Brookline Select Board Meeting - October 6, 2026

3:03 Heat. Heat.

15:14 Good evening. Good evening everyone. It

15:16 is Tuesday, October 6. Welcome to our

15:19 regular select board meeting. Our first

15:21 agenda item, announcements and updates.

15:24 Members have some announcements or

15:26 updates to make.

15:27 Go ahead, Michael.

15:28 Um, first of all, I I don't know if

15:30 other select board members have the same

15:32 update, but I just want to congratulate

15:35 and commend all of the participants of

15:37 Porchfest last Saturday. Um, I had the

15:41 opportunity to see everything from uh,

15:44 uh, flamnco music, uh, rock and roll,

15:47 uh, the grateful dads, uh, R&B, jazz. It

15:52 was, uh, lovely to see everybody out.

15:54 Um, and of course, we had a wonderful

15:56 day.

15:58 All right, Amanda.

15:59 Uh, one announcement today. Uh,

16:01 Brookline Indigenous People's Day

16:03 celebration is this coming Monday,

16:04 October 12th from 1 to 4 pm at the

16:07 Florida Ruff and Ridley School Cafe.

16:10 Join the Indigenous People's Celebration

16:12 Committee and the Office of Diversity,

16:14 Equity, Inclusion, and Community

16:15 Relations for the annual Indigenous

16:18 People's Day celebration. This year we

16:19 will be featuring a conversation on

16:21 who's 20, community memory and

16:23 indigenous Brookline and as well as a

16:26 fully accessible and inclusive fun run

16:29 starting at 12:30 before the kickoff of

16:31 the event. Um as well as local

16:34 indigenous craft, good vendors, free

16:36 food, kids crafts, and storytelling. So

16:38 check it out.

16:40 Bernard,

16:41 thank you. David, I'd like to put uh I'd

16:44 like to ask people to put on their

16:46 calendars two upcoming events. Uh first

16:49 on October 15 at 7 PM at United Parish

16:52 Church, the Brooklyn Rotary Club uh and

16:55 clubs in Boston, Cambridge, and Needam

16:58 and Physicians for Social Responsibility

17:00 will hold a teachin on peace building in

17:03 a world of conflict. Uh second, on

17:06 October 29th, I know that's a few weeks

17:09 away, but uh put it on your calendar at

17:11 6:30 p.m. in Hunaman Hall, the MLK

17:14 Celebration Committee, the Indigenous

17:16 People Celebration Committee, and the

17:18 Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion,

17:21 and Community Relations will be hosting

17:23 an exciting onewoman performance of uh

17:27 One Minute of Freedom by a actress uh

17:31 Tammy Denise and the Hidden Women Stage

17:34 Company. It's a story of a courageous

17:36 woman, Elizabeth Mambette Free uh

17:39 Freeman that is very relevant to the

17:41 semiquincential of the of the

17:44 Declaration of Independence. Um Denise

17:47 tells the story of an enslaved woman who

17:49 took the words of freedom. She overheard

17:52 from Massachusetts revolutionist

17:54 seriously and she sued to have those

17:57 ideas applied to her as an enslaved

18:00 person and won in court. uh contributing

18:03 significantly to the ending of slavery

18:05 in Massachusetts. Uh both of these uh

18:08 events are free admission. Um and um put

18:12 it on your calendar.

18:14 All right. Anyone else?

18:17 Okay. So, with that, we will move to our

18:19 next agenda item, which is public

18:21 comment. Melanie, if you'd like to

18:22 review the rules.

18:24 Thank you for joining us for public

18:26 comment. This is an opportunity for us

18:28 to hear your perspective on the issues

18:29 in Brooklyn that matter to you. Each

18:32 person speaking tonight is limited to

18:34 three minutes. You don't need to use the

18:36 entire time, but you may if you like.

18:38 Once 15 minutes has been met, there is

18:40 an opportunity at the conclusion of the

18:42 select board's business for additional

18:43 comments. Members of the public

18:45 sometimes raise questions during public

18:47 comment. We may be able to provide a

18:49 quick answer to a question, but are more

18:51 likely to work with staff to get a more

18:52 thorough answer and respond over email.

18:54 The onscreen timer will flash orange

18:56 when you have 60 seconds remaining and

18:58 red when your time is nearly up. Please

19:00 conclude your remarks at that time. If

19:02 you have more to say, you are welcome to

19:04 send an email to board members

19:06 expressing your thoughts in greater

19:07 detail. Any person wishing to speak must

19:09 begin their comment by identifying

19:11 themselves with their full name, either

19:13 their Brooklyn precinct number or street

19:15 address, and the specific topic on which

19:17 they wish to speak. The board encourages

19:19 but does not require that remote users

19:21 turn their video on when commenting.

19:25 Is anyone signed up? No.

19:27 Would anyone in the room like to be

19:28 heard in public comment?

19:31 All right, seeing none, we will then

19:34 move to miscellaneous. Uh, so we have

19:37 just four items in miscellaneous this

19:39 week, much fewer than usual. And I

19:41 understand that Michael has a question

19:43 regarding item 3B.

19:46 Go ahead, Michael.

19:47 Okay,

19:48 sorry.

19:50 So 3B uh just for the public is a

19:52 question of approving contract PW2711

19:57 Willow Pond dredging and lever pond bank

20:00 stabilization with NGO and Murray

20:03 excavating in the amount of 1,979,96.

20:09 Okay, thank you very much. Um uh this

20:12 was uh a nearly $2 million contract. Um

20:16 so I thought it was worth a little bit

20:18 of uh extra attention. Um and I also

20:22 noticed as was indicated um by DPW um

20:27 that this was put out to bid um there

20:29 was only a single bidder um and that

20:32 bidder is awarded the contract which in

20:34 my mind also warrants a little

20:37 additional scrutiny. Um so first I want

20:39 to check and see if Sam DS is on the is

20:41 on the line. Great. Um and I've asked uh

20:44 Sam these questions uh I provided Sam

20:47 these questions in advance. So, let me

20:49 just ask them in order.

20:50 One second. He just dropped off. Get Let

20:52 me let him back in.

20:59 Okay, he's back.

21:01 Okay, thank you. Um, the first question

21:03 I'm so sorry. I lit it cut out. Yeah, I

21:05 apologize.

21:06 That's okay. Um, I'm just starting with

21:08 my first question. Um, given that we

21:10 only received one bid, um, is this a

21:13 service with only a single supplier in

21:15 the area or are there other suppliers

21:17 that could have bid and did any other

21:20 suppliers request bidding information?

21:24 Uh, yes, thank you, Michael. So, hi

21:26 everyone. Um, Sam DS, deputy director of

21:28 engineering for the town. Uh, apologies

21:30 for the technical difficulties. Um my

21:32 camera is not working but um so the

21:35 Willow Pond and Lever Pond uh dredging

21:38 project um has been going on for a

21:40 number of years and we're very excited

21:41 about it. Um the the town staff along

21:45 with our consultant did reach out to

21:47 numerous companies uh and contractors to

21:50 um you know try to generate as much

21:52 interest as possible. Uh ultimately we

21:55 did have 10 different uh general

21:57 contracting firms pull the bid documents

22:00 to review. Um but uh after discussing

22:04 with the contractors why certain um why

22:07 they chose not to bid uh it ultimately

22:10 came down to this project uh requiring

22:14 uh hydraulic dredging versus mechanical

22:17 dredging. Um that is that is when the

22:20 material is removed while the pond is uh

22:24 still has uh water in it. Um and that is

22:29 because of the endangered species the

22:31 threespine stickleback um population

22:34 that is in nearby spring pond. Uh during

22:37 the peritting process we were required

22:39 to use hydraulic dredging which is a

22:42 must which as I mentioned is a much much

22:44 less frequently used uh style of

22:47 dredging. it requires special equipment

22:49 uh and ultimately uh the contractors

22:51 decided that um it was potentially too

22:54 technical for them to to complete.

22:57 Okay.

22:58 Um thank you. Um uh within this contract

23:01 of uh nearly $2 million, um the project

23:04 does involve multiple steps, dredging,

23:06 disposal, bank stabilization, and tree

23:09 planting. Um, can you provide an

23:11 approximate p uh breakdown as to the

23:13 percentage of the overall contract that

23:15 is devoted to each of these steps? Is

23:18 one particularly more costly than the

23:21 others?

23:23 Yes. Um, so I I did it in terms of

23:25 dollars, but you could we could

23:26 translate these easily into percentages

23:29 if that's easier. Um so I've estimated

23:32 that the dredging component um you know

23:34 the physical removal of the sediment

23:36 from the site uh which you know would

23:39 include site preparation um and

23:41 temporary access controls uh to be just

23:44 over a million dollars maybe $1.1

23:46 million. Um so that's a significant

23:49 portion uh you know the most significant

23:52 portion and then the second most

23:54 significant portion is the dewatering uh

23:56 which is a a very uh slow and time

23:59 consuming process but but it's really

24:01 the disposal of the material. Um Willow

24:04 Pond is um a known a known site that had

24:09 petroleum leaked into it from an old DPW

24:11 facility many many years ago. And so as

24:14 part of this project, we have to

24:16 specially remove the specially dispose

24:19 of the sediment because of the known

24:21 petroleum. And so that cost is

24:24 approximately $600,000.

24:26 So between the the removal, the

24:28 dewatering, and the disposal, that's

24:30 approximately 1.7 of the $1.9 million.

24:34 Um, and the remaining the remaining

24:36 costs are um installing a stop log for

24:40 outlet control. uh that will help

24:43 monitor or help regulate the height of

24:45 the pond uh which is currently regulated

24:48 by trash in the in the and debris in the

24:51 pond. Um and then the final final costs

24:55 we're doing additional tree plantings

24:57 which are only about $38,000

24:59 and then you know final site restoration

25:02 is probably about $100,000.

25:04 Okay. Um and the last question is was

25:07 there any attempt to get state or other

25:09 external grant funding to offset the

25:12 cost of the project to the town? Um or

25:14 are you aware of any such opportunities

25:17 that we didn't have the capacity to

25:19 pursue?

25:21 Yes. So I um I personally applied for um

25:25 the fiscal year 25 inland inland

25:28 dredging pilot uh through the um e

25:33 executive office of economic development

25:35 in early 2025. Um this is obviously a

25:38 very niche project. Um and this inland

25:42 dredging grant was the first of its

25:44 kind. Um the grant had $4 million to

25:48 give out and received over $14 million

25:50 in requests. And so unfortunately the

25:53 town was not awarded that grant um and

25:56 there have not been subsequent grant

25:58 opportunities uh that either the town or

26:00 our consultant have identified uh

26:03 meeting this project unfortunately.

26:05 Okay. Thank you very much.

26:07 Of course.

26:09 Any other questions regarding item 3B?

26:13 All right. Seeing none, why don't we go

26:15 ahead and take a vote on this one? So,

26:17 I'm going to move approval of the

26:19 contract for Willow Pond dredging and

26:21 lever pond bank stabilization in the

26:24 amount of uh1,979,96.

26:29 Yes.

26:30 Michael,

26:31 yes.

26:31 Amanda,

26:32 yes.

26:32 Anthony,

26:33 yes.

26:34 All right. Now, uh moving back to 3A.

26:37 Thank you.

26:38 Thank you very much for answering those

26:39 questions. Appreciate it.

26:42 Uh now regarding item 3A is question of

26:44 approving the meeting minutes from

26:45 September 29th. Uh we all received some

26:48 proposed revisions from Michael. Uh I

26:51 move that we approve the meeting minutes

26:53 from September 29th, 2026

26:56 as revised by Michael.

26:58 Yes.

26:59 Michael,

27:00 yes.

27:00 Amanda,

27:01 yes.

27:01 Anthony,

27:02 yes.

27:02 And I also vote yes. Now we will move to

27:06 uh item 3C which is a question of

27:09 approving a proclamation acknowledging

27:11 October as LGBTQIA+

27:14 history month and national coming out

27:16 day. Uh does someone have Michael has a

27:19 copy of the proclamation and he will

27:21 read it for the public.

27:23 Uh proclamation of the Brooklyn Select

27:26 Board LGBTQIA

27:28 plus History Month and National Coming

27:30 Out Day.

27:33 Whereas the month of October is LGBTQIA+

27:37 history month. And whereas in the United

27:40 States, this first began in 1994 as a

27:44 way to honor the history and historical

27:47 achievements of LGBTQIA plus

27:50 individuals.

27:52 And whereas LGBTQIA plus History Month

27:55 was started by Rodney Wilson, a Missouri

27:58 high school teacher. And October was

28:00 selected to coincide with National

28:02 Coming Out Day, which is October 11th.

28:06 And whereas National Coming Out Day is

28:09 observed on October 11th and as a way

28:12 for LGBTQIA plus individuals to take

28:16 ownership of their identities, raise

28:18 awareness, and celebrate themselves. And

28:21 whereas National Coming Out Day began in

28:24 1988 amid the AIDS crisis and the

28:27 response of the Reagan administration.

28:30 And whereas Brooklyn Town Meeting voted

28:33 to observe both LGBTQIA plus History

28:36 Month and National Coming Out Day in

28:39 Brooklyn in November of 2025.

28:42 Now therefore, be it resolved that the

28:45 town of Brooklyn designates the month of

28:47 October as LGBTQIA plus History Month

28:51 and October 11th, 2026 as National

28:55 Coming Out Day in as a showing of

28:58 support for and way to celebrate LGBTQIA

29:03 plus individuals in Brooklyn and beyond.

29:07 Signed by the Brooklyn Select Board.

29:09 Right. Thank you. Uh, I move that we

29:12 approve the proclamation acknowledging

29:14 October as LGBTQIA

29:16 plus History Month and National Coming

29:18 Out Day as just read by Michael Bernard.

29:21 Yes.

29:21 Michael,

29:22 yes.

29:22 Amanda,

29:23 yes.

29:23 Anthony,

29:24 yes.

29:24 And I also vote yes. That brings us to

29:27 item 3D, question of approving a

29:29 proclamation acknowledging October as

29:32 National Disability Employment Awareness

29:33 Month and October 15th as White Cane

29:36 Safety Day. Looks like Amanda has that

29:39 proclamation to read. Go right ahead.

29:42 Procla proclamation by the Brookline

29:44 Select Board, National Disability

29:46 Employment Awareness Month and White

29:48 Cane Day. Whereas the month of October

29:50 is National Disability Employment

29:52 Awareness Month. And whereas National

29:55 Disability Employment Month aware

29:57 disability employment awareness month

29:59 began in 1945 as a national week

30:02 recognizing the contributions of workers

30:04 with physical disabilities and was

30:07 expanded by Congress in 1988 into a

30:09 month-long observance recognizing

30:11 workers with disabilities.

30:14 And whereas National Disability

30:16 Employment Awareness Month highlights

30:18 the skills, talents, and contributions

30:20 of people with disabilities and the

30:22 importance of expanding access to

30:24 equitable and inclusive employment

30:26 opportunities. And whereas the 2026

30:30 National Disability Employment Awareness

30:32 Month theme, celebrating value and

30:34 talent recognizes the value that people

30:37 with disabilities bring to workplaces,

30:39 communities, and the economy. And

30:42 whereas white cane safety day is

30:44 observed annually on October 15th and

30:47 was established by Congress in 1964.

30:51 And whereas the white cane serves as an

30:53 important tool and symbol of

30:55 independence, mobility, and

30:57 self-determination for people who are

30:59 blind, deafb blind, or have low vision.

31:02 And whereas the town of Brooklyn

31:04 recognizes the importance of

31:06 accessibility, inclusion, independence,

31:08 and equitable opportunities for people

31:10 with disabilities in our workplaces and

31:12 throughout our community. Now therefore,

31:15 be it resolved that the town of Brooklyn

31:17 designates the month of October 2026 as

31:21 National Disability Employment Awareness

31:23 Month and October 15, 2026 as White Cane

31:27 Safety Day and celebrates the

31:29 contributions of people with

31:30 disabilities in Brooklyn and beyond

31:32 while reaffirming its commitments to a

31:35 community in which people of all

31:37 abilities have the opportunity to

31:39 participate, work, and thrive. signed

31:42 the Brookline Select Board.

31:44 Thank you. All right. So, I will go

31:46 ahead and move that we approve the

31:48 proclamation acknowledging October as

31:50 National Disability Employment Awareness

31:51 Month and October 15th as White Cane

31:54 Safety Day. Bernard,

31:55 yes.

31:55 Michael,

31:56 yes.

31:56 Amanda,

31:57 yes.

31:57 Anthony,

31:58 yes.

31:58 And I also vote yes.

32:01 Now, before we move to item 5A, which is

32:05 u pertaining to police department

32:07 promotions, the town administrator

32:09 really would like to be here for that.

32:10 So, we're going to skip to the next item

32:13 and then come back to police promotions

32:15 and he should be up shortly.

32:18 So, that will bring us to item 6A,

32:22 boards and commissions interviews, solid

32:25 waste advisory committee. There are

32:27 three vacancies and we have uh one of

32:32 our candidates here today, Clint

32:33 Richmond.

32:35 Go ahead if you'd like to introduce

32:37 yourself to us, explain your background,

32:40 your interest in serving on this

32:42 committee, why you feel you would be a

32:44 good fit.

32:46 Uh, good evening. I'm Clint Richmond,

32:48 uh, town meeting member from precinct 6.

32:50 Um, here today to reapply for my

32:52 position on the solid waste advisory

32:54 committee. I've served on the committee

32:56 since I think 1989,

32:59 something like that. A while. No, 99.

33:02 What was it? John John's here. When

33:03 would I serve John? He doesn't now

33:05 forever, not as long as Mr. Dempsey. Uh,

33:08 and I apologize for letting my

33:09 membership lapse. I had not been

33:11 reminded, but I take full responsibility

33:13 for not noticing that my term was up.

33:15 So, uh, I've served for a dozen years

33:17 anyway here. So, that must be 2010.

33:21 Uh anyway, um

33:25 uh I don't know what else to say except

33:27 that uh uh I've been I've worked on a

33:31 lot of solid waste uh issues during my

33:33 tenure there and prior to joining the

33:35 meeting. uh worked with uh the committee

33:38 to uh advance uh and sponsor and support

33:42 uh various solid waste initiatives such

33:43 as the plastic bag ban, the polystyrene

33:46 ban, the uh food packaging um

33:49 regulations, the um PAS uh product uh

33:54 ban which was converted into a uh task

33:58 force and a different a different

34:00 outcome came on that but uh with regards

34:03 to actually I guess it's p environmental

34:05 purchasing policy, which is something

34:06 we've also worked on at the um at the at

34:09 SWAC, as we like to affectionately call

34:11 it. And um I also serve as conservation

34:15 chair of the Massachusetts Sierra Club

34:16 where I also work on these issues um

34:19 statewide. Um so happy to discuss uh my

34:24 application and uh any questions you

34:26 might have having served on this

34:27 committee and been involved in this

34:28 issue for a long time.

34:29 All right. So one question I have in

34:31 your application you mentioned that a

34:34 point of emphasis uh for you would be

34:37 creating some special events for

34:39 textiles and e-waste. Could you

34:41 elaborate on that?

34:43 Uh well I want to support what the what

34:45 the uh uh DPW is already doing with

34:47 respect to those kinds of things. I just

34:48 wanted to emphasize that that's an

34:49 important issue. Uh, you know, since I

34:51 live in North Brooklyn to have access uh

34:54 to events such as textiles without

34:56 having to go to South Brooklyn and the

34:58 transfer station. It's not an initiative

35:01 I've I've been involved in and you are

35:03 promoting, but uh I certainly support

35:05 that. I wanted to lift that up as

35:07 something that the that the um uh you

35:10 know DPW has done on its own.

35:13 All right. Anyone else?

35:15 I do.

35:15 Go ahead, Bernard.

35:17 just to help people understand what SWAC

35:21 does. In addition to the toxins that

35:24 you've uh taken a lead in getting out of

35:27 the trash stream, um what are the other

35:29 issues that SWAC needs to deal with? For

35:32 example, other than getting uh textiles,

35:35 which takes up a lot of room out of the

35:38 uh landfill, what are the other issues

35:40 that come up before uh SWAC? Well, as

35:42 you know, our mission includes I we

35:44 review the DPW budget as it relates to

35:46 SWAC. Uh uh we helped review the uh new

35:50 um environmental purchasing policy that

35:52 we're required to to adopt as part of uh

35:55 being eligible for grants from the state

35:56 D on on solid waste. So, we've gotten

36:00 grants that again we've presented our

36:01 annual reports uh about grants we've

36:04 been awarded for things like composting

36:06 and things like that. So, uh I I think

36:08 we're just really more community voices

36:10 within the process. Um you we've got

36:13 very dedicated members, many of whom

36:14 have served for many years. Um

36:18 we're very supportive of the department.

36:20 We think it does good work. Um you know,

36:23 I will say particularly with my own

36:24 offices when I when I was a young man a

36:27 few years ago and first served on the

36:29 committee, you know, I was more worried

36:30 about plastic recycling. I said, "Oh, we

36:32 can't do anything with bulky waste or

36:34 something like that." But now I've come

36:35 become completely disillusioned with

36:36 plastic recycling. really think that we

36:38 need to be treating as a toxic waste and

36:41 um uh really focus on that because

36:45 recycling doesn't really even make sense

36:46 unless the toxics are removed first.

36:48 Otherwise, you just um they're in kind

36:50 of a spin cycle of of toxics.

36:54 I will mention though I mentioned Willow

36:56 Pond has been sampled and it does have

36:58 PAS in it. So, it's good that it's being

37:00 sequestered in a in a way. So, I I

37:02 wouldn't uh fight that. Well, it's not

37:04 part of our, you know, the kind of thing

37:05 we talk about at solid waste, but these

37:06 are all, uh, different waist streams,

37:09 not all of which we, you know, have to

37:11 do with like town pickup service, which

37:12 is the main focus of of SWAC, you know,

37:15 whether it's composting, u, curbside

37:18 recycling, and then the various stations

37:20 we have for specialized waste. You know,

37:22 we've talked about construction and

37:23 demolition debris, and I think, you

37:25 know, we heard some presentations that

37:26 were very good on what the town's doing

37:27 to kind of make sure that we're not um

37:29 you know, throwing away things that

37:30 could be useful like concrete or rebar

37:33 or or chairs or tables. So, again, I

37:36 think Brooklyn is in many ways in the

37:38 lead on this and I we we're here to

37:40 support DPW in that.

37:42 All right. Thank you. Anyone else?

37:44 Amanda,

37:46 um given that you have been on this

37:48 committee for a while, what do you

37:50 think, uh has been one of the most

37:53 significant um changes that you've been

37:56 involved in helping to promote

37:59 changes?

38:01 Well, I did mention my personal focus. I

38:03 don't know that the that the entire

38:04 committee shares my uh priority in that,

38:08 but uh I'd like to think I've had some

38:09 influence on that. um changes.

38:14 We've had a lot of personnel changes.

38:17 Uh and the DPW staff. Um

38:22 I don't know. I can't I I I guess the

38:24 biggest one is we weren't talking about

38:26 composting when I first joined the

38:27 committee. So that's been a big change.

38:32 Michael,

38:32 um I'm I'm also interested in, you know,

38:36 now that we have a sustainability

38:38 division and we have a climate action

38:40 resilience plan that has many different

38:43 steps. Um

38:46 is has has that brought about any new

38:49 ideas or new thinking that the SWAC can

38:53 uh take up or consider or have you

38:55 looked?

38:57 Um that's a more complicated question.

39:00 Um certainly the the PAS purchasing

39:04 policy that was adopted a few years ago

39:07 uh you heard about its impact on the

39:08 pier school. Um that was very

39:12 significant. I think we should be very

39:13 proud of that. It was difficult and I

39:16 think there's a lot further we could go

39:17 in that direction I guess. Um and I'm

39:20 you know I'm often so Alexandra used to

39:23 be uh the the the solid waste

39:26 coordinator among other position know

39:29 she was park and open space she had a

39:30 number of different uh roles at at that

39:33 at at in DPW and now she's changed. So I

39:36 think there's a lot of there's already

39:37 good communication because it's within

39:39 uh her within the same department. So I

39:42 I do think that there's been um but they

39:46 have different responsibilities so that

39:47 they you know it's not up to swack to

39:51 advise them but they're already sort of

39:53 they're already up to speed on that. the

39:55 climate action plan is sort of a

39:56 different issue but um

40:00 I don't I don't actually you know I mean

40:02 some of the driving force behind

40:03 composting is is is um carbon reduction

40:07 but uh some of it's you know managing

40:10 our uh different waist streams

40:13 differently rather than emphasizing I I

40:16 suppose the immediate carbon impacts as

40:18 I said I think with the varying

40:20 toxicities of all our waist streams it's

40:22 important just to be kind of aware of

40:23 that and try and keep them separate for

40:25 it. For example, um Cambridge mixes its

40:29 compost that it collects with um it's

40:32 ultimately mixed with sewage sludge,

40:33 which is very bad. So, you're actually

40:35 taking something is not too toxic. You

40:38 know, it's got some pesticide residue or

40:39 something and other things that might

40:42 accidentally be in there. But, you know,

40:43 when you mix it with sewage waste, which

40:44 is collecting, you know, things from the

40:45 whole region that are thrown down

40:47 drains, it's uh that was a sort of a

40:50 downgrading of that waist stream. So,

40:52 you want to avoid that kind of thing.

40:54 So,

40:55 thank you.

40:57 I I could talk a lot about this, but I I

40:58 don't know if I have a like a master

40:59 vision for what DPW or sustainability

41:02 should be doing.

41:04 Anyone else?

41:05 All right. Well, thank you very much for

41:07 your interview. We very seldom vote the

41:10 same day that we interview a candidate.

41:12 You will likely hear from us at a future

41:14 meeting.

41:15 I'm still going to be attending the SWAG

41:16 meeting and it starts now.

41:20 Thank you.

41:21 Okay, with that, the town administrators

41:24 still not up here yet. So, we'll go to

41:26 item 7A,

41:28 boards and commissions appointments.

41:30 Question of appointing members to the

41:32 Brooklyn Youth Council for one-year

41:34 terms expiring August 31st, 2027.

41:39 Uh the specific list includes for

41:41 precincts 1 through 4, Maya Kukrris and

41:44 Leo Saul. For precincts 13- 17, Kai

41:48 Jessica Dubin and Astre Young at large

41:50 member Liam Nelof and associate members

41:53 Sylvie Brousoe, Penelopey Nuome, Shireen

41:56 Sakulis, Rya Shahani, Raina Shahani, and

42:00 Abdul Karim Sullean. Uh, anything else

42:05 that we should know about appointments

42:07 for Brookline Youth Council?

42:09 Christina is online if you have any

42:10 specific questions.

42:12 Amanda,

42:13 uh, just to remind us what the layout is

42:15 and why we're voting on folks based on

42:17 precincts.

42:19 Christina, can you answer that?

42:25 Oh, good evening. Um so the Brook the

42:27 Brooklyn Youth Council was formed um I

42:29 believe in November 2024 and uh their

42:32 first uh I guess series season was began

42:35 last year under the guidance of former

42:37 town a uh assistant town administrator

42:40 Tiffany Oliva and um she put this

42:43 together and part of that uh warrant

42:45 article bylaw had required the um laid

42:49 out that there were two uh members from

42:53 each of the four grouped of precincts.

42:55 So, precincts 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12,

42:58 13 to 17, and an atlarge member that

43:00 could be from any other uh any of the

43:03 precincts. And then we um added some

43:05 associate members this year uh per bylaw

43:08 and um town bylaw and what we're allowed

43:10 to do for that so that we could have

43:12 interested applicants get their feet wet

43:14 and and have um you know, more

43:16 participants on the BYC and um get more

43:19 of the uh interested applicants on the

43:22 the committee. Any

43:25 other questions? Michael?

43:26 Um, I just wanted to comment that in

43:31 reviewing all of the applications um for

43:34 the Brooklyn Youth Council, I was struck

43:37 by the uh both the the level of

43:40 accomplishment and the activity um of

43:43 all of the applicants. you know, there

43:45 were sports captains, there were

43:48 entrepreneurs, many people had jobs and

43:51 and you know, other functions within

43:53 clubs and and uh other activities within

43:57 school. Um it was it was actually a very

44:00 impressive set of um of applicants. So,

44:04 I just want to call that out and thank

44:06 them. Um I I almost wonder and Christina

44:10 maybe you can answer this um whether uh

44:13 there might also be an opportunity for

44:16 outreach to people who aren't

44:18 necessarily involved in uh several other

44:22 activities within you know their their

44:24 burgeoning high school uh experience. Um

44:28 so that uh there's opportunity for

44:32 others who aren't necessarily as as

44:35 plugged in and um well set as these

44:39 applicants are clearly are.

44:42 No, I I agree. We can do that. And I

44:44 think it's the the second year and um

44:47 like you said, they're a very impressive

44:48 and well-rounded group of young people

44:50 who are going to be on this on this

44:52 council. And so I think that this next

44:54 year will be a really um you know, we

44:56 won't have a sophomore slump. It'll be

44:58 just going strong and learning um more

45:01 about how to uh get out into those into

45:03 the community and create opportunities

45:04 for youth as well as the youth voice uh

45:07 throughout the town. I I will also note

45:10 that many of the applicants uh wrote

45:13 about the questions and issues around

45:15 mental health and providing of mental

45:17 health care within the uh within their

45:20 schools and more generally and I'm

45:23 looking forward to seeing their thoughts

45:26 uh and ideas uh in order to address that

45:29 issue.

45:31 All right. Anyone else?

45:33 In that case, I move that we appoint

45:37 members of the Brookline Youth Council

45:39 to a one-year terms expiring August

45:41 31st, 2027 as I previously listed.

45:45 Bernard,

45:46 yes.

45:46 Michael,

45:47 yes.

45:47 Amanda,

45:48 yes.

45:49 Anthony,

45:49 yes.

45:50 And I also vote yes. All right, that

45:53 brings us to item 7B, Transportation

45:56 Board.

45:57 We have four candidates who interviewed.

46:00 Gregory Wheeler, Brian Hawklutener,

46:02 Nancy Moore, and Cole Perry.

46:06 Who would like to go first?

46:10 Uh, go first in what?

46:13 All right, I guess we're going to hold

46:14 off on that as a town administrator's

46:16 arrived. So now, we'll go first just in

46:19 terms of discussing our thoughts we want

46:21 to pick.

46:21 Yeah.

46:22 Uh, but we'll hold off on that now. Town

46:24 administrators arrived. So, we will go

46:26 back to item 5A, which is the question

46:31 of approving authorization to promote

46:33 Lieutenant Derek Hayes to the rank of

46:35 deputy superintendent as requested by

46:38 Chief Pastor. Chief Pastor, welcome. And

46:41 we'd uh like to hear about your proposed

46:44 promotion.

46:45 Uh thank you all so much. And I want to

46:47 just start by saying that it's really

46:48 great to be back in front of the board

46:50 and having these promotions recognized

46:52 in this setting. It really means a lot

46:54 to me. and I think to um the candidates

46:57 being promoted as well as the members of

46:59 the department who you see lining the

47:00 back wall. So um thank you. It's really

47:02 nice to be back here for this. Um so I'm

47:06 pleased to be here tonight to recommend

47:07 Lieutenant Derek Hayes for promotion to

47:09 the rank of deputy superintendent in the

47:11 Brooklyn Police Department. Lieutenant

47:13 Hayes has served the department for over

47:14 28 years, including nearly 20 years in

47:17 supervisory and command positions.

47:19 During that time, he served in an

47:20 unusually broad range of assignments as

47:23 a patrol supervisor, a platoon

47:24 commander, our liquor licensing and

47:27 lodging house lieutenant, and I didn't

47:28 think that sentence through when I wrote

47:30 it with all the L's, but community

47:32 services lieutenant, police prosecutor,

47:34 and most recently as our training

47:36 lieutenant and accreditation manager.

47:38 His breadth of experience was important

47:40 to me in making this decision. Deputy

47:42 superintendent needs to understand not

47:44 just one part of our organization, but

47:46 how all the pieces fit together.

47:47 Lieutenant Hayes has demonstrated that

47:49 throughout his career.

47:51 As our accreditation manager, Lieutenant

47:53 Hayes has been responsible for ensuring

47:55 that our policies and practices meet the

47:57 impact standards. This means identifying

47:59 deficiencies and making sure that we

48:01 correct them, myself included, and

48:03 helping ensure that what we say and what

48:04 we do in our policies is actually what

48:06 we do in practice. He's also

48:09 demonstrated that throughout his career,

48:10 he's willing to take initiative.

48:12 Lieutenant Hayes helped build our bike

48:14 patrol unit and our bait bike program

48:16 from the ground up. He's developed

48:18 department policies and drafted

48:20 regulatory changes that ultimately have

48:22 gone before town meeting. Beyond his

48:24 resume, I selected Lieutenant Hayes

48:26 because I believe he has the judgment

48:27 and temperament that I rely on from

48:29 members of my executive leadership team.

48:32 The position carries significant

48:33 responsibility and I need leaders and I

48:35 count on my leaders who will support our

48:37 officers while holding them to high

48:39 standards, who are willing to make

48:41 difficult decisions and who will give me

48:43 candid advice including the advice that

48:45 I might not want to hear.

48:46 and who understand that leadership means

48:48 accepting responsibility for both our

48:50 successes and our mistakes.

48:53 Lieutenant Hayes has demonstrated to me

48:55 in many ways that he's prepared to take

48:56 on that responsibility. I am confident

48:59 in this decision and I am confident in

49:00 Lieutenant Hayes the way that he'll

49:03 serve the department, the town, and the

49:04 Brooklyn community.

49:06 It's my privilege to recommend

49:07 Lieutenant Hayes, Lieutenant Derek Hayes

49:10 for promotion to deputy superintendent.

49:12 And I respectfully ask the board to

49:14 approve that recommendation.

49:17 All right.

49:20 Detective Hayes, would you uh like to

49:23 address us or speak at all? Tell us a

49:25 little bit about yourself.

49:31 Good evening.

49:35 To go back from to the beginning, I'm

49:38 actually from Brooklyn, went to the

49:39 devotional school. Uh Mr. Dempsey was my

49:43 He's still here. Mr. MCU was my vice

49:45 principal back in the day. Um I

49:48 graduated from

49:50 um Brooklyn High School. And little fun

49:54 fact, my very first job was through the

49:57 Cedar program. I worked for the highway

49:59 department and

50:02 my job was to watch police cars

50:04 in seventh grade. So, um,

50:09 I want to start by saying how truly

50:10 honored I am to be standing here today

50:12 as the next deputy superintendent,

50:15 um, of the Brookline Police Department.

50:18 When I first put in for the when I first

50:19 put on this uniform back in 1998,

50:23 um, I I never could have imagined

50:25 standing here before you today.

50:28 Over the past 28 years, I've had an

50:30 opportunity to serve in just about every

50:32 role within this police department.

50:35 Uh each role taught me something

50:36 different, but more importantly, each

50:39 one introduced me to people who made me

50:41 a better police officer

50:44 and a better leader.

50:46 I want to thank the chief and the board

50:49 um for their confidence and entrusting

50:52 me in this position. I also want to

50:55 thank the men and women of this police

50:57 department. I've had the privilege of

50:58 working alongside incredibly dedicated

51:00 professionals.

51:02 The work we do isn't always easy and it

51:04 certainly isn't always recognized,

51:08 but every day I see people in this

51:09 department working extremely hard,

51:12 often under difficult circumstances

51:15 because they care about this community.

51:17 Um, most of all, I want to thank my

51:19 family with me today. I have my wife

51:21 Julie and my daughter Madison.

51:23 My son Connor couldn't be here. He's

51:26 living his best life in Spain doing the

51:29 semester abroad, you know.

51:32 I want I want to come back as one of my

51:33 kids. Um all three of them have

51:37 supported me through long hours, late

51:39 nights, miss holidays, and family

51:40 events.

51:42 Um

51:44 and all the demands that come with the

51:46 profession. Career in law enforcement is

51:49 never a commitment by just one person.

51:52 Uh it's a commitment made by the entire

51:55 family. Um so thank you very much.

52:00 All right. And also thank you to the

52:02 many members of the Brooklyn Police

52:03 Department who are also present today uh

52:06 for this vote. So I'm going to go ahead

52:10 and move that we approve the

52:14 authorization to promote Lieutenant

52:16 Derek Hayes, a fellow uh Brooklyn High

52:20 School grad and devotion grad, who also

52:23 had the great fortune of having Mr.

52:24 Dempsey as vice principal to the rank of

52:27 deputy superintendent as requested by

52:29 chief pastor.

52:30 Yes.

52:31 Michael,

52:32 yes.

52:32 Amanda,

52:33 yes.

52:34 Anthony,

52:34 yes.

52:35 And I also vote yes. Congratulations.

52:37 Congratulations.

52:44 I should have started by explaining that

52:46 I I did assume that this vote would go

52:48 okay and I'm glad that it did. It would

52:50 have been awkward any other any other

52:51 way. But um now as part of the

52:53 formality, in order for Lieutenant Hayes

52:55 to formally become Deputy Superintendent

52:57 Hayes, um we need to have him sworn in.

52:59 And that's why Town Clerk Ben Kaufman is

53:01 here with us tonight

53:04 for perhaps the most nerve-wracking part

53:06 of the ceremony.

53:07 All right, come on up and let's do the

53:09 swearing in.

53:17 Raise your right hand and repeat after

53:19 me. I

53:22 swear

53:22 I do solemnly swear

53:24 that I will faithfully and impartially

53:26 discharge and perform

53:28 I will faithfully discharge

53:30 faithfully and

53:33 discharge and perform

53:35 all of the duties

53:38 incumbent upon me

53:40 as a deputy superintendent police

53:43 department

53:43 deputy superintendent

53:46 according to the best of my ability

53:47 understanding the best of my ability

53:50 understanding that I will faithfully

53:52 perform my duties. I will faithfully

53:54 perform my duties in accordance with the

53:56 Brooklyn Police Department's rules and

53:58 regulations

54:00 regulations, the laws of the

54:02 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, laws of

54:04 Massachusetts and the bylaws of the town

54:06 of Brooklyn

54:08 and that I will faithfully abide by and

54:11 I will faithfully abide by and the

54:13 Constitution of the United States United

54:16 States and the Declaration of Rights of

54:18 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

54:20 Rights

54:21 Massachusetts. Congratulations.

54:29 And one last part, I would invite uh

54:31 Julian Madison

54:37 to come up and pin his new badge.

54:56 You can jam it right in there.

55:01 Good job.

55:04 Thank you all very much.

55:12 Thank you, Chief, and thank you, Deputy

55:13 Superintendent. Welcome aboard. Um,

55:16 thanks to everyone for coming out uh for

55:18 being a part of this. It's really great

55:19 to see everybody. Uh, and I hope you

55:21 will uh join the reception downstairs,

55:24 chief. Is that where?

55:25 Um, I think the plan was just to have a

55:27 small gathering downstairs. Uh, and then

55:30 we're going to be back here tomorrow as

55:31 we swear in our seven new

55:33 graduates. Great.

55:34 Um, but if the board would like a photo,

55:38 let's do it right now.

55:40 Do a quick photograph. That would be

55:41 great.

55:49 We shut him down.

57:21 All right. So, thank you again all for

57:23 coming here for us. Deputy

57:26 Superintendent Hayes's promotion. We

57:29 will now move to our next agenda item,

57:33 item 7B, transportation board. As I was

57:36 mentioning before, we had four

57:37 candidates who applied. Gregory Wheeler,

57:40 Brian Hawklutner, Nancy Moore, Cole

57:42 Perry. All four were extremely

57:45 impressive. Like to uh hear from fellow

57:50 board members their thoughts on who we

57:53 should be appointing to a three-year

57:54 term.

57:56 Would anyone like to go first? Go ahead,

57:58 Amanda.

57:59 Uh, I wanted to start by echoing that

58:02 this is one of the boards and

58:03 commissions where we have multiple

58:04 well-qualified applicants, each bringing

58:07 important perspectives to the board.

58:09 That said, Gregory Wheeler really stood

58:11 out to me, even among this qualified

58:13 pool. His vast experience in management

58:16 with the MBTA, especially making the tea

58:18 accessible for all users, would be a

58:21 valuable voice on the transportation

58:22 board. Moreover, were the number of

58:25 plans we've tasked the transportation

58:27 board with implementing his analytical

58:29 skills and desire to dig into the

58:31 numbers and spreadsheets

58:33 to and really make progress on our

58:35 vision zero goals in an economically

58:37 responsible manner would be a huge

58:39 asset. Lastly, we heard a lot from the

58:41 disability commission on making sure

58:43 their voices heard in these discussions.

58:46 During his interview, I was impressed

58:47 with Greg's desire to play this sort of

58:49 role and his experience means that the

58:51 feedback that he can give in this light

58:53 can be successful in improving outcomes

58:55 for those living with disabilities. For

58:58 all those reasons and some more, I would

59:00 like to see him on the transportation

59:03 board.

59:04 All right. Who would like to go next?

59:07 Over here.

59:07 Oh, go ahead.

59:09 Look over this way. Yeah. Um,

59:13 as many of you know that I I'm

59:16 supporting uh Nancy Moore uh to the

59:19 transportation board. And remember last

59:20 week Brian Kaine uh came up and

59:23 mentioned some key issues that include

59:25 balance on the board both as a matter of

59:28 the elderly community as well as um

59:31 gender and um the importance of reaching

59:34 out and speaking for various

59:36 neighborhoods and the disabled and

59:38 senior communities in particular. Um,

59:41 you know, I take the uh position that a

59:45 committee chair has with respect to

59:49 appointees very seriously because they

59:51 are in a position to know what the

59:53 issues are on their committee and how

59:56 different people will fit into um the

59:58 the priorities that the committee has

1:00:00 set and ability to work with other

1:00:03 members of the committee as well as the

1:00:05 staff. uh all the candidates I think you

1:00:08 know do fit do do satisfy those criteria

1:00:11 but I think Nancy Moore because of her

1:00:13 experience and history with on the

1:00:15 transformation board is probably uh a

1:00:18 choice that um I'm more comfortable with

1:00:21 and of course you know the the um sort

1:00:23 of confusion we had with respect to her

1:00:26 application sort of screwed things up. I

1:00:28 think um you we should just put her on I

1:00:32 would like to put her on the board in

1:00:33 order to get beyond that that issue. Um,

1:00:38 let's see what other

1:00:42 I did have a chance to talk to uh uh

1:00:45 Nancy regarding a little controversy

1:00:47 brewing at um at Lincoln at the uh

1:00:50 Lawrence School um and you know her uh

1:00:53 understanding of the issues and the

1:00:55 importance of both responding to

1:00:58 community concerns as well as uh her

1:01:02 willingness to look at the broader

1:01:03 picture uh and the issues of uh of the

1:01:07 teachers in this case um I found

1:01:09 impressive and you know that's the type

1:01:11 of person you want on on on a board like

1:01:13 this that someone who's both willing to

1:01:17 uh speak to the needs of neighbors and

1:01:19 and residents as well as look at both

1:01:22 their issues as well as other people's

1:01:24 issues from a broader uh perspective. Um

1:01:27 so that we have uh you know not one

1:01:30 group of uh the community unnecessarily

1:01:35 imposing their views on our boards and

1:01:38 commissions, but we have members of the

1:01:40 boards and commissions who are willing

1:01:41 to act independently of even that.

1:01:46 All right. Who would like to go next?

1:01:50 I I I'll I'll second what Amanda was

1:01:54 discussing about Gregory Wheeler. I

1:01:56 think I'm also leaning towards Gregory

1:01:57 Wheeler. I did um as you can tell from

1:02:00 the our previous meeting, a lot of

1:02:02 research into all the different

1:02:03 candidates um and their backgrounds. I

1:02:05 think Gregory has a really great

1:02:06 professional background as it comes to

1:02:08 transportation and as it comes to uh

1:02:10 safety related around it as it called as

1:02:12 it relates to disability advocacy um

1:02:14 that I think is really going to be

1:02:16 needed on the board as we undergo a lot

1:02:17 of changes over the next few years. Um

1:02:19 and so that professional uh that that

1:02:22 professional um aspect to his uh resume

1:02:24 really is a highlight for me.

1:02:27 All right,

1:02:29 you want to go? Um

1:02:32 um the the the the most important thing

1:02:34 I I I want to say is I want to echo what

1:02:36 Amanda said at the beginning. Um we have

1:02:39 multiple uh very qualified candidates

1:02:42 here. Um

1:02:44 and and I take your points, Bernard,

1:02:47 very seriously about um the chair's

1:02:50 understanding. Um and uh you know I also

1:02:54 attended

1:02:56 at least three or four uh recent

1:02:59 transportation board meetings just to

1:03:00 get a flavor of like how this board is

1:03:03 is functioning or not. Um

1:03:07 I'm

1:03:09 uh

1:03:12 uh I I think I am going to join Anthony

1:03:15 and Amanda uh and vote for Gregory

1:03:18 Wheeler. um partially for the reasons

1:03:21 that Amanda said um and also um for for

1:03:26 uh

1:03:28 in in sort of reading his resume and

1:03:31 again and considering his his

1:03:34 qualifications, you know, the the sense

1:03:37 of uh the breadth of his experience, the

1:03:41 his particular current work with uh with

1:03:44 disability issues uh in his professional

1:03:47 career. um I think um will in aggregate

1:03:51 help bring the transportation board as a

1:03:54 whole um uh allow it to uh facilitate a

1:04:00 lot of the work that will be coming

1:04:03 before it with the various plans and uh

1:04:07 demands that are being put upon it.

1:04:10 So I uh also support Greg Wheeler. I was

1:04:14 very impressed by his interview and by

1:04:17 his application. In addition to what

1:04:20 Amanda pointed out, his uh specific role

1:04:23 with the MBTA, he was the senior

1:04:25 director for the green line

1:04:26 transformation. And in that role, what

1:04:29 was really paramount for him were things

1:04:31 that we're looking for in our in on the

1:04:34 transportation board locally, which are

1:04:36 safety, reliability, and accessibility.

1:04:39 and he really emphasized all three of

1:04:41 those points uh in his capacity as the

1:04:44 senior director for the green line

1:04:46 transformation. In addition to that, uh

1:04:50 he's a CPA and he has maintained that

1:04:53 license and I think it's very important

1:04:55 to have someone with that skill set on

1:04:58 the transportation board because it can

1:05:00 help ensure that proposals that

1:05:03 germinate are grounded in certain fiscal

1:05:06 realities. And so having that type of

1:05:09 expertise and lenture uh I think will be

1:05:12 an asset to the board. He also spoke

1:05:15 about having a two-year-old daughter.

1:05:17 And the reason I think that's important

1:05:19 is oftentimes when we're discussing who

1:05:22 we're going to appoint to boards and

1:05:23 commissions, we want to make sure that

1:05:25 there is balance in terms of

1:05:28 constituencies that are represented. and

1:05:32 the constituency of a young parent and

1:05:35 someone who or parents of a young child

1:05:38 and someone who is accustomed to taking

1:05:41 kids around in strollers and making sure

1:05:44 that our uh sidewalks and that our road

1:05:47 conditions are uh planned in such a way

1:05:52 so that there's accessibility for uh

1:05:55 young children. There's safety for young

1:05:57 children and safety for young children

1:05:59 also tends to be safety for senior

1:06:01 citizens. There's actually a lot of

1:06:03 commonality between the two groups with

1:06:06 respect to uh the types of measures and

1:06:09 precautions that we would want to take

1:06:11 in street design. Greg spoke uh in

1:06:15 immense detail about the importance of

1:06:17 vision zero climate action resiliency

1:06:20 plan complete streets. He told us that

1:06:24 he has been to just about every

1:06:26 transportation meeting for I think it

1:06:28 was the last six months. Uh that's

1:06:30 extremely impressive. Somebody who's not

1:06:33 even a member but has made the

1:06:35 commitment to attend every meeting. Uh

1:06:38 he's clearly very wellprepared. He's

1:06:40 clearly quite balanced. He answered our

1:06:44 questions very thoroughly. Uh now in

1:06:46 making this recommendation I am not in

1:06:49 any way casting any espersions on the

1:06:52 other three applicants. All four were

1:06:55 truly quite impressive uh in their own

1:06:58 ways. And in supporting Gregory Wheeler,

1:07:02 we are not saying that we do not

1:07:04 appreciate the contributions and the

1:07:07 talents of the other three who applied.

1:07:10 Uh I have a feeling that we're going to

1:07:12 hear more from all four of them in a

1:07:16 variety of different capacities. So this

1:07:18 is not necessarily the end of the road

1:07:20 for anybody who uh applied. Uh beyond

1:07:25 that, I think that having a new voice on

1:07:28 the transportation board is particularly

1:07:31 important at this time because frankly I

1:07:35 think that the board has been broken in

1:07:37 some respects. There has been a lot of

1:07:40 gridlock. There has not been a lot of

1:07:42 progress on many of these goals. Uh

1:07:45 that's not the fault of any one

1:07:46 individual. I'm not criticizing any

1:07:49 current uh board members, but it is a

1:07:52 certain reality. And this notion that

1:07:55 bringing back the exact same group would

1:07:58 somehow change uh the status quo, it it

1:08:02 won't. So, I do think it's also

1:08:04 important that we bring in uh a new

1:08:07 voice and someone with this type of

1:08:09 expansive experience. Michael,

1:08:11 um

1:08:13 thank you. Uh I I also wanted to

1:08:16 particularly acknowledge uh Nancy Moore

1:08:19 and uh in particular one of the

1:08:22 suggestions that she kindly um gave us

1:08:25 during her interview which was to

1:08:28 provide some uh organized group within

1:08:31 the transportation board for uh for uh

1:08:35 establishing and advocating for the

1:08:37 voices of uh seniors and uh people who

1:08:42 have uh specific the related mobility

1:08:44 issues. Um and um I realize that it is

1:08:48 not our place as a select board to

1:08:51 identify the subcommittees of the

1:08:53 transportation board, but I would

1:08:54 certainly look forward to um her

1:08:57 engagement in involvement in uh in uh

1:09:01 setting up such a such a subcommittee

1:09:04 within the transportation board to

1:09:06 identify those issues and provide um

1:09:09 what might be additional uh uh

1:09:13 perspectives. Um in addition to the uh

1:09:17 bicycle advisory subcommittee, the uh

1:09:21 the shared mobility and the pedestrian

1:09:23 advisory committees um in order to make

1:09:26 sure uh continue to ensure that those

1:09:29 voices are also uh uh auh better able to

1:09:34 be heard. I think that's an excellent

1:09:36 idea, Michael, and hopefully the

1:09:38 transportation board and others in a

1:09:40 position to make those decisions will

1:09:42 move in that direction. Uh, something

1:09:44 else I want to bring up in this context

1:09:47 is that I I think all of us probably

1:09:50 heard from many members in the

1:09:52 community, town meeting members,

1:09:54 advisory committee members, uh, other

1:09:57 neighborhood activists. And I uh do want

1:10:00 to say that uh even though it's

1:10:02 impossible for us to appease all the

1:10:05 voices we heard because they were

1:10:06 advocating for different things, I

1:10:08 necess I nevertheless greatly appreciate

1:10:11 the input that I received from everyone.

1:10:14 I respect where each person was coming

1:10:17 from. It's important that everybody be

1:10:19 heard and that we understand what their

1:10:22 uh priorities are, what their

1:10:24 perceptions are. So, just because a vote

1:10:27 doesn't go your way doesn't mean we

1:10:29 didn't listen to you. We we do listen.

1:10:32 And I uh have a feeling that there

1:10:35 actually will be a lot of uh common

1:10:37 ground if this vote goes the way I uh

1:10:40 anticipate it to because a common theme

1:10:43 I heard uh regardless as to the uh

1:10:48 allegiance of the person who was making

1:10:50 the call was that they felt that the

1:10:53 current board is not uh functioning to

1:10:57 their liking. that part was in common

1:10:59 whether it was someone who is more uh is

1:11:02 focused on uh bicycling or somebody who

1:11:05 is more focused on uh car use. I heard

1:11:08 that from both constituencies. Uh so

1:11:12 this it's not an easy decision to make.

1:11:14 This was a rare uha appointment in the

1:11:18 sense that we heard from a lot of people

1:11:20 who are very impassioned. That does not

1:11:22 typically happen. But I take that as a

1:11:24 very good sign that our community cares

1:11:27 so deeply. I would be more concerned if

1:11:29 the response were apathy because silence

1:11:32 is what we actually want to avoid

1:11:33 because that means people aren't

1:11:34 engaged. So the fact that some people

1:11:36 will be mad, I'm okay with that. That's

1:11:38 a good thing. It means you care.

1:11:40 All right. So with that, I I think you

1:11:43 can see where the votes are going.

1:11:44 Yeah. And let me just say I I can see

1:11:48 which way the wind's blowing, right?

1:11:52 But I also don't jump on bang

1:11:54 bandwagons. Um and you know the issue of

1:11:58 the functioning of the transportation

1:11:59 board before I'd make any decision on on

1:12:02 that aspect of this. I'd want to know

1:12:06 why it's not functioning. I don't think

1:12:08 Nancy Moore is a fun is a factor in

1:12:10 that. Uh and it may not be any

1:12:12 individual member, but there's maybe

1:12:14 some structural issues or outside

1:12:16 influence problems that uh you know we

1:12:19 have to address. But um if you're asking

1:12:23 me my vote, it's Nancy Moore.

1:12:25 Okay. Uh so I'm going to go ahead and

1:12:28 move that we appoint Greg Wheeler to a

1:12:31 three-year term uh expiring August 31st

1:12:35 to actually we need to correct that. So

1:12:36 under state law, the term should expire

1:12:40 May 30th, I believe. Is that correct?

1:12:42 I know. Uh, April 30th.

1:12:44 April 30th. Okay. All right. April 30th.

1:12:46 And moving forward, we want to make sure

1:12:48 that we get that right for everybody.

1:12:50 So, I'm going to go ahead and move that

1:12:52 we appoint Greg Wheeler to a three-year

1:12:54 term expiring April 30th, 2029.

1:12:58 Bernard,

1:12:59 uh, with my caveat, I'm going to vote

1:13:01 yes.

1:13:02 Okay. Michael,

1:13:03 yes.

1:13:04 Amanda,

1:13:04 yes.

1:13:05 Anthony,

1:13:06 yes.

1:13:06 And I also vote yes. Should we make sure

1:13:09 we make that change of dates for the

1:13:11 other transportation candidate that we

1:13:14 put in like two weeks ago?

1:13:16 Uh, can

1:13:17 can we revote that?

1:13:19 We'll we'll we'll we'll double check

1:13:20 that because it's true for all the all

1:13:22 the transportation board members. So, we

1:13:23 will

1:13:23 we're talking about Len Holi's

1:13:24 appointment, right?

1:13:25 Lol's appointment.

1:13:26 But that should also end.

1:13:27 This this issue has been the case for

1:13:28 some time. So, we will we will we will

1:13:30 probably do some cleanup work and bring

1:13:32 it back to you for revoting.

1:13:34 Right. I I think what we can do is take

1:13:35 a vote as to the the other five members

1:13:38 to make sure that we have the terms

1:13:40 ending at the right time, that there's

1:13:42 no confusion about term length or

1:13:43 anything of uh that sort. I also want to

1:13:46 note that Warren article 9, which I know

1:13:49 we're not talking about today, uh would

1:13:52 add a seventh member to transportation

1:13:54 board. And it's it's a shame in many

1:13:57 respects that that's not something we

1:13:58 could rush through right away because

1:14:00 then perhaps we wouldn't have been in

1:14:02 this quandry. Uh but nevertheless, it's

1:14:05 something that uh I expect many of us

1:14:09 are going to help push forward.

1:14:13 All right. Any other thoughts on this

1:14:16 item? Okay. So, we will now move on to

1:14:19 our next item, which is 26 Pleasant

1:14:22 Street memorandum of agreement review

1:14:24 discussion and possible vote regarding

1:14:27 community benefits.

1:14:29 Uh I think I'm taking the lead on this.

1:14:32 Uh Melanie, if you would bring up the

1:14:35 slide deck and I just want to find it up

1:14:37 on my own computer so that I can look at

1:14:41 it in parallel.

1:14:43 Just let me know when you want me to

1:14:44 forward to each slide.

1:15:03 I'm sorry. One

1:15:29 Okay. Um so tonight um we're

1:15:33 specifically discussing the memorandum

1:15:36 of agreement um that has uh that has

1:15:41 been reached between the negotiating

1:15:44 team um for the that the select board

1:15:47 appointed um and uh Nordlum which is the

1:15:51 owner of 26 Pleasant Street. Um, this

1:15:54 memorandum of agreement is the one that

1:15:56 is referenced within warrant article 16,

1:15:59 though we will be bringing warrant

1:16:01 article 16 back to the select board at a

1:16:03 later date. Um, uh, along with warrant

1:16:07 article 15, which is the zoning uh,

1:16:10 recommendation um, for the same parcel.

1:16:14 Um, I want to start out by thanking a

1:16:17 number of important people who assisted

1:16:19 this process. Um, first of all, uh, uh,

1:16:23 Assistant Town Council

1:16:25 Jonathan Simpson, um, who did all most

1:16:29 of the drafting and, uh, organizing for

1:16:32 this, uh, as well as members of the

1:16:33 planning department, um, the the

1:16:36 director of the planning department,

1:16:37 Cara Brutin, and the regulatory planning

1:16:40 director, Paulie Selco, um, members of

1:16:42 DPW, um, Erin Chute, the commissioner

1:16:46 for public works, and Sam DS. um

1:16:50 uh in the engineering and transportation

1:16:52 department. Um and also for the many

1:16:55 many community members that uh provided

1:16:58 their input um to me uh personally on

1:17:02 the negotiating team as well as uh uh in

1:17:07 writing and in conversation um amongst

1:17:10 uh various town meeting members.

1:17:13 Next slide please.

1:17:16 So to provide some context for this

1:17:18 memorandum of agreement, um there is a

1:17:21 zoning overlay district that is part of

1:17:23 warrant article 15. Um and um that

1:17:27 zoning overlay district proposes

1:17:29 significantly increased density. Um in

1:17:33 that on the this particular parcel uh in

1:17:35 the Koolage Corner neighborhood um there

1:17:38 were many people who felt uh and

1:17:41 communicated that this increased density

1:17:44 should be balanced by some set of public

1:17:46 benefits. Um there was earlier within

1:17:49 the select board deliberation about

1:17:51 whether or not um we could purchase this

1:17:54 property uh and convert it to open

1:17:57 space. Um that was determined to be

1:17:59 infeasible. Um and at the same time the

1:18:03 select board uh uh appointed this

1:18:06 negotiate this negotiation team and

1:18:09 started this process. Uh Nord Bloom the

1:18:12 owners of 26 Pleasant Street uh agreed

1:18:14 to negotiate with the select board. Um

1:18:17 this is a voluntary memorandum of

1:18:20 agreement. There is no requirement uh

1:18:22 under town bylaws or uh state law that a

1:18:26 memorandum of agreement be created. um

1:18:28 but they agreed to do so in order to

1:18:32 well for whatever their own reasons. Um

1:18:35 I also want to point out that uh this

1:18:37 memorandum of agreement and the warned

1:18:39 articles that are coming before town

1:18:41 meeting are one step in a in a uh

1:18:45 multi-step process that is leading

1:18:48 towards the construction of uh a new

1:18:51 development. Um and uh on the right side

1:18:54 of this slide, I've enumerated uh

1:18:56 several other steps that are important

1:18:59 uh uh opportunities for uh community

1:19:02 engagement um as well as important steps

1:19:06 that the town takes to ensure both the

1:19:09 viability um and the health and safety

1:19:13 and of development. Um and that the

1:19:18 property with a proper balance of uh

1:19:21 person of the property rights of the

1:19:23 owners and the needs of the town and the

1:19:25 neighborhood um are all considered and

1:19:28 balanced.

1:19:31 Next slide please.

1:19:33 Um so to give a short timeline uh on

1:19:36 August 25th the select board voted um to

1:19:40 file warrant article six uh 16 and

1:19:42 designate me to negotiate an agreement

1:19:45 on its behalf with a team um that

1:19:47 included uh Jonathan Simpson um and

1:19:51 Paulie Selco was involved and Cara

1:19:53 Brutin and I also as I said received uh

1:19:56 input from GPW. Um we had meetings uh

1:20:00 with the select board on August 31st uh

1:20:03 to get feedback and September 22nd. Um

1:20:06 last Friday um October 2nd Nord Bloom

1:20:09 and the negotiating team reached an

1:20:11 agreement on a on a memorandum um which

1:20:14 is the memorandum that is before you

1:20:16 today. Um as I said before there was

1:20:18 input from the planning department. uh

1:20:20 DPW engineering and transportation, the

1:20:23 town tree warden uh weighed in um as

1:20:26 well as many members of the community.

1:20:28 Um and I will include particularly

1:20:30 precinct 17 uh town meeting members who

1:20:33 expressed concerns uh with this project.

1:20:36 Uh other precinct 17 town meeting

1:20:39 members who uh expressed support for

1:20:42 this project and also some interest in

1:20:44 the public benefits. I met with the

1:20:46 mother's outfront tree committee um as

1:20:49 well as incorporating information that

1:20:51 was generated through a community

1:20:53 presentation on July 14th um and

1:20:56 sitewalks that occurred that I believe

1:20:58 my colleague uh Anthony uh conducted on

1:21:02 August 1.

1:21:05 Next slide.

1:21:08 Um, so I'm not going to get into the

1:21:11 details of the zoning. That will come

1:21:13 when we go into warrant article 15. Um,

1:21:17 so what I'm going to focus on here um

1:21:22 are the specific uh uh voluntary special

1:21:26 permit conditions and other features of

1:21:29 the memorandum of agreement um that

1:21:32 we're negotiated and agreed between the

1:21:35 parties uh the town and the owner. Um

1:21:38 the first uh ground floor height of 12

1:21:41 feet floor to ceiling. Um this was uh

1:21:44 proposed by the planning department as

1:21:46 uh the necessary requirement in order to

1:21:51 um accommodate uh commercial potential

1:21:55 commercial space on the ground floor. Um

1:22:00 the the the second issue around building

1:22:03 and construction was to make sure that

1:22:06 any um any construction impacts to

1:22:10 public sidewalks, street curbs, street

1:22:12 pavement and trees and landscaping um

1:22:14 were uh mitigated by the uh developer.

1:22:18 Um this was actually standard language

1:22:21 uh and many other uh elements later you

1:22:24 will see are standard language that was

1:22:26 taken from the agreement that we uh

1:22:29 established between the town and city

1:22:32 realy for their project at 1280 to 1330

1:22:35 Boilston Street um as part of the

1:22:37 Chestnut Hill commercial overlay

1:22:39 district.

1:22:41 Um the public benefits to infrastructure

1:22:44 um I think were the most uh significant

1:22:47 and uh con uh discussed areas uh of the

1:22:53 of the agreement. Um all of these uh

1:22:56 infrastructure agreements are uh defined

1:23:00 as voluntary special permit conditions.

1:23:03 So that uh in the normal course of a

1:23:06 project of this scale uh DPW would

1:23:08 engage with the special permit process

1:23:10 in front of the zoting board of appeals

1:23:13 um and make a series of recommendations

1:23:15 for public benefits that the zoning

1:23:18 board of appeals could attach as

1:23:19 conditions. Um and so what we have done

1:23:23 here is that we have come to agreement

1:23:26 with uh the owners of the property that

1:23:29 these specific uh infrastructure

1:23:32 agreements um if uh they they get

1:23:35 presented by DPW which we can expect um

1:23:39 and approved by the ZBA um then the uh

1:23:44 developer will not contest these

1:23:47 conditions and will agree will agree to

1:23:49 them as conditions of their special

1:23:51 permit. So, uh the first which I think

1:23:54 was mentioned by many community members

1:23:57 was to have a raised crosswalk across

1:23:59 Pleasant Street that would connect the

1:24:01 property to uh the uh area in front of

1:24:05 the Kulage Corner Library. Um there is

1:24:09 a condition to reconstruct this

1:24:12 wheelchair ramps at the corner of

1:24:14 Pleasant Street and John Streets. Um

1:24:17 where some wheelchair ramps may be

1:24:19 constructed but there are others to be

1:24:21 left. Um there uh is a condition to add

1:24:25 a pair of rectangular rapid flashing

1:24:27 beacons which would go against the new

1:24:29 raised crosswalk or some other one to be

1:24:32 determined by DPW and you know the

1:24:35 special permit and design process.

1:24:38 Um and then there are two potential

1:24:41 sidewalk alternatives along Pleasant and

1:24:43 John Street um to be again determined by

1:24:46 the DPW recommendation and ZBA approval.

1:24:49 Um the first more extensive would

1:24:52 include curb extensions with up to five

1:24:54 tree pits. Um this would provide

1:24:56 opportunities for more tree canopy cover

1:25:00 um uh on effectively town-owned

1:25:03 property, namely the sidewalks. Um and

1:25:06 if for some reason this is determined

1:25:08 not to be feasible by DPW, um then there

1:25:11 would be an alternative condition to

1:25:13 reconstruct the existing sidewalks uh in

1:25:16 their current form.

1:25:19 Um, let me pause there just to make sure

1:25:21 there aren't any clarifying questions

1:25:23 about this slide or the previous

1:25:25 where where uh are we talking about

1:25:28 reconstruction of the sidewalks? How far

1:25:30 up Pleasant Street to what?

1:25:32 So, it would um

1:25:34 That's a great question. So,

1:25:36 specifically with regard to the curb

1:25:38 extensions, um that would be uh in front

1:25:41 of their property on the corner lot.

1:25:43 Mhm.

1:25:44 Um there are other terms in here and

1:25:47 this may fall into m mitigation of

1:25:49 construction impacts having to do with

1:25:51 for example repaving the surface streets

1:25:54 farther up John Street um and along

1:25:57 Pleasant Street but the curb extension

1:26:00 specifically are just in front of their

1:26:01 property.

1:26:03 Okay. When we're talking about cur

1:26:05 reconstruct existing sidewalks

1:26:07 uh as as the the second smaller option.

1:26:11 My hope is honestly is that we would

1:26:14 head towards the first option which

1:26:15 would give us curb extensions, a wider

1:26:17 sidewalk um and tree pits which would

1:26:20 increase the tree canopy of the area.

1:26:22 Got it. So it's down it's not down John

1:26:25 Street. Is it down John? Sorry.

1:26:26 They

1:26:27 down John Street and then down Pleasant

1:26:28 down both Yes. both in front in front of

1:26:31 their property.

1:26:32 Got it. Um can I ask another question

1:26:34 here? This might be John with the gun,

1:26:35 but uh where do are they still going to

1:26:37 plan on having that driveway out

1:26:39 Pleasant Street? Uh yes, that's jumping

1:26:40 the gun on.

1:26:41 Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

1:26:42 Pick that up later.

1:26:45 Yeah. Um the 15 foot uh ground floor

1:26:50 commercial space that we're talking

1:26:51 about. There are a lot of ground floor

1:26:54 commercial spaces around town that are

1:26:56 empty.

1:26:58 If if they can't fill this, is there uh

1:27:01 have they committed to putting something

1:27:03 in there so we don't have another uh

1:27:05 sort of vacant space in

1:27:07 Okay. Um so in terms of in terms of uh

1:27:12 the zoning requirement yeah uh as part

1:27:15 of warrant article 15 the current

1:27:18 warrant article 15 does not include a

1:27:20 requirement. Um in terms of their

1:27:23 commitment they have not at this point

1:27:25 committed

1:27:27 definitively to any specific plan that

1:27:30 includes commercial space. Um this

1:27:34 requirement of construction is intended

1:27:36 to over time allow

1:27:40 commercial I understand that

1:27:41 um and the and the commercial the

1:27:45 commercial space that they have

1:27:47 described in their latest plan is is

1:27:50 basically about I think it's 2580 square

1:27:54 feet of office space that would be their

1:27:58 offices for doing residential uh real

1:28:02 real estate work within either within

1:28:04 this property or within Brookline. But

1:28:06 again, I think that question will be

1:28:09 more uh uh definitively resolved during

1:28:15 design review um because that's when you

1:28:18 know the layout of the space. Um there

1:28:20 the current plan also has as has lobby

1:28:23 space for the residential units on the

1:28:25 ground floor. So a significant part of

1:28:28 the ground floor is taken up by that as

1:28:30 well.

1:28:35 just a question. So I see it's ground

1:28:37 floor height of 12 feet. I thought there

1:28:38 had been discussions of 15 feet.

1:28:40 Okay. So the discussions of 15 ft were

1:28:43 floor to floor height. Um this is this

1:28:47 recommendation from the director of

1:28:49 planning um is 12 feet floor to ceiling.

1:28:53 Um because of the requirements of

1:28:55 ceiling space um I think this is will

1:28:59 translate ultimately into about 14 feet

1:29:01 of floor to floor height. Um but this

1:29:04 was the negotiated balance um and was

1:29:07 felt by

1:29:09 the director of planning sufficient for

1:29:14 uh allowing commercial space to occupy

1:29:18 commercial activity to occupy the space.

1:29:20 What was the rationale by the planning

1:29:22 director if this is not something that

1:29:25 uh the developer was even asking for in

1:29:28 terms of having it be 12 feet instead of

1:29:30 15?

1:29:31 Well,

1:29:34 again this 12t floor to ceiling um

1:29:37 translates to some number greater than

1:29:40 12 feet when compared to the what was

1:29:43 discussed previously as 15 feet because

1:29:45 that height was floor to floor.

1:29:49 So there's a space between the the floor

1:29:51 the second floor floor and the first

1:29:54 floor ceiling that is in one separation

1:29:58 the other. Um and this was agreed to in

1:30:01 the negotiation process as uh a balance

1:30:05 between those two

1:30:07 those two objectives.

1:30:08 So we were always talking two different

1:30:10 variables then

1:30:12 of floor to floor versus floor to

1:30:13 ceiling.

1:30:15 um all always talking. So uh I don't

1:30:19 necessarily want to go into the details

1:30:21 of like the various steps of negotiation

1:30:24 that arrived at this point. Um but I

1:30:27 will say yes, this 12T floor to ceiling

1:30:30 is different than what we discussed

1:30:34 previously at the select board is 15

1:30:36 feet. Recognizing that from the planning

1:30:39 director's perspective, both of the

1:30:42 either of these would support ground

1:30:46 floor commercial use.

1:30:47 Yeah. To be clear, like we're talking

1:30:48 about the same basically the same volume

1:30:50 of space, right? It's like almost

1:30:51 equivalent volume.

1:30:53 Uh

1:30:53 it's close.

1:30:54 It's close.

1:30:54 Yeah.

1:30:58 Any other questions?

1:31:02 Okay. So, uh moving on. Um and again I

1:31:07 will point out that many of these

1:31:09 specific terms are taken uh specifically

1:31:13 from the agreement that we negotiated

1:31:14 with city realy uh as part of the

1:31:16 Chesnut Hill commercial area. Um so that

1:31:19 they will record the agreement with the

1:31:22 registry of deeds or land court so it

1:31:24 will stay with the land. They will

1:31:25 diligently apply for permits and

1:31:27 approvals. Um the the date um on acting

1:31:31 on all of these you know i.e. doing this

1:31:35 uh construction was negotiated to July

1:31:38 1st, 2032. Um they agree to a fossil

1:31:42 freed uh fuel free buildings which is

1:31:45 primarily relevant in case the state uh

1:31:48 pilot program that Brookline

1:31:50 participates in changes. Um they have

1:31:54 agreed to unbundle the parking um as

1:31:57 opposed to bundling it with the units.

1:31:59 dim signage after midnight. Uh to the

1:32:01 extent that there's exterior signage um

1:32:04 and various climate uh terms for climate

1:32:06 and sustainability. Um there is a waste

1:32:10 management plan uh sustainable design

1:32:12 elements um which the list of which is

1:32:15 to be determined. Um that's really to

1:32:19 come from the developer. um a lowcarbon

1:32:22 concrete installation pilot uh and the

1:32:25 exploration of thermal energy and

1:32:27 sustainable me materials again to the

1:32:30 same degree of uh requirement

1:32:33 recommendation exploration as was in the

1:32:36 Chesman Hill commercial area um the city

1:32:39 realy agreement

1:32:40 I have a question about the June 1st

1:32:42 2032 date

1:32:44 yes

1:32:44 what are the so just to be clear that

1:32:47 date is a um basically a fall expl

1:32:50 explain that date. What what what

1:32:52 happens after that date?

1:32:53 Um

1:32:55 uh June 1st, 2032. Um if they do, I I

1:33:00 believe and we could pull up the

1:33:02 specific language actually. Is Jonathan

1:33:04 Simpson on the line?

1:33:05 He should be. Yes.

1:33:06 Uh if he is, I think he would be better

1:33:08 to answer that question than me.

1:33:10 I don't see him in

1:33:11 Oh,

1:33:12 participants. Joe's here.

1:33:13 Joe is here. Uh, does Joe want to weigh

1:33:16 in or

1:33:19 I understand Jonathan's on uh

1:33:21 I'm here. Sorry, I'm on the phone. So,

1:33:24 exactly.

1:33:25 It's a phone number.

1:33:27 Okay.

1:33:28 Yeah. Sorry about that, guys.

1:33:30 So, sorry, Anthony. Do you mind pointing

1:33:32 me at the the provision that that you

1:33:34 were referencing there? Yeah, I'm

1:33:36 referencing um uh point 1B

1:33:40 on 1B. The f the last the the the last

1:33:44 clause refers to the date of June 1st,

1:33:46 2032. And there's a bunch of language on

1:33:47 top of it. I don't really understand

1:33:48 right now. So, I'm just trying to

1:33:50 understand what is the conditions that

1:33:52 are related to that date and what

1:33:54 happens after that date if the

1:33:55 conditions aren't met.

1:33:58 If well with respect to 1B if the

1:34:01 conditions aren't met by that date uh

1:34:03 the the deal is off the the MOA is

1:34:06 voided because m that that particular

1:34:09 use of the date is it just references

1:34:12 how long it has to take before the

1:34:14 zoning is set um because it's the town

1:34:18 meeting approval conditions. So by that

1:34:20 date we have to have the zoning passed

1:34:22 in a form that's acceptable to

1:34:24 everybody. the AG has approved it and

1:34:27 any appeal taken from the AGO's approval

1:34:29 has been resolved in favor of the zoning

1:34:32 staying in place.

1:34:33 Okay,

1:34:33 so that's what it means there. So it's

1:34:35 just um and understand, you know, if it

1:34:38 if for whatever reason we haven't passed

1:34:39 the zoning or the zoning is in effect by

1:34:41 2032, I think everyone would agree uh

1:34:44 the deal wouldn't go forward, wouldn't

1:34:47 really be viable at that point. That

1:34:49 date however is used at uh at other

1:34:52 points um in and particularly in in uh

1:34:56 section three

1:34:57 where it says you know that Nord Bloom

1:35:00 agrees to use commercially reasonable

1:35:01 efforts to uh to apply for everything uh

1:35:05 with uh and act uh and to act on them no

1:35:07 later than June 1st 2032.

1:35:09 So that's the the biggest thing there is

1:35:13 I cut you off. Sorry, Jonathan. You go.

1:35:16 Oh yes. So um so it is a recognition in

1:35:20 this in this agreement of the of a

1:35:22 general time frame uh for what we're

1:35:24 what we're envisioning. We tried to be

1:35:27 um flexible because one thing that

1:35:30 Norblin was clear throughout the

1:35:31 negotiation process was that this is a

1:35:34 um is a very tough time to build just

1:35:36 about anything. So we actually were that

1:35:39 that date was a point on which the

1:35:41 parties were were able to sort of sort

1:35:44 of laid out a a uh a date you know

1:35:47 considerably into the future for when

1:35:49 they need to actually start building the

1:35:52 project not have it complete start

1:35:54 building it.

1:35:55 So that's my question. So so you're

1:35:57 saying that that there has to be

1:35:59 construction beginning prior to June 1st

1:36:02 2032. If not, then the MOA is void and

1:36:06 they don't get the the special permits

1:36:08 required.

1:36:10 It would have to and if they could show

1:36:12 a commercially reasonable reason why

1:36:14 they haven't been able to build it by

1:36:16 then, I think that that there would

1:36:18 certainly be an argument that no, that

1:36:19 they could still take advantage of the

1:36:21 zoning. However, I think that what this

1:36:23 really lets us do is if for some reason

1:36:26 there has been no no movement taken,

1:36:28 we've done everything on our side and

1:36:30 there's been no movement on their side

1:36:32 and it appears that for whatever reason

1:36:35 this this they're not they're not moving

1:36:37 forward for no reasons unrelated to the

1:36:39 commercial viability of the project,

1:36:42 then we would we would have the option

1:36:45 to uh to claim that that the the MOA was

1:36:48 was had been effectively breached and

1:36:50 And because it is a and then there

1:36:53 therefore the the zoning would no longer

1:36:55 be available to them.

1:36:56 And I'm assuming that sorry go ahead.

1:36:58 Just to be specific when you said the

1:37:00 zoning would no longer be available I

1:37:02 think specifically

1:37:04 their special permit would not be

1:37:06 available. Is that right? The zoning

1:37:07 would still be

1:37:08 it would Yes, that is that is true.

1:37:10 There is no I I jumped the gun there.

1:37:12 Yes. the special permit they would

1:37:15 receive as a rel as a result of the

1:37:17 overlay zoning would no longer be be a

1:37:20 means for them to build this project

1:37:21 and that is the extent of the quote

1:37:24 unquote uh repercussion but it's not

1:37:27 really quote unquote repercussion of not

1:37:29 starting construction by 2032 that is

1:37:31 the extent not getting special permits

1:37:32 right

1:37:35 that it would that their special permit

1:37:36 would would they would be in violation

1:37:38 of their special permit and would no

1:37:40 longer be able to utilize it

1:37:41 got it thank you but yes but again, but

1:37:43 I want to manage expectations here. It

1:37:46 that is that is an option that the town

1:37:47 has if and again if they can show a

1:37:50 commercially reason that they've made

1:37:51 commercially reasonable efforts to

1:37:53 proceed, they could certainly have a

1:37:55 strong argument that they're still in

1:37:56 compliance.

1:37:57 Yep. Yep. That makes perfect sense.

1:38:01 Okay.

1:38:02 Yeah. I have a question that may or may

1:38:04 not be here, but I'm going to ask it

1:38:06 anyways. You can tell me if you want to

1:38:07 wait. Um, when we talk about

1:38:09 construction mitigated impacts,

1:38:12 at what point does that start to apply?

1:38:15 And this is a a parking lot, so you

1:38:18 don't have so much deconstruction, but I

1:38:21 I'm thinking about a property in the

1:38:23 vicinity where um things haven't moved

1:38:27 and snow removal seems to be not great.

1:38:30 Um, and so do sort of the construction

1:38:34 mitigated impacts apply from the time

1:38:37 that any change happens to the the

1:38:40 property or is it do we not mitigate

1:38:43 construction impacts until they start

1:38:45 building? Does that make sense?

1:38:47 Um, so

1:38:50 um is is there anybody from DPW

1:38:54 uh on the on the call?

1:38:56 Yes, Erin and Sam are both on the call.

1:38:58 Uh Erin, would you like to take this

1:39:01 question?

1:39:09 So th this question involves

1:39:12 the the creation of an agreement as as

1:39:15 to as to what the mitigations need to be

1:39:18 between I believe between the developer

1:39:21 and DPW which is why I'm I'm trying to

1:39:24 see if DPW wants to weigh in

1:39:27 or at least to explain how that usually

1:39:30 how that conversation usually happens.

1:39:32 Yeah. Um hey uh Sam DS here. I'll I'll

1:39:36 try my best and if the commissioner uh

1:39:38 joins I'll I'll defer to her. But uh

1:39:41 normally mitigation um measures are

1:39:44 negotiated uh before the start of

1:39:47 construction. Um you know during during

1:39:50 the project development phase um I know

1:39:53 that I've you know been working with

1:39:55 select board member uh Rubenstein for um

1:39:57 the the items that were previously

1:40:00 presented. uh you know as part of this

1:40:03 exercise uh we did um generate a longer

1:40:07 list of of mitigation requests that

1:40:09 could be considered um you know prior to

1:40:12 the issuance of a building permit um

1:40:15 those conditions would normally be

1:40:17 listed in um the ZBA decision for this

1:40:20 project. We would we'd hope to incor

1:40:22 incorporate those mitigation requests.

1:40:25 Um and so we um

1:40:29 we we do have items that could be

1:40:31 considered for for u mitigation beyond

1:40:34 the you know the widening of the

1:40:36 sidewalk and the other items that um

1:40:39 Michael listed

1:40:42 answer that answer.

1:40:43 I mean it's it's a hard question.

1:40:44 Amanda, may I can this is Jonathan.

1:40:46 Please go ahead.

1:40:47 Can I jump in here?

1:40:48 Yes. Um there there is a distinction in

1:40:50 the agreement between uh mitigation of

1:40:53 the impacts of the use of the project

1:40:55 which I think is something of what Sam

1:40:57 is referencing there um and Michael

1:41:00 spent some time on early on as as

1:41:01 voluntary special permit conditions. And

1:41:03 then there's the customary uh

1:41:05 construction mitigation that almost

1:41:07 anyone building virtually anything in

1:41:09 town uh of substantial size agrees to.

1:41:13 Um and that is generally uh is is is

1:41:18 kind of understood within the industry

1:41:19 as you know it's the impacts of of what

1:41:22 the construction itself is doing. So it

1:41:25 would it would depend on what ex I think

1:41:28 I heard you say there was a snow removal

1:41:30 question.

1:41:31 Yeah.

1:41:31 Was that did I hear that correctly?

1:41:33 There's a property and how not to direct

1:41:36 any anyone to said property that is

1:41:38 notori there are multiple properties

1:41:40 that are notoriously bad at clearing

1:41:42 snow and ice and become slippery and

1:41:45 treacherous. And I am wondering if there

1:41:48 is anything in construction impacts when

1:41:51 nothing has been built yet that would uh

1:41:56 more urgently require them to take care

1:41:59 of snow on their property.

1:42:01 Right. Uh I I would I would no don't

1:42:04 think that's really what construction

1:42:06 impact mitigation is generally for.

1:42:08 There there are some requirements and

1:42:10 the bylaw in our bylaws about snow

1:42:13 removal, but generally no. Snow removal

1:42:15 would not be covered by construction

1:42:17 impact mitigation.

1:42:18 But theoretically, we have other rules

1:42:20 in the bylaw that we just have to talk

1:42:21 about enforcing. Yes.

1:42:23 Yes.

1:42:28 Any other questions?

1:42:30 Okay. Uh

1:42:32 last slide of information. So, uh the

1:42:35 final set of terms um to discuss uh

1:42:39 there was much concern about the tree

1:42:41 canopy. Um there is a clause in the

1:42:44 agreement about prioritizing the

1:42:46 preservation of eight existing trees

1:42:48 between 26 and 50 Pleasant Street. Um 50

1:42:52 Pleasant Street is the susman house. Um

1:42:54 there is a requirement of a minimum tree

1:42:57 canopy of 2% of the lot area. um which

1:43:01 is the equivalent requirement to a lot

1:43:04 of this size within the Chesn Hill

1:43:06 commercial area. Um and there is an

1:43:08 agreement that for any protected tree um

1:43:12 which is defined by our tree

1:43:13 preservation bylaw, if for some reason

1:43:16 that tree despite the protection during

1:43:18 construction um does not thrive uh it

1:43:22 will be it can be replaced uh for up to

1:43:25 five years.

1:43:28 um in the public realm. Uh there are a

1:43:31 few other terms that we uh came to

1:43:33 agreement on. The first was an

1:43:35 additional on top of the um

1:43:37 infrastructure uh benefits that were

1:43:40 described earlier, there is a agreement

1:43:43 to pay for the developer to uh provide

1:43:47 the town $50,000 for public realm

1:43:49 improvements um of DPW's management. Um

1:43:54 there is the requirement that a

1:43:56 landscape plan um with regulatory

1:43:59 planning director and town tree warden

1:44:01 approvals um be produced um in order to

1:44:05 get the building permit. Um and uh the

1:44:09 third is that there's a requirement uh

1:44:12 for an alternative design um for the

1:44:15 project uh with the special permit

1:44:17 application that includes no vehicular

1:44:21 ingress or egress on Pleasant Street. Um

1:44:23 the current plan has uh ingress and

1:44:26 egress on both Pleasant Street and John

1:44:28 Street. Um so this is an alternative

1:44:30 design that would have potential impacts

1:44:32 on uh parking layouts, quantity of

1:44:36 parking, other use concerns um that we

1:44:40 didn't necessarily have time to um

1:44:43 establish the details um before town

1:44:46 meeting. And this isn't necessarily a

1:44:48 zoning issue. it's much more properly an

1:44:50 issue of design review um which would

1:44:54 happen after the special permit

1:44:56 application was submitted. So uh this

1:44:59 design will be present as an alternative

1:45:01 for consideration during design review.

1:45:04 Um and finally an agreement to upkeep

1:45:06 the planters uh street trees snow and

1:45:09 leaf removal on the town property um up

1:45:12 to the curb line. So if for example we

1:45:14 get um tree um uh places to plant trees

1:45:19 in the curb extensions then they would

1:45:22 be responsible for the upkeep of those

1:45:24 trees or planters or any other

1:45:27 procurements uh on the town sidewalk.

1:45:32 And that is the substance. Questions,

1:45:35 discussions, comments,

1:45:38 Anthony,

1:45:39 the eight tree line on the the eight

1:45:41 trees that was referenced in the

1:45:43 previous slide, is that uh the one next

1:45:45 to the Sullivan House,

1:45:46 Susman.

1:45:47 Susman house. Yes.

1:45:48 Yes.

1:45:51 Can you go back to that slide? Actually,

1:45:53 I'm sorry. That's okay.

1:45:54 It's slide six.

1:45:57 One second. Pull that up again.

1:46:17 this one.

1:46:18 Yes.

1:46:18 Um what is replacement of any protected

1:46:22 tree for 5 years mean in this context?

1:46:24 Uh uh according to our tree preservation

1:46:27 bylaw um there is a definition of a

1:46:30 protected tree um and various uh uh

1:46:34 actions that can be taken uh to preserve

1:46:37 that tree or um or mitigate the loss of

1:46:42 that tree um for any tree that they

1:46:44 determine to they are going to preserve.

1:46:49 If for some reason that tree becomes

1:46:52 nonviable

1:46:53 uh disease dies whatever within five

1:46:56 years and I don't remember five years of

1:46:59 what exactly whether it's five years of

1:47:01 the certificate of occupancy or five

1:47:03 years of of completion of construction

1:47:06 um that they will agree to replace that

1:47:08 tree

1:47:09 and it's five and and and the the sorry

1:47:13 the universe of trees that it's open to

1:47:15 replacing is those eight. No, it is any

1:47:18 tree that is designated as a protected

1:47:20 tree when they go and do their tree

1:47:23 preservation application. Right. There

1:47:26 are there are currently 15 trees.

1:47:28 Yes.

1:47:29 Um

1:47:29 so it covers all 15 trees.

1:47:31 Um it covers only the trees that they

1:47:34 determine they're going to preserve

1:47:37 and that and which of those 15 is not

1:47:40 yet determined because that is a

1:47:41 question that will ultimately be

1:47:43 resolved in a later stage. typically

1:47:46 design like if they end up moving the

1:47:48 building closer to one of the trees to

1:47:50 preserve other trees,

1:47:51 right?

1:47:51 Then we may lose for example trees on

1:47:54 John Street preserve the trees uh

1:47:58 between them and the susman house.

1:48:00 Um so those as those details get worked

1:48:02 out um various of those trees will be

1:48:06 designated as protected trees subject to

1:48:09 this five-year uh replacement.

1:48:12 Okay. And uh that $50,000 contribution

1:48:15 that's into the into DPW's um capital

1:48:19 budget or just refurbishment budget.

1:48:21 Where does and and that's a onetime

1:48:23 contribution?

1:48:24 Uh it is a onetime contribution. Uh I

1:48:27 would ask somebody from DPW to describe

1:48:29 where that lands.

1:48:32 Good evening. Aaron Chute, Commissioner

1:48:34 of Public Works. Typically, when there's

1:48:36 any type of mitigation payment, it's

1:48:39 actually accepted by the board and it

1:48:41 goes into a dedicated fund that is then

1:48:43 used for said purposes after the project

1:48:45 is complete.

1:48:47 Okay. Um

1:48:50 I had a followup to that. Well, this

1:48:52 $50,000 is is done once they have uh

1:48:57 someone occupying the finished building.

1:48:59 No, I think uh it specifies in the

1:49:02 language. Um but I I'm sorry I don't

1:49:05 have a

1:49:06 at the issuance of any building permit

1:49:08 for the project.

1:49:09 Yeah.

1:49:09 Oh, okay. So, that's that's fairly

1:49:11 upfront.

1:49:13 Um,

1:49:15 if you go back to slide two, um, under

1:49:19 the section of further refinements,

1:49:21 building permits is the last of four

1:49:23 steps, but it is before construction,

1:49:25 right? It's before construction. Okay.

1:49:28 There's also four suggested uses for the

1:49:31 contribution that are listed in the MOA.

1:49:34 So, construction of a crosswalk at the

1:49:35 intersection of Dwight and Pleasant

1:49:37 Streets, a crosswalk at the intersection

1:49:39 of John and Pleasant, planting of trees

1:49:42 or other natural infrastructure along

1:49:44 neighboring streets, and pedestrian

1:49:46 friendly lighting at locations adjacent

1:49:49 to or near the site. Now, of course, uh

1:49:51 these aren't obligations for how to

1:49:53 spend that money, but suggestions. It

1:49:55 shows what we're valuing

1:49:57 for how that money could be spent.

1:50:03 Any other questions or comments from

1:50:04 him? Go ahead, Anthony.

1:50:05 Do we have any revenue estimates at this

1:50:07 stage that we can share to the public or

1:50:10 no?

1:50:10 Um,

1:50:12 I don't have any within the context of

1:50:14 this MOA.

1:50:15 Okay.

1:50:19 Anyone else?

1:50:20 I have one question and it's just me

1:50:23 trying to remember. Are there um any

1:50:26 grants that if this project goes through

1:50:29 that can be applied for for additional

1:50:32 street mitigation

1:50:34 effects?

1:50:35 Um

1:50:37 the the broad answer to that question is

1:50:39 yes. There were some discussed. Um

1:50:42 Commissioner Shute, would you like to

1:50:44 talk about the uh HPIW?

1:50:49 I can't remember the acronym of the

1:50:51 acronym that we discussed. Yeah, there

1:50:53 have been there are a few grants um

1:50:56 where this may fall into the category.

1:51:00 Um there are reasons and Brooklyn has

1:51:04 applied uh several times in the past for

1:51:07 accessibility, multimodal improvements,

1:51:10 um connecting uh both affordable housing

1:51:13 to commercial areas. Um there are

1:51:15 reasons why uh Brookline is generally

1:51:18 not um ranked as high as other um

1:51:24 communities with less resources for a

1:51:27 pretty um for a limited pool of dollars.

1:51:30 So while we can uh apply for um dollars,

1:51:34 we certainly shouldn't shouldn't count

1:51:37 on it.

1:51:38 Okay. Thank you.

1:51:40 I also just want to add that in the uh

1:51:42 miscellaneous section of the MOA uh 13B

1:51:47 I think will be of interest to many

1:51:49 members of the public. Uh we often get

1:51:51 asked the question, well what happens if

1:51:53 Nord Bloom sells to someone else? Will

1:51:55 the MOA still be applicable? And the

1:51:58 answer to that question is yes. It is

1:52:00 the intent of the parties that the

1:52:02 obligations in this agreement shall run

1:52:04 with the land comprising the project and

1:52:06 be binding upon and enure to the benefit

1:52:08 and burden of Nord Bloom and his

1:52:10 mortgage lenders and their heirs,

1:52:12 successors and assigns during respective

1:52:15 periods of ownership.

1:52:20 All right. Anything else?

1:52:22 So with that, uh, Michael, do you want

1:52:26 to move a vote on this?

1:52:27 Um, yes. So, uh I I believe the motion

1:52:31 is um that the select board approved the

1:52:36 inclusion of uh this uh memorandum of

1:52:41 agreement um as an exhibit to warrant

1:52:45 article 16 uh with the with the

1:52:49 anticipation that it would be signed and

1:52:50 executed um

1:52:53 uh subject to town meetings approval of

1:52:55 that warrant article.

1:52:57 All right, Bernard. Yes.

1:52:58 Can we talk about that for a second?

1:53:00 Sure.

1:53:00 I

1:53:07 I feel like much of this discussion has

1:53:11 been around the idea of economic

1:53:14 development for the town and then also

1:53:16 the potential of raising

1:53:19 additional revenue for the town through

1:53:23 increased development and economic

1:53:25 expansion. until we have that number.

1:53:28 Should we vote on the MOA?

1:53:30 Um, there's two separate questions here,

1:53:33 I think. Okay.

1:53:34 Um, one question is,

1:53:37 uh, are we comfortable with this MOA as

1:53:39 a set of conditions, right? Um, and then

1:53:42 there's there's a whole subsequent

1:53:44 discussion around warrant article 15 and

1:53:47 warrant article 16

1:53:49 of which this MOA is should be an

1:53:51 exhibit. Um, but we can't have that

1:53:54 discussion. I think uh as a matter of

1:53:58 order of operations until the select

1:54:01 board which designated a negotiating

1:54:04 team um to negotiate an MOA

1:54:07 accepts this MOA as the MOA that will be

1:54:11 moved forward. That doesn't mean we

1:54:13 can't come back and modify it at some

1:54:15 point in response to foreign article 16,

1:54:18 but we can't uh you know as as the head

1:54:23 of of the negotiating team like I don't

1:54:26 have the authority to to just attach

1:54:28 this and say this is the MOA that Warren

1:54:30 article 16 applies to without the the

1:54:34 ascent of the select board. Yes. Is

1:54:36 filing the article.

1:54:37 I think my I think my my my question is

1:54:40 coming at the angle of

1:54:42 what I would want to be in the MOA

1:54:44 differs based off of the net revenue

1:54:46 calculation. If the net revenue

1:54:47 calculation is negative, that would

1:54:50 change my opinion of the MOA. Does that

1:54:52 make sense? Or am I am I am I not at

1:54:56 that stage yet?

1:54:56 Can I attempt to to field at least my

1:54:59 reaction to you? I should say I'll field

1:55:01 your question. I think some things will

1:55:04 not be publicly disclosed, which is what

1:55:06 you're getting at, right? I don't want

1:55:08 to vote on um a conditions of approval

1:55:13 that make it a not financially feasible

1:55:15 project. Um

1:55:18 but right because like it doesn't matter

1:55:21 how many good things I think we're going

1:55:23 to get if it doesn't happen we don't get

1:55:25 any of them. Um however given that the

1:55:29 developer in this case is agreeing to

1:55:32 this that means at least they think this

1:55:35 is a doable compromise. So in in a way

1:55:39 your question is are we asking for

1:55:41 enough because the developer is already

1:55:44 saying you're not asking for too much.

1:55:46 We think this is reasonable. Um,

1:55:51 are we asking for enough is complicated

1:55:53 and I'm going to go out on a limb and

1:55:55 guess that their books are not going to

1:55:58 be publicly available for everyone to to

1:56:01 look at.

1:56:02 That's that's not my concern. My my

1:56:04 concern is is is the net revenue to the

1:56:06 town post construction being finished?

1:56:08 Does this project contribute positively

1:56:11 to property taxes then otherwise? That's

1:56:13 my concern. And I would want to know

1:56:14 that before I vote on any MOA. Like

1:56:17 that's that's where I'm coming at this

1:56:18 from.

1:56:18 Is anybody from the planning department

1:56:20 on the call?

1:56:22 Okay.

1:56:22 But I mean the the long and the short of

1:56:25 it, my understanding is projecting

1:56:28 revenue is an art, not a science. Right?

1:56:31 At the end of the day, can I guarantee

1:56:33 you that any project is going to be

1:56:34 revenue positive? No. I don't know what

1:56:36 the environment is going to be. I don't

1:56:38 know what the occupancy rate is going to

1:56:39 be.

1:56:39 I don't know how our tax rate is going

1:56:41 to be determined in future years. there

1:56:43 are so many variables we can model but

1:56:46 we can't guarantee with certainty and so

1:56:49 I think that's an area that I think

1:56:51 people struggle with right this idea

1:56:54 that you have to be comfortable with

1:56:56 some level of ambiguity you have to be

1:56:58 yeah and I think what I would go back to

1:57:00 is Carara's projection from your uh

1:57:03 workshop over the summer

1:57:04 where she said that even a project that

1:57:06 is purely 100% residential like more

1:57:09 likely than not yes

1:57:10 to lead to revenue new positive

1:57:13 development.

1:57:13 I did a ton of analysis on that. I

1:57:15 completely agree with you. I'm

1:57:16 completely in line. But where we left

1:57:18 off, I believe, was we were discussing

1:57:21 that we had a net revenue projection

1:57:23 from the developer themselves from

1:57:25 Nordloom.

1:57:25 Yes.

1:57:26 That sat around 250,000. Yep.

1:57:28 And then we were going to hire a

1:57:30 consultant consultant firm. Not we were

1:57:32 going to hire, they were going to pay

1:57:33 for the consultant firm, right, RKG that

1:57:37 we chose

1:57:37 that we chose and they were going to do

1:57:38 an independent analysis.

1:57:40 Correct. And until that independent

1:57:42 analysis is done, I don't know if we

1:57:44 should be voting on the MOA, but that's

1:57:46 just my opinion. I I could be sued.

1:57:47 Okay. So, so

1:57:51 two things. Number one, uh I take your

1:57:55 points, Amanda. I take your P points,

1:57:57 Anthony. They they are clearly different

1:57:59 points. Um in terms of are we getting

1:58:02 enough? Um I think the answer is

1:58:06 um that we are getting as much as the

1:58:09 developer would reasonably would agree

1:58:11 with. Um and it's really a question of

1:58:15 of town meeting and you know and we will

1:58:18 offer our opinions as to whether the

1:58:20 whole combined package including the

1:58:22 zoning etc in aggregate constitutes

1:58:25 enough. Um

1:58:28 to to to your question um uh I've been

1:58:32 pinging the planning department on a

1:58:34 continuous basis for updates to that

1:58:36 RKG. Um uh it looks close um and and to

1:58:42 my best understanding um follows falls

1:58:45 in line basically with what Chaz said is

1:58:48 that is that a project of this type um

1:58:52 may or may not have the revenue this

1:58:54 specific revenue uh uh net fiscal impact

1:58:57 as described by um Nordbloom's version

1:59:01 um but it it is in general um positive

1:59:07 Um to your question of of whether we can

1:59:10 vote on this before we vote on that

1:59:13 again I want to say that what we are

1:59:16 voting on here is is a not

1:59:21 you know we can reopen this question of

1:59:23 like what goes in the MOA um o our next

1:59:27 meeting is on October 20th which is

1:59:31 days before the combined reports um and

1:59:34 I don't think that, you know, for

1:59:36 example, I don't think that that other

1:59:38 boards and and commissions um other

1:59:42 public bodies that might be taking up

1:59:44 warrant articles 15 and 16 can start

1:59:47 their work until they have an

1:59:49 understanding of what the memorandum of

1:59:50 agreement says.

1:59:52 That answers answer the

1:59:53 that answers that answers my question.

1:59:55 That gives me a good reason. I think

1:59:56 that makes perfect sense. We want we

1:59:58 want the the MOA going forward is not

2:00:00 going to be uh no matter what happens uh

2:00:02 structurally different than what

2:00:04 currently exists right now. Um and we

2:00:06 want the different boards and

2:00:07 commissions who are going to be

2:00:08 reviewing this to have the information

2:00:10 in front of them to be able to have an

2:00:12 intelligent conversation about what's

2:00:13 going on. So that makes sense to me.

2:00:15 To Anony's question though about when we

2:00:17 get those numbers, do you anticipate

2:00:19 that by the time of town meeting RKG

2:00:22 will have its report?

2:00:24 Uh yes.

2:00:25 Okay.

2:00:26 Okay. I think that's going to be very

2:00:27 important.

2:00:28 Uh I agree.

2:00:29 And also as Carara had presented at the

2:00:33 workshop, I think she looked at the last

2:00:35 15 years and there wasn't even a single

2:00:39 project that was a net negative.

2:00:41 Not a single project.

2:00:43 Nevertheless, I understand your point

2:00:44 about potential opportunity costs. Is it

2:00:47 enough of a benefit? There's a big

2:00:49 difference between a slight benefit and

2:00:51 a very large benefit. And that'll be

2:00:53 something that town meeting weighs. Uh,

2:00:55 and we'll have that information from

2:00:57 Yeah. RKG by then.

2:00:58 Yeah. I just want Yeah. Before having

2:01:00 Yeah. Sorry. Before my my basic point is

2:01:02 before taking an opinion on either

2:01:04 Warren article, I would like to have

2:01:05 that information, but this is not taking

2:01:07 an opinion on the warrant article. So,

2:01:09 I'm fine voting for it now.

2:01:10 Right.

2:01:11 Okay.

2:01:12 Okay. So, Bernard voted yes. Michael,

2:01:14 I'm voting yes.

2:01:15 Amanda?

2:01:15 Yes.

2:01:16 Anthony?

2:01:16 Yes.

2:01:17 And I also vote yes. Uh, thank you

2:01:19 again, Michael, for leading this

2:01:21 negotiation effort. So, a lot of uh work

2:01:24 that goes into it, I know. So, thank

2:01:25 you.

2:01:28 All right. So, that brings us to our

2:01:30 next item, warrant articles, public

2:01:32 hearings. Uh before we open the hearing,

2:01:35 though, let's hear from the petitioners

2:01:38 for warrant article 19. I understand

2:01:40 that Kaylee Bennett will be presenting

2:01:44 article 19, Commonwealth of

2:01:45 Massachusetts Flag Resolution.

2:01:49 She's on.

2:01:51 Yes.

2:01:52 All right, Kaylee, whenever you're

2:01:53 ready.

2:01:55 Um, sorry, one question. I should have a

2:01:57 presentation.

2:01:58 Okay.

2:02:00 Um, so we don't run slideshows, so if

2:02:04 you could sh You're co-host, so you

2:02:06 could share your screen and run your

2:02:07 slideshow.

2:02:09 Yes, I can do that. Um,

2:02:13 gosh,

2:02:15 just a second.

2:02:25 Sorry, give me two seconds. Um,

2:02:30 I've Okay, there we go.

2:02:33 Um, I'm so sorry. Give me a second.

2:02:59 Okay, sorry about that. Um, can I share

2:03:02 my screen?

2:03:09 Okay, confirming you can see that.

2:03:12 Yes.

2:03:15 Okay.

2:03:17 Um, great. Uh, hi. Hello. My name is

2:03:20 Kaylee. I am a Cherokee Nation citizen,

2:03:23 uh, town meeting member for precinct 8,

2:03:25 and the chair of Brookline's Indigenous

2:03:26 People's Celebration Committee. My

2:03:28 co-lead petitioner is Kevin McKenzie.

2:03:34 Um, so just to do a quick um overview of

2:03:37 what this resolution is asking for,

2:03:40 we're asking for Brookline to reassert

2:03:42 its support for the work under the

2:03:44 Massachusetts Seal, Flag, and Motto

2:03:46 Advisory Commission, particularly since

2:03:48 the commission is stalled. In 2021, the

2:03:51 commission did establish that the flag

2:03:53 and seal causes harm and voted

2:03:55 unanimously to um recommend creating a

2:03:58 new design. But again, the work is

2:04:00 stalled and there's no immediate forward

2:04:02 progress. This warrant builds on um town

2:04:05 meeting support from 2019 and

2:04:08 acknowledges the 250th of the American

2:04:11 uh anniversary of the American

2:04:12 independence as well as the 350th

2:04:14 anniversary of King Phillip's war. If

2:04:17 passed, we will be the only municipality

2:04:19 to come back to this issue with a

2:04:22 resolution and we'd also be the first to

2:04:23 go directly to the commission. We're

2:04:26 also looking for town meeting to

2:04:27 reaffirm its support for indigenous

2:04:30 communities and recognize that this work

2:04:32 must be ongoing.

2:04:38 So just to give a brief history about

2:04:41 the seal um the first seal um pictured

2:04:44 here in the top left is from 1629 which

2:04:46 features an Indian holding an arrow

2:04:48 pointed down in a gesture of peace with

2:04:51 the words come over and help us which is

2:04:53 a reference to um Puritan missionizing

2:04:56 in this area. That seal was used until

2:04:58 1686.

2:05:00 Uh fast forward to 1894, there was a

2:05:02 desire to have a more accurate

2:05:04 representation of the Indian and return

2:05:07 that figure to the seal. Um and so the

2:05:10 state consulted with the Harvard Peabody

2:05:12 Museum and utilized human remains to

2:05:15 create the stature and scale for the

2:05:17 model. The motto translates to by the

2:05:20 sword we seek peace, but peace only

2:05:22 under liberty. The sword pictured on the

2:05:26 seal is modeled after Miles Standish's

2:05:29 broadsword. And the bow is modeled after

2:05:31 a bow found with an Indian. This unnamed

2:05:34 Native American was killed sometime in

2:05:36 the mid 1800s.

2:05:39 Um, and so you might recognize this

2:05:41 face. Uh, this is the face of the Indian

2:05:44 on the state flag and seal. This is a

2:05:46 Chippoa Indian named Little Shell. um

2:05:49 who has no direct relation to the

2:05:51 Wampenog or other tribes from this

2:05:54 region. He was picked because he was

2:05:56 considered as a fine specimen of an

2:05:58 Indian. In 1898,

2:06:01 uh Edmund Garrett's design became

2:06:03 official. But in short, as um stated,

2:06:06 this flag represents a caricature of

2:06:08 what an Indian might be. Um, as an

2:06:12 aside, uh, when designing the seal in

2:06:14 the 1880s, there was upset that the

2:06:16 model depicted, uh, was left-handed, and

2:06:19 that was seen as unrealistic.

2:06:23 So, local natives, um, native

2:06:25 historians, citizens, and leaders all

2:06:27 agree that the flag seal and motto

2:06:29 should be changed. Um to give an

2:06:31 example, Mashpwampenog culture keeper

2:06:34 Hartman Deetsz said, "Now that

2:06:36 Mississippi has decided to retire its

2:06:38 Confederate state flag, Massachusetts is

2:06:40 the last US state whose flag includes

2:06:43 representations of white supremacy. It

2:06:46 features a colonial broadsword held in a

2:06:48 white hand over the head of a composite

2:06:50 Native American. The English cut off the

2:06:53 head of Metaccom, King Phillip, and

2:06:55 displayed it on top of a pike in

2:06:57 Plymouth. that sword continues to hang

2:06:59 over the head of native people in

2:07:01 Massachusetts.

2:07:02 Um, this quote here is also

2:07:06 uh from uh the former chairwoman Cheryl

2:07:10 Andrews Maltese um of the Wampenog tribe

2:07:12 of Aquina. Oh my gosh,

2:07:17 I'm so sorry.

2:07:22 We can see the quote.

2:07:24 Oh, you can. Okay. Sorry, my computer.

2:07:27 um is no longer showing that.

2:07:32 My screen sharing is paused.

2:07:40 Um

2:07:46 I'm sorry. I'm going to share again.

2:07:50 There we go. Um, so this you'll see here

2:07:53 is the quote from former chairwoman

2:07:54 Cheryl Andrews Maltes where she says

2:07:56 that this imagery um has harmed our

2:08:00 people as well as all indigenous peoples

2:08:02 who reside within the Commonwealth.

2:08:05 Um,

2:08:06 moving ahead,

2:08:09 as I said, this is the 350th anniversary

2:08:11 of King Phillips War and Metacom's

2:08:13 Rebellion. Uh, which is particularly

2:08:15 consequential for the timing of this

2:08:17 warrant article and for the tribes in

2:08:18 this region. King Philip's War was an

2:08:20 armed conflict between New England

2:08:22 tribes and the colonists and it is the

2:08:25 bloodiest US conflict per capita which

2:08:28 again ended with the beheading of

2:08:29 Wampenog leader King Phillip and as a

2:08:32 result there was catastrophic population

2:08:34 losses for tribes from conflict,

2:08:36 disease, removal, enslavement and

2:08:37 indenture both in Massachusetts and um

2:08:41 in the Caribbean.

2:08:47 Uh just to reaffirm Brooklyn's land

2:08:50 acknowledgement which says the second

2:08:52 step of this acknowledgement is to

2:08:53 actively support these Native American

2:08:55 communities through meaningful dialogue,

2:08:57 relationships, and informed advocacy.

2:09:00 This resolution is a means for support

2:09:02 for Native communities and informed

2:09:05 education and advocacy within Brooklyn.

2:09:07 This picture is of uh myself, but more

2:09:10 importantly, Jasmine Goodspeed, who is a

2:09:12 Nipmunk historian, and this is from a

2:09:15 Christmas addicts event that was done um

2:09:17 earlier this summer in collaboration

2:09:19 with the MLK Commission.

2:09:23 So, Town Meeting has made progress. Um

2:09:25 these are examples of past Warren

2:09:27 articles that um are relevant in terms

2:09:30 of how um Brookline has progressed in

2:09:32 acknowledging these issues. Um, as you

2:09:35 can uh see the flag and seal um warrant

2:09:38 article from 2019 as well as the one

2:09:40 that established Indigenous People's

2:09:42 Celebration Committee um and Indigenous

2:09:44 People's Day as well as the Brookline

2:09:47 Land Acknowledgement in 2021. Um and

2:09:50 again to state that the town is making

2:09:52 progress on these commitments seen here,

2:09:54 we have two Wanog um performers um and

2:09:58 musicians who are um performing at an

2:10:01 event at the library. Um, and so

2:10:04 overall, Brookline is making progress to

2:10:07 build bridges with the local native

2:10:08 community.

2:10:11 And finally,

2:10:13 the IPC committee is um, uh,

2:10:17 particularly instrumental in the efforts

2:10:19 for this advocacy, relationship

2:10:20 building, and education on these issues.

2:10:23 So, I do want to give thanks to them.

2:10:26 And that is all I have.

2:10:33 All right. Any questions from board

2:10:35 members?

2:10:38 Any points of discussion? Amanda,

2:10:40 I I guess the only question I have is

2:10:43 you might not know the answer to this,

2:10:44 but why hasn't the state acted to change

2:10:47 things?

2:10:49 Um there they they are trying, but the

2:10:53 commission has just completely um

2:10:56 faltered and it's not really making any

2:10:58 progress. And so there were some like

2:11:01 possible um uh iterations of like flags

2:11:05 and seals that were proposed, but

2:11:07 there's been no forward motion about

2:11:09 voting on those or deciding if they are

2:11:12 um worth continuing to pursue.

2:11:16 Michael,

2:11:16 um sorry. Um, I'm wondering if there if

2:11:21 you know of any other towns or cities um

2:11:25 that are similarly uh working towards

2:11:29 pushing the commission to take action.

2:11:32 Um I believe Fitchburg just re uh redid

2:11:37 its resolution to sort of reaffirm this

2:11:40 um these same ideas. But I don't think

2:11:43 in their resolution they mentioned

2:11:44 specifically um putting uh specifically

2:11:48 sending it to the commission because

2:11:50 that is the the group that we would like

2:11:52 to hear this um so that they know that

2:11:55 Brookline is um holding them to the job

2:11:58 that they were selected for and that um

2:12:01 we would like to see um more action uh

2:12:07 in a more timely manner than what is

2:12:09 happening at present. Thank you.

2:12:12 All right. Anyone else? Okay. Well,

2:12:15 let's open the public hearing into

2:12:17 Warren Article 19. Is there anyone in

2:12:20 the room who would like to be heard on

2:12:22 Warrant Article 19?

2:12:24 Seeing none, anyone online?

2:12:27 No hands raised.

2:12:28 All right, then we will close the public

2:12:30 hearing. Uh, now we don't typically vote

2:12:33 on warrant articles the first night that

2:12:36 we have them presented to us. We like to

2:12:38 give the public an opportunity to write

2:12:40 to us, contact us, uh discuss their

2:12:43 opinions. So, we will be voting on this

2:12:46 at a future date. But thank you for

2:12:48 coming and presenting as well as

2:12:49 answering our questions.

2:12:51 Great. Thank you.

2:12:54 All right. So, with that, we will move

2:12:55 to our next warrant article, article 20,

2:12:59 vision zero resolution.

2:13:02 And I see that one of uh the

2:13:04 co-etitioners is present.

2:13:10 Debbie Hats is online.

2:13:12 All right. And we also have Debbie Hats

2:13:13 online. Uh so Richard Debbie who will be

2:13:17 presenting first. However you like to do

2:13:19 it.

2:13:20 I'll go first and then Deb will uh

2:13:23 follow if that's all right.

2:13:24 Okay. So you can just introduce yourself

2:13:26 and go ahead.

2:13:26 Richard Murphy town meeting member in 16

2:13:30 and I am a part of the uh team for the

2:13:32 resolution on vision zero.

2:13:36 Um so select board

2:13:39 town administrator Kerry um thank you

2:13:41 for having me. Uh let's start with the

2:13:43 resolution is not it is not intended to

2:13:46 impose a quota. It's not intended uh to

2:13:50 tell the chief chief Pashia how to

2:13:52 deploy her officers.

2:13:54 Like every town meeting resolution. It

2:13:57 is not binding. It expresses our

2:13:59 priorities and asks the select board,

2:14:03 town administrator Kerry and Chief

2:14:06 Pasure to act within their existing

2:14:08 authority.

2:14:10 It's build a commitment that we've

2:14:12 already made. In 2025, the select board

2:14:15 voted unanimously to adopt vision zero,

2:14:18 the goal of eliminating death and

2:14:20 serious injuries and on public ways. The

2:14:23 town has a vision zero action plan. This

2:14:26 resolution does not replace that plan.

2:14:28 It supports one component of that plan,

2:14:31 enforcement.

2:14:32 Safety on our public public ways rest on

2:14:36 three E.

2:14:37 Engineering, education, and enforcement.

2:14:41 Engineering matters, but redesigning our

2:14:44 public ways takes funding and years of

2:14:46 planning. Enforcement can make our

2:14:49 public ways safer now, and the evidence

2:14:51 supports it. The National Highway

2:14:53 Traffic Safety Administration finds that

2:14:55 enforcement reduces unsafe driving and

2:14:58 crashes.

2:15:00 10 to 15 years ago, the Brookline Police

2:15:02 Department issued more than 20,000

2:15:05 citations in a given year. Since 2020,

2:15:09 the average uh amount of citations is

2:15:12 5,000 per year. This is a drop of

2:15:15 roughly 75%.

2:15:18 Over the same period, traffic volume in

2:15:20 Brooklyn has grown. Crashes have not

2:15:22 declined. Brookline Police Department

2:15:24 crash report averages more than 1,200

2:15:27 crashes reported each year with no down

2:15:31 no downward trend.

2:15:33 Residents tell us they don't feel safe

2:15:35 crossing the streets, walking their kids

2:15:37 to school, biking, or driving around

2:15:39 town. Senior and young people face the

2:15:42 greatest risk of serious injuries.

2:15:45 The resolution asks for three things.

2:15:48 First, elevate enforcement around vision

2:15:51 zero safety violations. We lead the

2:15:54 decision-making to the chief and her

2:15:56 department leadership. We ask the

2:15:59 Brooklyn Police Department to focus on

2:16:01 those violations that endangers people

2:16:02 the most, such as speeding, red lights,

2:16:06 stop sign violations, and distracted

2:16:08 driving. for parking, blocking

2:16:11 crosswalks, parking on sidewalks, double

2:16:13 parking, parking in restricted area and

2:16:16 bike lanes are are our ask, excuse me.

2:16:22 Second, training of officers on

2:16:24 equitable effective enforcement. In

2:16:26 2022, the Brooklyn Police Department

2:16:28 adopted General Order 48 on bias-free

2:16:31 policing.

2:16:33 Training is how policy becomes practice.

2:16:36 Let's keep that promise. Third, fully

2:16:39 funding the the staffing fully funding

2:16:41 and staffing the Brookline Police

2:16:43 Department traffic division. Within the

2:16:45 budget process, the select board body

2:16:48 already oversees, so the department has

2:16:50 the resources to do their work properly.

2:16:54 Police police warnings always have their

2:16:56 place, but the most dangerous driving

2:16:58 behavior calls for more than just a

2:17:00 warning. The resolution thanks the

2:17:03 proclin officers for their service. It's

2:17:06 asking them, the Brookline Police

2:17:09 Department, to prioritize something our

2:17:11 community has told us matters.

2:17:14 The resolution also tells the Brookline

2:17:16 Police Department that the select board

2:17:18 and town meeting has their support to

2:17:21 elevate safety enforcement. Vision Zero

2:17:24 is a promise that no one should die or

2:17:26 be seriously injured just driving around

2:17:28 Brookline.

2:17:30 Let's back that promise and back the

2:17:32 Brookline Police Department. I urge you

2:17:34 to vote in favor of article 20. Thank

2:17:37 you,

2:17:40 Debbie.

2:17:42 Yeah, thank you. Debbie had left Ariatis

2:17:45 precinct uh 15 town meeting member and

2:17:49 uh retired Brooklyn police officer. I'm

2:17:51 sorry I couldn't be there um in person.

2:17:55 Um when I was asked to be come aboard um

2:17:58 for this article, you know, I of course

2:18:02 um anything to do to support the

2:18:04 Brookline Police Department to do their

2:18:06 job uh effectively. Um and my

2:18:10 understanding is that with that the

2:18:13 traffic officers are being pulled from

2:18:16 their specific duties to do patrol. So,

2:18:19 it cuts down on um being able to enforce

2:18:23 the target spots like where people are

2:18:26 complaining, where people see the

2:18:28 violations. And I can tell you as a

2:18:29 retired police officer, as soon as

2:18:32 people find out that I'm a retired

2:18:34 Brooklyn police officer, I hear about

2:18:36 all of the um the violations that people

2:18:40 see and how safe they unsafe they feel.

2:18:43 So when I uh was approached to support

2:18:46 this uh I was in favor of that and I

2:18:49 think that you know each one of us can

2:18:52 talk about you know unsafe drivers and

2:18:54 what we see and I can and Brooklyn

2:18:56 police you know uh have their hands tied

2:19:00 if they don't have I'm not saying that

2:19:02 patrol officers don't do those jobs but

2:19:05 or do traffic violations but when you

2:19:08 have the extra traffic officers they get

2:19:11 put on target areas where the most

2:19:14 complaints are, where the most crashes

2:19:15 are, and if you don't have them, um, you

2:19:18 know, if they're constantly being pulled

2:19:20 from that position, and that's my

2:19:21 understanding, um, then that's a

2:19:24 problem. So, I'm I'm all for it, uh, to

2:19:28 make this a safer town. I I you know, it

2:19:31 bothers me to to for people to feel

2:19:34 unsafe here, and that's why, uh, I hope

2:19:37 you'll support warrant article 20.

2:19:41 All right. Thank you. Uh, a question I

2:19:43 have, so one of the provisions in the

2:19:47 resolution calls for fully funding the

2:19:51 police department's traffic division.

2:19:53 And maybe this is more a question for

2:19:55 town administrator. Uh, typically do we

2:20:00 fund the police department and the

2:20:02 police department decides how to fund

2:20:04 each component within its budget?

2:20:06 So we you fund various accounts. So town

2:20:10 meeting funds various accounts for the

2:20:11 police department and then we deter the

2:20:13 police department determines with the

2:20:14 resources available how the operational

2:20:16 resources are distributed in the

2:20:18 personnel line item for example there

2:20:20 isn't you know there's there's not the

2:20:23 personnel line item is is across

2:20:25 multiple divisions it's not just you

2:20:26 know traffic being one of several so

2:20:30 it's not as though we are underfunding

2:20:34 deliberately the traffic enforcement it

2:20:36 is that you know the and I'm sure the

2:20:39 chief comment more on the operational

2:20:41 aspects of this, but you know, the

2:20:43 primary duty of the police department is

2:20:46 public safety. And when those issue when

2:20:49 issues come up, the A1 thing that we

2:20:51 need to have is patrol officers. We need

2:20:53 to have people doing the basic work of

2:20:55 policing, being out on the street

2:20:57 providing public safety, being able to

2:20:59 respond to calls. Um and um when that is

2:21:04 avail when you know a part of the

2:21:06 program that you approved as part of

2:21:08 this override is bringing back the six

2:21:11 positions that were frozen as a result

2:21:13 of the previous uh funding in order to

2:21:16 fund the previous contract. So that's

2:21:17 happening. It's being phased in

2:21:19 overtime. There was two this fiscal

2:21:21 year. There will be two more in the

2:21:22 following fiscal year. And then there

2:21:23 will be the final two in FY2029. That

2:21:26 will bring us up to a full complement of

2:21:28 officers. um you know your decision to

2:21:30 approve the contract that allowed us to

2:21:32 leave civil service has resulted in way

2:21:34 more lateral candidates than we ever had

2:21:36 before. So you know the trend is going

2:21:38 in the right direction but the idea that

2:21:40 we don't directly fund traffic

2:21:43 operations. It's not it's it may be a

2:21:46 misapprehension of how things work. It's

2:21:48 a question of where where we have to

2:21:50 where the chief has to prioritize

2:21:51 limited you know personnel available. Um

2:21:55 if you know a certain number of people

2:21:57 you know there's there's a certain

2:21:59 number of people that are required to be

2:22:00 on shift every shift. Um there's a

2:22:03 minimum number of people below if it

2:22:04 drops below that people have forced

2:22:06 overtime. Um and then those people are

2:22:09 put on the the most basic priorities

2:22:12 that we have available. So increasing

2:22:15 that number in order to for example if

2:22:17 we were to force overtime for things

2:22:21 other than patrol or detective work. Um

2:22:25 I think that leads to unintended

2:22:27 consequences in terms of the personnel

2:22:28 budget. And so I do I do just want to be

2:22:31 clear that we recognize the priorities

2:22:33 that the community is asking us to focus

2:22:35 on and we have to balance that with what

2:22:37 the you know the real core operations of

2:22:39 policing are. But I want to let the

2:22:41 chief obviously comment. All right. All

2:22:43 right, we do have chief pastor here if

2:22:44 you want to speak.

2:22:50 Thank you so much. I'm not sure that I

2:22:51 have a lot more to add. I think between

2:22:52 officer hats as we used to call her and

2:22:54 and the town administrator, I think you

2:22:56 did a good job explaining um basically

2:23:00 that yes, we get our personnel budget.

2:23:01 Um the we always say the patrol is the

2:23:03 backbone of the police department. We

2:23:05 can't do any you know the other services

2:23:07 are the nice to haves. It's nice to have

2:23:09 detectives. It's nice to have

2:23:11 specialized traffic officers. It's nice

2:23:13 to have community service, but we can't.

2:23:14 We're not a police department without

2:23:16 patrol. So, yes, uh over the summer, I

2:23:18 think is a great example. When we were

2:23:20 forcing the patrol officers to work 16

2:23:22 hours and on occasion 24 hours in a row,

2:23:25 a solution to that was to pull uh from

2:23:28 the detective division, from community

2:23:29 service, and from traffic to fill the

2:23:31 patrol shifts. Everybody starts out

2:23:32 their career as a patrol officer. I'm

2:23:35 not sure that the the public uh knows

2:23:37 that, but everybody starts in the same

2:23:38 place that you're trained in those basic

2:23:40 foundations of being a patrol officer.

2:23:42 before you go off and specialize in

2:23:44 things like traffic and specifically

2:23:46 crash reconstruction. So I think just

2:23:48 funding the personnel budget um that

2:23:51 allows me the flexibility. So you know a

2:23:53 lot of times our primary issues are

2:23:55 traffic related but there are times

2:23:57 where we have particular crime spikes

2:23:58 that we need to redeploy resources to

2:24:01 um you know it's important for me to

2:24:02 have that flexibility in the personnel.

2:24:05 Um but I will say that traffic is a is

2:24:07 certainly a priority.

2:24:09 Go ahead Amanda. ask a a follow-up

2:24:10 question and I have more, but for for

2:24:12 now, um, with the staffing that we was

2:24:16 approved in this last override,

2:24:18 transitioning in, do you foresee it

2:24:21 being as much of a problem of having to

2:24:23 pull officers off of traffic enforcement

2:24:26 to patrol when we are fully staffed?

2:24:28 Yes. So, um, I mentioned earlier as part

2:24:30 of the other presentation, we had three

2:24:32 laterals who started two weeks ago. Uh,

2:24:33 they're in the RFTO stage. We'll have

2:24:35 seven that graduate. They'll be sworn in

2:24:37 tomorrow. They graduate Friday. That

2:24:39 certainly helps, right, to have 10 more

2:24:40 officers in the street. Uh, and our

2:24:42 command staff meeting just this morning,

2:24:44 uh, Deputy Murphy, who oversees traffic,

2:24:46 has asked, um, you know, that his

2:24:49 division, and I agreed, can be

2:24:50 prioritized for,

2:24:52 um, adding at least one officer back to

2:24:55 that division. He's also asked for a

2:24:57 lieutenant, which is a separate that

2:24:58 would be a new position created. That's

2:25:00 a separate issue, but um something that

2:25:03 I'm I'm trying to uh figure out how to

2:25:05 make that work because I do think

2:25:06 there'd be value in having another

2:25:08 leadership role in traffic to oversee

2:25:09 bigger projects and one of the things

2:25:11 would be to help us comply with with

2:25:13 vision zero. Um, so I don't know if that

2:25:16 answered your question, but yeah,

2:25:18 hopefully it's uh it's, you know,

2:25:21 between traffic detectives and community

2:25:24 service, traffic is the priority for

2:25:26 when we have uh our staffing levels

2:25:28 restored at the patrol and the patrol

2:25:31 level, uh, traffic will get a

2:25:33 specialist. Would you say that staffing

2:25:36 levels are the primary driver behind the

2:25:40 six-fold reduction in moving violations

2:25:43 from 2011 to the present?

2:25:45 I think it's one of them. Um, you know,

2:25:47 I I definitely um

2:25:50 I think there was a time uh I I don't

2:25:53 think those numbers we will ever see

2:25:55 again. I think um my philosophy in

2:25:58 leading our department is now quality

2:26:00 over quantity. And I think vision zero

2:26:03 kind of aligns with that perfectly where

2:26:05 we want to use our compat, our crime

2:26:07 analyst. We want to see where the

2:26:08 crashes are happening, where the crashes

2:26:10 were with injury are happening and

2:26:12 prioritize enforcement in those areas

2:26:14 over say for example, you know, there is

2:26:16 value in pulling somebody over sometimes

2:26:17 for a broken headlight or an inspec, you

2:26:20 know, expired inspection sticker. Um but

2:26:24 I think in previous you know a decade

2:26:27 ago or so um there was so much pressure

2:26:31 on just producing numbers for the sake

2:26:33 of numbers. I don't know that that I

2:26:36 know that it doesn't have much of an

2:26:37 impact on um personal injury and serious

2:26:40 crashes.

2:26:42 Okay. Anyone else with questions for

2:26:45 Chief Pastor or comments?

2:26:47 I have another one. Um because I I did

2:26:50 want to go back to some of the comments

2:26:52 that were quoted in the Warren article

2:26:54 description. um that I'll just read this

2:26:58 and then ask you to see if you would

2:27:00 still use the same uh terms to describe

2:27:03 it, but um what the quote has been

2:27:07 attributed when asked at the 2024 annual

2:27:09 town meeting and the department about

2:27:11 the department issuing fewer moving

2:27:13 violations in the past. Police Chief

2:27:15 Pastor explained that enforcement

2:27:16 relates at least in part to officer

2:27:18 morale and perceived support from the

2:27:20 community for the police generally and

2:27:22 for moving violation enforcement

2:27:24 specifically. Um so I'm wondering if

2:27:26 either you would like to revisit those

2:27:28 comments or um might want to state

2:27:33 publicly uh about uh police priorities

2:27:37 of enforcing moving violations.

2:27:39 Yeah. Um sure. Sure. I mean, it's never

2:27:41 been the policy of the police department

2:27:43 not to enforce moving violations. And I

2:27:46 don't believe I ever said that. I do

2:27:48 think some of my words got, you know, I

2:27:49 said what I said. Uh,

2:27:52 some of the words got twisted or or

2:27:54 misrepresented. I think um I think I was

2:27:57 trying to describe some of the factors

2:27:58 that affected the officer initiated

2:28:00 activity across all levels. And I think,

2:28:02 you know, I stand by it. If people don't

2:28:04 if people don't like what they're doing,

2:28:05 if they feel like uh they're not being

2:28:07 appreciated, they're not going to be

2:28:08 your best employees. So, one of the when

2:28:11 I came in as chief, I was trying to

2:28:12 improve morale. Um, and get people

2:28:14 feeling good about doing what they

2:28:17 signed up to do, which is be police

2:28:18 officers and be proactive in keeping our

2:28:21 community safe. Um, and I do think that

2:28:23 we're starting to see that more, which

2:28:25 might not be reflected in numbers like

2:28:27 we're not going to get back to that, you

2:28:28 know, 20,000 a year, I don't believe.

2:28:31 Um, but I do think people enjoy coming

2:28:32 to work. I think people like,

2:28:35 um, you know, doing proactive police

2:28:38 work. That includes traffic enforcement.

2:28:40 It includes sometimes car stops for the

2:28:42 purpose of getting at the criminal

2:28:43 activity that might be going on in the

2:28:45 car. It in it's in community engagement.

2:28:48 It's all those things. And I think it's

2:28:49 re-educating our officers as well. You

2:28:51 know, there was a feeling that

2:28:53 um prior to 2020, we were producing

2:28:56 numbers, you know, like we were roughly

2:28:58 20,000 a year. Um, but then we were, you

2:29:01 know, there were

2:29:03 rightfully I like I like myself to look

2:29:05 at stats when it comes to race and

2:29:06 gender and making sure our officers are

2:29:08 doing the right thing that we're abiding

2:29:09 by the bias free policing policy. Um,

2:29:14 and I think that officers,

2:29:17 you know, felt like we were under attack

2:29:19 when we were being accused of having

2:29:21 numbers in the data with our motor

2:29:24 vehicle stops that didn't align with

2:29:27 um the demographics in Brooklyn. And I

2:29:30 think

2:29:32 people just took those numbers to be,

2:29:34 you know, take them for what they are,

2:29:36 that, you know, the population data

2:29:37 should match the citation data. And I

2:29:40 think we need I think that's completely

2:29:41 unfair. Um I think we've all I think

2:29:44 most of us in this scrim can agree that

2:29:45 our motoring traffic our motoring the

2:29:48 demographics of our motoring public are

2:29:50 not the same as the demographics of our

2:29:52 residents. And so I think we are all

2:29:55 intelligent enough to have more uh

2:29:57 nuanced conversation and I look forward

2:29:59 to that. Um but also educating the

2:30:03 officers that you know I think

2:30:04 initiatives like this saying that we

2:30:06 will be supported reiterating that the

2:30:09 public wants this is what this is what

2:30:11 we're being asked to do is

2:30:15 um you know enforce motor vehicle

2:30:17 violations and keep the public safe and

2:30:19 you know I was at the senior center

2:30:20 yesterday and I heard the same thing

2:30:21 that Mr. Murphy

2:30:24 intershared or that officer hat shared

2:30:25 like the seniors are are scared to walk

2:30:27 around Coolage Corner. They're scared of

2:30:29 not only cars but bicyclists um a number

2:30:33 of other things. So uh we do have our

2:30:36 work to do but I think

2:30:38 you know also phrasing uh stopping cars

2:30:42 as community service and sometimes you

2:30:45 know you might not get not every act and

2:30:48 not every interaction not every time you

2:30:50 pull a car over is it a bad interaction.

2:30:53 Sometimes it's educating somebody. Maybe

2:30:56 they didn't know a law they didn't see a

2:30:57 sign. You don't have to give a ticket.

2:30:59 It can be education and you walk away

2:31:02 leaving somebody better. um than when

2:31:05 you met them and that's overall I think

2:31:07 a goal that everybody should share.

2:31:10 Can I ask one more question?

2:31:11 Um

2:31:13 uh in the course of this resolution

2:31:16 there's a lot of discussion about vision

2:31:17 zero specific enforcement and I'm

2:31:19 wondering if you think uh if the

2:31:24 department takes a uh somewhat of a

2:31:27 prioritization right like police

2:31:29 officers even on traffic can't do

2:31:31 everything all the time.

2:31:33 Yeah. Um, and I'm wondering if if they

2:31:36 take or the department takes a

2:31:39 prioritization of behaviors that are

2:31:42 more dangerous.

2:31:43 Yes.

2:31:44 As as where enforcement should be,

2:31:46 whether there might need to be some sort

2:31:48 of education around that or do you think

2:31:50 there's a general understanding within

2:31:52 officers uh as to which uh behaviors are

2:31:56 more dangerous?

2:31:58 So yeah, and I think those behaviors

2:32:00 look different um depending on what area

2:32:03 of town you're working in. Um most of

2:32:05 our crashes, we actually have our crime

2:32:07 analyst report out weekly on crashes

2:32:09 where they happen times a day, days of

2:32:11 the week, all those things where the

2:32:12 injuries are. We tend to see most of our

2:32:14 crashes on Route 9 and Beacon Street.

2:32:15 And that's not a surprise probably um to

2:32:18 anybody. Um, but we we're started to

2:32:21 kind of ask her to look a little bit

2:32:23 deeper for us and figure out where the

2:32:24 injuries are happening, figure out the

2:32:26 reasons why, figure out um, you know,

2:32:29 take a look at what people are being

2:32:31 cited for in particular locations. And

2:32:32 in South Brooklyn, it's likely to be

2:32:34 speeding. It's pretty hard to speed in

2:32:36 Coolage Corner, I think. You know, um,

2:32:40 and and so, you know, enforcement will

2:32:41 just I think the types of violations

2:32:43 that we see just look different

2:32:44 depending on what kind of what side of

2:32:46 town you're working on.

2:32:48 Thank you. In the context of other

2:32:51 warrant articles, you've never been shy

2:32:53 about your opinion on them. I'm

2:32:55 wondering if you have an opinion on this

2:32:57 warrant article.

2:32:58 Yeah, I I support it. I I think it's

2:33:00 great.

2:33:01 All right. Any other questions or

2:33:03 comments from board members? Seeing

2:33:06 none, let's open the public hearing for

2:33:08 Warrant Article 20. Is there anyone in

2:33:10 the room who would like to be heard?

2:33:14 Anyone online?

2:33:16 No hands raised. All right, then we will

2:33:18 close the public hearing and we will uh

2:33:21 take a vote on a future date. So, thank

2:33:23 you very much to the petitioners who

2:33:25 came to present and to you chief pastor

2:33:27 uh for staying here a while to answer

2:33:29 our questions.

2:33:32 And with that, we will move to warrant

2:33:36 article 3 FY27 budget amendments.

2:33:42 Good evening. Uh I'm here to present

2:33:45 more article 3. Uh the board should have

2:33:47 a memo from me in their packet outlining

2:33:49 what we are doing with the budget

2:33:51 amendment this year. Um we are looking

2:33:53 to do two things. We are alloc uh

2:33:55 appropriating uh ride share revenue from

2:33:58 Uber andyft uh transportation network

2:34:01 company revenue and then we're also

2:34:02 looking to allocate additional state aid

2:34:05 now that we have the final cherry sheet

2:34:07 for the fiscal 27 budget. Uh so as

2:34:10 outlined in the memo uh the ride share

2:34:12 revenue $150,000 is going to the council

2:34:15 on aging to support their senior

2:34:17 transportation.

2:34:19 Uh and then 4043,534

2:34:22 and 50 cents is going to TPW uh to

2:34:25 support uh projects focused on

2:34:27 pedestrian and bike safety improvements.

2:34:30 Uh for state aid, we discussed uh the

2:34:32 recommendations at the town school

2:34:34 partnership meeting. Um, so we have an

2:34:37 allocation of 310,000 going to school

2:34:40 building repair and maintenance. We also

2:34:42 have a new audit firm. We are looking to

2:34:44 allocate an additional $60,000 to

2:34:46 support that. And then we have 40,000

2:34:49 going to Brookline Interactive Group.

2:34:51 Those three adjustments are all done

2:34:53 prior to the town school split. Once we

2:34:56 address those three items, then we split

2:34:58 the uh according to the town school

2:35:00 partnership formula which provides

2:35:02 $129,714

2:35:04 to the schools and 89,813 to the town.

2:35:08 The recommendation for the town

2:35:10 allocation is for $60,000 for the

2:35:13 planning department to support an

2:35:15 economic development and long-term

2:35:16 planner and then also uh for the police

2:35:19 department 29,813

2:35:21 to support recent adjustments to the uh

2:35:24 command staff compensation. So you have

2:35:26 a recommended vote in front of you. Um I

2:35:29 will say that we did get some late

2:35:31 breaking um news from the council on

2:35:33 aging that they are considering

2:35:35 reallocating some prior year TNC funds.

2:35:38 So, there may be one additional

2:35:39 adjustment that we need to make as part

2:35:41 of this budget amendment. Um, so you can

2:35:43 either, you know, hold your vote until

2:35:45 then or vote part one now and I'll have

2:35:47 a separate part two for you to vote at a

2:35:49 future date.

2:35:52 Do you have a preference as to whether

2:35:54 we vote it all together or vote part one

2:35:57 now?

2:35:59 Um, I think you can wait for it to be

2:36:01 all one package. That's that's totally

2:36:03 fine with me.

2:36:04 Okay. Uh, any comments from other board

2:36:07 members?

2:36:09 All right. So, we will open a public

2:36:11 hearing as to warrant article 3. Anyone

2:36:14 in the room interested in being heard on

2:36:16 warrant article 3?

2:36:19 Anybody online?

2:36:20 No hands raised.

2:36:21 All right. Then we will close the public

2:36:24 hearing. All right. Thank you, Melissa.

2:36:27 So, with that, we will now move on to

2:36:32 continued hearings. Warren article 17

2:36:35 resolution regarding CPA funding and the

2:36:37 affordable housing trust fund. I see

2:36:39 that Roger Blood is on.

2:36:50 He's there.

2:36:52 Roger. Anytime you're ready. if you'd

2:36:53 like to give us an update on where the

2:36:56 warrant article stands and any ongoing

2:36:59 negotiations taking place between you

2:37:02 and members of the CPA. I know that you

2:37:04 presented your warrant article

2:37:06 previously at the workshop,

2:37:10 but perhaps the situation's evolved.

2:37:21 All right. Do we have anyone from the

2:37:22 CPA? Maybe they can go first.

2:37:24 It's just Roger.

2:37:26 I saw him online.

2:37:27 He's still there

2:37:28 minutes ago.

2:37:31 I know they had a meeting on Monday. I

2:37:33 don't know how it went, but I know they

2:37:35 had a meeting on Monday.

2:37:36 All right. Do you have any updates? You

2:37:38 can

2:37:38 No. Okay.

2:37:39 Sorry.

2:37:39 The CPA committee, you mean?

2:37:41 No. CPA and Roger. So, it was David

2:37:43 Loyer, Nancy Heler, and

2:37:46 Roger. I know they met on Monday. I

2:37:47 don't know what they discussed, though.

2:37:51 Can we maybe give Roger a couple minutes

2:37:54 and move on and come back? Y

2:37:56 All right. So, why don't we uh go to All

2:37:59 right.

2:38:03 Camera up for a minute. Good evening.

2:38:05 Um evening.

2:38:06 Are we uh ready to start the um

2:38:10 presentation on article 17?

2:38:11 Yes, indeed. Go right ahead.

2:38:13 Thank you. Um, I do have a PowerPoint.

2:38:16 Um, and I am going to

2:38:20 try to share it with you. It will

2:38:22 probably make things faster.

2:38:28 Uh,

2:38:31 let me see.

2:38:34 Wait a minute.

2:38:40 Can you see that?

2:38:43 Yes.

2:38:44 Okay. Now I go to

2:38:50 must to be slideshow

2:38:53 which I don't see.

2:38:55 If you go to the bottom right all the

2:38:57 way to the bottom right you'll see a

2:38:58 little like whiteboard on a stand a

2:39:01 little further up next to the Zoom bar.

2:39:03 Right to the left of the Zoom bar. No,

2:39:05 not not the Zoom application. The Zoom

2:39:07 in PowerPoint.

2:39:09 What? Uh, I'm not sure.

2:39:12 If you go to the bottom right of your

2:39:13 screen above the

2:39:14 Yes.

2:39:15 Then go up a little bit. You see that

2:39:16 zoom bar?

2:39:17 You know, go all the way to, you know,

2:39:19 go to the right. Three more buttons.

2:39:21 Four more buttons. One more. That one.

2:39:23 That one.

2:39:23 That's it.

2:39:24 Oh, slideshow. That's exactly what I was

2:39:26 looking for on the top.

2:39:28 Okay. Uh, now I can Thank you.

2:39:35 So, um, good good evening. I'm uh I'm

2:39:37 Roger Blood uh chair of the housing

2:39:40 advisory board and um the uh housing

2:39:44 advis advisory board members all of whom

2:39:48 are also um trustees of the affordable

2:39:51 housing trust. Um the HAB's main mission

2:39:54 being the um the uh creation and

2:39:57 preservation of affordable housing in

2:39:59 Brooklyn.

2:40:01 the housing trust um uh probably is the

2:40:05 most effective tool uh for the town and

2:40:08 for the uh the members as trustees for

2:40:11 carrying out our affordable housing

2:40:13 uh main mission. the the uh warrant

2:40:17 article 17 is a is a non-binding uh

2:40:20 resolution

2:40:22 that is um seeking to adopt a policy

2:40:25 that will uh um increase uh coordination

2:40:30 uh between the um the affordable housing

2:40:33 trust and the have members and the uh

2:40:35 committee of preservation uh act uh

2:40:38 committee and in doing that we are

2:40:41 working on a statement of intent that

2:40:43 would define that uh improved

2:40:44 relationship ship and within that um uh

2:40:48 and beginning slide here um uh the uh

2:40:52 we're advocating through article 17 for

2:40:54 the ability to have a multi-year buildup

2:40:56 of available funds in the housing trust

2:40:59 uh including um significant uh ongoing

2:41:02 CPA funding support. CPA is um excuse

2:41:07 me, they're bound to annual uh funding

2:41:11 grants. Uh and so uh having anything

2:41:14 that involves a multi-year policy that

2:41:17 cannot be binding. Uh and what we're

2:41:20 calling it, and you'll see here, is u is

2:41:22 a statement of intent. re reason why,

2:41:24 and I'm going to go through through

2:41:26 these um fairly quickly. Um the uh the

2:41:30 town's housing production plan uh calls

2:41:32 for uh funding by the C uh the CPA

2:41:37 through the uh housing trust. Um in

2:41:40 2020, town meeting directed the

2:41:42 restructuring of the HAB and the trust

2:41:44 uh expressly to enable uh CPA to housing

2:41:48 trust funding under state regulations.

2:41:51 Um unlike the annual CPA funding cycle,

2:41:54 the housing trust uh can act to fund uh

2:41:56 qualified affordable housing projects

2:41:58 year round and that lets us align nicely

2:42:02 with uh so-called funding rounds for

2:42:04 state and federal housing project

2:42:06 assistance. The town bylaw itself uh

2:42:10 going back to uh the beginning of the

2:42:12 HAB and the uh in the in the late 80s

2:42:15 and the formation of the trust um

2:42:17 requires HAB members uh uh as as

2:42:21 trustees to have uh in in uh on on our

2:42:24 roster specific skill sets for vetting

2:42:26 complex affordable housing projects and

2:42:28 those include development, finance,

2:42:30 legal, housing programs, planning and

2:42:33 design as they relate to that mission.

2:42:36 um uh uh non-specific

2:42:39 um CPA to housing trust multi-year

2:42:42 funding is being done in about a dozen

2:42:45 other metro Boston area communities and

2:42:47 we'll come back to that in a bit. Other

2:42:50 reasons why um we advocate um for

2:42:54 support of this general policy.

2:42:57 uh sponsors of new affordable housing

2:42:58 projects in Brooklyn. Um main ones

2:43:01 you're familiar with the uh BHA,

2:43:03 Brooklyn Housing Authority, uh Two Life,

2:43:05 Hebrew Senior Life. Um over time, um uh

2:43:09 they they need uh efficient and

2:43:12 userfriendly what the state calls a

2:43:14 one-stop uh funding and we want to do

2:43:17 this at the local level funding process.

2:43:20 Um the um the the housing trust in turns

2:43:23 needs uh regular and significant CPA

2:43:26 funding to help create affordable

2:43:28 housing uh not only for our priority uh

2:43:32 uh target beneficiaries uh lowincome

2:43:34 rental uh tenants but also middle inome

2:43:38 housing whose incomes are above um the

2:43:42 uh the 40B limits or or other

2:43:44 authorizations uh up to 80% of area

2:43:47 median income whereas the CPA funding

2:43:49 can take us up into the next uh middle

2:43:52 income bracket up to 100%.

2:43:55 more specifically, uh, future low-income

2:43:58 affordable housing rental projects, uh,

2:44:00 not not shovel ready today and therefore

2:44:02 not ready for the immediate CPA annual

2:44:05 grant cycles, but which we know will

2:44:08 rece

2:44:12 are are number one, the BHA's Walnut

2:44:14 High phase 2, which uh they're

2:44:17 projecting that uh will um need u at

2:44:20 least $9 million as a town contribution.

2:44:24 Um, second, the Kent Station Street

2:44:27 Senior Housing. Um, I I'm not going to

2:44:29 take any time on the details of that

2:44:31 now, but uh, it's had a a a good workup.

2:44:34 It's well defined. Um, and that would be

2:44:37 about a 12 million,

2:44:40 excuse me, local contribution. Other

2:44:42 possible future needs of this sort would

2:44:44 include uh the Bab uh uh housing and

2:44:47 affordable housing over the Babcock

2:44:49 Street uh parking lot. uh also noted in

2:44:53 the um the housing production plan and

2:44:55 and Newbury West where there's an active

2:44:57 committee now looking at possible uses.

2:44:59 The um the housing trust has a long

2:45:03 track record um leveraging uh in other

2:45:05 words using our local contributions to

2:45:08 secure state and federal resources

2:45:10 coming into Brookline uh competing with

2:45:13 other communities in the state uh by by

2:45:16 uh a factor of 10 to one or more u in in

2:45:19 securing that funding.

2:45:22 um um the the number one example and I

2:45:25 think there's a broad uh consensus on uh

2:45:28 the priority of making sure that Walnut

2:45:31 High phase 2 happens following uh Walnut

2:45:34 High phase one which we very happy to

2:45:37 see just got their um uh state and

2:45:40 federal funding approvals. Um phase 2 is

2:45:42 in its early planning stages at the BHA.

2:45:46 um 80 85 uh a phase 2 alone would

2:45:50 produce 85 new 100% affordable

2:45:53 low-income rental units. Um they will

2:45:56 replace the demolition of 68 obsolete

2:45:59 existing units including the large um

2:46:02 rather tired uh building um on on High

2:46:06 Street. And that will result in a net

2:46:08 addition of 17 additional new units. Um

2:46:12 much like um Colonel Floyd and and the

2:46:15 Marian Street project where 60 units

2:46:18 were demolished u and and a little over

2:46:20 a hundred were were um produced instead.

2:46:23 the estimated total project costs for

2:46:25 phase 2 at Walnut High

2:46:28 uh about 90 million and um the town's

2:46:31 local uh contributions and and uh at a

2:46:35 level sufficient to get the state's

2:46:37 attention and give us uh priority. Uh

2:46:39 10% of that would be where the 9 million

2:46:42 uh estimate comes from.

2:46:44 Roger, your time is up.

2:46:46 Oh, I'm sorry. Uh,

2:46:50 I didn't uh c can I take a couple of

2:46:53 more minutes? I'll I'll go as fast as I

2:46:55 can and skip a couple of things.

2:46:56 Sure.

2:46:57 Roger, can can I can I request you just

2:46:59 focus in on the on where you are with

2:47:01 the CPA committee,

2:47:02 right? Let's hear that.

2:47:04 Um, yes. Uh, we've had uh let's see,

2:47:07 I'll I'll go to the end. Uh, we have a

2:47:11 joint committee. It was formed um uh in

2:47:14 the spring after uh nearly a year of uh

2:47:16 more informal discussions. Um it

2:47:19 consists of uh two the CPA leadership

2:47:22 Nancy Heler and David LCOY and uh for

2:47:24 the trust and I have myself and Steve

2:47:26 Hiken. Um we hadn't gotten any uh buyin

2:47:31 on the concept until a few days after

2:47:33 article 17 was was filed. The intention

2:47:37 of article 17 uh is in part to get to

2:47:41 yes through this committee. Uh and if we

2:47:44 do uh we would probably not move the

2:47:46 article. Um there uh are a lot of things

2:47:49 that have been agreed upon. We have uh

2:47:52 another meeting coming up uh I believe

2:47:54 on the 15th. Uh but um on the critical

2:47:58 factor of the adequacy of um uh being

2:48:02 able to fund Walnut High and I I didn't

2:48:04 quite get to you the the the timeline

2:48:07 there, but um Article 17 is looking for

2:48:11 the what we believe uh is the minimum uh

2:48:14 CPA share of a million dollars a year uh

2:48:17 which would be about less than 25% of

2:48:20 their total grant making and also less

2:48:23 than half of what the trust needs on an

2:48:26 annual basis to get to the 9 million

2:48:28 from our current uh balance of under 4

2:48:31 million. Uh discussions are continuing.

2:48:33 The alternative that the CPA has

2:48:35 proposed um while it it appears to allow

2:48:39 up to a million, the only real um uh

2:48:42 baseline commitment would be about

2:48:44 200,000. So um we feel strongly that um

2:48:49 uh support of warrant article 17 uh will

2:48:52 encourage uh the higher figure uh very

2:48:55 doable by the CPA and the minimum that

2:48:58 will be needed to allow Walnut High to

2:49:00 be even possible uh possibly feasible.

2:49:04 Um so um I can stop there and thank you

2:49:08 for giving me the little bit of extra

2:49:09 time

2:49:11 and I I will I will ask for your support

2:49:14 uh at the end for sure. It's a a

2:49:17 non-binding not only a non-binding

2:49:18 resolution but in in turn it's a double

2:49:22 non-binding because the statement of

2:49:23 intent is only that it's it's also a

2:49:28 non-binding willingness to to have these

2:49:30 as shared goals. Thank you.

2:49:34 All right. Would any board members like

2:49:36 to be heard about Warrant Article 17?

2:49:42 Go ahead, Michael.

2:49:44 Yeah. So, so, you know, I'm you you've

2:49:48 been very articulate in uh in describing

2:49:52 the the need here and the value that the

2:49:55 funds from CPA would provide. and like

2:49:59 um I just find it find it uh uh a a

2:50:04 reasonable position. So I'm I'm really

2:50:07 trying to understand

2:50:09 what it is from the CPA committee's

2:50:12 perspective

2:50:14 that is keeping them from moving. Um I

2:50:18 know that for example there is some

2:50:20 question of this third a third a third

2:50:23 like where where they allocate their

2:50:25 money um to housing versus open space

2:50:29 versus preservation. Um but

2:50:34 but it would

2:50:38 um

2:50:40 I guess I guess what what I'm saying is

2:50:42 I can't see how in the absence of some

2:50:46 sort of response from the CPAC

2:50:49 that we can't

2:50:52 that

2:50:54 I'm I'm getting tripped up in triple

2:50:56 negatives. Um, in the absence of such

2:50:59 feedback, I think we should support this

2:51:01 article so that

2:51:03 so that we can meet the objectives for

2:51:07 affordable housing that we've

2:51:08 established in the town.

2:51:12 I I would second that. I'm also a little

2:51:14 bit disappointed that uh we have tried

2:51:17 repeatedly to get someone from the CPA

2:51:20 committee to come before us and that has

2:51:22 not been successful. Um, I do want to

2:51:26 highlight and what I said at our um,

2:51:30 working session when this first came up

2:51:33 is that I think there seems to be some

2:51:35 idea within the CPA committee that there

2:51:37 should be a third, a third, a third, but

2:51:38 that was never part of discussions that

2:51:41 town meeting had when setting this up to

2:51:43 begin with. And so if for no other

2:51:46 reason that I don't think personally

2:51:49 that there should be a third a third

2:51:51 third split of funds um and I would like

2:51:55 town meeting to also get to weigh in on

2:51:58 where they think that should be

2:52:00 particularly if we want to get

2:52:01 sufficient funding into the housing

2:52:03 trust to do some of the work that uh we

2:52:06 hear is in the pipeline if we can get

2:52:08 there.

2:52:09 Um if I might very quickly um um we've

2:52:13 tried to be very clear on the emphasis

2:52:15 the remaining the slide that you rem see

2:52:16 remaining on the screen here Amanda and

2:52:18 and thank you and we would like to see

2:52:21 as much of the CPA go to housing. Um uh

2:52:24 they have uh in total been well over a

2:52:27 third for housing. Uh u so we can't

2:52:30 fault them on that and uh they are

2:52:32 you're right and I don't want to speak

2:52:33 for them um uh expressly concerned that

2:52:38 they that they uh uh service all of the

2:52:40 three uses of the CPA funding but the

2:52:43 the critical thing on here is that the

2:52:46 million dollars a year which um is um a

2:52:51 serious problem in our discussions with

2:52:52 with them is is only less a little less

2:52:56 than 25%. So, it's well under a third of

2:53:00 their annual 4 million plus grant making

2:53:03 capacity.

2:53:05 Anthony,

2:53:06 um, Roger, you know, I I agree with you

2:53:09 on the idea of moving CPA money into the

2:53:11 affordable housing trust fund. I think

2:53:13 the affordable housing trust fund is the

2:53:14 union expertise of being able to pick

2:53:17 proper housing projects and knowing how

2:53:19 to you uh to circum to navigate the

2:53:22 system in order to multiply those funds.

2:53:24 Um because the CPA isn't here, I'll try

2:53:27 to give their best um devil's advocate

2:53:31 uh position. They uh they feel that it

2:53:34 is a from what I've heard, it's kind of

2:53:38 a removal of their power and their

2:53:40 mandate onto another body, which they

2:53:43 don't think is good government. Um

2:53:44 they're also concerned about, I believe,

2:53:46 a $1 million um guaranteed uh

2:53:50 transition. And you can imagine in years

2:53:52 where uh the amount of money that they

2:53:54 that they accumulate on any given year

2:53:56 can be lower um than what is expected

2:53:58 that can accommodate that 1 million. Uh

2:54:01 that would still represent 25% of of an

2:54:04 annual uh revenue generation as Roger's

2:54:07 showing there. Um, one note that was had

2:54:10 from the advisory committee was that

2:54:12 this is there that it's a transition of

2:54:15 power from the legislative branch to the

2:54:17 executive branch. Since the legislative

2:54:20 branch gets to hear every line item that

2:54:22 the CPA funds, if the CPA just moves

2:54:25 that money into the affordable housing

2:54:27 trust fund, only the select board then

2:54:29 has to approve each project. Um, so

2:54:31 there was some concern from that at the

2:54:33 advisory committee. But on the whole, I

2:54:35 am more inclined to uh be with Roger

2:54:38 Roger's position on this. Um, as long as

2:54:41 the CPA committee has the flexibility to

2:54:45 not be stuck to any given number at any

2:54:47 given year. Um, I mean, like that that

2:54:49 that's where I'm at. And I'm I'm shocked

2:54:52 the CPA committee hasn't been able to

2:54:54 come to that position recognizing that

2:54:58 this is a nonobligation.

2:55:00 Um, just a statement of intent. so that

2:55:04 uh the affordable housing trust uh fund

2:55:07 and the partners that the affordable

2:55:09 housing trust fund has in order to

2:55:10 multiply their capital can expect some

2:55:14 type of incoming money any given year.

2:55:17 So, um, Michael, I think I kind of agree

2:55:19 with you that voting yes on this in

2:55:21 absence of, um, having anything from the

2:55:24 CPA committee, uh, is probably the right

2:55:26 move.

2:55:29 In in our upcoming, um, negotiating, you

2:55:32 know, meetings of this subcommittee, uh,

2:55:34 we are, um, we're going to propose or

2:55:37 offer a five-year uh, a a five-year

2:55:40 sunset for this uh, intention uh, of a

2:55:42 policy. uh and also uh try to explore a

2:55:46 a mechanism to emphasize that they have

2:55:50 remain uh uh in full power to make

2:55:53 exceptions or when the situations arise

2:55:56 that there is a a prescribed way that

2:55:59 they can um give something else higher

2:56:02 priority.

2:56:03 I'll go to Michael and then back to

2:56:04 Anthony. Go ahead, Michael. Yeah, I'm

2:56:06 just going to note the the milliondoll

2:56:09 requirement

2:56:11 um is spec in the resolution is

2:56:13 specified as

2:56:16 the non-specific CPA housing grant to

2:56:18 the affordable housing trust for any CPA

2:56:21 annual funding cycle will be the lesser

2:56:23 of onethird of the town certified CPA

2:56:26 revenue for the re most recent prior

2:56:28 fiscal year or $1 million. So, if for

2:56:31 example there was a $2 million

2:56:32 allocation instead of a $4 million

2:56:35 allocation, then the expected housing

2:56:39 grant would be significantly less than a

2:56:41 million dollars.

2:56:42 Yeah.

2:56:42 666.

2:56:43 No, you're right.

2:56:44 So,

2:56:44 you're right. Um only point I wanted to

2:56:47 make one more point.

2:56:50 Um it was about uh that was a question

2:56:52 for Roger. Oh. Um, in absence of this

2:56:56 warrant article passing, are you still

2:57:00 uh do you still have an application with

2:57:01 the CPA committee to receive uh an

2:57:04 infusion of dollars in fiscal year 28

2:57:08 for Walnut High Part Two?

2:57:10 Uh, thank you for that question. We had

2:57:12 a this is the second second year where

2:57:14 we've put a $1 million placeholder uh in

2:57:18 um and I uh we this year uh the deadline

2:57:22 is uh we we we've completed the first

2:57:24 phase of the application. The deadline

2:57:26 is October 18th and I'm I'm literally

2:57:28 working on the full uh detailed

2:57:31 application as we speak and it will um

2:57:34 it will mention much of what you've seen

2:57:36 in these slides about where these monies

2:57:39 would go and why they need to be built

2:57:41 up and um for for the non-p project

2:57:44 specific. We don't have a project

2:57:46 specific application for housing this

2:57:48 year.

2:57:48 Okay.

2:57:50 Thank you.

2:57:51 All right. Anyone else?

2:57:53 I make a motion we vote yes favorable

2:57:56 action. We recommend favorable action on

2:57:57 this one.

2:57:58 All right. So that's

2:57:59 I I just before you do, I did notice

2:58:00 that we we did formally notice this is a

2:58:02 continuation of the public hearing. So

2:58:04 you

2:58:05 All right. So we'll go ahead and uh hear

2:58:07 from members of the public they'd like

2:58:09 to be heard. Anyone in the room want to

2:58:11 be heard on War Article 17?

2:58:14 Seeing none. Anyone online?

2:58:16 No hands raised.

2:58:18 All right. So Anthony has a motion on

2:58:20 the floor.

2:58:20 Yes.

2:58:22 You have to close the public hearing.

2:58:23 That's right. Not close public hearing

2:58:26 and uh take the vote.

2:58:28 Bernard,

2:58:29 uh yes.

2:58:30 Michael,

2:58:30 yes.

2:58:31 Amanda,

2:58:32 yes.

2:58:32 Anthony,

2:58:33 yes.

2:58:33 And I also vote yes.

2:58:36 Thank you very much.

2:58:37 All right. Thank you. So with that, we

2:58:40 will now move to uh continue discussion

2:58:44 of other warrant articles that have

2:58:45 already been presented to us. We already

2:58:48 had public hearings on each of these.

2:58:51 So, first up is warrant article 7 ban on

2:58:54 cryptocurrency

2:58:56 kiosks.

2:58:58 Anthony.

2:58:58 Oh, I don't I'm sorry. I honestly I I'm

2:59:01 very much in favor of this. I would make

2:59:03 a motion for recommend favorable action.

2:59:05 All right. So moved. Bernard,

2:59:07 yes.

2:59:08 Michael,

2:59:08 yes.

2:59:09 Amanda,

2:59:09 yes.

2:59:10 Anthony,

2:59:10 yes.

2:59:11 And I also vote yes. That brings us to

2:59:14 warrant article 11, safe routes to

2:59:16 school.

2:59:18 This is the one about authorizing um the

2:59:21 town to begin negotiations regarding

2:59:23 potential easements for the safe routes

2:59:24 to school.

2:59:25 And I did find the uh subsequent

2:59:28 explanation that we received from Dan

2:59:30 Murphy, town council, yourself to be

2:59:32 very useful in assaging some of the

2:59:35 initial concerns that some of us on the

2:59:38 board had along with members of the

2:59:40 public. So I would be comfortable moving

2:59:43 favorable action on Warren article 11.

2:59:47 Yes.

2:59:47 Michael,

2:59:48 yes.

2:59:48 Amanda,

2:59:49 yes.

2:59:49 Anthony,

2:59:50 yes.

2:59:50 And I also vote yes.

2:59:52 That brings us to warrant article 12,

2:59:55 outdoor lighting.

2:59:58 12 and 13 are kind of joint, aren't

3:00:00 they?

3:00:00 Yes.

3:00:01 Yes, we could vote them together.

3:00:03 Can I make a comment?

3:00:05 Go ahead, Amanda.

3:00:06 Um, I just uh two two points. One, I

3:00:10 wanted to thank the petitioners uh for

3:00:12 both making it explicitly clear that

3:00:14 shared use paths and bike lanes are

3:00:16 included as the exceptions to the no

3:00:18 lights area. Um, also note and

3:00:21 appreciate that from other potential

3:00:24 sites with recreational opportunities,

3:00:26 uh, a couple of them were also excluded

3:00:29 from this section, which I really

3:00:30 appreciate, so that when we have larger

3:00:33 discussions of which recreational areas

3:00:35 we can light, uh, they're allowed to be

3:00:37 included. Um, the one thing that I am

3:00:40 slightly concerned about is the only

3:00:43 property left in the sensitive sites

3:00:46 that should be excluded from all

3:00:49 lighting that is not grandfathered in

3:00:50 and is not on paths is uh the golf

3:00:54 course. I know there are strong opinions

3:00:56 on all sides of this. And full

3:00:57 disclosure, I'm not a golfer. The only

3:00:59 time I go to the golf course is when we

3:01:01 have our our working sessions. Um, but I

3:01:05 think that including this in the broader

3:01:09 discussion of um,

3:01:12 dark skies compliant lighting um, sort

3:01:16 of excludes having a broader

3:01:18 conversation as to whether we should

3:01:20 have lights on the golf course or not,

3:01:22 which I think is kind of its own

3:01:24 discussion. Um, and so I don't love it

3:01:28 being bundled into this warrant article.

3:01:32 So, just my two sets.

3:01:34 Anyone else like to be heard on warrant

3:01:36 articles 12 and 13? Anthony,

3:01:38 um, so you're re you're suggesting that

3:01:42 we say that the recommendations, sorry,

3:01:46 that the rules in article 13's exterior

3:01:48 lighting wouldn't apply to the golf

3:01:50 course.

3:01:51 No, it's it's in the excluded section

3:01:54 part H, I believe. I got to remember

3:01:57 where this is.

3:01:58 It's H6.

3:01:59 H6.

3:02:01 um that like I would like it not to have

3:02:05 special rules applied um because I would

3:02:07 like there to be like if we're going to

3:02:10 discuss lighting on the golf course um

3:02:13 then we can have that discussion at a

3:02:15 later point uh when we're talking about

3:02:18 funding for lighting on the golf course

3:02:20 as opposed to um basically H6 if we

3:02:24 excluded the golf course um then all of

3:02:27 the other rules of shielding and heatens

3:02:31 sensitivity would still apply there.

3:02:33 It's just it's in this section that says

3:02:35 these are pro

3:02:37 protected areas and therefore no

3:02:39 lighting that is not grandfathered in

3:02:41 and is not for safety on paths and is

3:02:44 not for uh buildings uh can be allowed

3:02:48 in that space.

3:02:50 I can find the exact wording but I think

3:02:53 Michael pointed out to where the section

3:02:55 actually is.

3:02:57 Okay.

3:03:00 Um I I noticed that Matt is in the room

3:03:05 and I don't know if there's any been any

3:03:07 further discussion or commentary or he

3:03:10 can give any background on where this

3:03:12 has come.

3:03:13 I can and Alisa Platano from the

3:03:15 moderator committee is also online and

3:03:17 up.

3:03:19 Sorry. I'm Matt Hayyatt. I'm um chair of

3:03:21 the planning board and the uh planning

3:03:22 board's uh participant in the advisory

3:03:25 committee. No, what is it called? The

3:03:27 moderators committee. Um this came up

3:03:30 actually last week again at the land use

3:03:32 subcommittee of advisory. And there was

3:03:34 conversation about why the um the uh

3:03:38 putter and woods and the golf course

3:03:40 were co-mingled and it's a single parcel

3:03:42 in all representations that this town

3:03:45 has. And the conversation got around uh

3:03:49 the protection and expansion of wetlands

3:03:52 in that parcel as being a priority that

3:03:54 the town has already set. And Alisa may

3:03:57 have the documentation uh which document

3:03:59 in the town's records has that in it.

3:04:02 Um but it's challenging to separate part

3:04:05 of the golf course from another part of

3:04:06 the golf course. The specific question

3:04:08 had come up around the driving range

3:04:10 which is not the woods or the golf

3:04:11 course. It's even a small subsection. Um

3:04:14 and prior to that um at the level of our

3:04:17 uh committee discussions uh there was

3:04:19 conversation that there is no dark skies

3:04:22 compliant lighting solution to a driving

3:04:25 range because the height of the balls in

3:04:27 order to see the path have to have the

3:04:29 light shine at such an angle that you

3:04:31 can't actually do the back shielding and

3:04:33 full shielding. So there is no technical

3:04:36 solution to that particularly um in this

3:04:39 condition in this location where we're

3:04:41 trying to protect the wetlands and the

3:04:43 habitat around it. In another place

3:04:45 where we didn't have that perhaps but in

3:04:47 this particular location there didn't

3:04:49 seem to be a technical solution to that

3:04:50 problem. So we had agreed to include the

3:04:53 entirety of the pattern woods and the

3:04:55 golf course as a protected area.

3:04:59 Sorry clarifying question. So if there

3:05:01 is no technical way of complying then

3:05:04 does it need to be in here anyways

3:05:06 because all the other rules that

3:05:09 regulate what shielding is necessary

3:05:12 uh would apply and so if there is no

3:05:14 technical solution that give you

3:05:17 sufficient shielding at the height

3:05:19 needed because golf balls fly

3:05:21 y

3:05:22 um would removing

3:05:25 six eight like even H6 or even the

3:05:30 second part of

3:05:31 uh make any difference?

3:05:34 Uh it's a good question. I still think

3:05:36 we'd want to do what we can to protect

3:05:39 it from other kinds of lighting, not

3:05:40 just the proposed lighting for the

3:05:43 driving range. So it it is still a

3:05:45 protected area from a wildlife

3:05:47 perspective. And so we we hadn't

3:05:49 anticipated taking it out because there

3:05:51 was no technical way to light it because

3:05:53 you could light something else um in

3:05:55 there if you want.

3:05:56 Matt, can I add something to that

3:05:58 please? Um so um Amanda, one of the

3:06:01 things that we did in recognition of the

3:06:03 fact that lighting athletic fields is a

3:06:05 little bit different that you do need

3:06:07 brighter lights for safety when you have

3:06:09 teams that you know could where people

3:06:11 might potentially come in contact with

3:06:12 each other. there are different

3:06:14 standards. And so within the bylaws, um

3:06:18 you'll notice that the standard for

3:06:20 athletic and recreation areas refers to

3:06:22 a document from the uh illuminating

3:06:25 engineer society that sets forth

3:06:27 standards for that. And those are

3:06:29 necessarily um different than what we're

3:06:32 otherwise requiring for the rest of the

3:06:35 town. So it allows brighter lighting. In

3:06:38 some cases, they might not be fully

3:06:39 shielded. So, it's not it um I hear what

3:06:43 you're saying that if the if the golf

3:06:46 course were removed from this section,

3:06:47 then it would otherwise have to be dark

3:06:50 sky compliant, but it wouldn't because

3:06:52 it would fall under the athletic and

3:06:53 recreation um areas and that's going to

3:06:57 allow the type of bright lighting that

3:06:59 specifically just cannot be dark sky

3:07:01 compliant.

3:07:06 So, there would already be a car out.

3:07:09 So,

3:07:11 So, getting back to Amanda's point, um,

3:07:15 given what you've said, Alisa, my

3:07:17 understanding is if

3:07:20 if we remove if if this line were

3:07:23 removed, then the Pterham Woods and and

3:07:27 golf course would fall under the

3:07:29 athletic field

3:07:32 regulations section of the bylaw.

3:07:35 And then we would subsequently debate

3:07:38 whether or not to

3:07:41 fund possible use. Is that is is that

3:07:45 right?

3:07:45 I mean that that was what I was getting

3:07:47 at is like you wouldn't if that was

3:07:50 removed you wouldn't immediately be

3:07:52 putting lights on the golf course, but

3:07:54 like it would allow them to be part of

3:07:56 the conversation of do you want them

3:07:59 here? Is there a dark skies compliant

3:08:02 situation? And I would imagine that to

3:08:05 in order to get town meeting support for

3:08:08 lighting the golf course, you would have

3:08:10 to show some sort of creative solution

3:08:13 for the majority of town meeting

3:08:14 members. But I would still rather that

3:08:16 discussion be punted to a golf course

3:08:19 specific discussion than being included

3:08:22 in part of all the other rules that

3:08:24 we're setting. So, I I think part of the

3:08:27 problem is that as um mentioned, it's

3:08:31 not only golf lights that could be the

3:08:35 type of light that's in that area

3:08:36 adversely impacting adjacent wildlife.

3:08:39 And this bylaw is not specific to lights

3:08:43 for athletic facilities. It's more

3:08:45 broadly covering lighting in general,

3:08:47 the adverse impacts that it can have in

3:08:50 several contexts. and there's a wetland

3:08:52 area that's right next to that portion

3:08:55 of the golf course. Also, I think it's

3:08:58 uh instructive for us to know that the

3:09:00 advisory committee subcommittee on land

3:09:02 use unanimously supports warrant

3:09:05 articles 12 and 13 as written. EDAB

3:09:08 unanimously supports 12 and 13 as

3:09:11 written. Uh and park and wreck did not

3:09:13 move golf course lighting forward as a

3:09:15 part of its CIP request. Uh, so given

3:09:18 that context, I would be more

3:09:20 comfortable voting this as is, but I I

3:09:24 do appreciate the discussion.

3:09:25 I agree with David on this one.

3:09:27 I will just say that if parks and wreck

3:09:29 didn't move forward, that sort of would

3:09:31 be my solution to removing it is that

3:09:34 parks and wreck already essentially

3:09:37 removed it from the conversation,

3:09:40 right? It's just that's only one

3:09:41 component. There are other types of

3:09:42 lighting that could impact that area.

3:09:47 I do just think that in in general it is

3:09:50 worth at some juncture having a broader

3:09:53 discussion about the golf course um its

3:09:57 many its uses and the prioritization for

3:10:00 it um in terms of how you know we work

3:10:04 with the parks and recck commission um

3:10:06 which does have authority over the CIP

3:10:09 and the operations of the recck

3:10:11 department really in a way that no other

3:10:12 committee does. Um, you know, I am we

3:10:17 are extremely fortunate in our

3:10:19 recreation department to have an

3:10:21 award-winning team there that continues

3:10:23 to win awards and that you know the work

3:10:26 that Justin Lawson has done at the golf

3:10:28 course is really exemplary not just in

3:10:30 terms of um the master plan and

3:10:34 renovating it and but making it

3:10:36 accessible to all people uh even people

3:10:38 who do not golf, people who you know

3:10:40 don't you know would never pick up a

3:10:42 club or people like me who you

3:10:44 shank the ball and make make it go like

3:10:46 10 yards. Um, you know, I I really want

3:10:50 to call out and and hopefully we can

3:10:53 have this discussion as part of the

3:10:54 broader priorities of the board in the

3:10:57 in the coming budget season. just the

3:10:59 fact that the I think the the wreck team

3:11:03 would appreciate direction from the

3:11:06 select board on how to proceed here

3:11:09 because it does sometimes feel like

3:11:11 they're getting pressure from the

3:11:13 community and then they're getting a

3:11:14 different message from the parks and

3:11:16 recck commission and there's this sense

3:11:18 of like who's out of step with whom. Um,

3:11:21 and it's what I worry about right now is

3:11:25 that we have these very talented people

3:11:27 who work for us and I don't want to

3:11:30 scare them away. So, I want us to be

3:11:32 able to work harmoniously

3:11:34 with everybody on this. And, you know,

3:11:37 to the extent that there's a concern and

3:11:38 the community doesn't want lights on the

3:11:40 golf course, I think that's fine. I

3:11:42 think when we must abide by that. But I

3:11:44 just really want us to make that choice

3:11:46 deliberately and have that conversation

3:11:48 directly rather than have it be shunted

3:11:52 aside as part of a as part of a

3:11:54 procedural discussion. Right? Like I I I

3:11:57 want us I want it to be discussed

3:11:58 squarely and on the merits so that we

3:12:00 have our marching orders and feel clear

3:12:03 on on that front. So that's that's just

3:12:06 what I would say on that front. And I

3:12:07 really do appreciate um the fact that

3:12:10 this committee that Matt and Alicia and

3:12:13 David and everyone involved in this

3:12:15 really did a great job listening to the

3:12:17 needs of the community, the departments,

3:12:20 um and trying to thread the needle on a

3:12:22 very complex issue. Um so I don't think

3:12:24 that its inclusion here is an indictment

3:12:26 against it or a reason not to vote for

3:12:28 it. I just think that as we go forward,

3:12:30 I would just continue to encourage us to

3:12:33 face issues squarely and have these

3:12:34 discussions squarely rather than

3:12:38 by, you know, rather than foreclose a

3:12:41 possibility by other means.

3:12:43 I I'm not sure I totally agree that it's

3:12:45 foreclosing by other means. It might be

3:12:47 that way for some, but there if we go

3:12:49 back to last year, the petitioners of

3:12:52 the lighting warrant article, uh, they

3:12:55 lived in North Brooklyn. They had broad

3:12:57 concerns about lighting. They were

3:12:59 coming at it from different perspectives

3:13:01 including purely environmental ones. Uh

3:13:04 it's and the moderators committee is a

3:13:07 very broad group, people all over town,

3:13:10 all kinds of different interests. This

3:13:12 is what they produced from many sessions

3:13:15 of hard work. So I I don't think this is

3:13:19 necessarily about finding a way to block

3:13:21 lighting at the golf course that's

3:13:24 hidden. I think it's a genuine concern

3:13:27 about the adverse impacts that lighting

3:13:29 has townwide in a variety of contexts

3:13:32 and whether it's just the golf lights at

3:13:35 Putterham that uh perhaps get blocked

3:13:39 from uh this if it passes or some other

3:13:41 type of lighting there or anywhere else.

3:13:44 The the same logic applies to any

3:13:46 wetland to any uh wildlife refuge that

3:13:50 we have in town. We had a discussion

3:13:53 last week about potential impacts at

3:13:55 Halls Pond. We were offered reassurance

3:13:57 that it would not impact uh playing

3:13:59 fields at Amory to the extent that there

3:14:01 may be plans for lighting there uh in

3:14:03 the future.

3:14:05 Oh, and I and I should be clear, I

3:14:06 definitely I didn't mean to imply

3:14:08 otherwise, and I'm sorry if that's the

3:14:09 case. I definitely don't think that's

3:14:10 what this the intent of this article

3:14:12 was. I think the intent of this article

3:14:13 was very clear and and focused on the

3:14:16 benefits of a broader light light

3:14:19 protection and eliminating light

3:14:20 pollution. So definitely don't think I

3:14:22 think this is just an there's there's

3:14:24 kind of a an odd there there's there's a

3:14:27 there's a side issue here about the golf

3:14:29 course. It's not the main issue of this

3:14:31 Warren article and I don't want this

3:14:32 Warren article to get tripped up. I just

3:14:34 want to be able to have that discussion

3:14:35 separately and apart from this about the

3:14:39 use of that course and the use of that

3:14:41 stuff because it is it is worth having

3:14:43 separate and apart from this which I

3:14:45 think really does a good job of of

3:14:47 solving a very difficult townwide

3:14:48 problem.

3:14:49 Right, Anthony? Then Michael,

3:14:51 I think I mean I think the aim of the

3:14:53 article is very very explicit with its

3:14:56 protection for limiting light pollution

3:14:59 and I think it also has the very strong

3:15:01 focus of why do we want to limit light

3:15:02 pollution because it's bad for you know

3:15:04 some of our environmental habitats. Um,

3:15:07 and given that the golf c golf course

3:15:10 and the surrounding area has been

3:15:11 labeled a wetland and all of that, it

3:15:14 makes complete sense to me while why we

3:15:16 would apply the exact same standard that

3:15:18 we're trying to achieve. If we have a

3:15:20 goal of environmental protection and we

3:15:22 have this area of environment that needs

3:15:24 protection, I don't know why we wouldn't

3:15:26 include that in the protection.

3:15:28 Right, Michael?

3:15:30 Yeah. Um

3:15:32 I I guess in in response to sort of your

3:15:35 characterization of the of the the

3:15:39 multiple concerns that are at play here,

3:15:41 um I would just be careful to identify

3:15:46 one one

3:15:48 concern as in any way um necessarily

3:15:52 primary or secondary relative to the

3:15:55 other concerns because because the the

3:15:59 challenge that we're faced in this case

3:16:01 that you know Amanda originally raised

3:16:03 is that there that we have competing

3:16:06 values here. Um and this particular

3:16:10 warrant article takes a position on

3:16:13 those values with respect to a point at

3:16:16 which uh they potentially conflict um or

3:16:20 they seem to at the moment with no

3:16:21 technical solution to resolve them. Um

3:16:25 and um you know like like Anthony I'm

3:16:28 comfortable moving forward

3:16:31 having trusting that there has been due

3:16:33 consideration of that tradeoff by all of

3:16:36 the people involved. Um but to your

3:16:40 point that you know at some point we may

3:16:42 take a later another look at this um I

3:16:47 wouldn't necessarily regard you know

3:16:51 the at at the point of that conversation

3:16:55 that the concerns and the outcomes

3:16:57 determined by article 12 um is in any

3:17:02 way subordinate to the subsequent

3:17:04 discussion but is def is a definitely a

3:17:07 strong input into that discussion

3:17:10 relative to the other values that we

3:17:12 might hold um with regard to what we do

3:17:15 with that area broadly. Um and we may

3:17:18 come back and say yes, we actually do

3:17:21 value the wetlands protections

3:17:24 over the course of that discussion or we

3:17:26 may take some more moderated approach

3:17:30 based on the focused uh examination of

3:17:34 that particular confluence of values and

3:17:37 trade-offs. Um but I think we should

3:17:41 move forward incrementally as a town

3:17:43 with the great work that has been done

3:17:45 here. um which I think you're

3:17:47 fundamentally in agreement with. Um and

3:17:49 then when we take on that issue um at

3:17:54 whatever point is appropriate that we do

3:17:56 it holistically and with consideration

3:18:00 of the various values that we are trying

3:18:03 to accommodate uh and the trade-offs

3:18:06 that we as a town choose to make uh just

3:18:08 like we make trade-offs in all sorts of

3:18:10 other areas of the town.

3:18:13 All right. All right. Would anyone else

3:18:14 like to be heard on this on these

3:18:17 warrant articles? All right. So, I will

3:18:19 go ahead and move that we recommend

3:18:21 favorable action on both warrant

3:18:24 articles 12 and 13 as currently written.

3:18:28 Yes.

3:18:28 Bernard.

3:18:29 Michael,

3:18:30 yes.

3:18:30 Amanda,

3:18:31 yes.

3:18:32 Anthony,

3:18:33 yes.

3:18:33 And I also vote yes.

3:18:36 All right. So, with that, we will now

3:18:39 move to our final item of the evening,

3:18:42 the policy on fraudulent conduct.

3:18:45 Thank you. Uh, I've got this one. Um, as

3:18:48 when we last discussed the potential

3:18:50 revisions to the policy on fraudulent

3:18:52 conduct, we walked through the changes

3:18:53 that we had discussed, which are now up

3:18:55 on the screen in front of you. Nothing

3:18:56 has changed from the last time you saw

3:18:58 this in September. Um, in terms of the

3:19:00 document, um, there were no substantive

3:19:01 comments. We talked about how it

3:19:03 functions in practice. We talked about

3:19:05 the single largest change being this one

3:19:07 on page three that alleged violations of

3:19:09 the Massachusetts ethics law that do not

3:19:11 involve uh procurement of direct

3:19:12 financial benefits uh should be referred

3:19:14 to the state ethics commission or the

3:19:16 office of you know where whatever state

3:19:18 entity is responsible for investigating

3:19:20 such allegations. Um that now makes that

3:19:23 very clear um and it removes

3:19:25 responsibility from the town for

3:19:27 investigating any such allegation. Um,

3:19:30 subsequent to this, we talked about the

3:19:32 kind of order of operations and what we

3:19:35 what the select board had said back in

3:19:37 May regarding um, how to move forward on

3:19:40 these the issues raised by the

3:19:41 investigation that was conducted under

3:19:43 this policy. Um, subsequent to that, the

3:19:45 moderator with input from the advisory

3:19:47 committee has issued a code of conduct

3:19:49 for the advisory committee's conduct.

3:19:51 Um, we're very grateful to the moderator

3:19:54 for uh, doing that work and for the

3:19:56 advisory committee for doing that work.

3:19:58 Um and what we had said um at the last

3:20:00 meeting where this was brought up was

3:20:02 that when that code of conduct process

3:20:03 was completed, we would bring this back

3:20:05 before you um for your consideration and

3:20:07 vote um you know fulfilling the sort of

3:20:10 conversation that was had back in May

3:20:12 that you know both boards and committees

3:20:14 would change their pol would review

3:20:15 their policies and and make concrete

3:20:18 changes to ensure that the issues that

3:20:19 were raised as a result of this aren't

3:20:21 repeated. Um, now the advisory committee

3:20:24 has done that and so I would like to

3:20:25 bring this back to you for your

3:20:27 consideration and vote um so that we can

3:20:29 adopt it and forward it to the school

3:20:31 committee who al also need to take it

3:20:32 out.

3:20:34 I just have a question. Is the advisory

3:20:37 committee voting on it? Like did they

3:20:38 adopt it or

3:20:40 so the moderator

3:20:40 still conversation?

3:20:41 The joy of the the joy of the

3:20:43 legislative branch is that the moderator

3:20:45 can do whatever he wants. Uh and so but

3:20:47 I to his credit he re reviewed it with

3:20:50 them. He asked for their comment. He

3:20:51 revised it in response to the comments

3:20:53 he received and he issued the final

3:20:54 version two weeks ago. So

3:20:58 it is in operation.

3:21:00 I have a question. Um, in a in a

3:21:03 previous discussion, you had you had

3:21:06 raised the the likelihood that if an

3:21:10 issue goes to the state ethics board

3:21:14 under this policy,

3:21:16 um, one of the things that they could

3:21:18 end up doing is coming back to the town

3:21:20 and saying, "Well, what was the result

3:21:22 of your investigation?" Yes. Or did you

3:21:24 investigate this or what have you?

3:21:26 Yes. And

3:21:29 I'm just trying to

3:21:31 um game out like what happens in that

3:21:35 case. Obviously, we would we would say

3:21:38 that we had not done an investigation

3:21:40 pursuant to this policy. Um if they came

3:21:44 back and asked us to do an

3:21:45 investigation,

3:21:47 would we be prevented uh if they or

3:21:51 would we turn around and say, "Uh, no,

3:21:54 our policy prohibits that." Um, and

3:21:57 would that have potentially an

3:22:00 uh an impact on the outcome of

3:22:06 the state ethics commission

3:22:08 investigations,

3:22:10 whether they would be like more likely

3:22:12 to be thoroughly investigated or not.

3:22:15 Um, that would be

3:22:18 that could ultimately be detrimental.

3:22:20 So, I I I take your point, but I think

3:22:23 that hypothetical is unlikely to occur.

3:22:25 Um the state does have this primary

3:22:29 responsibility for enforcing these

3:22:31 ethics laws. And what the state has said

3:22:33 is that they want towns and communities

3:22:35 or not even necessarily in all

3:22:38 situations do they want but they are

3:22:40 satisfied with and amenable to towns and

3:22:43 communities creating their own standards

3:22:46 for codes of conduct and ethical

3:22:47 violations based on state law. Um they

3:22:51 are okay with this. they view it as um

3:22:54 concurrent authority, but they don't

3:22:56 mandate it. Um and they say, and I think

3:22:59 that's because, you know, you look at a,

3:23:02 you know, there are 351 communities in

3:23:04 Massachusetts, some of which are very

3:23:06 small. You there's to create an

3:23:08 affirmative obligation on a community to

3:23:11 undertake something that is the

3:23:13 responsibility of the state to look into

3:23:15 if it if a referral is made and found to

3:23:18 have merit. Um, I don't think they would

3:23:21 put us in that position. Um, because

3:23:24 they couldn't do that to a town of 3,000

3:23:27 people in the Birkers. You know, they

3:23:30 could the fact that we are 65,000 people

3:23:33 um and well staffed uh doesn't

3:23:36 necessarily give them the authority to

3:23:38 deputize us into conducting an

3:23:40 investigation. Now, we would have to

3:23:42 cooperate with their investigation. So,

3:23:44 if they told me, "I want all your

3:23:45 records," I would have to give them all

3:23:47 my records. Um but they wouldn't be

3:23:49 deputizing me or town council or the

3:23:53 police or anyone into that

3:23:55 investigation. They would be asking for

3:23:57 they would be asking us for our

3:23:59 cooperation which we would give.

3:24:01 Okay.

3:24:04 Anyone else?

3:24:05 So when will we vote?

3:24:07 If you are happy to vote on it now is it

3:24:10 hasn't changed in September or if you'd

3:24:11 rather wait and come back.

3:24:12 I'd rather wait. Okay. And we didn't

3:24:14 receive this in our package. So

3:24:16 I'm sorry. That's my fault. I will make

3:24:18 sure that it gets to you and it will um

3:24:19 we'll put it on for next week.

3:24:21 Yeah.

3:24:22 Uh two weeks time. Sorry.

3:24:23 I agree with Bernard. It would also be

3:24:25 helpful for this to be publicly posted

3:24:27 so that we can have input from the

3:24:28 public as to what

3:24:29 That's entirely my fault. I'm sorry. I

3:24:31 fine. Make sure that that doesn't that

3:24:33 that gets back out. Thank you.

3:24:36 All right. So with that, would anyone

3:24:38 By the way, um the advisory committee

3:24:41 policy, you can get a copy of that?

3:24:43 Sure.

3:24:43 Okay.

3:24:44 So, would anyone like to be heard in

3:24:46 public comments before we end the

3:24:48 meeting?

3:24:50 No one in the room. Anyone online?

3:24:53 No hands raised.

3:24:54 And that concludes our meeting for this

3:24:55 evening. Thank you very much, everyone.

3:24:56 Cool.

3:24:58 I would

3:24:59 uh

3:25:00 Dan

3:27:30 Oh

3:27:34 yeah.