Select Board Work Session - June 16, 2026
2026-06-16

[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.