Oh, heat. Heat. Heat. Oh, what? Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh, Check. Check. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Uh-huh. Heat. Heat. It's like the moon is the
uh Hello, Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Okay, now we're Okay, we
town clerk tells me we have a quorum. So, let's uh get going. Please take your seats. Okay. Well, welcome to night two. And uh before we get started um I'll
just um mention that uh we're this is the rule book that we go by. This is town meeting time version 4. So all of you
town meeting nerds can get a new version of town meeting time. And uh this one is actually a lot easier to read. Still doesn't read like a novel, but uh it it it is a little easier. Uh the prior
version kind of read like a lore review. This one reads like a textbook. And then of course we have our town meeting members handbook. And when there's a conflict between the two, it's the town meeting members handbook. And
one of my projects over the next months uh perhaps over the summer is to figure out whether there are any changes uh that that town meeting time 4 has introduced that we need to uh incorporate into our handbook. So that's
coming events and I'm sure you're going to stay up nights waiting for me to figure that out. I have uh updated the progress tracker that's on the website, so it should be
accurate. And uh I've also updated the links. Um and I've noticed I' I've gotten a few issues of folks who click on the link and are having trouble getting in. Um, if uh if that happens to you, just
send me an email and uh we'll send you what the solution is. Um, so first uh now so we're going to start with some unfinished business. We were unable to uh play the indigenous
people's land acquisition. So uh our bylaw says we need to do it. So uh let's do it. As we gather today as town meeting members, let us take a moment to acknowledge the history of this land we
call Brookline. This is the unseated land of the Massachusett people whose traditions, language, and stewardship continue today through their lineal descendants, the Massachusett tribe of Ponapog. Today we are living on the land
that was taken by force. By 1641 the colonist in Brooklyn had allocated to themselves almost all the land that had been inhabited by indigenous people. Land was not the only form of theft that
occurred. Lives were also stolen. Historical records state that in 1675 during King Phillip's War, seven indigenous men were sold into slavery in the Caribbean by residents of the area
that we now call Brooklyn. The seven men represent part of the early slave trade. Slavery in Brooklyn continued and grew, but soon those enslaved were African or of African descent. By
1746, enslavers claimed ownership of over half of all Brooklyn land. We acknowledge the theft of land, culture, and lives and the ensuing enslavement of the indigenous and African peoples that
occurred here. These early policies set the stage for centuries of systemic racism. As we remember these atrocities, town meeting members and the larger town must commit ourselves to address the ongoing inequities that are the result
of our history of colonialism and racism. Although we as individuals were not perpetrators of these atrocities, we benefit from these systems. Thus, we dedicate ourselves to addressing them
today. Thank you. Okay, that was Felina Silver, who's the chair of our Indigenous People's Committee. Um, so the order of business tonight is uh first we're going to finish the budget. We're we're down to
the departments. Um, and I'll be reading the departments either in groups or a few departments individually. Um, and that once we get through that and if you have questions on that can be
addressed to uh the appropriate department head, come on down to the mic and I'll once again apologize. I do not know everybody's name. So, I'll be pointing to the microphone and then please introduce yourself. Over time, I
will hopefully get to know your names. Um, though I'll warn you, I am terrible with names. Better with faces, not not as good with names. So, once we're done with the budget, we'll be going to article 10, which is the CPA
uh community preservation act uh appropriation, and then we'll be going to articles 14 and 15. Uh, and that's going to be, I think, I think a robust debate. And then we'll be going to
article 20 which is Ora. And uh my my wife gave me a lesson on how to pronounce it, but um I don't think I learned very well. So you'll have to bear with me and then we'll go
back into order if we get that far. 11 11 There's no motion. 12 13 16 and 17. Uh we'll see how far we can get the uh uh the further we get tonight, the
sooner we get done. And hopefully four nights, maybe three nights, we can hope. I don't think so. Okay. So, uh we're we're at the budget. Uh, and if you're going to follow along, we're on page uh, uh,
article 9, supplement one, and we're on page 13, which is the, uh, chart um, table one. And we're at line one, expenditures, and I'm going to read the
first few uh, departments as a group. Uh, and that's the select board, human resources, information technology, diversity, inclusion, and community relations, and finance. If anyone has any questions for any of
those departments, now's the time. Mr. Toffel. Uh, good evening, Mr. Moderator. Mike Toffel, precinct 8 town meeting member. I have a question for the finance department to seek an update from the town meeting bylaw passed in
2022 asking for information to be provided annually about what pilot uh revenue we are seeking and have received and also an update on the moderators committee who that published its final report a year ago asking the select
board and the finance department to redouble their efforts on seeking pilots. Thank you Mr. Heinman, is that you? Introduce yourself and proceed to answer the question. Good evening. Uh Lincoln
Heinman, the town's director of finance. Thank you for the question. So um to the second part of the question first perhaps uh the as Mr. Tooffel said the uh moderators uh committee on pilots
uh of which I was a member as Mr. Tooffel was uh gave its report um that report was given to the select board. the the parts of that report um that uh again uh sought to encourage um reaching
out to um taxexempt entities in Brooklyn to seek further participation from those entities that don't participate in payment of in lie of taxes uh agreements has occurred. Um there is now um uh
annual uh reach out to each to all of those entities um that do not currently participate in pilots. Um there has been some interest but to be frank not a lot. Uh participating in pilots is entirely
voluntary. Um if an entity is taxexempt it is not required to make uh to make any payment to the town in lie of taxes. Um to the first question uh regarding the annual update, there was uh some
information provided that uh further annual update uh from the assessing division is being prepared now for this year. Uh the bylaw requires that it be uh presented on the website annually and that will be up soon.
Thank you, Mr. Ananian. Hello, Scott Nanian. uh precinct 10 and a member of the uh police commissioner's advisory committee um a and the uh PCAC we've been uh inquiring for a while about the use of artificial intelligence technologies um on the police side and
we've been told that the town has an AI policy that they are developing since that is um of general interest I thought I'd ask for a quick update from it and I apologize I did not warn anyone in advance about that and who is Funyang
Sorry to spring that on you. Introduce yourself and then answer the question. Good evening. Fong Yang, chief information officer, information technology department. Uh, yes. So speak into the mic. Oh,
okay. Better. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Fang, chief information officer, information technology department. Yes. You know, AI, everybody's hearing it. Uh you our grandmothers are hearing it and uh definitely it's here and uh it's only going to get better. So the town has
really uh we have spent some time uh since last a year and a half ago uh looking at you know the risks there are a lot of risks of uh and also there's a lot of benefits so we have uh developed a draft GN AI policy that's been going
through reviewing process we're still modifying it uh because this space is changing quite a rapidly uh we also developed the guidelines because we know uh people are using it. Um so guidelines are developed. They're published on the internet. We have uh
hosted uh uh webinars uh for employees as well. We have added uh AI modules to our annual cyber security training for staff. uh we have also looked at how uh vendors
are going to be vetted for their AI functions because if you look at any systems their AI functions are being built in so we have worked on that and that's also a work in progress because this space is changing very fast and we're all you know trying to get our arms around it and uh that's what we've
done so far and then we started some testing groups u on the use of co-pilot only for testing We haven't approved any tools. We have uh been testing um Zoom Golf's AI companion for meeting summaries and uh we have uh been testing
Canva AI for you know creating um social media posts by our communications director. So the that's where we are at. Thank you. And how could we stay up to date on your your work there? You couldn't. Sorry. Sorry. Can you repeat? Is there is there a good way for us as
citizens to stay up to date on the latest developments of your of your work? Feel free to reach out to me. I'm happy to talk to you and if anybody who's an AI expert, we're happy to have you and we like love to have your input. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll move
on to the next group which is uh legal services advisory committee, town clerk, and uh planning and comm community development. Okay. Police, which is
19,167445. H I'm in the wrong column. 21 million 140 066 0. Yeah, 066. Next one is fire. Mr. Franco, Mr. Moderator, Jim Franco, town meeting
member, precinct 2. Um I have a question on this flexible staffing. Um the uh handout that we got uh on the list serve talked about NFPA standards and meeting
the minimum NFPA standards. U there are also something that has to do with insurance called protection codes. Um and we are in code number one which is the best and this has an impact on property uh insurance rates for homes
and commercial properties and I would like to know if this flexible planning the flexible uh staffing uh will impact the rating if anyone has talked to the rating people to take care of that. Mr.
Sullivan. Good evening. John Sullivan, fire chief. Thank you for your question. Yes. Um, thank you for reaching out today. I did reach out to the ISO insurance services organization with your specific question. uh is as it is our intention
to even under the flexible staffing plan to meet the requirements of 1710 uh for the lowhazard structure fire occupancies there should be no impact to our ISO rating. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Murphy.
Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jocelyn Murphy, precinct 16. I couldn't help but notice the uh firefighters who are in the room and outside. And um I didn't have a chance to read all of the material that the town administrator provided, but I read
some of it. Um the I I was somewhat surprised that the town is considering unilaterally implementing a change in the in the staffing in the fire department. And my question is, are there other communities in Massachusetts that have implemented
the fl this flexible staffing model that the town is planning to implement? And I have a follow-up question depending on the answer. Mr. Sullivan, I presumed you were the right person. Uh John Sullivan, fire chief.
So in essence, the flexible staffing model is is not in function as it is written to you uh in that there are very few communities that have mandatory
minimum staffing in their contracts. And so this this version of what we're proposing is a kind of a hybrid model between where most departments are and that is that they don't have a minimum staffing in their contract. So they as a
function run at a minimum of two in one staffing on their vehicles. The majority of uh communities around us there are a few communities that do have contractual language for three in one. Most of those communities with the exception of Boston have some sort of a hybrid model. Uh
Newton for instance has a three in one on their ladder trucks uh and then their engine companies uh during the months of January, February and March have three in one otherwise they can run to two in one. Uh Weimoth has three in one on their engines but their ladder has one
and one. So there are there are different flexible models if you will that can be it could be put to to use in in any given community. So so then is this nomclature or sort of new? Is it something that's been created? I guess
the is the answer no other communities don't have flexible this well they do in that it depends on how many people show up to work. So if if they have the staff, they could run three in one, they could run two in one, they could run 4 in one, which is where we're what we're
proposing as well. Depending on how many people show up for that given shift, we would never go below 2 in one and 3 in one at our station six. Um because of its proximity uh being so far out from the rest of the community down there. Um
but at any given time our our companies because we are staffing um at 4 in one in in that's how many people we assign to the vehicles depending on how many people come to work on any given day. The chiefs would have the flexibility to
either staff at the minimum of two in one but if there are more people each of those trucks would then be augmented up to three in one potentially four in one. My last question Mr. moderator. So I understand that this is an issue that is of great concern to the union regarding
safety. So are there any reports or data that you're relying on to to change from what has been in place in the contract to this model? So the reports are in in the NFPA and NIST reports. Uh NFPA is a
standards committee which gives best practices and I have no doubt that the best practice is to maintain the 3in1 model. If if I had all the money to do that, I would maintain it, have for the last, you know, seven plus years and would continue to do so. Um, at this
point, uh, I've been before the advisory committee for the last 5 years looking for reserve fund transfers. It's been made clear to me by the advisory committee that this is not sustainable. I've taken all of the soft, if you will, approaches to be able to meet uh, and
reduce that overtime deficit. um it it's just not going down as much as we need it to to close the budget gap. And so when confronted, you know, I have to have a fiduciary responsibility to the town as well. So in that
respect, I put forward the options of what would happen if we did not fund to the full maximum of overtime to meet the 3in-1 standard. And at at at any given time, it's a just a simple math problem. If I'm a million dollars short or 750,
$900,000 short every year with no added resources to that overtime budget, which we did last year, put $300,000 into that budget to augment it. The in the intention was to put $300,000 more into it in fiscal 26 and then add even more
in fiscal 27. The the circumstances of the economy and the the town's budgets just not allowing that. So at this point we have to make some decisions with regard to how much what can we sustain. I can't go back to the advisory committee year after year after year and
ask for a million dollars in overtime. So uh there's there's only really two options on the table after that. either we lay off firefighters and close a company either permanently or or at least in in in the near future or we we
consider a reduced staffing model, a flexible staffing model. Thank you, Mr. O'Neal. Uh thank you, Mr. Moderator. Donald O'Neal, present four. Uh question for the chief. Um I I would really love to hear um from the union, you know,
president or a statement from them, but I do have a couple of um qu questions. So, have our firefighters been trained um to go down to two as of today? No.
No. Okay. But that is that is that is part of the plan for the next month. And I had made assurances to the union president that I would not implement any change in staffing model until I was completely satisfied that our firefighters were trained to be able to
meet meet those requirements. So like after July 1st, it could be okay. Um I mean I have I have a lot of questions. I would really love to hear what the union has say about this is if that if that's possible as moderator.
No. Okay. All right. So the fire we're firefighters are under negotiations and collective bargaining right now. Correct. Correct. Okay. So does All right. All right. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Richjo. Thank you, Mr.
Moderator. Carlos Rope Reason 14. Um there's a map that has been shown that you know the four minute um sort of area where where the the first truck can get to a location in four minutes and it doesn't
um cover most of or all the town or even part of the u you know lots of part of the towns. For example, Carlton Street is beyond the four-minute uh area. When you go down to a two a two two person model, does that mean that means that a
second vehicle needs to arrive to the site uh before they someone can go and rescue? And if that's the case, if the first vehicle got in within four minutes, what's usually the the time that the second vehicle goes to? I guess
what I'm trying to ask is how does it affect the fourminute uh map uh when you have to have two vehicles get to a site? So, thank you for that question. So, the answer to that is it depends. It depends on where in town you we we're responding
to. So, as you uh rightly pointed out, there are areas in town that we do not meet that four-minute standard now, even with the three in one uh just because of their the nature of how long it takes to get to those areas. So, there are pockets of areas that we do not meet
that um response, especially in South Brooklyn. Um that's why under the current flexible staffing model, I've committed to keeping engine six at the Hammond Street station at 3 and one. uh just for that particular you know
circumstance. The other areas in town generally speaking our firefighters are going to get there within those four minutes even even under the the new model with four firefighters some of that is going to be reduced. Yes. But to
your to answer your question, the NFPA standard and the OSHA standard that is relied upon in that report uh clearly spells out that under the circumstances of an immediate need of a rescue that the two firefighters do not have to wait
for the fourth firefighter to be able to initiate a rescue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Yes. Um Andrew Fischer, Precinct 13. Uh I may be up at the wrong time. And I have a question for the DPW. Is the We're
getting there. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Hi, Bob Miller, precinct 2. Um, I'm wondering if you could put in layman terms what the effect of you said, you know, if money were no object. Yes, of course. You know, it'd be great to to stick with 3 plus one. What can you put
in layman's terms what the difference is in terms of real life situations and where this may come into play? I'm not sure I understand your question. Is Is it the money part or the No, it's not the money part. It's So, if we're if
we have a 2 plus one where where what are some circumstances where that might be not the ideal versus the 3+ 1. In other words, is that response time does it shrink the area that we're able to respond in in the
time we would like? Does it affect all calls that that are going out? the actual response time. So when you're looking at the NFPA standard, you're looking at response times to structure fires. That is one particular category of call that we go to. That is what the NFPA standard is measured on. It has
another standard or another part of the standard which measures EMS calls, which is a a longer response time, which is a 6 to 8 minute response time. And so those those are distinguished. The vast majority of the other calls that we go to are not structure fires. They're
they're alarms for fire. There's, you know, there's alarms in buildings. There's, you know, all kinds of different things we go to. But to answer your question, will there be an impact? Yes, there will be. The tactics that we use in Brooklyn right now are based on a fourperson engine company or a
fourperson ladder company. Would we have to adjust those tactics to be able to meet the the needs of the fire ground? Yes, we would. Is that ideal? No, it's not. Will it take a little bit longer time to do those things? Yes, it will. Uh, so minutes and seconds do count. I'm
I've never, you know, stood before anyone and said that they don't. And that's why my first position is I would love to see the town fund this to the to the maximum. That is my has been and continues to be my first position. At
this point, I don't have I don't have the checkbook. I can't write myself a million dollar checkbook or a check to to fund that, you know, to fund that overtime account. I brought it up five years ago in front of the advisory committee and said the overtime budget is not funded correctly. It is
underfunded. We need to do something about that because it's going to get worse. It did. Eventually, we added that $300,000 with the expectation of adding another 300 till we get to a model that the Metro Fire uses to say 10% of your o
your personnel costs should be your bottom line for overtime costs. At this point, that would be about $1.7 million. I have a million. That's what I have right now. At this time in the in the budget right now, as of this week, or as
at the beginning of May, I should say, we're at $1.5 million. So, I'm $500,000 short at the beginning of this month. I haven't done the calculation. Maybe Charlie has done it already to give you a better update. But to answer your question, yes, it does have an impact.
There's no doubt about it. There's there are seconds and minutes that that are impacted. Thank you. That answered my question. Appreciate it. Uh thank you, Mr. Vto. And I'm hoping that we could cut off fire with the folks who are at
the microphones now. Uh and then we move on. We have we have a lot of uh business to cover. And I did skip the police. We'll go back to the police next. Mr. Vto. Tommy Vtolo, town meeting member at large. Mr. Moderator, I have two very similar questions. I hope I can ask them
one at a time. The first question, which might be best answered by the chief of is this. There's a house on fire. There's a six-year-old in the back bedroom and the fire truck arrives with four firefighters on it. How many
firefighters will go into the building and search for the six-year-old child? It depends. The two at a minimum. Two at a minimum. Yes. If there there's always two at a minimum. If there's a fire and
a six-year-old child is in the back bedroom and a fire truck arrives with three firefighters on the truck, how many before the second truck arrives, how many will go into the house and search for the child? If it arrives with three people, it would likely still be
two people going into the house. Thank you, Mr. Cipher. Ariel Soyer precinct 2 time meeting member and a couple months ago we had a massive fire right behind our house at Craig Place and the fire department did a fantastic job at uh
containing that fire and I just wanted to say can we applaud you and your team for the absolutely great work that you did. you kept the fire from spreading to any other house. That house, it didn't make it, but you know, well, it's still
standing, but barely. And we really just wanted I I really just wanted to say thank you. Um it was it was really a lot of hard work and and we think every day about the folks who were injured in um you know, combating that fire. So, really appreciate the hard work you all did. Thank you. I I just like to take a
a point of privilege if I might, Mr. Moderator. Our firefighters do a fantastic job under very, very difficult circumstances. I've been at this for 38 years now and I and I served for 30 years in the city of Worcester with some outstanding firefighters and and I am
never been more proud in my career than to be the chief of the Brookline Fire Department and to serve with and for the members of this department and this community. I have I have the responsibility to do two things to keep our citizens and our
firefighters safe and to also manage the department budget. I need to give the advice to the select board and to the town administrator as to how to maintain all of that. And I'm trying to kind of walk the line and do my very best to say if
all things were equal and the the the funds were there, this is what I would prefer. I would prefer that we kept our staffing the way it is because it is it is the safer, more efficient way to do business and I would never change that. I've been here for eight years now or
going on eight years and and never once occurred to me to even change it because it was always funded. At this point, I have to give, you know, my best recommendation and laying off firefighters and closing a company is not an option for me. that some other chief in the past may have said
differently, but that is not the matrix report from 2010 affirms that at some point the town of Brooklyn was going to come to this position when fiscal, you know, constraints were what they are. And the best thing for us to do is not
to close a company because the chief at the time said that's what he would rather do. That report clearly stated and affirmed what I'm saying is if you have to do something, keep all your companies open and reduce your staffing to to meet that budget cap. So, thank
you, Mr. Klein. Uh, thank you. Uh, Jonathan Klein, town meeting member, precinct 17. I have a question on a very different topic. Uh when I walk by um some of our senior housing complexes or nursing homes and there's often a case where someone seems to need to be
brought out in a stretcher, I often almost always see a very large fire truck, one or two police cars and one or two EMT vehicles and that seems to me as a lay person excessive. I'm wondering if someone could explain how that works and what that policy is. Maybe this is a
question for the police department as well. Thank you. Sure. I I think I can take a shot at answering that. Um, we are all first responders. Um, we do not have a an ambulance in every fire station and on every corner to be able to keep up with the load of the calls
that we get in the town of Brookide for our EMS responses. And so in order to be able to ensure that we can save lives uh on a on a consistent basis and get to those calls as per the NFBA standard within those six minutes, we send first
responders along with the ambulance to be able to ensure that our our citizens get the care that they need. And so that's why you see the response that you do. It kind of it goes out over the air between the police, fire, and EMS. This is where the need is. We go, we all get
there. We all assist and we expedite as quickly as possible to save lives. And so first responders are just that. They they they oftentimes get there first. Thank you. Thank you. I was hoping Mr. Olirri would be the last fire question. So when Okay. Hi, my name is uh Paul
Liry. I'm uh from precent 5. I served for 13 years as a firefighter down in Florida and we used to do the twoin- one model and I can tell you from firsthand experience as a firefighter that it doesn't work. Um, we always had to call back up regardless if it was a bad car
accident and especially on fires. Down in Florida, we had CVS concrete uh buildings. So, the fire load is not like it is up here in the Northeast. We have heavy timber. You have a lot more toxins here and it's the fire burns a lot hotter here and it's more dangerous and things combust so much quicker up here.
So to go down to a two to one model from from my point of view because I lived it is really you're really risking it because if you get in a bad situation and you're waiting on another unit because you only have two and two two guys in the back and one in the front
and like the selectman was saying if you got a couple people trapped inside nine out of 10en times you're going to send two people in but then who's going to be waiting for the next unit to come in? Who's going to be speaking? Who's going to be the uh the officer there? You going to send the driver in? What if you need to have the pump or putting water on the fire? It's a really dangerous
situation. I've lived it and I can tell you from firsthand experience. I understand the budget constraints, but it's something you should seriously consider because I did live that and it's not a pretty picture. I can't disagree with anything you said. Priestly,
go ahead. being a priestly precinct for I just had a quick question on the way that it works when we do the smoke inspections because we always I I'm a realtor local sometimes I have a fire truck come with three guys sometimes I've never had just a single person come
so I'm wondering when it comes to checking our smoke alarms because I sell in Boston too where there's just one guy in an offduty car that comes around and tests it so I'm just wondering why we send fire trucks to do multiple smoke alarm tests and at least two guys. I'm just
wondering when it comes to staffing. Sure. Thank you very much for that question. Um the the answer is that it depends on what kind of inspection that's being done. Uh we have four personnel in our fire prevention office which is primarily responsible for
inspections and enforcement. Uh they are 24/7 if you will or you know 9 to5 5 days a week uh working the inspections for uh all of the mandatory quarterly inspections that are mandated by the state law as well as all new
construction planning and all of the all of the things that go along uh with those aspects of fire prevention. There are certain aspects of of these inspections that that crew just cannot get to and that is those smoke detector
inspections and then the six and ups what we call six and up buildings those had six apartments or more. What it also does though for our firefighters is it puts them in the buildings to be able to do an analysis of those buildings pre-fire inspection. So, it's not it's
not just that they're there to check your smoke alarm. They're also checking the layout of the building, where the systems are, how they would approach the building if it was on fire. So, it has a twofold um it has a twofold benefit. You you get your inspection and our firefighters get to to do a little
pre-fire planning as well. So, the reason is if we had, you know, if we had more staff and fire prevention, could we send the single person out? That was the model that I had when I worked in the city of Worcester, but we had 24 people in the fire prevention office, so it could be done that way. We just don't
have that model here. Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Rosenthal has a question on police. I think we're done with fire. Thank you, Chief Sullivan. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm Marty Rosenthal, precinct 9. Um, I do
have a question if I could for uh Chief Pastor. I'm not sure if you went by it, but anyway, I was asleep at the switch on my remote. May I make a brief comment about the first responder question? Very brief. Very brief. I I had a medical
emergency in September, and I was not surprised, but I just want to give my kudos to everyone who responded that it was so fa they got here so fast and they were so professional and so empathetic. It didn't surprise me because I think we
have a great um police and fire department and so forth. So the question if Chief I I assume Chief Basture is still here. I don't know if you went by her budget but um the question is
um as many of you know and the new town meeting members don't know as much. We had a difficult few years on especially police issues and I think the moderator will remember the date of January 5th
2016 I think is when it started and we've done much better the last couple of years partly with the chief and partly with the collective bargaining agreement. So the question is are we doing better? What give us an update please on morale and also keeping the
younger and more diverse officers in the department which was a problem partly because of the morale issues. Thank you Chief Pastor. All right. Good evening everyone. Jen Pastor, chief of police. Thank you for the question. Um I am
happy to stand here before you tonight um and say that it's been a great year in my opinion in terms of staffing and in terms of morale. Uh in the past year we've hired 16 new officers. Um so we are currently I'm currently in a place where technically I have four openings
um with the six being held at obeyance hopefully to fill in FY27. Um and if those of you are you know those of you who were here last year the year before um I think you'll agree that's pretty remarkable. Um we have a diverse group. This is all made
possible from the vote that you helped us with last year getting us, you know, approving the contract, which is huge, and helping us get out of civil service. Um, two driving factors to make those numbers possible. So, we were able to take a large number of lateral transfers from departments we couldn't have
considered before, including BEu, um, where we took, you know, before colleges and universities weren't, um, applicant pools for us because they weren't in civil service. So, um, we plan to continue to take lateral chancers from other departments. We have a lot more freedom. Um, we're not confined to a
civil service list. Um, we can look for language skills. We can look um, you know, consider factors. Um, you know, we can take a look at the department we have and look at areas where we're lacking uh, in seek out candidates with those specific skills. So, overall, I think
morale is good and I'll back that up by saying police activity, arrests are up. Um, you know, FIS are up, traffic stops are up, moving violations are up, traffic enforcement's up. So, I think, um, I think we're in a good place. Thank
you. I think we can move on to the building department, public works. I saw Mr. Fiser who was up here, but uh, Mr. Davis and then Mr. Fischer
Jonathan Davis uh precinct 17 and let me just inter no questions on sanitation please. We had an hour last night on sanitation. Okay, go Mr. Davis. Okay. Jonathan Davis, precinct 17. I have a softball question. Uh at the
intersection of Webster and Beacon Streets, there used to be a really beautiful sculpture of a turkey that is now missing. Uh, I assume that there are
um good reasons why it's flown the coupe, but people in my neighborhood are asking what happened to it. Do we know about the mystery of the turkey? Miss Mooney from the planning
department. Good evening, Meredith Mooney, economic development director. Thank you for the question. Uh I can circle back with an official confirmation, but I think there was some issue in terms of um some chipping or erosion of the paint. So there's some sort of a a repair going
on. So I think the intention is to return the turkey um after it's been restored. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Uh thank you, Andrew Fischer, precinct 13. Um this is for the
commissioner. It's a question uh that she's already answered for me, but I we both suspect that there are other people that have the same question regarding the condition of Beacon Street between Koolage's Corner and past Washington Square that's been like that for a
while. I I'd appreciate I appreciate that the commissioner uh invited me to uh ask the question so she could give a broader answer. Thank you. Good evening. Aaron Chu, commissioner of public works and the the question is around the the
condition of Beacon Street. So uh Beacon Street we are uh doing a bonded wearing course so a restoration of the surface over three years. Last year when we did one-third starting at Cleveland Circle we currently have the middle portion
that is mil. So it was mil. Um following that there were some um structure adjustments and then they went in and did some leveling and uh a little bit of work on that base surface and we are scheduled uh for the paving to start
next week. We had intended and hoped for that to be um started earlier but as you know we have had a very wet spring. So it's really just been the way rain that has delayed that final coat. But we'll do that and then the um striping will be coordinated after that. Thank you, Miss
Murphy. Thank you, Jocelyn Murphy. Uh precinct 16. So, um like my co-etitioners of the Libo amendment, I would like to thank you, Erin, and your staff for doing a really terrific job in Brooklyn, keeping our parks beautiful and our water clean and, you know, all
of the things you do. My question is about the Muddy River oil release that took place in January. Um I'm wondering if there has ever been an identification of the cause of that oil release and if not um if any steps are being taken to
hopefully prevent something like that in the future. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Uh the response has actually been a multi- uh department effort. So involved uh fire department, uh multiple departments in public works from conservation, parks, um my main office,
and also Jay Hersy, our director of water and sewer, has been the main point person with the department of environmental protection. So I'll um step aside so he can provide a brief update on that. Thank you. Yeah, Jay Hy, director of water and sewer. Thank you for thank you for the
question. Um yeah, we've been working with the DP um as you know for quite a while trying to figure out where the source originated and um to this date they haven't been able to identify it. They've actually looked in areas that we've asked them to look at within the Village Brook drain. They actually hired
a diving company to go in there and look at a stretch where we thought maybe was a possible source, but nothing was identified. So what we think probably happened now was an isolated incident where there was a heating oil release um that could not get traced back to the
source. So um unfortunately at this point we have no idea um where it originated but we will continue to monitor that area and work with the D um to keep an eye on things. Thank you. Thank you. Before before you sit down, Mr. Percy,
uh, a lead was buried last night that, uh, there's no more combined sewage in the town. That is big. We We've been working for years to make that happen. So,
Mr. Loenstein, uh, yes, Mark Loenstein, Precinct 12. Um uh this question is about Washington Street. Um I know that it was this is in advance of the larger project that I know is slated to start in a couple of years. Uh the street was resurfaced I
think two or three years ago and then unfortunately there was a utility project that sort of dug it up again and then there was I think a commitment to resurface the street when the utility project was completed and I've sort of noticed that parts of it have been resurfaced is sort of being done a bit
in fits and starts and I just wanted to confirm that the there is still a plan to sort of resurface it along you know curb to curve along the entirety from Washington Square to at least I guess uh Cyprus if not Brooklyn Brookline
Village. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. So um the plan for Washington Street, so the Washington Street received sort of just a maintenance a maintenance surface really at the request of the bike advisory committee and some other folks in particular
because the gutter line was so terrible and we were concerned that the condition of that road was deteriorating so fast we weren't going to be able to keep up with it and get to the full restoration project which is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year 28 and 29. So um we
did that as just a sort of cap to sort of encapsulate that in place and then worked with national grid to say you need to come in here and replace sort of your full any grass work that you need to do you need to do that before we invest um a significant amount of both
town state and federal dollars. So um as we all know national grid has been out there for a long time um and they have largely finished um their work. They've finished most of our work. They had some additional work um down by the uh in the
village uh by the MBTA station. So, if there's a little bit of restoration work left, there may be. So, they um have restored uh their trench uh pretty much from Beacon Street to uh the police station and there'll be some additional
work to happen, but they are not going curb to curb. We've expand expanded kind of the restoration beyond what they would normally do for their work. Um, but our intent is to have a smooth uh safe surface to get us to the full
restoration. If there are areas that you feel have not been restored properly, then talk to us and we'll make sure that they are. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Bit Pearlman, uh, precinct 6. Two unrelated questions. One
following on of that, I was wondering if there are things the town can do to get utility providers to do work before we resurface a road to like really put pressure on them so they don't immediately cut it up. Um, and then the
other one is uh speaking of the Muddy River, uh I think this town does an excellent job removing Japanese knotweed from our side of the river, but Boston doesn't do such an excellent job on their side of the river. and I was wondering what communication we've had about that. Okay, two um totally
unrelated unrelated but both great questions. So um regarding the public utilities, we couldn't agree more. Um we meet with National Grid every two weeks. We meet with Eversource every two weeks. We provide them with our five-year um
capital improvement plan. They provide their plans uh to us as well. And um what we've often found if they'll get um emergency leaks, there are certain things that they are required to go in and um repair. So for any of our larger
projects um they have advanced notice. We are pushing on it. We are telling them that we're we're we need them to get in there. We don't want to adjust our schedule. Um but there are times when um grid says we didn't know we had this problem, but now we have x amount
of feet we need to restore. We'll prioritize it, but um we'll get it done now and it can delay some of our some of our work. And one of example is we had Hammond um street on our schedule for this year and National Grid has gone
out. They identified some problems. They're fixing that and that's going to either push us to the end of this year or the beginning of next. So, um I will say we work very closely with them. We um understand the frustration. We feel that as well, but we are pushing. Um,
and we also push very hard for the restoration and our 5-year moratorum, which then requires curb to curb if they come in and damage pavement that we've restored. Regarding uh the Japanese notweed, uh we work with Boston. Boston has had some recent turnover just in
their um parks uh parks and recreation department, but we work closely with the Emerald Necklace Conservancy who has a whole um volunteer core that does a lot of invasive management. So, our team works with them. They also work with Boston. So, we'll continue to push for
kind of the the work of invasive removal throughout the throughout the emerald necklace because it's really critical. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm Betina. I'm a town meeting member from precinct 1. Uh I have two unrelated questions that are sort of strung
together by my bicycle commuting experience. Um uh one of which goes back to the resurfacing of streets and um obviously it makes sense that uh big arteries like Beacon Street would be the priority for resurfacing. Um but it put me in a mind of some of the smaller more
residential streets that um have been patched sort of many times over. And um I I do my best to report the potholes on Brook online and you know it's super responsive and and really great and I love it. Um but the the bumps that ensue
are often you know sort of like an inverted pothole and um you know when like on Freeman Street sort of between Amory Park and running up through um Babcock, you know, it's sort of a you know a cobblestone type uh sort of bumpy
bump ride. And um and I guess I was wondering if you could speak a little bit just to what the process is um one in terms of you know if it is possible to do the patching in a flatter fashion so that it you know is sort of less disruptive um and or you know sort of
how smaller residential streets fit into the long-term planning for resurfacing. Um and then the second question I think is for Amy Engles um about the intersection. Why don't you let's hear the first question hopefully quickly. Okay, I will try to answer that one
quickly. So, we have a I think Freeman's a great example. Actually, I was driving that the other day having the exact same experience. I think that there's a there's a difference in pothole repair versus patching. So, I think we should look at that to see if we can include that in our patching contract. We have a
costbenefit value approach that we take to our pavement um preservation program. It's all based on the um condition index. We do a full survey of the all streets throughout town. We're actually due to update that this year and then we
apply this model so that the town gets the best value for its dollars. So that's that's our approach. That's the best practice and we will move as fast as we can with the dollars that we have to um get to the roads following that
model. Great. Thank you. Um and my second question is specific to the the intersection where um Essex and Dummer Street meet um where there is a bike lane coming off of the Beu Bridge um entering kind of the the biking corridor
into Brooklyn where um very nicely the bikes have been given the right of way. Um but the uh automobile traffic does not have a stop sign um before they make a forced right turn across that bike right away. Um, and you know, it's
something where, um, I think anybody who uses that corridor, you know, witnesses near W like misses constantly, you know, where the bikes either, you know, have to slam into a moving car or they just have to, you know, stop and seed the right of way. Um and um Amy had, you
know, we we had had some meetings about this and um apparently there are some federal regulations requiring crashes before signage can be changed, which you know, as a biker, you know, that just does not seem like a a
good tradeoff. Um so I was wondering if um you could help me understand, you know, kind of what the logic there is and and what we might do about it. Sure. Um Amy Engles, transportation administrator. Um I don't recall exactly um what signage you're referring to with
the the crash need. Um potentially a stop sign. I seem to remember we talked about a stop sign on a side street, right? Um so for stop signs, yes, there are um federal requirements uh criteria that needs to be met. Crash history is one of them, but it doesn't it just has to be one of the the set of criteria and
that is just one of the sets. Um, so the if I remember correctly, that was just a side street that was a little ways down from the intersection you just mentioned. Is that correct? Oh, I sorry. I was referring specifically to the the BEu Bridge. Um, you know, that comes straight off the BU
Bridge and into Brooklyn. Okay. You kind of made the point. Can you do this offline? And Sure. Yeah. I think I'll just add that that Amy did um work on a near miss portal that has just been um put onto the website. It
was actually an idea that came out of the age friendly communities that wanted to have an opportunity on where they could kind of place for some near misses that they had for any mode of transportation. So that is now on the website and I think an opportunity to
kind of just share that information into staff. So, I want to thank Amy and her staff for putting that together. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Bernbam. And then I think we'll move on to the next department. Lee Arinbomb, town meeting member, precinct 9 and longtime transportation
um civil servant. Um so, bringing together a few of the themes from the last bits of conversation la last night we heard a lot about trusting the expertise of DPW staff since they are in fact experts. I know there's been a lot of fear spread about our complete streets plan across town and on
Washington Street in particular. Can you clarify if DPU DPW has used any less expertise in developing that proposal than the one that was discussed last night? If DPW has used less expertise for the
Washington Street corridor. No, we have not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll remind folks uh if you have very specific questions about specific uh intersections uh there's always the DPW forum that happens a few weeks before
town meetings. So I hope folks will take advantage of that going forward. Um okay so the next group of uh departments is the library health and human services, veteran services and the council on
aging and recreation. And then there are lines for personnel services reserve collective bargaining uh town and the subtotal for the town is uh 142
million792. Oh that's the school. Okay. Sorry. So the next one is the school's budget. Mr. TOEFL. Sorry I'm a I'm a little late. I was trying to get in for the recreation department budget. Okay. recreation. So, in the AC chair's uh
budget review uh when he was introduced, oh, who are you, Mr. Excuse me? Mike Tooffl uh precinct 8 town meeting member, he very clearly laid out a history of town meeting asking uh many over many years for studies to be done,
feasibility studies to be done for an outdoor pool and yet that has still not been done. I'm wondering whether uh the money is in the budget this year finally for the recreation department to have the resources to actually convey and and
conduct that study that town meeting has so often asked for. Thank you. And who is uh Tim Davis, recreation director? Good evening everybody. Uh thank you for the question. Tim Davis, director of
recreation for the town. Uh the funds for the feasibility study for the pool will come out of the retained earnings of the recreation department revolving account. So yes, those funds are in place uh once it's decided to expend that.
Mr. Golden, uh you schools or Yes. Okay. Mr. Lowenstein for recreation. recreation. Okay, we'll come back to you, Mr. Golden. Uh Mark Loenstein, town meeting member, precinct 12. Uh this is a question for the recreation department. Um has to do with the renovation of Amory Park. Uh and I know
that uh that uh project is being done this year. I think it was for this year's budget. Um including the full renovation of the Amory tennis courts. And I just wanted to ask whether that project is sort of on target in terms of its timing. the Amory courts are closed
for the entire season and my understanding is that uh a contractor has not been yet chosen for that project and again I just want to get some comfort that that project will be done this year. Thank you very much. Thank you for that question. I'm going
to defer to Alexander Becko with parks to Miss Veio. Hi, good evening. Alexander Veio, director of sustainability and natural resources, former director of parks and open space. Um, I'm pleased to share that we do have a contract in place um
for our uh work at Amory Playground and that work will commence in the coming weeks. Mr. uh Mr. Tuckman remote. Thank you very much. Um, this is for recreation. A number of years ago, are you Mr. Tuckman? I should I should
remember Jerry Tuckman precinct 9. A number of years ago, um, I had talked with the recreation department and actually folks at the golf enterprise about how Newton had a senior golf program which was very strong and
some of the people who were participants like me were actually seniors from Brooklyn. And I know an effort, a real effort was made um to create a bit more of a program. It takes some work and effort. Um but I'm just wondering if any
of that has continued uh what the results of that were and um whether there's any thought to build on that. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you for that question. Um when it comes to senior programming specific, I unfortunately
can't speak directly to it. I know that Justin Lawson and his team at the golf course do have many leagues including a senior league. I do know as well that we've made efforts in providing senior discounts when it comes to playing the course for 9 and 18 holes. Um so the senior community and the use of the golf
course by the community is at the front of our minds year. Mr. Pensel, uh Mark Penszel, uh precinct 2, member, um I'm following up on your the your answer to the pool question. uh
you said uh you use language at the end saying once the decision the money is there once the decision is made to expend it. Can you commit that you will expend the money the funds this fiscal coming fiscal year for that feasibility
study? Thank you for the question. Um I very honestly I will not stand here and commit to to anything um when we don't have a plan in place at this moment. Um what I can tell you is that we are constantly evaluating this
specific topic uh with town administration. We're working very actively with planning currently on future use of different sites of land in town. Um so it's not a topic we're taking lightly um here at the recreation department. It is a facility and it is a
project that we want to do that I want to do. We're just making sure that the timing is correct. So, we're actively working on it, but I don't want to commit at this moment in time to an exact date. Yes, sir. David Brewster, precinct 13. I had a quick question about the veterans
affairs with a possible follow. Oh, uh, let's see if we have any uh continue recreational. We'll come back to veterans. Miss Freriedman. Hi, Wendy Freriedman, precinct 5. Uh, I also had a followup to the pool question
which was just to understand a little bit more about what it means to be in place like what what can you just explain the process of how you get to the point of being ready to spend the money? So the conversations that we've had with the recreation department as
well as the town is to ensure that when we're ready to uh move on spending these funds that we're confident that the town is in a place to proceed with such a capital expenditure um and we have things such as land that's available and
I recognize that feasibility study will potentially tell us sites um but we want to make sure that when we are um spending these funds for such a study that we do have potentials in mind. Um so again working with planning and working with town administration working with um the various committees that are
looking at pieces of land that are coming online uh for us for potential uses in the next year or few years. Um we'll make our decision based on kind of a group effort of when we think is best. Any more recreation veterans? Mr. Brewster. Um
yes. So we sat out to see yesterday a slide of the new car. Who tell us who you are again. David Brewster precinct 13. Um, the veterans affairs uh received a new car, I'm assuming for outreach. I was curious, was that vehicle hybrid or electric?
Who can answer that question? Electric. It's an electric vehicle. So, follow up to that. Um, do we know is there a reduced charging rate that we negotiated with Charge Point? Is there a reduced charging rate for town electric
cars? Do we know the answer? Good evening. Chess Gary, town administrator. Um, we have our own internal charging stations that we don't uh have a charging rate at all for uh in town hall and other locations. For example, at the municipal service center. So, we have an internal charging
network that we use, including me. I use it. So, nice. And the veteran affairs car gets to charge on. Yes. Cool. Thanks. Um, Miss Priestley, you schools or and schools? Yes. Okay. I think we're ready to move on to schools. So, Mr. Golden
was f was first. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jonathan Golden Town meeting member precinct 11. I'm concerned about the turnover we've seen in the superintendent's office. I'm concerned about the turnover we've seen among principles in our town and among teachers overall. So, my two questions are one, um, what is it that we as a
town can do to help to support the retention of our teachers and how does the budget as currently constructed reflect the desire to continue to retain these important school leaders and professionals? Miss Frius, tell us who you are. Thank you.
Valerie Frius, school committee. Um on the first question, I'll take the first question, defer the second to our deputy superintendent. Um engagement and um support of our our leaders is really paramount. And that starts at the building level and supporting your
educators and um listening to your educators and certainly speaking uh at meetings and things like that, but also respecting the boundaries of our of our educators. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Priestley. Vina
Priestley. There I think there's a second question, Mr. Moderator. I was going to defer that to Dr. Given. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's what happens when you kind of not pay attention. That's me. Not
could you clarify the second? Yes. Yeah. In the current budget, yes. Can you give examples of how it is working towards the retention of teachers, of principles, etc. What what are funds? What are examples of aspects of the bungee that will help us to continue to
retain our educational professionals in Brooklyn? And please tell us who you are. Yes, certainly. Susan Given, deputy superintendent for administration and finance. Um, in our budget, we do set aside funds
um for memberships and professional development to help with um um supporting uh our professional staff uh in their roles. Um because of the uh challenges we've had around uh finances,
we've had to cut back severely in this year's budget around those areas. But we do have some key memberships that help support the superintendent and other uh principles and administrators um to be able to at least stay current um on
matters uh affecting you know our profession um regulatory updates and uh other supports that we can receive through those memberships. Mr. Priestley, Vina Priestley, precinct 4. I just have two questions in regards
to the cut of the diversity. Um so um with what's going on kind of in, you know, general around America, is there any like support that's going to be provided to these children? Um that's
kind of um you know, the minorities that are being infected by this to provide support with that whole department being cut out. um with the diversity committee, uh Valerie Frius from the school
committee, the vote that was taken, uh I I don't want to speak for everybody, but I I think that people leaned into the building based support. So, um there are equity leads currently who were trained at the building level who uh will still be at the building level. Um there are
building based programs like that are that are very specific academic um equity pieces like the calculus project that are still there. And then some of the pieces that uh the office of educational equity uh undertook will be
um divided up by other offices and that is uh in a a bit of a to be determined phase as there's a bit of turnover in teaching and learning right now as well. My second thing is is there going to be an education piece for the community?
Um, my children are all biracial and even in their first year of kindergarten were being ridiculed and teased for their different hair types. Um, and they came in and educated the kids on different hair types. So, is there going to be some form of I know you said TBD,
but cuz it's not really have anything implemented right now um on the spec. Are you asking specifically about educating the kids? Hairstyles or No, no, no, no, not just hair because that I mean that is actually in the civil rights policy that's being discussed at policy right
now. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Um uh uh my name is Maxim Shenin, precinct six. Um and we are all aware of the school budget challenges a lot of them due to uh special education
expenses and transportation. Uh it is my understanding that Massachusetts allows the establishment of special education stabilization fund uh that um could help communities mitigate exactly that kind of expenses. So I'm wondering if the school committee has explored that
option. I don't think that's a school committee question. I think that's a townside question. We have a stabilization fund. Uh Chess Kerry, town administrator. Um yes, actually the school committee suggested um when we talked about how to
close the final uh uh aspect of the budget gap that um the money that we are leaving in a different fund now may eventually go into founding a special education stabilization fund. um we didn't have time between when that was
decided earlier this month or at the end of April um and now to set that up and bring it before this town meeting, but that's going to be the subject of discussion over the summer as part of the town school partnership and the expenditures and revenue study committee and hopefully uh a strategy on that will
be brought before town meeting in November. Okay, thank you very much. And I actually misunderstood so I'm glad Mr. Carrie uh bailed me out. Okay, so we have completed the total department expenditures of
241,676,563. Moving on to non-dep departmental expenditures, employee benefits and then we have the reserve fund which is uh controlled by the uh advisory committee uh HCA reserve fund.
Oh, that's zeroed out. The stabilization fund, affordable housing trust fund, liability and catastrophe fund, general insurance, audit professional services,
contingency fund, printing of warrants and reports, and the MMA, Mass uh municipal association dues. And then we have debt and interest on our borrowings for a total of non-dep departmental
expenditures of 146 million 8755. Mr. Buono. Yes. Hi, my name is Anthony Buono, town meeting member, precinct 9. I had a quick question about the house uh affordable housing trust fund. Um, I understand that there there
is an immediate allocation of 15% of remaining free cash after it gets hit in the waterfall. Um, however, that automatic 15% of remaining free cash does not get activated if the affordable housing trust fund currently has $5
million or more in it. And I just wanted to ask, has it ever been the case where that immediate funding didn't happen because it was at that $5 million cap? And is that $5 million cap ever going to be raised to adjust for inflation since it was implemented in 2013?
Miss Goff. Hello. Melissa Goff, deputy town administrator. Uh if you look at the same budget table where we're taking the vote, you'll see in fiscal 24 there was no uh infusion of free cash into the affordable housing trust fund because the balance was at a level where the
policy did not get triggered. Um and the select board did discuss uh the proposal that you had uh to amend the policy. Um but at this point the policy remains the same. Thank you. Mr. Conquest. Good evening. Arthur Conquest. Uh town
meeting member precinct 6. Speaking to the mic. Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes. Arthur Conquest. Uh precinct 6. Uh I have a question for the select board. Is it possible that I can ask?
lay it on us. Okay. Uh, back in January, um, I made a presentation to the select board and asked them if they would supply me with some information regarding a program that, uh, they sponsored. Um, I didn't hear anything
from them. I got sick and I came back two months later and asked, uh, the same question and I gave a copy of my presentation to the select board. left a a copy of that and uh I hadn't heard
anything and uh I'm now at the uh town clerk's office and I think it's been about 25 days since I submitted a request to ask for information about the expenditures
uh for this program that the select board uh offered and I would like to know if I'm going to get an answer from So, can someone from the select board straighten this out?
Uh, good evening, Mr. Conquest, Chess Cary, Town Administrator. First off, thank you. Uh, and I apologize. I thought we had um circled back with you on this, but clearly there's been a miscommunication there. So, that's on me. I apologize for that. Um the immediate answer to your question, we received only one invoice from SUFFK
University for the cost of their work and it totaled $2,57148 which we paid. So that's the amount that was expended on that program. Uh in terms of other communication and information, um I will talk to town council's office since they were the coordinators on that and we
will get you that information. And this I'm sorry just the specifics to what I wanted in terms of what they were charged or what you've asked them to do to accomp their objectives and the cost. Sure. Um those those documents some of those documents are public. They were
they were what was put before the select board when that that program was contemplated. We'll make sure that we'll get that in a package to you and get it to you as soon as we can. Thank you very much. Okay. So we've gone through all the uh general uh
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Jonathan Davis, precinct 17. On the I noticed on the affordable housing uh allocation that there was a 27 12% reduction uh uh from the previous year and I'm just curious
as to as to why such a large reduction. Miss Goff, Melissa Goff, deputy town administrator. The level of free cash was lower in fiscal 26 than it was in 25. And so the way the formula works is that there was a lower amount available uh for appropriation. Thank you. Thank you. So
we've been through the general appropriations of 388,477 uh,0317 388477317. We've been through all of the uh CIP items and then our total appropriated
expenditures that we're about to vote on is 48,522,486 and that includes all the CIP items. So I think we're ready for a vote on the budget.
Do I do we need to vote on the non-appropriated Melissa? But we we're not we don't appropriate the money, but there I I'll there are additional expenses that we town meeting don't appropriate. That's at the bottom of the chart. The one I'll
highlight is $8 million that goes to North County. And if we if the county line shifted from Newton, say, to us, we would have $8 million more in our pockets available
for whatever. Okay, let's let's approve the budget. Hopefully, drop the vote. A yes approves the budget. No says you don't want to spend the money. Heat. Heat.
No. Motion passes 213. Yes. Three no and six abstensions. Okay. That was the main work of town meeting. Now let's move on to more main
work and that's article 10 which is the uh CPA community preservation act. And the motion is on pages 1019 to 1024. And the motion is is made by Nancy
Heler who's the chair of the uh CPA committee. and it's seconded by John Vancoyak and um town meeting actually has limited authority uh with respect to these items. We can town meeting can
vote to eliminate or reduce an item uh cannot add an item cannot increase an item. So um with that said hold on one sec. I'm just having a little trouble with my
timer. I intend to go over, Neil, so we better get it ready. Um, I'm going to have to do it the oldfashioned way. I press the buttons. Nancy Heler, precinct 8, chair of the community preservation committee. Um,
I'm here tonight with my colleagues from the committee. uh Susan Cohen from the BHA, Minnie Kori who is an outlaw at large member, Clara Bachelor from Parks and Rec Commission, and Sam Bachelor, I mean Sam Burrington, they both start
with B. Sam Burrington uh from the conservation commission. Also, our staff me member Lindseay Butler is here and uh Pauly Selco joins her from planning. So, we have a full compliment. Um, so the Community Preservation Act committee
um has finally gotten going and this is our second year. I'm going to address more questions about the Community Preservation Act committee uh when we get there, but for now I'm just Neil has already told you what you can and cannot
do. So I'm going to skip the next slide, please. Uh next slide, please. Um CPA has a lot of rules. It's not you just can't fund any housing project or any historic preservation or any open
space. You have to abide by a set of what I call strings. And uh we we cannot employ staff for instance or municipal staff. We cannot provide funds for that. We cannot do ordinary repair and maintenance projects. Um and one very
important thing is that uh all of the grant funds that we award are only released upon invoice so that if for some reason a project doesn't get going uh or um it uh it's it's a slow start.
We we keep the money retained in the CPA accounts until the project uh can submit to us the invoices with documentation. Uh and if there are non-expended funds, they hold over. They're not don't become part of free
cash. Uh they're held over in our accounts for the next year's spending. Um, we have, as you will have seen, uh, three motions on, um, our on the on the page. I I'm not sure the number of the
page. I think it's 10.1. I'll tell them the number. Just keep going. We have them split. The first motion, although in the slide here it says two motions. Oh, next slide. We're We're going to be doing one vote. Yeah.
Um, we're going to be doing one vote for the uh projects, but we need to vote the fiscal year 26 revenue that comes. That's going to be included in the vote. Oh, okay. All right. So, we need to vote the the revenue that's going to be coming. And that you see that says two
motions for revenue 26 20 fiscal year 26 revenue. Uh there are two motions because one of the motions just moves the money from the general fund to the CPA accounts and the other motion allows us to actually expend the administrative
uh bucket. The other buckets are for a future town meeting. Um I'm going to ask um Sue Cohen from the BHA to come up and talk to you about housing at our housing projects.
And I would suggest that the folks come over to to to make the transitions quicker. The talk the clock is ticking. Running late. Forward the slides till we get to the housing slide. One
more. Here we are. Okay. Uh my name is Susan Cohen. I'm a commissioner of the Brooklyn Housing Authority and a representative of the BHA on the CPAC committee. Um, there was only one housing related proposal submitted to
the CPAC this year, which is a request by the BHA for $500,000 to go towards the replacement of roofs at the Eggmont Street family development that serves low-income families. The development has six buildings, all in dire need of
replacement of the roofs in order to protect the integrity of the units in the building. This is the second request to the CPA for this project. Last year, the BHA received $500,000 in CPAC funds, which was matched by the state with an award of
$1,250,000. We hope that a new award would be in a similar amount this year. Approval of the CPAC award to the BHA will allow the BHA to submit a request to the state for matching funds. Phase one of the project is currently in
design phase and current estimates of the budget for the project would cover three roofs in phase one and if similar funds are awarded now for phase two the rem remaining three roofs could be completed with this award. We thank you for the support in the past and we ask
you to approve this appropriation. Thank you. Why don't we hold the applause to the end? Excellent. Good evening. Uh Mini Glory, a community preservation act committee member at
large and a resident of 12. Uh I'll now preser Okay, can you hear me? Yes. All right. Okay. Uh I'll now present our uh historic preservation projects. We have
seven grants totaling 1,319,68. Uh, next slide, please. The first grant of 800,000 is for the restoration of the beautiful dome at Temple Ohab Shalom on Beacon Street. The temple is the oldest
synagogue in Massachusetts and their historic building is listed on the National Register. The temple has been very community-minded and over the years many community organizations have used the site. Uh examples include beep,
after school programs, the American Red Cross, Boston Marathon and so on and so forth. The grant is secular and there is no funding for religious symbols. Uh this the total cost of this project is $2
million and the temple has already raised more than uh $828,000 in matching funds uh which is more than our grant amount and they are on track to raise the balance 400,000. Next slide please.
The second grant is 190,68 for the rehabilitation of the historic chemical house uh which is home to the Brooklyn Arts Center on Monmouth Street. Uh this building is also on the National Register. The building is owned by the
town and leased to the Brooklyn Arts Center. The arts center applied for this grant, but this is essentially an improvement to a town-owned building what will benefit the town. this project to design and uh install a
heat pump system. The art center is providing a match of 57,500. Uh there are other components in a larger project which include other preservation uh measures and ADA improvements uh which the art center
will apply for in future years once they actually solidify all the details around those. Next slide, please. This third grant is a $60,000 grant to support the archives pilot program, which is a partnership between
the Brookline Preservation Commission and the Brookline Historical Society. This phase of the project will locate, identify, and document the condition of uh historic documents and artifacts in Bookline. The historical
society is providing a match of $10,000. Future phases will involve restoring of the materials in identified in this phase for which they will come back to us at a future date for additional
funding. Next slide, please. The fourth grant of 19,000 is for historic window restoration in the Potterham Woods Clubhouse. This clubhouse was built in 1931 and still has its original windows. Uh the
preservation commission uh designated this building as historically significant. This project will restore the original windows while retaining the original glass. Next slide, please. The fifth grant is 66,000 for
the restoration of the historical freezes at the Pier School. These free freezers were crafted in Boston in the 1890s and are a copy of the uh of the early 1800s originals which depict the
uh the triumphal entry of Alexander the Great into Babylon. The Pierce Freezes will be restored and reinstalled on the second floor near the sixth grade classrooms in the historic Pierce building. As you can see from the rendering on the screen,
their placement high on the wall will mirror the traditional positioning of freezes in ancient Greece. The school committee has provided matching funds of 9,850. Next slide, please. The sixth grant is 88,000 for
the restoration of the foster fence at the old baring ground near the intersection of Walnut and Chestnut Street. The preservation commission designated this fence as historically significant. As you can see from the picture, the fence is currently in a
very dilapidated state and the project involves restoring this ornate fence. Next slide, please. The seventh and final historical preservation uh grant of 96,000 is for
the restoration of the historic trellis at the Minot Rose Garden in Winthrop Square Park. This uh trellis is designated historically significant by the preservation commission. The trellis was once a fixture at Lars
Anderson Park and it was later moved to the Rose Garden and the project will restore this historic garden feature. So in closing, these seven historic preservation grants exemplify our commitment to safeguarding
Brookline's cultural heritage. They demonstrate our dedication to fostering strong community partnerships and to leveraging significant matching funds. And now uh over to Clara Bachelor to go over the uh open space and
recreation projects. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Clara Bachelor. I'm a member of the Community Preservation Act committee and I'm also chair of the parks and recreation commission. We have 10 projects um applications for grants
under the open space and recreation um category. I'm going to present the first five. Uh next slide and then next slide after that and next slide. Okay, here we go. So um the first is Lars Anderson
outdoor ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice eye ice shrink design and public design review process and the budget for this is 1,364,900 grant is to develop a design for a single open air rink in the existing location will include a public design
process and the end product will be a complete set of construction documents that are ready for bidding. And I'm sure you all know that the current ice rink is on life support and it really can't last another more than another season.
There will be a committee of seven individuals to serve on the design review committee. One of the seven people will be a representative from the preservation commission because we realize this is recreation, open space and preservation.
The second um project is the Coolage playground tennis court design for 89,900. The court has reached the end of its useful life. The design of the court will meet ADA standards which it currently doesn't now. The court will be
lined for tennis and raetball and the grant will fund a complete set of construction doc documents that are ready for bidding. The third project is the Ridley tennis courts design for $123,200. The project is the design of
three tennis courts that have reached the end of their useful life. The the courts are both a community and a school recreation facility. The design will include critical improvements to the subsurface drainage. There are a lot of subsurface drainage problems right now.
Um the courts will be lined for tennis and raetball and the grant will fund a complete set of construction documents will be made that are ready for bidding. The fourth project is the community gardens at Elliot I'm not
going. You're going Thank you. The slides are progressing even though I didn't ask them to be. The community garden at Elliot Recreation Center for $43,600. The grant is for the design and construction. This one's for the construction as well of eight res raised
beds. Four of the beds will be accessible. There's currently high demand for community gardens within our town. There's long waiting lists for the community gardens we do have. So, this will serve um a stated need. The fifth project is the
Amory Thank you. Amry Woods Boardwalk Design and Construction for $564,20. Uh Amory Woods, for those who you don't know it, is next to Amory Park and the Halls Pond Sanctuary. The grant is for the design and construction of an
accessible boardwalk that will replace the one pictured, the existed rotting boardwalk, rotted boardwalk. Um the new boardwalk will be elevated to keep it out of the water. The wa there the more water accumulates there than there used
to be. Um the work will be done at the same time as the Amory Park Halls pond restoration work. And now Sam will give you the next five projects. Well, they just need to hear me, I think. Um, all right. The I had a
question about the Lars Anderson skating week. Is now time. No, no, no, no. They're going through the presentation. Sorry. All right. Um, the first project within the open space subcategory of open space and recreation is um, sorry, I'm Sam
Burington. and I'm the conservation commission uh representative on CPAC. Um the first project is $50,000 for the enhancement of trail heads at Potterham Woods. Um that'll be happening in conjunction with a town project to
refurbish the trails themselves. Um and it'll involve um the creation of a new ADA parking space. um the installation of an information kiosk and signage at the trail heads to improve visibility of this trail network. Um and thirdly, the
um addition of seating features, rustic seating features, um bench seating and uh boulders. Uh next, please. Um the second project is uh a tree inventory that'll happen at Warren
Waldstein and Harry DS playgrounds. Um this is a continuation of an existing tree inventory project across the town uh that aims to identify um areas in need of structural pruning and tree removal. Um and the ultimate aim is to
improve the health of our um our uh tree canopy which is declining. Uh next please. Um the third proposed project is $60,900 for removal of invasives along
the emerald necklace. Um on the Brookline side, um this project will involve mechanical removal of Japanese knotweed over the course of two years. Um it's a persistent problem. Um and it aims to improve coordination with the
Emerald Necklace Conservancy. Next, please. Um the fourth project is uh $26,500 um for invasive species management at Hall's Pond. Um the project will involve
u manual removal of yellow flag iris, the invasive and planting of blue flag iris, which is not invasive and a native species. Um and the project um also benefits from matching funds from um the friends of Paul's pond um and the green
space lines. Uh next please. Uh the fifth and final project is for invasive species removal once again at D Blakeley Hor sanctuary. Um this will involve a clip and drip method um to deal with fl
fragmmites and glossy buckthornne um which are resistant um and concentrated around the boardwalk in that in that sanctuary. Um and as a whole these projects will you know help improve the the health um of our sanctuaries and our
um natural spaces and improve the enjoyment for their visitors. Thank you. And you should be getting ready to wrap up, right? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So, our total requests this year
are for 4,537,62. Uh you've seen how they break out. 500,000 for the for housing, 1.319 for uh historic preservation, 2.717 for um open space and recreation,
and we ask you to vote favorable action on these 18 proposals. Thank you very much. Thank you. And you came in with a minute left. Thank you. Um, let me tell you how we're going to
proceed from here. Uh, we have the, uh, select board and advisory committee. I've got four people signed up to, um, uh, address specific projects. Then a question has been submitted in advance that I think is an
important question by Mr. Tophel. And then we'll open the mics up for questions. Okay. So, Mr. Vinskoyak 3 minutes please. All speakers here have three minutes and you'll need to adjust the mic and this will not take three minutes
might not even take two. um because I want to thank the previous speakers for doing an excellent job of laying out um the case, the background um as to the community preservation act and the case for the vote that is in
front of you. And here's what um I have to say on behalf of the select board. John Vans on behalf of the select board. Uh, article 10, um, is an appropriation article for funds coming from the community preservation fund for open space protection, historic preservation,
affordable housing, um, and outdoor recreation. The select board reviewed the recommendations of the community preservation act committee and did not have any proposed adjustments to make. The board thanks the committee for their hard work over the past year and a
unanimous select board voted favorable action on the motion offered by the community preservation act committee. Uh and uh I want to just turn turn as I can right now and just say thank you personally. I think they've done a great
job. Thank you Mr. Buano and Mr. Lynn Jones is next. Three minutes. I will not need three minutes. Thank you. And I have no graphs. Okay. So, uh Anthony Bono, town meeting member, precinct 9, speaking on behalf of the
advisory committee. Um, I pro I rise to provide the report for the advisory committee on warrant article 10, which authorizes the community preservation act committee uh to disperse just over $4.5 million in funds to affordable housing, historic preservation, open
spaces, and recreational projects. I wrote a ton of stuff. I don't need to say it. Um, we voted 25 to zero. Uh, the I do want to point out that the committee was careful. uh the committee care the committee carefully reviewed whether each of these projects qualifies
under the CPA law and ensures public access. In the case of the freezes it w in uh in relation to the pier school it was confirmed that they are not part of the CIP funded uh pierce school renovation which would have contradicted
the CI the CPA's mandate. The CPA was selective. Um, one proposed project, it was restroom construction at the golf course was rejected because it lacked financial match. Uh, and that's something that the CPA committee did really well this year of prioritizing projects that were going to give
financial matches that then this uh, restroom did not align with the CPA plan. This reflects a key principle uh, that they should leverage the matching funds. They got $1.7 million in matching funds as total, which is really remarkable. Uh some raised concerns on
the advisory committee about how these projects fit within the town's broader capital improvement plan. That's a very valid question. While CPA committee doesn't solicit proposals, it so it can't like drive its plan, it does coordinate with departments and has
developed a priority um plan to and you know the town administrator is working to prioritize the department heads to go to the CPA committee when there are relevant projects. That's really good. Um, and then lastly, on a note of fiscal discipline, none of this money goes out the door automatically. All dispersements require signed agreements,
documentation of expenses, and periodic progress reports that are made public quarterly. Um, and if you don't spend the money, it gets rolled over. Um, so yes, the advisory committee recommends favorable action on this warn article uh unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Lynn Jones. And Orisa Boy is next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I'm Sean Lynn Jones, precinct one, speaking for the Brookline Greenspace Alliance, which recommends favorable action on Article 10. Uh, I won't run through all of the
projects. You've heard detailed descriptions of all of them. Uh, but I want to talk about one in particular um that came up earlier, the notweed removal in Riverway Park. I think it was Ms. Pearlman who asked a question and praised the town for doing such a great
job removing notwood notweed. Well, if you want to continue to see that notweed removed, vote for this warrant article because over $60,000 will be devoted to that purpose. I can also say that I serve on the maintenance and management oversight committee for the Muddy River
Restoration Project with representatives of the Boston uh parks department and the Emerald Necklace Conservancy. I mentioned this project uh and said it would go forward if town meeting improved. Uh and there was definitely a sentiment that they should keep up their
end of the bargain and do work on the Boston side. So we're leading by example. Uh last year when we discussed uh the CPA appropriation, uh there was um a comment that it tended to fund mainly housing projects and also a
comment that in the future the pendulum would shift and we would look at more parks uh and open space recreation projects. And that's happened and we're glad to see that happen. But we recognize that every year the applications will be different and the community needs will be different as
well. Um the second um major point I'd like to make though about the open space and recreation projects and some of the preservation projects that are within parks uh they really do reflect some of the preferences of our park friends groups groups like the friends of the
old burying ground the friends of the May not rose garden friends of halls pond which is providing matching funds and the friends of Lars Anderson Park that has a particular uh interest in the skating rink. Uh so it's great to see that kind of coordination happening. I
also want to thank the DPW's divisions of parks and open space and sustainability and natural resources uh because they did a great job particularly Alexandra Veio of developing these applications of coordinating the CPA process with the
CIP process uh which isn't easy because they have different criteria and different deadlines but the bottom line is we're using CPA funds for their intended purpose to cover projects that couldn't otherwise be funded through the CPA or the operating CIP or the
operating budget. Uh, I'd like to finally thank the Brooklyn uh CPA committee for all of their hard work and their careful review of many CPA applications. Please join me in voting favorable action on article 10. Thanks
very much. Arisa Boy, three minutes. She's remote. And Debbie Hats is right after her. Good evening and thank you. Uh my name is Arisa Boy and I'm a town meeting member of precinct 15 as well as a
preservation commissioner and I am also their representative for uh CPAC. However, I'm not speaking you tonight uh as a CPAC uh committee member. Um but I do I am going to express some um from preservation as
well as my own thoughts. This year's CPA C projects are all extremely well planned and I will believe they will be of great benefit to the town. I'm especially encouraged um by the number the increased number of applications for
historic preservation projects all of which I believe are of great significance to Brookline. I did want to clarify that Lars Anderson Ice Rink is not only funded as a recreation project by CPAC, but also partially as historic
preservation. Uh this is actually a very important distinction, especially considering the level of debate that's gone into this project over the last few years. The preservation commission discussed at length how to best partner with parks and wreck on the Jack Karen
uh rank at Lars and I'm excited that the um and that we are moving forward under um historic preservation and I believe that this will lead to a better working relationship um and strengthen our with
uh parks and recreation commission. So, I've heard concerns about how the ice rink uh restoration and updating will be funded after the design has been completed. Because it's a historic preservation project, this creates the potential for many more grants that are targeted for historical preservation at
the state level and access to state grants is more important than ever in these uncertain times. I'd like to share a portion of a letter sent on May 22nd from the preservation commission to the select board. Uh these are excerpts. The preservation commission fully supports the restoration and updating of the ice
rink and pavilion warming hut. Full involvement in the planning process was the preservation commission's October 17th support letter. Um and Lars Anderson Park and the ice rink and pavilion are located within a national register district under the preservation
restriction held by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. MHC holds the ultimate approval of any designs to restore and upgrade the ice shrink in its building as a certified local government. The preservation commission is a consulting partner of the Massachusetts Historical Commission and
the body that holds and enforces the preservation restriction on the ring. Seconds. Thank you. Um and uh I'm excited to work with my colleagues at parks and recreation and expect we will settle on a design quickly and economically so we can move to the most important res part of which is
restoration and actually reopening of this beloved ranked. I hope that you will join me in uh favorable action for this year's CPAC projects. Thank you very much. Thank you Debbie Hats. I won't even
try. I wouldn't even try it. Hi. Uh Debbie Hatia left theatus. Speak into the mic, please. Oh, Debbie Hats left theatus town meeting member precinct 15. I'm also president of the friends of Lars Anderson. Speaking on behalf of the
friends in support of article 10. First and foremost, I wanted to thank the select board um for approving the restoration of our beloved rink. Without your approval, I wouldn't be standing here today. So, thank you. Um, the restoration of our beautiful Jack Karine
rank and ground is long overdue, and we're all excited to get this project started. Thank you to the CPA committee for including Lars and recognizing our beautiful gift that uh and the need to restore it and respect the standards of being on the National Registry. Thank
you, Greenspace Alliance, for your support in this endeavor, as well as over 7,600 people who signed the petition to restore and keep our rink and open space. I now ask you, my fellow town meeting members, to join us all in
support of article 10 and to protect and preserve the beautiful gift that was bestowed upon us. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa Sears is the last signed up speaker and then Mr. Taffel with a question. It's a general question about
uh CPA committee. You can come up to the podium so you can see the timer. I'll be very quick. I'm Lisa Sears, precinct 4 and I'm speaking in support of Temple Ohab Shalom's application to the CPA. Um I'm a member of Temple the Temple along
with my family. My children go to Hebrew school there. But aside from that, um the temple is a wonderful community resource. It was actually our first introduction to the Brooklyn public schools. My son attended Beun Beacon there as well as their extended day
program and I know that many children at many of the schools in North Brooklyn also use their facilities. Um it is a cultural resource that um partners with many organizations to provide community services and they partner with many organizations such as the Boston Medical
Center, the Marathon, the public schools, the police department and I hope you'll join me in supporting their application. Thank you. I'm not going to take a motion to call the question because I promised Mr. TOEFL and Miss Johnson has been chomping at the bit for
a question. So after Miss Johnson then I'll take the question to call Miss Tuffleel. Thank you Mike Toffel uh town meeting member precinct 8. Thank you to all of you for your great work. My question is more about your the thinking of your work and especially as we head
forward in future years. So I really have two questions. One is yesterday uh town meeting voted in favor of millions of dollars of CIP items including millions of dollars of bonding. And I'm wondering if any of those items that we voted to spend money on could have been
funded had they been applied for appropriately by CPA funding. That's to my first question. I'll I'll pause and let you answer that first, please. Okay. The uh the answer is that the vast majority of the CIP projects that we
funded yesterday um are in the area police and fire and transportation, a highway, um school grounds, etc. Um, so there were all I went through the list last
night and I came up with a couple that uh could potentially be CIP CPA projects. One is a tennis court, but we are already doing uh the Ridley tennis courts and the Koolage playground uh
tennis court. So I think that the department decided that we we needed to get going on the planning for th those those two which are the grants that we did. The the grant that they that the CIP approved was a construction grant.
So the CPA will I would expect we would see a future request for the Ridley and uh Coolage construction phase of the projects. Um so the answer is that it's possible but
there without knowing more detail about the couple of project really is only two or three I would have to say we we know know need to know the details to know whether there's significant eligibility there great thank you and uh I would
encourage advisory and the select board to ensure that all eligible projects are at least proposed informally if not formally to CPA as a way to spend the money we already have before trying to dive into uh debt taking more debt in
for for more. Um Mike, let me let me just say one thing before um we go on to the qu next question. C CPA is not allowed to replace municipal funding um that's
scheduled uh in by our with our funds. So, um, these all the projects that we're funding that are connected to the town are projects that need to be done. They are a wish list of C of CIP projects, but they have never made it
onto the CIP because there's not enough money. So, the CPA in that way has really butressed uh the CIP. Yeah, Mr. Mr. Carrie also has a an answer can help you perhaps. Hi, Chaz Cary, town
administrator. Um, just to uh reinforce what you're saying, uh, we do, um, every potential project that can potentially be CPA is vetted, at least informally within my office. Uh, the department heads are sick of me saying it because I say it at every department head meeting
until the CPA budgets are due. CPA eligible, put in an application or at least discuss it with the committee so that we can figure it out. So, all of that is happening behind the scenes. We think that it's an incredible resource. The committee does an incredible job and we want to maximize that resource. So we
do. Next question. Great. My my sec Thank you, Chaz. So my second question is um so you've funded this year and last year a blend of uh governmentowned and operated buildings and non-government owned and operated buildings. And I'm
wondering if the CPA committee has ever discussed prioritizing or perhaps excluding its uh funding to governmentowned and operated buildings. Well, we've not discussed that. And the reason we haven't discussed it is that as we understand the community
preservation act which was um promulgated by the legislature in September of 2000. It was designed to be not just a fund that could help cities and towns with capital projects. It was
also intended to pro to help comm community a community which is why it's called the community preservation act. It's intended to uh support community organizations. And last year, for instance, we funded five
programs in housing, all of which were nonmunicipal um uh entities. So this year we have a higher rate of municipal entities but some but it's really a matter of what gets put before
us as uh as we've said before you know we don't go searching for the for the projects they come to us M uh Ms. Johnson now I had announced that I would be taking a question to call uh that I would call the question after
Miss Johnson. So, um, a bunch of folks have come up to the mic, so I'm still going to take the question to call. Yes, Anita Johnson, precinct 8. I have a question about the Lars Anderson skating rink. I wonder why we want to spend all
this money creating a new skating rink in such a difficult, ridiculous part of town that is not served by public transportation. Let me let me temper that a little bit. There is a bus that starts at Cleveland
Circle and goes within a half a mile of Lars Anderson skating rink every 45 minutes for six hours a day during weekdays. This is not bus. This is not public transportation service. And what it requires is that parents drive their
kids down to the skating rink, come back later and pick them up. It's a pollution problem. It's a fuel problem. What we need if we need a skating rink is something more in the center of town where kids can get back and forth. For that reason, I think we should re-examine putting so much money into
that rink. Um I I take that as a comment rather than a question. Point of personal privilege. Come to the mic. Mr. Gladstone. Scott Gladstone, town meeting member for precinct 16, which is a precinct in the
town of Brooklyn. And this skating rink, won't actually even be in 16, will be in 15 or 14. Now, is this a point I know what you're going to say, but is this a point of personal privilege? It is a point of personal privilege. So state it quickly that there is a south part of
the town and this is uh this is a contribution on a facility that services the entire town and the personal privileges that it sounded like we were being severed away from the town as valuable
uh as valuable consumers and uh contributors to the town who deserve to have an amenity that's already here. And if the problem is public transportation, let's improve that. I would all be for that. Okay. Thank Thank you. I announced
that I would take a I would take a motion to terminate the questions. Okay. So, let's let's drop the vote. Oh, who's at the mic? Uh, I saw Amanda Zimmerman, Carolyn Th Jessica
Stokes, Precinct 7, and I saw Mr. Okay, drop the vote, please. Oh, you did. Okay. No, they have to restart it. Yes. 42. No.
Motion passes. 177. Yes. 42. No. Six. Abstension. Ms. Fiser. Yes. Sharer Fischer. Town meeting member precinct 11. I wanted to ask make a motion if we could move um 20 now before 14 and 15. I hope it'll be quick and they have um
prom next Wednesday. Okay. So, it was originally going to go in this slot and we thought it would be later. I don't think so. This has been moved back and forth and the folks for 15 have also
Can we try to make sure to get to 20 tonight because next week? Well, that's up to town meeting, but uh we we should get there. We should get there. Okay. Now, we uh we're ready to vote the main motion. So there are three motions
that we're voting in omnibus fashion and the motions are on pages 1019 to 1024. So this will authorize uh uh all of the CPA projects that uh we
heard of plus all the administrative stuff that's necessary. So, uh, a yes is to approve the CPA appropriation and a no is not to. And this needs a majority vote. Are
we ready? Okay, drop the vote. Oat. Motion passes 224 to 127. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to turn the podium over to uh my assistant moderator uh Mr. Gatsby who's going to
be moderating uh articles 14 and 15. And we also heard a request that we try to get to articles uh article 20. And uh so here we go. Uh thank you Mr.
Moderator. Uh we turn to articles 14 and 15. They will be debated together. Each of them concerns applications for uh um zoning accommodations for
reasonable accommodations for uh disabled persons residents. In each case, the there is a main motion offered by the petitioner and a substitute motion
which is supported by the advisory committee, the select board and cos under article 14. The main motion that of the petitioner is found on the green supplement number three pages 1 to
four moved by Mr. Englander seconded by Miss Vote. The substitute motion is found on supplement five pages 1 to 7. It's moved by Mr. Penzel, seconded by Mr. Mr. Banka.
The ultimately uh the motion main motion that comes before you after the voting process which I'll describe before we vote requires a twothirds vote on article 15. The main motion is found on
supplement number two page one. It's moved again by Mr. Englander and seconded by Miss Vote. The substitute motion is on the supplement number four, pages 1 to two, moved by Mr.
Pearlman, seconded by Mr. Dowy. It's a majority vote. The uh as sometimes happens with complicated articles like this, there have been a good many proposals floating around and uh and
really the support for the substitute motion in each case did not coalesce until the last minute. It's unfortunate it doesn't give us much time to uh to focus on what we're actually voting on, but here we are.
So I call on Miss Oats, the petitioner, who will have 10 minutes. Miss Oats is joining us remotely at some point. Okay, there we go. Yeah. Uh, you're apparently Thank you. I
was stuck on mute. Thank you, Mr. Moderator and town meeting members. I'm Don Oats. I live in precinct 1 and I'm a disability rights advocate. For more than a decade, I've helped marginalized individuals and families navigate injustice across health care, education, housing, recreation, and civil rights. I
don't come to town meeting lightly. I come because after years of advocacy, I realize Brooklyn has a gaping hole in its zoning bylaws. There's no clear, fair, consistent, or lawful process for people with disabilities to request what federal law entitles them to. A
reasonable accommodation in the form of zoning relief when building for accessibility is necessary. So, I wrote one, and that's what warrant articles 14 and 15 are about. They're built on civil rights law modeled after what the California Attorney General recommends to cities
that want to comply with the law and rooted in my lived experience and the lived experiences of many you may never hear from who deserve dignity and access, not just endurance. Tonight, I'm not going to talk about my personal experience because this isn't about me.
No doubt you'll hear plenty of speculation and rumors about my family tonight. That's politics, but I'm going to go high on this one. Tonight, this is about the town of Brooklyn and all the residents with disabilities who were entitled to zoning relief under federal law and were wrongly denied. It's about
board and committee members who don't know how to identify a reasonable accommodation request under the ADA or Fair Housing Act or how to help someone ask asking for it. And it's about people in this room who may need one now or someday, but still don't realize that
federal anti-discrimination laws require municipalities to grant relief from zoning when someone has a disability, the accommodation they request is related to it, and it's not an undue burden or fundamental alteration to the zoning program. That's it. It's a narrow
legal framework designed to happen privately and interactively between the applicant and the town. For example, let's imagine you were newly diagnosed with Parkinson's or ALS and you wanted to keep that sensitive information private, but you needed to plan home renovations ahead of losing
mobility. In that case, you would make a request explaining what you need and why it's related to your disability, and that request would be confidential. The town must immediately engage in a good faith interactive process, not adversarial, not public, not subject to neighbor input. The legal test for
people with disabilities is are they disabled by legal definition and is there a relationship between the disability and the requested accommodation. Is the request necessary? Not will you die without it, but it's the legal necessary. Is it necessary to
provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? And that dwelling is in the home of your choice. And is it reasonable? Again, not in your opinion reasonable, but by the legal definition of reasonable, meaning it causes no undue financial or administrative burden
or fundamental alteration to the town zoning scheme. If those conditions are met, it must be granted, not debated, not rerouted into discretionary zoning processes, not negotiated. Are towns required to have a
specific process? No. But they are required to meet the legal obligations, their legal obligations under the ADA and Fair Housing Act. And ADA is Americans with Disabilities Act for those who don't know it. So why am I asking you to adopt the bylaw that I
drafted instead of the substitute version? Because this is the only one that when a request is granted will remove unduly burdensome and ownorous barriers that threaten to obstruct implementation of the accommodation. delay, expense, public scrutiny,
discriminatory opposition, and more. Those barriers thrive with the substitute bylaws and with ad hoc procedures the way Brookline has been doing it for years. The town has said that they can recall only two zoning reasonable accommodation requests in the history of Brookline in their collective
memory. I know of more and nearly all of them have gone sideways, delayed, appealed, denied. The only one that succeeded that I'm aware of did so because the applicant had kind and supportive neighbors. And you're going to hear more about that soon. That's not
law. That's luck. And we shouldn't ask disabled residents to rely on luck to access their homes. You might hear that we need to balance neighborhood character tonight or safety or historic preservation. That an accommodation might lower someone's property values.
That neighbors should have a say or get to negotiate. that it's not fair that someone gets special treatment, which by the way we call equity, not equality, that the process is sneaky, which we call privacy in the medical context, and it's required as part of the interactive
process. But here's the truth. None of that is part of the legal test. Reasonable accommodations are civil rights, not zoning preferences. The Massachusetts Office on Disabilities says right on the state website that reasonable accommodations follow the
Americans with Disabilities Act process, not the 40A public process. There's no legal right for a neighbor to object to someone else's medical accommodation under ADA. It just doesn't exist. allowing neighbors to influence or delay
an accommodation or influence the officials or committee members or those of you who are there tonight tasked with making the determination is exactly what federal law was designed to prevent. So, how did we get here? The Americans with
Disabilities Act turns 35 this July. We've had 35 years to get this right. Yet, Brooklyn still doesn't have a reasonable accommodation process for land use and zoning. And that vacuum has enabled nimiism, not in my backyard, opponents who appeal, delay, litigate,
and tie up accommodations in court for years, chilling other applicants from seeking necessary accommodations if that's the process they have to go through. And essentially challenging disability rights laws under the pretext of neighborhood concerns or policy questions, things that are already
superseded by the federal supremacy clause of the US Constitution. This strategy, albeit effective, it wears people down. They run out of money, out of energy. They move away. This strategy cuts across every income bracket and disproportionate disproportionately
impacts those who can't afford to fight it. And even when the town agrees that the standard is met, the need goes unmet because there's no clear process to carry it through. And that's how injustice becomes structural. Warrant article 14 in its
original form brings Brooklyn into compliance with the ADA Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehab Act and Massachusetts law. It creates a distinct administrative process separate from special permits. It eliminates public hearings and neighbor vetos as
prohibited by DOJ and HUD. It limits decision-making to the legal test, disability necessity, and reasonleness. And it sets firm deadlines and ensures only the applicant can appeal. protects privacy of medical information and so much more. It follows best practices
recommended by the AG and MOD. The substitute motion gives multiple boards like planning and preservation veto power over applications. Boards that are not trained or legally accountable under ADA like the coordinator should be. It invites public comment, opening the door to illegal discriminator discriminatory
opposition, and it uses vague denial criteria like undermining the basic purpose. And there's so much more. The substitute motion fails on every single count. It doesn't reflect best practices. So, here's what I'm asking you to do. It I'm asking you to vote yes
on the original version of the articles 14 and 15. If they fail, vote no on the substitute because it pref preserves unlawful barriers while pretending to remove them. And if this takes more work to get it right, I'll be here because civil rights are not optional and
neither is our responsibility to defend them. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Messers Pearlman and Penzel, you have 12 minutes. Good evening. David Pearlman, Select
Board. On behalf of the select board, the select board unanimously recommends passage of the Pollock Pencil version of Warren Article 14 as amended by Dick Bea and the preservation department version of Warren Article 15. This outcome reflects a significant amount of
consensus building in a short period of time between members of the select board advisory committee and authors of the proposed amendments with significant input and support from the office of town council. The poll penel as amended version of warrant article 14 and the
preservation department's version of warrant article 15 strike an important balance between the privacy rights of an applicant requesting a disability reasonable accommodation and the rights of the public to be informed and participate. Adoption of the poll pensel version of warrant article 14 will
result in certainty for residents, staff and town boards and commissions. A defined process will encourage more residents to request reasonable accommodations in a set predictable manner. Currently, such requests are handled on an ad hoc basis and thus far have led to protracted litigation. There
is no case law in Massachusetts or in the first circuit defining how specifically municipalities should proceed in this context where multiple rights under disability law and zoning law intersect. In recommending passage of the Pollock Pensel version of born
article 14 as amended, the select board is mindful of the town of Brooklyn's commitment to upholding the rights of individuals with disabilities as guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law
and the Massachusetts Zoning Act. These disability rights laws require public entities to make reasonable accommodations in their land use and zoning regulations and practices to individuals with disabilities unless doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the
municipality or fundamentally alter the nature of the service program or activity. They also require an interactive process in which individuals with disabilities in the town engage in a collaborative dialogue to identify and evaluate effective accommodations. The purpose of these warrant articles is to
establish a distinct, timely, and equitable process for reviewing reasonable accommodation disability requests. The Pollock Pencil version of War Article 14 ensures that such requests are handled efficiently, promptly, and with respect for the disabled individual's privacy while also
acknowledging the rights of the broader public. Whereas the original petitioner's draft focuses predominantly on protection of the applicant's privacy rights by not requiring notice to the public and not allowing public input, the Pollock Pensel version does allow for notification of a butters and public
input for limited purpose. One public meeting at the planning board with a decision of whether the reasonable accommodation is necessary assigned to the building commissioner after input from the ADA coordinator. Notice to abutdders occurs twice before the planning board meeting and after
issuance of a reasonable accommodation decision. Actionable board commentary and public comment are restricted to just three areas. One, conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Two, offering a reasonable accommodation different from
what the applicant requested provided it grants the applicant an equivalent level of benefit or equal access to be precise. and three, ensuring that the request does not undermine the basic purpose of the town's zoning and other land use bylaws. Distribution, if any, of the applicant's medical records is
limited to the ADA coordinator and the building commissioner. The public will not have access to them, nor will they be discussed by any board or commission. While alternatives to the requested accommodation may be discussed, any board commission and the public are prohibited from raising issues relating
to either the applicant's disability or whether a reasonable accommodation for the disability is necessary. The purpose of the publicly noticed planning board meeting would be not to disrupt or delay the reasonable accommodation from being implemented, but to review the designs of a proposed reasonable accommodation
and consider ways to mitigate any negative impacts to a butters. If a modification was proposed, an interactive process with the applicant and representative of the planning board and planning department would then convene and the building commissioner could approve the reasonable accommodation request either as
initially requested or as modified to mitigate a butter or town impacts. The time frame for this decision would be within 60 days from receipt of the reasonable accommodation application subject to temporary stays at the request of the applicant or in the event that more detailed information is
requested. As with the original petitioner's warrant articles, this decision could be appealed to the zoning board of appeals. However, only under the Pollock Pensel version of warrant article 14 is amended would the zoning record of appeals with the zoning board of appeals enjoy the benefit of a
planning board recommendation. Something which the ZBA has previously stated would be helpful when past reasonable accommodation requests have been brought before it. Warren article 15 more specifically offers a revision to the general bylaw addressing the process to be pursued by the preservation
commission if a reasonable accommodation request triggers the demolition process in the context of a disability reasonable accommodation request. There would be an expedited process for determining historic significance. An administrative process would be used to review the accommodation and suggest
mitigation measures to limit any negative impact on the historic fabric while still ensuring that the accommodation needs of the applicant are met. The building commissioner would then be authorized to issue demolition permits earlier to applicants who have received reasonable accommodations for
disabilities relating to buildings in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law. Similar confidentiality precautions as introduced in the polic pencil version of warrant article 14 are included under
warrant article 15. Therefore by a unanimous vote of 5 to 0 to zero the select board recommends favorable action on the poll pensel version of warrant article 14. By unanimous vote of 5 to 0 to 0 the select board recommends
favorable action on warrant article 15 as amended by the preservation department. Thank you Mr. Penzo. Uh, good evening. Mark Penszel, town meeting member from precinct 2, speaking for the advisory committee and in part myself as a co-author of the substitute
version of Warren Article 14. Speaking for the advisory committee and as you heard from the moderator, I'm pleased to report that it no longer recommends a motion to refer. Rather, yesterday evening it voted unanimous favorable action on the substitute version by a
vote of 180 to three abstensions. It also voted to recommend if the substitute version fails, no action on the petitioner's version of war in article 14 by a vote of 16 to4. It also voted unanimous favorable action on the
preservation commission's amended version of warrant article 15 by a vote of 20 to zero to one. The reasons for these votes on the substitute versions are essentially, as stated by David Pearlman, who you've just heard, speaking personally and as a lifelong,
now retired plaintiff's employment anti-discrimination lawyer who had litigated numerous cases on behalf of disabled workers and negotiated ADA compliance policies with large companies. I had anticipated voting for the petitioner's version if my version
failed. But when I reviewed the amended version, I saw something that took me a back. Even though the petitioner had amended her original version, it still had no role whatever for the town's ADA coordinator, a position that the state mandates that each town and city have
for issues just like this. In fact, the Massachusetts Office of Disability, the MO, specifically gives a role to the M ADA coordinator in assisting with just these types of requests. Not only is there no role, but the building
commissioner is not even authorized to involve the ADA coordinator because he can only involve other departments on two issues unrelated to the applicant's disability or need for accommodation. This means that if the petitioner's version were to pass and the building
commissioner, who is not trained in disability related issues, needed to involve the ADA coordinator in making a decision on those two issues, he could not. And if he did so, his decision would be vulnerable to a legal challenge from a dissatisfied of butter because he
violated the bylaw's procedure. Why petitioner created this mistake, I don't know, but to me it's a fatal error. Because Dick Banker and David Pollock will also speak to you about the various reasons to support the substitute version. I'll just take you through the process that the substitute version
creates. So, there's a flow there's a flowchart up there depicting it on the screen. Um, an applicant needing relief from a zoning provision such as a setback requirement applies to either the building commissioner or the ADA coordinator. The commissioner makes sure
that the application is complete. If it is not, the commissioner requests the necessary information from the applicant. Once the application is complete, the clock starts to run. The commissioner has 60 days to make a decision. This 60 days can be extended by the time it takes the applicant to
respond to any requests for additional necessary information. If the decision is not made within the allotted time, the application is automatically granted. The commissioner and ADA coordinator work together privately with the MOD's assistance if necessary to
determine one whether the applicant is disabled and two whether the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the applicant equal access to his or her dwelling. The commissioner also translates the non-medical parts of the application to the planning board which
notices and holds a hearing as it would for any other person's request for zoning relief. David Pollock will expand on why this is a good idea. If the applicant only needs a ramp, which applicants are entitled to as of right under state law, the planning board will not be involved. Our commissioner on the
advice of town council also treats requests for outdoor lifts in the same manner. At no point may the planning board challenge whether or not the applicant is disabled or whether or not the components of the requested accommodation are necessary. This means that if the accommodation requires some
type of structure that includes a toilet, the board and the public are not permitted to question those needs because those questions would intrude on the applicant's privacy. The planning board and public are allowed to offer alternatives that meet those needs with less impact while still providing equal
access. Instead of providing its post-hering report to the ZBA as it would in a special permit situation, the planning board provides it to the commissioner who can then engage privately in what's called the interactive process with the applicant and various other town employees or board members to consider any
recommended modifications to the applicant's proposal. After this, the commissioner issues the decision taking into account but not being bound by any recommendations from other departments, boards or commissions such as preservation that were consulted along the way as part of the interactive
process. And if either the applicant or an abutter is dissatisfied, they can appeal to the ZBA. However, to protect applicants's private medical information, any appealing of butter may not challenge the applicant's disability or need for accommodation. It may only argue that the accommodation creates an
undue burden for the town administration or undermines the basic purpose of the zoning bylaw or other town program. So again, the AC recommends favorable action on both substitute versions of or articles 14 and 15 and no action on the
petition amended version if that is reached. Thank you. Now, we're going to hear from three or four more uh probably uh half a dozen more speakers before I get to questions. So, you might as well take your seat and
be patient. Representative Vtolo. I'm State Representative Tommy Vatollo, town meeting member at large. In my role at the state house, I've come to know many people with disabilities
and some of the challenges they face. Some are purely a function of their difference in ability, but many are the consequences of decisions made by those in power, often without sufficient care
or consideration for people with disabilities. Here are three things I know to be true. One, people with disabilities and their families are entitled to privacy. Two, accommodation delayed is
justice denied. And three, best to error on the side of those deepest in struggle. The right to privacy is clear and well understood. the disability, the way in which it challenges the person in question, the accommodation that would
alleviate or mitigate those challenges, those are not the business of the neighborhood, nor the public at large. For that reason, no, I ask I ask you to hold your applause until the speaker has concluded
his remarks. Go ahead. And I'm going to ask for another 15 seconds back. For that reason, a public process is misplaced. Without knowing the disability, the specific challenges, or the mitigation, what on earth can the
neighbor possibly have to offer? At best, absolutely nothing. At worst, go ahead and ask a person with a visibly apparent disability about all the ignorant, nasty, hateful nonsense they
receive on the regular from a place of malice or ignorance. Does it mean that under this process a neighbor won't find out about the modification until the proverbial bulldozer shows up? Under our zoning
code today, building by right requires no notification of or process for the neighbors. In my opinion, building for the civil rights of the disabled shouldn't either. Right is right.
I will be voting against the amendment because it includes a public process. The oats motion calls for an administrative process whereby the building commissioner will include those with additional and relevant expertise to make an appropriate decision ensuring
that the established need of the person with disabilities is met safely, fairly, and privately all the while guarding against any gaming of the system. I am also confident about the importance of timeliness. Whether the victim of cancer
or a car crash, if a Brooklyn resident is being released to a residence that she can't navigate, every day of process could easily be a day she can't come home. Therefore, the process we create must be
safe, fair, and complete and must be designed to be performed as quickly as possible within those requirements. I will be voting against the amendment because it requires additional calendar days that provide no benefit to the
person with the dis disability nor any value to the public. The oats motion's administrative process achieves the same amount of oversight and protection in practice without additional dysfunctional hoops through which disabled persons are expected to
jump. Maybe no proposal before us is perfect and we'll make modifications in our November town meeting between now and then. I suggest I suspect a small number of Brooklyn residents with
disabilities, our friends and neighbors will seek to modify their homes to accommodate their specific challenges. Perhaps they'll need to bump the wall out a bit for a ramp, an elevator, or some other
accommodation. Between now and November, if the zoning or general bylaws are imperfect, on what side do you want to error? The side that made it somehow too easy for a family to build an accommodation for a disabled person or
the side that created a process that in practice imposed on the privacy or dignity of a disabled person or delayed the accommodation that person needed. By favoring oats, I'll heir on the side of protecting the most vulnerable. I'm not
an architect or an attorney. I don't have a qualifying disability and I lack expertise in disability issues. Still on this issue, my values provide clear guidance. 15 seconds. I believe in the right to privacy. I believe our
government bureaucratic process should be streamlined and I believe we should avoid airing in ways that cause additional harm to persons with disabilities. For these three reasons on both articles 14 and 15, I will be voting against any referral or amendment
and will only vote yes on the oats motion. Thank you for your time. Thank you, M. Mr. Bankov. No, I'm not going to take questions or comments from the floor until we've heard from some more speakers who have signed up ahead of
time. Mr. Dick Banka. Thank you. Dick Banka, town meeting member, precinct 14, former member of the select board and the Brooklyn Commission on Disability, current member of the Commission on Town of the Committee on Town Organization and
Structure. I can report that CTOS has voted to support the substitute motions under articles 14 and 15 that are also supported by a consensus of the select board and the advisory committee. CTS
also voted to recommend no action on petitioners version of article 14 should that remain the main motion. Speaking for myself, I became involved because I was startled by the explicit effort of article 14 to negate any
public process. Unfortunately, that attack on transparency is even more intense in petitioner's motion now before you. In that motion, the building commissioner historically having expertise in construction or the trades
to enforce public safety under the building code rather than disability law expertise would have absolute discretion to decide reasonable accommodation requests, no matter how significantly they might contravene existing zoning
requirements. The town's ADA coordinator would not be called on for guidance. The building commissioner could totally ignore any comments from town departments, boards, or commissions. There would be no public meetings or hearings. There would be no
notice to abutterss or town meeting members. To the contrary, information submitted in support of a request, quote, shall not be made available for public inspection, unquote. The only right to appeal would be given
to the applicant. If there's an emergency request, it would have to be decided within 7 days with no requirement that it be removed, even if found to be unnecessary or no longer needed, no matter the
impact. The petitioner's current motion is even more one-sided than the original article 14. Now, even if boards or commissions were asked to com to comment, they could only make limited comments on the accommodation as
originally requested by the applicant. They could not suggest an alternative modification that could provide equal access, no matter how intrusive the original request. This is directly contrary to the Massachusetts Commission
on Disabilities explicit guidance addressed to planning boards and zoning boards of appeals. Quote, "During the course of your hearings, you may ask about alternatives that might meet the person's needs. You do not have to
approve the exact modification requested if an alternative would provide equal access." The consensus substitute motion under article 14, in contrast, accords with federal and state legal decisions and
guidance. The Massachusetts Attorney General cites the federal court decision in Oxford House, Inc. versus City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which states, quote, "The Fair Housing Act protects handicapped individuals from
discrimination. More particularly, Congress is presumed to have known that public hearings are procedural prerequisites for zoning variances or conditional uses. If Congress had intended to exempt handicapped persons
from participation in the usual procedural requirements of the zoning process, it could have done so expressly. So too the joint statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of
Justice. Quote, "Courts have decided that land use or zoning code procedures should ordinarily be followed." And finally, the Massachusetts Office on Disability Guidance informing members of planning
boards and zoning boards of appeals what they need to determine quote in the course of their hearings. petitioner has relied on a few attorney general decisions striking public hearing or open meeting requirements
from zoning bylaws, but the fact is those decisions involve the discriminatory imposition of the requirements. Quoting from those decisions, singling out disabled persons for a public hearing is facially
discriminatory. The requirements quote imposed burdens on disabled persons that are not imposed on other land use applicants and they thus facially discriminate against disabled
persons. But there is nothing nothing in the consensus substitute motions that discriminates against individuals with disabilities. To the contrary, those individuals are granted explicit
assistance, privacy as provided by federal and state law, a more expedited procedure, and fewer hearings in contrast to the procedures imposed on individuals without disabilities seeking
a special permit or a variance. Please support the consensus substitute motions on 14 and 15. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Vote. Miss Vote. Hi everyone. I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a
town meeting member in precinct 6 and it is my honor to introduce a video recorded by my precinct 6 colleague Scott Englander. Good evening. I'm Scott Englander, town meeting precinct 6. Many of you have heard me speak before this body on
topics like energy, sustainability, and transportation. Tonight, I'll talk about something I haven't spoken about here, civil rights. I want to tell you about my extraordinary stepson, Sandro Brunie. Sandro attended Pier School and
graduated from Brooklyn High in 2020. A proud Brooklyn warrior in football and wrestling. He was co- captain of his wrestling team and a Massachusetts Division One champion. He continued wrestling at Ohio Wesleyan until his
senior year when he was diagnosed with a rare aggressive spinal cord tumor. After multiple surgeries, Sandre was left paralyzed from the chest down. At the end of his three and a halfmonth hospitalization, my wife and I had to
act quickly to make our 1880 home, the home he'd grown up in, wheelchair accessible. The only feasible solution was to reconfigure our front porch with a vertical platform lift just a few feet from the sidewalk.
Under Brooklyn zoning bylaw, the lift, unlike a ramp, was not allowed by right, but the building commissioner, using narrow administrative review criteria, issued a building permit promptly. That decision was both legally sound and
morally right, and it saved us from needless delay and unnecessary anguish during a medical crisis. Under the current zoning bylaw, that outcome wasn't guaranteed. We could have been subjected to a lengthy public approval
process. We could have been forced to disclose private medical details in open hearings. We could have waited years or given up given up entirely. A family just a few blocks from ours wasn't so lucky. What happened to them being
denied a timely accommodation by the ZBA because of neighborhood opposition to an accommodation they desperately needed was a violation of their civil rights under the Fair Housing Act. Federal law is clear. What matters is whether a
person has a disability, whether the requested accommodation relates to that disability, and whether granting it would fundamentally alter the town's program or service, or impose an undue burden on the town. Those are
determinations that designated staff can and should make without public hearings, delays, or neighborhood opposition. Even executive session doesn't prevent public comment or opposition. So, the proposed substitute bylaw neither
complies with federal law nor protects the privacy or dignity of disabled residents. After his injury, Sandro advocated for people with spinal cord injuries and often spoke about how before the ADA, someone like him could
be trapped in their home or out of it. Last September, Sandre joined the pedestrian advisory committee to audit the walkability of streets around Washington Square. He used his wheelchair to highlight real world barriers. It exhausted him, but he
showed up to help others. If he were still alive, Sandre would be speaking to you tonight. But he passed away in March at the age of 23, just 18 months after the surgery that paralyzed him. So do it
for Sandro and all those like him who are still waiting. Please vote no on referral, no on substitute motions, and yes on the main motion for both articles 14 and 15. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Ser. Paul Ser, he's uh joining us remotely. Please. Okay. Are you with us, Mr. Ser? I think you can hear me now. Okay. Yeah. My apologies. Paul Ser,
precinct 13, with professional experience in zoning in disability. The latter as the former Massachusetts Commissioner for the Blind. We need to pass a reasonable accommodation zoning article tonight. Uh it is um the law.
It's a fundamental right of equal access starting with one's home. As you've heard, land court a year ago advised the town to construct a bylaw after the Yats family endured uh without conclusion their application
going back to 2021. I would like to thank Miss Oats for advancing this discussion tonight. I'd also like to thank um the um town meeting members that worked really closely with staff over the last couple of months to come
up with a alternative proposal after 18 public meetings across seven boards. The select board motion for uh article 14 when an application is received first
requires that the disability status and the associated need be reviewed confidentially by the town's regionally well- reggarded ADA coordinator which regrettably miss Oats
is entirely cut out of her process which as Marcus explained creates vulnerability upon an appeal. Secondly, it's inefficient process. It's an administrative review.
Ms. Oats is incorrect. The planning board and the preservation commission have no veto power. The decision is exclusively in the hands of our building commissioner and it does not require any disabled applicant to go to the
ZBA and incur legal costs associated with that. Thirdly, it is punctual. It's 60 days, not 30, assuming there's no stay of information flow. Um but importantly the
planning board public meeting has been added um to provide limited technical advice to the decision maker the building commissioner. Yes. and uh is in lie of a exclusively an exclusively sequestered
process which um is what Oats has proposed and again I think think creates vulnerability upon appeal. On the preservation side, I am no preservationist. However, um a grounds for appeal would be the town
fundamentally altering its land use program, blowing off the preservation commission entirely, could be used uh in an appeal and um therefore I think the solution is quite eloquent for the building commissioner to lift a stay
once a reasonable accommodation has been granted under 14. So, I believe that the substitute motion, which I urge you vote as the main motion, is the most practical
alternative for those of us that are disabled since it looks forward and potentially makes it less appealable. Um I uh urge favorable action on the um uh
revised motion and town meeting then adopting it. Thank you very much. November second. Hey, do you hear us in the meeting? Okay. No, we don't. No, we don't. Oh, thanks. This is another test. This time I will
count. Can you hear me, Eric? Okay, everyone can hear this back at control. Okay, excellent. All right. And so I can give Sandy the go-ahhead. Okay.
Hello. One, two, one, two. Testing. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Um, we do have s our sound back and uh I call Mr. Hines to the mic. Thank you. uh Blair Hines, chair of the
Brookline Planning Board, and we held a hearing to uh review the original uh article, and the planning board was very much in support for the need for zoning change uh to create a process. Is that not loud enough? Sorry,
I'll start to say the planning board was very much in support for the need to have a zoning change to create a uh process to for accommodations for persons with disabilities. Um, one of the key concerns that the
planning board had is that we thought there should be some role for the planning board to offer comments uh uh from our expertise in uh design and uh architecture and that this would be very
helpful to the building commissioner and we also believe to the applicant in terms of making some possible modifications for um uh the benefit of the applicant as well as for less impact on the neighborhood. Uh we ended up
referring the article on because um we couldn't make any of those changes and uh I just want to say on a personal note that I uh uh support the modified article that you heard from. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Pollock. Good evening. Uh David Pollock, precinct 11 town meeting member and chair of the advisory committee's land use zoning and sustainability subcommittee. Speaking here for
myself, the substitute version of this zoning amendment provides a middle ground approach to reasonable accommodation in relation to zoning requirements that is almost entirely private with the exception of one public meeting of the planning board. Mark
Penszel and I have worked more or less continuously in close coordination with Associate Town Council John Bukite for almost two months to craft a bylaw that is both appropriate and legal. It's been
challenged from opposite sides on legal interpretations. I won't wait into that, but I encourage you to ask your questions of town council. And uh you'll be pleased to know that I'm going to skip the middle
half of my presentation entirely and skip to the end. My goal and Mark Penszel's in recommending this process that I just walked you through for about the fifth time, but you've heard about it is focused on two benefits to the applicant
for reasonable accommodation rather than any desire to favor a butters or maintain something resembling the conventional zoning relief process. First, we believe that the expertise of the planning board in reviewing
sufficiently documented design proposals should lead to better design outcomes that will smooth the way toward implementation of the accommodation. And second, we believe that transparency and the opportunity
for public awareness of and opportunity to comment on projects that will deviate from zoning expectations will decrease the likelihood of challenges and lawsuits that would interfere with the fulfillment of the applicant's need. And
for these reasons, I ask you to vote in favor of the substitute motion and also vote in favor of enacting zoning article 9.14. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Warren. Thank you, Mr. Morardi. I have a quick question uh for town
council. If uh nothing I understand it's a two-thirds vote this evening uh to pass 14. If we were not able to achieve a twothirds vote on either article, um my understanding is that the select board has the ability to adopt this as a
policy, some version of this, and that would put a a a procedure in place which would be compliant with the law. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, you've been very patient. Thank you. Uh my name is Bonnie Bastion,
precinct five. Um, so my question has changed multiple times since I've been up here because it's been a little emotional listening to all of these um, comments.
Um, first I want to say that um, our ADA coordinator is a woman. She was referred to as a man in the initial comments in the initial state uh, statements. Her name is Sarah Kaplan and uh, she's amazing. She's an
incredible resource and we're so lucky lucky to have her and the fact that it's doesn't seem to be known that she is a woman makes me think that she may not have been consulted here which is a little disturbing. Could you get to your questions please Miss Bass? Almost there.
Uh Mr. Penzel somebody may have it's All right. Mr. Penzel did not refer to Okay. the ADA coordinator as a man. Go ahead. Great. I hope she was well consulted. Um, great. Thank you, Mr.
Penzel. Um, I think it's shocking that on the floor someone's civil rights are being weighed against concerns for neighborhood character. That hurts that hurts my heart. So, I wanted to understand what confidentiality and privacy might mean in the context of
this, in the context of the laws. And so, I went to the Mass uh Massachusetts website um to look up, you know, whether reasonable requests for zoning bylaw modification need to be considered at a public meeting. Uh and it says not
necessarily. Municipalities should not put a burden on people with disabilities that is not imposed on other land use applicants. So other residents seeking or other except other residents seeking
exceptions from zoning laws are not entering a public meeting to put their very personal health. So Miss Bass, this is intended to be a question and answer period. Uhhuh. Uh not a speechify period. Could you, if you have a
question, please ask it. Almost done. Uh, putting their very personal health needs out into the public. They are requests for things that are their preference. That is not comparable to having your personal accommodation needs
for your physical ability to live in your own home. So, I'm I'm not sure I understand that as a question. Yeah, it's kind of not. My question is turned into Thank you. Thank you. We'll take it as a comment. My initial question was how do you
define privacy in the context of this? Anyone can answer that. Mr. Penzel. So in the context of these reasonable accommodation requests, I define privacy as keeping the medical records of the uh
applicant private. Um, for instance, if someone is in a wheelchair, that's generally going to be publicly known. But why they're in a wheelchair and what the consequences and medical squeli of being in a wheelchair mean, that's something that's private. So these
medical and what needs for accommodation may flow from all of that, that's private as well. So that is going to uh be h handled privately by the you can shake your head and know but this is you you may not want to believe it but that's how this article is drafted.
Okay. Well you may not agree with the privacy but that's how this article is drafted to protect that information from public scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Hi, Lisa Shhatz, um, town meeting
member, precinct 11, and I'm also was the sister of a disabled, um, brother. And, um, I want to know if we could, um, if if someone, a official could encourage the neighbors to say to the
family, how can we help? that would be much more um useful and much more beneficial to the family, to them, to everyone involved rather than looking at it and saying, "Oh, they're putting up a ramp."
Well, we're not going to amend any of these motions at this point. Yes, sir. Uh yes, Charles Homer, Precinct 8. A question for the petitioner as to what the rationale was for not including the ADA coordinator uh in the initial in the
uh initial motion. Thank you. Well, it's a little awkward to try to get the petitioner to respond. Uh but um if she's still with us and uh she can
she heard the question why uh I'll give her a chance to respond to it. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I appreciate the chance to respond. The point of clarification uh we broadly negotiated when I was talking to
um Mr. Penzel and his team, we said you have the broad power to give the building commissioner the broad power and wrote it as such to talk to anybody in any department that was relevant to this. And so my point is we did not exclude as accused the ADA coordinator.
I hold her in high regard. I think she is probably the most trained person in the entire town on on ADA at the intersection of zoning bylaws. And so indeed as if you read what our motion says, the building commissioner does in
fact have have the authority to seek input from any person in any department that he deems relevant to being able to help him make that decision to that very narrow frame framework. So I thank you very much for asking that question. And
I also want to say that it is not a fatal flaw in the article. question. You've answered the question, Miss Oats. It's It's not a fatal flaw. On my uh left, uh Katherine Florio, Precinct 10, Advisory Committee. Um
could the petitioners tell us what the emergency what would happen under an emergency in the No. Okay. It's a matter of privacy, ma'am. No. Under the Warren article, what the warrant article says
regarding an emergency Well, I don't I don't think that's a fair question, Mr. Penzel. Um, so uh previous speaker um mentioned, you know, coming home quickly
and both articles have emergency provisions. So the substitute version has a provision that if there's an emergency, the uh building commissioner has to move quickly on that and can grant a reasonable accommodation, but it will then be subject to review
afterwards in case it has been if further time and uh review shows that it was mistakenly granted. The petitioner's version has no such provision like that. So if for instance somebody falls, breaks her hip and needs to come home,
well one they don't even need if all they need is a ramp, they don't need to even invoke this process because as a matter of right under state law, you get a ramp even if it ex extends into um the setback and the our building
commissioner in the case of Sandro um interpreted that to also apply to lifts. So that's why that process would was not even invoked. Um so uh just so in emergency situations if it's something like a ramp or anything like that or
even if it's something more it can be done very quickly. Thank you. Yes ma'am. I Wendy Freriedman precinct 5. Um so my question who are you? Oh I just said Wendy Freriedman precinct 5. Sorry speak louder.
Um, one of my concerns when I read this p uh petition was about um additional costs. So, I I haven't watched a lot of design review boards and zoning u meetings, but I've watched enough to see that there's often recommendations that
are discussed and suggestions and requests that don't seem to have a discussion with them around the costs of the changes being asked for. Um, and I know that there's a line in here with under other recommend other requirements that says measures to reduce the impact
on surrounding uses where such measures do not constitute an unreasonable financial burden. And I'm wondering how that's defined and how it will be um how that would be determined. So, if if somebody wants to needs to put in a ramp and they're in a historic district and
they have some complicated iron work on their house and the neighbors are asking for the ramp to meet that iron work uh and it's cost more. I mean, how does that get worked out? Mr. Pencil, would you like to feel that
one? trepidation. This is about the fourth time that you have asked the petitioner of an amendment to answer general questions, which to me feels like a fourth and fifth bite of the same apple. Surely he could be asking town council or some
other party who is not the filer of one of the motions to answer the question. That that is a very fair point, Mr. Vlo. So I'll call on town council. Thank you again. John Bukite, associate
town council, lost the town council. Um there isn't uh an extension on uh what on the financial impact. I think this would be something that would be in the discretion of the building commissioner fully understanding the circumstances and not obviously wanting to impose any kind of undue financial burden on the
applicant. Thank you. Yes, sir. David Leoier town meeting member precinct 11. Yes, you have a question. Let's go ahead. Yes. For me, this is very
emotional and I just want to say to one simple comment. All of us are part of families. We have parents. We have children and you can without warning be exactly in the
kind of situation that you've heard about from the petitioner. Thank you, Tony Vto, for your strong voice of what it's like to walk the walk of supporting an extremely disabled member
of your family. these consensus uh warrant articles is nonsense. Vote for the petitioners motion. We got to be tough. We have to stick with the civil rights. When we came home, the last
thing we were able to do was deal with the town. We had so much on our hands. and just put yourself in those shoes when you decide to to vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Bradford Kimble, uh, precinct one. As I
understand, this debate covers both warrant articles 14 and 15, but we have not heard much about 15. Is there any way we could receive information about that from the petitioners or how it relates to warrant article 15, perhaps from town council? So, Warren article um 15 allows a
building commissioner uh to grant the reasonable accommodation um for uh the demo delay bylaw and uh there is a truncated process that occurs um in a very short period of time. Uh under
warrant article 14 all um boards and commissions are required to act within 45 days and the process will certainly occur on that day. Uh and there is a administrative review process that happens among staff internally not not public on uh determining whether there
might be any steps that could be taken to protect the historic fabric of the building without in any way taking away or undue financially burdening the applicant for the reasonable accommodation. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Well, I will hear from one more uh one
more question, please. I can make this one easy. Connor Sheen precinct 10. Uh there's two sides to this issue. Main motion trying to prevent undue harm to people with disabilities. The the other motion what I don't really understand is
like it's rules are rules. Bureaucracy is important. My question, I guess, is to the select board who's supporting this. What harm are we trying to avoid? What's the what's the thing we're really worried about with this? Well, Mr. Push, I I think you can
respond to that. Um, so I think I mean, broad strokes were we're trying to balance the interests of the disabled, which are very significant. They're civil rights issues. Um, but we also have uh a recent um Lane court decision that talks about
that the federal law doesn't necessarily preempt all of the zoning process. So, uh, I would say what we're, you know, we're trying to respect the rights of both the public to understand what's happening at a very basic level as well as the significant privacy rights and
rights, civil rights of the uh, disabled person. Thank you. Now, I've had a motion for the question. Is there a second? Uh I have um Orisa uh Boyd who's asked to
speak you see who's at the microphones and uh I have two other speakers both in favor of the select board and advisory committee motion. That's Mr. Van Foyak and Miss
Mner. We will however pause for a to see if uh if town meeting wishes to terminate the debate. Requires a twothirds vote and I think we're ready to vote. Heat. Heat. Motion carries by a vote of 162 in
favor, 58 opposed, and eight abstensions. We know Mr. Rosenthal has a point of order. Better be good. Marty, it's 10 10:30. So, Mr.
Rosenthal, you have to unmute yourself, Mr. Rosenthal. Oh, sorry. I I did unmute, but I I didn't do Okay, we can hear you. Go ahead. Thanks, Marty Rosenthal. Precinct 9. I don't know if I spaced out for 20 seconds, but I did not
hear an answer to the real to the question about article 15 and may maybe everyone else heard it. I I did see I think I think it was town council that took the mic, but anyway, that's my point of order. It seemed like a
legitimate question and maybe I missed the answer in the last hour. I'm not entirely certain what your point of order is or what to do about it, but uh we're going to proceed to a vote. We first vote on article
14. The first motion before you will be the substitute motion of the advisory committee and the select board. If if that passes by a majority vote, it becomes the main motion and you will
vote on it again when it requires a twothirds vote for passage. If the substitute motion fails to get a majority vote, then we vote on the petitioner's main motion. Is that perfectly
clear? Thank you. All right. This is on the substitute motion on supplement five pages 1 to 7 the advisory committee and select board and cos motion. All right, you can start the
vote. Heat. Heat. N. Motion fails. by a vote of 92 in favor, 131 opposed, and eight abstensions. We now proceed to the petitioner's main motion on supplement
3, pages 1 to four. The green supplement requires a twothirds vote. And we're ready for a vote. Heat. Heat. Motion carries by a vote of 174 plea. 174 in favor, 43 opposed and 15
abstensions. We now proceed to article 15. I need to confer for a moment with Mr. Pushite. Um if uh the petitioner's article uh motion on uh 14 passes, do we still consider the
select board substitute motion under 15? I think the answer is yes. Okay. All right. So we have the same process under article 15. The first motion will be that of the select board and advisory committee motion on page uh
supplement four pages one and two. If that achieves a majority vote, it becomes the main motion and we will um consider it again and it will require just a majority actually uh for as the
main motion. If it fails, we proceed to the petitioner's main motion, which is on supplement two, page one, and that requires only a majority vote. So on the substitute motion, those uh if you favor that, it
becomes the main motion. If you don't, we go to the uh petitioner's motion and start the vote. Heat. Heat. And I ask you not to applaud until after I have announced the results of the vote.
How many abstensions? Thank you. Motion fails by a vote of 72 in favor, 143 opposed, and 16 abstensions. We we turn now to the petitioner's main
motion on supplement two, page one, requiring a majority vote. All right, we're ready for the vote. I got heat. Motion carries by a vote of 188 in
favor, 27 opposed, and 20 abstensions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Assistant moderator, just uh I'm told there's a correction on the substitute motion.
Yes. Under article 14 and it's 152. Yes. Okay. So, we have a dilemma. It's now uh 11:40. 10:40. Guess I'm It just feels like 11:40. And um so the question is, do you
want to do article 20 now? Okay. So, what I'm going to do is take a motion to adjourn and if you want to do article 20 now, you say no. And if you want to uh
continue, the alternative is we would start with with uh uh uh article 20 on Wednesday then. Okay then.
There's new business. Okay. You've you've And can they do it on Thursday? So, and we're going four nights. So, we
can I'll I'll take a motion to move article 20 to Thursday. Mr. Silverberg. You don't know what I'm saying yet. Quickly. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Isaac Silverberg, precinct 7. Um, is it
possible to make a motion to put article 20 for Thursday should the motion to adjourn pass here. But if not, obviously, we just continue straight away with it. Okay. I'll I'll I'll So, what what what would the motion be? The
mot the motion would be that if the motion to adjurnn passes tonight, article 20 would be deliberated next Thursday, meaning that the petitioners would be able to present. But if the motion if the motion that I'm
suggesting, if the motion to adjurnn fails, we would talk about article 20 right now because they're here and can present. We'll we'll do it in two steps. We'll take the motion to adjurnn and if it passes, we'll have another motion to
uh we'll I'll take we'll do it Isaac's way. No, no, no, no. Uh Mr. Moderator, yes. Uh Michael Rubenstein for the select board. Um, can we take the motion to adjurnn tonight and then as the first
order of business on Wednesday, make the motion to move article 20 to Thursday? Why why not? Let's let's make the decision tonight so everybody knows what we're doing. So,
uh, Miss Mr. Silverberg, state the motion because I I don't understand it. the the motion that I am suggesting. If you vote yes on this motion, the following would occur. If you vote to not adjourn tonight, i.e. to
continue right now, we would talk about article 20. However, if you do if you vote to adjurnn tonight, that means that we would deliberate on article 20 on Thursday. that get around the fact that
if we adjourn, we can't consider the motion on when to do it because we would have adjourned. Um, Mr. Moderator. Yes, Mr. Burstein. Michael Burstein, precinct 12. Are you going to help us get out of this dilemma? I I suggest a combined motion.
Can we not combine these two things into one motion that says that we both? Because Isaac's motion requires the second adjourning motion. Obviously, his is one motion. Oh, you got it as one motion, Isaac? Yeah. Yeah. Did I miss that? I apologize. It's one
motion, right? However the moderator thinks that what I suggested can be done, I'll take it. Thank you. So, the motion is to adjourn
and No, no, no. Yes. No, no, no. Sure. Yes. Adjourn and hear article 20 on Thursday. And if you vote no, we're doing it tonight. Ajourn an article 20 on Thursday. That's
the motion. So if you want it if you want to talk about it tonight, vote no. And if you want to talk about it on Thursday and be done tonight, vote yes. And it would be the first new business on Thursday. Okay. Whenever whenever you're ready,
Mr. McCando, drop this vote. Thank you, Mr. I uh Mr. Silverberg, for helping us through this dilemma. We ready? Okay, here we go. Yes to adjourn and hear Thursday. No, we
continue going here tonight. It's up to you guys. It's not clear. space. Hey Well, the motion fails. So, we are staying. It's 109. Yes. 113 no. And five
abstensions. Okay, here we go. And make sure you realize the hour. Do we have a slide? Who's it? You sent it to me. I mean, I think it was under
They have them. somewhere in that string. Actually, email it to Yeah. Don't Don't email. Can you can you email this? We had a little technical problem. The petitioners sent their presentation to
me, which is a mistake. Did you get it? Come on. Okay, let's go. All right. Hi everybody. Thank you so so much for having us tonight. Um, my name is Ezra Kleinbomb. I'm a senior at Brookline High School and co-president of the BHS Warriors for
Animal Rights Club and I'm here with a couple of my colleagues tonight to present on behalf of Warrant Article 20 to prohibit the sale of fagra. My name is Aviv Schwab Jacobson. I'm a junior at Brooklyn High School and I live in precinct 8. My name is Mari Allen. I'm also a junior at Brookline High School and I live in precinct 13.
My name is Hana Salin. I'm a senior at Brookline High School and a precinct 8 resident. Next slide, please. Fogra means fatty liver in French and is the disease and enlarged liver of duck or goose and is often considered to be a luxury food item. Fogra is produced through extensive force feeding of birds which causes the bird's liver to expand
anywhere from six to 10 times its healthy natural size and to become white in color. The image on the slide so shows a healthy liver on the right besides the liver of a force-fed bird on the left. Next slide, please. Forcefeeding during fograph production is extremely cruel. At just 10 to 14
weeks old, ducks and geese raised for frog are forcefed multiple times a day through the process of forcing a foot long tube down their throats to pump in excessive amounts of food, far more than what they would naturally eat, pushing their bodies to the limit. The European Union Commission on Food Safety Scientific Committee on Animal Health
and Animal Welfare found that fuagra production severely impacts bird welfare as it compromises liver function, causes birds to sit more and engage less in natural behaviors. It damages their esophagus, increases bone fractures, and raises mortality rates compared to non-force-fed birds. Next slide,
please. This article would prohibit the sale of food products made from the liver of ducks, geese, or other birds fatten through the practice of force feeding. Next slide, please. All production of fuagra requires force-feeding and if someone were to find a way to produce fuagra without force-feeding then it sale would not be
covered by this bylaw. Hudson Valley Farms is known as the industry standard for producing freerange and organic fuagra that in the past they've advertised as humane. However, after a federal judge gave the animal legal defense fund saying to them for false advertising and the better business bureau dubbed them as deceiving, they quickly dropped this word from their
advertising campaigns. While Hudson Valley doesn't use metal tubes, the flexible tubes they use are still mechanisms of force feeding that are extremely cruel to birds. Next slide, please. There are no fog farms in Massachusetts, which means that we can't regulate production, and the Federal Animal Welfare Act doesn't apply to
farmtype poultry, which means that force feeding is legal and we need to take local actions to fill these gaps. We reached out to a number of town departments and found that it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of any of these departments and action by town meeting is necessary. Next slide, please. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first such proposal anywhere in Massachusetts. But the entire state of California and the city Pittsburgh have banned the sale of fuagra. New York City and Chicago also banned the sale of fuagra, but their bans were later repealed on technicalities that do not apply to us. Next slide, please.
Importantly, before Chicago repealed its prohibition, it was taken to court. And in the case Illinois Restaurant Association versus City of Chicago, a federal judge upheld the constitutionality of fuagra ban. Here in Massachusetts, we also have a strong precedent of our own attorney general upholding our bans on the sale of fur,
restrictions on plastic, and the Massachusetts Superior Court upheld our tobaccof free generation bylaw. Next slide, please. After significant research, we are aware of only four places in Brooklyn that sell fagra. The Boston based restaurant, Laval, had a location in Washington Square and they sold fra.
However, they recently closed due to the end of their 10-year lease. But Kurds and Co. does sell one item. Also, Star Market sells one item. Additionally, Barcelona Wine Bar has a rotating menu and on the phone they confirmed they occasionally feature Fagra, although we have not seen it advertised in their menu. And lastly, Marquis Caviar just
opened on Harvard Street and they sell a total of over 700 items and only 37 items of fuagra. And Marquis Caviar actually opened after we submitted this article. Next slide, please. There are no businesses in Brooklyn that rely principally on fuagra for their income and this would impact
fewer businesses than our current tobacco restrictions. Next slide, please. Um while we would be the first municipality to ban the sale of fuagra Massachusetts, we were the 15th to ban the use of wild animals in traveling circuses and now there's a statewide ban. Similarly, a fuagra bill, a ban to
a bill to ban the sale of fuagra has just been introduced on a state level and so this is another opportunity for us to be leaders as we know that local action is crucial to implementing statewide legislation. Next slide, please. to go over everything one more time. There are a lot of crazy things happening in the
world right now that we can't control, but endorsed by over 30 veterinarians. This is something that is clearly good we can do on a local level to combat animal cruelty. It's something we can do with minimal economic um impact. It's something we have strong legal precedent for and it's an opportunity we have to
be leaders in an emerging movement. Next slide, please. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Vancoyak. I have only three minutes. Well, they had five, so I'll give you five. Thank you very much. Oh, and I I even got the map.
Nope. Don't believe in equal time, I guess. Okay. Y uh good evening. I'm John Vansco speaking for a 4 to1 majority of the select board who recommend no action on Warren article 20. I thank the petitioners of Warren Article 20 for bringing their proposed ban on local
sales of fuagra to the floor of town meeting. The question of whether fuagra production involves cruel treatment of geese and ducks is well worth debating and you'd be amazed as I was at how widespread and diverse is world opinion
when it comes to fuagra. This map that I've asked to display makes the point areas of fuagra production are in blue. Areas where frogwa production is banned are in red. In the US, only one state,
California, bans production and sales of fog raw outright. Some fogra customers there have done an end run around the ban by mail orderering their fog rock. Can you imagine? No states other than California have bans. New York State
investigated fog raw production with an eye towards a ban, but opted to allow production to continue. New York City tried imposing a municipal ban on sales, but ran a foul of New York State laws that trumped the city initiative. Summing up, despite the moral certainty
of the sponsors of War Article 20 in the court of world opinion and in the US, the ethics ethics of fuagra are okay with some people and not okay with others. as the French say, vlador. As for the question of whether a
ban would be enforcable in Brooklyn, in a recent memo to the select board, the head of Brooklyn's health department raises serious doubts. Keeping in mind that one of Brooklyn's newest gourmet shops, Marques on Harvard Street, caters to a significant number of Fuagra
customers with an array of Fuagra products. Uh, Sagal Ree, our director of public health, wrote, and I'm quoting from what she wrote, quote, "With the change in the landscape," meaning the addition of mares to the several other stores that
Pervey Fuagra, quote, I believe Warren Article 20 would be a challenge for the health department to enforce. We would need to prioritize public health inspections over enforcing this bylaw." End quote. In other words, Sagal Reese's
professional staff need to stay focused on key public health missions that are far more essential than removing fuagra tins from shelves to name a few of these priorities. Mitigation of hazards such as lead asbestos and chemical or
biological waste. Management of animal, insect, and rodent populations to prevent the spread of diseases. Enforcement of food safety standards. vaccination programs, also substance use prevention. If any of these above
responsibilities were neglected because of fuagra enforcement, then public health in Brooklyn would suffer. Finally, a word on behalf of Brooklyn's businesses. I have the honor of working with many of them through my involvement with the small business development
committee. I patronize them, patronize them a lot, especially the restaurants and especially if they make a good negroni or mai. I have a simple rule. I will always honor those entrepreneurs who invest and build Brooklyn businesses
if I can by making it easier, not harder, for them to thrive. By contrast, Warren Article 20 makes thriving in Brooklyn harder, not just for businesses that sell vuagra, but for every business
that has to wonder if one of their products will be the next victim of a well-intended ban. Summing up, Article 20 accurately reflects the ethical preferences of its idealistic sponsors. But it won't change the reality of a
world where fuagra has been and will be widely produced, sold, and consumed. On the other hand, opposing article 20 as recommended by a 4 to1 vote of the select board is neutral on the long-standing ethical debate while it
signals support for our health department's greater responsibilities and signals gratitude to our treasured local businesses and their customers. They make Brookline a better place. With your vote no on article 20, you can make
Brooklyn a better place. And thank them. They've earned it. And thank you. Thank you. I'm not taking a call of the question until both sides have laid out their
arguments. Miss Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jocelyn Murphy, precinct 16, speaking tonight on behalf of the advisory committee, although um I would like to add a brief personal note thanking acknowledging the contributions of the petitioners um
tonight. In particular, Ezra and Hana who have steadfastly advocated for animal welfare at town meeting and will be graduating from Brookline High School next month. Thank you Azra and Hana and best wishes to all of you for your future endeavors which undoubtedly will
be spectacular. To be clear, this article applies only to fuagra that is produced by force-feeding. There's no need to repeat what force-feeding entails or the suffering it causes. The petitioners are introducing this article in an effort to promote local action and support
statewide legislation prohibiting the sale of this product, similar to bans that have been enacted in the UK, Germany, India, California, and Pittsburgh. By passing this article, Brookline would reportedly be the first community in Massachusetts to do so.
Significant efforts were made by the petitioners and the chair of the reviewing subcommittee to to purveyors of Fuagra and Brookline. Initially only four establishments as you've heard were identified. The fifth Maris Kavanaaugh recently opened in Kulage Corner. As you
know, Lavo has recently decided to close and the Kurds cheese shop reportedly decided to replace the product they currently sell with a vegetarian alternative. Notably, the bylaw would not be effective until November 2025 at the
earliest, which would permit these establishments to reduce their current inventory if necessary. The petitioners assert that if adopted, the bylaw will combat animal cruelty, have only minimal economic impact on the existing purveyors and on
the town, and will establish a strong precedent for others to follow. and it will permit Brookline to continue being a leader in enacting legislation that addresses animal cruelty. During the advisory review, a number of non-substantive housekeeping
amendments to the article were made and readily adopted by the petitioners. In addition, during our hearing, Director of Health and Human Services Sagal Ree, who was consulted regarding enforcement, said she has no
concerns about enforcement whatsoever. By a vote of 11 to 6 to5, the advisory committee recommends favorable action on article 20 as amended. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gladstone. And I'll allow the question
to be called after uh the owner of one of the restaurants Good evening, Mr. Moderator, town meeting members, town staff, and guests. My name is David Gladstone, precinct 16, long-term resident and board chair of the Brookline Chamber of Commerce,
member of the Small Business Development Committee, and past member of other committees in town. Uh, the chamber is also involved in programs that are helping restaurants. One of them is restaurant resiliency. The other one is uh restaurants for
Brooklyn. I'm asking unfavorable action against article 20. Brookline restaurants are still experiencing headwinds postco including supply chain issues, price hikes, changing customer patents, as well as
inflation and tariff impacts from the current administration in DC. Not to mention increased compliance with regards to sustainability to go items. With all of these price increases, it is difficult for restaurants to pass the hikes in higher prices to their menu
prices. As a result, restaurant profit margins are getting compressed in a challenging way. This has created huge pressure on restaurant industry, which we'll hear from other speakers as well. Let me say that we respect and emphasize with the ethical issues related to our
entire food processing industry. As such, we as a chamber and business owners are concerned with creating bans on legally available food items which are for in for sale in many restaurant dishes. If we create specific bans in
Brooklyn, potential patrons can pass Brooklyn by and go to JP Rosenale, Newton, and Boston. This would create an unlevel playing field for businesses in Brooklyn versus elsewhere. We are sending the wrong message to our businesses with many things uh occurring
in Brooklyn. Potential new businesses have passed us by and others will follow suit if we stop making legally available food not available in Brooklyn. Many of the proponents will say that this is a minor inconvenience and won't impact businesses in Brooklyn. I will beg to
differ on what was said about Laval. I spoke to them. Yes, the 10-year lease was one issue, but it was an example of what can happen when there was a difficult environment to invite to actually operate and including the potential banning of food items and their dishes. I spoke to the owners as
they were selling off their fixtures and that was what was reiterated to me. In conclusion, if we start to restrict legally available products from our food chain, it will be a hop, skip, and a jump to ve non-free range chicken,
non-ferrange eggs, beef. Our food chain in general is inhumane. I can't make you change your potential vote, but I ask you to do one thing. Think about our current assortment of locallyowned restaurants, your favorite local restaurant, and what the picture looks like to you. Think about what that
picture might look like if these favorites go out and big boxes or corporate-based fast casual restaurants come in. Almost like a me Mexican restaurant locally owned versus a corporateowned behemoth like Taco Bell. Send the right message tonight on our
support for locallyowned businesses. Please remember their monies derived in Brooklyn stayed local versus the monies derived by the large corporate entities which go whisking out the door to another state. Please vote unfavorable action on article 20. Thank you very
much. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. One more speaker after one more speaker after Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Neil Gordon, precinct one town meeting member, speaking for myself and for Brooklyn
PAX. Following on social media what I'd hardly call a debate on the subject matter of article 20 and from arguments made otherwise. I want to talk a bit about both the authority of town meeting and the limits of that authority.
Separately, I'll comment on the economic versus ethical conflicts we as town meeting members often face. First, we can't legislate what people eat. We can't legislate what they smoke, although we do control where they can
smoke it. We can't let limit the right to own a gun, but we do control where on book line you can buy one and where you can carry it. Our authority as town meeting is limited, but within our authority is controlling
what Brooklyn businesses sell and where they can sell it. Whether that be tobacco, guns, or in this case, fogra Brooklyn packs in recommending favorable action on this article stated, "We're pro business, but we're also
anti-an animal abuse." Here at town meeting, we're confronted with binary choices. We vote yes or we vote no. In limiting the sale of tobacco, we chose public health and voted yes. Taking no
joy in the well articulated impact our vote had on Brooklyn businesses. In limiting where guns can be sold, we chose public safety and voted yes. With barely a mention of economic development or commercial tax revenue in regulating
tobacco and firearms, we made binary ethical choices and once again we're faced with a binary ethical choice. I won't repeat petitioners arguments. I just ask you to please vote favorable action on article 20. Thank you. Biz
Ziskin Mi Mr. Monter just a point of m information if I may. Uh I believe is there such a thing? Well, I don't know. We I know that's always the reaction question and I'll see here here it is. We've heard two different versions of whether the health department can enforce this bylaw and I believe
actually Joselyn was correct about the earlier position of the health department but I believe I'm correct as to the current. Could we ask the director of public health just to clarify whether the department has That's a fair question. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moderator Sagar, director of public health and human services. So yes, at the beginning of the process, I met with the petitioners um and you saw the list of establishments on the slide, the first four, very little products in Brookline. I wasn't too concerned about enforcement. They also agreed to assist
us with some education with the establishments. Um and again during the uh meetings with the advisory, that was my position. And then as Mr. Vansoya indicated, the landscape changed with marquee opening and I became more concerned. Actually reached up the restaurant obviously very frustrated. I
became concerned about um the amount of work that would go to enforcement. Um enforcement isn't sort of one action and done. It's going to be ongoing. And with establishment that has a significant inventory, I was concerned about our capacity to uh enforce the bylaw.
Okay. So, uh Mr. Ziskin is not here. So, Mr. Muddy and then I'll entertain Oh, there he is. Okay. Okay. just uh Mr. Ziskin is the
owner of Lamora and Punch Bowl. He's not a Brooklyn resident, but uh I ask that you give him leave to speak. Although I did grow up in Brooklyn. I did graduate from this school in 1988. Uh I've also
uh so I own a restaurant in Lamora for uh 21 years. And just to introduce you your name, uh Josh Ziskin. Um, so I've owned Lamora for 21 years. Uh, we do use guagra in one of our dishes. This one dish was recognized
by uh Tom Brady uh I don't know 10 or 12 years ago and it became one of our most popular dishes. It's become sort of what we're known for and uh it's our Bologanese dish which includes fuagra and I would say it's about 30% of our
sales. Um so it would have a huge impact on our business. Um eliminating uh one of our dishes or change altering one of our dishes completely. Um other than that I don't think uh the ban of fuagra
would um alter any other restaurant but it would have a huge impact on ours. Um thanks for your time. Thank you. Now I will entertain a qu a call of the question. There are two folks at the
microphone. Uh Dr. Bob and uh uh Mr. Davis. Oh, and Mr. Heert. So, um Oh, and and the speakers list. I'm sorry. Thank you.
Speaking for the ban is are uh Perry Gman, Jonathan Klene, Alec Leovitz, David Pearlman, Alisa Palo Pala, Qatara Hadar
Nabazada, Ronnie Chang. Speaking against uh is Chris Muddy, John Karen, and Jonathan Abbott. And then folks at the microphone. Okay. So, motion to terminate debate. Yes. Terminates the
debate. No, doesn't. And we keep going. Here we go. Drop. Drop it. Starting over again. Okay, here we go. Please don't cheer that just And then you can cheer.
Okay. Motion passes. 138 39 no and eight abstensions. We're now ready for the main motion. Majority. Uh, this needs a majority. Yes. Uh, adopts the proposed bylaw. No, does
not. Okay, we're ready for a vote. Everyone knows what they are voting on and how they're going to vote. So, drop the drop it. and we're going to have a motion to be after this. So stay for that so we can
actually adjourn and we would be adjourning until Wednesday, June 4th. That is motion is adopted. 114 yes 79 no 13
abstensions. 114 yes. Okay. Motion to adjourn until 700 p.m. June 4th. So, uh, uh, yeah, it's been moved. Seconded. We have a second. Yeah, we
have a second. Drop it, please. It's dropped. Okay, here we go. I was thinking of that. Oh yes. Motion passes 179 to 4 to
three. See you all next week.