:41:10 Square is that middle color.

2:41:12 Um and well, there's there were comments

2:41:15 from

2:41:16 um that neighborhood of that precinct

2:41:19 from the community that said "Four

2:41:21 stories feels about right for a new

2:41:23 development." There was also recognition

2:41:25 that there's

2:41:27 there's properties like

2:41:29 the grocery store site that has a you

2:41:30 know,

2:41:31 um

2:41:33 parking lot behind it.

2:41:34 And that might it would take a lot of

2:41:37 work if you can find a station but that

2:41:38 might be a reasonable redevelopment site

2:41:40 that keeps the grocery store and that

2:41:42 adds to the comments.

2:41:44 Um so, that's just context. There's uh

2:41:47 some large kind of almost I guess ivory

2:41:51 or white-colored parcels. Those are

2:41:53 institutional properties and not even

2:41:56 all of them but some of the larger ones.

2:41:58 Um

2:42:00 that the

2:42:01 steering committee is still sifting

2:42:03 through the comments received and trying

2:42:05 to figure out what and how they make any

2:42:07 recommendations regarding those larger

2:42:10 properties. Um

2:42:11 so, I think as someone mentioned

2:42:12 earlier,

2:42:13 you know, once they come up for sale or

2:42:16 if we get a call it'd be helpful to have

2:42:17 some direction from the community as to

2:42:20 what to see on those properties like

2:42:22 this um

2:42:25 other light-colored very large area is

2:42:27 the Top of the Hill Harry Neighborhood

2:42:29 um that is undergoing study right now.

2:42:33 Um

2:42:34 being uh

2:42:36 led by Brian Realty and with uh very

2:42:38 [clears throat] strong support from the

2:42:40 town meeting members. That neighborhood

2:42:42 used to be neighborhood conservation

2:42:44 district. Um

2:42:46 we'll see what the town meeting members'

2:42:47 goals are there

2:42:49 um but what's interesting about that

2:42:51 work is it we

2:42:53 I suspect that we will find

2:42:56 um

2:42:57 some conclusions about how to support

2:42:59 mixed-use fabric but still um allow for

2:43:02 some change, you know, more than a local

2:43:04 commercial district. And that could then

2:43:07 be replicated in other GPL

2:43:08 neighborhoods. So, this is the largest

2:43:10 kind of GPL um um neighborhood.

2:43:18 So, kind of indirect potential

2:43:20 development priorities, um Sister Hill

2:43:22 and

2:43:23 reuse study, we're going to learn a lot

2:43:25 about market demand through that. Um if

2:43:28 you have blind data about

2:43:29 No, other projects can give us

2:43:31 information about what's going on in the

2:43:32 neighborhood generally. Um

2:43:35 That's it. Fairly recent talk about ADU

2:43:38 outreach. So, here where we're starting

2:43:40 to get into like not everything requires

2:43:41 rezoning to see change. So, once you

2:43:43 turn in general

2:43:45 hopefully approves the language that's

2:43:47 zoning mixed-use zoning, um then we are

2:43:51 planning to do a big outreach to

2:43:53 property owners hopefully combined with

2:43:56 small business offices, conversations

2:43:58 about streamlining permitting, um and

2:44:00 kind of getting that information out to

2:44:02 the homeowners or small family property

2:44:04 owners or mean

2:44:06 another way that we can move forward.

2:44:08 Um

2:44:10 Number four is um we've had

2:44:13 conversations in the work about the real

2:44:14 estate property committee.

2:44:17 It'd be great to just coordinate.

2:44:19 Everybody's talking to different

2:44:20 property owners at different levels, but

2:44:22 it'd be helpful to get the latest ones

2:44:24 together and just coordinate because

2:44:25 we're hearing like um from time to time.

2:44:28 And then the last thing is uh one of my

2:44:30 favorite slides of like new information

2:44:32 today,

2:44:34 and that's infrastructure. So, if we

2:44:35 were a greenfield community, we might

2:44:37 talk about water, sewer, or only water,

2:44:39 sewer, or have a two-pipe. Um but in

2:44:41 Brooklyn, we

2:44:43 don't have all the infrastructure we

2:44:44 need. Um it's my opinion, and I'll show

2:44:47 you why, that in this coming up in the

2:44:49 fall meeting too, that we do need to

2:44:50 think about adding more open space

2:44:53 before talking about adding and taking

2:44:55 being intentional about adding more

2:44:57 residential or commercial development.

2:44:59 And also our electrical grid, which I

2:45:01 know hardly anything about, but I have

2:45:03 it um

2:45:04 the slide to hopefully get you

2:45:06 interested in things.

2:45:08 So, open space, these are just two

2:45:10 snapshots from

2:45:12 um

2:45:13 resident city website, website that this

2:45:16 the state uses and

2:45:17 um you can clearly see what the

2:45:20 number of dwelling units per parcel is

2:45:21 is what the different colors are showing

2:45:23 you.

2:45:24 Um so, on the left is a neighborhood

2:45:27 that's more or less around the Baker

2:45:29 School playground.

2:45:31 Um and on the right is a neighborhood

2:45:33 that's around kind of Riverway Longwood

2:45:35 Park Square Park. Hard to do these exact

2:45:38 um but kind of think what's the

2:45:39 watershed of those parks um compared to

2:45:42 then going people most likely going here

2:45:44 or neighborhood park by the then the

2:45:46 next park outside. Obviously, people are

2:45:49 able to walk across municipal

2:45:51 boundaries. So, you'll see down the

2:45:52 left, you know, I'm including

2:45:54 neighborhoods that are not in Brookline

2:45:55 because they are near parks in in our

2:45:57 town. Um and this is only thinking about

2:46:00 like a playground field space. This

2:46:02 isn't including sanctuaries, not

2:46:04 including some of the historic um don't

2:46:07 touch but you can look at areas in

2:46:09 Cottage Farm. Um so, you know, we're

2:46:11 using what we might use dwelling spaces.

2:46:13 Um and there's there's a difference. So,

2:46:16 on the left we're seeing about um 1 and

2:46:19 1/2 acres of this kind of recreational

2:46:22 open space per thousand people and on

2:46:24 the right about half that in North

2:46:27 Brookline, about 0.7 acres per thousand

2:46:29 people. Even though there's a lot more

2:46:31 open space in that neighborhood on the

2:46:33 right, um it's a lot more dense. And um

2:46:37 the there's no national standard and the

2:46:41 um parks director does a great job of

2:46:43 talking about different kinds of park

2:46:45 use and why they're needed for

2:46:47 maintenance reasons or you know,

2:46:49 regional um

2:46:50 planning reasons.

2:46:52 And that's not my field of expertise,

2:46:54 but just to give you a kind of a

2:46:57 standard the National Institute of

2:46:59 Health

2:47:00 has a review of literature about

2:47:02 different kinds of community recreation

2:47:04 parks. So getting that security stuff as

2:47:06 a mission line.

2:47:07 And the literature suggests somewhere

2:47:09 between 1 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 acres per

2:47:12 thousand people.

2:47:14 So um

2:47:16 the you know, neighborhood on the left

2:47:17 is probably as minimal as you want to

2:47:19 get and I would use some more than

2:47:21 neighborhood on the right. It's

2:47:23 certainly undone

2:47:25 and

2:47:26 my my thought is that we should be very

2:47:29 clear that we want to add open space for

2:47:31 you all.

2:47:32 Add more housing in either in anywhere.

2:47:36 I think this ties in a little bit to an

2:47:37 earlier discussion we're having about

2:47:39 parameters for when we might want to

2:47:41 look to acquire property. So I

2:47:43 brought up if two houses next to each

2:47:46 other go on sale, we should be alerted

2:47:48 cuz that's a potential opportunity to

2:47:50 add a park or if there's a house that's

2:47:52 right next to a school, that's a an

2:47:54 opportunity as well.

2:47:56 Um I think also we could consider

2:48:00 uh rooftop green space. There are of

2:48:02 course there's a challenge of making

2:48:04 sure that you have enough shade, right?

2:48:07 Tree canopy somehow on a roof. We don't

2:48:08 want

2:48:10 more of a Driscoll playground situation.

2:48:12 Uh

2:48:13 And trees are heavy, too.

2:48:15 But but ground space is finite. So I

2:48:16 think we have to find other ways to add

2:48:18 green space

2:48:20 in addition to the traditional.

2:48:21 Yeah, and you were mentioning like

2:48:23 indoor recreation space.

2:48:24 Indoors as well.

2:48:25 Right.

2:48:26 That's another way for people to

2:48:28 do something outside of their house.

2:48:30 Yes.

2:48:31 Or making sure that if there is a

2:48:33 private space that is publicly

2:48:35 accessible. But you're right.

2:48:36 Sometimes we make arrangements for

2:48:39 public access but then is not really

2:48:41 accessible. Um and so I we have to think

2:48:43 a lot more holistically about that.

2:48:45 A lot of shopping malls that are sort of

2:48:47 borderline dysfunctional are doing these

2:48:49 conversions where they have pickleball

2:48:51 courts inside and they're sort of

2:48:53 becoming recreation facilities. We don't

2:48:55 have that here in Brookline, but

2:48:58 uh as a part of MOAs with developments

2:49:01 of mid to large scale, we might try to

2:49:04 think of

2:49:05 kind of asking them to include some kind

2:49:08 of indoor recreation.

2:49:10 Cuz also given our climate, so maybe 7

2:49:13 months out of the year here, we need to

2:49:15 be indoors anyway for recreation.

2:49:18 Um when we look at the Washington Square

2:49:21 magenta map, two two slides ago, I

2:49:23 think.

2:49:24 And what what what what what

2:49:25 Yeah, I feel like Washington Square is

2:49:27 right by the the Driscoll School, it's

2:49:28 the one that's right there, right? And

2:49:29 now now I know that Driscoll has a lot

2:49:32 of open capacity, right? So, that reads

2:49:36 to me as highly advantageous for future

2:49:40 development. Um I just wanted to call

2:49:41 that out.

2:49:44 Um and while you have this up, uh

2:49:46 I forget what you were noticing, but

2:49:47 I've been interested lower portion, but

2:49:50 it does seem like the dark purple

2:49:52 denotes a portion of what was originally

2:49:56 talked about in that project as being

2:50:00 well suited for for the development.

2:50:02 Yeah. Then again, this is a draft.

2:50:04 Yeah, shadow where. But it's it's good

2:50:06 to think of of these places as we start

2:50:08 to sort of scope out what their plans

2:50:11 are.

2:50:12 Mhm.

2:50:13 Because I do think there is a lot of

2:50:14 potential and especially given the

2:50:16 timeline that that you were showing in

2:50:18 terms of the amount of time that it

2:50:19 takes to stand for it. Uh we can talk

2:50:23 permanently later of whether that can

2:50:24 actually be sped up.

2:50:25 Yeah.

2:50:26 Um but like you're talking 5 plus years

2:50:29 in the future for one week's time.

2:50:34 Conclusion. on.

2:50:35 And then

2:50:38 Um Eversource, so Eversource um has

2:50:41 started putting publicly on their uh

2:50:44 website, you can just Google look up

2:50:46 Eversource headroom map. Um and they

2:50:48 have another version that's not called

2:50:51 headroom. I think it's called capacity.

2:50:53 And the capacity There's two tabs that

2:50:55 you can go to this. One tab is not

2:50:57 called headroom and that's more for

2:50:59 finding parcels

2:51:01 that it's appropriate to take.

2:51:02 And the solar or other technologies that

2:51:04 you need there to then electrical grid

2:51:07 headroom

2:51:08 The headroom tab is more about what is

2:51:11 the

2:51:12 um existing capacity

2:51:14 in the network to handle additional

2:51:16 load. So taking away the electricity to

2:51:19 put it in.

2:51:20 Um and that's seasonal. This is a

2:51:22 snapshot. So in the summer, that's

2:51:23 usually worse.

2:51:25 Um and

2:51:27 uh we've been hearing about this

2:51:29 probably the governor, from Eversource

2:51:31 being talked about

2:51:33 um updating the grid especially as more

2:51:35 communities are trying to move towards

2:51:38 fossil fuel free. Um

2:51:40 and um

2:51:42 you'll see at the top here a little

2:51:46 sneak peek of Cambridge, which is a very

2:51:48 dark purple. And that's basically

2:51:50 showing zero um

2:51:53 capacity zero to one kilowatt. And you

2:51:55 might have seen um

2:51:57 in the press recently that there's a

2:52:00 very large

2:52:01 substation that's being built

2:52:04 underground um in Kendall Square or

2:52:07 somewhere in Cambridge. Um so clearly

2:52:09 the state and and Cambridge especially

2:52:12 are very concerned about electric

2:52:14 capacity. That doesn't work. That's

2:52:16 going to be improved. But we also know

2:52:17 that Eversource is looking to

2:52:20 update their other terminal with in

2:52:22 Brookline. Um there's several

2:52:24 substations that already exist. They're

2:52:26 doing due diligence work to see what

2:52:28 equipment is there. And regionally

2:52:31 they've also talked very publicly about

2:52:33 wanting to add more infrastructure for

2:52:36 the region and in this North Brookline,

2:52:39 Allston-Brighton, getting over to

2:52:41 Cambridge area, like the trunk line.

2:52:43 Um,

2:52:44 so it's just good to know that that is a

2:52:45 limiting factor. Um, this came to a head

2:52:49 with the Brookline Housing Authority,

2:52:50 who's extremely well

2:52:53 organized, has done several developments

2:52:55 on their own, works with all these

2:52:56 utility companies. And at the very end

2:52:59 of their 15 Marion Street in the

2:53:01 construction phase, they were told that

2:53:03 the last connection that they needed was

2:53:06 going to take an additional two months,

2:53:09 which means that they That was the only

2:53:10 factor that kept getting residents into

2:53:13 their homes for two months was um, an

2:53:16 Eversource appliance.

2:53:17 What What did they need to do in those

2:53:19 two months?

2:53:20 Um, it was wait It wasn't thematic work

2:53:23 that needed to be done. It was just

2:53:24 waiting the queue for Eversource to come

2:53:26 out and connect something on their own.

2:53:29 Is we're talking capacity and I'm not an

2:53:31 expert in this area of expertise, but

2:53:33 like

2:53:34 if we build capacity, is that us doing a

2:53:37 favor for Eversource that helps us, but

2:53:40 like is that something that is somewhat

2:53:43 of a negotiation? I'm like thinking

2:53:44 about the Z and folks wanting to create

2:53:46 sort of a municipal solar option, right?

2:53:49 Which as a condo owner would be very

2:53:52 helpful for for those who

2:53:54 might be able to generate more than they

2:53:55 can use. And so I'm wondering if you

2:53:58 could pair it with something that would

2:54:00 be a win for the town. Um, if we are

2:54:04 thinking about expanding electrical

2:54:06 infrastructure in our towns today.

2:54:09 Yeah.

2:54:10 Yeah. That's what I'm opposed to.

2:54:11 Yeah.

2:54:13 For future, but yeah, I I would like to

2:54:15 like think about it in in terms of like

2:54:18 right, you're you're you're looking at

2:54:20 Cambridge building that maybe

2:54:22 infrastructure will help with going

2:54:24 Brookline if they are putting emphasis

2:54:26 on wanting to build more infrastructure

2:54:28 here. We should be thinking about what

2:54:30 that relationship looks like.

2:54:32 Yeah.

2:54:32 I think this has to be a whole agenda

2:54:34 item.

2:54:35 Yes.

2:54:36 For this whole electric thing. I think

2:54:38 we need

2:54:38 I thought we were going to consult with

2:54:39 the map.

2:54:39 Yeah, we we need a Yeah, yeah.

2:54:41 We need a lot more on this cuz this is a

2:54:43 little over my head. So.

2:54:45 Um

2:54:46 I am guessing based on 32 million's

2:54:48 conversation and some very quick numbers

2:54:51 that anything that's like yellow, green,

2:54:53 dark green and that light pink above it

2:54:56 are likely areas

2:54:58 to talk about having a likely areas

2:55:00 where you could put in a four-unit

2:55:02 building today.

2:55:04 Um

2:55:04 and those areas are very few. You know,

2:55:07 even where 32 million was um it's Sorry,

2:55:10 down here. It's kind of spotty between

2:55:12 the yellow and and not yellow.

2:55:15 Yeah, and I see my block there and I'm

2:55:17 in a 14-story building and I'm I'm I'm

2:55:20 pink, which is pretty crazy.

2:55:22 [laughter]

2:55:23 Yeah, but the the takeaway is where your

2:55:24 land needs to be able to develop. And

2:55:27 you know, on the face of it, it's

2:55:28 probably not something we can say today

2:55:30 whether you're going to be able to

2:55:31 strike a deal with Nstar, but I think

2:55:33 what Ken is pointing out is you need to

2:55:34 be start You need to be

2:55:36 You need to start being aware of Nstar

2:55:38 needing to develop, you know, more more

2:55:40 capacity and being willing where you can

2:55:42 to help them do that, right? To meet

2:55:44 them halfway with what you can.

2:55:45 I I like like Anthony's idea of like can

2:55:47 we have some time at a future select

2:55:49 board meeting to actually dive into like

2:55:52 what decisions we even could make

2:55:54 along those lines?

2:55:55 Yeah, does us adding municipal solar

2:55:57 hurt this? Cuz I I also don't understand

2:55:59 that.

2:55:59 Yeah, it does in a way.

2:56:00 It does?

2:56:00 Absolutely, yeah.

2:56:01 But even when you play with it, you'll

2:56:02 see it's a kind of a flip flop of each

2:56:04 other.

2:56:04 Right.

2:56:05 There's two tabs, but you'll see where

2:56:07 um

2:56:08 in areas where it's getting harder to

2:56:09 add a significant municipal farm.

2:56:11 Yeah.

2:56:12 Are you saying there are areas where

2:56:12 it's going to be hard to add

2:56:14 There's a step when you're doing any

2:56:16 solar project, there's a step called the

2:56:17 interconnection agreement where you

2:56:18 actually have to ask um Eversource is

2:56:21 there capacity to be able to do this on

2:56:23 the grid? Because it's going to have to

2:56:24 run on, you know, they'll have to run on

2:56:26 their wires at some point, right?

2:56:28 And so, generally they'd say yes, but

2:56:29 sometimes those things can get hung up

2:56:30 for a long time. So, they say, "Oh,

2:56:32 we've got to replace transformers. We've

2:56:33 got to do X, Y, Z in order to make that

2:56:35 happen." So,

2:56:36 um

2:56:38 So, it is a broader conversation. But,

2:56:39 for the purposes here, it's sort of like

2:56:41 this is where you're limited now to what

2:56:42 we can do.

2:56:43 Yeah. And that's right. And developers

2:56:45 will add infrastructure. Yeah, 32

2:56:47 million did City Realty. Realty needed

2:56:49 to

2:56:51 But, it's helpful just to know in the

2:56:52 background to your plan of land that

2:56:54 there's something that you would be more

2:56:55 supportive that makes sense for the town

2:56:57 and and the utility company. But, also

2:56:59 just for broad planning purposes like

2:57:01 this, you know, another purple area

2:57:03 is west of Ham Ham Parkway and a lot of

2:57:06 Regina's neighborhood. I'm sorry, she

2:57:07 just left.

2:57:09 And it's very limited. And so, there's

2:57:11 been, you know,

2:57:12 musings, I'll say it, on the steering

2:57:14 committee

2:57:16 for the comprehensive plan of like,

2:57:17 could we do something interesting with

2:57:18 the Butterfield Library and Butterfield

2:57:20 Circle to make that

2:57:21 uh more of a destination community

2:57:23 space. Just, you know,

2:57:25 and broadly thinking aloud. And

2:57:29 this would This is important for us to

2:57:30 take into consideration that, okay, we

2:57:33 should also realize that that would

2:57:34 probably require assembly infrastructure

2:57:36 before this could happen.

2:57:40 So,

2:57:41 last slide, um anything you'd like me to

2:57:43 reorder?

2:57:45 And um if you'd like to start the

2:57:47 conversation, we could do it another

2:57:49 time about

2:57:50 what you all think would be the most

2:57:52 helpful for like scoping

2:57:54 us like what we need to lean on to any

2:57:56 of these boards, whether it's Housing

2:57:58 Advisory Board or EDA. Um I hopefully we

2:58:01 can talk to them.

2:58:03 I have two questions in turn I suppose

2:58:06 this falls into priorities. Um number

2:58:09 one is

2:58:11 uh in terms of things like the ADU bylaw

2:58:14 and toxic fairing that

2:58:17 where their impacts are more diffuse

2:58:20 than individual projects. Can you give

2:58:22 us a sense of the

2:58:26 the I guess mostly in terms of housing,

2:58:30 um

2:58:31 what the

2:58:32 how you think about those adding to the

2:58:35 town's housing inventory relative to

2:58:38 these other specific projects?

2:58:40 Um they're

2:58:41 ones that I'm not counting on and we're

2:58:43 looking at how to get to the

2:58:45 9.2%

2:58:46 affordable units of adding um affordable

2:58:49 units by 2040 or whatever it is. Um

2:58:52 they're not they're not ones I'm saying,

2:58:53 "Okay, this project is going to help us

2:58:55 we know get there." because we haven't

2:58:57 been through that community

2:58:58 conversation. Um the ADUs at this point

2:59:02 are a small effort. It's educating

2:59:03 people.

2:59:05 Relatively speaking, it's education

2:59:07 outreach. It's not a big other process.

2:59:09 Tuxis

2:59:10 Perry um will be significant for

2:59:13 at least another 6 months, probably. Um

2:59:16 In terms of effort?

2:59:17 In terms of effort, yeah. We're busy

2:59:19 engaging the community and what they

2:59:22 want.

2:59:22 Right.

2:59:23 I

2:59:24 I was sort of thinking about it on the

2:59:25 on the flip side. So, if you take

2:59:28 something like Tuxis Perry or ADUs and

2:59:30 look at say 10 years, 15 years, you

2:59:33 know, obviously there's an education

2:59:35 phase and a startup phase to all of

2:59:37 these things. But, if you compare that

2:59:39 to say, you know, 40 Kent Street, you

2:59:42 know, 40 Kent Street has a defined

2:59:43 number of units that it can create and

2:59:46 you know, that that the land and you got

2:59:48 the number of units. But, you have a

2:59:49 sense of where those kinds of projects

2:59:53 that are more fixed, how those compare

2:59:56 to the overall area of opportunity for

3:00:00 the other project.

3:00:01 Yeah, so I don't see either of those

3:00:02 examples, ADUs or Tuxis Perry, as a

3:00:05 housing production primary primary goal.

3:00:08 Uh-huh.

3:00:08 And so, that's why I'm housing staff

3:00:11 would not be looking at those projects.

3:00:12 Our housing staff would be working on

3:00:14 that comp street, King Street, uh Cedar

3:00:16 Street. Those are much bigger than our

3:00:17 cuz they're much better use of their

3:00:18 time.

3:00:20 But in terms of effort, so I if I

3:00:22 getting what Michael is saying, right?

3:00:24 Like

3:00:25 there's a limited capacity of staff

3:00:27 time, right? And so if we're giving you

3:00:29 priorities, I would like most of staff

3:00:33 time and through their specialization

3:00:35 for that, but I would like most of staff

3:00:36 time to be focused on things that um

3:00:40 and

3:00:41 we need more goals. So like

3:00:44 we support the cat, right? Like that's a

3:00:46 clear like

3:00:47 we can create X number of housing units

3:00:49 and also get us closer to affordability

3:00:51 numbers. Um so that might make uh-huh

3:00:55 sense to spend more time of town staff

3:00:59 energy there than

3:01:02 um

3:01:03 tax of parity. I think ADUs are probably

3:01:05 a little bit different because it's

3:01:06 minimal staff time. Um the state court

3:01:09 Right.

3:01:10 but

3:01:11 and at this point ADUs are a

3:01:13 um

3:01:14 if things are approved, it's a how do we

3:01:16 make it easier for people to build

3:01:18 within the rules of the land and

3:01:19 sensing.

3:01:20 Um

3:01:21 but I

3:01:21 I am

3:01:23 I would like to be thinking about

3:01:24 prioritizing staff time in terms of

3:01:27 return on investment for lack of a

3:01:28 better phrase phrase Mhm. uh to move

3:01:31 some of the goals that we are interested

3:01:33 in.

3:01:34 I agree. So I think that the list of

3:01:37 priorities you've outlined are are quite

3:01:39 sound and they'll seem do seem to be

3:01:41 that they would be the higher return on

3:01:42 investment as you put it. They're larger

3:01:45 scale for the most part. So I would

3:01:47 agree with those.

3:01:48 I would like to add some more though

3:01:50 because I think that we need to be doing

3:01:52 multiple items at once and I'm I'm very

3:01:54 conscious of limited staff bandwidth,

3:01:57 but to the extent that community

3:01:58 volunteers

3:02:00 can do a lion's share of the work for

3:02:03 you and maybe bring things to the

3:02:05 10-yard line so that there's less for

3:02:08 staff to have to worry about. That might

3:02:10 be a potential path forward. So, there

3:02:12 were

3:02:13 two items that were raised in this

3:02:15 discussion earlier, Lower Boylston, and

3:02:18 I think you were talking about

3:02:19 Washington Square or Andrew Square.

3:02:21 And

3:02:22 given that we do have a lot of very

3:02:25 willing volunteers in town who are very

3:02:27 knowledgeable,

3:02:29 it's also not unprecedented for there to

3:02:31 be

3:02:33 zoning warrant articles that are drafted

3:02:35 by private petitioners. I'm not

3:02:37 suggesting that it be exclusively from

3:02:41 citizen volunteers. Obviously, some

3:02:43 staff input would be instrumental, but

3:02:47 to the extent that we can keep your

3:02:49 workload manageable, but at the same

3:02:51 time be working on multiple fronts.

3:02:53 Yeah.

3:02:54 I'm just where select board task forces

3:02:56 coming to play.

3:02:57 It could be. Yes.

3:02:59 Um

3:03:01 And what And

3:03:02 I think you started to allude to this,

3:03:04 but there you know, there are things

3:03:06 like 26 Pleasant Street, I'm just using

3:03:08 it as it's also going to take staff

3:03:10 time. Could we Could we go back to the

3:03:13 earlier chart that showed

3:03:17 the years across the top of the projects

3:03:19 on the side?

3:03:20 Yeah, that

3:03:22 that

3:03:23 that So,

3:03:25 So, I guess that that it looks like, for

3:03:28 example, you've got four significant

3:03:30 boxes that are pink this year.

3:03:33 All right?

3:03:35 For fiscal 2027.

3:03:36 For fiscal 20 For I'm sorry, for fiscal

3:03:38 2027. And you've got five set up for

3:03:40 fiscal 2028. And then And then it's

3:03:46 To be determined.

3:03:46 To be determined, right?

3:03:47 One zero.

3:03:48 Right.

3:03:49 [laughter]

3:03:49 Right. Not yet Not yet established,

3:03:52 right? And so, when we're talking about

3:03:54 pri- priorities,

3:03:56 are we talking about 2029 or are we

3:04:00 talking about like I can't tell what the

3:04:03 maximum number is that you had in any

3:04:05 one year.

3:04:06 Yeah, so

3:04:07 what I'm especially looking for is 127

3:04:10 cuz these are things that we've started

3:04:11 where the middle you know top most of

3:04:14 them were in the middle top eight.

3:04:15 The community on

3:04:17 what we talked about the select board in

3:04:18 the spring.

3:04:20 I think we should continue these as our

3:04:21 priorities but I'm also hearing things

3:04:24 of what you think about this 128

3:04:27 Right. Well, I think 26 Pleasant is

3:04:29 going to come back

3:04:30 Right, that's

3:04:32 that

3:04:33 It's going to take a lot of work but it

3:04:34 doesn't need this

3:04:37 level of effort that other things are

3:04:40 Oh, so it's so it's a lower level

3:04:43 There's not a mini public process

3:04:45 between now and the fall. So like

3:04:47 it is what it is.

3:04:51 So it has a staff effort.

3:04:52 Yeah, I mean there might be a few more

3:04:54 meetings there will be neighborhood

3:04:56 meetings discussion but it's not going

3:04:57 to be a open-ended let's think about

3:05:00 want to see in this property for two

3:05:01 years, right?

3:05:02 Yes.

3:05:03 That is that is

3:05:04 Fair okay. So that gives that gives me a

3:05:07 better better sense of scale of what I

3:05:09 think box.

3:05:10 Sorry, can I follow up on the Pleasant

3:05:12 question?

3:05:12 Yeah.

3:05:13 With that

3:05:14 um

3:05:15 Are

3:05:15 are we communicating with them at all

3:05:17 about desire for first floor commercial

3:05:19 to try to get it through the finish

3:05:20 line?

3:05:20 Yeah, they don't see it as a retail spot

3:05:22 at all. They're willing to do the

3:05:25 they want to do the office supports

3:05:28 space they are willing to

3:05:30 Um

3:05:31 Yeah, and they would need a variance

3:05:36 commercial.

3:05:36 Yeah.

3:05:37 Yeah. Or

3:05:39 Or or that would have to be included

3:05:41 here in the other nice to meet

3:05:42 Yeah, yeah.

3:05:46 So the only new thing up here is the

3:05:49 Webster

3:05:51 kind of 20 discussion of the town lot

3:05:53 and the property that's for sale.

3:05:55 Which is one that I think we should add

3:05:58 for

3:05:59 thinking about um large efforts that are

3:06:02 also development priorities

3:06:04 for fiscal 2027, but that would be

3:06:05 helpful to get your thoughts on.

3:06:07 So Right. So, what I hear you saying is

3:06:09 that if we wanted to look at something

3:06:11 like Washington Square or the

3:06:14 Boilston, those would be at the scale of

3:06:18 development priorities that you have

3:06:20 there. And and

3:06:23 if we wanted to do that, then

3:06:27 then we would have to start looking at

3:06:29 staff capacity and increasing staff

3:06:31 capacity in order to do those faster.

3:06:34 Yes, and I think it would be helpful in

3:06:38 that that much more time

3:06:40 to wait for the comprehensive plan to be

3:06:42 finished this fall, but you'll get some

3:06:44 recommendations to us.

3:06:46 Cool. And and it might be that that

3:06:48 those other

3:06:50 um

3:06:51 Let let let me ask the question this

3:06:52 way. Can we set aside basically a a

3:06:58 the staff, whatever the staff needs are

3:07:00 for one more pink box based on what the

3:07:03 comprehensive plan does that starts in

3:07:06 the second half of this fiscal year

3:07:07 2027, so that we don't lose

3:07:10 No, we No, we're down three and a half

3:07:12 people. We don't have the budget. No.

3:07:14 No.

3:07:15 Okay.

3:07:15 That's a good answer.

3:07:16 But that's helpful. So, wait, can you

3:07:18 explain your down people? Are we

3:07:21 We're not restoring We're restoring one

3:07:23 position and restoring another position

3:07:26 um

3:07:28 that we talked about earlier with the

3:07:29 housing planner. So, this year, fiscal

3:07:32 2027, we have plus one and that's coming

3:07:34 on to the town of us in fiscal 2020.

3:07:36 Right.

3:07:37 So, between those two.

3:07:38 But is is this a

3:07:40 capacity issue, right? Like if we are to

3:07:42 actually to address not having these

3:07:44 crazy differences between what we

3:07:47 what we and need just to maintain

3:07:49 services after this override cycle ends.

3:07:53 Like maybe it is a good worth

3:07:55 good use of time to like bring on some

3:07:57 fractional help.

3:07:59 Because yeah, you're at capacity and I

3:08:01 think there there sounds like there's

3:08:03 interest from the select board to add at

3:08:05 least one more box.

3:08:06 Um and clearly like

3:08:09 can't clone yourself.

3:08:11 Um or maybe not.

3:08:12 Right.

3:08:13 And so understanding what is within the

3:08:15 capacity and when like it's a longer

3:08:17 term conversation of whether we need to

3:08:19 be staffing

3:08:21 office more at large.

3:08:23 Um but also in the short term like

3:08:26 you're right, the comp plan is coming up

3:08:28 and it would be nice to be able to take

3:08:31 one of the stretches highlighted and

3:08:33 actually in the second half of 2027 at

3:08:35 half of that.

3:08:36 Um

3:08:37 So I I don't know if that is like

3:08:39 feasible for us to

3:08:42 hire either someone new or

3:08:45 fractional like a consultant to help

3:08:47 with

3:08:47 I think it takes budget first. And what

3:08:50 I'm hearing from Cara is that is they

3:08:53 don't have the budget.

3:08:54 Right. That's within planning, but there

3:08:55 might be some other areas in our budget.

3:08:58 So we have consulting

3:09:00 lines now.

3:09:02 [laughter]

3:09:02 [clears throat]

3:09:06 Yeah, I mean I think it's really, you

3:09:07 know, um

3:09:09 we we do this exercise every year. Like

3:09:11 where are the priorities and where do

3:09:12 the resources go? And so, you know, if

3:09:15 the board is

3:09:17 wanting to reprioritize, then we'd have

3:09:18 to come up with a recommendation on how

3:09:20 to provide the resources to the

3:09:21 department.

3:09:22 I want to ask a question about David's

3:09:25 point of can a community group get

3:09:28 something to the maybe not 10, to the

3:09:30 30-hour line. And that can make your job

3:09:33 easier in the second half of 2027.

3:09:34 Yeah. So I'm sorry.

3:09:36 No, go ahead.

3:09:37 Um

3:09:38 Yes, and I think

3:09:40 you know, policy

3:09:41 especially division does that very well.

3:09:43 Ours people and so does the town council

3:09:45 spends a lot of time

3:09:47 doing that. um, making sure that it's in

3:09:49 the right form, that it makes common

3:09:50 sense with zoning,

3:09:52 um, and our department views the Select

3:09:55 Board as a political partner, right?

3:09:57 Like, we don't handle or run out the

3:09:59 front end of the politics, and that's

3:10:01 what you are a partner in for us. So, if

3:10:03 you all Select Board say, "A, we want

3:10:06 Planning to support this and this."

3:10:09 Um, then that would be much easier for

3:10:11 us to prioritize than um,

3:10:14 a

3:10:15 single resident calling saying, "This is

3:10:17 my pet project this year."

3:10:19 And put everything else to the side. So,

3:10:21 I think the sooner those ideas bubble up

3:10:24 and you guys can talk about

3:10:27 in that category of like

3:10:29 supporting a petitioner on the code

3:10:30 where the public process is not on us as

3:10:33 our priority on what we want to do,

3:10:35 um, that's that's much

3:10:38 faster.

3:10:39 Right. And then also remember that the

3:10:40 first 6 months, at least, on any of

3:10:43 these projects is the community

3:10:45 engagement and going to the neighborhood

3:10:47 and getting that type of, uh, buy-in and

3:10:49 their vision and concerns and

3:10:52 positive attributes they're looking for

3:10:53 in a project, and I don't see why that

3:10:56 needs to necessarily be staff-led, those

3:10:58 portions. So, I I think we can take on

3:11:02 more with the understanding that

3:11:04 Planning is not going to be able to

3:11:06 oversee absolutely everything.

3:11:09 Right.

3:11:09 And we get it. We get as much done for

3:11:12 you as we can.

3:11:13 Yeah. And I will be your technical

3:11:15 advisors, making sure that it fits what

3:11:17 the residents want.

3:11:18 Yeah. Yeah.

3:11:19 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

3:11:20 So, if we want to do that, then what we

3:11:24 need is is some sort of communication

3:11:27 plan on to let people know that that is

3:11:31 something that the Select Board is

3:11:33 interested in engaging.

3:11:35 Right?

3:11:36 As as as one of the next steps, as well

3:11:38 as sort of establishing sort of what the

3:11:40 process is. Right now, it's been sort of

3:11:43 ad hoc. Yeah. We've we've all been

3:11:46 talking in various ways to varying

3:11:48 degrees.

3:11:52 But but if that's if that's the way that

3:11:55 we can expand the capacity

3:11:58 for fiscal year 27 and then have this

3:12:00 discussion again for fiscal year 28,

3:12:04 then

3:12:05 we should understand that and we'll move

3:12:07 forward on the basics.

3:12:08 Right.

3:12:10 I agree.

3:12:11 Okay.

3:12:12 All right. Now, we are running a bit

3:12:14 behind. But does anyone else have any

3:12:17 points they want to raise before we move

3:12:18 on?

3:12:20 The only thing I would say is if there's

3:12:22 any way to speed up the fast ferry work.

3:12:25 If it's probably unrealistic to get

3:12:28 something by November, but definitely by

3:12:31 May, like either like we need to come to

3:12:34 a conclusion or not so we can free up

3:12:35 staff time for some of these other work.

3:12:38 It it would certainly be helpful in this

3:12:40 presentation if you could

3:12:45 identify the not just what you're

3:12:47 working on, but like when will this come

3:12:50 to

3:12:51 I think of of like a timing warrant

3:12:53 article as the as the

3:12:56 um

3:12:57 point of closure.

3:12:58 Yeah.

3:12:59 Right. I'll make but to to understand

3:13:02 that for these various projects. So, is

3:13:05 King Street something for May, for

3:13:09 November of 2027? Like just

3:13:11 understanding what those pieces are so

3:13:12 that we understand how those things fit.

3:13:14 I mean, you were expecting those things

3:13:16 to stack.

3:13:17 Anything would be

3:13:18 helpful.

3:13:18 to do that, especially for the you know,

3:13:20 earlier than sometimes [snorts] they

3:13:22 extend the S

3:13:23 as we know it as the capital improvement

3:13:26 or as he done discuss Center Street, you

3:13:28 know.

3:13:30 The community responds and the timely

3:13:32 changes. We don't have full control over

3:13:33 that.

3:13:34 Right. But but sometimes the

3:13:38 the um

3:13:40 the timeline expands because of

3:13:42 community feedback. That's a political

3:13:45 um choice, right? And that's why the

3:13:48 select board is

3:13:50 political agents have the opportunity to

3:13:53 influence that factor.

3:13:55 And maybe the select board sometimes

3:13:57 should weigh in more and be like,

3:13:58 "Actually, let's not extend the

3:13:59 timeline.

3:14:01 Um like let's set a deadline and adopt a

3:14:04 decision comes to a vote."

3:14:06 Right.

3:14:06 Yeah, I think that's one thing that I

3:14:08 think

3:14:09 I I I I think the select board policy

3:14:12 could change the most on is setting hard

3:14:14 deadlines for a lot of these things. I

3:14:16 feel like that's super

3:14:17 Or or at least weighing as Amanda says,

3:14:19 weighing in more strongly

3:14:21 Sure.

3:14:21 on maintaining them. But knowing

3:14:23 if you're saying uh no earlier than X

3:14:27 and the select board is

3:14:29 through its discussions and policies

3:14:31 saying no later than X, then we can get

3:14:34 the politics and the technical work to

3:14:37 coalesce.

3:14:41 I think there's a

3:14:42 one of the most important things

3:14:45 and as as with many things, it's very

3:14:48 easy in the abstract.

3:14:51 Oh, yes.

3:14:52 [laughter]

3:14:52 And it's very hard when you are up there

3:14:55 and you have 10 people who show up in

3:14:57 public comment and say, "You didn't do

3:14:59 enough public process."

3:15:00 I feel like I've

3:15:02 never had that experience. I have

3:15:04 no idea what you're talking

3:15:06 Yeah, there are a few of them.

3:15:07 And you didn't know, you didn't know you

3:15:09 know how

3:15:10 how staff was.

3:15:12 Um

3:15:13 You know, it was touch and go there for

3:15:14 a while.

3:15:14 Um

3:15:16 Yeah, a little while.

3:15:18 [laughter]

3:15:19 And

3:15:20 Lots of touch.

3:15:21 Yes.

3:15:21 As long as it goes well.

3:15:22 Right. And that's And that is true, too.

3:15:24 It was a It was a

3:15:26 a high contact environment. It required

3:15:28 a lot of, you know, a lot of one-on-one

3:15:31 time with real people to get where we

3:15:34 need to go.

3:15:36 And some people will say that makes the

3:15:38 process better and that's good we should

3:15:40 do more of that and I think it is great

3:15:42 to have that level of engagement, but at

3:15:44 a certain point the board has to say no.

3:15:46 Right. At a certain point the board has

3:15:48 to say

3:15:49 we have done we have we are satisfied

3:15:51 with the process that we have followed

3:15:53 and we are sorry if you were not.

3:15:55 That's going to be the single biggest

3:15:56 change because I think that's

3:15:59 that is what we have encountered in the

3:16:01 past is that we have and what we

3:16:03 struggled with is we developed we

3:16:05 reiterated and retooled our public

3:16:06 process. The fact of the reality of the

3:16:08 situation is

3:16:10 there will

3:16:11 one, there will never be enough process

3:16:12 to satisfy everybody.

3:16:14 That's okay and there are people who

3:16:15 will make good faith arguments that the

3:16:17 process was not appropriate for the

3:16:18 thing in question. And then there are

3:16:20 people who just use process as a cudgel

3:16:23 and you just have to do

3:16:25 so. Just I want I wanted to name that as

3:16:28 I do think it is very important

3:16:30 to identify that in the abstract we can

3:16:33 say this, but when the rubber meets the

3:16:35 road, you know, the board the board

3:16:37 serving is that that political

3:16:40 arm of the process. We have to say no

3:16:43 from a political perspective. We have

3:16:44 done what we are going to do. It's

3:16:46 really important.

3:16:49 All right. So, we are

3:16:52 15 minutes behind. Well, actually more

3:16:54 than that actually have another item,

3:16:56 town school partnership, but this was

3:16:58 Just lunch.

3:16:59 Right. No, no, I agree.

3:17:01 No, we'll have we'll have lunch and then

3:17:02 when we come back we'll address town

3:17:03 school partnership.

3:17:05 I don't think town school partnership is

3:17:07 going to be a 30-minute item. It's a

3:17:09 two-page draft to go over and we already

3:17:11 discussed town school partnership

3:17:12 earlier in some other context, but why

3:17:15 don't we go have lunch now?

3:17:16 You all can be back at 1:15 if that's

3:17:18 okay and that's fine.

3:17:19 Yeah, fine.

3:17:20 Yeah, should be fine.

3:17:22 Okay.

3:17:25 All right, we are now back with our

3:17:27 meeting from a lunch break. And we will

3:17:31 take up item number seven, town school

3:17:33 partnership. Question of reviewing and

3:17:36 approving an MOU between the public

3:17:37 schools of Brookline and the town of

3:17:40 Brookline.

3:17:41 Yes, we um

3:17:43 this is a uh draft document. Uh this I

3:17:46 was at the school committee signed off

3:17:47 on this document.

3:17:48 [clears throat]

3:17:49 Um

3:17:49 it's designed to uh begin uh and

3:17:52 continue the process of implementing um

3:17:55 the expenditures revenue study committee

3:17:56 recommendations. Um we are and and you

3:18:00 know, I think it's good for us to talk

3:18:02 about this

3:18:04 um

3:18:05 but also more generally, you know, the

3:18:07 town school partnership has a has a um

3:18:10 operating body because it has been

3:18:12 relatively dormant with INRC operating.

3:18:16 Um

3:18:17 The goal here is to fulfill the

3:18:19 recommendations of the INRC with regard

3:18:21 particularly to

3:18:23 um efficiencies, shared services,

3:18:25 finances, and all things that we need to

3:18:29 work on um

3:18:31 as a community with large as opposed to

3:18:33 just the town and the schools. So, um

3:18:37 if there are any proposed changes, um

3:18:40 comments, thoughts, anything to review,

3:18:41 and then uh if you're if you want to

3:18:45 move it or um have it come back

3:18:48 um in 2 weeks, uh we can do that. And

3:18:51 then I think maybe it would be helpful

3:18:52 to discuss our school partnership more

3:18:54 broadly.

3:18:55 So, with this specific document, I don't

3:18:57 know if there are questions or comments.

3:18:59 This [clears throat] um were there any

3:19:02 recommendations from the E

3:19:05 expenditures and revenues that were not

3:19:07 incorporated in this document?

3:19:09 No.

3:19:11 [clears throat]

3:19:11 All right, then with any further

3:19:13 discussion?

3:19:14 Just one quick

3:19:15 point. Everything that also says town of

3:19:17 Brookline,

3:19:18 um if that's not that

3:19:20 that's will be done at the town school

3:19:23 partnership.

3:19:25 Yes, in general the the town school

3:19:26 partnership is going to be in the space

3:19:28 where we except for example the

3:19:30 municipal working group.

3:19:32 You know, the stuff that's in the if

3:19:34 it's if it's at the staff level.

3:19:36 But the

3:19:37 the body at which the the body for which

3:19:40 that would would be monitoring the

3:19:41 accountability for this is the town

3:19:43 school partnership.

3:19:47 Two things though that I'm going to

3:19:49 bring up. One is the one is school

3:19:51 model.

3:19:52 Um

3:19:54 that is not going to be easy. Yeah, as

3:19:56 I'm saying you have

3:19:58 this not done with uh

3:20:01 density

3:20:03 extensive

3:20:04 uh you know, the effort and it could

3:20:06 really blow up in our faces.

3:20:08 I assume that that would be

3:20:11 uh considered by the committee. And the

3:20:13 other thing is that

3:20:15 I get the sense that people think that

3:20:17 bargaining with respect to the

3:20:20 uh health care split is going to be

3:20:22 easy.

3:20:23 [laughter]

3:20:23 Excuse me. And and

3:20:26 I know you know

3:20:28 I'm not saying it's easy here, but

3:20:30 um I just hope that we're very careful

3:20:33 with that too.

3:20:34 Yes.

3:20:35 I can't imagine why unions would would

3:20:37 go for that without a really really

3:20:40 exciting really really high price.

3:20:42 And Bella and I have conversations about

3:20:44 that and

3:20:46 we have internally had our conversations

3:20:48 with our uh

3:20:50 health care consultant um about

3:20:53 what it's going to take, you know, how

3:20:55 have other communities done this? How do

3:20:57 we What what is the most enticing offer

3:20:59 that we can make that still is

3:21:01 financially makes financial sense? How

3:21:03 are we going to get down where we need

3:21:05 to get in terms of the shift.

3:21:08 So, we are putting together a formal

3:21:11 proposal

3:21:12 that I'm going to put to the board in

3:21:14 executive session shortly

3:21:16 because I think it's

3:21:18 [snorts]

3:21:18 we're going to have We're going to have

3:21:19 to move on this.

3:21:20 [clears throat]

3:21:21 And it's got to be sooner rather than

3:21:22 later.

3:21:25 That does beg one question I have which

3:21:28 they they don't needs to be hashed out

3:21:30 at the moment, but number eight here is

3:21:33 getting at

3:21:34 what the purpose of

3:21:37 deep is and I don't know if we as a town

3:21:40 have

3:21:42 debated a policy of

3:21:45 covering. Right? Like if

3:21:47 if the it is a PSB policy or if it is a

3:21:50 town policy that students

3:21:53 that preschoolers get free education.

3:21:57 Because I think a lot of the discussions

3:21:59 that I saw from the outside were around

3:22:01 like needing it

3:22:03 financially solvent, but

3:22:07 if it is an external mandate then this

3:22:10 isn't a goal of the town, then that

3:22:12 costs something. And so I just I don't

3:22:14 know if that is part of the discussion

3:22:16 as to who made that decision and is that

3:22:18 something that like the town or the

3:22:20 school owns because preschool is like

3:22:23 not [clears throat] equally covered.

3:22:26 And that's

3:22:27 Right now, my understanding is that's

3:22:28 something that the schools are

3:22:29 completely in charge of. To the extent

3:22:31 that we wanted to express

3:22:34 uh universal preschool as a town value.

3:22:37 Um

3:22:38 realistically, I don't think we would

3:22:39 have the funding for that, but

3:22:41 we can always set goals on the town side

3:22:44 that are aspirational. And there are

3:22:46 discussions at the federal level even

3:22:48 and at the state level of having

3:22:50 universal preschool and I would like to

3:22:53 think that if the state government or

3:22:56 the federal government moved in that

3:22:57 direction that there would be

3:22:59 corresponding funds for it rather than

3:23:01 creating an unfunded mandate. Uh but

3:23:03 right now, preschool is only mandatory

3:23:07 uh for those who are in special

3:23:08 education or at least 2.9 years old.

3:23:11 But it's mandatory by the

3:23:14 Uh by the federal government.

3:23:15 government.

3:23:16 Okay. So that [clears throat] is the

3:23:18 Sorry, I'm I'm

3:23:18 That's the one the one preschool mandate

3:23:20 is special education and you're 2 years

3:23:23 9 months old, then the federal

3:23:25 government says you have preschool

3:23:26 covered.

3:23:28 But that's that's the one.

3:23:29 And do they fund that mandate or not?

3:23:32 Not fully.

3:23:33 Not fully, no.

3:23:34 Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's not been fully

3:23:35 funded. So like B

3:23:37 is intended through its structure to be

3:23:41 self-funded.

3:23:42 Um you know, it has a revolving fund

3:23:44 that's designed to do that work, but it

3:23:46 is not. Um and but yeah, the the

3:23:50 you know, the school superintendent

3:23:51 raised this point during the NRC

3:23:53 conversations a lot of the time, right?

3:23:55 B really does serve two purposes and one

3:23:57 of those is a mandate.

3:23:59 We are required to provide services

3:24:02 special education services to students

3:24:04 who need them once they are 2 years and

3:24:06 9 months old.

3:24:07 Um and so B is the way we do that.

3:24:11 Um

3:24:11 and as a

3:24:12 you know, a benefit an added benefit we

3:24:14 are even able to construct a preschool

3:24:16 program that is popular and you know,

3:24:20 serves the family's needs, but

3:24:23 um

3:24:23 But that piece is mandated and we're

3:24:25 essentially saying that the students

3:24:28 that are paying

3:24:29 for preschool are covering the federal

3:24:32 mandate.

3:24:32 That is correct.

3:24:33 And when we have this discussion about

3:24:36 reviewing B financials, we're saying we

3:24:39 want to make sure that those who are

3:24:41 paying market rate preschool are

3:24:43 covering a federal mandate.

3:24:46 Uh and I think like that's a

3:24:47 Subsidizing

3:24:48 or or subsidizing a federal mandate that

3:24:50 is a mandate on us or PSB, right? But I

3:24:54 think it is

3:24:55 [clears throat]

3:24:57 it gets problematic

3:25:00 if we are saying like you need to get

3:25:02 your books in order when it is

3:25:04 essentially a a federal mandate. I don't

3:25:06 know what the what the federal mandate

3:25:08 would

3:25:08 be.

3:25:09 The unfortunate reality is that's how

3:25:11 special education is addressed more

3:25:12 broadly. Never mind just for BEEP and

3:25:15 preschool, but special education up

3:25:16 until children are 22

3:25:19 uh is essentially uh it's a federal

3:25:22 mandate that's not fully funded and it

3:25:25 not even majority funded, not even

3:25:26 close. And so this is something that I

3:25:28 think uh this comes up in the in

3:25:30 override years in particular that the

3:25:33 schools have this unfunded mandate that

3:25:36 gets paid by town taxpayers because the

3:25:38 state government is not coming remotely

3:25:40 close to funding it nor the federal

3:25:42 government.

3:25:43 I think what my understanding is that

3:25:46 uh

3:25:46 [clears throat]

3:25:46 parents paying at market rates there are

3:25:49 also subs that providing a subsidy for

3:25:51 for special ed. And and uh so

3:25:55 Right, but they're

3:25:56 in that their uh BEEP's books

3:25:59 you guys should take that into

3:26:00 consideration um

3:26:03 in terms of trying to

3:26:05 deciding whether they are

3:26:07 I think the issue was being you know

3:26:09 full cost of program.

3:26:11 Yes.

3:26:12 Them being like financially

3:26:14 self-sustaining is is that really the

3:26:16 model that I would see because they are

3:26:20 covering

3:26:21 they're subsidizing a unfunded mandate

3:26:24 essentially like

3:26:25 um and I guess like the only thing I

3:26:27 would say is if there is

3:26:30 uh a role for the town of Brookline in

3:26:33 addition to PSB to advocate at the state

3:26:35 level for funding, it is something that

3:26:37 we should do.

3:26:39 Uh so something that the school

3:26:41 committee does each year and that I

3:26:43 would actually like select board to do

3:26:44 as well and I talked to Chaz about this

3:26:46 is having uh sort of an annual

3:26:48 get-together with our legislative

3:26:51 delegation. So our four state reps, our

3:26:53 state senator,

3:26:55 uh traditionally uh representative

3:26:57 Congressman Auchincloss comes as well.

3:26:59 And it's a great opportunity for us to

3:27:01 express these desires and these concerns

3:27:04 to those who are in a position to try to

3:27:06 effectually change in terms of getting

3:27:09 more fundings and municipalities to fill

3:27:11 these gaps.

3:27:16 Do we know in the case of BEEP

3:27:20 how much that subsidy is?

3:27:22 Or

3:27:23 We do, but I don't know off the top of

3:27:24 my head.

3:27:25 I mean, I'm just I'm just

3:27:28 [clears throat]

3:27:29 wondering whether it is worth having the

3:27:31 conversation of whether

3:27:34 whether the appropriate model for

3:27:37 funding that gap is on the

3:27:45 through the wallets of preschool

3:27:47 parents.

3:27:48 Yeah.

3:27:48 Right? I think that's that's the equity

3:27:51 question.

3:27:53 I I explicitly looked into BEEP for my

3:27:56 kids and the numbers didn't crunch

3:27:59 because of what it would cost to do

3:28:01 extended day on top of preschool.

3:28:04 And so already when I was looking

3:28:07 3 years ago or so, like

3:28:10 uh it was not cost competitive and the

3:28:11 more we drive up the the fees for BEEP,

3:28:15 the fewer

3:28:16 parents will actually cover it

3:28:19 even if the program is amazing. Uh

3:28:22 and so I am I am one that thinks it is

3:28:26 problematic that we currently ask the

3:28:29 [clears throat]

3:28:29 daycare parents to subsidize this

3:28:31 mandate.

3:28:34 I mean, it's this sounds like a

3:28:35 conversation that should come to the

3:28:37 town school partnership and then

3:28:40 um the

3:28:42 and at least considered within the

3:28:46 budget conversation. Just just

3:28:48 [laughter] so we know, you know.

3:28:50 Yeah.

3:28:51 Yeah, absolutely.

3:28:52 I like that.

3:28:54 All All any further discussion? Are we

3:28:57 ready to approve the MOU?

3:29:02 All right, so I move approval of the MOU

3:29:05 between the public schools of Brookline

3:29:06 and the town of Brookline. Bernard?

3:29:08 Yes.

3:29:09 Michael?

3:29:09 Yes.

3:29:10 Amanda?

3:29:10 Yes.

3:29:11 Anthony? [clears throat]

3:29:11 Yes.

3:29:12 And I also vote.

3:29:13 Yes.

3:29:14 And with that, we will now move to

3:29:15 appointments of liaisons to boards and

3:29:18 committees.

3:29:20 I believe everybody has received a copy

3:29:24 of the proposed assignments.

3:29:31 Is everyone satisfied or does anyone

3:29:33 want to

3:29:35 modify

3:29:36 a question about the licensing board.

3:29:38 Yes.

3:29:39 I just said meets.

3:29:40 It meets Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. And

3:29:43 you can be there.

3:29:44 And

3:29:45 how often is that?

3:29:47 Um once a month.

3:29:48 So if you're going to

3:29:49 Is there any flexibility in moving that

3:29:52 around?

3:29:55 Yeah, we you we we we can talk. Yeah.

3:29:57 How would you do that?

3:29:58 Cuz that would simplify it. But yeah,

3:30:00 that's how it works. That's how it

3:30:01 works.

3:30:03 Let's Yeah, we'll talk offline, but I

3:30:04 think we need to do that.

3:30:05 Is there a way for you to

3:30:07 just get me the meeting times of all of

3:30:09 these?

3:30:09 Sure, absolutely.

3:30:10 Yeah.

3:30:11 I'll be able to

3:30:12 You know, as liaisons, right? There's

3:30:14 different boards with different

3:30:15 expectations of you. Um

3:30:17 you know, if you would ask for the

3:30:18 Council on Aging,

3:30:20 you know,

3:30:21 they're there's generally an expectation

3:30:23 that the board wants you wants you to be

3:30:24 there. Other boards will tell you, you

3:30:26 know, for example, oh, you know,

3:30:29 do you you know, you you may want to

3:30:31 come on a certain day not another. So,

3:30:33 there's a variety of expectations there.

3:30:36 Got you.

3:30:37 And so, the Surveillance Committee, um

3:30:40 that I'm going to be chair of, um

3:30:42 that one is going to be combined with

3:30:44 the information one that we discussed?

3:30:45 Yes.

3:30:46 Okay.

3:30:47 And then

3:30:47 Yeah.

3:30:48 So, it right now doesn't really exist.

3:30:50 So, I think your, you know, kind of

3:30:52 first order of business is to come up

3:30:54 with a charge.

3:30:56 Yeah, and I can get and I can get

3:30:58 example charges.

3:30:59 Yes, absolutely. We'll get you the

3:31:00 charges for fire committee, we'll get

3:31:01 you the charges for ITAC, which is the

3:31:03 IT committee.

3:31:05 Pardon?

3:31:05 If you have any ideas, let me know.

3:31:07 Sure.

3:31:07 Um and we can we can we can we can

3:31:09 discuss. Yeah, first thing you should do

3:31:10 is get a hold of the members of the

3:31:12 committee. Make sure that uh

3:31:14 you know, you can wrap you can lasso

3:31:16 them back into

3:31:17 uh work.

3:31:18 Okay.

3:31:20 I think the goal I think the thought

3:31:21 here is that we would

3:31:22 close the old committees and I'm

3:31:24 basically saying have a new committee.

3:31:26 Um I'll be we'll be we'll start off with

3:31:28 people who are on the with the old sort

3:31:31 of health committee because

3:31:33 um they have a lot of institutional

3:31:35 knowledge of what was going on before.

3:31:37 And I think, you know, in discussions

3:31:39 that we had, they're everyone was on

3:31:41 board

3:31:42 with the idea of creating something new

3:31:45 once uh that committee sort of ended.

3:31:48 Got it.

3:31:49 Mhm.

3:31:51 All right, any other questions about

3:31:52 liaison assignments?

3:31:54 So we're cutting the Vision Zero

3:31:56 committee, so that's not in this in this

3:31:58 assignment.

3:32:08 And Anthony, you know the CDBG advisory

3:32:10 committee is just either once or twice

3:32:12 in

3:32:13 February or March.

3:32:15 Okay.

3:32:16 As long as CDBG money exists.

3:32:19 [laughter]

3:32:26 Okay. No, I don't have any questions.

3:32:27 I'm good.

3:32:27 Okay.

3:32:29 All right, so with that we can

3:32:32 [clears throat]

3:32:32 move to our next This is not something

3:32:33 we need to vote

3:32:34 need to vote.

3:32:34 All right. So the next item, 2026 annual

3:32:38 town meeting follow-up.

3:32:39 Wait, wait, sorry. Before I before I go

3:32:41 Sure.

3:32:42 We were going to roll something into the

3:32:44 IT committee, which I know is

3:32:48 That was

3:32:48 That was surveillance, right?

3:32:49 The system. I I surveillance and I tech

3:32:51 were going to get consolidated into one

3:32:53 group.

3:32:54 I see.

3:32:56 And Anthony's [clears throat] going to

3:32:58 be the liaison for that combined group.

3:33:00 Right.

3:33:01 Yeah, Anthony, I have some background on

3:33:03 the items and the I tech, so we can

3:33:04 talk. I'll talk.

3:33:06 Good.

3:33:07 Okay. So, now 2026 annual town meeting

3:33:10 follow-up items.

3:33:13 We'll see. We're not sure about that.

3:33:15 So, this is a memo I put together after

3:33:16 town meeting that basically outlines

3:33:19 anything that specifically calls on the

3:33:21 select board for additional action.

3:33:24 Usually, what we would do is, you know,

3:33:26 we would put most of these items on the

3:33:28 futures list and it would be something

3:33:30 that would be scheduled if if it's

3:33:31 required at an additional select board

3:33:33 meeting. So, obviously, article one

3:33:36 would embark you'll be doing it your

3:33:39 June June 30th meeting.

3:33:42 We talked a little bit about the

3:33:43 conditions of appropriation around

3:33:44 roadway. Um if you wanted to

3:33:48 you know, engage with the commissioner

3:33:50 kind of on her action plan, that's

3:33:51 something that we can get more

3:33:52 information. Obviously, she's

3:33:55 out of the country right now, but I'm

3:33:56 sure we can get an update on what the

3:33:58 plan is to meet that condition of

3:33:59 appropriation.

3:34:01 Um and then we have article 17,

3:34:05 which doesn't specifically

3:34:08 you know, mandate

3:34:09 the board do something, but I did you

3:34:11 know, kind of read into that there

3:34:13 should be some kind of guidance provided

3:34:14 to departments on you know, what is

3:34:17 prohibited and what the reporting

3:34:19 requirements are.

3:34:21 So, that should probably come from our

3:34:22 office.

3:34:24 And then we have the non-binding

3:34:25 resolutions, which the board can choose

3:34:28 how they would like to treat these

3:34:29 things.

3:34:31 We have the 9/11 memorial, which is

3:34:33 attached as part of this packet and the

3:34:36 charges in there for what they're

3:34:39 requesting a committee be established.

3:34:42 Uh

3:34:42 So, that's also in your packet.

3:34:45 Um the Prop 2 1/2 resolution is just

3:34:47 encouraging us to work with the MAPC to

3:34:50 create that regional index. Um

3:34:52 obviously, you know, Chaz is on the

3:34:54 Metro Mayors Group. I'm on the executive

3:34:56 board of the Massachusetts Association.

3:34:58 So, these kind of relationships already

3:34:59 do exist. Um then we have Article 23,

3:35:04 which uh

3:35:05 obviously we've talked a lot about the

3:35:07 stipends for select board members. Uh

3:35:09 they'll like maybe a moderator's

3:35:11 committee that gets formed and then, you

3:35:12 know, the board would need to consider

3:35:13 those recommendations coming out of that

3:35:15 committee. Uh and then Article 25 um

3:35:19 looks ask the board to uh direct the the

3:35:22 PCAC to examine the town's relationship

3:35:25 with the brick. That that's also

3:35:26 attached to this packet for the full

3:35:29 um

3:35:30 resolution language. And then um the

3:35:33 special town meeting two, Article two

3:35:36 special town meeting one, Article two,

3:35:38 um

3:35:39 the MOA and tax certainty agreement. I

3:35:41 think the MOA's already been taken care

3:35:42 of, but the tax certainty they'd be

3:35:44 coming later on in the process. So.

3:35:46 So, who is Excuse me. [clears throat]

3:35:49 Um who is the liaison to the PCAC?

3:35:53 For the select board?

3:35:54 And you have historically not appointed

3:35:56 a liaison.

3:35:56 Oh, we have.

3:35:57 And so, I think one of our questions

3:35:59 here was do you want to appoint a

3:36:01 liaison?

3:36:01 Right. For people like you should be a

3:36:03 liaison to I think.

3:36:05 [laughter]

3:36:08 They just like me. They created it, but

3:36:11 [laughter]

3:36:12 I think one one of the Yeah, one of the

3:36:14 one of the things about PCAC, right, is

3:36:16 that

3:36:17 I mean, sometimes committees will ask,

3:36:19 you know, for example, ACPH did not

3:36:21 historically have uh the the Advisory

3:36:23 Committee on Public Health did they

3:36:24 historically have a select board

3:36:25 liaison? But they asked for one cuz they

3:36:27 wanted to

3:36:28 be up to date. And they also wanted to

3:36:30 make sure that they were on getting out

3:36:32 ahead of the select board on concepts

3:36:34 and ideas that they were working on. Um

3:36:36 PCAC has not asked that historically.

3:36:40 They've kind of They They operate They

3:36:42 take their mandate seriously to advise

3:36:45 you all on, you know, matters of, you

3:36:49 know, police operation and so forth from

3:36:50 a civilian perspective. Um

3:36:53 And so, they have not historically asked

3:36:56 for you to be a part of that

3:36:57 conversation. They feel like it's more

3:37:00 formal for them to do the work and then

3:37:02 come to you with a recommendation. Um

3:37:04 but we haven't had that conversation in

3:37:05 a long time. Um

3:37:06 so, I don't know if it is

3:37:10 worth asking the chair or PCAC whether

3:37:13 they think it would be helpful to call

3:37:15 the co-chairs currently.

3:37:18 Whether the co-chairs think it would be

3:37:19 helpful

3:37:20 for us to look for the liaison. Um but

3:37:22 yeah, it's absolutely a conversation you

3:37:24 could have if you wanted.

3:37:25 We can reach out. It's up to you.

3:37:28 Uh I think we at least need to have uh

3:37:31 someone from selectboard discuss with

3:37:33 them the uh task that we gave

3:37:35 Um

3:37:36 But you could also just show up to their

3:37:38 next meeting. Have Get on there and then

3:37:40 and tell them, right? Like

3:37:43 Well,

3:37:44 call them up and say we'd like to be on

3:37:46 the agenda.

3:37:47 No, no, yes, but I'm saying you don't

3:37:49 necessarily need a standing.

3:37:51 Oh, yeah,

3:37:52 yeah, that's yes, and that, but

3:37:54 All right.

3:37:55 So, is this the [clears throat] kind of

3:37:56 thing that perhaps we should do with a

3:37:59 formal letter?

3:38:03 Should somebody like draft a letter to

3:38:05 the chair of the PCAC and

3:38:08 sort of so that we are all sort of on

3:38:11 the same page as to what that message

3:38:13 should be?

3:38:16 I mean, can we just take the text of the

3:38:18 resolution of this is the church?

3:38:20 Yeah, I don't know what else What else

3:38:22 would be added?

3:38:23 It's It's none of the whereas clauses

3:38:25 and just those that ask [clears throat]

3:38:27 at the end.

3:38:28 Yeah. Right, I think just I like that

3:38:30 idea, just alerting them. This is what

3:38:33 town meeting has asked.

3:38:35 And we would like you to take it up.

3:38:37 Yeah.

3:38:38 Yeah, they're already working. I talked

3:38:40 to guy on the league a couple of days

3:38:42 ago.

3:38:44 They're ready to go.

3:38:45 I was I was thinking about it like in

3:38:48 the same way that I drafted a letter for

3:38:51 the MOA to send to the planning board to

3:38:53 do this. It's it it

3:38:55 it communicates to all of the

3:38:57 stakeholders and in this case back to

3:38:59 town meeting as well that we took you

3:39:04 uh

3:39:04 [laughter]

3:39:04 we took this resolution seriously and we

3:39:07 acted upon it as as town meeting

3:39:09 directed.

3:39:13 So from a

3:39:15 from a relationship with town meeting

3:39:17 that that

3:39:18 that formality might be helpful.

3:39:20 Would that letter then go to town

3:39:21 meeting? Otherwise, how's town meeting

3:39:23 aware of it?

3:39:26 So

3:39:27 the annual report does require that you

3:39:28 report actions on resolutions so that

3:39:31 would be an update for being your

3:39:33 report.

3:39:34 Yeah.

3:39:37 All right. In terms of other

3:39:40 action items

3:39:42 What are the other items?

3:39:43 I mean

3:39:44 I I do not want to be liaison.

3:39:46 Mhm.

3:39:46 Uh I am willing with Anthony I will

3:39:48 speak to talk to them about

3:39:51 gearing up uh the work that they're

3:39:52 going to do.

3:39:53 Well, we don't even know if they want to

3:39:54 liaison. So I think the first step is to

3:39:56 have a conversation.

3:39:57 yeah.

3:39:58 Find out if they want one. If they do,

3:40:00 it sounds like you wouldn't want that

3:40:02 but Anthony was sort of the other

3:40:03 Yeah, I could I could take it, Bernard.

3:40:05 Okay. I can do that if you want.

3:40:07 Is this a liaison for the committee

3:40:09 generally or a liaison specifically for

3:40:11 this task?

3:40:12 This isn't this isn't a liaison at all.

3:40:13 It would be me going to a committee

3:40:15 meeting and then making sure that the

3:40:17 committee chair is aware of the charge

3:40:19 in a formal meeting and walking through

3:40:20 what we expect.

3:40:23 Right. And I think it would make more

3:40:24 sense to do that

3:40:25 I can write it down.

3:40:26 through a letter and then have all of us

3:40:29 sign it

3:40:30 and give it to them.

3:40:30 Okay. I'll work on that for our next

3:40:32 meeting.

3:40:32 Okay.

3:40:33 Yeah, let's talk about it.

3:40:34 Yeah.

3:40:35 And then the one thing I will flag is I

3:40:37 think that committee [clears throat] is

3:40:38 currently short people and so it would

3:40:41 be good now that we're about to give

3:40:43 them more tasks

3:40:45 um to to emphasize that we should kind

3:40:47 of fully staff that committee.

3:40:49 I'm aware of at least one vacancy.

3:40:51 There's more than one?

3:40:53 Just be one. I'm not sure.

3:40:54 Okay.

3:40:55 But who left?

3:40:57 I'm not sure but I I know Christine Noth

3:40:59 is on it and she was telling me that

3:41:00 there's a vacancy but I'm not sure who

3:41:01 left.

3:41:06 Okay, so we'll write the letter. I'll

3:41:07 have that for next meeting. I'll work

3:41:08 with you on it and then we'll you can

3:41:09 all sign it. Um and then I'll go to the

3:41:11 next PCAC meeting and

3:41:13 make sure they're working on

3:41:14 Yeah.

3:41:15 That sounds like a good plan.

3:41:16 Um and then for 17, just as we're on the

3:41:18 topic of immigration, yes. Um I'm

3:41:20 already working with stakeholders to try

3:41:22 to see what general orders could be done

3:41:25 and stuff. So I'll be in contact with

3:41:26 other members of the town staff where I

3:41:28 have questions and then once ready, I

3:41:31 can bring them to the an agenda and like

3:41:33 maybe we can put one on the agenda um

3:41:35 after I notify you if I have something

3:41:37 that I think we should talk about.

3:41:39 Okay. That sounds good.

3:41:40 That sounds good.

3:41:41 Yeah.

3:41:41 [laughter]

3:41:41 Okay.

3:41:42 Uh for the condition of appropriation, I

3:41:45 would like to be follow up with um the

3:41:48 freshman or whoever she's back in town

3:41:50 and/or someone on the key board to say

3:41:53 how are we actually addressing this

3:41:55 condition?

3:41:55 Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

3:41:57 Yeah.

3:41:58 Yeah, I may also discuss that with you

3:42:00 today.

3:42:02 Aaron is out for the next 2 weeks as

3:42:03 well, so

3:42:06 I was planning on sort of

3:42:08 also talking to her about that.

3:42:10 Yeah.

3:42:11 As long as we don't coordinate, we can

3:42:13 let's see

3:42:14 each do that.

3:42:15 I mean, the alternative is to ask when

3:42:18 she gets back in town for her to take

3:42:20 the slide or

3:42:21 Yeah.

3:42:24 Yeah. to put too many things on the

3:42:26 commissioner's plate, but

3:42:28 um

3:42:30 just with a a plan of how we're going to

3:42:32 deal with this.

3:42:34 Um maybe we should wait

3:42:37 until

3:42:39 the priority the prioritization plan

3:42:41 comes and have her address this issue in

3:42:43 the context of that.

3:42:44 Cuz this just really actually leads into

3:42:46 that conversation about the 2030 road

3:42:48 map. Um yeah. What do you think about

3:42:50 that?

3:42:51 That is a year one priority in the road

3:42:54 map. Um thinking about how to

3:42:57 you know,

3:42:57 [clears throat]

3:42:58 increase

3:42:59 do more for roadways, but also get that

3:43:02 prioritization in place. So, I think

3:43:05 having that first

3:43:07 you know, which you know, should be done

3:43:08 pretty soon, I think, right? And then

3:43:11 having that conversation at that

3:43:12 juncture sounds about right.

3:43:13 Yeah, right.

3:43:15 The action steps are like we can check

3:43:17 in with the commissioner individually to

3:43:19 try to get an update on on just the

3:43:21 condition of appropriation and then with

3:43:24 the 2030 road map when they have the

3:43:26 prioritization work, get an update to

3:43:28 the select board.

3:43:31 I think the condition I think the the

3:43:33 update to the select board on the

3:43:34 condition of appropriation can be

3:43:36 answered basically in the same

3:43:39 presentation as the prioritization plan.

3:43:42 So, I think they're ultimately going to

3:43:43 come together. And we may get updates in

3:43:45 the interim, but in terms of formally

3:43:47 closing out this item

3:43:48 Yeah.

3:43:49 it can just come to the select board in

3:43:50 the interim.

3:43:52 And and we should just prep

3:43:55 the commissioner for that.

3:43:57 Does that make sense?

3:43:58 Mhm.

3:43:59 All right. Then for the 9/11 committee,

3:44:02 uh

3:44:04 what do we want to do there?

3:44:06 So, is it calling for a committee? See

3:44:07 attached resolution for personal and

3:44:09 women's ceremony ceremony committee

3:44:11 doing committee charge. Okay.

3:44:17 And if the select board has established

3:44:19 a committee

3:44:21 and a committee.

3:44:23 I would be very prescriptive for you.

3:44:26 I think we need to follow up on the

3:44:27 flood boards. If we want to have

3:44:29 a staff that staff has been left.

3:44:32 So I I worked with Elizabeth Child last

3:44:35 year on the on that ceremony. I'm I'm

3:44:36 happy to take that on.

3:44:40 I don't want to work with Elizabeth

3:44:41 Child.

3:44:46 I said

3:44:48 in this context I want to sort of raise

3:44:51 the question. So

3:44:53 you know,

3:44:54 and I maybe should have raised it when

3:44:55 we were looking at the whole list of

3:44:57 committees, but

3:45:00 I'm a little worried that we have a lot

3:45:03 of committees for specific

3:45:07 you know,

3:45:08 celebrations,

3:45:10 commemorations, etc.

3:45:13 I don't know if we actually have a lot

3:45:14 at this point, but

3:45:17 but

3:45:18 it isn't clear to me if there's

3:45:20 what the criteria is generally. Is it

3:45:23 just one town meeting or is it sort of

3:45:27 express

3:45:29 that we that we that this is a thing we

3:45:31 should commemorate

3:45:32 um

3:45:33 or should we have some sort of more

3:45:35 overarching structure that handles

3:45:37 commemorations

3:45:40 more broadly?

3:45:41 We have discussed celebration committee

3:45:43 in the past. An idea for solidity and

3:45:45 well committees that are designed for

3:45:47 celebrations of specific events into a

3:45:49 more general celebration committee that

3:45:52 would be you know, more logistically

3:45:54 oriented. Um and I think

3:45:57 some pushback we got on the fact is

3:45:59 there are celebrations that the town has

3:46:01 done for a number of years, particularly

3:46:03 in OK Day that are that are you know,

3:46:06 um

3:46:07 not so not so logistically complex, but

3:46:10 that they have you know, you know,

3:46:12 importance. The town really wants to

3:46:13 focus on wants people to think about how

3:46:16 to, you know, really commemorate the day

3:46:18 way. Um

3:46:20 and there was a concern that we would

3:46:22 lose that focus if we instead turned to

3:46:27 celebrations writ large

3:46:29 as opposed to um

3:46:32 committees that that were focused on the

3:46:35 specific purpose of the celebration in

3:46:38 question. Um

3:46:40 I will say that, you know, the number of

3:46:42 resolutions town has put at the town

3:46:44 meetings put out there for things that

3:46:46 we are supposed to celebrate and

3:46:48 recognize has increased dramatically

3:46:50 over the last 2 years.

3:46:52 Um

3:46:53 and a lot of those celebrations do not

3:46:55 have committees um

3:46:57 associated with them. Um

3:46:59 and so it's that is fall to staff, you

3:47:01 know, to keep a list in your office so

3:47:03 that everything that we're required to

3:47:04 commemorate. Um and we, you know,

3:47:08 you know, oftentimes that is, you know,

3:47:09 through a resolution or some sort of

3:47:11 recognition of the of the day in

3:47:12 question. Um but a celebration committee

3:47:16 could theoretically

3:47:18 do that and potentially have

3:47:20 subcommittees dedicated to specific

3:47:22 events that the town thinks are

3:47:23 important. Um that is one way we could

3:47:25 go about it.

3:47:27 And that would require town meeting.

3:47:30 Bylaw.

3:47:31 Yes, because some of these are set

3:47:33 Bylaw.

3:47:34 Yeah.

3:47:37 So that's not something we could resolve

3:47:39 today per se, but it is a

3:47:41 we could consider a bylaw change if you

3:47:44 wanted to move in that direction.

3:47:46 But

3:47:48 clarification.

3:47:49 Most of these have been set up based on

3:47:52 resolutions, right?

3:47:53 I believe MLK and Indigenous Peoples Day

3:47:56 are bylaws. I'll have to check, you

3:47:58 know.

3:47:59 Yeah.

3:48:00 So that's certainly MLK, but I don't

3:48:02 know if Yeah, I'll have to check on

3:48:03 Indigenous Peoples Day. I think it is as

3:48:04 well.

3:48:06 So yes, that is some some of these some

3:48:07 of the commemorations that have been

3:48:09 requested have been by resolution, but I

3:48:10 think there are specific committees that

3:48:13 the bylaw would need to look at.

3:48:15 Look into them.

3:48:16 May I Hey, I do take I but I think it is

3:48:20 Michael's point in that there is a lot

3:48:21 of effort in name and stuff of committee

3:48:24 that plans an individual event and then

3:48:27 sits quiescent the rest of the year.

3:48:30 Um

3:48:31 which might be fine like in terms of the

3:48:33 level of commitment from folks, but you

3:48:35 know, it might be a better way to do it.

3:48:36 Just I also take Chaz's point though

3:48:38 that

3:48:39 uh some of these committees being

3:48:41 singularly focused on that one day,

3:48:42 that's what those members are passionate

3:48:44 about. That's what they're thinking

3:48:46 about, and I do worry that over time if

3:48:49 we relied upon a a more generic

3:48:53 celebrations committee, then you're not

3:48:55 going to have as dedicated a membership

3:48:58 to each particular day as before, and it

3:49:01 might end up being more perfunctory. Uh

3:49:03 Bernard has led the MLK committee for

3:49:05 many years, and it's actually pretty

3:49:06 active year-round.

3:49:08 We we have event uh year-round.

3:49:11 And

3:49:11 and you know, Indigenous Peoples

3:49:13 Committee also has events I think

3:49:15 year-round.

3:49:16 And you know, I think those two in

3:49:18 particular really have set up structure

3:49:21 for

3:49:22 carrying out their mission that

3:49:24 doesn't wouldn't really fit with a

3:49:27 celebration committee.

3:49:28 Right.

3:49:28 And the Human Rights Commission for

3:49:30 Women actually it's also has been

3:49:32 year-round.

3:49:34 Okay. So, it sounds like

3:49:37 But there I'm sorry.

3:49:37 No, no, I was just going to say it

3:49:38 sounds like we're not going to do

3:49:40 anything to to streamline here, which I

3:49:42 think I just makes sense given

3:49:45 Right.

3:49:46 I don't think we necessarily need to

3:49:47 streamline in this instance.

3:49:49 Nevertheless, I do like Michael's idea

3:49:52 of maybe having a celebrations committee

3:49:54 sort of for maybe everything else that

3:49:57 might come up, and it might help staff

3:49:59 if there are volunteers who work on

3:50:02 sort of broader celebrations that come

3:50:04 up in town because there are many that

3:50:06 are not encompassed by the existing

3:50:08 committees.

3:50:09 For example, the um

3:50:12 I

3:50:12 this came up around Juneteenth in terms

3:50:15 of trying to get that

3:50:17 under control. Um so that you know,

3:50:20 there's Juneteenth that that could

3:50:22 would lend itself to a celebration

3:50:24 committee that does some old site. Uh

3:50:27 they're also

3:50:28 you know, gay pride or LGBT Q month, you

3:50:32 know, that would lend itself to that and

3:50:33 so vaguely something that we're supposed

3:50:36 to do anyway.

3:50:37 Um and there you know, other

3:50:40 Jewish American history month.

3:50:42 And and all these months that we put out

3:50:45 proclamations for could be handled

3:50:47 proclamations could be handled by this

3:50:49 committee. So

3:50:51 I think it's a good idea as long as we

3:50:52 just limit it to the those committees or

3:50:55 those celebrations so that uh

3:50:58 and most appropriate.

3:50:58 Is is this an appropriate

3:51:00 appropriate function for

3:51:02 uh the D E and C R commission?

3:51:05 That's really what it is.

3:51:08 Um but to make that charge sort of more

3:51:11 explicit, right? Like

3:51:13 it would be great. I know they've been

3:51:15 talking about wanting to like have a

3:51:17 general calendar that could be shared

3:51:19 with whoever about all the various

3:51:21 holidays and which of them are necessary

3:51:23 to avoid, which are nice to avoid, etc.

3:51:26 etc. Um but in terms of months, they

3:51:30 could also be coming out with um

3:51:33 a calendar and and potentially

3:51:35 [clears throat] planning or proposing

3:51:36 things for those functions that we don't

3:51:39 have specific committees.

3:51:43 That sounds like a good idea.

3:51:46 Are all of those committees in terms of

3:51:48 staff supports

3:51:50 supported through that office?

3:51:53 Yes.

3:51:58 And there were also celebrations a town

3:52:00 used to observe that it stopped doing

3:52:02 for whatever reason like one that would

3:52:04 be coming up this weekend.

3:52:06 Uh Flag Day.

3:52:07 And that turned into

3:52:08 I thought that was Sunday.

3:52:10 It was Sunday.

3:52:10 Sunday, excuse me.

3:52:11 It is today.

3:52:12 Yeah. Yeah, they that turned

3:52:14 turned into Brookline Day because it

3:52:16 conflicted with Father's Day a lot and

3:52:18 it was a lot of effort to try and manage

3:52:20 that with all the other commitments that

3:52:22 people had. So,

3:52:23 the rec director convinced the board at

3:52:25 the time that having Brookline Day would

3:52:27 be a better alternative.

3:52:29 [clears throat]

3:52:29 Okay.

3:52:32 Um

3:52:33 if we want to continue

3:52:36 working on this, can we start with

3:52:38 seeing the list

3:52:40 that that at least you guys are keeping?

3:52:43 I don't know if

3:52:44 the

3:52:45 DEICR

3:52:48 commission also has a separate list.

3:52:51 Um

3:52:52 We can do that.

3:52:53 Why don't we start there and then see?

3:52:57 Is it worth floating it to the DEICR

3:53:00 or having our new liaison to DEICR float

3:53:03 it to them at the next meeting?

3:53:05 Um

3:53:05 At their next meeting?

3:53:06 Yeah. And then like

3:53:08 And get feedback from

3:53:09 Yeah, get feedback.

3:53:09 Yes, good idea.

3:53:10 Yes.

3:53:14 All right, any other town meeting

3:53:17 warrant articles or resolutions

3:53:19 that we want to discuss action items in

3:53:21 relation to?

3:53:24 All right, I don't think we need to take

3:53:26 any votes here.

3:53:27 So, that brings us to 2030 roadmap and

3:53:31 appointments for the select board.

3:53:33 Uh let me

3:53:35 Sure. All right, so we're big timing.

3:53:37 Yes.

3:53:40 There's Connor.

3:53:44 Or if your goal is efficiency, are you

3:53:46 good?

3:53:47 [laughter]

3:53:50 So, um

3:53:52 we been using

3:53:55 um

3:53:55 I figure it out. I think I can.

3:53:56 Yes, I'll do it my utmost.

3:54:00 Impossible to hide your ribbon.

3:54:02 It's still living here.

3:54:07 I'm just making sure.

3:54:09 Shouldn't it be over there or there?

3:54:11 They'll get you They'll get you a fine

3:54:13 probably sometime. Get you a little bit

3:54:15 more.

3:54:16 We do.

3:54:17 Yeah. Get you a little bit bigger.

3:54:22 There you go. All right. There it is.

3:54:25 So,

3:54:28 I have We highlighted here

3:54:30 all the items that are um due this year.

3:54:33 Um they are year one priorities

3:54:36 uh and involve the select board of

3:54:38 select board of office.

3:54:40 Um

3:54:40 I wanted to walk through these with MJ.

3:54:42 I want to thank Michael and I apologize

3:54:44 we haven't just had a chance. There are

3:54:45 a couple of things here that are

3:54:46 duplicative or that are a little

3:54:48 um

3:54:49 uh

3:54:51 that are just, you know, either

3:54:52 scrivener's errors or or things that are

3:54:54 are repeated just by nature of them

3:54:56 showing up in different places. So,

3:54:57 we're going to

3:54:58 talk through those as well, but they

3:55:00 shouldn't require,

3:55:01 you know, any action other than just

3:55:03 really a slight revision to the actual

3:55:05 road map um to put it out there, but I

3:55:08 wanted to

3:55:10 That's all right. Yeah.

3:55:12 Oops. Yeah, that's fine.

3:55:15 Okay. So,

3:55:18 That's a huge trap, sure.

3:55:20 Yeah.

3:55:21 Um so, we're you know, so I I wanted to

3:55:22 walk through these and kind of summarize

3:55:25 where we are, but also what um

3:55:28 what opportunities we potentially see

3:55:29 for the board's involvement and

3:55:32 we can continue to be responsive to you

3:55:35 uh and brief you on what it is that

3:55:37 we're doing here. Um one of the you

3:55:40 know, so with these what I have done is

3:55:42 I have highlighted um

3:55:44 things that potentially have board

3:55:45 involvement members of the select board

3:55:47 involved in within sort of gold color

3:55:50 and items that you have already

3:55:51 accomplished in green. Congratulations,

3:55:53 you're already making progress.

3:55:54 Something that you made great.

3:55:57 So, I want to walk through you know, for

3:56:00 example, expressly include resources

3:56:01 needed to implement Warner articles in

3:56:02 select board reports. That's on the

3:56:04 staff side. We are planning on doing

3:56:06 that at the beginning of the next town

3:56:07 meeting.

3:56:09 We are planning on

3:56:10 asking all departments to submit cost

3:56:13 estimates for Warner articles going

3:56:15 forward.

3:56:15 So,

3:56:16 so this is 1B2?

3:56:18 1B Yes, so there we go. 1B2.

3:56:21 Um

3:56:22 So, should this be moved from the select

3:56:24 board's list to the town staff's list?

3:56:26 Well, it's it's it's it's on SBO.

3:56:29 Select board office. Yeah, so

3:56:32 Yeah, we try to where possible identify

3:56:36 the difference between select board and

3:56:37 select board office. So, sometimes there

3:56:39 are some overlap there.

3:56:41 So, this one is us. Review and update

3:56:44 adapt the FPC comprehensive plan.

3:56:46 There's nothing There's no action on

3:56:47 that as of yet. Um

3:56:49 Promote existing systems that improve

3:56:51 response to citizen inquiries. Christina

3:56:55 is Med Cap, our communications director,

3:56:58 is working on um

3:57:01 the how we

3:57:03 deal with this promotion.

3:57:05 Um but one of the things that you will

3:57:07 see here kind of three major categories

3:57:10 that I see

3:57:12 the potential for a select board member

3:57:13 to get involved are in communication

3:57:16 strategy,

3:57:17 public bodies process improvements, and

3:57:20 funding prioritization. Those are the

3:57:22 three kind of overarching categories

3:57:25 where I think having a select board

3:57:27 you know,

3:57:28 effectively a liaison to those processes

3:57:31 that we can, you know, work with, touch

3:57:33 base on, update

3:57:35 would be helpful. And so, with this one,

3:57:39 promoting existing systems, this is

3:57:40 really a communications issue.

3:57:43 Determining whether the expenditures and

3:57:44 revenue study committee will continue

3:57:46 beyond the spring. This is really a

3:57:48 public bodies process improvements

3:57:49 issue.

3:57:51 But it's also one that I think you have

3:57:53 already discussed in this discussion of

3:57:56 you know, the town school partnership at

3:57:58 large. So I think if there is if the if

3:58:01 the decision based on today's discussion

3:58:03 has been that TSP should take up the

3:58:05 mantle and continue E&RSC's work, then I

3:58:08 think we can mark this as complete. And

3:58:10 then move from there. If that makes

3:58:12 sense to the board.

3:58:13 Yes, that does make sense. The only

3:58:15 thing I would say is I don't know if we

3:58:18 would consider asking any of the E&RSC

3:58:20 folks to serve on TSP. I don't know what

3:58:23 the

3:58:24 So the makeup of TSP

3:58:25 Yes, so the makeup of TSP is is

3:58:28 prescribed. It is two members of the

3:58:30 select board, two members of school

3:58:31 committee, and two members of the

3:58:32 advisory committee. But with that said,

3:58:35 members of the E&RSC are appointees of

3:58:39 So, you know, for example, it would be

3:58:41 David and Michael will be on

3:58:44 the select board the select board

3:58:45 liaisons, but Cliff Brown has

3:58:47 historically been one of the two who are

3:58:49 advisory committee members on TSP. And

3:58:52 Dennis is usually the other as chair.

3:58:54 Jessica Acton is the finance committee

3:58:56 is the finance subcommittee director for

3:58:58 um

3:59:00 this fiscal committee now. And that's

3:59:02 historically been the other school

3:59:03 committee position which should be the

3:59:04 chair. So you will have two E&RSC

3:59:07 members on TSP going forward, which is

3:59:10 good.

3:59:11 I would just also add that these are

3:59:12 public meetings, of course, and many

3:59:15 times there are several other people who

3:59:17 attend and participate.

3:59:18 Yes.

3:59:19 Okay.

3:59:19 You got to be very careful with the

3:59:20 select board because you guys you you

3:59:23 can't break the open meeting law.

3:59:24 So you you know, select board members

3:59:26 can obviously attend, but

3:59:29 sometimes we get advisory members, you

3:59:30 know, advisory committee members will

3:59:32 come in and if it's something specific

3:59:34 that the advisory committee has asked

3:59:35 them to comment on, they can do that.

3:59:38 Um, but we can't because we have an open

3:59:40 meeting law problem. So, we just need to

3:59:42 make sure that the two

3:59:44 Obviously, you can you can transmit

3:59:45 [clears throat] whatever it is you would

3:59:47 like to discuss with White TFP to

3:59:48 discuss to your two reps. Um, but you

3:59:51 yourself unfortunately can't.

3:59:53 Come to the meeting and have that

3:59:54 conversation.

3:59:55 And I bring that up more in the context

3:59:57 of ERSC members who want to participate.

4:00:00 Yes, yeah.

4:00:01 So, um, we're revising MOU, we've done

4:00:04 that.

4:00:05 Can we go back to the um

4:00:07 the uh communications?

4:00:08 Yes.

4:00:09 I'm going to throw that So, um

4:00:12 in 2024, we actually put out a policy

4:00:16 You did?

4:00:16 on this.

4:00:17 Mhm.

4:00:17 Um, [clears throat] so I assume that

4:00:18 that's going to and I think it's a good

4:00:20 policy.

4:00:21 Yeah.

4:00:21 Um, I think I assume that that will be

4:00:23 the basis of addressing this issue.

4:00:25 Yes, and I think one of the reason one

4:00:27 of the reasons particularly we'd like a

4:00:28 slight board member to talk about this

4:00:29 is because one of the things, you know,

4:00:31 historically, you have a good policy on

4:00:33 this. You've done But I think

4:00:36 you can you you're okay with it. You

4:00:38 Every everyone gets busy, right? You all

4:00:40 have a lot that you're doing. Um, and I

4:00:41 think sometimes it kind of falls by the

4:00:42 wayside, particularly this, you know,

4:00:44 the school committee has some really

4:00:46 good and David, you can comment on this,

4:00:47 right? Has some really good practice

4:00:49 that they just established in responding

4:00:51 to emails, right? They have the

4:00:52 rotation. They have the way that, you

4:00:55 know,

4:00:56 a a dedicated school committee member

4:00:57 who responds to the emails addressed to

4:00:59 the school committee as a whole. Um, the

4:01:01 slight board has tried these to do that

4:01:03 practice and it's never really taken.

4:01:05 Um, so I think maybe reestablishing that

4:01:08 or coming up with a way to, you know,

4:01:10 think about how to make that stick

4:01:12 or coming up with a new strategy

4:01:14 potentially

4:01:16 um that would enable you to feel

4:01:18 confident that you're being you're

4:01:20 you're viewed as responsive to when

4:01:22 emails come in addressed to the board as

4:01:24 a whole rather than to the five of you

4:01:26 individually. Um

4:01:28 so um, that's an area where I think we

4:01:31 would benefit from

4:01:33 you designating someone to work with us

4:01:35 to be your advocate. That's what I think

4:01:36 that is.

4:01:37 I I think that the the policy that we

4:01:40 adopted

4:01:42 would work.

4:01:43 Sorry.

4:01:45 Um to the extent that Melanie and and

4:01:48 probably Christine

4:01:50 um

4:01:51 make it work cuz it's it's really a

4:01:53 question of directing inquiries to the

4:01:56 appropriate board members and you know,

4:01:58 providing them with support to respond

4:02:01 to to

4:02:02 questions or comments from the

4:02:04 community.

4:02:05 Um I think three [clears throat] of us

4:02:07 are operating in the

4:02:08 Pardon?

4:02:08 I think three of us are operating in the

4:02:09 dark here cuz I don't I don't know

4:02:11 anything.

4:02:12 Yes.

4:02:13 So the the

4:02:15 the way [clears throat] it had worked in

4:02:15 the past is that uh staff would direct

4:02:20 those emails to the select board as a

4:02:22 whole to the specific select board

4:02:24 member who's sort of the go-to person

4:02:26 based on the category that the email

4:02:28 falls into or the subject matter. Uh

4:02:31 that became I think an overwhelming

4:02:34 amount of work and so that hasn't

4:02:36 consistently been done. On the school

4:02:38 committee side, what they do is but

4:02:40 granted there are nine of them is each

4:02:42 week it's a school committee member's

4:02:44 turn to respond.

4:02:47 Could I ask that we take up as an agenda

4:02:49 item in a future meeting to just bring

4:02:51 back this policy so we can look at it

4:02:53 and

4:02:54 make a decision.

4:03:04 Well, I think that we're doing that at

4:03:05 2:30. That's item 12.

4:03:10 I I mean we need specifically

4:03:12 We flagged that policy which right now

4:03:14 is not effective right now.

4:03:15 Yeah.

4:03:15 So we we will bring that back to you and

4:03:17 make it as a good

4:03:18 when you've had time to review and and

4:03:20 think through it.

4:03:20 So we will circulate the 250 policy and

4:03:23 have that conversation.

4:03:26 So that's Sorry, it's a of response to

4:03:29 citizen inquiries.

4:03:31 Um

4:03:32 you've done the work of you've done the

4:03:33 memorandum of understanding and there's

4:03:35 a duplicative thing here.

4:03:37 Um I

4:03:38 scroll over it for a little bit so you

4:03:39 can see the numbers that we're talking

4:03:41 about.

4:03:42 Um

4:03:44 Um you you have consolidated and

4:03:46 eliminated public bodies. We had that

4:03:47 discussion earlier today. Um develop

4:03:50 develop an evaluation protocol and

4:03:52 routinely assess the

4:03:53 efficacy of public bodies and propose

4:03:55 improvements. Uh and then define roles

4:03:58 and responsibilities for select board

4:03:59 liaisons, public body members, staff,

4:04:01 including staff and when select board

4:04:03 involvement is necessary. Um

4:04:06 You've started that process, I think. Um

4:04:09 but the question is really, you know,

4:04:11 right, what is the How do we assess the

4:04:13 efficacy of public bodies?

4:04:15 What is What's working? How do we

4:04:17 determine when a committee

4:04:19 submits a report to you, you know, do

4:04:21 you want to have kind of more of an

4:04:23 evaluative process? Do you want

4:04:24 committees to come in and

4:04:27 talk about the work that they're doing

4:04:28 and why it's important, or is there

4:04:31 another way to kind of handle that? And

4:04:33 I wonder if, you know,

4:04:35 someone under the broad heading of kind

4:04:37 of public bodies process improvements

4:04:39 might want to take that sort of work on

4:04:42 or um

4:04:43 in year one.

4:04:44 Yeah. I mean, I would take that on in

4:04:46 the context of the handbook, right?

4:04:48 Yes, so yeah.

4:04:49 If it's there and I and I don't think

4:04:51 that

4:04:52 we

4:04:53 we would have to establish an evaluation

4:04:55 protocol and like share it with all the

4:04:57 public bodies before we hold them to any

4:04:59 expectation.

4:05:00 Correct.

4:05:02 Are you volunteer?

4:05:03 Yes, I am.

4:05:04 [laughter]

4:05:04 Is everyone okay with that?

4:05:06 Yes.

4:05:11 Um

4:05:11 By the way, my understanding of the

4:05:15 process that we set up is that the

4:05:17 committee would make a report every

4:05:20 year, and in that report, they would

4:05:22 assess

4:05:23 the value of the committee

4:05:26 and sort of self-evaluate.

4:05:28 Mhm.

4:05:28 have we have given them wide latitude in

4:05:31 what they choose to report and how. So,

4:05:33 I think you can do as we look at the

4:05:34 annual and you know, look at the casual

4:05:36 provisions to it, maybe be a little more

4:05:38 restrictive in saying, you know,

4:05:40 identify your, you know, metrics of

4:05:42 success, you know, or you know, or even

4:05:44 Do you have all of the annual reports

4:05:46 you do at the same time or are they

4:05:47 staggered?

4:05:47 Yeah, they're staggered.

4:05:48 Okay.

4:05:49 Cuz otherwise, we certainly won't give

4:05:51 them more time to change things.

4:05:52 That's right. We try We try and schedule

4:05:53 them so that, yeah.

4:05:54 Well, no, but they also provide an

4:05:57 annual report in the annual report. So,

4:05:59 there's kind of two different evaluative

4:06:00 processes. The board,

4:06:03 um, kind of inviting them in to report

4:06:05 on their work and then also just the

4:06:07 town's formal annual report.

4:06:08 But but but what what we're expecting or

4:06:11 should expect is

4:06:13 an answer to the question, should you

4:06:15 continue as a as a committee?

4:06:19 Which you would not be in the annual

4:06:21 report, of course, but

4:06:22 Or potentially a if so, how? Because you

4:06:26 could see the committee maybe not

4:06:28 meeting the expectations we had, but

4:06:31 meeting a different use or different

4:06:33 focus in the next year.

4:06:35 That's good.

4:06:36 Well, we engaged in that exercise

4:06:38 somewhat earlier today. The committees,

4:06:41 sometimes it's obvious a committee

4:06:42 hasn't met in 2 years

4:06:44 or whatever the need was that led to its

4:06:46 creation has been met.

4:06:51 Yeah.

4:06:52 Um,

4:06:53 so, sorry, scroll down here. Now, I'm

4:06:55 showing you where we are. So, that's

4:06:57 where we were, defining roles and

4:06:58 expectations for select board

4:06:59 [clears throat] liaisons, reducing

4:07:00 administrative burden, technology use

4:07:02 for transcription summaries, staff is

4:07:04 working on that. Um,

4:07:05 we have been these two, you know, get

4:07:08 rule of thumb for future expenditures

4:07:10 and revenues. We have We've

4:07:12 addressed that, you know, where that's

4:07:14 resting with TSB.

4:07:15 These next three deal with um Andrew

4:07:17 Gove work. Um to David's point, we're

4:07:20 going to have that We're going to try

4:07:21 and set up that meeting for the fall to

4:07:22 talk to the legislative delegation about

4:07:24 the priorities there.

4:07:26 Um I don't think there's an immediate

4:07:27 need for select board involvement beyond

4:07:29 making sure that we we impress upon the

4:07:32 the the uh legislative delegation the

4:07:35 importance [clears throat] of uh

4:07:37 coming to hang out. Um and I think in

4:07:38 the future we're going to try and

4:07:39 consolidate that actually into the

4:07:41 school committee and have a joint

4:07:42 meeting so that everyone's priorities

4:07:44 can be uh heard at the same time.

4:07:48 Um Do you have any defined reserves and

4:07:50 unrestricted funds?

4:07:51 Yeah.

4:07:51 That's, you know, we continue to do

4:07:53 that. Um we will talk, you know,

4:07:54 obviously about the free cash we have We

4:07:56 put on the futures list. Anthony, you're

4:07:58 you're impressed about affordable

4:07:59 housing trust in the free cash policy

4:08:01 there.

4:08:02 Um So, the five-year service and

4:08:04 priority list uh for strategies and

4:08:06 existing plans to receive funding when

4:08:08 available. I think this actually

4:08:09 dovetails a bit with OPEBs cuz it is one

4:08:11 of those policies and funded liabilities

4:08:13 policy. And then again, this will say

4:08:16 um you know, the same language you spoke

4:08:18 about up here. Um

4:08:20 This is you know, this this is the you

4:08:22 know, uh funding priorities area.

4:08:24 Can you can you scroll to show me the

4:08:26 numbers?

4:08:26 Yeah, sure. Just so you can see.

4:08:30 323331

4:08:38 Um

4:08:39 So,

4:08:41 here, you know, what we're what we're

4:08:42 trying to do is now talk with

4:08:44 departments talk about how they were

4:08:47 integrating these various plans and

4:08:49 prioritizations.

4:08:51 Um but then I think at the select board

4:08:53 level it would be helpful to have the

4:08:55 liaisons to have that those

4:08:57 conversations with with everything kind

4:08:59 of laid out so that people could see

4:09:02 where the priorities are. Um and then a

4:09:05 select board member can help walk the

4:09:07 broader board through um

4:09:10 you know, where the prio- where your

4:09:12 priorities intersect

4:09:14 and where we need where we on staff need

4:09:16 to re-prioritize in order to meet meet

4:09:18 these needs.

4:09:20 Um

4:09:21 I want to keep walking through these,

4:09:22 but I will I will come back to this in

4:09:24 kind of the broader um overhead of

4:09:26 finance. Um

4:09:28 the analyzing overtime, we are doing

4:09:30 that. The staff is doing that. Attend

4:09:32 town providing emergency training on a

4:09:34 regular basis. We are I flagged this for

4:09:36 you. You will You will get invitations.

4:09:38 We're going to try and rotate and make

4:09:39 sure that as many of you as possible

4:09:42 will will attend. For example, we have

4:09:43 an annual tabletop exercise about

4:09:45 hazardous materials. We um

4:09:47 We will be developing

4:09:50 We'll hopefully be doing some regional

4:09:51 training on hurricane preparedness.

4:09:53 Um ruling weather emergencies. So,

4:09:56 obviously, you will get as many of you

4:09:58 as possible will be invited to that.

4:10:00 Um and we will just continue to make

4:10:01 those efforts. So, I flagged that.

4:10:03 There's no immediate need for action on

4:10:05 that, but that it does involve you and

4:10:07 it will involve, you know, individual

4:10:08 members of the board. So, more to come

4:10:10 on that, but there's no need for action

4:10:12 for their part as far as I know.

4:10:13 So, we have a

4:10:15 number of policies related to this and

4:10:17 maybe

4:10:18 this is circulated to the uh new members

4:10:20 of the board.

4:10:21 Sure. I will also say there's a

4:10:23 FEMA-provided training for government

4:10:25 officials that's free, which we will

4:10:26 circulate to you as well. Um you know,

4:10:28 that will show you the

4:10:30 kind of understand the role of the of

4:10:33 elected executive boards in the event of

4:10:36 an emergency. You know, what the laws

4:10:38 and responsibilities are. We will also

4:10:40 make sure that everyone has the most

4:10:42 recent version of the um emergency

4:10:44 management plan, um which talks about

4:10:47 everyone's roles and responsibilities as

4:10:49 well. Um

4:10:50 you know, what the incident you know,

4:10:52 how we can provide info you know, the

4:10:55 chief role of the select board in a

4:10:58 crisis situation is reassuring the

4:11:00 public and providing the accurate

4:11:02 information to the public. Um

4:11:04 as emergency responders deal with those

4:11:06 issues. Um and so uh it's my job in

4:11:10 those situations to

4:11:12 you know, manage that relationship and

4:11:14 manage that information flow between the

4:11:16 emergency you know, the emergency

4:11:17 responders, the incident commanders, and

4:11:19 you all um often as the public-facing

4:11:23 uh

4:11:23 folks who are um helping to

4:11:26 uh reassure those issues and to make

4:11:27 sure everyone has accurate information

4:11:29 out there. So, um all of that is

4:11:31 important and it's just a great role

4:11:34 that you all continue to

4:11:36 understand, you know, in a crisis what

4:11:38 do we do? And the same way you know,

4:11:40 when those things come up, you and Danny

4:11:42 and Emmanuel, you're both are newer to

4:11:44 this, but you will receive a series of

4:11:46 running text messages from me um or

4:11:48 emails um depending on how we're getting

4:11:50 the situations. Um

4:11:52 But it does mean that when we receive

4:11:54 those, somewhat of the ask is to

4:11:56 disseminate the information. Although it

4:11:58 seems like in the case of a real

4:12:01 emergency, you probably don't want like

4:12:03 five of us all trying to figure out

4:12:05 That's what you do.

4:12:05 And that's and that's why, you know, we

4:12:07 there is a single point of press

4:12:08 contact, there is a single point of

4:12:09 contact at town hall in an emergency.

4:12:12 So, you are all not all expected to be

4:12:14 going on TV and doing all that. In fact,

4:12:16 you're expected to go to we're expected

4:12:17 to try and put a unified front together.

4:12:19 But you guys know where the community

4:12:21 is, right? You have constituents, you

4:12:23 have people who are reaching out to you

4:12:24 probably on a regular basis who are

4:12:27 saying, "What's going on here? What do I

4:12:28 need to know? Is you know, is there a

4:12:29 danger to my family?" And that's where

4:12:32 you all providing that reassurance is

4:12:33 really critical. Um making sure that

4:12:35 your constituents you have that direct

4:12:37 constituent contact and are able to

4:12:39 reassure people that they have accurate

4:12:41 information.

4:12:42 Um I might have missed it, but just

4:12:45 before this, the white box on overtime

4:12:47 you said

4:12:48 Yes.

4:12:49 How are we

4:12:51 analyzing that and what is the role in

4:12:54 this whiteboard?

4:12:55 Charlie puts the annual uh overtime

4:12:57 report together um for all of

4:13:00 departments that you have the all the

4:13:01 public safety departments. Um we

4:13:03 analyze, you know, you know, usage

4:13:06 patterns we bring, you know, down to day

4:13:08 of the week, type of leave used, and so

4:13:10 forth. You know, all of that, even

4:13:13 overtime, is reported to the advisory

4:13:15 committee on a quarterly basis.

4:13:17 Um and it's also sent to you all. Um so

4:13:19 that you have an update on where all of

4:13:21 this is, you know, where our usage is,

4:13:24 and if there are any concerns there. Um

4:13:26 so

4:13:27 you

4:13:29 um in terms of your role there, um

4:13:32 I think it's always if you have

4:13:33 questions or if you want to have a

4:13:34 discussion about, you know, where we see

4:13:36 these projections or why they are where

4:13:38 they are, we're always happy to have

4:13:39 that conversation with you as a board.

4:13:41 Um

4:13:42 you know, we are doing our, you know,

4:13:44 when people say, you know, what

4:13:45 strategies are you employing to keep

4:13:47 overtime down, you know, obviously talk

4:13:49 about that. Um but, you know, it's um

4:13:52 it's this is definitely an area where,

4:13:54 you know,

4:13:55 it's more about public education um

4:13:58 because we are employing a large variety

4:14:01 of strategies to try to

4:14:03 control all of that cost, etc.

4:14:04 Yeah, no, I my my naive take on those

4:14:07 things is like, if you have a body that

4:14:10 uses a certain amount of overtime,

4:14:12 that's usually a sign that you need more

4:14:13 employees in that body.

4:14:15 That's correct.

4:14:15 Um and so, like, if we realize that's

4:14:17 always happening, then we should

4:14:19 probably be part of this conversation of

4:14:21 like, should we be staffing up?

4:14:22 Yeah, so, you know,

4:14:24 um the E&RSC report has uh all of the

4:14:27 uh and final four has all of the memos

4:14:29 that I put out.

4:14:31 Uh and you should check those out and,

4:14:33 you know, even if you're just scanning

4:14:34 them, because we we have looked into

4:14:36 that question of whether or not adding

4:14:37 staff is a solution, and it actually

4:14:39 isn't a solution for various reasons.

4:14:42 Uh this on the fire side it has to do

4:14:44 with the fact that

4:14:45 uh with how they

4:14:47 do their shifts. They work two shifts a

4:14:50 week on average, uh and they're not

4:14:52 always the same days. So, it's not

4:14:54 possible for adding staff to sort of

4:14:56 absorb other people's overtimes. They

4:14:58 can't work two 24-hour shifts in a row.

4:15:01 Uh so it's it's detailed in the memos,

4:15:03 but um the the overtime issues, we

4:15:06 actually just sort of had a referendum

4:15:08 on the fire overtime issues going to be

4:15:10 over

4:15:11 which, you know, funded the overtime

4:15:13 issues that for years we've been asking,

4:15:14 are these normal? Do we want these to be

4:15:16 funded or not? And so in large part, the

4:15:18 question has been answered, but I have

4:15:21 raised the point that overtime costs

4:15:23 kind of continue to creep up a little

4:15:25 bit at a time. And so I think this

4:15:26 remains to be an issue that the board

4:15:28 wants to keep an eye on as far as

4:15:30 overall fiscal stability and health. You

4:15:32 know, I mean, do is this going to

4:15:34 continue? What are we going to do about

4:15:35 it? Um but for now, the deficit that we

4:15:38 see is is has been funded by the select

4:15:41 board.

4:15:42 Again, again, this I think this is item

4:15:44 3E6,

4:15:46 but

4:15:47 you know, we this is list this is listed

4:15:50 as a select board office

4:15:52 town [clears throat] staff issue, not a

4:15:54 select board

4:15:55 Correct.

4:15:56 Yeah. But I do think, you know, you

4:15:57 should be aware aware or informed of the

4:16:00 way we operate.

4:16:01 Sure.

4:16:01 There's a policy role in that because,

4:16:04 you know, it's not really it's not

4:16:05 necessarily up to staff to determine

4:16:07 necessarily what's, you know, what's

4:16:09 appropriate or not appropriate, right? I

4:16:11 think the theory would be it's our job

4:16:12 to sort of tell you what we're seeing,

4:16:14 what's happening, why it's happening,

4:16:16 and then

4:16:16 [clears throat]

4:16:16 for to get the board's response to it.

4:16:18 There There are some There are some

4:16:20 goals that are

4:16:22 listed both as select board goals and

4:16:24 town staff goals. This is doesn't appear

4:16:27 to be one of them.

4:16:28 Yeah, it's just a select board office.

4:16:29 Right. And but, you know, maybe that

4:16:32 maybe maybe this needs to be split in so

4:16:35 that we understand

4:16:37 both our both our relationships.

4:16:39 Yeah, just one quick point. I wouldn't

4:16:41 wouldn't necessarily interpret the

4:16:43 override as being anything one way or

4:16:46 another on overtime cuz that was not

4:16:49 part of the argument.

4:16:50 Supporting firefighters, yes. Um but

4:16:53 like it was billed as like

4:16:56 laying off 20, not like whether or not

4:16:58 you should have actually had overtime.

4:16:59 So, be careful not to over interpret

4:17:01 that move.

4:17:02 Yes, there was an interesting talk about

4:17:04 interesting break.

4:17:07 That was an interesting conversation.

4:17:12 Moving on to getting inclusion

4:17:13 collaboration on departments that so

4:17:14 that's our that's on our end. We are

4:17:16 doing that work.

4:17:19 The helping recruit under

4:17:21 underrepresented voices on public

4:17:22 bodies, broaden the pool of residents

4:17:24 engagement reflected in decision making.

4:17:26 These two, I think are part of this

4:17:28 communications strategy. How are we how

4:17:31 are we communicating out? So, I want to

4:17:33 flag those.

4:17:34 These two establish priorities.

4:17:36 Can we go back to that?

4:17:38 That is something that the diversity

4:17:41 office is actually doing. Yes, I think

4:17:43 we need to you know, just be aware of

4:17:45 that and maybe see if you know, they

4:17:48 need some additional push or additional

4:17:50 help.

4:17:51 Yeah.

4:17:51 And we ourselves also addressed this

4:17:53 partially this morning where we were

4:17:54 talking about bringing other voices in

4:17:57 to serve on our boards and commissions.

4:17:58 Yeah.

4:17:58 I will say the number one way that I

4:18:00 have found to get people to serve on a

4:18:02 board or commission is asking directly.

4:18:05 Find them find them you know, track them

4:18:07 down. Say, "Hey, you.

4:18:08 You'd be good at this. Come come

4:18:10 [clears throat] do this work.

4:18:12 Do it for free.

4:18:13 You're a public speaker."

4:18:14 [laughter]

4:18:16 But, um

4:18:18 it direct recruitment is um

4:18:21 almost always the best way to get

4:18:23 someone.

4:18:25 We have been much more proactive. You

4:18:26 know, it's not just my newsletter for

4:18:28 example, we're going to go out and table

4:18:29 at

4:18:30 the farmers market this summer.

4:18:32 We bring you the list of vacant boards

4:18:34 and committee seats and we say, "Hey,

4:18:37 want to work you know, come do some cool

4:18:38 work with the town? Here here's a list."

4:18:41 We do it at Brookline Day, you know, any

4:18:42 event where we have a presence. We try

4:18:44 and Uh, we we need the select board

4:18:46 office. We try and, um,

4:18:48 talk up service boards and committees.

4:18:50 And we have gotten, you know, a number

4:18:51 of applicants as a result of that, um,

4:18:53 which has been great.

4:18:54 Um, but, you know, still the best way of

4:18:57 outreach is person-to-person. So, I

4:18:59 would just encourage you all, um, you

4:19:02 know, you have a thought and you're

4:19:04 like, "Oh, that person would be really

4:19:05 good on that committee." Tell them. Uh,

4:19:08 see if they see if they want to do it.

4:19:11 Uh,

4:19:12 so, those two are part of the

4:19:14 communication strategy. Um,

4:19:16 then we have these two which are I think

4:19:17 are part of the funding priorities, you

4:19:18 know, they're just doing the same

4:19:20 thing, accelerating transformation

4:19:22 maintenance and the roadway safety

4:19:23 improvements on the high priority

4:19:24 network. Um, again, I don't think this

4:19:27 is a year the funding priorities are a

4:19:29 year one item, but I don't think it's

4:19:32 emerging yet. I think you've got to wait

4:19:34 until

4:19:35 the commissioner gets the

4:19:38 get goes through that prior organization

4:19:39 process and then have that broad

4:19:41 discussion.

4:19:42 So, before you move off of this, um, I'm

4:19:44 noticing that there's a key performance

4:19:46 indicator under this

4:19:48 this goal four

4:19:50 uh,

4:19:52 about that says participation by

4:19:54 underrepresented groups increases

4:19:56 annually.

4:19:57 Yes.

4:19:58 Um,

4:19:59 is there a baseline being established

4:20:01 for what that means?

4:20:02 We have a baseline. Um, both HR and ODI

4:20:05 CR keep a baseline of community of

4:20:07 service boards and committees, you know,

4:20:09 who is serving the demographics of who

4:20:11 is serving.

4:20:11 Can we see that?

4:20:13 Yes.

4:20:14 It'll be on there. When we talk about

4:20:16 underrepresented, are we referring to

4:20:18 the Brookline population, regional

4:20:20 population,

4:20:22 national?

4:20:23 That's a good question.

4:20:24 Um, we have historically interpreted it

4:20:26 to mean the local population. Um,

4:20:28 we've tried to, you know,

4:20:30 we we know that our demographic makeup

4:20:34 is different than other demographic

4:20:35 makeups, but we also know that, you

4:20:38 know, to a point that I think one of our

4:20:39 outreach is, you know, one reason why

4:20:41 people of color don't come to Brookline

4:20:44 is because they view Brookline as

4:20:46 historically hostile to their

4:20:49 um their communities. And so, we you

4:20:53 know, just to take one example, and so

4:20:55 we realize that ensuring that people

4:20:58 have a voice and are represented and are

4:21:00 able to be

4:21:02 um

4:21:02 and and feel confident that that this is

4:21:04 a community that welcomes and encourages

4:21:07 participation from everybody is

4:21:08 important. So, it's not just oh, there

4:21:10 aren't a lot of people of X you know,

4:21:12 minority around, so we're not going to

4:21:13 put them on we're not going to recommend

4:21:14 them for boards or commissions. We don't

4:21:16 have a

4:21:17 quota system or anything like that.

4:21:19 Well, well, that's why I'm a little bit

4:21:20 concerned about how we define

4:21:21 underrepresented because if we go

4:21:23 strictly by local population, I I

4:21:25 wouldn't want to ever be in a position

4:21:27 where we're saying,

4:21:29 for example, our black population's

4:21:30 pretty small. And um if we have two or

4:21:34 three black members on something, one

4:21:36 could say overrepresented. But that's

4:21:39 I don't think that on a regional and a

4:21:41 national basis, we would never think

4:21:43 that. And of course, we want to be

4:21:45 lifting minority voices. So, I'm a

4:21:47 little worried about tracking it solely

4:21:50 based on the local population.

4:21:52 I think we can we can and that's a

4:21:54 that's a good

4:21:55 piece of feedback that we can take back,

4:21:57 you know. We we tend to use that as the

4:21:59 as the

4:22:00 baseline, but we try it's not a mandate,

4:22:03 but it's not the be-all and end-all. Um

4:22:05 we know that

4:22:07 just because their [clears throat]

4:22:08 population might be small doesn't mean

4:22:10 that that group is somehow not entitled

4:22:12 to representation. Um

4:22:14 in fact, often it's the opposite. It's

4:22:16 you really want to reach out to

4:22:17 communities [clears throat] that are

4:22:19 feel that are underrepresented and heard

4:22:21 in the

4:22:21 um

4:22:22 and even, you know, if they don't

4:22:24 I think you got you really have to

4:22:26 think, you know,

4:22:28 even more deeply in terms of, you know,

4:22:30 different populations even within

4:22:32 subgroups that are not always

4:22:34 recognized, you know. I think there's,

4:22:36 for example, um

4:22:38 we have the huge Asian diaspora in

4:22:41 Brookline. But those communities are

4:22:43 very different depending on who you talk

4:22:45 to. It's not a

4:22:46 you know not of sale, you know, you have

4:22:48 that Asian representation. Really have

4:22:51 to think of, you know, some of the

4:22:53 people from the Indian diaspora is very

4:22:55 very different

4:22:57 that representation and

4:22:59 I'm afraid

4:23:01 I'm sort of running out of the

4:23:02 you know, Chinese and Japanese diaspora.

4:23:05 All of the all three of which are

4:23:06 substantial populations in Brookline.

4:23:13 Um, and sharing the

4:23:15 I have one thing.

4:23:16 Yes.

4:23:17 One of the key issues that the issue of

4:23:20 um

4:23:22 black residents in the surrounding areas

4:23:25 in Brookline is not an engaging or or

4:23:28 hostile place.

4:23:30 It is based on what we tell them.

4:23:33 And and that was a big problem a few

4:23:35 years ago when the the message coming

4:23:38 out of Brookline residents not all of

4:23:41 them

4:23:41 was that Brookline is not where you want

4:23:43 to be if you're black. So

4:23:46 one of the you know, this effort should

4:23:48 be to make sure that we are always

4:23:51 marketing Brookline in a positive way.

4:23:54 In a a truthful but positive way.

4:24:00 And to the extent that a negative

4:24:02 perception is real, trying to correct

4:24:04 that

4:24:05 underlying

4:24:06 Yeah, and making sure that it it's it's

4:24:08 it's

4:24:09 actually real and is presented in a

4:24:12 context that makes it um you know, um

4:24:16 truthful. And for example,

4:24:18 [clears throat] you know, the number of

4:24:20 uh this was an issue that came up a

4:24:22 number of years ago.

4:24:24 Um, US News & World Report said that um

4:24:27 Brookline was one of the cities where

4:24:29 the number of traffic stops

4:24:33 uh

4:24:33 exceeded the number percentage of black

4:24:36 population in town. Well, of course the

4:24:39 reason is we have Route 9 going through

4:24:42 through town. So, I mean that's a true a

4:24:45 true situation true fact, but the

4:24:48 context is important in terms of really

4:24:52 helping people understand what it's

4:24:54 really like in Brookline.

4:24:57 I just want to point out

4:25:00 yes, context is really important. I just

4:25:02 want to make sure that in our attempts

4:25:04 to promote the goods of Brookline we're

4:25:08 not quieting voices that have real

4:25:10 concerns that need to be addressed.

4:25:11 Right, that's why I'm saying to the

4:25:13 extent that the concern is legitimate or

4:25:16 merits further inquiry that we work to

4:25:18 remediate. So, it's not just about

4:25:20 selling Brookline, but also correcting

4:25:22 where we may be falling short.

4:25:24 Yeah.

4:25:30 Just move through [clears throat]

4:25:32 these last couple ones. You know, again

4:25:35 we're working on competitive wages.

4:25:38 Obviously the role of the board there is

4:25:40 as

4:25:41 executive is to set our negotiating

4:25:44 parameters and move through that. We're

4:25:46 doing it now.

4:25:48 We will be doing it again

4:25:50 as FY28 purchase.

4:25:53 Excuse me.

4:25:54 Reviewing the roadway safety plans,

4:25:56 that's currently ongoing at the T board

4:25:58 as part of that

4:25:59 working group. And that comes out

4:26:01 obviously. I think that's something for

4:26:03 the prioritization

4:26:06 bucket, but right now that's resting

4:26:08 with the

4:26:09 resting with that working group.

4:26:11 Um

4:26:12 And then review of the climate action

4:26:14 plan.

4:26:15 You got it. You

4:26:16 You skipped line 83.

4:26:18 Yes, I'm sorry. Establish and fund

4:26:21 Um both of these

4:26:24 items again I think are the discussion

4:26:26 of

4:26:28 once the once the working group

4:26:30 comes out that recommendation then I

4:26:33 think that then falls into the broader

4:26:35 discussion of prioritization funding

4:26:37 prioritizations.

4:26:40 Um

4:26:44 The

4:26:46 This particular item

4:26:48 is in my mind directly related to the

4:26:51 graphs that we have seen from DPW

4:26:56 that show that if you spend X dollars

4:26:59 then you get roadway quality of one.

4:27:01 Right? Um and

4:27:10 I I

4:27:13 I understand how all three of these

4:27:15 things are linked, right? The the the

4:27:18 funding for roadway maintenance, the

4:27:20 questions of safety plans and how those

4:27:23 get incorporated, and then the overall

4:27:26 budget. Right? Right? So, you know,

4:27:28 there are trade-offs amongst amongst all

4:27:30 of them. So, I guess maybe

4:27:34 Um

4:27:35 yeah, there there are probably other

4:27:36 things to fold into this as well in

4:27:38 terms of sourcing money. Like if we had

4:27:40 a housing trust fund payment, right?

4:27:42 This is the whole CIT discussion.

4:27:44 Um

4:27:45 part of that discussion. Um so,

4:27:49 So, I I I just wanted to would want to

4:27:52 make sure that that that particular

4:27:54 graph is like sort of central to this to

4:27:57 that particular item so that we

4:28:00 so that in meeting that goal we're very

4:28:03 conscientious about

4:28:06 that the choice that we're making.

4:28:08 I think one of the

4:28:09 that graph is really important. It tells

4:28:11 the tells the epic story, but it's also

4:28:13 inherently incomplete because it doesn't

4:28:15 tell the story of how far your dollar

4:28:16 goes, right? It makes an assumption

4:28:19 about how far each dollar goes in terms

4:28:21 of roadway repair and maintenance. But

4:28:23 then

4:28:24 with with you change that assumption and

4:28:26 for example, you move more towards just

4:28:30 you know

4:28:31 uh milling overlay and no changes etc.

4:28:34 Then the cost to go to set your roadways

4:28:37 at a certain level goes down.

4:28:39 Um

4:28:40 but getting up

4:28:42 Mhm. The cost to get our roadway to a

4:28:43 certain level goes up the more

4:28:46 So you you the the the more the more

4:28:48 complex you make a project the higher

4:28:50 the cost and therefore your dollar you

4:28:52 know the average cost per foot to do

4:28:55 your your your road

4:28:57 um increases. Um so it makes an

4:29:00 assumption on what the average cost of

4:29:01 your of a project is and when you alter

4:29:04 the basket of projects that you're

4:29:05 doing, you alter that number and

4:29:07 therefore those graphs change.

4:29:10 Um

4:29:13 my understanding of that graph is that

4:29:18 less expensive

4:29:20 treatments

4:29:22 that have a lower impact are are

4:29:27 reflected in that graph. So that if you

4:29:29 spend you know if you spend

4:29:32 a thousand dollars towards a milling

4:29:34 overlay project, you will get

4:29:37 more improvement

4:29:39 o- over a shorter distance because you

4:29:43 can't go as far. But if you spend ten

4:29:45 thousand a thousand dollars on a less

4:29:50 impactful treatment, you can go farther

4:29:52 and then raise raise the PCI

4:29:56 uh over a greater distance. You're just

4:29:59 not raising it as as far for the

4:30:01 roadways you treat.

4:30:04 So I'm not sure I understand why the

4:30:06 budget

4:30:08 the how you get the budget PCI

4:30:10 treatment.

4:30:10 I think you it it it makes an inherent

4:30:13 inherent as I understand those graphs,

4:30:14 it makes an inherent assumption, right?

4:30:16 It says the average cost to

4:30:19 the

4:30:20 you know, factoring all of Brookline's

4:30:22 projects in, the average cost to bring

4:30:24 PCI up in Brookline is X. And so, if you

4:30:27 Right.

4:30:28 make that assumption, then you have to

4:30:29 spend

4:30:31 $5 billion, say, in this case it's

4:30:33 really like $8.1 million

4:30:35 in order to just maintain the roads as

4:30:37 they are.

4:30:38 Um

4:30:39 but if you alter that assumption of what

4:30:41 the average cost is, um by altering the

4:30:44 basket of projects that they do, um

4:30:47 or by increasing the amount of safety

4:30:48 improvements, right?

4:30:49 or by increasing the amount of safety

4:30:50 improvements, you can change that

4:30:51 calculus. Um you could bring it down,

4:30:54 you could bring it up. Um

4:30:56 Right.

4:30:58 I don't know. I think maybe we're saying

4:30:59 the same thing.

4:31:01 Uh

4:31:03 I'm not sure.

4:31:04 Okay.

4:31:05 On line 84, did we put any thought in

4:31:07 the written regards to vacancies? Did we

4:31:09 put any thought in updating the website

4:31:11 to have a [clears throat] like a

4:31:12 Yes, in fact, we we're going to website

4:31:13 refresh more generally

4:31:15 Right.

4:31:15 Um because I think one of the things

4:31:16 Michael that you brought up that I think

4:31:18 is really important for us to discuss is

4:31:20 not just vacancies, but messaging this

4:31:23 out.

4:31:24 Um messaging the 2020 road map out.

4:31:26 Mhm.

4:31:27 And I really um I thought the demo that

4:31:30 you put together of the site was really

4:31:32 effective. And I would like us to, you

4:31:35 know, take a look at that as part of the

4:31:36 broader communication process.

4:31:38 Okay.

4:31:38 So,

4:31:40 you know, we're

4:31:41 you know, we're talking about a number

4:31:43 of potential improvements to the website

4:31:45 and messaging that will um

4:31:47 you know, for example, some towns have a

4:31:49 chatbot on the website.

4:31:50 Mhm.

4:31:51 That could be used to, you know, answer

4:31:53 questions in real language. Um

4:31:55 I want to I want to test it.

4:31:57 Mhm.

4:31:59 I tend to be more of a skeptic

4:32:01 of AI, um but I um

4:32:04 you know,

4:32:05 Yeah.

4:32:05 I'm not a

4:32:06 I'm not a Luddite. I'm not about there's

4:32:07 no reason.

4:32:08 [clears throat]

4:32:08 Mhm.

4:32:10 Maybe I should be, I don't know.

4:32:11 [laughter]

4:32:13 So, um

4:32:16 So,

4:32:17 all this stuff you can see there. I have

4:32:19 sort of this three broad categories

4:32:21 where I think having regular touch

4:32:24 points with a single select board member

4:32:25 to then bring out the broader board help

4:32:28 them. That would be the funding

4:32:29 prioritizations, the communication

4:32:31 strategy, and the public bodies process

4:32:33 improvements. Michael has graciously

4:32:34 volunteered for the public bodies

4:32:36 process improvements.

4:32:38 Funding priorities I think is going to

4:32:40 say is probably going to be the

4:32:42 conversation in the fall after the

4:32:43 budget gets started in earnest in this

4:32:45 process. We need, you know,

4:32:48 fixing the gear and we have the results

4:32:50 of the working group for the roadways

4:32:52 stuff. So, um

4:32:54 not a heavy lift over the summer, but

4:32:56 probably as the budget picks up. And

4:32:58 then communication strategy I think is,

4:33:00 you know, probably going to be more of a

4:33:01 regular touch points meeting and

4:33:03 speaking and talking about how we get

4:33:05 the message out, what we can do on that

4:33:06 front. So, I guess my question to you

4:33:08 all is do you agree that so the board

4:33:10 member would be helpful

4:33:12 a single board member as a point of

4:33:13 contact would be helpful for. And if so,

4:33:16 does anyone want to volunteer?

4:33:19 I'm still wrapping my head around the

4:33:21 public process.

4:33:22 Yes.

4:33:23 So, the two the two buckets that I'm

4:33:26 actually looking at funding

4:33:27 prioritization,

4:33:29 um thinking about as as we prepare the

4:33:31 FY 28 budget and beyond, um how we

4:33:34 structure the select board's priorities

4:33:37 in order to make sure that they're

4:33:38 reflected in the budget. Um and that

4:33:40 will involve looking at all the various

4:33:42 plans that we have in terms of and

4:33:44 identifying, you know, the priorities

4:33:47 that are listed there and how they are

4:33:48 then reflected in the budget. Um and

4:33:50 that's a process that

4:33:52 involves, you know, walking through with

4:33:54 you some of that stuff as the budget

4:33:57 cycle gets started in earnest in

4:33:58 September.

4:33:59 Um so,

4:34:00 That sounds like a whole select board

4:34:02 thing. It's really

4:34:05 there's a lot of politics involved in

4:34:06 that.

4:34:07 Well, I think I don't think that can be

4:34:08 one person.

4:34:09 I think that I think that's Yeah, I

4:34:10 think that's that's right. Uh, it comes

4:34:13 back to the full board in September,

4:34:15 right? September is also where you want

4:34:16 to set your FY28 goals and objectives,

4:34:20 so that you're going to provide a cycle

4:34:22 ready to have those conversations. Um,

4:34:25 so if you think that's more of a whole

4:34:26 board thing, we can certainly do that.

4:34:28 I mean, this morning we had Grant was

4:34:31 partial. We sort of identified that

4:34:34 planning is very, very important. I

4:34:36 mean, almost anything else flows from

4:34:38 our ability to pay for things.

4:34:39 Mhm.

4:34:40 Uh, so I think, at least for me, that's

4:34:42 a priority. I got the sense that it's

4:34:44 probably a priority for a majority of

4:34:46 the board.

4:34:46 Yeah, I I heard that. And I think, you

4:34:48 know,

4:34:49 to Melissa's point, too, the question

4:34:51 then is, you know,

4:34:53 that that is a priority for us as well.

4:34:55 I think it is through it through a lot

4:34:56 of all a thing through which a lot of

4:34:58 other things flow. And we got to keep

4:35:01 picking up trash.

4:35:02 Um, we got to keep the police on the

4:35:04 streets. We got to

4:35:05 the cost of running

4:35:08 the lion's share of what we spend our

4:35:10 money I mean, almost all of what we

4:35:11 spend our money on is on people, and

4:35:13 it's the people who keep the, you know,

4:35:16 bread and butter of the town running,

4:35:18 you know?

4:35:19 We have people at the desk who who who

4:35:21 will help you pay your taxes, the people

4:35:23 in the clerk's office,

4:35:25 uh, the people um,

4:35:28 you know, after we use the service side.

4:35:30 Um,

4:35:30 and so,

4:35:32 when we talk about those that

4:35:34 prioritization, you know,

4:35:36 core government function takes up,

4:35:39 I would say, conservatively,

4:35:41 85% of the budget. And what remains in

4:35:46 that 15%,

4:35:48 um,

4:35:48 are something There are some things you

4:35:50 don't have control over, and then a very

4:35:52 vanishingly small portion of the budget

4:35:55 that I would call discretionary.

4:35:58 Um, you know,

4:35:59 I think one point I think one thing that

4:36:02 very rarely seems to come up uh

4:36:05 is

4:36:06 weighing sort of staff between buckets.

4:36:10 And not [clears throat] that that's an

4:36:10 easy conversation, right? But we tend to

4:36:13 move forward on planning because this

4:36:15 number uh

4:36:17 that got it. Well, that's planning, too.

4:36:20 [laughter]

4:36:20 It's like GPW sustainability.

4:36:23 Um but I do think that there might be

4:36:26 shifts based on prioritization of of

4:36:29 where you might want more personnel. Uh

4:36:32 and I

4:36:33 I know that's hard to have that

4:36:34 conversation when you're talking about

4:36:35 real people.

4:36:36 Um but there there should be some level

4:36:41 of like, "Okay, maybe we are not

4:36:43 staffing this office appropriately and

4:36:46 we need to devote more resources to this

4:36:47 office."

4:36:48 Uh and and by me making some trade-off

4:36:51 of like, "Okay, maybe this is less

4:36:52 important to us at this time and can

4:36:55 deal with one fewer staff than

4:36:57 uh and I don't know how to have those

4:36:59 conversations, but I do think it's

4:37:00 important that we have those.

4:37:03 Well, without going into a lot of detail

4:37:05 right now, I know that

4:37:07 the town administrator is looking at

4:37:09 certain consolidations based on

4:37:10 retirements, primarily, and some

4:37:13 restructurings, and that can sometimes

4:37:16 open up enough room for a new position.

4:37:19 All right. I think it is, you know,

4:37:20 ultimately, because we budget at the

4:37:22 departmental level, having those

4:37:24 cross-departmental conversations can be

4:37:27 tough. Um

4:37:28 it is, you know,

4:37:32 do.

4:37:33 Um with that said, it's not impossible.

4:37:36 Um and I want the board to feel that you

4:37:39 have the ability to set priorities, and

4:37:41 those priorities are then reflected in

4:37:42 the budget. So, might have not

4:37:44 impossible. Um

4:37:46 Absolutely, we will, you know, I mean,

4:37:48 how this tends to work is if you tell

4:37:50 me, after you go through this budget you

4:37:53 know, the initial budget discussion in

4:37:54 September, "We really think we we need

4:37:57 an extra personnel. The department has

4:37:59 told us that in order to do the things

4:38:01 we want, you know, any department, we

4:38:03 need X number of people. We agree, we

4:38:04 want X number of people. Then it's my

4:38:06 job to come to you and basically offer

4:38:08 you a menu of options for how to get

4:38:10 that done.

4:38:11 And so I would work with other

4:38:12 departments and figure out where we

4:38:14 would need to make cuts and

4:38:15 I would present that to you. I would

4:38:17 present options.

4:38:18 So that's how we would do that. Um

4:38:20 So So you you have the road map and

4:38:24 which

4:38:26 you know, we we haven't necessarily

4:38:28 prioritized within the road map.

4:38:31 But I guess my question is if if you

4:38:35 assume that the road map everything on

4:38:37 the road map was a relatively even

4:38:39 priority

4:38:41 [clears throat]

4:38:41 and anything not on the road map was

4:38:45 for year one was less of priority,

4:38:48 how much does that

4:38:51 answer your question about

4:38:52 prioritization? Is it sufficient or not?

4:38:55 It goes up because of the distance, but

4:38:56 I think the ultimate question is

4:38:59 I I I know where your priorities are in

4:39:01 the budget.

4:39:03 What I

4:39:04 want to know is what level of trade-off

4:39:06 are you willing to make in order to have

4:39:09 those priorities focused on, right?

4:39:11 Because we can we can do this work. We

4:39:13 can do the work that you're asking us to

4:39:14 do, but if you want us to accelerate

4:39:16 that work, if you want it to David's

4:39:18 point, if you want us to more work

4:39:21 on some of this stuff, it will

4:39:23 inherently mean

4:39:24 that

4:39:25 we're going to have to make cuts

4:39:27 elsewhere.

4:39:28 And for example, there's a lot that

4:39:30 isn't on this road map that is the

4:39:32 basics of keeping the lights on.

4:39:34 And that's really where

4:39:36 I That's That's the kind of missing

4:39:38 piece in this discussion. It's

4:39:42 Road map is dominated by DPW and

4:39:44 planning. That's a lot of the a lot of

4:39:46 the goals, which makes sense because DPW

4:39:48 touches a lot of things and so does it

4:39:50 planning, but there's other aspects that

4:39:53 keep the town running that are still

4:39:54 priorities but not as visible.

4:39:57 Um the constituencies that have a voice

4:39:59 tend to get the most resources because

4:40:01 they know how to use that. So that you

4:40:03 know, we just have to balance that out.

4:40:05 And I think right, there's you know, two

4:40:07 like Amanda you raised a question you

4:40:09 know, earlier this week about the

4:40:10 assessing, you know, like assessing is a

4:40:12 relatively small office with the

4:40:13 function they perform is

4:40:15 you know, they're actually really

4:40:16 um

4:40:17 and so

4:40:18 Yeah, that's part of the the road map.

4:40:20 Right, like thinking about spending more

4:40:22 to

4:40:23 have to make more, right?

4:40:25 Um and so realizing what those

4:40:28 possessions are.

4:40:29 Yeah. Yeah.

4:40:30 And I think what you will No, that's

4:40:31 fine. I I think what you'll find too is

4:40:33 you know, when we when we look at the

4:40:35 look at the conversation we had in the

4:40:37 old override cycle where you know,

4:40:40 to get to a number of it allowed the

4:40:42 schools to have what they needed to

4:40:44 have, we made cuts, right? We cut We are

4:40:47 we've already made cuts where we thought

4:40:49 we could.

4:40:50 And so

4:40:52 um

4:40:53 we we can continue to re-prioritize, but

4:40:55 I think it will be a similar discussion

4:40:57 to what we had with the override, which

4:40:58 is you know, if if you know,

4:41:01 what are some of those no override

4:41:02 scenario situations and how will we deal

4:41:04 with that? Um

4:41:05 I I I'm looking at the

4:41:08 the road map page and I'm looking at

4:41:11 number

4:41:12 uh action number 181, which is document

4:41:15 the required base services each

4:41:17 each department provides, which is a

4:41:19 year two to three

4:41:22 operation, but I'm wondering if we need

4:41:25 that in order to do the prioritization

4:41:28 that you're talking about and whether

4:41:31 it's worth putting some level of effort

4:41:33 over the some into working on

4:41:37 putting that information together.

4:41:39 So we are planning on trying to do that

4:41:41 this summer. We have our intern from the

4:41:43 Department of

4:41:45 the Division of Local Services that

4:41:46 that's one of the assignments that we're

4:41:48 going to give the intern is to

4:41:49 categorize things that are state

4:41:50 mandates and things that are town bylaw

4:41:53 mandates so that the service levels for

4:41:55 each department are kind of traced to

4:41:57 the actual genesis of the bylaw or

4:42:00 mandate that where it's coming from.

4:42:03 Um and then I have one general question

4:42:05 in terms of budgeting and that is I I'm

4:42:08 not sure if you've probably already

4:42:10 thought this but like

4:42:11 I know at least from roadway stuff we do

4:42:13 a lot of like contracting out or

4:42:16 consultants that are probably a lot more

4:42:17 per hour and I don't know if we've ever

4:42:19 thought of like what we can do in-house

4:42:21 and whether we might save money by

4:42:23 hiring additional staffer in-house.

4:42:25 Yeah, well it's a it's good question. We

4:42:26 do we do consider that a lot and in fact

4:42:29 I think one of the most effective things

4:42:30 that Burlington does is it tries to

4:42:31 manage as many projects as it can

4:42:33 in-house. Um we really do not have large

4:42:37 consulting budgets we especially when

4:42:39 compared to some of our peer communities

4:42:41 because we try and hire and maintain

4:42:43 internal talent. And that's the reason

4:42:45 why of all of them, you know, half a

4:42:47 billion dollars of capital projects that

4:42:49 have been done in the last 20 years, one

4:42:51 of them is over budget.

4:42:53 Um

4:42:54 and it was one one that we actually

4:42:55 relied more on outside help than any

4:42:57 than others did with the high school. Um

4:43:00 every every other project has come in

4:43:01 under budget every single year.

4:43:03 Um because we use internal project

4:43:05 management strong controls and team. So

4:43:07 it is definitely an area where we focus

4:43:11 but the reality is we don't spend a lot

4:43:13 of of of um

4:43:16 of operating budget dollars on

4:43:18 consultants uh especially when compared

4:43:20 to peer communities.

4:43:21 Yeah, Charlie did an analysis for the

4:43:23 expenditure and revenue committee that

4:43:25 basically proved that as well.

4:43:27 So.

4:43:29 So less than half a percent of the

4:43:30 budget goes to any sort of outside

4:43:33 services and I think of that most of it

4:43:35 was planning dollars to do planning

4:43:37 consulting services. And that's you

4:43:39 know, we take that we take

4:43:40 recommendation from Cara on whether on

4:43:42 whether or not know, how much to fund

4:43:43 that. I mean, she requests that money to

4:43:46 a certain level. So, it's you know,

4:43:48 again, it's it is a very small portion

4:43:50 of what we do

4:43:52 you know, what we do with that is

4:43:53 outside contracted services.

4:43:55 Yeah.

4:43:55 Does that include DPW upgrades?

4:43:57 It does include, for example, the

4:43:59 outsourcing of the sanitation operation,

4:44:01 which we did just do last year.

4:44:04 Um and that was, you know, after some

4:44:05 heavy analysis. Um

4:44:07 Yeah, I know that.

4:44:08 Right. Um But but

4:44:10 But there's other types of roads, like I

4:44:13 know we often end up My husband sat on

4:44:16 the Washington Street corridor, and it's

4:44:18 like, "Okay, now we've like brought in

4:44:20 the these design consultants, but that's

4:44:21 still like only a fraction of the cost."

4:44:24 Well, we were looking just at operating

4:44:26 budget dollars. We weren't looking at

4:44:27 capital budgets when I did that

4:44:28 analysis. So, we, you know, I think if

4:44:30 you factor that in, sure, we do spend

4:44:32 money on architect engineering services

4:44:34 beyond what I'm talking about.

4:44:36 Well, and but also seems like the $5

4:44:39 million for repaving roadways

4:44:41 that was mostly contracts from

4:44:44 Right. Chas is referring to consulting

4:44:45 services. So, you're you're right.

4:44:46 You're right though.

4:44:48 Uh you know, we have contracted services

4:44:50 for roadways, yes.

4:44:51 Yeah. I guess my ask would be to uh

4:44:54 there might not be any

4:44:55 Right.

4:44:56 anything there there, but at least like

4:44:58 to like look at what we contract to see

4:45:00 whether we might be able to save money

4:45:03 and do more by

4:45:04 Yeah, we we have conversations with

4:45:05 department heads every year in their

4:45:06 budget um during the budget season in in

4:45:09 the fall. We talk, you know, in depth

4:45:10 about, you know, how their operations

4:45:12 are going and what they're spending

4:45:13 their money on. And you know, for

4:45:14 example, we've talked to the um to the

4:45:16 health director, the new health

4:45:18 director, about a couple of outside

4:45:19 contracts we have that we'd like to

4:45:21 think about bringing in. Um he thinks he

4:45:23 could do better work for the same amount

4:45:26 of money, not necessarily saving any

4:45:27 money.

4:45:28 Right.

4:45:28 Um

4:45:29 Building with HVAC techs, things like

4:45:30 that.

4:45:31 Right. We we do we do analyze and we're

4:45:34 basically constantly working with

4:45:35 department heads um to find some kind of

4:45:38 efficiency or savings. So it's it is

4:45:40 a continuous

4:45:41 process.

4:45:42 But you know, when when we come around

4:45:45 you know, and maybe we could find a way

4:45:46 to talk about it sooner. But when we

4:45:47 come around to budget season next year,

4:45:49 it's a good time to ask departments

4:45:51 about that kind of stuff. You know, how

4:45:52 much of your work is contracted out

4:45:54 versus how much is in-house.

4:45:55 And it may be it may be to your point

4:45:59 about looking at operating classes

4:46:01 versus the CIP. It may be that that we

4:46:04 are we are spending money in the CIP

4:46:07 that could be more efficiently used

4:46:11 with in-house

4:46:13 staff. But that would turn it from a CIP

4:46:17 operation into an operating expense.

4:46:19 Yes. Plus all the group benefits and all

4:46:22 that. But I mean it's some of the stuff

4:46:23 we're talking about here like designing

4:46:25 for example, you know, complete streets

4:46:27 projects or really complicated projects,

4:46:30 you know, you want world-class expertise

4:46:32 on you

4:46:33 you can't necessarily afford to pay

4:46:35 people to do that in house sometimes.

4:46:36 You know, we like we pay our project

4:46:38 managers for all these building

4:46:40 projects, but we still hire architects.

4:46:43 Yeah, I and I I I got all of that. I'm

4:46:45 just

4:46:47 when you have a organization that thinks

4:46:49 of separate pools of money funding

4:46:51 separate things that we don't always

4:46:52 think about cross savings between them.

4:46:56 And I don't know the best way to like

4:46:58 think about that,

4:46:59 but it is worth considering if like CIP

4:47:02 versus operating and like if we were to

4:47:04 come out in the end ahead, right? We can

4:47:07 re-evaluate how we're funding CIP versus

4:47:10 operating budgets.

4:47:15 I'm done.

4:47:16 What I'm hearing is in terms of the

4:47:18 finance discussion, we should have a

4:47:21 discussion with the full board in

4:47:22 September about prioritization as part

4:47:24 of your board retreat and goal-setting

4:47:26 [clears throat] process for FY 2028.

4:47:28 Sure. Yes.

4:47:29 Okay. And and what was the third thing?

4:47:31 Priorities.

4:47:33 So, we already started to talk about

4:47:35 that under some of these other

4:47:36 discussion items, and that's also what

4:47:39 we have docketed for our last item

4:47:41 today.

4:47:42 Yeah.

4:47:42 So, communication average communication

4:47:44 strategy. Education on warrant articles,

4:47:46 email response policy, office hours. We

4:47:48 talked about office hours as a potential

4:47:51 option.

4:47:52 Um

4:47:53 I wonder given Bernard's point about the

4:47:55 2024 policy and how that folds into

4:47:58 this, if you might want to take this on

4:48:02 at a future meeting um

4:48:04 because it's almost three. You guys did

4:48:07 a lot of work already today. Um

4:48:09 we can obviously have I'm happy to have

4:48:11 the discussion, but I think maybe giving

4:48:13 you the opportunity to read what your

4:48:15 the the current policy is and work

4:48:17 through that and then come back with a

4:48:18 proposal for

4:48:20 we can come back with a proposal for

4:48:23 updates. Um Michael, also your proposed

4:48:26 language about education and warrant

4:48:28 article standing.

4:48:29 Right.

4:48:30 We should also fold into the information

4:48:32 that you sent me as well because both

4:48:35 Yeah.

4:48:35 I thought of it I thought of it um

4:48:38 Well, I was a little ignorant at the

4:48:40 time because I if I'd known about those

4:48:42 things then there's there's lots of

4:48:44 duplication there that we don't need.

4:48:46 On the point of office hours, so when I

4:48:48 was on school committee, we we did that

4:48:51 for a time.

4:48:52 And to my surprise, literally nobody

4:48:55 would show up.

4:48:56 Yeah.

4:48:56 And it seems that the more effective way

4:49:00 that at least I found is people will

4:49:01 reach out to us when they reach out to

4:49:03 us, and then you just try to find the

4:49:05 time to meet with them.

4:49:07 Uh I mean, we could try office hours,

4:49:09 but I haven't found that to be

4:49:10 successful.

4:49:12 One thing I found that would be helpful

4:49:14 that has been helpful is um

4:49:17 office hours focused around a particular

4:49:19 topic. If you say, [clears throat] you

4:49:21 know, "Hey, come and see us uh talk

4:49:22 about anything."

4:49:23 Like, "Well, I don't want to talk about

4:49:24 anything."

4:49:25 Um

4:49:26 or you know, "All right. I'll raise it

4:49:27 you know, I'll raise it when I want to

4:49:28 race with you. But if you say like I'm

4:49:30 having an off I'm having office hours

4:49:32 and the focus you know

4:49:34 I would love to hear from you about X,

4:49:36 then people who are interested in that

4:49:38 particular topic tend do tend to show up

4:49:40 and often times you may then get kind of

4:49:42 spillover about you know

4:49:44 conversation may evolve to other topics.

4:49:47 So potentially one way of doing that is

4:49:49 to think about you know what are what

4:49:51 are areas of conversation you'd like to

4:49:53 solicit the community's feedback on um

4:49:55 and then structure that as kind of a

4:49:56 free-flowing conversation with no formal

4:49:59 response.

4:50:00 And we may

4:50:01 we may end up amongst the five of us

4:50:04 also employing different strategies

4:50:07 because like um

4:50:09 we might do that. I might for example do

4:50:12 the thing that I did with Chestnut Hill

4:50:14 where I sort of contacted

4:50:17 town meeting members and said

4:50:20 can we can we get together for an hour

4:50:22 and talk

4:50:23 amongst however many town meeting

4:50:24 members and talk about X.

4:50:26 Mhm.

4:50:26 And

4:50:27 scan sort of schedule and talk with

4:50:29 them.

4:50:32 I do think we might want to create a

4:50:35 somewhat more formalized system around

4:50:37 that model that you very effectively

4:50:39 executed in the ambit of Chestnut Hill

4:50:42 West of meeting with various town

4:50:45 meeting delegations to go over

4:50:46 something. I I think that

4:50:49 provided a lot of information to people

4:50:52 and really clarified a lot of concerns.

4:50:55 I really like the idea of splitting the

4:50:57 town into multiple like splitting the

4:51:01 precincts amongst ourselves and being

4:51:03 like oh let's go do

4:51:05 more of reviews with them nothing.

4:51:07 Well

4:51:09 I mean we are all

4:51:11 uh representatives of all 63,000

4:51:15 residents. So I wouldn't want to say

4:51:18 okay these are my folks and those are

4:51:20 your folks.

4:51:20 Yeah, I would I would just talk yeah I

4:51:21 would start on the logistic side.

4:51:23 thematically rather than geographically.

4:51:25 Yeah, that's Yeah.

4:51:27 Yeah, sure.

4:51:29 That makes more sense.

4:51:30 Cuz we don't have different communities.

4:51:32 Yeah, I'm tabling most of this till the

4:51:34 next meeting, but I I do want to flag

4:51:37 that

4:51:38 um

4:51:40 we should be cognizant of

4:51:42 time spent and who engages. I really

4:51:46 like the idea of reaching out to folks,

4:51:49 um but if we take on something like

4:51:51 office hours and

4:51:53 the Brookline 100 show up,

4:51:56 how helpful is that? Is this opening a

4:52:00 an up a new way of communicating with

4:52:02 the same people you're already

4:52:03 communicating in other channels, or are

4:52:05 we actually reaching more people and

4:52:07 making this life more more accessible?

4:52:10 Um and I don't have the answer, but

4:52:12 I will say another area there the best

4:52:15 turnout I got for the budget 101, which

4:52:17 was also not well attended,

4:52:19 um was at the housing board.

4:52:22 Um

4:52:23 so, you know, taking the show on the

4:52:26 road is really helpful. Um it was the

4:52:29 housing board and the senior center was

4:52:30 were the two areas

4:52:33 most interest and the most, you know,

4:52:35 dynamic conversation.

4:52:38 You know, I had one very eager

4:52:40 um

4:52:41 young person show up to the other

4:52:42 school.

4:52:44 [laughter]

4:52:44 Sure, they were interesting. We had a

4:52:46 good conversation.

4:52:47 Um but um

4:52:49 Yeah, even South Brookline, you know, we

4:52:50 went to the Putterham Library, we had a

4:52:52 handful of people.

4:52:53 Yeah, we had a handful of people.

4:52:53 But you know, I think we could have

4:52:55 probably advertised a little bit better,

4:52:56 but

4:52:58 It does vary a lot. So, I remember in my

4:53:00 school committee time, we used to

4:53:01 regularly do that. We'd have meetings at

4:53:02 each school, uh different parts of town,

4:53:05 and some schools you'd get two people,

4:53:07 some schools you'd get 40 people, and

4:53:09 just the the variation was quite

4:53:12 striking.

4:53:15 So, we'll table communications. Um we'll

4:53:18 come back I will circulate the both the

4:53:20 documents that I sent to you, Michael.

4:53:21 And is it okay if I circulate your

4:53:22 draft?

4:53:22 Yeah, feel free to share.

4:53:23 Yeah.

4:53:24 Um and actually I wrote it about water.

4:53:26 It's about how to help people draft

4:53:27 water articles.

4:53:28 Um and we'll we'll we'll come back once

4:53:31 we have more of that

4:53:32 background

4:53:34 distributed amongst the members.

4:53:36 All right, sounds good.

4:53:38 Sounds good. Cool.

4:53:39 So, that concludes our meeting.

4:53:41 Right at 3:00.

4:53:42 Well

4:53:43 Good job.

4:53:45 Good.

4:53:45 Ah, 3:00.

4:53:46 Thank you.