Brookline Select Board Meeting - October 6, 2026
2026-10-06

[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.