Hey, hey, hey. Evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and this is the regular meeting of the select board for April 14, 2026. First item of business is going into executive session. I move that the
select board go into executive session for the purpose of discussing strategy related to litigation. The litigation matter must be discussed in executive session because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the town and the chair
that's me so declares an executive session therefore to be necessary. All in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vanco >> I. >> Paul Warren I >> David Pearlman >> I. Michael Rubenstein >> I >> and chair votes I. Select board will reconvene and open session after our
executive session >> recording Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hi, I have comments on the agenda item six uh sorry 9B as well. I know a lot of people are coming to speak on 9B. I understand it's not a public hearing but this item has received no public hearing
at the transportation board and also no hearing here. Um, I think people would appreciate it if you provided space for a public hearing for that. >> We haven't noticed. Sorry. Go ahead. >> 9B is a public hearing. The noise bylaw. >> Not Sorry, not the noise bylaw. The contract.
>> Okay. The contract 9A. Yeah. >> Yeah. 9A. >> So, we haven't noticed a public hearing. So, that wouldn't be it's it's not something that we do, right? We don't we can't we don't have public hearings for contracts. Um so >> she's asking for a public hearing given
that this contract is somewhat >> you guys have received >> issues that uh >> you know >> concerned about >> many tens of public comments on this and I know there are people who have taken time out of with their families in order
to uh come and address the issue. So, why don't they address that public comment here? >> Um, I have two public comments. One of them is a public comment that addresses um a different but related subject and
one for that item. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Um, what what time is the public comment for um the public hearing for the noise bylaw waiver? >> 6:30. >> 6:30. >> At 6:30. Um, I'm wondering want to allow them public
comment at 6:30 on the on the contract, although it's not really the appropriate time. >> Not not posted. So, >> I'm I'm just suggesting >> Well, I think what you're suggesting is to hold open item 4 until 6:30. >> Well, if that's the way you'd like to do
it, that could potentially work. >> Again, I >> Right. I I would agree what Michael's suggesting. Why don't we just have public comment until 6:30 and people can appine on whatever they want as they normally would? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's in the board's discretion. That's
fine. >> We can start public comment at >> 6:30. >> Okay. You're Wait, >> take it back. >> David, are you saying that we stop public comment now and wait until 6:30? >> No. That we have the general public comment, including for Miss Jacobson and others who want to speak on any topic
other than what was specifically docketed for public hearing later. >> So, we have time to do that now. We might as well. >> Okay. >> Sit for 15. We're going to sit for 15 minutes because I don't think there's enough. >> Well, but is there an item we can move up? >> We have miscellaneous. >> I
I thought but I thought there are people here online or in the audience who who want to speak. So, >> there are people here that maybe are not speaking on that. >> I think the thing is that there is a bunch of there's confusion about um whether or not people can speak on that. So there are people that would have come
at 5:30 and people that would have come at 6:30. >> So what we do what we typically do is have 15 minutes of public comment at the outset of a meeting and then those who didn't have an opportunity get a chance at the end of the meeting. >> So my recommendation would be that we
have 15 minutes as we normally would now and then at the end of the meeting the others could join and they can join online because we take public comment at the end of meetings as well >> like at midnight 30. No, >> hopefully we won't go that late tonight, but whenever we finish. Yes.
>> He's the optimistic member of our >> So, I think people want to deliver the public comment before we vote on item nine. >> Yeah, that's kind of the thing. >> Okay. What are we doing here? Um, >> just my comments are fairly short. If you would like me to
>> Okay, what about how many other people want to comment on article 9A? Oh, I don't >> Hey, one other person. >> I don't have the hive mind. >> Pardon me. >> I don't have the hive of mind. >> The hive mind.
>> Okay, here here's what we'll do. Uh we will take public comments 15 minutes beginning now uh on anything. Um and people want to talk about item 9A should use this time to to speak. >> Okay. Um
>> so I would like to make public com My name is Emily Jacobson and I would like to make comment regarding um comments made at the select board last week. >> Okay. >> Um may I approach? >> You are approach.
>> Oh approach us. Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Emma. Can I get one? >> Oh, hiding it. >> Okay. So, my name is Emily Jacobson. I'm a resident of precinct 5. You
>> need to speak. Emily, step to the microphone. My name is Emily Jacobson. Um, I'm a resident of precinct 5. I would like to address comments made at the select board last Tuesday regarding the new uh pavement management policy and uh the feasibility of parking protected bike
lanes on a oneway railway road in general. So at that board at that meeting it was asserted that the new roadway assid management policy was at the root of improving pavement conditions on our streets and um um I applaud the the uh
initiative that you guys have taken to um address that issue. I think the select board should also note that the policy was enacted at the beginning of 2025 and they should also note on the table that I've given you um the CIP expenditures on roadways
since uh 2010 uh note the significant increase in roadway spending in the last few years. Even at inflation adjusted numbers this represents a sizable increase in funding. I think next the select board should also consider that in the last
few years several full-time positions that had gone unfilled for a long time uh have been filled bringing the headcount of the transportation division up to six people. It was two when I first was here was just um Todd and Dan.
And lastly, I'd like the board to look back at the paving work that has been done over the last few years. There's new asphelt on Washington Street, Beacon Street, Pond Avenue. Note that all of these projects consisted of a bonded wearing course. And a bonded wearing
course is a road preservation treatment that would have fallen outside of the previous complete streets policy. So that policy really only covered mill overlay projects, which have from what I have seen only happened on small residential streets in the last couple
years. So um second the is the plan that's in front of you. Um there were doubts expressed about the feasibility of parking protected bike lanes on two-way single lane roads. Parking protected
bike lanes are entirely feasible. The parking situation for drivers is no different from where they must park on a two-lane road without any bike lanes. Additionally, this kind of layout is far from unique. There are numerous examples of parking protected bike lanes in this
configuration in the Boston area and I've given you one there from Traymont Street in Boston for you guys to look at. Thank you. >> Um we have somebody online that's had their hand up for a while. Do you want to take them? >> Hassan, you're next.
>> Hassan, we can't hear you. Yeah, you're unmuted, but we're not getting your audio. >> I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Thank you. There you go. >> Perfect. >> Good evening, members of the select board. I live on Walnut Street and frequently bicycle on Harvard Street to
go to shops and restaurants. I'm here to urge you to take this opportunity to improve safety as part of the upcoming pavement project. Since work is already planned on Harbor Street, this is the perfect time to make it safer by closing gaps in existing bike lanes and adding parking protected bike lanes where
double parking regularly forces cyclists into traffic. If these changes aren't made now, they likely won't happen for a long time. So, this is a valuable opportunity to act. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Next we have Scott and Linder.
>> Mine is only two minutes, so you'll be happy. Good evening, Chair Green and the rest of the members of the select board. I'm Scott Englander, a precinct 6 town meeting member, uh, a member of the Vision Zero Committee, chair of the
committee that developed the complete streets policy, and I served on the transportation board for about five years. I get around by foot, on bike, public transit, and by car. My wife and I ride on Harvard Street and shop there several times a week. Uh, nevertheless,
I don't feel safe there, and I've had some close calls with cars. The crash history validates these concerns. My mother-in-law would ride there if it were safer, as would many families I know with young children. I must say I'm
baffled that the safety and mobility of families like mine can be seen as unimportant. the upcoming uh pavement project on Harvard streets, a chance for us to improve bicycle safety on a critical
bike route with a disproportionately high crash history and part of the vision zero priority network, the complete streets priority projects list and the green roots bicycle network plant. a mill and overlay project on such a street without including lowcost
improvements to bike safety, for example, with paint and flex posts and without consideration by the transportation board is not only against current policy, but is unconscionable. I'm talking about the kinds of simple improvements that were made on
Washington Street in recent years when that street underwent similar treatment. For example, closing gaps in bike lanes and providing parking protected bike lanes where double parked cars regularly obstruct lanes.
What motivation for not including such improvements on Harvard could possibly be worth the lifealtering or fatal crashes they might help avoid. I urge the select board to commit to including lowcost meaningful bicycle
safety improvements on Harvard Street as part of the upcoming pavement project. Thank you. >> We have Amy Linen Boy online. >> Okay, you're her. >> Okay. Hello. >> Hello.
>> Hi. Um see if I can fix this. Um so I'm a little confused with all the different um agenda items. Um I had asked to speak about um 5F which is about the approving the conceptual design for large Anderson
Park. And then I also was speaking not about the noise waiver um but about the um Harvard street uh mobility um access which others have spoken out so far about and I also wanted to speak about the community preservation act funding
but I don't have a ton of details or some big plan. What I really have here isn't the overarching sense that we're really missing a lot of opportunities to coordinate planning here for things that I think many people want. For example, we are forging ahead and spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars and planning on spending many millions of dollars with um with the ice rink slowly but surely. And yet we're not and we have the the parks and wreck having some sort of a feasibility study on an outdoor pool. And those two are not
together and we're not looking at colllocating sites and that is a missed opportunity for there. There's an and the other missed opportunity is what everyone else has spoken about here. We're repaving streets and we're having different projects going on at different times without coordinating enough to recognize to be able to implement
efficiencies and make things better more quickly without having to have them all in separate siloed projects. So my request is that a lot I think a lot of these to the extent that they can need to go back to the to the drawing board a little bit. Not I hate to delay things, but I really think that there's a real
lack of coordination and we're missing opportunities to consolidate actions to do things like have both an ice rink and an outdoor pool in a cheaper and more rational location or um for or to have, you know, bike infrastructure. So people
can children can actually ride their bikes to go across town instead of having to be in, you know, shuttled around and carpooled all afternoon because we have no public transit going north and south between like Coolish Corner of Harvard Street and down to like um you know the Greater Point neighborhood for example. Um there are
many opportunities here to make our town better and we're really not utilizing them and we really need to think about coordinating um concerns and projects together more than we are. And that's what I'd say. Thank you.
So, who who's next? >> All right. Good evening, everyone. My name is Greg Wheeler. I am a resident of Precinct 3. Um, and I'm here to talk about the Harbor Street Paving Project. Uh, nearly every day I bring my two-year-old daughter, Ella, to daycare
in Brooklyn Village on my cargo bike. Uh just last month um there's a stretch on Harvard Street that we ride. Uh just last month there were two cyclists struck by motor vehicles uh during the time uh my pickup hour in the evening.
I use Harvard Street for everything including to support dozens of our local businesses. And I bike because it's the most efficient and affordable way for my family to move around town. Unfortunately, my daughter's life is threatened every time we get on a bike due to the lack of
protected bike lanes. Town leadership has known how dangerous Harvard Street is for cyclists for decades and presumably knew it was due for paving. Yet, it appears the town failed to contemplate even basic incremental protective safety improvements that could be made within the scope of a paving project. So, I
have two asks for the select board here tonight. The first is that one, you approve the construction contract for this project only with a formal commitment from the transportation board and staff to implement no or lowcost protected bike lanes. And two, you instruct the the
transportation board to coordinate priorities from the vision zero vision zero action plan and the five-year paving plan so that incremental improvements can be made during paving projects in the future. This is the type of common sense fiscal and performance management that ensures
the town optimizes every dollar spent during significant roadway disruptions like we're going to have this summer on Harvard Street. In my precinct, I'll note Longwood Avenue, Aspenwall Avenue, Kent Street, and St. Paul are all vision zero priorities that would benefit from this type of approach. We have policies
and objectives in place already established. Now, we're looking to you as leaders to transparently prioritize and implement the town's stated goals. I thank you for your time, your service to the town, uh, and your consideration of this important matter. Thank you.
>> Good evening. My name is David Kroo and I'm the president of Biking Brookline. Thank you for taking my comments this evening. Biking Brookline fully supports the town's pavement preservation policy. We also fully support the town's
adoption of vision zero, which is an approach to road safety that says that the status quo is not okay. It challenges decades of transportation policy that prioritize motor vehicles motor vehicle throughput over safety.
The vis vision zero plan adopted by the town created a roadmap to achieve its goals of zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. A critical part of that roadmap is assessing overlap between high priority streets in the pavement management
policy and top priority streets in the vision zero action plan and determining where safety improvements can be integrated into pavement preservation projects at little or no cost or additional time. Brookline's adoption of
vision zero reflects its willingness to change the status quo. This willingness though is undercut if the transportation division can decide in its sole discretion not to include safety improvements in a road project without
consulting the transportation board and important stakeholders. This delegation of authorities suggests that the decision concerning what safety improvements, if any, should be included are relatively little importance and do
not involve weighing of town policies and priorities. something which is really the responsibility of the transportation board. No wonder the chairs of all three advisory committees to the transportation board, three transportation board members and all 15
of the precinct 8 town meeting members expressed serious reservations about the Harvard street process. And I'd like to just digress here for a moment to say biking Brooklyn would rather not be spending tons of time interpreting the
intricacies of town's payment preservation policy and vision zero as if they're major pieces of federal tax legislation. But we felt we had no choice because the town would not talk to us
and we were rebuffed and told this is a pavement preservation project. We will not consider any changes. And I would really just ask the basic question. Does the select board really believe that people in the bicycling community who
ride on Harvard Street every day have nothing worthwhile that they could say to the transportation division that they could consider as they consider what safety changes could be made? I think the answer is no. I do think that the
time they spent responding to our emails >> and looking over our petition would have been much better spent if we just sat together in a room for an hour and talked about what was possible on Harvard Street. Thank you very much.
>> Good afternoon. I'm Philippi Pite from Addington Road and I bike on Harvard Street through Harvard Street all the time. That's where our shops are, our restaurants, the bayas, my eyeglass place, the opticians, shoe repair,
everything. It's always there. You know, is it safe? You know, I'm a big man. My daughters are grown. Uh I take the risk. Is it safe for a 12y old, a 15 year old? No, it's not. So, if we don't make it
safe, we're going to have more cars spewing fumes on the street, more cars causing traffic. >> Uh we're sending more money to Putin's wars and Ayatollah's wars. Just uh we should be reasonable. Let's make it
safer for bikers, not just uh old people who don't mind risking their lives. Let's get it done. Patty, are you do you want to make a comment? We're running out of time. >> Well, not signed up. Can I >> Pardon me?
>> I have not signed up. I was not aware. >> Okay. Why don't we do two more comments? Why don't you go and then Patty and then we'll close this. >> Okay. >> Segment. >> Um, hi, my name is Luis Pension. Could you speak into closer to the microphone?
>> Okay. Yeah. Um I'm gonna read my notes. Um because like Marilyn Monro, I cannot memorize a text. My resemblance with Marilyn Monro stops here. Well, I guess I am 36 years old, the age she was when she committed suicide. And some people on the street have called me suicidal
for biking down Howard Street. I am not suicidal. I try very hard to come home to my kids alive. And it's why I'm here tonight. Another reason is that I'm conscious. Well, sorry. Uh, so why am I riding my bike? I can drive my large
secure SUV that would plow through most of the other street occupants in the event of a crash. One of the reason that I ride my bike is that I'm conscious that I'm going to pollute the air that people around me breathes. I'm going to
take up most parking space and I'm going to take those packing space from people who actually need them and don't have a choice. I'm going to wear up the road with my large SUV and it's going to cost more money to taxpayer. I'm going to take more space on the road and I may
block or slow down emergency vehicle. So most of the time I choose to be kind and respectful to my neighbors and I bike despite the risk despite the risks. I want to show my kids that I am thinking of my neighbors when I make choices. I'm not only thinking of myself
and my own safety. I want to show them that I care for others by making Harvard street safer. A lot of scared parents are going to start biking. The traffic and parking space are going to improve drastically. There are so many schools and daycare along Havar Street. Keep
parents safe, kids safe. Stop making decisions that are going to make the problems worsen. Let's stop the hypocrisy and stop banning bike lane for lost parking spots. Blocking emergency vehicle where we all buy bigger and bigger car that take up all the road and
parking space. I take care of my neighbor to make sure they are safe. Time for you to do the same and make sure that I come home alive to my kids. Thank you. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Patty Koreah from Precinct 6. Um,
I'm a person who has resorted to biking since my kids were small decades ago. And I found that biking, I was an assistant attorney general working on Beacon Hill. And I found that biking was the cheapest and fastest way to get to
work and then to get my kids on time from daycare. And so that led to my decadesl long uh bike commuting uh career. I'm now a sailor. I ride downtown to the harbor to sail by bike.
It's cheap and fast. Um now in addition, I'm a senior citizen and though I can pay half fair for the tea, I bike um because of these reasons and also because I have physical limitations on walking. So bike for me works extremely
well. Um I am sorry that we are in this position today in a time when we have scarce town dollars and we have a vision zero plan that contemplates that cost
feasible improvements to town roadways will be incorporated into pavement preservation projects. I understand the need for this pavement preservation project and I support it,
but there has not been sufficient attention to the types of safety improvements that could be incorporated for minimal cost into this particular project. It feels like it's been sort of rammed rammed through over community
objections that have listed specific improvements that could be incorporated into this project but have not been heated so far. Um and so we have scarce dollars. There's an
opportunity here to improve a tier one high priority roadway as defined in vision zero plan. It's right there and that plan contemplates that where feasible improvements will be
incorporated. So, um I encourage the select board to ask questions about why DPW has not um responded to community input and what plans it has now to respond to community input. Um, and I
also want to um suggest that if the answer is our written documents right now don't uh accommodate that, then maybe the problem is with our written documents and our various policies because this should be the type of thing
on a tier one high priority roadway that should get this kind of attention. And there will be more projects coming the select board's way possibly on St. Paul Street, another tier one roadway. And so I ask that the select board not set a
precedent here without asking questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next uh the miscellaneous calendar and I'd like to move uh by this approval uh
items 5 A through 5J unless someone would like to pull something out. Yes. >> Yeah. I I just have a comment to make. Um, I'm making this disclosure um out of an abundance of caution um with regard
to the potential appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to item 5F um which is uh item 5F on tonight's select board agenda is a question of approving a contract with Maryanne Thompson Architects in the amount of
$139,295 for the conceptual design phase of the Lars Anderson Park. Jack Karine skating rink renovation. When I was on the board of Beacon Academy, which was approximately from 2015 to 2024, I led a project to find a
new home for Beacon Academy in 2020 to 2021. Over the course of that project, Beacon Academy hired Maryanne Thompson Architects to provide architectural services related to the project. Thus uh I am acquainted with Maryanne Thompson
Architects. I do not have any ongoing financial relationship with Maryanne Thompson or Maryanne Thompson Architects. >> Thank you. >> Paul >> Bernard, could we actually hold out 5F um to have a conversation about it for
the vote? >> You want to have that now? >> Yeah, if that's okay. >> Okay. So, um, you know, there's been a lot of attention, um, paid to the this the skating rink project, which, uh, this I believe this is for, correct? >> Yes. >> Um, and it just I know that I think
David is was part of the either the building committee or the selection committee. Um, it just would be helpful to hear an update on where are we at um, you know, with the project. Um, I know that we had put some some pretty tight boundaries around the project. uh about
a year ago last uh summer. Um I was hoping you'd give us a quick update. >> Yes, sure. So, the committee of seven convened in December of 2025. During that time, there was an interview process to select both an architect as
well as an OPM. Uh Maryanne Thompson was selected >> as the uh architect. Asure was selected as the OPM. So the next phase of this which is going to kick off sometime after April 27th is for the design
committee. The design committee will also have seven members. There will be someone from the building commission, preservation commission, planning board, Brookline youth hockey, friends of Lars Anderson, and two members of the public. That roster of names will be brought
before the select board for the select board's approval. Uh so this contract would be helpful so that we can proceed with a conceptual design and obviously the design committee uh to be formed
will have a an influence on what those design concepts are uh and the public has until April 27th to apply. >> Okay. And um may I Bernard just have a couple of questions. So the parameters that we provided as guidance um to park
and wreck around the design and scope of the project, those remain enforced. There's been no changes. It's still a single ice rink. We're not it's not going to be covered. We're using the the exist We're updating the existing warming hut. We're maintaining the
footprint plus or minus a little bit. Um all those >> instructions. Yeah. >> What's that? That that was our instructions. >> Yeah, those are our instructions and I'm asking is that >> that is correct. >> That guidance is still in force. Probably better than >> Well, that's why I'm asking
>> that is still in >> especially if we're hiring a designer. So, um it's all in force. Okay, that's that was my question. Thank you. >> Okay. I I do though want to take this opportunity to address uh the situation about having a swimming pool considered simultaneously. So there are article 97
protections on Lars Anderson that would make that extremely difficult and would create quite a bit of delay on proceeding with the rink. That's not to say that I personally am not in support of an outdoor pool. I very much am. But
I don't think that should be married to this process which is already pretty far along. >> Yeah, I would I would agree with that. the the RFP which I think was brought up last week or the week before is different than this project. >> Yes. The RFP for the pool which by the way has been amended to include Lars
Anderson or the request of the public but to David's point I think. Yes. Yes. But I I don't want to presuppose it. So we've added it and we'll have them take a look at it. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anything else?
Okay. So I move approval of items 5A through 5J. All in favor? John Vancoyak >> I Warren >> I >> David Throwman >> I >> Michael Rubenstein >> I >> and chair votes I >> just want to thank the folks who donated to the Baffin essay contest oh yes very
kind we always appreciate um that pacific participation >> yeah I guess you're asking me to say that okay >> well I mean you you weren't you weren't saying very or talking very loud >> oh sorry >> so we'd like to thank the the
individuals who contributed to the Brooklyn Asian-American uh family network project essay project. Um whenever we receive a donation whether significant
like this or small u by state law we have to approve it in a public meeting. So we're doing that. It also gives us an opportunity to thank the donor of uh the money or or other items that uh we're we're accepting. So, thank you again.
>> Thank you. >> So, we approved all the miscellaneous stuff. Main calendar, town building roof project. Question of approving contract roof replacement project with MDM Engineering Company in amount of
1,380,000. project includes town hall, main library and fire station six. Um, also includes preparing, I think, just the library for a solar array. So, if you could sort of fill us in on that piece of it also, I'd appreciate it.
>> Um, sure. This is a a project to replace the existing roof of town hall from renovation. >> Are you >> Oh, I'm sorry. Charlie Simmons, director of public buildings. >> Uh, to replace the back section of the roof of the main library. The previous section was replaced 10 years ago and
the entire roof of fire station number six. Um I've been working with the sustainability people. They've been looking at all three buildings for solar and uh when that building is done, the next steps would be looking at installing solar. Um we'd have to make
it solar ready and look at power and so on. But um the entire roof from the front to the back will now be available to have solar pan. front to the back of the library. >> The entire library. >> Wow.
>> If if it is deemed to be >> Yeah. feasible, right? >> Uh anything else? >> Any questions from the select board? >> One question. >> Yes. >> Thanks, Charlie. Could you describe what preparations need to be done to prepare
a roof for to receive solar versus if it didn't have be prepared for solar? And is there a cost differential? uh two things. You have to look at the electric service and figure out how you're going to get the power into the ex service whether it's in front of the meter, behind the meter. So that's an electrical engineer. The second thing is
structural. They have to get a structural engineer look at the existing supports of the building. Now the panels themselves are not that heavy, but you can't just put them on a a building. So sometimes you have to do some structure work inside the building. I can't say that for sure at this building. Um, with
newer buildings, they're obviously solar ready. You don't have to worry about >> So, this project's going to help identify if we need to make those structural changes and then make the structural changes >> potentially. Yes. >> Okay. >> John, >> um, I I just wonder if we might take this opportunity uh, while Charlie's
here um, whether through him or through Chaz to briefly update the public on the mold situation that developed at the library. Just I think a lot of people have been wondering about it. >> Sure. So, we're fortunate that the mold has been remediated. Uh, we had positive air quality results. Uh, the library
reopened at 11:30 this morning. Um, we will is continuing operations. The children's room and the little uh the Heidihole space there are still both closed. Um, they will have replacement of carpeting and some fixtures I think you know over the next week and they
should be open next week. Am I right? >> Correct. >> Thanks. Correct. I have one followup question. So, Charlie, you mentioned that we don't know yet if the roof needs to be reinforced. >> Um, does does this cost include potentially having to reinforce it or is
it would the cost >> just we're just going to examine the roof and get some information that would go on to a structural engineer? That would be a separate contract. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I move approval of the roof replacement project with MDM
Engineering Company in the amount of 38 million uh for town hall, main library, and fire station number six. All in favor, John Vancoyak. >> I Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Corman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I chair votes I.
>> Thank you. >> Next uh public hearing temporary entertainment license and noise bylaw waiver. Uh Snider Electric Energy Zone, Boston Marathon. So this is not related to the um the pavement project just in
case someone is confused about that. Um, so I was going to tell us about this. Yes. Good evening everyone. My name is Lauren Persian. I'm the chief of race operation and production for the Boston Athletic Association and the Boston Marathon. Um,
I'm here this evening to answer any questions about the Schneider Electric Cheer Zone or the Boston Marathon if you have them. Um, it is too late to offer any runner numbers unless you're able to run a marathon in just 4 days, which we would be happy to have you. Um, the
cheer zone looks very similar to what we've had in years past. At this point, all the permits for the cheer zone have been pulled. Uh, the cheer zone this uh this year will include food trucks. Um permits so far right now have all been pulled which includes our health and uh
health permits, our fire permits. Um the butters have all been notified to comply with the uh noise waiver. The footprint this year is slightly extended this year extending a little bit closer to Brandon Hall tea station. Um the as I mentioned there will be two food trucks this year
um for the uh attendees for the cheer zones. We have also added a additional pedestrian crossing this year. that area gets quite uh congested. We wanted to alleviate some of the um uh we wanted to make it easier for our spectators to get
from one side of the road to the other. So, we have worked quite hard um with the police department to make that happen and possible this year. And of speaking of the police department, we have worked quite closely with the police department. We could not be more grateful for their support and all the
uh work that they do to make this a safe and um secure event for us this year. Also, we are here with Interstate um our tentine and equipment company to make sure that this is a secure um and permitted event. So, um that's the quick uh elevator pitch if you will, but
certainly here to answer any questions on this site specifically. >> Okay. What I'd like to do is to address this item first. >> Sure. >> And and vote on it and then have the public hearing on the noise waiver bylaw. >> Absolutely. So any questions for um
actually could tell you used a word cheer zone. What what I I didn't understand that. >> Absolutely. So this area is designed specifically Schneider Electric is our one of our most important sponsors. They wanted to have and host an area that they could bring their most important
clients, their employees from all over the world quite honestly to a location. Um they want they chose Brooklyn specifically. They have their initiative is greening environmental and they chose Brooklyn specifically to align with their values. And so they they chose
Brookline specifically for their location to bring their employees um to create this cheer zone to create this area for their employees to spectate. >> Again, what is the word that you're using? >> Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. I'm so sorry. Oh, I overexlained it too and I
you just wanted to know the word cheer. Hooray. Yeah. My apology. >> That was my fault. >> It sounded like cheer, but >> yeah, I wasn't a cheerleader. >> Yes, sir. >> Actually, Michael, you had your hand first. >> Yes. >> Um,
so this is happening in the parking lots between the Fairbanks and Brandon Hall tea stops. Um, does this cheer zone or any of the other Boston Marathon activities affect the use of the tea between I guess Cleveland Circle and
Kenmore Square, the length of the C branch? >> Yes. So the um how we're instructing the participants to get to this location specifically is by T. So that is why specifically we developed this pedestrian crossing is to help the spectators to get from one side of the
road to the other. We are also developing a private transportation uh busing system to bring a lot of these employees from their first hotels which they're staying in the seapport area um to their area specifically. So there will be a transportation busing program
that gets them from point A to this location specifically. So it won't be completely dependent upon the chi system. >> Paul um I do have two questions. My first is could you describe the design? Is this a Is this a heightened area for
observation? Um like stadium seating or >> I'll let the >> She's going to get something >> and she looks quite determined. So >> Okay, I saw Okay. Oh, you've got pictures. >> That's upside down. >> Is there some way we can get this on the screen? kind of put in front of a
camera. >> Should I sorry I should have uh brought my laptop in the car so otherwise I could have done that. I can get that for the public uh hearing part of it. >> Yeah, if you could extend it to the select board office. We >> It's going to be hard for you to describe it because we don't have the visual for the audience, but could you
um how many people does this accommodate? Is it ADA accessible? >> Yes. So the if you go from on the diagram from left to right, the first section is a bit of an elevated stage platform and then um that will have a
mobile wheelchair lift to the side so it'll be fully accessible ADA wise that is also a tented covering that's over there. We'll have um some tables and chairs for seating, some bleachers on that platform for seating. Then going uh
to the side, that's where the food trucks are. Then there's what's called a spectator suite trailer, which is the only real new element this year compared to last year. And that is a large trailer with some indoor seating um along like also some top seating so
people can fully see the course that will also have an ADA ramp um on the front of it. So both both units are fully ADA compliant. And our restroom trailer also has a ramp. So that is also ADA compile um compliant.
>> I have one other question. Sure. >> Um is this I know we've apparently we've done this in the past. Um is it restricted to just SNET employees or so? Um I it's too late to change it but I would encourage you in the future. I think this is fantastic to host
something like this, but to make it accessible for some of our uh mobility limited folks within Brookline that don't actually have a very difficult time uh going and enjoying the marathon. It would be very special to be able to have some of those individuals, even if
it's just a handful that typically wouldn't be able to enjoy the marathon to be able to to benefit from uh the investment that you're making. And and >> I think what we can certainly do is work with the town of Brooklyn directly to create its own specifically. So, I think it's a BAA
Brooklyn initiative. I don't know that it's necessarily something within the Schneider footprint, but I think that's that's something that we could do directly with with the town itself. Yeah, we have done something similar with other towns. We have a in Welssley, we have a sensory friendly cheer zone where it is for people who don't
necessarily like the loud cheering. Um, that was something that we that they brought to us and we have developed specifically. You're 100% correct. I don't know that we could pull this together in >> Yeah, it's too late now. But >> but I will certainly put that in my notes for next year and we are more than happy to bring that forward.
>> And this would be great, Chaz, if they could work with our disability commission. I mean, what a great idea to have uh this the marathon be accessible to folks that typically can't enjoy it. >> It's something that we have brought forward even in the Finnish area for cheering areas for people who are, you know, have mobility issues. So 100%. I
will put it on my list for next. >> Super. Thank you so much. >> Fantastic. Great idea. >> Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, I'd like to move approval of the um temporary entertainment license application for the Snider Electric Energy Zone and
their cheer zone taking place along the boss America on course. Um, let's see. Activation consists of a viewing area, stage, spectator trailer, and mobile screen showing the race and sponsor
content, as well as a DJ with amplified speakers. >> Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak, >> I >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I Rubenson, >> I. >> And chair votes. Thank you. >> I won't be out there running this year.
Sorry. >> Perhaps next. Um that that was many years ago. >> Well, thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh next we have a noise bylaw waiver that's related to this.
>> Um >> you may want you may want to stay just in case something comes up. >> Who's going to talk to us? Okay. Okay. Tell us about uh your waiver, your need for a waiver. So the the DJ
portion, anything that is loud is not part of the waiver. That's during, you know, allowable time. Um what we are asking for is because the the activation cannot be broken down until after the course reopens and the race is over. So
that really can't begin until 5:36 p.m. when we are able to access that. So it is just asking for from say 6 until 900 pm that we can be breaking down the activation. The loudest part of that is really just a hand power drill to
dissemble the bleachers. Everything else can be either just hitched on a trailer and moved or it's things like tables and chairs that will be put onto a truck. So again, it's just it's more of a in case. We don't hope to be breaking down until
9, but it's more just a as much as we can clear the space that evening after the race, we want to be able to do. Um, and there are a couple components that need to be broken down before the next vendor can come and remove the other things. So, that's why we are just
asking for the time in case it's necessary. But mo, like I said, most of it is stuff that doesn't require tools. It's not like loud construction type noise. >> Any questions? Michael,
>> um I'm I'm just reading the agenda and it indicates that there's also a request for time on Sunday as well for installation. >> Um Sunday >> need that time or >> Sunday is part of our occupancy permit. It's that we have we are able to utilize
that space from noon on Sunday until noon on Tuesday when it has to be completely cleared and back open for motor vehicles to park there. >> Right. But for the noise bylaw waiver, will you need the noise bylaw waiver to be in effect on Sunday while they're doing >> in I misunderstood. Um again hoping not
to. It's that's more of a just in case. Last year I believe we were cleared of the site around 6:30. Um, so we are beginning work at noon is when vendors start to come in and a majority of anything that would be louder, bigger items coming out of a truck would be in
the earlier portion. It's again just as an in case like say one trailer gets stuck in traffic, delays building the bleachers for an hour or two and we need a little longer. It's it's mostly just a in case we need it or with respect to
the town that this might be a noise that happens. Thank you. >> Okay, this is a public hearing. Uh Melanie, why don't you open the public hearing and see what the public would like to say about this idea. >> So, if anybody here in the room would
like to speak, please step to the podium. And if you are online, please raise your hand. >> No one. Okay. Okay. So, I will I will close the public hearing and go for a vote unless anyone has any other questions. Seeing none, I move approval
of the question of approving a noise bylaw waiver from Interstate Rental Service for work to be completed from Sunday, April 19, 2026, 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for installation of the structures. Um, all in favor,
please indicate by saying I. John Vansek. Hi. >> Have a question. David. Oh, okay. >> Hi. >> Okay. David Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Carlman. >> Hi. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have another double item here.
Uh first approval of uh a contract with Laruso for transportation mobility improvements Harvard Street in the amount of $3,182,53850. I guess that's for parking fair. Um so who's going to talk to us about
that? >> No, not it's not a public hearing. Commission. >> Evening. This is Aaron. >> Oh, that's okay. I'm here. I have some staff here as well. Um, good evening everyone. My name is Aaron Chude. I'm the commissioner of public works and I'm
here uh tonight to introduce the Harvard Street Rehabilitation Project and explain why staff uh recommend the select board award and execute this contract. uh this evening. Uh Harvard Street is one of Brooklyn's most
important corridors. It serves residents, businesses, schools, pedestrians, transit users, cyclists, uh and daily vehicle traffic. And as you heard earlier, it is a really important
um it's an important corridor and it is also in very poor condition and in clear need of rehabilitation. Uh this project is the direct outcome of the town's pavement maintenance management and preservation policy and
the broader asset management framework that the select board asked DPW to put in place uh to stop serious decline in pavement condition townwide. Uh that policy was created so Brookline could make a more disciplined, transparent,
and financially responsible approach to maintaining roads based on condition, need, and long-term value to the town. Harvard Street was identified through that adopted process as part of the FY26 roadway rehabilitation program. It was
presented last year to uh the advisory committee. it was presented uh to the select board. Uh the intent was to be presenting the information in a very open and transparent um manner. Um but
it is timely and important work. As roads deteriorate, costs increase, risks increase, and the town falls further behind. uh timely maintenance is one of the most responsible things that we can do to protect the roadway and the
taxpayers's investment in it. Uh this project also includes practical safety improvements where feasible and appropriate, including improved bicycle lane visibility and buffering, intersected daylighting, and strategic use of flex post to deter illegal
parking, which is a real problem along this corridor. It's important to note, however, this is not a full corridor redesign. It's a roadway rehabilitation and maintenance project with practical and admittedly modest safety enhancements. U I want to
recognize uh that members of the BI bicycle advisory committee that spoke earlier, some bike advocates are disappointed uh that this project does not go further at this time. And I understand that disappointment and I respect it. Uh it reflects a real
commitment to safety and to the future of this corridor. I apologize if members of this group didn't feel heard. I had spoken with uh the uh representative, the leader of the
organization. We asked for information, some of which is being incorporated. The transportation director attended a meeting yesterday and you know right now the the suggested plans would eliminate right turning lanes. It was thought to
be unsafe uh in terms of cyclists um and would require traffic analysis and would remove some outdoor dining. none of which couldn't be um worked through but would require we think a comprehensive
community engagement process. Um so moving forward with this project right now does not preclude important transportation and mobility work here on other roads. uh we just feel that the community engagement process uh would be
required here and is important and we have many important bicycle and multimmodal projects underway and will continue um these and others will continue through the town's full planning design funding and public process for this project. I also want to
note that the staff is recommending video detection for signal optimization uh rather than the embedded loops in the pavement. Uh this current technology, it's already used on Route 9. It's in an older form on Beacon Street and uh is
currently in use by Newton Mass DOT. Staff believe that this is the better option because it's more reliable, easier to diagnose problems, can send an email alert if something is not functioning, and easier to adjust over time for current and future operations,
including bike related uh functionality. I understand the use of video detection may raise questions. So to be clear, the system does not record, store, send or share video. It uses video to detect traffic movement, converts that
information for signal operations, and that is the end of the process. There's no speed information or identifying information recorded or stored. Um, finally, staff is recommending approval for night work for the milling and paving operations. It's being proposed
to reduce disruption during peak commute times, maintain daytime access for businesses and corridor users, improve safety during construction. We're also hoping that it'll help shorten the duration of the overall work as much as possible. So, in short, Harbor Street is
a major corridor in poor condition. Uh the project is the direct result of the town's adopted asset management policy. It's timely, necessary, and responsible, and improves the roadway. Now, it includes safety, practical safety enhancements, but it still leaves room
for much broader mobility improvements through the proper public process in the future. And uh I'll note that we staffed Vision Zero Complete Streets and our staff remains deeply committed to
improving multimmodal uh safety improvements across the community uh and want to do that uh in partnership uh with uh the various various groups. We have uh staff here uh the director of
engineering transportation Dan Murphy our associate director of transportation and mobility Rob Guptell Dan Martin who is our transportation uh sustainability transportation engineer and also Sam DS who's our deputy director of engineering
um all who care deeply about the work that they do uh for this community. Uh, and so with that, if you have questions, um, they're here and ready to answer those. And, um, I'll turn it back to you, chair. Thank you. >> Okay. One quick question. Are these
artificial intelligence cameras? Someone said that. >> Uh, I'll go to Dan Martin. Dan, the question was, are these artificial intelligence cameras? >> I think that's more of an advertising term for this. They do. um count
vehicles so they they can detect a vehicle going by and a bike and a pedestrian and if if the preference we can we can keep that in the cabinet. It doesn't have to leave online. We can turn that functionality um off or just not even enable it ever. Um and that's
the way we're going to get it programmed for us. >> Okay. I mean this I mean this became somewhat of a controversy at least with respect to the cameras when um I noticed that our packet did not include the contract and then someone told me that
the contract included provisions for what six or eight uh what they called artificial intelligence cameras. Um, so we we got it into the packet when I uh contacted the um um I contacted someone
who sent over a electronic copy. So we had that. But the problem is is that when you're when you're proposing a contract to the select board that has something as touchy as cameras, um we have to make sure that we are aware of
this early on and can think through any issues that we that we think are are important to deal with. So, um, my my Yeah, there there there's a lot of concern in the community about cameras. Whenever you run into a camera, a lot of
those concerns are very legitimate. Some maybe not. So, um, but, uh, we have to always just make sure that we're not missing something, uh, when a piece of technology like this is is brought into
the town. So just my opinion um um I I I uh suggested that we pull this uh um contract so we have more time to discuss it. Chaz didn't like that idea. Um and
um I'm not going to fight him on that, but um in my opinion um we have to set some protections. uh maybe overkill, but you know, that's just what we have to do. Um and you know, I have a list of conditions that
uh we we can incorporate into the approval of the contract that we can talk about later. Mike, you >> um uh I I had uh several questions about about the project and the relationship
of the project to some of the uh recommendations from advocates in the community. But let me let me start with just the one question relating to the the cameras and the the system for uh working with the street lights. Um, and
the question is, do these cameras collect any personal identifiable information? And if they do, does that information ever leave the the uh
the cameras or the boxes that control them on site? The way these are set up is they don't store any video information whatsoever, >> right? But
>> they don't store them. They don't transmit them, >> but they but they take they take pictures in order to count traffic and count cars. Um, so do those pictures have the do they have the the ability to get person uh private information such
as facial recognition or license plate recognition um within the cameras and the system? >> Defer to Dan Martin on his knowledge of the system. Yeah, I think um we can definitely double check with the
distributor and also the manufacturer that um is not in their their their literature as one of their functions. So, as far as we know, it is not doing any of that and most of the processing is happening inside the cabinet itself with a a video processing unit. Um but
all these questions we can bring back once we get the shop drawings in, we know exactly what equipment they're specking. we can read the the terms of um service and make sure it meets the the standards and privacy requirements you're you're looking for.
>> Can I add one thing? The I went to their website and their website seems to suggest that there's a way, you know, password protected for people to get access to the data coming out of the
coming through the cameras. It's not clear what that means, but you know, their website suggests that they have much more robust capability than I think you're saying. >> I think the system is definitely customizable and we can we can go back
to the to the distributor when they're setting equipment up before the port is placed and make sure that these requirements are in there that it's not accessible to other third parties. >> Okay. Paul. >> Yeah. I just wanted to suggest Bernard you had you had suggested that later
when we I guess deliberate on this a little bit we'll we could add some conditions uh to the contract and it should be very clear that this technology won't store transmit any video any personal identific identifiable information as Michael had
mentioned and it's only there for the execution of synchronizing the lights uh you know or total counts but there shouldn't be any video at all and I think we can put that as the condition of of our approval. >> Okay, Michael. Um I'm not sure whether
it applies to this system or in in terms of our broader thinking but I will I will raise the issue because it will probably come up again that uh in the cases of where we're where we are acquiring systems that have
configuration options that we choose not to use. Um then uh our policies should reflect what what the processes are for modifying those configurations in the future if somebody decides yes that
would be an interesting feature to add or take advantage of. >> That's an excellent point. I mean could we could we do that complicated >> could we do that in the license agreement Michael >> you know and limit in the license agreement to >> well well I think it's I think it's an internal town policy. It's not a policy
between between um the town and the vendor because the vendor will have the capabilities. It's just what are our >> what I what I would like to suggest is maybe something like anou that lays out the conditions of our approval that
would include all that. I mean I can think of a number of things that we should pardon me. >> You could attach that to the license agreement. Say you know this is we're signing a license agreement and here's our understanding of how you're going to execute that license agreement. >> Sure. You can make it an amendment to license >> configuration. >> Yeah, configuration. Yeah.
>> Is this we are is license. Uh John >> uh well I want to thank the people in the community who have you know raised questions about the camera u uh aspect of uh this project which you know let's keep in mind that this is essentially a
a project to deal with the need for um uh harvestry to be repaved repaired and repaved. Um and it's a serious need. Um and uh there's all kinds of safety issues that stem from you know a road that is in a deteriorating condition. Um
and then you know as part of the process people who are very sort of watchful and good for them uh noticed that there's reference to camera technology um in the contract for the improvements to Harvard Street. Then the question arose you know what why would there be the this camera
technology? Well, you heard the answer to that tonight. Um, there's two ways of monitoring um, how many cars are backed up at a light. I'll just use that example. Um, one is for there to be sort of a a pad um, under the pavement um, at
the same location as the light uh, and you measure how many cars and and you know how long the line is I guess by you know the weight of the car on the pad. A different way is to have a camera there which can actually count cars um and so
on. Um there has been no mention made in any of this uh of a different use of cameras that is increasingly common commonplace and in fact advocated um by many bicyclists and others um and that
is so-called speed cameras. Um, I I I won't judge whether someday we might use speed cameras um as part of our routine maintenance of traffic in uh Brooklyn, but I would note that that's entirely
consistent with enforcement of speed limits and with the goals of Vision Zero. So, uh, that's just an example of a camera use that a lot of people would be for. And, um, I think we better, you know, at some point deal with all of
these different questions that arise, um, where cameras are concerned. But I don't think it's reason enough to put off this vote on this contract tonight. Um, and while I just, you know, have the mic, I want to say something else about all of the people who spoke um earlier
on, uh, from the interests of people who, uh, uh, bike on Harvard Street, and I want to thank them for making their comments, but I do want to, um, encourage them, uh, in the future, um, not to imply uh, that our traffic um,
uh, division, um, our transportation department, our DPW, um, your select board um uh are unmindful of safety. Um that of course we're mindful of safety and it it is not a open-end shut case
that the overall safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and people in vehicles. that the overall safety of that street would necessarily be enhanced if we took the parking that exists at the curb and
moved it further into the middle of the street. And to cite just one obvious example, as someone who experienced in a in an unfortunate way um the move um on Center Street, West Roxberry of parking towards the middle of Center
Street, West Roberry uh with a bike car protected bike lane to the right of parked vehicles. And as someone who has enjoyed um going to the Cororb restaurant in West Roxberry for many years, um having first experienced Cororup right here in Brooklyn, um uh
having never had any issues, um as soon as that change took place on Center Street, within one or two visits to the Cororb in West Roberry, um the uh driver's side uh mirror had been knocked off of our car >> um and cost us $300 to repair. Um, it
should surprise no one that you when you move cars closer to the center of um of a very heavily traveled um uh vehicle lane where not only is it heavily traveled, but the cars move very fast. That's a safety risk to those getting
out of the car. So, you have to take that into consideration. Um there are safety risks to people crossing the street. Um if if for any reason they step out or people in a car who step into a bike lane from the car, um they
didn't have that risk on the passenger side of vehicles, now they will. Um and that's an added risk. So all these risks have to be taken into consideration. And I think um in fairness to those of us who think we should move forward on this
contract, it should not be posed um uh even by the most ardent of uh biking advocates as an indication that we don't care about safety. I you know I'll I'll be honest. I I I kind of resented that tonight. Um because I know we all care about safety and I know they care about
safety. But let's have a discussion of safety that embraces pedestrians and people in vehicles and people on bicycles and recognizes the reality of the difference between a tight street with not much room uh for vehicle lanes
once you start you know doing all these other changes and a street that is you know very very wide such as not you know I won't say it's very very wide but Beacon Street you know down in the St. Mary's area. That's a very different situation. And I'm glad we had um success with the uh vehicle protected
bike lane there. But that doesn't mean vehicle protected bike lanes will work on every street everywhere in Brooklynite. It it just it isn't true. And it doesn't mean that people who raise questions about vehicle protected bike lanes on a street such as Harvard Street are unmindful of safety. Um just
not true. >> Thank you, David. So I I have a few questions. So first, when who precisely came up with the plans for which markings to make, which markings not to make, where to install
flex posts, where not to install flex posts. Can you provide maybe a timeline for when these decisions were made, who provided input into these decisions? >> Sure. Sure. I'm I'm Dan Murphy, director of engineering and transportation and uh
we started the design I believe in November December and uh Apex uh is our consultant and they do they do the markings plan and they will stamp them at the end when we're finished. Um but they basically come up with uh what we can do what improvements they recommend
to make. Um the town staff look at that as well. Um, if I going through this now with a new PMP P policy, I would certainly build in a step to bring it to uh BAC back and uh get their input as well. Um, and I'll I
hope that's what comes out of the whole prioritization progress process. U, but we do we look at all safety improvements. We had other things going on where we had we're putting in seven new pairs of our RFBs and we uh built that in. The big the big thing I want to
just point out is we start a year ahead and really look at the sidewalks, look at all the ramps. We want to make sure all the ramps are brought up to code. Uh so we and we prepare. We got a big a nice grant from uh Masdot for these RFBs. So we needed to basically incorporate making sure everything was
ready for them. Um we go through all the sidewalks. We did ton of work last year. We did water service um installations in preparation and did let everybody know that we were doing this ahead of the PMPP project. But I I do it's really uh
Apex comes up with ideas. We review them and the step that I failed and I I will do again I will do going forward is to make sure that back has input on these PMPB projects to make to make the changes that we can on the markings plan. The good thing about the markings plan is that it's the last thing. So we
do have time uh to adjust those and we've gone through that. uh uh Rob Duptel and I myself went to the back meeting last week and uh heard heard comments and we received the comments previously and we worked to incorporate uh most of them. Uh there's some that we
can't that need community outreach but uh that was really the process we went through on this. >> So So there was some degree of community outreach you're saying? Well, I I mean, we didn't reach out to we I guess I didn't take these plans to back formally
and uh I think that going forward on these on these PMPP projects, I will certainly want to build that in and make that formal. It's our first time through on this, we're looking at the prioritization uh program and how to come up with all the all the priorities with the transportation board. And one
of the things we'll definitely build into that is for the PNP projects, we want to have a milestone in the middle of design, the early design, uh, when we get the maybe the initial cut by our designer, uh, to have a have everybody have a look and weigh in with input
>> because I do see on and it's page 334 of our materials the uh, FY26 transportation and mobility mobility improvements scope of work and it expressly mentions uh, that there'll the installation of signage and pavement
markings and that there will be flex post installation which can be used for uh enhanced bike safety of course. And then on page 344 in the section regarding pavement markings there is a
specific uh subclause talking about how bike lanes and bus lanes will be marked with methylmethacrylate. And so that tells me that within the scope of this contract, there ought to be some room for uh incorporating
some degree of uh bike safety uh mechanisms. And the reason this concerns me a little bit in terms of the timing, I understand that we are technically reviewing a contract and that these processes are not necessarily
one and the same, but this is a high ticket item. We're talking about uh three over $3.1 million. And I worry a little bit about whether this is the most efficient way to spend uh these dollars. I wouldn't want to see a
situation where we are repaving a significant lengthy street only to then have to do it again when we look at it through a vision zero lens and yet another time when we look at it through a accessibility lens. uh that would seem
to be spending more money than necessary. So to the extent that we can have the this additional community input incorporated into this process and of course it won't be perfect because some safety mechanisms would be outside the
scope of the contract but even within the language that I'm seeing there is some allowance for input and for bike lanes and for flex post installation etc. just pauses. >> No, it's okay. Chaz had something you want to add.
>> Well, I just I think it's I think it's it's important too to think about how these all of these policies are meant to interact um and how we are building that process out. And as Dan pointed out, I do think there's it's it's important to develop these levels of input. And it's important to set those expectations
accordingly, right? In the sense that Yeah. Right. I I think one of the big comments that we heard from the community and I understand where it comes from is, hey, the contract says you could do this work. why aren't you doing it? And the answer is not, well, it's because, you know, we we don't want to or, you know, because we don't think that's there there's value in having
those discussions. There is, but that process requires so much more effort to, you know, when you start changing how the striping is designed, when you start putting in, you know, parking protected bike lanes, that is a significant shift in how the
road is used. And that then triggers, you know, you're getting right now a lot of comments from the community saying, "Hey, you know, we we really want protected bike lanes. That's a, you know, vehicle protected bike lanes. That's a good idea. You know, we're we're getting that feedback." I think if you were to shift your priorities and
say, "Okay, we're going to put them in next meeting," you'd have 100 people saying, "Don't don't you dare." You know, absolutely. So I I think this is this is a really tough situation where you have very zealous adv advocacy on all sides and that's why we did the work
that we did and the work that Paul and Mike Samman did you know last year to build not just the pavement management plan but think about how it intersects and interacts with vision zero and with um complete streets because we don't want to give up on complete streets. We
don't want to give up on those projects, but we also hear the feedback of the community, which is not enough was getting done. And so, we have to find a way, if we can't make everyone happy, we at least have to find a way to balance those competing interests. Pave more roads, don't let the roads fall apart,
think about complete streets, think about safety, think about vision zero. All of those things can be intentioned with each other, and we're trying to harmonize them as best we can. And that is going to result in things where people are going to get 70% of what they want and it's going to feel like a loss.
Um, and I understand that and I understand the frustration there. But you also don't want to be in the situation where Cambridge is where every time a board flips, you know, right? I think last this the Cambridge City Council last at their last meeting, the composition of the council has shifted
54 in favor of bike lanes to 54 against bike lanes several times. And so now they're taking a vote to scrap a proposal to scrap a bike lane. Um it's just and and you know staff have thrown up you know I feel very badly for the staff in Cambridge who've just kind of
thrown up their hands and said how on earth how on earth are we supposed to do this you know like the the process you know you know improving the process is really important and making sure the process is right. So I take your feedback. You know, I think it's good feedback, but I also think it's then
important to say we build these policies to ensure consistency of outcomes. Um, and when we say, well, we're going to bend it because this is an important thing or we need to, you know, we need to look at this another way, then you're saying that the policies and the
processes you put in place are malleable and are subject to lobbying to get what thing what people want. um when what we're trying to do is solicit that input, but also be able to provide the consistency of outcome and move forward on it. So, I get that it's a hard balance to strike. And I think to Dan's
point, we're going to continue to tinker with that and figure out how we can make people feel heard and respected um while also acknowledging that there are competing voices in the community and we're trying to synthesize what we hear. Well, I'm not trying to suggest that any one particular voice be heard, but it
sounds like the process was work with a consultant Apex and then staff reviews Apex's recommendation. And I'm not sure why we would want to farm out these decisions to Apex rather than
incorporating community input from anywhere. So I think but again the question is incor you know listening to the community getting community feedback which is what you know again Dan and Rob did you know I think people felt it was late in the process but there were
changes made as a result of that input um building that in earlier to the process is important but I think you have to set expectations too which is it's you know if we were to do this as a re as not just a restriping but a change in use we would be having community
meetings we would be having all the all the public feedback and before you know it the project the you know we're trying to get this project done over the summer all of a sudden you're talking about something that stretches into fall and winter you're talking about and while the road is deteriorating and so I think we've got to come up with a balance
between this idea you know we we want to be solicitus of public feedback we want to try and incorporate it but we don't want everything to then resort you know come back to this you know design by committee and the potential for gridlock that that creates right at a certain
point. We have to say we hire transportation experts to make these decisions. They should be making those decisions well informed with feedback from the community, but it's not necessarily a situation where it's designed by committee. >> Paul,
>> yep. Um that was a good job. Um yeah, explaining all all that what you said. But I I do want to first I want to thank uh Dave and Emily and everybody who's come forward um to to speak about uh bic
bicycle safety. Um as you know I've been a strong supporter of it uh with Washington Street. Um I've advocated for uh for the bridal path. Um and frankly I was supportive of changing Chestnut Hill. Um you know Chestnut Hill is
actually a great example of what can happen. We it got so derailed that nothing is now happening. Um I I do I think it's important to put into context what's going on this board not particularly this board but the select board I think it was two years ago year almost two years ago >> year and a half yeah
>> year and a half ago which meant it started when I joined the board and I can I'll tell you after how that happened but um you know this is this is a policy that that was uh complete streets which was actually in the way it had great intentions it had initially
been launched it had never been changed changed. Um, and I I actually spoke with the chair of the board who had approved it at that time. Uh, and I said, "Has this thing ever been touched?" He said, "Nope, and it's probably time to revisit it." And one of the problems with Complete Streets, it had great intentions, but it was holding up
maintenance of our roadways. And our roadways were deteriorating further and further uh because we didn't have the ability to just go repave a road um uh because it had to go through this entire process and redesign uh for complete streets. So Mike Sandman and I uh met
with uh the uh DPW commissioner, engineering, I think uh the the transportation board chair was there and others and consultants. Um and we came up with this this modified uh policy set which was complete streets and pavement
management. And that those policies were modified adopted by this board um the select board and adopted by the transportation board. there policies that are in place. Um, and under those policies, there's kind of two tiers. There there's tiers of those roadways
that are priorities for complete streets redesign. Um, it takes a significant amount of investment to do that. It's not cheap. Um, but it's important. It needs to be done. The community engagement needs to be done properly and we know that when it isn't done properly, things get derailed. Uh, like
what happened with Chestnut Hill. Um there's also a category of roadways that are important that have a lot of traffic. Um and we need to maintain them not only for the safety of of uh cyclists but also for the safety of automobiles and pedestrians. Um and and
Harvard Street has fallen has had fallen into that um has falls into that category. And the design of the policy, and frankly this board, the transportation board could revisit the policy, but the design of the policy is to allow the max maximizing the limited
funds that we have to repave and fix as as many miles of roadway as we can. And that's what's going on here. um you know if we were to delay the process at this point um to do the community engagement
which CHZ had has mentioned it's not just the bicycle advocates which I really appreciate their advocacy but we're going to hear from seniors we're going to hear from pedestrians we're going to hear from businesses um we're going to hear from folks that uh go down
Harvard Street by automobile and it's going to be a gigantic effort. it always is. So to take something and just run it by just the bicycle advisory committee frankly isn't fair. Um if we're going to run a review of a repaving project um you know to the extent that you're
talking about you should have to do it by every commission that has a say in it. Um and frankly that would not be a good use in utilization of our very limited capital funds. I think we I think I asked Melissa it was five million I think is what's in our is in
our CIP for roadways and I believe the commissioner has told us that we're about 100 million in the hole. So that'll tell you how far behind we are. Um so while I I really appreciate and I look forward to biking with Biking Brooklyn again on their when it gets warmer it's getting warmer now to go on
one of their trips. I've I've really enjoyed it. They've helped me um embrace cycling more with my children. Um there is a balance that we have to do with make making sure that we're maintaining our roadways and our investments um for the safety of everybody and make the improvements as best we can when we're
doing these mill and overlays. So um and I hope that we can adjust the process that would help you feel a little more engaged going forward. But I'm supportive of the contract >> likely. >> Uh oh, sure. >> I guess my hand's invisible. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> You want to go first?
>> Go ahead. Um uh a couple of comments. Number one is um uh Paul, thank you for for that uh background information. I appreciated it. Um and I'm sure we everybody else did as well. Um I will add uh one detail of course to that is
that we also um I think it was like within a month of when I joined the select board uh approved a vision zero policy which is also part of the policy set that we are trying to juggle. um with and part of it part of the
challenge um that that we are facing. So I just want to make sure that that that set of policies and the the relatively newer ideas that are presented in that policy are also sort of incorporated into this conversation. Um but but in
the in an effort to move to move forward from the point we're at now and I you know having read the RAMPP RAMMP um and discussed it with several people over the last several days um I I'm sort
of in in agreement with you that that we need to move forward with this. But I would like to ask a couple of questions about this project in in terms of how it can integrate with the uh the interest and what has been described. So my first
question is the very simple one is when is this project going to start and when do you expect it to be finished? >> Uh very good questions. Uh we expect it to start soon after marathon day. I believe the tenative date was May 4th um
with the contractor and it's one thing I did want to point out it's in two phases uh north of Beacon Street it would be phase one where we do the milling all the structure adjustment and then the paving and then the marketing before moving to the south side of Beacon and we did that just to kind of speed things
up and uh reduce the burden on uh commercial uh folks. Um and then so then it would be the second phase would be the southern section. um the timing it would take since I think uh getting in there's some curb work on the north side
and then they would come in and do the milling that could be three to five days or three to five nights uh as we'll talk about later and then we basically then adjust all the structures over a few weeks and then uh do the finished paving and then the marking and then we do the
same thing on the south phase and then basically the limits are the city of Boston down to Kent Street with a small piece uh near the pier school that we're going to say uh they're going to do for us uh when they finish their work with the school. >> So So I heard you say you're starting around May 5th and I heard a number of
steps that are all taking days and weeks. Do you have do you have a Gant chart or some other >> Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly >> Yeah, we can provide that. I think there's one in the uh the application for the network >> the noise uh the noise bylaw.
>> So what's so what's the date? I think it's I want to say it's July and into August. >> Okay. So So it's starting at the beginning of May and going through July and August. Okay. Thank you. The the next question I have is, you know, when you talk about something like the public
process for developing protected bike lanes, um, in your experience, how much time would you allocate for that process, you know, in order to to be sufficiently
robust to incorporate into this into Harvard Street, whether it was part of this project or not? How long would that typically take? >> Uh, I guess if it if there's no curb being moved, um, it it can be fairly but I think there's still a lot of
stakeholders as mentioned before. If we wanted to go to parking protected bike lanes, I think it would take I mean it could take I'd say months and it could go longer. I mean, we >> but if it was systematic and we had it all set up um maybe you know a few months it could take we could get
through it. >> Okay. And so the the third question is I'm familiar that with the prioritization plan that you're that uh the uh traffic uh division is setting up to to sort of help answer that question.
And so, um, can can you provide any sort of update into the creation of of that plan and how that plan might be applicable to the uh design changes and requests that are being made by the public?
>> Uh, that that plan would would basically prioritize complete streets projects, bike network improvement projects, uh, the full array of all of our projects. And I think uh that would build in a more uh a more uh robust community outreach program. And we we we
introduced in January a community outreach program based on the tier of the project. We had tier one, two, and three. And I think that that would those would set the framework for that. >> Right. And and in your experience, based on your understanding of the of the proposals here, do you think this would
be like a tier one very very long project, tier two or tier three type of project? this well Harvard would be one of the longest because it's sits in a vibrant and it's the runs right through the heart of of Brooklyn. So it would take some time. So my I would probably say it probably takes on the longer side
it would take a long time or a tier two project. >> Yeah. And the other thing I'd say is that if we wanted to make major changes um it would take capital uh you know coming up with a capital program to to fund it. I mean >> okay or become a tip project. If I may
briefly elaborate, as as director Dan Murphy has said, this Harvard Street would most certainly be a tier one project. Um, this was part of the public engagement process that our team put together um with collaboration from I believe Paul Warren from the select
board uh and chairman Kaine. Um, and our estimate for a tier one project um with significant cross-section changes is 18 to 24 months. Um, so I think that um I think that would be a good ballpark
timeline to estimate uh for a for a redesign of Harvard Street. So, so, so I I would I would posit um that given the scope of changes that were being proposed that you wouldn't necessarily have to do all of Harvard Street to
start to realize the benefits of some of these changes and uh potentially could chunk the project into smaller pieces that could be done more quickly. I'll leave it at that. >> Go ahead.
Well, um I want to go back to uh what Michael said at the beginning um because I'm not sure what I heard at the end, but um I think I heard you say that you fully appreciate that we're at a point now where if we're going to be serious about the pavement improvement um uh
project uh approach to our streets. We're going to fix streets when the streets are in a condition that needs fixing. And we're not going to fix streets after we undergo two, three years of, you know, all all kinds of
imagined redesigns of the street. Um, and maybe to no end, depending on whether, you know, where we are on the tip, you know, which is the state process for getting state funding. Then you have to comply with all the aspects of the state funding. Um, so >> if you're are you asking me?
>> Well, well, you can repeat what you said at the beginning if you wish. Sure. So, so you are asking a question in the abstract and I was responding to the specific of this case. So, in this particular case, I think that we should move forward with the Harvard Street road maintenance project.
>> Thank you. No, really. I I appreciate that and and um I I mean I know I feel like I've gotten to know you uh pretty well and and I I I really appreciate how seriously you think about every aspect of of the job of seboard and and also every issue that comes before us and you
you really look at the documentation and you really think think through your decision. So I very much appreciate that statement. Um uh and I want to say um uh Dan Dan alluded to it. First of all, let's clarify what back is because Dan mentioned that a few times. I'm not sure
he told people what it was. Um, it's the bicycle advisory committee. The irony of this discussion is you would think that they were never consulted. Um, they're one of the few committees that actually had a meeting where this was fully laid out for them. And good good for them for having the meeting. Good for them for
asking the questions that they asked. But one of the points that was made um by the member of the transportation board who was conducting that meeting um was that uh the meeting wasn't about uh whether to intervene and change the plan
for Harvard Street because it the the meeting was being conducted to inform the bicycle advisory committee of what is to come in terms of the needed um improvements to Harvard Harvard Street in terms of its condition and the
realistic assessment by our transportation division, all all of the people who are experts on on highways and on how to manage traffic and so on. Um how to come as close as possible as we can to achieving the goals of vision
zero. Um they all took a look at this and they all came to the decision that if this is to go forward u so that the street gets fixed when it needs fixing and not two years later and not three years later. The way to do it is the way
that they have put in front of us. And u they've done they've done their best to incorporate uh bike lanes on the street. They're not the bike lanes that the bicycle advisory committee would have preferred, but um they have also done their best to improve the intersections
where they can through things. I think they're going to incorporate some flex post use. Um they're certainly going to um uh incorporate much more use of paint, much more visible crosswalks. Um, by the way, curb cuts that um are are much more in sort of where they should
be in addressing the needs of um disabled people, handicapped access, excuse me. Um there's a lot of good improvements that are going to come from this project, but um they're not going to come from this project if we start to delay it. um especially if we start to
delay it on behalf of a plan which actually I think has been vetted by our transportation division and I think they're a little bit too polite to say so and found to be unfeasible and for a lot of reasons. One of them that was actually specifically cited before the bicycle advisory committee was the
MBTA's um current requirements for the width of vehicle lanes that accommodate buses. And turns out in in keeping with um th those requirements when this repaving is done, there's going to have to be a minimum uh width allowed for
buses that's greater than than is currently allowed. And uh that's going to factor into whether it's even feasible to talk about parking protected bike lanes. They looked at it, they made their decision, they're ready to go ahead. And one other group that's got a stake in this, uh you would think that
like bicyclist are the only people have a stake in this. No, there's like so many groups that have a stake in this. And one of them that we haven't barely mentioned tonight, all of the commercial um enterprise owners all up and down Harvard Street, they're very anxious about this project as well. They should
be. Um projects like this interrupt the you know e and flow of uh customer traffic to their businesses. Sometimes they result in barriers being put near the sidewalk entrances to their businesses. um they need to see this executed as quickly as possible, as
efficiently as possible, and with the least amount of doubt hanging over their heads as to whether a week from now they're going to be shut down because of temporary, you know, barriers in front of their place of business. So I think we owe it to a lot of people to just go
ahead with the pavement improvement program as we have created it and as as we have sort of under the kind of goals that we set out to achieve with it and not let it be way laid by a sudden onset of well but wait a minute um was every
interest you know consulted was it when in fact um no matter what the interests say when you consult with them if the fix need if the street needs fixing it needs fixing. And we're not doing anybody a favor if we allow a street to
deteriorate further, which is already deteriorating. >> David, >> do we know? So, >> by the way, I'd like to wrap this up quickly. >> So, John, you just referenced a lot of other constituencies whose voices haven't necessarily been heard. Doesn't
that all that at all concern you though? How do we know that this plan? No, because I think you're misunderstanding the the point of my emphasis of that that all of those interests, bicyclists, pedestrians, um vehicles, MBTA, um all were taken into account by the people
who are the experts at doing streets and foremost they took into account the condition of the street and the need for streets in that condition to be repaired in a timely way. or else you'll end up with an even uh much bigger project that will involve actually digging up the
entire street. Um so yeah, I I don't doubt that our transportation people um took all of that into consideration. What about the financial efficiency though? So a common complaint we'll hear is uh that there's a repaving of a certain street and then we repave it
again a year later and then again a year after that. And are we wasting money when we don't follow the same timeline on parallel tracks? >> Uh if since you asked a question to me, otherwise I think it should go to Michael wants to answer it too. But um of course that's a cons consideration,
but we're more familiar with that with utility work and we do our best and I'm sure you know the people who are here tonight do their best to coordinate with utilities as to their schedules for you know breaking up streets that have already recently been repaved. But um
that that I'm I I just know for a fact is is not a uh a consideration that should justify delaying um this project. They wouldn't be asking us to go forward with it. If they thought that um you know all of a sudden they were going to actually um change their plan for the
street two years from now and start all over again. Um we gave them a mandate, you know, which is um clear clear the decks, concentrate on on the complete streets projects that are the most important and the most doable and then
beyond that get going on fixing these streets that have been waiting for some kind of attention for many years now and we're finally on the verge of doing that and I would hate to see us suddenly um you know back away from that. >> Got it. John, thanks John. Sorry. Um, >> and and then I'd like I think we have a
sense or I have a sense of where we're going. Okay. >> I'd like to call for a >> vote. In order to answer David's question, I'd like to ask a question of staff. This is a project that's roughly $3.2 million. Um, how much of that cost is actually devoted to marking so that
if we had to like remark, I mean, we obviously wouldn't need to repave the streets again. We, you know, presumably the bonding and the asphalt would would still be good. So, how much of this 3.2 million is actually related to the cost of just the parking? >> Absolutely.
>> Oh, go ahead, >> Dan. I have the I have the estimate up. I was just going to Is it okay for me to go? >> Um, so, uh, for the board, I'm going to I'm going to round numbers. Um, but the request is obviously for the full contract value, which is the $3.18
million. So, of that, the video detection systems are $245,000. So, just to repave the road with surface with the paint markings, uh, is approximately $2.9 million. Uh, and of
that $2.9 million, um, you can estimate that between 250,000 and 300,000 go towards the pavement markings themselves. So, the cost just to pave the road without pavement markings is approximately $2.6
million. >> Okay. So, >> thank you. Quick question. >> Quick question. >> Do you Does the installation of flex posts require repaving? >> It does not. The technique is a very small saw cut into the road uh for the
installation and that will be done at the completion of paving. >> So, it will be the last step along with pavement markings. Okay, I think I have the sense that the board is willing to go forward with this contract. I'd like to if the board agrees add some conditions to our
approval with respect to the cameras. Um, and those conditions I suggest be put in the form of anou that is brought back to the board. Um, you and you basically said identifies what the
capabilities are now. uh and says that no changes without select board approval specifically um prohibiting any other capabilities uh prohibiting upgrades uh prohibiting any use of AI technology and
prohibiting access to our system by anyone outside of Brookline >> AI is without without select board approval. So I mean if if you want yeah AI they have to come to us and explain why that's >> so so I believe that if they take a
picture of the streetway then they use an aspect of AI you know they would I could go but I'm not going >> but they would use they would use AI in order to convert that picture into a number of vehicle a certain number of
vehicles which is a capability that I think we expect. >> Well, we were we were told that they can turn that off. >> Yeah. Everything is is is artificial intelligence in the computer world, right? >> But I think when we say artificial intelligence, we're talking about something different than personal
identification. my um computer here, John. >> And I'm not sure that I fully understand your intent, but I wonder if you would be comfortable with um our you know, our taking a vote on what's in front of us, as you said, um but um leaving to a
future meeting to hear your proposal of anou to attach to the light uh the camera technology that is because that's not going to we're not that part of this anytime soon. Um and um it sounds to me
like what you're aiming for is something we in fact as a as a board might end up all agreeing with. Um but it's a separate matter and I don't want it to become a matter that trips up getting the necessary start to the repaving of
this street. >> I wasn't thinking of it that way. Okay. I mean that just that we have to at some point before this is implemented have an agreement as to what they can and cannot do. >> Yeah. >> Bernard, in our in your motion, could
you add that the town administrator will work with staff to come back with a proposedou that would I mean they have a sense of the conditions we're looking for >> as opposed to us trying to craft it on the fly >> before before the system is turned on. We can get back to you with that. >> And it doesn't have to be anou. I mean >> whatever it is whatever whatever set of
conditions you want. Would it be too much of an ask for the board to include in that some kind of specific timeline for when Harvard Street will be reconsidered with all stakeholders, not any one potential group? >> I would be hesitant to do that for
Harvard Street outside of the context of all of DPW's other work. I think it has to be integrated into their larger planning process. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, uh I will move approval of the uh
of the excuse me, Larusa contract for fiscal year 26 transportation and mobility improvements of Harvard Street in the amount of one uh 3.182 million dollars. uh conditioned on uh town
administrator coming back to us with a set of uh restrictions on the use of this equipment beyond its current capabilities and we'll we'll trust you to come up with uh the appropriate uh conditions. >> We'll give you time to edit it. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So uh with that all in favor John Vancoyak. >> Thank you very much chair. Um I >> Paul Warren >> I >> uh David Pearlman >> abstain. >> Okay. Um Michael Rubenstein >> I
>> and chair votes eye. Great. Okay. Now we have a uh noise bylaw uh hearing hearing. Um >> are you introducing the staff will talk through it? >> No, I think she's standing there for the public hearing.
>> Oh, okay. Good. Are you ready? Y. Um, >> yes. Uh, basically, so we're coming up before you also for the noise uh bylaw to allow night work. Um, we included that in the contract uh primarily to minimize disruption during the day,
particularly for commercial. Um, and so we've worked with the contractor to determine that they think maximum 10 days per phase as I talked about north and south. Uh, the night work would be during milling and paving. And then the
all the structure adjustment all that work would be would happen during the day. Um uh the the 10 days is probably conservative but and the other thing is we kept it a little bit open be based on weather and we wanted to uh have a have
uh times we'd obviously update the board when it was when it was going to happen but it would be uh you know up to 10 days per phase uh with actual fixed dates uh to be determined based on weather and schedule as we go forward. And uh this the contractor is here to
talk and and Sam may have more details you could add. >> I I would only add that um as Dan uh indicated it's weather dependent. Um in the noise bylaw request to the select board. You can see that Luruso Corp has laid out the tenative schedule. Um and
that would have milling taking place the week of May 17th. As Dan also said, this is conservative. Um, Luso Corporation believes that under good weather conditions that this work could be completed in as few as two nights per phase or two nights per milling, two
nights per paving, but of course uh in the event that there's poor weather or other unforeseen errors. Um, and then the paving operation um would take place uh in early June, approximately three weeks after the milling uh for each phase.
>> Great. Uh any questions? Let's open the Yes, >> I do have I have one question. Um, so when when Beacon Street was done, it seemed to be at mil for a hundred years. It was a long time. Um, what what what
was that a weather issue? I don't know if you were involved in that, but was that weather and it just prevented us from actually doing the final paving? Like it seemed like it was a long time that we were grinding our teeth uh on Beacon Street. >> That year was particularly rainy. we we
were um held back significantly from our schedule. It definitely took a lot longer. Um and as as Dan mentioned before, the intention of phasing this into two portions is to minimize the time uh that uh residents and uh visitors to our commercial areas have to
deal with the mil surface. And so um that's why we believe breaking this up into two phases is best for everyone. Um, so we we really hoped for a less a less rainy summer than uh than the work on Beacon Street last year. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing. >> Okay. The chair is open the public hearing. If there's anyone that wishes to speak, please raise your hand using the raise your hand feature online or if you're in the room, you can come to the podium. >> Okay. I see Emily Jackson's at the p
podium. Hi. Obviously, I'm not here to speak about the noise waiver. I'm here to speak about the previous item. >> I'm obviously not here to speak about the noise waiver. I'm here to speak about the previous item. May I be allowed to speak? And may the other people in the room who have been waiting be allowed to speak?
>> Um, you know, the the our policy is that u when we um after our 15 minutes are up, if people still have uh comments they want to make, they can make them at the end of the meeting. Um I don't know what the select board wants to do about this situation. John,
>> well, I I'm just confused because I thought there were a bunch of statements at the beginning of the meeting. >> Yeah, they were. Yeah. >> So, are they coming? >> As a matter of fact, Emily made made a statement. >> I know. Are they coming back to say the same? I don't understand. >> No, no, no. There's more people. >> So, there's people who weren't heard the first time. That's Yes.
>> But do they want to speak to the noise? I'm sorry. I shouldn't be. The chair can take take >> Yeah, this is a noise bylaw hearing. Oh, yep. You >> I just No, no, no. I just wanted to first um you know, I have great respect
for you, Emily, and your advocacy. Um and I hope David, I hope I still get invites to the to the Viking Brooklyn uh excursions even though my vote. Um but you know, just to respect um there's a there's a full agenda
tonight. There's people waiting to uh give us interviews. I see a nodding head for an interview for a commission appointment. Um, we've got warrant articles that are being presented to us tonight. We need to deliberate and vote on some warrant articles. Um, what what I would suggest is that we stick to the
noise bylaw uh chair um only and then at the end uh take additional public comment on and certainly if folks want to stick around to do that um and that can be incorporated for future policy deliberations. But um that that would be my suggestion that we have a really a
full calendar tonight. Um, I know you're additional, not people who already spoke. >> Well, I I I that I'll leave that to the chair. I'm just saying right now we should focus on the noise bylaw so we can get the to our the rest of our work. >> Let's keep to our policy that the uh additional public comments come at the
end of the meeting. >> Mr. Chairman, this is our street and our tax dollars and I believe we should have a chance to speak >> at the end of >> Well, yeah, but we are the executive body of this town. Yes, but the transportation board never took up this issue.
>> You can come after our meeting and have your make your comments. We're not going to get into a back and forth in this. >> There are people in this room who really care about this. >> I understand who have come to this issue. At >> this point, I have to ask you to stop. I'm sorry. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any uh anyone want to make comment on the noise bylaw waiver? >> No. Okay, I will close the hearing and um any questions from the board before we vote? Okay, hearing none, I move that uh we
approve the request by Laruso uh related to contract PW 2638, fiscal year 26, transportation and mobility improvements. Um so we're voting on the noise bylaw waiver. I think I misread read that. Uh
all in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak >> I. >> Paul Warren >> I. >> David Crowman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein >> I. >> And chair votes I. Thank you. >> Thank you to the board. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> Next boards and commissions interviews. Um we're going to start off with the Fisher Hill Uses Advisory Committee. I understand that uh uh George Cole and Pam Lodish are scheduled for tonight's uh interview. Are they available on
Zoom? >> Well, Pam's here in front of us. >> Okay. Okay. You want to start off, Pam? But before you go, I'd like to just make a little statement. Um, you know, as I've said many times, and I don't think it necessarily applies in every case,
but it's important to make clear that, um, you know, when we look at applicants for one of our public bodies, uh, we look at whether they have the skills necessary, uh, for that body, uh, do they have good ideas and perspectives?
uh do they have relevant diversity to ensure that all communities and perspectives are represented in the work of the public body on behalf of the town and also I think very very important can the applicant work effectively and respectfully with other members of the
public body and with the town staff that will be working with the public body. Um, I think in this case, I don't have a concern with the people we're interviewing tonight, but I just want to make sure that everyone knows that that is a criteria uh for our um selection of
people for town bodies. So, with that, let's start off with uh Fisher Hill uses advisory committee and uh who's first >> up up at the podium, ma'am. >> Okay. I appreciate that you clarified you
weren't you weren't making that comment about getting along with others. I have no problem because we have three great kids. >> We we've had this problem in the past so I want to make sure it's very clear but I don't >> it's not an issue with Pam. >> Excess we are >> one.
>> One just one >> and we don't have the option to extend some additional positions. >> Um you always have that option. I'm not sure that that >> is a good idea. I mean, >> and this is a committee that's already in flight. How long has it been?
>> Oh, it's been in place for about a year now. >> So, >> it hasn't met much, I don't believe. >> Uh, we've met a few times. I mean, you know, there's not much to meet since the public schools are using the site that we're >> right >> interested in. Okay. Please introduce yourself and tell
us why you're interested in this committee. >> Okay. My name is Pam Lodish. I lived on Fischer A. I've lived in the neighborhood forever. Um I moved to Fischer Avenue 45 years ago approximately and then moved up the hill
when we >> could inter someone I'm hearing a background noise. Was that your computer? >> Could be her device maybe. >> Okay. It's hard for me to >> start again and maybe we'll pick up on it again.
>> Um, I have no idea. I have my laptop o over there, but I wasn't signed into the meeting. >> Oh, it's Dave. Yeah, David, you don't want your phone conversation to be public record. >> Oh. Oh,
>> I could hear myself talk. >> Sorry. >> All right. Well, I've been in the neighborhood for forever. I've been active in the neighborhood forever. I have been and I care about the Fiser Hill neighborhood. I participated for
many years in the reconstruction of the um when the under when the underground reservoir was abandoned and we bu had property and then we build affordable housing. I was part of a team that took a long time to come to a good answer and have um buildings that fit into the
neighborhood but met the needs of the community. Um I also then was on the committee to develop the Fiser Hill Park and that took another long time but it's a great asset in our community as well. Um, I've had boards board experience.
I've had professional experience. I know about I' I was told somehow that you were interested in the getting someone and this is totally reasonable that had financial experience. So, I can tell you that as an undergraduate, I majored in accounting. I was I have always had when
I professional jobs that involve budgeting and ma managing the budget. Well, um I did private construction management for clients for up to many millions of dollars and I was at one point the associate director of the
Harvard College Observatory responsible for the entire physical plant. So money managing a budget isn't my issue isn't I have skill set in that. I have skill set in board experience. I have passion for the neighborhood which is why we stayed
there when we chose to sell our home and moved up the hill. So, do you have any questions for me? >> I have a question for each of the the candidates. Um, let's see. Let me find it here. So, what skills and perspectives, and you answer this to
some degree, uh, would you bring to the committee to enable it to sort through the many ideas that people will have and and come to a decision that will address the needs and wants of every part of the town? I'm very passionate about making sure that we are very careful to
consider all the various um housing uh the pool um or the making um place for the um senior center for example. I mean, I know those are themes that have been on the that are being presented and
I think we have to evaluate them all, look at the comp integrate it with a comprehensive plan and see that we can do the best for the for the community. And I would say that I was certainly an advocate when
um the Newberry College was for sale. I was working I worked very closely with the neighborhood itself and we came in really in a very positive way to support it and I would hope that no matter what decision the committee came up with I
could be a integral part of promoting it and getting the neighborhood to accept it as well. >> Any other questions? >> Oh I'm sorry John. >> Yeah. Um, I just want to say by way of preface, not just to Pam, but to the
other candidates, um, I happen to think Fiser Hill is one of the great success stories, um, that we can claim in Brooklyn in terms of what we have seen done over the years to kind of take advantage with what's of what's there, improve upon what's there, improve upon
Fiser Hill as a resource for the entire town. Um, you know, I'll just cite a little bit of examples quickly. Um, I think a lot of people don't realize that there is a considerable subsidized housing um, in the area of Fiser Hill. Um, and some of the nicest subsidized
housing in in the town. It's of a type that you don't see very much around the town other than on Fischer Hill. Um, there is also, you know, the example of what is now the Newberry um, senior residence complex um, senior care complex. Um I know people including one
former select board member who um are very happy um with um their situation um now that they have been able to move into into that um residence. Um and uh that didn't just happen over you know by
accident. It happened by dent of a lot of effort put in by a lot of people to take advantage of a situation that fell into um our laps when the Newberry College closed and one thing after another after another was done just right so that we end up with a new
complex serves a lot of people spun off um well how how many millions of dollars for the uh Brooklyn Housing Authority to build 60 additional units >> 625 million >> $6.25 $25 million to for the housing affordability trust. Yeah. That that then resulted in an initial 60 units of
BHA. So, this is a precious town resource and I'm really glad that we we're attracting a lot of really substantial and talented people to serve on this Fischer Hill Advisory Committee. I don't know how we're going to choose between the three people before us tonight. I want to say one more thing about Pam. And Pam, excuse me for
rattling on while you're standing there. Um, she hasn't mentioned it, but she is she is a passionate advocate. um and and really h has proven her ad her her advocacy uh in very substantial ways for mental health and has been you know a long long
longtime supporter of the Brooklyn Community Mental Health Center. Um in in a way, you know, what we do with Fiser Hill, this Fischer Hill opportunity um going forward um is, I think, um arguably going to um in various ways um
intersect with the mental health of this community, you know, depending on what services we provide there, depending on what needs we take care of there. So, I'm really glad you came forward and good luck to you and to the other candidates tonight. >> Thank you. And I my husband and I are very proud to have been able to um
support the Brook the Brooklyn Community Mental Health Center. Um we chose to that is our community project. I mean there's so many good nonprofits in Brooklyn. I'm of the mind that you do a lot for one versus a little for everybody. So
>> we um we were proud to do that. Um, I would also say I was involved with um with the Newberry as well and trying to work diligently with the developer to make sure that when we finished it was not only accepted by the community, but
it was it was fit um architecturally within the town within the the neighborhood as well. >> So, it's I think fabulous. >> Beautifully. Yeah. >> Paul uh Pam, thanks so much for coming out tonight um and being patient to >> No, I'm late to the advisory committee, but >> Yes, I know. and that's an important
role that you have. But you know, one of the things that I know about you is um one, you are certainly um a very generous donor. Um you've helped raise money for a number of important initiatives and I think uh John alluded to the community mental health. You
know, one one of the things about finding a a successful outcome um on top of the hill is really being able to reach out into your network >> and and hear from them. Could you speak a little bit about the diversity of your network? Um, I know you've got you've
got neighborhood relationships because you're integral to the neighborhood, but could you talk a little bit about the other network within Brooklyn, uh, institutional as well as >> Well, I would say that that, um, when I was on the school committee, and you know, many years ago, I was chair of the
school committee, but that involved much more reaching out to the entire community and working with um, all kinds of divergent views and and some we were successful in them were struggles. But I would say that I certainly have the
ability and the the I know people in all the different um precincts in Brooklyn. Yeah. >> And work with them, but I wouldn't say that I have, for example, a strong network specific in any one area. >> Yeah. >> But >> it's diverse. >> I would say for sure.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> I'm good. >> If you want to be. No, I'm happy to stay and ask you ask me more questions, but I'm know that you're behind schedule, so I'm sure you'd be happy if I just went went back down to the advisory committee,
>> right? Oh, yes. Go. Please go do that party. >> Okay. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay. Is George Cole on? >> He said who's going to be here tonight, but I don't see him online. >> Okay. And was there another Wasn't Mike
Sand? Mike, but Mike said he's not available till after 9:30, so we agreed that he would go to a future date. >> Okay. >> Bernard and I talked about it and Mike agreed. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, then let's move on to our next item or our next interview, which is for the uh the arts commission,
right? >> Yes. And our candidate is online >> and we have Candon Baron >> online. Okay. >> Yes. >> Hi. Please introduce yourself and tell us why you're interested in the arts
commission. >> Good evening, Chairman Green and the select committee. Um, my name is Candon Barrett. I've been a Brooklyn resident for a total of over 30 years. Um, I grew up in Brooklyn and graduated Brookline High
School. I went to Heath school for uh elementary and then uh as an adult I lived in Brooklyn uh most recently the last 11 years here in Kulage Corner. Um, I've spent 30 years uh in the biotech
industry and um last summer I stopped working and I'm now interested in giving back to the community that I've lived in and loved for all these years. And um so when I noticed that um the town of
Brooklyn was looking for somebody uh to help with the um commission uh for arts, um I thought that was something that I might be able to contribute to. For the record, I've also applied to the um conservation commission.
I'm a scientist by training. Um I spent the last 30 years in biotech uh across the river in Cambridge primarily. Um the last 12 years in the gene therapy space. I'm very well connected with the
adjoining industries of Harvard, MIT um and um you know some of the uh biotech industries that are living and participating in our community here in Brooklyn. Um but where I think you were
asking chairman about what skills I might bring to the table. So my hobbies um have always included art and also um ecology uh and um I get a lot of
inspiration on the art side from two places. One is the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum where I find it to be almost like a second home to me. And um as you might know, Isabella Stewart Gardner opened that palace. Uh she built
and opened it about a hundred years ago with the intention of bringing um art into uh the community and opening up her um home. The palace was actually built as a a museum so that the community
could come and visit. Uh at first it was free and even today it's a very small amount um that you u pay to get in. Um and she just filled it with all kinds of art and artifacts from around the world and I've always been inspired by that. I
also take inspiration from uh the city of Key West um that has done some very interesting things in in their city uh with respect to public spaces um including sidewalk art that um
they've done and uh they've done murals. Um they've done poetry in in the sidewalks. Um they've done sculptures. There's a very famous sculptor down there, John Martini, and he does a lot for the city there, and they have a
number of public um displays of his art, and he's donated his uh very large iron sculptures. And you know, we do that here in Brooklyn. We have the turkeys and um we have murals and um we have these beautiful painted benches now, but
I think we can do more. Um, we have a number of open storefronts that could benefit from just some temporary displays. Um, I'm not sure what we're doing with our local artists and with our schools, but I see that there might be some
possibilities of uh encouraging them to come together and doing some projects together. Um, I think the art commission also has some leanings towards cultural diversity. And I'll point out that I was
born in Iran. Uh, I have many Jewish friends. I have many friends here in Brooklyn um who are Catholic or Christian or Jewish or of uh, you know, from all walks of life. Um, and so I've always felt comfortable standing in the
middle of a lot of different cultural aspects of um, society here. And that's one of the things I love about Brookline is the diversity here because I also lived in Weston for a number of years and it wasn't nearly as fun to live there to be honest. So um, so that's me.
Maybe I'll just stop there and let you um, ask your questions. >> Okay. Okay. Well, you know, you answered the question that I had, but maybe you can elaborate on, you know, what what is what is a big bodacious idea that you think that Brookline ought to think
about incorporating into our our art scene? >> Well, some of the things that we might consider, um, so in Key West, there's this concept of one human family, and to me that resonates, um, very much, uh,
for us here in Brooklyn. Um we have so many different um people from different parts of the world and different cultural and um and religious beliefs. And um you know for me uh unifying theme
is the one human family. And some of the things that the city of Key West has done is um they have for example mosaic inlay one human family design in some of the important um centers where they have
um you know in the sidewalk in the ground. Um they have sculptures for that. And then they they did uh before Governor Dantis overturned that, they had painted um some of their crosswalks
uh with rainbow colors um in the center right where Duval Street has uh you know basically where they do the New Year's um celebrations with the drag queens and things. And I thought that was for me
the big audacious idea was to do something along those lines. uh was to see if that conversation has happened in terms of um what we're doing with sidewalks or with our crosswalks um and if there's room for that, if there's
interest for that. So, I'm new to city governance. Um, and you know, obviously, uh, I'm still just beginning to network with the people who are kind of, uh, driving a lot of these these, uh, ideas and decisions. But, um, I'm always happy
to listen to what other people have to bring to the table. But, but that was one of the things that I thought we might talk about here in Brooklyn. >> I think I think that's a great idea. It's a it's a theme that could be part of our art scene, but also a theme that
relates to how we view ourselves as a community. So anyway, any other selective members have questions? John, >> uh, I just I just want to say I hope that, um, if you, uh, join the arts council that you will bring a little bit
of Key West to Brooklyn. And I'm I'm I'm envisioning the day when, um, just like they do in Key West. Uh we all gather at the western most point I I hope I'm reciting it correctly of uh of the peninsula, our little peninsula, and we
to all toast the setting of the sun um rockously because that's one of the charms of Key West. Um there's a lot of other Key West. Yeah. >> As a matter of fact, if you look down Harvard Street from Kulage Corner, you can during certain time of the year, you can watch the sunset right down there.
I've done that before. It's a lot of fun. See, it's obvious she's already thinking about this. >> Yeah, we could do that. Yeah. >> But, um, thank you for applying for the arts commission. >> Yeah, >> of course. >> And we don't have the problem of a governor who doesn't like the one human
family. >> Anyway, um, >> did you want >> Yes. Just looking at your uh resume, I see that your background is heavy in the sciences and you do list arts as a
hobby. Not that this is a prerequisite, of course, but I'm curious, have you had any art affiliations of some kind or other experience serving on art councils or art groups or anything you want to elaborate on there?
>> I have not. I mean, I've taken a number of um continuing ed art classes at Brooklyn High School and I've taken some painting classes and some mosaic classes, but I have never been on any other councils. Um the only other boards
I've been on are um nonprofit sort of biotechy type of boards. Um, and then and I continue to serve on a nonprofit board right now, but I have not been on any other art councils and things like that, but that's a very relevant question.
>> Uh, Michael, >> um, I know one of the recommendations of the uh, public bodies handbook um is to attend a meeting of uh, the commission or the public body that you're interested in joining. So, I'm wondering
first of all if you have attended a meeting of the Brooklyn Commission for the Arts. Um, and if you have, what was your impression of the work or before the com before the commission or um the the way in which the meeting was
conducted? >> Yeah, thank you for asking that question. I um to be honest with you, I've only just recently applied and I haven't attended a meeting yet and I I have poked around the website a bit. Um
what I noticed is that they haven't really posted much on that website since 2024. Uh last year seems to have been kind of gone silent a little bit. So I was a little bit curious about that. Um, and I definitely if there's anybody that's on
the call right now that's on that commission, I would love to arrange to um meet with someone and and talk to them even if it's not a formal meeting. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Paul. >> Yeah. One very quick question. First,
thanks for coming forward and you have some uh some really interesting ideas. So, you mentioned that you're also applying for another commission. Um, and so can I ask you, do you have a preference? >> Um, I have a lot of time on my hands
right now and I I don't necessarily have a preference. I I would like to serve the community where there's the greatest need and where um the committee might see me fit the best. You you know who you have and who your other candidates
are. Um, for the conservation commission, you know, obviously I'm a scientist. I'm a hobby uh tree grower. I've grown some mahogany saplings in Key West and here in Brooklyn, I'm growing um for better or for worse uh oak and
and maple trees here in in my porch for whoever wants them. But uh other than that um you know I I love both things. That's my other hobby. I also belong to the association for the preservation of Cape Cod and um I so as a scientist I've
always been interested in ecology and um preservation of our coastlines and waterways and um making sure that we have in the urban communities enough trees um so that the the birds especially the migrating birds have a
place to feed and and to nest. Um and we're seeing a lot of uh deterioration. We're seeing a lot of trees getting cut down in cities uh in Cape Cod as well as Key West as well as here in Brooklyn. And we don't
always replace them. If we do, sometimes they're much much much younger trees that don't always survive. And they obviously don't have the same canopy as a much taller, older tree. So, it takes many more years um to reestablish the
shade and the canopy and and the the diversity that you um have with an older tree. So, that's another area that's of interest to me, but um I'll leave it up to you guys to see where you see me and where you have the greatest need because
that's something that I don't really know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your application and uh we will make our decisions at a later meeting. Um, but uh, thank you for coming.
>> Thank you, chairman. >> Okay. Uh, next, Meredith, before you go, uh, can we take a break? >> Just a five minute break. >> Sure. >> Why not? Ready?
>> We're going live in five, four, three, two, one. >> We are back. And the next item on our agenda are is the special town meeting warrant articles, uh, which is a public hearing since it's the first time we've
heard heard this. Um, and I see Meredith Mooney is at the podium is going to uh begin the introduction of this Warren article or these two Warren articles really. >> Good evening, Select Board. Thank you, Chair Green. Meredith Mooney, economic development director. Um, so here
tonight to present an update on the Chestnut Hill uh commercial overlay zoning package of warrant articles. There are two articles. One is a proposed set of amendments to the zoning bylaw that would incorporate the proposed overlay zoning. And then the second is um authorization from town
meeting for the select board to enter into a memorandum agreement as well as a tax certainty agreement with city realy uh which is the largest property owner in the Chesnut Hill commercial area of the Chesnut Hill office park which is at 1280 to 1330 Boilston Street. >> Okay. And by the way, I'd like to have
the hearing for both warrant articles at the same time unless anyone objects. Okay, good. >> Okay. Um, so for the purpose of this evening, the select board um has already held a public hearing before
the decision was made to move forward. >> Could you speak up or speak in? I can't. >> Is this better? >> There you go. >> Okay. Thank you. So, the select board has discussed the uh proposed zoning and putting this on the warrant several times over the past couple of months,
>> many many times. >> So, for the purpose of tonight's meeting and my presentation, um I think we were uh thinking that select board member Michael Rubenstein has a slide deck with a presentation about the contents of the MOA. Um that's not something that we've
discussed um as extensively within the context of public meetings. So, we were thinking we might start off with that and then I can provide a series of updates about sort of the status of the zoning. There have been some changes in terms of friendly amendments that we've um been gathering and uh board and
committee review that we can provide updates on. The board has also received several communications from property owners within the Chestnut Hill study area. So, I thought I would just um bring everyone up to speed and uh answer any questions and walk you through some of the proposed friendly amendments that we would like for you to consider. Um,
when you're ready to formally amend the warrant article. >> Great. >> Do you want to bring up the slide deck? >> Are you gonna speak from there or you want to go? >> Uh, what is your whatever is your preference? >> Speak from there. >> Okay.
>> Uh, sorry, Michael. I have to go. I didn't know I was driving the slide deck. I got to go grab it. >> Uh, so I'm not on the Zoom. storm. >> My apologies. >> Oh. Put it in the select word office and >> No, no, no, >> no. Sorry.
>> No, we don't want to take responsibility. >> Don't put it in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I didn't mean you put it in, but give it to us to put it in. >> Can I Michael, can I just ask for a timing? Like how long are we gonna will it take to explain stuff?
hopefully five minutes or less. Okay. >> I'm trying to be quick. >> Okay. >> Much appreciated. >> It's a first. >> So noted. >> We'll put that in the minutes. >> Okay. >> Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the
slide deck. I said, "I appreciate Regina making it funny instead of giving us." >> No, that's okay. You didn't need to hear. >> It was a compliment. >> It was a compliment. >> Okay.
Did you find the >> I think they might be trying to call it, right? The owner might be trying to call it. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. >> I do many things for this town. >> And they're all appreciated. >> Okay. So Warren article two is an
authorization uh for the select board to enter into a memorandum of agreement and a tax certainty agreement with city realy. Next slide or you can just scroll down. I I see it there. >> Sorry it's catching up. >> Oh no,
>> it's not catching up. be good practice for town meeting Michael. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, as Meredith mentioned, City Realy is the largest uh property owner uh in the study area. They're represented in this screen by the uh
large yellow uh block on the western edge. Um you can see sort of a small dashed line um which is the Newton border which runs down the middle of um Route Nine or Boilston Street in that area um and then curves around the very
edge of their site. Next slide. >> What is the yellow parcel at the eastern end? >> Uh they also own that parcel but it's not part of this agreement. >> Okay, good.
Okay. And the next slide we can skip the timeline. We've gone over this. Okay. So within the MOA, uh there is a description of the project that they intend to build and the phasing. Uh it consists of three projects. Buildings A on the right, B and C. Uh A is a 14story
building that includes retail, a hotel, condos, parking, two and a half floors above ground and one floor below ground. Uh there's a large plaza between building A and building B. Uh building B has two floors of retail, two floors of parking, and eight floors
of medical office. And building C has six floors of resident of rental apartments and one floor, one floor of parking above and one floor of parking below ground. Okay. Um
the planning department uh contracted with RKG associates to come up with a fiscal model to analyze the uh benefits to the town. Um we have plugged in parameters from city realy in terms of the program that they intend to build as
well as market parameters for data like uh the square foot rental for medical office or retail space or the expected rentals for the units and the costs of the condos. Um and then use our budgets in order to estimate costs for the
businesses and the residents of this space. um and have come up with these ranges of estimates um based on their current design. Um so in the end the net new tax growth is somewhere between 4.2
and $6.3 million per year of annual net new tax growth. Uh and that takes into account both the cost of services such as schools and fire and police and other town services as well as the cost uh as well as the income that we already
received from these four parcels which is roughly $1.1 million. Okay. There was a lot of questions about the how much commercial um we would get out of uh this project.
Um, one of the select boards in uh, directions for the creation of this study was to incentivize net new commercial tax growth. And there are both mechanisms within the zoning and the MOA in order to incentivize net new
tax growth uh, in the largest amount possible. Um, the results of what the program proposes in terms of the percentage of the sites that are commercial tax is measured in two ways. um one you can measure it just by comparing the square feet. Um but we've
also uh with the consultation from the economic development advisory board uh created a set of effective factors for particular commercial uses. These are uses that either benefit the town economically such as a hotel which
provides excise tax as well as property taxes or uses which were which reflect neighborhood preferences such as small retail or medium-sized retail um for
neighborhood uh access and use. Okay. So, so now I'd like to go into actually it's a series of four slides that talk about the contents of the MOA. Uh, and I've divided them into three sections. Um,
the first is a set of town benefits. Um, in previous uh conversations we've talked about the $24 million of benefits. Most of that, though not all, is described in this list. Uh it includes the almost $11 million payment
to the affordable housing trust fund um which is the largest uh payment set of payments to the affordable housing trust fund in its history. The second largest one we talked about earlier which is the well tower project on Fiser Hill. Um there will be 21 units as reflected in
our inclusionary zoning bylaw within section within building C um available to people with 50% AMI or below. Um for the first time we have established a 2% hard construction cost payment to the
town uh for improvements to our infrastructure both uh transportation streetscape and public safety infrastructure. Uh based on the estimates that we've gotten from city realy of roughly $600 million in hard construction costs, we're expecting
approximately $12 million of uh infrastructure contributions to the town. Um that will be paid out over the course of the building projects. Um and I'll talk about the details of that in a couple of slides. Um there's also some smaller uh benefits to the town. There's
uh contributions to nonprofits, access to conference rooms, uh and they are exploring the prospect of a business improvement district. Next slide. In addition to all those town benefits, the MOA lays out a number of protections for the town um that uh protect the town
from various adverse uh uh conditions or risks um that we want to mitigate uh that we would like to mitigate. Um the first thing to note is both the MOA and the tax certainty agreement will be registered along the chain of title for
the four parcels um that make up the city realy properties. Um the MOA will get registered as soon as all of the town conditions are met, which is practically speaking when the AG approves the town meeting warrant articles. and the 95-year tax certainty
agreement for all four parcels will be uh registered with the chain of title upon delivery of the certificate of occupancy for the first building. Um and the the tax certainty agreements
registration is a condition of the MOA. Um they have also agreed uh not to file any 40B comprehensive permit applications for as long as the MOA is in force. um and the fossil and a number of the other conditions below
fossil-free fuel buildings, the transportation demand management plan, etc. Um are all uh special permit conditions within the MOA. Um we have uh addressed concerns
expressed by the neighborhood um about the possibility that they could uh build one of the uh buildings or two of the buildings and not complete the program. Um so for building B uh which is the medical office building which they have said is will probably be the third
building that they pull a building for permit for and construct. Um we have introduc introduced penalties for delays in the medical office building construction. Um both delay there's there is um a section of the zoning
which says that they can't get the building uh the certificate of occupancy for building C if they build that first and they haven't broken ground and delivered proof of financing for building B. uh and there are additional penalties for delays in the medical
office building in the case that they actually break ground but they don't actually complete the medical office building within a certain number of years. Uh and those penalties are actually based on the assessed value of the medical office building as the
building permit indicates would be constructed. Um the construction mitigation impact is is $400,000 set aside for any parts of the streetscape um that are damaged during the construction process. Um and the
following uh details the hotel occupancy, the unvital vital unbundled parking fees, the waste management plan for the demolition um and the building cost fundings are all separate items within the MOA.
Next slide. Um the third slide is a set of community protections and benefits. So these are all issues that um are uh either brought up by the community members or offered by city realy in order to make the site
more welcoming, accessible, and uh integrated with the neighborhood. Um the the first two are really uh the significant uh uh neighborhood benefits. Um we've agreed uh and city realy has agreed that there will be no vehicular
access except for access by emergency vehicles from Heath Street. Um that is actually in the MOA and subsequent to the MOA we also put this in the zoning. Um the pedestrian access path from Heath Street to Boilston Street include um
access to the large side open space directly from uh both ends as well. So access to the um to the ground floor retail will all be available um through pedestrian access paths uh spanning the
property. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um the third item, the landscape buffer at the western edge was a a relatively recent addition uh uh that came from a suggestion from the neighborhood. Um but there is in
building C a pretty a long wall that extends the the most of the length of the western border of the site. Um and there was concern about what the presence of a sevenstory building wall would be. So they have agreed uh within the 40oot setback that we have uh
established on the western edge to uh fill that with dense vegetation as well. Um and um so that will that will both serve as a sound buffer and a visual buffer um to both the neighbors within Brookline as well as the condo buildings
in Newton. Uh the public EV chargers, the shuttle um and the signage dimming after midnight are also conditions with the MOA. Um and as Janice mentioned be uh earlier during public comment, there are additional neighborhood benefits that are under negotiation between city
realy the uh precinct 14 and 15 TMM which Janice is uh leading and the town. Next slide. Um I wanted to just spend one a few seconds on what there were possible uses for the 2% hard
construction costs, the $12 million. Um, these include uh the opportunity for traffic improvement design and implementation. Um, hopefully in coordination with much larger contributions by Mass DOT. Um, a blue bike station is mentioned explicitly,
various streetscape improvements, trees, benches, etc. Um and also public safety in infrastructure is an option if we choose to use it. Um which would include uh potentially a ladder truck and equipment.
Next slide. The 95-year tax certainty agreement is uh intended to protect the town from two particular uh risks. Um the first risk is that if a building is sold to a taxexempt organization, um they are
exempt from pl paying property taxes to the town. Uh the 95-year tax certainty agreement says that if a building is sold to a taxexempt organization, then the owner must continue to make payments to the town equal to what the property taxes would have been. Uh there was a
question raised at the AC meeting last night about whether those taxes would increase over time and the answer is yes because the calculation of those taxes would be tied to the assessed value of the building itself. Uh the second protection built into the
95-year tax certainty agreement um and this is I think not part of previous tax certainty agreements that we have engaged in is that is a protection for the excise taxes of the hotel. Um so that if the hotel is converted to a different use then there's a calculation
that's performed based on um average hotel excise taxes across the region. Um and the owner must continue to make payments to the town equal to those hotel excise taxes. I've included in your con for your convenience in the
slide deck a list of all of the terms that have been established within the MOA and where they're referenced in case you need to know what the hotel and condo buildings exist uh or what we define as the town. Um and that is all I
have for any questions and back to you Meredith. >> Very good. Any questions from the select board? Paul. >> Uh thanks Michael. Um, so we got a couple of memos,
one from Dick Banka, uh, which I think are some some amendments that have been proposed. Maybe >> some boards have already accepted them. I I think some of these things may impact the MOA. I don't know. >> Um, and then also Janice Khan's
um, work that she's doing. >> Yes. So, can you can you let us know how much is already incorporated into the MOA, if anything, from what we've received, or is that would that still need to be done? >> Okay. So, u Meredith, correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe all of Mr. Banka's proposals were amendments to Warren Article One, and uh Ms. Mooney is going to go over those, okay, subsequently. Um some of those have been accepted as friendly amendments, some of them have
not. Um or as proposed friendly amendments, so proposed to the select board. Um EDAB has reviewed some of the some amendments um some additional amendments uh proposed by uh Janice Khan
um and also proposed by Ken Lewis um and also accepted by Janice Khan. So there's sort of a few uh proposed friendly amendments that fit into that bucket and those Meredith will be going over all of them with regard to what uh Janice is
referring to. So there there are really three buckets of issues that that are being worked amongst her proposal. The first include a set of changes to the zoning. um they're uh they're relatively
well understood but are being held while we work a number of the issues to the MOA so that that can all be sort of brought together as as a cohesive set because there are some inter relationships between the zoning amendments and the MOA. Um and then
there is a condition about the contents of the design advisory team which really has to be integrated with the planning board and planning department and their processes. Um, and those are still also being worked. >> So, there's some So, her stuff is is still outstanding. It needs to be worked
on, which we're not voting tonight anyway. But I just I would strongly encourage first I want to I know she's not here. She spoke earlier. Thank Janice for her work. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, she's been able to work with um city and also their legal
representation to come to some consensus. Um, which I think is important for this thing to pass. I think it greatly improves the probability of this thing passing at town meeting a two-thirds vote. And I'm hoping that when this gets over to land use, maybe they're taking it up tonight. I'm not sure what. >> No, they're not taking
>> they're not taking up tonight. Uh that they will continue uh to uh seriously consider those changes >> and incorporate those so when it comes back to us it's in a it's in a better form. And I and I will also add to those changes that um some of her changes um
provide additional mechanisms for the town to work with other um other property owners to create memoranda of agreement and build those relationship. So, so that's and I want to follow up on that point if I may,
Bernard. But before I say that, I think it would be really helpful uh for for this effort if the board tonight could in some way share back to advisory that we would like to have them continue to
move forward seriously with the uh the work that Janice has initiated and that there's some agreement or I don't I don't know the best way to do that. um whether it's a >> we don't know what what what uh her proposals are yet. I mean >> yeah so her so her proposals um which are
>> I know they were not fully >> yeah they but but I guess my point is um Bernard is that uh she has agreement with city and city has agreed with her which is bringing the neighborhood along and also the five that think we call them the chestnut hill five the Tom mini
members um and again I don't even need to know the details yet but um I I think that AC uh the land use subcommittee would benefit benefit from hearing from us to say, I'm not saying which ones to accept or not accept, but that work is
important to drive consensus to bring a vote at town meeting that would exceed a twothirds vote. I think that our encouragement of that continued collaboration would be good. Um, and they can help adjudicate what would work and what would not work and it will come back to us. We're not going to be editing articles tonight. So, that's
just my that's a suggestion how we do that. We can talk about it or if we do it. >> Yeah. Um uh thank you to Michael for the presentation. Thank you to Paul for the comments. Um uh I I have um been advised
uh today uh that there in fact may be yet another wrinkle to all of this. Um if that's I hope that's the right word. Um not disparaging that at all. um in that uh and this came out of a land use
committee uh meeting the other day, I'm told. Um people are beginning to ask the question uh why not just uh for now stick to the the city realy owned parcels since they're the only developer
that's really in front of us right now with a plan. And an enormous amount of work has been done towards figuring out how zoning can be adjusted in a way that allows them to go forward with a very ambitious project and have it as they
say pencil out. You know, even with all of these um kinds of concessions that Michael has just been referencing. Um and we haven't done that work with any of the other developers. I mean, we haven't even be begun to try to match what might be
our proposed zoning changes or what are in this prop the current proposal as as proposed zoning changes to sort of measure them against what are the likely asks from those developers. And once that happens, there's going to be, just think about the process we've gone through with Chestnut Hill West, uh, in
terms of trying to find some kind of, excuse me, some kind of common ground between, um, a zoning proposal and what they are saying they need if if this is going to be a financially feasible development. Um, without there being a proposal in front of us, we don't really
know what's going to happen to the growth company's proposals. We don't really know what's going to happen to the what is it called? W and S >> WS >> WS development prop parcels. >> Why why are we trying to solve that problem? It's it's enough for one day to
solve the challenge of uh coming up with acceptable zoning and an acceptable development plan that will get two-thirds vote at town meeting having to do just with the city realy parcels. So I you know my my reaction when I had a conversation about this with someone
was I can't believe that this didn't really occur to people until just within the past week and the reaction of the person I was speaking to was neither can I and neither can anybody but all of a sudden people are seriously talking about that and I think it deserves
serious consideration. Um and so I just want to put that out in front of people. I know it's out there and I think people are going to be hearing about it. John David. >> So I just want uh I echo John's sentiments especially in the area of the tax certainty agreement. I do have some
concern about providing upzoning without a guarantee uh a tax certainty agreement because why would we exactly so zoning is our leverage for a tax certainty agreement with city realy we're going to have an
MOA we don't yet have MOAS with the other parcel owners now I'm not saying it's impossible that we could reach some kind of MOA agreement with some of the others even if it's very limited. Uh I I'm a little concerned because town
meetings rapidly approaching, but I don't completely foreclose that possibility. And so I'm wondering if tonight we'll hear a little bit more about growth companies plans, WS's plans, where they are in terms of possibly entering into MOA agreements,
agreeing to tax certainty agreements. And then I also want to uh emphasize a point Paul made earlier in a slightly different context regarding the communication to the land use subcommittee about the vital importance
of uh respecting the fact that Janice Khan, the Ches Hill advisory group and city realy are essentially in agreement on most points and I think that message needs to be relayed because that obviously shows that uh there's buyin
from two camps that not so long ago seemed that they were very far apart. So that's very positive news. >> I I guess my concern is they know that when Janice is up there talking to them now. So So what I mean
we're telling them something that they know. I mean how are they going to take that? I Bernard, I think I think that um we we don't give ourselves credit for kind of the weight of our words um and on something that is this impactful and
the work that Mike I mean you've done an amazing job. I think everybody has um but it's still risky to see this pass a town meeting and to hear from the board that we are encouraged I don't know what words you want to use but we're encouraged that there seems to be a breakthrough with some agreement of
consensus with the neighborhood uh South Brooklyn uh town meeting members and city realy and we would encourage that that that we go in that direction somehow positively send that I don't know what the words are to use but I think it's important to do I I think I
think what we say does matter, Bernard. >> Well, I agree that. >> Yeah. >> As longudge as long as it doesn't clash. >> We're not committing. We're just nudging. >> Michael, >> I I also want to respect the fact that
Chaz had his hand. Okay. Um, so to some of your points, there is more to present and I I would encourage us to uh uh give Miss Money the floor again um to talk to
both uh the question that you raised Paul about or David about the other owners um and the other amendments. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Is yours Meredith? So, um, overview of
what I want to cover in terms of what I think are the important updates to highlight. Last week, um, and this week, a busy week in terms of public hearings and board and committee votes on the proposed warrant articles. Uh last week
on Monday, EDAB uh voted favorable unanimously favorable action on special town meeting one, but then um separately they also endorsed a scope of friendly amendments that staff presented which I'm going to share with you this evening. Between Monday and Thursday, the scope
of what was included in those proposed uh friendly amendments expanded to include some of um the proposed amendments that um Mr. Banka had submitted. So the planning board and HAB have met in a joint public hearing regarding special town meeting warrant article one. Um the planning board uh
voted in a vote of um six in support one abstension for favorable action on the zoning warrant article and endorsed um unanimously the proposed set of friendly amendments. They also adopted um subject to town meeting approval the set of design guidelines which is a companion piece that the planning board will be
using as reference as they review applications that come through uh the Chesnut Hill Overlay District. Those were approved unanimously. Housing advisory board unanimous vote for favorable action on special town meeting one and then also unanim unanimously endorsed uh the scope of amendments
presented. >> Upcoming public hearings. Last night we were at uh advisory land use subcommittee. That meeting has been continued to April 22nd. Um we have backto-back public hearing commitments on April 22nd. We'll also be going to the housing advisory board. They voted on the zoning, but they also would like
to um hold a public hearing and potentially vote on warrant article 2. Um prior to that, what day is it? So, when uh tomorrow, we'll actually be at the zoning emissions advisory board for a public hearing. We'll be going back to the planning board on April 16th because
um they wanted the opportunity to uh vote it to support to endor or review any additional um proposed friendly amendments. Um and then our we're slated to go before full advisory on April 30th. So, uh just an update. Um there's been
several communications that the town select board have received from property owners within the Chesnut Hill commercial area. So, just for the sake of giving getting everyone on the same page and summarizing where things stand. Uh so, the light green here is WS development. They own the street uh on
the Newton side and uh WS has I believe it was last week they submitted a letter formally opposing the zoning. They're concerned about the minimum parking requirements in the particularly in the 4.0 subdist where the city realy redevelopment proposal would be. Um
they're concerned that there's the potential for a development to be underparked. Um and given that the adequate parking capacity wouldn't be provided that would increase demand for their surface parking um and create a lot of operational challenges for them
um in the management of their property. You also received uh a letter from the green properties here. This is Salvatore Capital Properties. Uh they um have come out and uh supported the zoning. And then there was also a letter from
Chestnut Hill Realy Ventures which is the Heath and Chief 40B developer. They're uh received their comprehensive permit. It's under litigation. You know they intend to follow through with that but they did expressed um interest in sort of the outcomes and uh you know giving serious consideration to any
alternative redevelopment pathways that might be presented to them as part of this overlay zoning. So for growth companies I have a couple other slides. Um I'm not quite sure where they stand in terms of formally uh supporting or opposing the zoning at this point. Um but we we did continue to
have conversations with them about additional amendments beyond the amendments that you considered before you finalized the special town meeting warrant article um on March 17th. >> Can I ask a quick question? Yes. Just to clarify on on WS development. Um they
did they opposed it for the parking minimums as you mentioned, but they also have very significant concern about the traffic pattern. uh they raised that as well as in their uh in their letter asking for an independent uh traffic uh study or review. Is that correct? >> Yes, I think
>> I think that's important that when they when when we talk about that letter, there was two really big points and it wasn't just about parking minimums. >> Thank you. So, this is an excerpt from uh the letter that we received from Salvatore
Capital um property partners. Um and I think it helpful sort of um concise summary of really what we're trying to do in terms of providing the zoning framework um to create more incentives for property owners to you know look for meaningful redevelopment and
reinvestment in their sites which they feel the current zoning really does not provide. So uh recent proposed and requested zoning changes. I'm going to talk about growth companies. We can I'm going to pull up a word document and we're going to review some track changes which we can go through quickly. Um and then I
will talk about um answer any questions, talk more about um Mr. Banka's proposed amendments. I was prepared to talk about the um amendments Janice Khan had proposed, but it sounds like that still needs some additional thought and we can really tackle that in AC subcommittee
discussions and circle back. So growth companies on the left side, these are all of their requests that they raised back in mid-March where they really felt that the current overlay zoning did not provide any pathways for them to um redevelop their properties.
They asked for some accommodations uh which the select board um with input from the economic development advisory board agreed to incorporate into the zoning sort of resolving the the most significant hurdles um uh as presented by growth companies. Um we continued uh
to have conversations with them about some additional proposed amendments. Um and in reviewing these at the staff level um and we have circled back to growth company's legal representation to sort of relay our conclusions. We feel that several of these are adequately addressed in the zoning and they were asking for a level of specificity that
we weren't providing um for any other potential property owners or developers in the study area. um and that you know ultimately it would be through the design review process and special permit process that you know the the required zoning setbacks were going to land where they were going to land. Um but we do
feel like in order to meet the dimensional requirements they were saying that they would need particularly for the Tully Street lot the opportunities exist for them in the current zoning. The one um uh proposed amendment that we think is reasonable and we're happy to continue working with them on, but it is was ruled out of
scope by the moderator is the idea of adding different stepback requirements for um uh developments that are sort of in that lower scale. They're proposing buildings that don't exceed seven stories. The stepback requirements were really um contemplating larger um uh
taller scale development. So again, we've conveyed to growth companies, their legal representation that we think this is reasonable. We're willing to continue to work with them with proposed amendments to the zoning um perhaps as their own development proposal becomes a little bit more clearly defined.
>> A quick question I have on that around a tax certainty agreement. Have they expressed a willingness to do that? At what point would we have an answer to that? So um and I and I can circle back to the very important kind of critical question raised by um select board
member Ven Skoak and um we we've discussed this before in discussions about this proposed resoning. Um the challenge with city real or sorry the challenge with growth companies and being able to uh negotiate an MOA where a tax certainty agreement might be part
of that MOA is that the proposal that they have submitted includes property. They're in the process of assembling the residential properties facing Heath Street that abut their commercial properties that front onto Boilston Street. but they do not currently own or control all of the properties that they
would need in order to follow through with the development proposal that they shared with us. So we it would not make any sense for the town to go through the exercise of negotiating an MOA, an attack certainty agreement on property that growth companies
has no control over um and that couldn't get into the chain of title. So that's really an obstacle specific to growth companies in terms of our ability to you know even if their proposal which is still very conceptual at this point was further along. Um the fact that includes property they don't owned means we
wouldn't be able to do that. However, in the zoning, we currently have two and depending on the outcomes of um Miss Khan's proposed amendments, there could be a third potential sort of placeholder that we have strategically included in the zoning that would um provide relief
from certain zoning requirements subject to an agreement with the select board. And those discussions about an agreement for relief from certain aspects of the zoning are going to be the future select board's opportunity to um broach the subject of an MOA and tax certainty agreement. Paul.
>> Yeah. So, um, thanks, Meredith. And I I want to I'm gonna kind of zero in a little bit on John's comments and D and David's, um, because they got me thinking here. Um, but you know, Michael, uh, rightly so, asked me a while back, Paul, would you want the
zoning to be brought forward and approved by town meeting without a memorandum of agreement and a tax certainty agreement in place? And my answer was, hell no. Those that's a package. We need that, right? because we wouldn't want to give away the zoning because that's our leverage without
getting an MOA or tax certainty agreement. Why are we willing to do that with growth companies or these other parcels? I mean, I don't understand why we're giving away our leverage >> to negotiate. I just let me get I know you're his hands up and your hands up.
If I could just get my question out, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Um >> gosh. um why would we give away our leverage uh with growth companies or WS or whoever these other land owners are? Um
but we're not willing to give it away with city. What we this whole project we've spent 90% of our time talking about city realy every conversation is about city realy. Your whole presentation was about city realy,
right? MOA, a tax certainty agreement. Every public hearing I go to, I've sat on EDAB for a year. Um, it was all about city realy's program. We never talked about the rest of the zoning that I can remember. There was no attention on it.
Why on earth are we giving away our leverage with zoning without having an MOA in a taxon agreement for these other major parcels which is part of the comp plan by the way um but we're not willing to do it for city
>> um I'm sorry >> I mean this is it's just I didn't mean to try and cut you off um when we started this now more than two years ago it was about the zoning at large
>> and there is there are ample opportunities through the special permit process through this through what Meredith is talking about you know you know conditioning things on approval of the select board that allow you to still
have that um that opportunity for tax certainty if they want to do things above and beyond but there's also this question of right like do you want to like Salvatore for example you know Like if we're like we didn't go into this
under the assumption that for every single project large or small we would need to be able to do this in order to get a tax certainty agreement for larger scale projects. I think you're right. You want to make sure that you're not you know creating and setting that up. But
the I'm just you know I what I go back to is you know first principles of this entire operation was when this started it was about reszoning this in an optimal way that would encourage development but still retain the
opportunity for us to >> make sure that larger scale projects were subject to thing controls like tax certainty agreements. And the way you can do that is not just through zoning, if I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but there are steps along the way that allow you to
ensure that if you're going to get something big, you've got to have a tax certainty agreement in place. Um, so I don't necessarily think that you give up all of your leverage with the zoning. And I think a little bit of it is the sort of chicken and egg problem. are you going to you know in the city realy case
you're fortunate in the sense that you have a willing developer to talk through this and you're developing this in concert what we lack in some of these other parcels is that partner either they're not far enough along like growth companies or they're not willing to do it right now like WS or they are
somewhere somewhere in between like Salvatore where they say we we we would love the opportunity to think about redeveloping this parcel but we wouldn't do it unless we knew that the town was serious about, you know, giving us a platform off of which to work. And so the zoning is the opportunity to provide
that platform. Um, but there's also protections that are can be built into that that where if they need to ultimately negotiate with the town. There are things like the special permit process and then there are things like >> if there needs to be changes to the zoning to accommodate an idea that they
have that is broader than what we initially intended, >> then they go back to town meeting. And as part of town meeting, you say, "Hey, tax certainty agreement. Let's go. Um, I'm sorry, Meredith. I will let M. >> And just to build off of that last comment, Chz, it's also a very different discussion for a developer to approach
the town requesting modifications to an existing zoning overlay as opposed to showing up to the town to start from square one on a long, unpredictable, expensive, time-consuming process to reszone their property. So,
>> so I I and I appreciate I appreciate both your comments. I think that that when you when you if we were to upzone the whole area, right, you're already giving away if if they
fit within that range of zoning, you're not going to get an MOA for public benefits and all the stuff that you've gotten or how they develop it or when they develop it or the tax certain agreement if they stay within the framework. Why give that away now? Um, this is like the last
>> Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm almost done. You know, this is the this when we looked we just did a mapping the other night uh uh with the comprehensive plan. This is a this is considered a major major major transformative area. Um and we should be doing it through special
negotiations. Frankly, we now have a framework uh that the public and the developers now understand that we're working towards. Hopefully through the work that's been done and through agreements with city realy, we can prove to other developers that own or other
land owners there that we're serious about developing the area. Right? You don't have to pass zoning for something where we don't have any agreements with them to demonstrate that we're willing to re reszone with them and partner with them because we're just doing it with
city. So again, I just I want to give credence to this idea that David and John have kind of percolated up that there really is no compelling reason right now to reszone the other areas.
We've done a lot of good work. Doesn't mean it has to go away, but we really should be focusing on city realy and getting that done. Um, and going back when when these other land owners are ready to go, they can see the framework that we've used, how serious we are, how
to get it done through town meeting. I think that might be a better way to go. >> Meredith, you wanted to say something. >> I I think >> or maybe I maybe you didn't I thought you raised your hand. So just to um
circle back to this I think in EDAB as you know listening to those conversations there is sort of this acknowledgement of the town's practice which you have traditionally done of you wait for a developer to knock on your door for your opportunity to negotiate you get your MOA your tax certainty
agreement is perhaps not serving the town's goals in in terms of expanding the commercial tax base diversifying the commercial tax base in that you are not sending clear signals to developers. Us having a
proposed set of zoning I don't think is going to be sufficient to encourage developers to like talk to us about this. If town meeting approves the zoning that's very different. That's a very it's a real more tangible thing. Um so what I think and what EDAP has been
talking about is like there needs to be a balance where the town can proactively pursue create incentives clearly demonstrate that there is an openness to redevelopment um you know in appropriate areas at an appropriate scale ju just to let me finish um and what I think in the
Chesn Hill overlay is that the you're doing both so we have achieved both the securing protections um an attack certainty agreement and an additional set of packages for the largest most significant economic development
redevelopment opportunity the town has period we have that it's for your consideration we're asking town meeting to authorize um your ability to to execute that agreement >> while also pro providing a planning framework for the rest of the commercial area so that the rest so the rest of the
area as this catalytic parcel is redeveloped is prime for redevelopment so it does both things that the town needs to to achieve in order to advance the goals of expanding the commercial tax base. >> Amy, >> so I I appreciate this feedback. And
then in addition, there's also probably the issue of coherence between parcels. You don't want a situation where the neighboring parcel has something completely different that's incompatible with one parcel over. So I appreciate those aspects. But with respect to the
tax certainty agreement and having a provision about uh select board offering uh relief, could we hear from town council about the limitations on that about building that into the zoning? >> Sure. >> So, yeah, we can. Yeah. Right. The the short answer is you can't force someone
to sign a tax certainty agreement. You can offer an incentive for them to enter into a tax certainty agreement, but you can't force it. Um uh because that's an unlawful we you know town council is currently at advisory but I can have him come back and I see I'm here. >> Oh I'm sorry Jonathan you're online. Um
go ahead. I don't I didn't mean to speak for town council's office. Sorry. >> Oh no it's fine. I I think that that the we were able to based on what growth companies was telling us which is that we we need this provision this this uh
loosening of the phasing provision in order to proceed. We were able to again uh utilize the leverage in that situation to say that's absolut we we are willing to entertain that however um we'll entertain it um by you know upon
you know at at the discretion of the select board. So, the zoning allows for it. You can have it, but you have to come to the select board. And I think we're making it very clear that there that agreement with the select board is um something that is very much we're
contemplating will involve a a tax certainty agreement. Um we don't we we can't specify that but the the agree the getting the agreement of the select board uh in in this in this case is is you know it's if you guys have prioritize a tax certainty agreement
then that's what you can you can then require. But if we're already providing them the amendments to the zoning that enable their project to move forward as they envision it, then why would they exercise that clause to speak with the
select board? >> Because we haven't given them the >> because >> because the because that the they have again we're basing this on what they've told us which is that we can't use this zoning. We're only going to support this zoning if it has if you loosen a
critical provision related to phasing and we have made we have gated that loosening behind a future agreement with the select >> right and again that's that's kind of how the system is right is is supposed to work right you know they say okay
this is a good start but we can't do what we want to do because we can't do everything and they said we've said okay well then you need to go to the board and what the board is likely to ask of you is to enter into a tax certainty agreement in order to get the rest of the way there. To Meredith's point,
right, it is so much easier to start from that base of shared understanding, but then, you know, have 90% or not even 90%, it's less than 90%, because the phasing is so integral to what they want to do from an economic perspective. They say it doesn't work unless, you know,
we've built we've built the car, but we can't turn the key. Um, we don't have the we don't have the key to turn. You have the key. the select board has the key and the only way you're going to hand the keys over is if they give you what you want. Um, and that's that creates a better structure because I think what
this goes back to and what Merith is saying and what Edab is saying is, you know, we have this perception that it's hard to do business here. Um, and we have this and it gets borne out this idea
that, you know, so so much uncertainty that's built into our processes that it becomes difficult to to establish trust and build things out. So having a baseline of zoning that makes it easier to get the rest of the way there, a
staging zoning that if there are smaller projects that go in there that use that zoning and are 100% fine, so be it. Um, do you run the risk potentially of a nonprofit swooping in there and taking that? Maybe. That is a that is a risk. Um but it's also part of this broader
you know framework of do we want to create sort of a new paradigm where we say >> it's you know Brookline is a place where you can do business where you can you know you know where you do have this
friendly framework that can be modified um if you want to do something bigger or slightly different um and you know basically kind of reset those expectations. Um, you know, when we spoke to um the mayor in Newton, you
know, it was an it was an interesting conversation, you know, and there there was that dialogue, too, of like, well, why are you doing it this way? Like, we just wait for developers to knock on our door. I said, you know, but I, you know, that is one way of doing business, but I don't necessarily think, especially
given the difference between the city and town forms of government, um, we maybe we want to be in that space. U Michael. >> Um first of all uh thank you John for
raising this question and uh it uh contrary to to the conversation you had I I will say that this is not a new question. Um it's it's actually existed in the conversations of the community advisory group in the past and and other conversations over the last couple of
years. So that's point number one. Uh point number two um I want to reiterate the point that Meredith made about the fact that the largest commercial site is we have under protection and we have the mechanism as Chaz described it for for
the growth companies and if you look at the at the map you know you will notice that between those companies and for example the the NMU area which is which is smaller scale um and not necessarily
as commercially related. Like one of the things that we're balancing, as Chaz said, is the risks of of of of an taxexempt organization taking control of one of these one of these sites. Um,
and that risk relative to the risk of of not being able to develop because we haven't laid out the framework and the difficulties there. um I think way in the sense that we should do things you know
do things in order to get that framework present so that we have the opportunities to move forward um and I'm a little unclear in the ma in the framing of this argument that we should be doing this one at a time how we think
about comprehensive planning broadly in the town >> um because because I I mean I would love to have an an answer to >> happy to answer that but before >> Well, wait. Okay, John. >> Yeah, I'm sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to. >> That's okay. I think I did have my hand up. Yeah.
>> Um so I I Meredith, excellent answer. Uh Chaz, excellent answer. Um I I think people who had that conversation with me this afternoon um are going to seriously think about those answers. But I think they would also ask and these are people
from the community advisory group. Um I would specify um they they are are also going to um say a couple of things on behalf of this idea of um why take you know one huge bite of the whole thing
when we really have spent an awful lot of time just to bite the Chesn Hill West part and we've barely you know begun the discussions on on the rest. What's in the background of some of this consideration is um something we have barely mentioned tonight. I'm not sure
we've mentioned it at all. The effect on on traffic in the area. And so we've got this um preliminary kind of a look at what the impact on traffic in the area would be. that's that's kind of hovering in the background of all of these discussions which raised these really
kind of shocking numbers as to ho how much additional car traffic uh would be posed by just the Chestnut Hill West part of things. Um and uh it's going to it's going to take a a little
considerable amount of time before we get a feel for let's say Chestnut Hill West goes forward pretty much as drafted. um and actually on schedule. Um we will find out pretty quickly what the trans traffic impact is of all of that
development. Um Michael, what's the multiple of the amount of development on that parcel right now? Is it six, six times what we have there now? Seven, eight. >> You're talking about >> square footage of development. >> So the total F in of the parcels is
>> 3.8, right? 3.8 >> 3.8 times what is there now? >> No. No, the the F that they're proposing. >> No, but I've se I've seen quotes of thousands of square foot of development in the future versus what's there now. Um and and so it's not F I'm talking
about. I'm just talking about, you know, the developed what's developed there now versus what will be developed there. >> Thousands of square feet. >> They will be adding, you know, 246 residentially. >> Well, okay. I'm sorry. It's it's I'm
asking question number to look it up. >> There's 266 residential units. So regardless of the square footage, there's that many residential units in the plan. And then there's there's additional square footage. There's about 50,000 square feet of retail. Yeah. You
know, there's eight floors of medical office. But you know, as a multiple I I I've seen this worked out, you know, x,000 square feet in the future versus 6,000 square feet now. And it, if I remember correctly, it came to a multiple of six, seven, eight, nine times what's there now. >> I don't think
>> um well, okay. Well, five, six, seven times what's there now. We'll see. Um in in any event, um the transportation consultant tried to do their best job of figuring out what will that mean to the additional um traffic put onto Route 9.
And again, came up with kind of a startling multiple. And that's just Chestnut Hill West. So, I think it's kind of reasonable for people to be thinking, why why don't we see if we can accommodate the amount of traffic that's going to be generated by Chesn Hill West
before we sign off in advance on some zoning that will also multiply several times over the amount of development on the other parcels in the in the area. So, uh, Meredith, what what what is the, uh, concern with just doing
>> the zoning for, um, city properties and not the others, which I think seems to be what people are suggesting. >> Is there a problem with that? >> The >> Okay. I I would also I would gently remind the select board that um about 18 months ago
um we had recommended that we take the resoning in phases and we start with the western portion of the study area reszoning that and then return to the rest of the study area. And I think very wisely the select board as did members
of the community advisory board group pushed back and said we want a comprehensive vision resoning proposal for the entire area. That's what we have developed. That's what we've presented and we think that the outcome is something that we stand by for what I said before. We've secured protections
for the most significant site for economic development potential for the town and we have established a vision and a framework that will complement uh the proposed um 4.0 no zoning for the rest of the district. And then just as a correction, um the uh I'm happy to
provide an update on the future traffic capacity analysis that was presented. That was not just for city realy. That was for assumptions we made about the buildout of the entire study area over the next 20 years. >> Okay. >> Okay. Chaz, you were definite that we couldn't do that,
>> right? >> Um you No, you could. You could. I mean, I'm just I'm just saying that >> you shouldn't, >> right? I mean I for the for the reasons that we've discussed uh and for the reasons that Meredith brought up, but I I think to Meredith's got the answer to John's question, but I know Paul wanted to to speak on something before we talk
about traffic maybe. I don't know. >> Okay, Paul. >> Yeah, I just I there was a question about the comprehensive plan, but before and I'm going to answer that, but before we do that, I do want you made an assertion. I just want to respond to and it was quite a while ago, so I'll remind you the assertion was that probably not yours, but it was EDABS. uh you are
communicating EDAB's assertion that you know uh waiting for a developer to come to us um is not effective. Well, the most effective thing that's coming out of this work right now is that a developer came to us just by the mere fact that we opened the door to have a conversation about reszoning this area
to do a study. It was within I think four weeks of initiating that study did we immediately hear from city realy that they wanted to propose and we spent all our time on that. So, I'm just not I
don't agree with this I this uh assumption assertion that uh having a developer come to us and do what we did which I think is a good outcome frankly um means that that we would undermine the work that that's been done for the
framework. We have a vision for the area. You've done it. You've done a good job. Doesn't mean we need to convert it into into zoning and the zoning code thereby losing our leverage. And I'm I'm really worried about losing leverage. But let's talk about the comprehensive plan for a little bit because we just had a big meeting last night where Cara
Brutin was there. Um the team is doing great. We do have a vision. We're rallying around a vision uh for comprehensive planning. And there's really we've went parcel by parcel, corridor. We looked at the entire town. There's three areas uh of uh that we're
classifying. I'm gonna boil them down to three. I think there were six, but they're all related. The first is an area where we would conserve and maintain. Think of neighborhoods that you would see some development ADUs and stuff, but it wouldn't be transformative. Um, expanding. This
would be infill development similar to what we uh zoned for Harvard Street. Think Beacon Street, think Route 9, um uh you know uh Washington Square, uh Puttingham Circle. These are areas where um it wouldn't be transformative meaning
it would be a completely different use but it would be infill and expansion. Um and then the last is transformative areas and that transformation is very limited. There's only a few areas within Brookline where you could truly transform what's there. The areas on
comm over by Target, we've talked about that before. That's an area of tremendous opportunity transformation. Um, Chestnut Hill West is another area of potential major transformation, Stop and Shop, uh, TJ Maxx, but there's very
few of these parcels and, um, my concern about giving away, uh, it's one thing to do the ex if we were to do a study and do infill zoning for the entire corridor of Beacon Street, which is something that we
discussed last night, instead of doing it neighborhood by neighborhood, do an entire corridor, you would get infill development and you wouldn't need to have a tax certainty agreement. But when you get to major parcels like Chestnut Hill West, you want to have the leverage of zoning to get what you want out of
that negotiation. And I think that we it's a principle actually that frankly my thinking has evolved on this Meredith from originally having a project that kicked off to have a vision for the whole area and upzoning it to realizing the benefits of having zoning
and the leverage in order to get what we want for tax certainty agreements and memorandum of agreement on how the development happens. I think we need to be very cautious about how we trade that zoning on a major parcel. Um, it doesn't negate the work that you've done uh to
date. It really doesn't at all. You've already created a vision through the the work of yourself and the committee and Michael that shows that we're ready for business here, but come to us so that we can negotiate in good faith about what that specific solution might be for you. Uh, where it's it's very financially
benefit to the town. >> Okay. in terms of the item on the table which is foreign article one of special town meeting. Um what is your proposal? Well, I don't I I I don't think I have a proposal yet, but what I'm hearing is
that there's there's some reservations about upzoning everything right now and that we just focus on the city realy parcel that would in that would be the package of zoning for city realy, the MOA and the tax certainty agreement and
that would send us that one we get through that and that would give us send a strong signal to the devel to other land owners. that Brookline is open for redeveloping this area and we're going to work with you and here's here's the potential vision which is the work we've
already done. It's a framework but it's not built in our zoning code yet. Thereby we didn't give away our leverage. So if I had to make a proposal I'm not saying I'm doing this but I'm hearing the concept of peel off just chest ju just city realy. So that
means taking out the north parcels and everything else and the only article one would only be the zoning for city realy and the MOA and tax certainty for city realy. That's what I'm hearing. I'm not proposing that but that's what I'm hearing.
>> So how would you even do that? Where would it have to go in terms of various committees etc in order to make that change to what's being proposed now? uh just >> time for town meeting
>> I can't answer the town meeting process but I think you know if you gave us the instructions that we would only I would recommend not saying the city realy properties but the west block of the 4.0 so just we would go and rewrite the entire zoning to just speak to um the
that west block of the 4.0 And then the design guidelines as the planning board has uh adopted them would only be applicable to that corner of the study area. >> Maybe not to further complicate this but there is the issue of the 40B on Chief
Street >> that if we see some upzoning there instead of being a 40B they might uh pursue commercial. There's been talk of it possibly being a hotel. So I'm not sure that we necessarily need to only be
focusing on one parcel, but to the extent that as you were discussing in the context of the comprehensive plan that there are some parcels that are very high revenue generating potential >> and some other parcels along this Route
9 stretch, it's a little lower revenue generating potential. >> So I think it would be possible to consider that we don't necessarily just leave uh the western most parcel as the only part of the zoning. There might be other portions of it that we could move
forward at this time, but I agree with you that the growth company's part, which is essentially zoned exactly the same or close to exactly the same way as the western most parcel, >> uh we potentially are losing some
leverage there. I'm a little less concerned about the uh Salvatore portion where there's less height allowance. I'm a little less concerned about the portion approaching uh Hammond Street where there seems to be uh some more
buyin from the community about the potential of converting what would be a 40B into something else. >> So, so the interesting I mean I'm glad you brought that up. um you know that that that land owner is also represented by the same lawyer as that's representing City realy. It's my
understanding they're the ones that brought forward the 40B and they've communicated to us they want to work with us to do something different than a 40B. So they've already indicated to us. So take the same process that you just did for I forget the name of the parcel but I'm just going to call it the city
parcel for now. just I know that's not the right term, the city parcel and go start the negotiations with this land owner to come up with a solution that fits generally within the framework but may be customized for them to get them
away from a 40B that would certainly be beneficial to us and that zoning would give us leverage to have a better agreement similar to what cities is. I think I think it's a good model. >> I want to make two points. One is just to point out that in their letter they
were they were very clear that their examination was contingent on the zoning. Now that may just be a negotiating technique but that is what they >> simple phone call to. >> The other thing is can you bring back the map of the of the zoning. So I just
want to make sure that that we're all clear about the the tax certainty risk that we're talking about. Right. So if you look at at the yellow block, the tax certainty agreement covers that entire
block, right? If you look at the the city realy uh the growth company's project based on what they proposed, right? The six you the six units there that space is all they are proposing is
a combination of housing and parking, right? So the the value of the tax certainty agreement there is slim to none. Okay. And if you look at the parking lot where they're actually proposing medical office space, right?
As as is indicated there, the that space as they've designed is roughly a what five or six story building is what they've proposed. Um on a on a space that is 80 feet wide. Um and the medical office portion of that is only I think
the front the front section and the back is the parking that they need that they claim to need for to support the medical office. So the comparison of the value of the tax certainty agreement that you're proposing negotiating or putting
off is roughly the size of that little corner relative to the size of most of the of that yellow block. So just to give just to give you a sense of the different proportion and and the the the
cost of mitigating against that risk relative to the risk of moving forward. >> Okay, John and then I want to open up. >> Yes, I promise to be brief. Meredith, thank you for correcting me as to the multiple of traffic uh and it's for the
entire uh uh area, not just for Ches Hill West, but what is the multiple that that the consultant came up with? Off the top of my head, I I would want to Okay, there needs to be context to to this response. Um, so
we had talked about in our earlier presentations, we were waiting on the consultant to wrap up the final phase of our transportation study and we wanted to sort of pressure test the capacity um within the area. You know, would it be able to sustain the additional trip generation that would be associated with the upzoning that we're considering
here? >> Yeah. So the assumption that we gave the consultant to work with was very conservative in that we probably overestimated the amount of development that this area will see over the next 20 years. And we also overestimated the types of development that are a lot more
intensive in terms of the traffic that they generate like medical office because appointments are booked backtoback has a much higher trip generation rate um and parking requirements for example. So we overestimated the amount of medical office and residential that would be in this area very intentionally to kind of create like a worst case scenario. Yeah.
>> In terms of traffic impacts. >> So um with that in mind um I think the estimates and I can go back and follow with the select board but it was you know an increase of like 300% in terms of um the trip generation potential and all of the um intersections would uh
degrade to a a level F in terms of level of service which is failing. >> Thank you. And um I you know I want to do justice to the people who had this conversation with me this afternoon. And I know that that is very much on their minds. And I think it number one
probably in their in their reasons for saying we think maybe if you really want the neighbors to come on board with this the way to do that is to only go forward with Chestnut Hill Realy right now. Um because >> you mean city realy?
>> Huh? City realy. I'm sorry. I apologize. >> Excuse me. Go forward with only the city of reality parcel right now. Uh portion of the development right now. Um is that if if going ahead with the entire
package means that there is by estimate of the traffic consultant the potential for 300% increase in trips. um then maybe we're not ready to go ahead with the whole thing and we better take a little bit of cautious approach to this
and maybe just go ahead with the city realy part and and hopefully find out what the nobody has said that we have figured out what we're going to do about that 300% uh increase in trips. >> Okay, quick Mike and then then we're
open up the uh hearing. >> I just want to point out John that that's 300% over 20 years. So when you say we haven't figured it out, you also have to acknowledge we have 20 years to to work on this problem.
>> Okay. So let's hope so. >> Sorry, I'm so sorry. Just one additional so that I think the >> the flip side to that is that you know we the I think the benefit in undertaking this transportation study is
that we are starting conversations with mass DOT that much farther along. We have done our homework. We've identified a scope of possibilities, what we think could work, and at least one intersection redesign option at Boilston and Hammond Street that would significantly mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts that we were just
talking about >> in order to continue those conversations. If we only move forward with a portion of the proposed zoning and the rest of the study area remains unclear, it's going to make continuing those conversations with Mass DOT about what interventions are needed in this
area that much harder to advance because we don't know. Um, and we're going to and it sounds like, you know, just within the bounds of this conversation, there's the interest in maybe deferring to, you know, when developers are ready and that could take decades. So, I think um almost in service to wanting to be
able to, you know, be more proactive and aggressive in um advancing infrastructure improvements, they're going to support the development we need for economic development. It would be helpful to keep the zoning overlay intact so we can plan accordingly. >> Okay, let's open up the hearing.
>> Stop share. >> Do your magic. If there's anyone that wishes to speak on this topic, please raise your hand using the raise your hand feature online. And if you're in the room, just make your presence known by coming to the podium. I do have a couple of people
that did sign up prior. Mark Bearer was first. >> Okay. Uh have Mark Bear first. >> Are you Mark Bearer? >> I am Mark. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Good. >> You better be. >> All right. Well, good evening. Good evening everyone. Um thank you for letting me have a few words. Um just a
little context and overview from EDAB. Um you know I've sat on EDAB for a couple years now. Um and we've worked really hard for two years trying to finesse a resolution to find common ground a bunch of very varied
stakeholders. Um you know one respecting the community the neighborhood number two maximizing the position from you know the town of Brooklyn and and tax revenue. Number three, understanding what's the clear go no-go economics for a developer, any developer. And finally,
just really respecting the market forces, right? What's with all the oscillations, the headwinds that come up and down, how do we position this site for success, right? And I think that the Warren article at hand does position this site for success. And right now, it's clearly underutilized and and
undervalued. Um so that's you know just kind of the the overview at least from you know working on a EDAB subcommittee um you know with all all parties at hand. Um also just to address kind of the the the bigger picture when we're saying about
you do one parcel versus many parcels. Um you know we've brought in a couple different brokers right and and and I've been personally in real estate development for about 25 years. Um uncertainty is always the enemy of of good economic development, right? I think um if it's a peacemail approach,
one parcel at a time, um you're just making it that much more difficult for, you know, a a prominent um and quality development. You know, if it's a big tenant with lots of jobs wants to come in and you're not sure, well, did the guys next door, am I going to get what they got? I don't know. Maybe, maybe
not. You're just adding more headwind, you know, to I think to to the entire um you know, problem at hand. So again, I'm I'm would just in and just good best practices when you look at other, you know, neighboring towns, upzoning is the main tool and through a special permit,
those are always the hooks, right? And and the hooks to make sure that you get the right agreements for the development downstream. Um, so I just think again the ability to zone the consistent way which is a clear and distinct message to the marketplace be it brokers, tenants
and whoever else um I think is loud and clear and I think we'll at least facilitate as best we can and position the site for success. >> Thank you. >> Y uh who's next? Paul Ser and Kathle
Seidman are have their hands up. Uh Blair Hines signed up to said in person. >> Oh, okay. Blair >> seem to have lost touch with my what I was going to my written remarks here over this time. So I'll be very
brief. It's late. I wanted to first start with >> into the mic if you don't mind. >> I'm sorry. I want to first >> and just identify yourself for the record. >> Blair Hines, a resident at 745 Heath Street uh down the street from the proposal. I want to start by saying that
the neighborhood has been in favor of redevelopment of this site and um over the course of from the very beginning we understand that this site has needed to get redeveloped. I think
the challenge has been how much it has been redeveloped and I want to support the um amendment that um Janice is developing which really represents I think uh two very important uh pieces. One uh
this zoning does need to pass we believe. I think that if it doesn't I think that would be worse for the town and be worse for the neighborhood. So, I want to emphasize that we've come a long way to uh see the importance of passing
this. Uh secondly, uh we were really looking to um have the base zoning be at uh what the neighborhoods uh supported, which was basically 125 ft, 10 stories, similar to what was done in the
children's hospital redevelopment between Pearl Street and Washington Street. We thought that this was reasonable. And the reason that we see this as a compromise is that it puts the neighborhood in a little better position in the event that the entire city real
estate uh management uh proposal doesn't in fact get built. uh if there's any modifications in the proposal that is in the me memorandum of agreement with uh the select board uh we would have I
think a stronger voice and that has been one of the thorns in our side is we feel like through this whole two-year process we become complainers rather than uh people who could help to forge what this redevelopment zoning would consist of.
Thank you. >> Can I ask question? >> Uh, sure. >> Thanks. Thanks, Blair, for your comments. I just I do have a question because you reference the zoning, right? And then you talk about city realy the under the underutilized and it's
important. Are you talking about the entire corridor at this point? Are we just talking about city real? >> Well, I think in terms of it really would be the uh the CH4 zone. Yeah. would have instead of just the bonuses uh being at 12 and 14 stories with with
the overlay, it would basically have the first step being at 10 stories. >> I understand. I I I understand. But you're not talking about the rest of I mean the the warrant article one that's coming in front of us. No, I think I'm I'm in favor. >> There's only a little piece that >> Well, no, I think that uh I mean at
Janice's uh you know suggestion, you know, myself had met with uh growth companies on two occasions along with George Cole to try to understand uh their concerns about the zoning. So, we are interested in the resoning of the
entire area and um so I think I'm in support of resoning of the entire area. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, next uh speaker. We have someone. >> Um we have three people online raising their hand. >> Okay, >> Kath is first.
>> Katha, >> good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. Um my name is Kathy Seidman. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 2, a member of the Brooklyn Commission for the Arts, and a board member of Brooklyn for Everyone. But I speak here only for
myself. The Chestnut Hill commercial area is the largest and most promising commercial area in Brooklyn and holds enormous potential for tax generating development that includes a mix of commercial uses as well as housing at all price points. Adopting new zoning
regulations that allow this site to achieve its full potential pres presents an opportunity that must not be squandered by the town, especially now when a developer that owns the requisite size parcel has presented a specific proposal proposal to actually build out
that potential. Passing the zoning outline in STM1 warrant articles 1 and two would not only allow the proposed development of 5.3 acres of Chestnut Hill commercial area to move forward, but obviously incentivizes other developers to come forward. Brookline
has a history of making new development impossible by never changing it zoning. expecting a developer to ask for zoning to meet a developer's program could as easily as not run into the same 20-year process roadblocks as the city realy
property encountered. I want to congratulate all those who worked on this project from CHCA study committee, the neighbors, staff, and select board members who all worked tirelessly to upgrade a stagnant Chestnut Hill office park and reszone the other areas
proposed in the 2005 comp plan into what has the potential to be a placemaking model for future developments of this scale in Brooklyn. I would like to also take this opportunity to point out what I believe has been an overlooked benefit of this upgrade to
Brooklyn side of Route 9. Our developers to our west, Newton, Welssley, and as far away as South Burough, have all added residential and commercial development along Route 9. The traffic those residents and shoppers generate flows through Brooklyn to
Boston and back, adding traffic and congestion to Brooklyn. Those towns get increased property tax revenue from their new developments. Brooklyn gets the traffic. We can and should take advantage of the revenue from both the new development of homes for folks who
want to live closer to Boston and the economic activity generated by folks visiting Brookline's new placemaking experience. In particular, I am delighted to learn that the neighbors and the developer and the town have reached consensus on amendments to the
original zoning. I hope the advisory committee, the select board, and every town meeting member will now fully support these articles. I urge this I urge the select board to recommend favorable favorable action on STDM warrant articles one and two. Thank you.
>> Next is Paul Ser. >> Thank you. I'm Paul Sainer, precinct 13 town meeting member and I had been a member of EDAP for 28 years up until a few years ago. I want to recall Bob
Spurber who um was the beloved superintendent of schools and the founder of EDAB. Bob would um constantly ask real estate people about certain sites in Brooklyn's history, most of
which bordered on other municipalities. One of his favorite sites was the northwest corner of um Hammond in Boilston uh where the star market was developed
um in 1950. He would always ask, "Why is that building in such an odd shape?" And he knew the answer because he had spoken to the developers because they built around Brookline, giving Brookline the parking. Um the um Chestnut Hill
commercial area is riddled with decades long opportunity costs to the town. The WS development letter of last week I felt was absolutely laughable. I want to make sure you all know that WS
development controlled um Chestnut Hill Office Park the parcels that city reality is looking to develop for about 20 years and despite many overtures by those of us on EDAB never got out of
their own way to seriously look at redeveloping it. while they were developing the street across the street and frankly they were one of the most prolific developers in the metropolitan area. Um I um um believe that the select
boards support the planning department's work and um upzone the entire proposed area because there will be missed opportunities like the one that Bob Spurber used to ask about um that will
continue at a time when we cannot afford it as four out of the five of you along with they correctly, in my opinion, endorse the override. I think it's really important to show um the voters
that the town is really serious about long-term strategic economic development. Lastly, I know a lot about tax certainty, having been involved in all previous six tax certainty agreements where there were developers across the table to negotiate
with. The only concern I have is medical office at scale, not a hotel of which we have four and maybe a fifth tax certainty agreement. The real risk is large medical office and the only parcel
where that can happen um beyond city reality is uh the growth companies. >> Your time is up >> and you've heard Meredith's answer. So, I urge you to please support the extraordinary work of Meredith Moody and
Michael Rubenstein. Thank you very much. >> Ann Meyers is next. >> Thank you. I'm Anne Meyers. I live in Precinct 9 and I chair the Economic Development Advisory Board. Um, I actually live in precinct 8 now. I keep forgetting. I moved from one to the
other not that long ago. Um, I was actually on the 20 uh 20 2005, excuse me, uh, comp plan committee and I remember when the res need for resoning at Chestnut Hill was raised in that comp
plan and was discussed uh, quite a lot and was one of the elements of that plan. Since then, the town has responded to development proposals on a case-bycase basis. And people, including many town meeting members, always complain that Brooklyn just responds to
proposals and never got ahead of the game by issuing resoning in advance of proposals. Uh, the Chesnut Hill commercial area study started as a way to look at the entire area and develop resoning before there were any development proposals on the table.
Having zoning in place lets a development community know what the town is looking for and what they can do by right, even for sites that are unlikely to be developed for many years. In this case, part of the site was purchased and a proposal submitted just as the work
was beginning, which did change some of the focus of the work, but it did not eliminate the need for the entire site to be zoned. Now, if it is, it will make it much more desirable for developers to come in and start a project in the area. one that helps to generate the
commercial tax revenue that Brookline so desperately needs. And again, I I want to urge the select board to support these warrant articles and thank all the work that's been done by the staff and the committees and everybody else. This
has been several years of very hard work and I hope that we can bring it to a conclusion. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one else on Zoom or in the audience, I'll close the hearing and
um I'll close this discussion. We'll have further discussion later on when we vote or not on whether to give favorable action on proposals. Bernard, >> when are we taking this up for CH? Do
you know when this is going to come back to us? >> Um, I think there's more committee work to be done. Um, but we can obviously, you know, what I would propose doing is we can schedule updates for you as this progresses through the various hearings and so forth so that you can be ready to vote on it when it's ready to be vote when it's ready to be voted on when it's
gone through all the committees. But in the inter room, we'll just continue to provide you with updates on how it's moving through. >> Okay. Updates by memo or on the agenda? We'll put we'll put it on the agenda and and then so that if you if you have question that also then allows you if you have questions or if things come up that you want to discuss with us you
know on staff or like for example if as advisory land use comes through the process and you want us to say something to them in addition to what you've been telling us tonight we can you can have that be continually a part of the iterative process. >> Okay. Uh David
>> I just want to make sure that staff doesn't feel that we are indicting their work in some way. I notice some ruffled feathers, furoughed brows, which is understandable. You put a lot of work into this, and so you get frustrated when you perceive push back, but I
wouldn't characterize it as push back. So, we hear from lots of constituents. We hear from lots of different interest groups, and through discussions like these, we learn more from these exchanges. So, I just hope nobody's taking it personally when it sounds like
somebody's taking a uh taking an approach that might be opposite of what you're advocating for uh in your professional expertise. It's that we're asking questions. We're trying to learn. That's what this is. >> Yeah. And I I I don't I don't think we we take it that way. I think it's I I
wasn't going to draw this comparison, but it was just interesting to think about this in the context of the bike policy that we were talking about earlier, right? this has now been a two plus year process and we've heard you know some sometimes it feels like a step forward a step back and I and I appreciate what Paul said actually about
how this is also an opportunity for people to people's views to grow and to evolve and to change and that's not a bad thing either it's just you know we it's I don't think we're we're frustrated at the questions being asked I think it's good for us to have those conversations I think sometimes it can
just feel a little bit like step forward step back yeah it's a a little bit of whiplash. But you know what that's but I I I think we all understand that that's in the service of there are people who have not been engaged in this two years. There are people who tuned into this yesterday like whoa whoa wait a minute why are we doing this? Um and we have to
be responsive to those questions without saying well you know where were you? Um because not everyone tunes into this stuff. >> So if I one quick comment because you know my opportunities to provide comment are coming to a close. Um, but I do there are two things that that for me I
think are are important that I think this board should consider as important. One is we don't want to lose leverage and I think we heard about leverage tonight. I don't know maybe that means special permits provide leverage. I don't know but leverage is important to be able to get the outcomes that Michael has been able to negotiate with city.
Um, and two we need to make sure that we have people on board to pass a two-thirds vote. That is that's number one. And we should make sure that we're doing any everything that can be done to add votes to have it pass a town
meeting. I think you add votes by supporting Janice Khan's amendments that's just negotiated. Um, I think you potentially add votes by thinking hard about whether that north parcel uh is is ready for prime time or do you peel that
off because people say that's what's causing the traffic issues. Uh that's what's causing some risk associated with uh you know uh whatever our relationship with Newton and others. So those are my two okay two things were important to
me. I just want to share. >> Okay, let's move on. Next we have a bunch of warrant articles with public hearings. uh foreign article four close out uh um >> close out bills here. Pardon me. >> I was just saying thank you to >> Thank you, Meredith. >> Oh, thank you, Meredith. >> Thank you, Meredith.
>> Hey, Meredith, we really appreciate you and we know you're a tough tough person, so we don't have to worry about >> I told her to strap in about a month ago for the ride she's going to be on. So, >> okay. is um um is Melissa
>> Melissa is uh down at advisory, but I will uh be a poor substitute for her for Warrant Article 4. I'm the understudy. Um um so Warrant Article 4 is required by the town's bylaws. Uh it's to give an update on where certain, you know, project accounts are, bond accounts, and
so forth. Um you have in your packet the current updates. Uh the the two uh the document labeled um K is um sorry the K report um is projects that are cash funded. The capital report are projects
that is are uh uh are projects that have um bond funding involved in them. Um and so you can see where we are as of 316. The comments there are from the departments. Um, you know, we have work
that is in process. If there is excess revenue for projects that are completed at the end of the fiscal year, it will be returned in accordance with the terms of article 4. That's how that works. So, we've got um, you know, some available balance. Uh, but again, this is, you
know, we're this is Q3 of a four quarter year. Um, and these numbers will go down, I hope, pretty significantly, um, before we reach the end of FY26. Okay, any questions about Warren Article 4?
Let's open up the hearing and see if anyone would like to speak from the audience or from uh, the Zoom hearing. None, we'll close the hearing. And um >> are we are we ready to do favorable
action on this? I mean, >> we know >> the board actually doesn't need to take action on this. >> There's no action. Sorry, Chaz. >> Yeah. It's technically just a report. Um Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um okay, next. Uh why so why do we do a hearing? >> Because it's technically a warrant article.
>> Uh >> okay. >> I think you actually do vote no action on it. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you don't have to do anything, but you don't need to vote favorable action on it. It just needs to appear in the warrant. It's a part of the town bylaws. >> Let's just move on then. Article six, unpaid bills. Do we have any unpaid
bills? >> Charlie, do we have any unpaid bills? Lincoln. There's Lincoln. Yeah, >> we do have one. Yeah, Lincoln will. >> I thought we I thought we >> It's always a long explanation when you have one. >> All right, Lincoln is online. >> Try to make it snappy, though. Good evening. Um, well, uh, Lincoln Heidman.
I'm the director of finance for the town. So, we do have one uh unpaid bill that uh we we do need town meeting action to approve to for the town to be able to pay it. According to MLA chapter
44, section 64, it was a bill um that uh that was not received in a in a timely fashion from the vendor. We did receive it later um past the incumbrance deadline. Uh and so we we were not we were able to pay a portion of it with
incumbing incumbrances but not uh the remainder uh of $5,959. And so this article six um seeks the necessary town meeting approval to pay that valid bill. >> Okay. And there no there no bills that
we are not aware of that could come forward? >> None that we're that we're aware of. We we do do a very robust process to remind um uh those who who who we know we owe
uh funds to to get us bills in a timely fashion. Um and there's none none others that we're aware of. >> Okay, Paul. >> Yep. Uh Lincoln, what's the bill for? >> It's it is for postage. >> Postage for >> the postal service is late.
>> No, not the postal service. a a vendor that uh that mails our property and real estate real estate and personal property taxes. >> Michael real quick. >> And where do the funds come from if town meeting approves this? >> Yes. So the there there were there was
sufficient uh funds elsewhere in the finance department. It's just that it they weren't um they weren't able to be encumbered for this purpose. >> It it gets paid out of the current fiscal year budget, Michael. >> Yeah. >> You mean fiscal year 26? >> Correct. >> Okay. Correct.
>> Um, okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing. See if anyone wants to comment on this. >> Anybody want to have us not pay it? >> Okay, I'll close the hearing and um I think we can do favorable action on this
one if no one objects. Okay, I move favorable action on warrant article six unpaid bills. All in favor John Skoyak. >> I Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Corman. >> Hi. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. Uh next, uh article nine, annual community. Oh, this is a significant
one. It's not going to be a quick I see Nancy Heler's approaching the podium on this. >> Patiently waiting, very patiently. >> Good evening. You've all had a long night, so I'll try to be brief. I'm
Nancy Heler, uh chair of the Community Preservation Act committee. I'm joined by David Lecoy who's the vice chair and you all know him. Uh and I'm also joined online by Laura Sme who is our CPA
planner. Um I would like to just say a couple of words about Laura. She joined us in January of uh this year and she hit the ground running. She's got a lot of CPA experience uh in when she worked in the planning
department in Canton, but she also worked for the consultant who helped us develop our CPA plan and she did some work in Brooklyn then. So, we're very happy to have her. She's really uh going to be we're going to be the best
organized CPA uh committee in this in the state of Massachusetts when she's done. Um, so I want to um um Laura, can you put up the slides? Are
you controlling them? Okay. So, um that's our basically our logo. I want to go to the next slide, please. Um we want you to understand what CPA delivers. This is a a short slide, but I think it's very important. We're not
only preserving very critical community assets, and when I say community assets, I'm talking about town properties as well as uh community properties that deliver a community benefit. For instance, the uh we've funded a couple
of churches and uh a temple. uh they all provide huge community benefits in that they uh their space is utilized by community activities. you most most notably I'm sure you know of the food bank which is in the United
parish uh church on Harvard Street but there are many others in addition to which we have leveraged significant outside funding um and I'll talk about the amounts in a minute and all of those things bring long-term value to the town
and the this year's recommendations continue the the same strategy um now our next slide please Gloria uh these are revenue sources. Uh CPA is basically uh the funds are from tax base
1% sir charge on real estate property tax bills. Um the state community preservation trust fund provides us a certain match each year. It varies each year depending upon the real estate fees
that are paid at the registry. That's what community preservation act funds uh uh get as a state match and uh and interest as well. So our total revenue to date and is uh through through 27 by
the way. Uh so that's some projection in there of 22,700,000. Next slide please. Now this is another slide about what the CPA delivers. We have on our website this interactive map which will show you
if you go to it all of the different projects from fiscal year 25 and 26. We had 29 projects that have already been approved. Fiscal year 27 of which we're approaching. We're uh bringing you eight new eight new projects for a total of 37
projects. Uh the CPA funds involved in those projects is 16.5 million. And additionally, we've leveraged, and I was actually surprised by this number, um, is 15.9 million. So, we're pretty close
to a one-on-one u basic match for the total of of 32 million um 500,000. Next slide, please. Now, we're going to be um
sorry, I'm missing my using old fashioned using paper and one got stuck. All right. CPA funding projects by amount. Um we keep we track the category of funding because uh we
are uh we have a plan which uh obligates us in a state uh scheme which obligates us to fund in three areas community which is affordable housing, historic preservation, open space and recreation.
So, we want to uh uh categorize those and figure out where we are, how we're doing in that uh in the in this comparison. And uh the total by category
um will for both the ones we've already uh secured and also the ones we are going for for this round will be 52% in housing, 16% in historic preservation and 32% in open space and recreation.
So, you can see that we are ahead a bit in community housing, behind a bit in historic preservation, and we're looking at this as a five-year uh effort. So, we're hoping that they those level out uh as we get toward the
the end of the five years. Um, next slide, please. We have three motions before town meeting. Two of them are represented in the first chart. Um and they are um for the first
motion will be for 1 2 3 4 5. The fif the the total five the fif the first five um data points in this chart ending with community housing uh are the amounts in the first motion and what it
this motion does because this is anticipated revenue. It's not revenue in hand. And I'll explain that in a minute. But what this motion does is when the tax dollars come into the general fund,
when the state match and the interest amounts go into the general fund, the treasur then moves them into these categories. um so that when we're ready to start using them in a future year, uh they
will already be set up in that category for us to uh bring projects to you and to the town meeting. Um so the uh unallocated budget reserve for next year would we estimate it'll bring in 2.5
million and the 10% uh budget reserves for open space 10% for historic preservation and 10% for community housing which is dictated by the statute by the way uh are going to be 393,400. So that's the first motion. Then the
second motion is our administrative costs. The statute permits us to set aside 5% for administrative costs and those include salaries uh dues to the state organization from which we get a
lot of technical assistance. Um but it also pro uh gives us the the funds to hire consultants to do certain things. We've had Jen Goldson uh who has helped us develop our CPA plan and we've also
consulted with her and a couple of other issues. So uh anything that we don't spend in that category will go back into our unallocated budget reserve. We never lose the money. It we it always stays with us. Uh and but it goes back into
our unallocated budget reserve for spending in another year. Um and that's the difference between the two motions is that the monies in the first in the uh unallocated budget reserves and the 10% reserves will not be spent next
year. They will be uh moved into the into the categories for CPA. They will not be spent. We don't spend money that we don't have in hand and we never know exactly uh how much money we're going to
actually have. These are estimates. Um we like to spend money in hand because for to to um one year we didn't we did not estimate correctly or we didn't uh um I should
say plan correctly and we had to do what's called a true up and it's kind of a pain in the neck frankly. So we want to avoid that. true up is is correcting uh the uh amounts that go into uh in each project and and and go up into
these categories. So but in the administration uh category we spend that this year uh in the year that we collect it and that is because in the first two years when we were collecting money uh we weren't
spending it on projects we were busy de getting organized and developing a plan etc. Uh so that we did have a large uh amount of cash that first year. Uh but that's not been the case with the administrative budget. So we spend that
we expect to spend that next year. Um the third motion is the one for the appropriation of awards and I believe you have that in front of you. I'm going to go through those quickly so you'll uh just to highlight the uh important
points. We have a total of over $4 million. Unallocallocated budget reserve is 1.9 plus open space 430 historic preservation 878300 and community housing 798400.
Next slide please. Okay so the community housing projects the affordable housing I wish they'd always call called it that. Um we have 1.1 million allocated for the Trustman roof preservation.
Um and an important thing to note about this is a uh Brookline Housing Authority project and an important thing to note about that is that we have been able to secure a very favorable leverage and matching funds from the state. Uh so we
anticipate a one and a half uh match although for a prior project the Eggmon Street roofs which have already been approved we had 500,000 in 2025 um another 500,000 in 2026 and those
were matched they were doubled actually so this we put in a million RCPA put in a million and the state put in two million so um that's one of the reasons our leverage uh number is high because
of those kinds of projects from uh BHA and also uh we'll get to some of the private projects which have attracted also a lot of private money um the 398 >> Nancy could you sort of include >> you want to go faster >> yeah your time is up so if you can
>> okay so you can see uh you can read for yourself then the uh the projects under community housing historic preservation We have the United Parish steeple. Again, we have a large amount of matching funds and the old burial grounds restoration which we are
continuing. We funded other projects in in the previous two years. We're continuing that. Uh open space and recreation. Next slide please. Um D Blakeley invasive species management. We're continuing to fund those kinds of projects. Tree inventory
is also continuation. And now we're coming to the Lars Anderson green infrastructure study. Um, so that's it. Uh, we hope you'll vote favorable action on these projects. If you want to know, you want to get into the weeds, I can certainly do that, but I my sense is you
would rather not. >> Okay, this is a public hearing, so let's Well, let actually does anyone have questions from the board? >> No. I I have had some uh constituents reach out wondering is there going to be
a plan at some point to try to pull more money together for larger scale projects and what are some of the limitations around that such as you mentioned about the 10% minimum per category. >> Right. We we do have to spend uh we have we have to put money into the 10%
category unless we don't have any projects in that category and then we can't spend it. Uh but um we really the um the limitations are um that we never lose the money. So
that's not a problem. And we do have quite a bit built up now. And there have been I think some of your constituents may have been talking to you about open space projects, recreation projects. And we have been reluctant to to
uh spend every single cent we had in the hope that we would be able to help the town if there is such a project, an open space purchase or uh or a um renovate uh creation of a park for instance. Uh, by
the way, we are creating a park on Harvard. Uh, it's called the public health park park that that land there that's already been approved. But, um, so, you know, we're reluctant to spend every dime because we want to be able to
have a bit of a cushion to be able to to uh uh spend that kind kind of money. I mean, >> right. Well, that that was the intent behind my question. So that's good to hear because I think people are wondering whether CPA funds could be utilized for something larger scale and
it sounds like they're >> Yeah. Well, certainly we have used larger scale uh projects. We had $3.8 million $3.75 million for uh the Walnut High development >> as you know and we did that the first year when we had a lot more money. Um
we're now facing less money each year. Uh so we have about four million. Um but we have some that gets returned like in you know and that begins to build up our unb unallocated budget reserve so that
we could potentially meet some of these larger uh requests you know a million or two million say >> for uh land. And there's also the rink and the uh you know we funded the uh design and the and that plan for the
rink. Um but we know that it has to be built. Probably we wouldn't be able to do the whole thing but we might be able to u contribute to it. So >> and the 3.75 million was just half of what went into walnut high pro uh project. >> Correct. The uh
>> the HAB providing >> the HAB put in the other that's so there's $7 million there. It's supposed to be a $70 million project, I think. >> Yeah. >> But that we we get we allocated the money in order to leverage uh the other monies that are that are coming in now.
>> Okay, let's open up the hearing. >> Um John Heert online has his hand raised. >> Okay, John Heert. >> For whatever reason, uh my camera is not working. Uh, can you are you able to hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Great. Um, I'm John Heert. I'm a town meeting member in Pre67. I live at uh 21 Auburn Street. And I I have a it's more of a curious uh question and it pertains
in part to the um to the previous uh discussion about uh the CHCA uh and relative to the 10.93 million cash in le of payment that uh under that
MOA city realy would make uh to the housing afford uh to the affordable housing trust fund. And um I'm just curious to know if I I see overlap between that money for the affordable housing trust fund and some of the
projects here on the um on the CPA such as the Trustman apartments roof replacement and the um uh the housing advisory board uh affordable housing trust purpose of
community housing creation preservation support and I'm curious to know with that overlap uh is it is it possible for some of the 10.3 9 to sorry some of the 10.93
million for example to be used in for purposes that are described here for the CPA funding thereby freeing up more CPA funds for
additional projects. Are is is there separation between these uh two uh silos if you will? >> Uh >> wait, >> you want me to answer the question? >> Uh yeah, it was a direct question.
>> Okay. Um well the uh to date the HAB the housing advisory board and with who that manages the trust the housing trust um has focused on creation of new housing and while we at the CPA have also
focused on creation with the $3.75 million for the Walnut High projects have focused on the preservation of what we have in Brooklyn now as affordable housing. housing. A lot of it is
unfortunately dilapidated and um our tenants are living in um conditions that we would prefer they not live in and we want to uh to uh we want to uh help that situation. So, we've
funded, for instance, the um Brookline Community Development Corporation in its house in its affordable housing to fix their um outside the uh uh preservation of their
roofs and uh there are other things which which uh correct deficiencies in the uh and and deterioration in the structure of the building to preserve it. Uh that's in turn corrected uh uh
attracted other money which w which is used to rehab the interior of the building which CPA is does not uh do when it has not created the actual uh
apartments to begin with. In addition, as I say, we've done we've done u projects for the BHA roof preservation, uh window restoration, that kind of thing, which are very important to tenants because they prevent le they
keep keep them dry and uh also keep the energy costs down and the feel of how they what it feels like to live in an apartment where the wind is blowing in. Uh so we're cognizant of that and we are um
working on that. HAB has not really done that to the extent that uh at least since I've been involved in it since um uh CPA has come into existence. And I think that's a good role for us to play
because I think it's important for us to support this housing that we have and to um ensure that our tenants the tenants in those buildings and they're not town uh owned. They are the BHA is stateowned although I I think of it as a quasi town
agency since we vote for the commissioners but uh and the BCDC is uh uh a nonprofit uh that's operating in the town but these are town residents and they deserve to live in uh decent
conditions and uh I think it's you know certainly morally um correct to uh pursue this path. of making sure that the tenants we have are in are living in good conditions as
well as building more units for tenants, prospective tenants. >> Can I ask you a really quick question? >> Sure. >> Um the BCDC funding um is what I'm thinking of. Could you do that for a privatelyowned
um three-story or three-unit building uh that is uh reasonably priced because for example the owner lives in the building? >> I don't know the answer to that question off the top of my head. I think it would
depend upon um a lot of agreements with the owner. >> Oh yeah. um you know and uh the uh apartments would have to be designated as affordable in perpetuity.
That would be one a CPA requirement that you might not get with a private owner. >> But then again, you could >> but you could try. >> Yeah. >> And and the reason I mentioned that >> so I'm not ruling it out, but I'm saying there are some addition additional um con constrictions, you know.
>> Yeah. The reason why I mentioned that is that we have a lot of housing in this town that's that's affordable, middle income affordable um that uh is basically old and run down and maybe you know if uh an owner gets some subsidy
for keeping the u roof in shape or something um they can they would be willing to enter into an agreement to uh keep it affordable for perpetuity. Right. I mean it it would require a unique situation but it's something that um
>> it would require a unique situation and we did have originally I believe we had an applicant who came forward but the idea was that that they would transfer the prop the the apartments to other
owners who would you know be able to sell them at market rate at some point and again that's not CPA is not uh interested in doing that. We're interested in preserving and increasing affordable housing in the community.
>> Okay, let's open up the um >> public is open. Okay. >> Sorry, John. >> No, I I if if I may just um make a comment uh here in followup, I I certainly don't want anybody to
misconstrue that I'm that I'm against this. In fact, I'm I'm all for this. And I'm my question is is it possible to free up even more funding that we have in the CPA that could be used from this
for example this $10.93 million that is um that would if the MO if if the contract went through with city realy um would we be able to use some of that $10.93 million for some of the purposes
that are now used by CPA to free up those funds. In other words, it sort of amplify uh the effect or or would that money uh have to be used
for other purposes and not be able to use uh for the same purposes as CPA funds are used? >> Are you suggesting they should be used for open space and recreation and historic preservation as well? I'm just saying I'm asking to clarify the
question. >> Okay. And uh >> maybe maybe I should jump in here. Um >> so the mitigation funds for from city realy from theou are a different are are could be you know for different purposes right
but the the general purpose of that money is to right to mitigate the the impact uh of the additional development in town. So yes, it can be used for similar purposes to CPA, but it's got to be built around this idea of mitigating
the impact. And yes, theoretically, um, if there was overlap between those two pots of money, then yes, that money could be used for something that could then be used for CPA, but right now that it it doesn't seem to me that there's an immediate overlap there. Um, that could
change. Um but yes, you know, you got to remember that in order to for them to make that payment, it's got to be related to something uh involving why, you know, the the building being there in the first place or the additional development being there in the first place.
>> And if I can jump in here briefly too on the CPA funding side, we've historically used over half of the CPA funds available for housing uh purposes. at a minimum we need to have 10% for housing purposes. So the difference in that has
been made up with the unallocated budget which can be used for any of those purposes. Um, and I mean in theory you could use more of those unallocated purposes for things other than housing, but I think that um when it comes to
housing often the the need is so great and the expense is so great that um really it like all of the above usually when it comes to affordable housing. So um I think it would take an overwhelming
amount. It sounds like a very large amount of mitigation funds, which is great, but I I would suspect that there's still going to be a pretty big role to play for CPA and community housing even with that mitigation funds. >> Okay, >> thank you everybody.
Unless there is anyone else who would like to speak, I'd like to close the hearing. And um I think I I would like to, you know, vote favorable action, but I think as a as a policy matter, we ought to
wait till another meeting in order to make that decision. So, >> okay. >> Good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Nancy. So um it is 10:47 and some I I understand some people in
this uh audience are fading. No names will be mentioned. Um is there some way we can put off >> I have I have some good news for you which is that article 19 has been withdrawn. Um so that's out.
>> Um articles 17 and 25 there have been some changes some revisions. Um, but a motion was just offered to refer today. So, and that's not in your packet. >> Motion by refer >> by Marty Rosenthal was offered to refer
17 and potentially 25 to a >> two motions to refer. >> Yes. Well, there's one joint there's a motion to refer both articles. Uh, and theoretically, >> yeah, a joint motion to >> that's how it's styled. I don't know how the parliamentary procedure on that works. Um
>> um but it's unclear at this point whether Marty Rosenthal he's oh so sorry so to whom he's he's referring it to a select board committee. >> Oh my god. >> Select board committee. >> Um anyhow um so that's that's out there.
Um but that hasn't been um vetted yet. So I don't think there's action necessarily for you to take on 17 and 25 yet given those. Um that >> put that off for another >> right another day. That leaves you with 12
uh and 24. Um 12 uh is the article about publishing public records requests. And I'm sorry I you have the petitioner here. Um you also have Marty who's here who's raised his hand if he wants to talk about his referral motion. Um and
then you have the petitioner for 12 and uh 20 um uh 24 which is the two offer two articles offered by Mike Toffel and Alec Labitz. Um
maybe you want to >> Yeah. >> I I and so I mean all right if people >> if folks on 17 and 25 want to talk about them that's fine. Um, >> well, look, I I'd like to hear from Marty in terms of, you know, motivation behind his referral
>> and then you should hear from the petitioner. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I I think given that we have the petitioners here, we hear from them, too. >> Oh, I'm sorry. They made some changes, right? >> They made some changes, right? >> Okay. So, why don't we start off with the petitioners giving us their changes
and then go to market. >> What are we doing? 12 12 first. >> No, no, no. So it looks like they're >> 17 and 24. >> Looks like their hands are up. So why don't we why don't if it's all right with you when you do 17 and 25. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And so Chi-Chi Wu is on.
>> Okay. Chi-Chi, why don't you speak regarding uh 17 and 25? Um >> okay, great. Thank you uh very much. Chi-Chi moving meaning member pre precinct 7 co-petitioner on article 17 and 25 joined by uh my co- petitioner
Jessica Kiko um appreciate the board hearing from us since we have been on since you know 8:00 um we have made changes to uh both 17 and 25 as a result of feedback both from me uh members of the select board as
well as advisory committee um I sent those to uh you and I'm hoping you have a copy of them if you would like. We actually have slides we which we can show you the changes if you'd like. >> Why don't you do that? >> We do have the and we do have the
revised versions in the packet. So yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Let me see if I can uh >> It's on page 720 of the packet. My AP. All right. My apologies. The
Zoom is not giving me an option for uh >> Can you make her as co-host? >> She's co-host. She should be able to >> Yeah. No, it's just it's just giving not giving me the option for um Can you see a PowerPoint right now? >> No. >> No.
>> So, Chaz, is this in our packet as revisions to article 17 round two? >> Yes. >> Chi, I have it pulled up if you want me to screen share. >> Oh, awesome. Zoom is just not giving me an option for to share it from um from Google Drive.
>> Yeah. You you want the slides, right? >> Yeah. Sorry. Do you want me to go back or start here? >> Okay. Yes. Thank you, Jessica. Um, so the first change is um at the paragraph
one of the article where uh we added the federal um before some civil immigration enforcement in response to um Michael uh Rubenstein's suggestion. We also added uh at the end a um sentence that for
purposes of the article the term town facilities does not include streets, roads or other public ways and that is um uh at the suggestion of the advisory committee subcommittee. Next slide please.
Um on paragraph two, we tweaked the language um per suggestion um to focus on the activity and not the personnel of central immigration enforcement prohibiting it in non-public spaces. We struck the second sentence. We were
getting a lot of feedback that, you know, it could possibly be interpreted to actually weaken um some of the other prohibitions, some concerns about language and um back and forth and and we finally decided it was just uh easier to strike that. So, that has been struck. The next slide, please.
Um on paragraph three per the suggestion of advisory committee we noted that it was town employees that would document violations of um first and second paragraph and notify the to administrator's office. Um we have made violations not only civil in nature but
also not subject to section 10.1 of the bylaws which is the uh police criminal enforcement of bylaws. So it's absolutely clear this is civil and uh nature only. We've struck paragraph 4 um that we had suggest we had thought about
suggesting earlier. Um we were getting a lot of comments about different aspects of the language and um it was getting complicated and we came to the realization that um also putting in the bylaws would mean that um it would be an actual prohibition on on officers doing
anything to interfere with federal law enforcement including even uh the example we heard from the police a couple of meetings ago where um you know they basically they said what happens some in the police station is that um ICE officers are politely to wait
outside and um that could be construed as interference. So, we wouldn't want to prohibit that. So, we've struck that. So, those are our changes. Happy to answer questions. I I don't know if I was hoping you might vote one way or another just to vote. I'm not sure we
can be back for a fifth time. Um we've been before you three times. We uh our motion was deferred another time when we waited. So, I I'm I'm really hoping um the board would like to take some action. Thank you. And then 25. Jessica,
do you want to do that or you want me to handle that? >> I I can do it real quick. >> Um let me just make that. >> Uh we made three. >> Can we can we take up 17 and just resolve it first because I think we may want to do different things between the
two of them. >> You want to make a motion? >> You've got you've you've got a referral motion. Yeah. Too. So, you might want to hear from after Marty. >> Oh, that's right. >> Because that's going to take precedence, right? >> Well, it would be voted on first. >> Yeah. >> At town meeting. >> So,
>> but I mean, we can we we can recommend a favorable action. >> We could, but until we hear the case for referral, I >> Yeah. No, I'm not saying we should do that before hearing Marty, but >> Right. >> Yeah. We're not restrained by
>> the rules of town meeting. >> Um Okay, Jessica. You said you wanted if you want to take up 17, you should probably hear from Marty referral. >> Yeah. Okay. Um Marty, >> why don't you in I think I'm in >> just on 17.
>> Uh go never mind. >> Am I Can you hear me? >> Oh, all right. Sorry. Um so I got the uh petitioners u latest version today. um and wish they had sent it to me as
well, but that's a separate issue. And then I decided I better put my referral uh draft into writing because I've been talking about it for a month or three weeks and haven't put anything into
writing. So, the motion uh I I think you got it. Wait a minute. Who made my screen go full? Somebody. All right. The the motion at this point is and and the moderator said it's within the scope is
to refer the subject matters tentatively 17 and 25 uh including potentially related police general orders to a promptly appointed select board
committee with in part representation of CDICR and the police commissioners advisory committee with staff including bus the police and town council's assistance in keeping in place the board's February 10 proclamation
regarding civil immigration enforcement. That's basically the motion. I think you have it uh about an hour or two ago. I sent it at least to Jessica and I I maybe she shared it with the petitioners. I hope
>> you're explain why Marty. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I I have been saying for a couple of weeks that I don't understand why the petitioners are want to run the risk of having a bylaw
reviewed by the attorney general and voiding not only this bylaw but also all the executive orders by by implication. I think and the reasons are I've stated them before. I think it's loaded with
legal issues and the town council memo I thought was very cursory saying that paragraph one was okay. Even that one has issues aside from the ICE issues. And I hope anyone has looked at the Vera report that I talked I've talked about
and cited for you that talks about the ICE issues, the sovereign immunity versus the 10th amendment. But there's also issues about essentially a trespass law. Doesn't call it a trespass law. And I think that's probably preempted by
state law. I don't think it's adequately enforceable. I think it's still got a lot of vagueness, which criminal laws uh scrutinize for vagueness. And the enforcement provision that's been changed is just not going to work. I'm
sorry. Uh, you cannot make 10.1, you can't overrule it. 10.1 says a violation of the bylaws is a misdemeanor. And that comes from state law. Last week, uh, the chief and I
think Chi-Chi agreed that it's a general law. It's not a general law. It's state law that goes back to common law. In fact, it goes back to for any lawyers in the room, Blackstone's commentaries that that anything that is deemed to be a
violation against the state a state of or where the state is the plaintiff is a crime. It's a misdemeanor. And that's where 10.1 comes for. This bylaw doesn't, the draft doesn't try to overrule uh 10.1 and the enforcement
provision that civil enforcement that's already in our bylaws that something can be enforced civily, but that doesn't take it out of the designation as a as a misdemeanor and a crime that gets scrutinized by the attorney general. So, I just think that paragraph one, there's
other issues as well. says, "I brought up the streets and sidewalks issues, but what about parking lots and and parks? If the police see someone they want to kidnap a alleged detainee in a park or
uh in a parking lot, are we saying they can't go in there?" That's going to run into the the sovereign immunity issues and and the police station is now considered banned. They can't go into the police station and ask if someone is in detention or when they're coming out.
I have proposed last week that we add a a general order along the lines of the Plymouth provision that John Van Goyak sent me uh which is that our our in keeping with our sanctuary order the desk officer could say I'm not
authorized to tell you anything. But that's a separate issue. But the point is, how can we make the police station out of bounds for ICE? The other thing about this is that Alec brought up last week that we want it to be that you folks and I do too. I want something
more binding to so that people can count on it. But the fact of the matter is, no matter what happens here, ICE is not going to care about what we say in Brooklyn. And the fact is that people should not be told, as Alec said last
week, with all due respect, I know it was well motivated, that people should be are counting on this. Nobody should be counting on this. And I I hope that the petitioners are not telling people that even the proclamation
is is going to save them from ICE right now. It isn't. In fact, ICE doesn't care about homicide laws and kidnapping laws. So, why are they going to care about an a trespass law that's not called that? And and lastly, um I I know that uh you
want to get on and get get the meeting over with, but um the the uh the the definition of the uh oh, by the way, the it's there's a case called Sherman Manufacturing 1905 that says a uh crime
or misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted in violation of the public law. So that's where the Blackstone's commentary comes in that this is going to be a crime no matter how you slice it and the police shall enforce town
bylaws. So you're putting them in a bind. What are they supposed to do with this? The bottom line is I really believe that this would create a monkey wrench for the at least six cities that now have executive orders and maybe the governors
as well because some of the language is the same as the governors. And I don't think that's a risk worth taking. I think it should be a study not by the board but a committee created by the board and that it should act quickly and
try to revise especially the general orders. Whether there should be a bylaw, I'm really reluctant that a bylaw. >> Okay, we got we got it. David, >> so just the uh portion you mentioned, Marty, about concern of an attorney general review. So the town of Plymouth
this past Saturday, they passed at town meeting their version of this warrant article. So that attorney general review is going to happen regardless. So beyond that point, however, you uh raised the concern about uh police and for Brooklyn
police enforcing the bylaw in spaces such as public parks. I'm wondering if we can hear from the petitioners whether you've had further discussions with the police department about that enforcement issue and about whether other public
spaces need to be exempted beyond sidewalks. >> So um we have not had further conversations with the police department. Um, we did, uh, as I said, make enforcement of this civil and not
subject to the criminal enforcement penalty in the bylaws. Um, so, uh, it, um, I mean, the the obligation of the police would be the same as any town
employee with a civil offense. And um you know we took out the part about um you know public spaces being for the purpose that they were intended for and so that particular paragraph only
applies to non-public spaces now. Um yeah Jessica I don't know if you want to add anything to that. Um, no. I I think that's right. And I take the point that just because we have a bylaw, it doesn't mean that immigration enforcement agents are going to follow it. And and we are
certainly not, you know, telling people that, you know, we have this proclamation, we will have a bylaws and therefore nothing can happen to you in Brooklyn. I mean, I I have spent the past 16 months training literally thousands of immigrants in Massachusetts
about their rights, and let me tell you, nobody is feeling reassured, right? Like, nobody feels completely safe no matter where they live. Um, but I do think um it it's important for the town to say, "Look, th this is our property.
These are our facilities. We don't think this activity is appropriate and necessary in our space." Um and and I think that that's still a really important message uh to send and and this bylaw does that. Uh and we you know
we we've listened um as Chi-Chi said to the concerns expressed by our police department regarding enforcability and we've made amendments to to reflect those concerns. Um and we think that um it does what it needs to do in its
current version. Okay. Uh, Michael, did you have your hand up? >> Um, yes, I did. Um, I guess the question I asked I wanted to ask Marty, but I think he may have answered it already is, you know, um, a
referral motion as opposed to just trying to defeat the amendment is for study to bring it back um, for reconsideration. So, I'm just wondering what you expect the result of that study to that study to be if all of if you
feel like the warrant article is just riddled with um uninforcable or inappropriate language. >> May I be May I be heard? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Well, it first of all, I don't think it
has to come back. I'm hoping frankly that the real best way to handle this is to do general orders that give the police enforcement powers and it could be also something to other employees
could come from a select board. So I'm not convinced that the that a bylaw is the best route on this. I think you could do those things pretty quickly. And I'm asking that the proclamation stay in place, which is partly in re
along the lines of what Jessica is saying that the message has been sent and needs to be sent. It was a great message, but I just don't think it's going to accomplish the goals. It's going to create problems for the police department. And and the other thing that Chi-Chi just said something about the
police will not be enforcing this. other people will be enforcing it. The police are obligated to enforce bylaws. That's I think uh 10.2 or three. 10.2, isn't it? Police are shall enforce bylaws. So,
I don't think they can ignore a a bylaw violation whether it's in the police station or in the town hall parking lot or the playground the the park right around the corner from town hall or any playground park. So I just think this is
very difficult and it's much more complicated and I wish somebody would look at the Vera article because these are going on all over the country and that it raises some very complicated issues and I don't think any of them have been upheld yet which was uh
one of the things that came up last week. >> Thank you Marty. I think you answered my question and I appreciate it. >> Sorry. Yeah. Anyone else with comments or questions on select board? >> No. Okay. Anything further from the petitioners
specifically to warrant article 17? >> On 17? No. >> All right. So, do we feel ready to take a vote on this? Sounds like you do. >> I do. Yeah. >> All right. >> I'm ready to recommend favorable action. >> I do have a question. So, um this maybe
it's a rhetorical question, but if if there's no fines, there's no enforcement, um it's seems like it'd be more civil, not criminal. I I think probably the exclusion of 10.1 probably covers you on
that. Um what's the point uh of of moving it from a bylaw or not from a policy chichi to to the bylaw? What's your thinking there? So, uh, as I mentioned in one of the earlier presentations, um, part of the
reason that triggered this warrant article was when someone said, well, uh, you know, to enforce the proclamation, we would go to court and ask for an injunction enforcing the ordinance. And of course, an ordinance is a bylaw. It's
not a proclamation. So, it makes it um, have more legal weight so that it's enforcable civily through an injunction. Um and you know the idea is that all town employees you know whether it be librarians, teachers or police officers report it to the town administrator's
office and the town administrator um would then you know have to make the decision whether to seek uh an injunction in court. >> So you're just saying it carries more weight broadly. Is that what the issue is? >> Yes. Yes. Um it it has more legal enforcibility if you're going to go to
court and ask for an injunction that it's a bylaw. and and others here can remind me if I'm misremembering but I think the police chief had stated that effectively the police does act they do exercise discretion on what they are
enforcing and when they are enforcing it. Uh so I think that mllifies perhaps some concerns about questions of uh would we seek to go after ICE if they utilized a public park for example as uh
space to your uh question just now Paul about uh what's the point I think maybe to some extent the point is a statement of our values >> uh even if ICE is going to realistically ignore it the main reservation that I
had initially was the point that Marty made about attorney general review, but given that Plymouth has passed their version, that's going to happen regardless. Uh, so I'm prepared to support Warrant Article 17, uh, and sounds like Michael is moving that
>> Yeah. >> question, >> right? >> Okay. >> I move that we recommend favorable action on Warren Article 17. >> Okay. All in favor, John. Well, with a lot of reservations because I do think um Marty has a very good case
for referral. Um but I'll say I >> Paul Warren. >> Paul Warren. I'm going to abstain. >> David I >> and chair votes I. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Select board. >> Thank you.
>> That's 17. Now we have 25. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. >> Discussion. >> Um, is it okay if I share my screen uh and show slides with the edits we've made? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Okay. And I'll be as brief as humanly
possible. Uh so again in response to feedback that we received both um before the select board and in public hearing before a subcommittee of the advisory um council we've made three specific edits um to
the local planks of warrant article 25. Um the first one is with regards to fingerprinting. Um our resolution calls for not fingerprinting juveniles or following arrest for misdemeanors. Um, and there were some concerns expressed
by our uh, police department um, that doing so would mean that we would not be in compliance with state police accredititation standards. Um, this is not an area of expertise for me. The research that I found indicates that state law requires fingerprinting only
for felonies. Um, and I couldn't find anything specific in our police accreditation that requires fingerprinting across the board for every arrest. Uh, nonetheless, we included um this qualifying language unless required by state law or police accredititation um to address those
concerns. The second uh is that we also added a qualifier to applying for UASI grants and we added that we shall cease applying for grants unless such grants do not require cooperation, support of
or data sharing with federal immigration enforcement or border crisis response. participation in the brick or cooperation with federal election interference. And then the last one, not as substantive, we struck um the names of
the individuals in the very last uh bullet um and instead just referred to uh officers by title and removed reference to the select board and the police chief as they will of course um be aware of the warrant article. So
those are our three uh recommended ch uh suggested edits uh in response to the feedback that we've received. >> Okay, >> we're happy to answer. >> Okay, so since Marty has also referred this, why don't we hear from him and um
briefly Marty? >> I see two pastors on the uh uh doesn't have her hand up, but looks like she's wanting to speak. Well, assuming I I'm likely to still do the referral motion, I'm likely to
include this as well because I think there's things in this that could be improved and the resolution goes back to the board basically to do things anyway. So, um I think that there's things in here that could be
improved and added like what I talked about about improving the what's not called whatever it's called the sanctuary order uh that police could decline to answer a question for instance and I had other ideas that I've mentioned in past meetings but I'm going
to also probably put those into writing as a possible amendment if my referral motion fails. But I do think that uh for the same reasons I talked about earlier, if it's going to be referred on 17, I
think that should refer this one too, which doesn't really detract from this one at all because this one is a resolution that basically is referred back to the select select board anyway. So, it seems to me that um I have some
ideas on how to improve this that I hope the petitioners would be open to. Uh and if that's the case, then I think this should be referred as well. And I'm not going to get into those specifics now, partly because of the hour and partly because they're all scribblings in my
computer. >> Okay. Thanks. Um Chief Sullivan, I see has his hand raised. Why don't we hear from him? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, John Sullivan, fire chief and emergency management director. Um, again, I would ask the
board to vote non-favorably on this article um in my capacity as the uh jurisdictional point of contact for the UASI region uh for the town. Um this this article um has a poison pill in it
that would restrict us from going for any grants um based on the various items that are in there and which is really veiled in um the the petitioners
political stand against the immigration enforcement and I get that. Uh but this is this is not this is not the vehicle to do that. We we get a great deal of funding and a lot of our uh capacity for emergency management from the Yasi
region. Uh and it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. we would we would potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and um resources and uh not just in Brooklyn but regionally if we were to
just withdraw UASI alto together. I know it's saying not to go for UASI grants but that it's effectively the same thing. Um it's it is a temporary situation. We lived through this administration before. We'll live through it again. uh we've gone through
all kinds of uh iterations of this over the course of the 25 years since 911 and I really think it is uh it is not in the best interest of the town uh to withdraw from Yuasi uh whether it's just the grants which in effect is the same same
thing. So that's all I have to say. >> Hey uh chief can I ask you a question? So this warrant article also talks about withdrawing from brick. Um, yeah. >> And frankly, I'm sympathetic to that because brick, uh, as it's alleged, is
really running wild. Is there any way >> I I don't have any I don't have I can't speak to brick. I I don't have any direct con connection to it as the fire chief or EMD. And that's kind of my point is that that's the poison pill in
this particular piece of the article. uh just as the poison pill that I I brought up at the at the uh statewasi meeting uh was that the the grant itself required um you know some funding for immigration
enforcement and border protection. It's the same thing but in reverse. They're doing the same thing in this article as the federal government did uh in in their uh iteration. And I just think it's it's using the it's using this
against its best interest. And I and I don't think it's the right thing. It's political activism uh when we're trying to run town government. And that's that's my opinion. >> No, I and I get that, right? But the concern is that um Brick is compiling
information on people alleged to be gang members who are behaving like children. um and that that that they have a a database of of uh alleged gang members that is overwhelmingly people of color. All these allegations, which I don't
know whether they're true or not, but you know, we have to find some way to basically open the books and see if that is the case and if it is to to find some way of preventing or to stopping it. >> I mean I mean may I let chief pastor
speak on this too, right? I think this is the thing where we got to talk about What are the allegations? When were they made? What are they in in in response to? What has happened since those allegations were made? You know, I understand where the petitioners are
coming from. I understand the case that they reference from nine years ago prior to the enactment of the trust act. >> The trust act doesn't address brick. >> It does address brick though. >> Not the one not the Boston trust act I read. I mean it addresses the activity
of the of law enforcement in Boston. Um and you know I think the other big thing that was raised is a more recent issue which is the monitoring of protest activity. Um and to the extent that that is a concern um that is something that
we can you know is obviously something that can be talked about. But I think the biggest thing here is that when Mayor Woo was a city councelor, she voted to against funding the brick. Um there was that period of time in which
we, you know, we were worried that the brick was going to move to Quinsey. Um nothing against Quinsey, but you know, it's just like it was it would have been a massive downgrade in terms of capacity and ability to do the work. Um, and I
think, you know, I I think rather than just say to your point, right, we we got to get to the we got to get to the bottom of these allegations because these allegations are serious um and and are worth discussing. But I feel like
we're just accepting them as as true um and we're not looking at the broader history of this because now that Michelle Woo is Mayor Michelle Woo, she has been resolute against defunding the brick. What I'd like to what I'd like to know is what is it that Michelle Woo has
found out about the brick that gives her that confidence. See, I I think what we got to do is tell Brick, "Open your books. Let us know." >> Well, I Bernard, I think that that, you know, there's probably still legitimate concerns. Have the have all the reforms
been done to solve all the problems that have to do with you know the gang database is really I think where the issue is with the brick but the brick also provides important regional infrastructure for law enforcement to respond to terrorist attacks the boss.
So you know I think we got to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bath water here. >> Um I'm not suggesting that matter of fact ICE does legitimate things. Yeah, >> we're not concerned about the legitimate things they're doing. We're concerned about the things that really are way off off.
>> Well, we're not Well, we're not asking we're not getting rid of ICE with the with the uh the thing that we just voted on. No, I'm I'm saying, you know, the fact that there are good things that brick does is important, but it it doesn't address the issue that I think
this warrant articles is trying to address and that I'm concerned with, and that is in some ways they are out of control or seem to be out of control and and you know, we have to know whether that's true. Um, and and if it is, you know, what what can we do about it?
>> I'm sorry, David. I I think Paul's point is that the a distinction between the two warrant articles. So Warren article 17 does not seek to eliminate ICE. Not that we could do that anyway. >> Yeah. No, I mean >> whereas Warren article 25 is saying withdraw from brick. So
>> doick eliminate it essentially. >> And it seems like you're acknledging. >> No, I'm not ex I don't think that that's necessarily the right answer. But before we do anything, we got to basically figure out what it is that brick is doing.
>> What we're hearing from our police department that being part of brick is very important. So absent proof of ongoing malfeasants that's not several years old and that reforms are not working. I think the burden is the opposite of how you're placing it.
You're basically saying brick needs to prove that it's uh fully safe. Now, I think we need proof that what brick brick is continuing to engage in misdeeds before we withdraw from something that our police department says is critically important without
having all the facts. >> I'm not suggesting withdrawing. I'm suggesting let's find out some information before we go for at some point. That may mean, you know, finding out what Mayor Woo has determined to be, you know, where Brick is now, um, where
where it wasn't a few years ago. Uh, and, uh, we we just need to know before we, um, and we commit ourselves to to an organization that that is a little scary. Uh John,
>> well uh I I think that what what's uh uh persuading me that that we should not support this article is actually a kind of a simple matter of um what we as
select board members um the relationship we bear towards the police department and the question of whether the police department participates in brick is always in front of us. I mean, we could at any time, you know, decide in our
capacity as select board members that we we're not comfortable with um our police department participating in brick. Um but I don't want to seed that decision to town meeting. Um >> I John, I agree.
>> Yeah. My only concern is we don't know we don't know enough about brick to say that we should continue >> working with them. >> Yeah. But but we can >> we also don't know enough to say not to work with >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean we we of course >> we can we can take that up, you know,
and we owe it, you know, a thank you to um the sponsors of this Warren article for, you know, kind of putting the pressure on us to not just sort of casually go along with brick. But I don't think we should resolve questions
that we might have once we learn more in and it all comes down also to our collaboration with our fire chief and our police chief and we owe it to them to re really take seriously the
questions raised by this article but not by seeding decision- making over whether Brooklyn should participate in Brook to brick to town meeting. >> Um, it's for us to decide. >> Disagree with that. All I'm saying is
that the credible allegations have been made over many, many, you know, months and in many situations that brick has some problems. I don't know whether they're true or not, but we have an obligation
to determine to extent we can whether this is an organization that we want to be involved with. I mean it it but >> we don't need this warrant article that >> No, we don't need the warrant article. This is so this is a little separate. >> No, you're raising I think you're raising an important point that that the
board should get more information. I think John is also raising an important point that we're hearing from our fire chief. We're hearing from our police chief. >> He doesn't know anything about brick. >> No, I know. And well, but he's opposing the article and we're hearing from our town administrator who is saying, you
know, we can't just bail on brick. We've heard that from our our chief of police. So I'm inclined to say no action on the article and let's go initiate an investigation of brick to get the answers that you want and we could always withdraw it from it from in the future. But that's two separate
questions. Do we withdraw from brick after we get more information? We're not going to get more information before town meeting. >> No >> your satisfaction. >> But we have to start the process. I mean you know >> this kicks us in the pants to go start the process. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> But I agree with what Sean and Paul are saying and you to an extent. There's
nothing wrong with getting more information and committing ourselves to doing that. I totally agree. But the question before us right now is this Warren article. >> I agree. I'm deviating from that. >> And also I'll add there are eight other municipalities that are a part of brick
including Cambridge and Somerville. Not one of them is withdrawn. >> Maybe this issue hasn't come up. >> I mean no you know there there was there were these issues in Somerville. You know, I talked about the Romea outur case. You know, that's even in the
aftermath of that case, then Mayor Valentine didn't talk about withdrawing from the brick. You know, it's it's >> But was a brick involved with that? >> No, they weren't. No, but again, that was ICE. But I'm saying, you know, in the the aftermath of something like that, the issue of to what degree did the Summerville Police Department, you
know, coordinate in any way with federal law enforcement? That was a salient question. Um, and even then, now to be fair, Mayor Valentine is no longer the mayor. Um, but I haven't seen Mayor Wilson have any have that conversation either. Um,
>> so by the way, Chief Pastor has her hand up. Let's hear from her. >> Thank you all very much. Um, I would I you know am in agreement with uh Chief Sullivan um that I would recommend a vote of no
action on this or non-favorable action. I think there's a lot of there's a lot of confusion which I understand. Um not everybody has been living the brick for 15 years or whatever as long as I have I guess longer. Um Uassi and the brick are not the same thing. There was some
information um you know in some of the public hearings people came forward. There was a resident of Newton who testified that you know she lives in Newton. Newton's a safe city. Newton's not part of the brick. And that's simply not true. I think that we're all in agreement that law enforcement, the Brooklyn Police Department, uh,
specifically, you know, we need our partners. We need our relationships with other police departments in order to be effective in keeping our community safe. The brick is operations. The brick is how we do that. Um, the brick extends far beyond the UAS, the nine cities and
towns that make up. I can't think of a a single city or town in our immediate area that doesn't contribute to the brick, including the colleges and universities, Newton, the other, you know, surrounding cities and towns. Um, it's not, it's more than just the UASI cities and towns. And I understand why
that's confusing. Um, UASI funds the brick, but the brick serves as a regional hub similar to the Commonwealth Fusion Center. Those are the two for the state. Um so we would be removing ourselves from the hub of information um gathering
you know collecting and and in um you know synthesizing and sharing out it just it operationally wouldn't make any sense for us and we don't have the capacity and it just wouldn't be good practice to try to replicate that on our own. Um there were a few other things
mentioned. You know, I think somebody talked about the brick, for example, being present at um Occupy Boston. I mean, those things, you know, you can take there's a little bit of truth in everything that I think was said. Occupy Boston, I remember back in the day there were there was crime
there. It was they weren't there to impede on First Amendment rights. They were there because there was drug open market, open air drug dealing happening, sexual assaults were happening. um it it was becoming violent towards the end and so you know a police presence was warranted. Um and I think
with regard to you know the statistics that are being shared um regarding demographics we should be troubled by that. But I have to say you know if you go on the Boston Police Department they're pretty transparent. They have a crime dashboard. They share out their homicide statistics. And if you look at
the demographics of who's being killed in instances of gang violence in the city, the statistics and the demographics are a pretty close match. And that's unfortunate. That's something to be solved for. But illuminating us from the brick does nothing to solve for that.
>> John, >> um I just want to raise one other um aspect of this. Uh, and I I don't do it, you know, to um create um tension. Uh, but but I think some people might bridal at what I'm about to say. Um, this is
worded as a request, you know, request that uh the site board or the town withdraw from participation in brick. If if we were to recommend to town meeting that they not adopt this for the reasons that we've been discussing here
and town meeting went ahead and adopted it anyway. I frankly I don't think it it would um actually have the power of uh of what what's the phrase I'm looking for? force of law, >> the the force of law to to require us as
the police commissioners to uh decide uh to um bow to, you know, something that we disagree with in terms of police policy. If after discussing with the the chief and the fire chief, if if we came to think that the chiefs are right, um
they are more or less under our authority and uh why would we be bowing to a request to deny them something that they have told us in very clear terms they want to continue to have access to. So I'm I'm not sure that we would even
have a clear end to this discussion even if town meeting went ahead and adopted this article. >> You're right, >> Michael. Um, I guess one of the things that I'm struggling with is, you know, this the there are eight different
sections to this and there are some sections that I I think are more reasonable and are worthy of adoption and then there are others that are problematic. So, one of the things that I'm wondering
from the petitioners is whether they have any interest in identifying the common ground within their uh their resolution. um and moving forward where we have
common ground and then continuing to work the other issues or whether or not they feel like the entire set of eight are sort of bound together in such a way that that separating them is uh
unacceptable. >> Gi, do you have an answer? So Jessica has had her hand up for a while and and we are all co-etitioners. >> Yeah. And and our um transcript is over her over her face. >> Oh yeah, we can't see. Can we >> Okay, Jessica.
>> Oh, sorry about that. I wasn't actually >> It's not your fault. It's our fault. >> That particular question. I think we would uh need to consult with one another first. I personally am inclined to bring the whole thing before town meeting. Um what what I was going to
address was some of the comments that were made about Yuasi and brick. I mean I think first of all you're right. We don't know exactly how the brick works and that is by design. It's not an accident. Um city council in Boston um just issued a demand for a series of
hearings on the brick to better understand how data goes in and who it's shared with. And we know that under the current administration, if any federal agency has access to that data, we can be sure that immigration enforcement has access to that data. Uh, with regards to the UASI funding, I just wanted to say
to Chief Sullivan that, you know, we we heard from you the importance of these funds to our town. And so we we specifically craft the language to say, "Hey, we can get these funds unless they require us to do immigration enforcement
or they require us to be complicit in the brick or they require cooperation with federal election interference. So, you know, if if what we're hearing is you can separate the brick from USI um and if what we're hearing is right now there is no immigration enforcement
requirement, right? Then that that should address u those concerns. It's not our intent um to to strip the town from funding that we have access to as long as it doesn't feed into these very specific things that that I thought we all it I know that there's controversy
around the brick but in terms of limiting immigration enforcement um collaboration and immigration enforcement I thought that there was common ground there um that's not you know just our activist stance it's the stance uh that the town has taken.
Michael. >> Um, >> actually, I think he had his hand up for Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, um I mean I I I know that uh at least one of the petitioners is aware of this, but um I I gave feedback uh to
the to the petitioners around number seven. Um, I have concern about the language, the amended language as they've written it because it removes the possibility of Brookline uh actually being in control of whether or not we
are meeting those requirements. I know that in some other circumstances, the fact that the federal uh government has required something uh hasn't prevented us from in order to access funds has not prevented us from challenging that
requirement. and and uh accessing or at least requesting access to the those funds. Anyway, so um I would I'm just saying I would be much more comfortable with number seven if it were in Brookline's capacity whether or not we
determine whether or not we are meeting those requirements as opposed to whether or not the federal government decides to write requirements into their grants. >> Okay. See, I'm sorry, David. >> I just want to say I think that's an
excellent point, Michael. And uh if I understand you correctly, in part at least, you're saying if we don't have a seat at the table, we're not part of the discussion about the direction. If if we were to withdraw, we don't have an influence anymore on the condition of
appropriation. >> Um I was specifically referring to the UASI grants and the way that they're constructed. I wasn't >> Okay. For UAS grants, >> yeah. Uh, for me, the overall structure of the Warren article I find a little problematic. I think it's very
well-intentioned and I'm not imputing the motives in any way, but unlike War in Article 17, which seemed focused on trying to uh prevent ICE from continuing to commit unconstitutional actions and
from uh persecuting people in our community unreasonably, this warrant article, even if it has that same motive behind it, it seems to really be hamster stringing our police department uh and the town in a way that uh I'm not sure
why we would want to essentially punish or make more complicated uh policing in Brooklyn because we don't like how ICE is acting. Uh and that's the way this warrant article seems to be structured. So I'm not comfortable
supporting it at this time. >> Okay, I see Chi-Chi W's hand is up. Hi. Yes. Uh thank you, uh Chair Green. Um so I mean um I am you know kind of seeing where the winds are blowing this
one and also um agree with my co-petitioner Jessica Kiko that um petitioners um probably lean be leaning against taking those planks out um and you know hoping in the interest of just
sort of um you know moving forward on this um you know I would say uh it is very likely that we would not be taking those planks out if if the board wants to vote tonight.
>> Okay. Uh board, what do you say? >> So Bernard, I um first I I I do appreciate the petitioners and Chichi your remarks and I I appreciate your commitment to your own article that you know take a vote and uh and we may still
bring it anyway. I do think taking out the brick, removing the the requirement of withdrawing from the brick and also removing the requirement to not participate in wasi would basically gut your article. Um, so I I'm not surprised
that you would you would not want to make those changes. Um but for me, you know, I it's when both of our uh lead uh public safety officials are saying please don't. Um and the town
administrators are saying please don't. Um I feel like we almost have an obligation to support them. Um we don't always support everything they say, but this seems to be unanimous from our our public safety folks. So, I'm I'm
inclined to to to uh support no action. Um, and Chichi, as you you're probably aware of for mo many articles where I'm either undecided or I want to take a vote at town meeting because I I will likely be in town meeting. Um, that's why I've been abstaining on stuff to
leave me open an open path to hear the arguments at town meeting as opposed to committing right now. But for this one, I I'm I'm I feel pretty confident that I'm no action at this point. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, why don't someone move make
a motion? >> So, I move uh no action on >> Right. >> I just I just moved it. I move no action. >> Okay. All in favor? Senator Vanco. Hi. >> Um, Paul Warren. >> Hi, >> David Farman.
>> I Michael Rubenstein. >> Regretfully, I >> um chair abstains on this. >> Okay. So, that's it. >> All right. Thank you, Sucker. We're going to go to bed now and
>> hopefully not see you again for a little bit. >> Thank you. >> See you at town meeting. >> Thanks for taking this. >> We We We didn't take a vote on the >> We have one more thing we need to do. We have one more. >> What's that? Oh, local ballot information. >> We do need to do that. But I I I will just note we didn't take a vote on
either of the referral articles. >> Oh, we didn't take the seven we >> we didn't do 12 favorable. >> You got 12 and 24 still to go >> and the petitioners have been waiting and they were actually ahead of >> Yes. Well well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well that's they were they
were ahead and behind. Um, >> so, uh, Mike Tel is online. Um, >> Mike, if you want to talk about where you've been with 12 and 24. >> Hi, guys.
>> Uh, is is Alec on the line here? >> I don't see advisory. >> Yes, I'm there as well. >> There. Yep. Sorry. >> I think Alex's gonna speak to it. >> Yep. Um yes. So um for warrant article 24 we
sent some suggested uh language edits to CHAZ and uh Fang uh that sought to address the concern that was raised by select board member Paul Warren. Um that language um clarifies I think what the
what would what we would be requesting of town administration to um do to verify the adoption of the recommended policy in regards to archiving um public record communications. Um so the actual
change in language um would come in the last whereas clause um where usage were were you routinely monitored, excuse me, would be struck and replaced by adherence was periodically assessed. Um and similarly
the word monitoring would be struck from the uh that the resolve clauses and replaced with the word assessments. Um so I think you know we wanted to be sensitive to this concern. Um and in Chaz's correspondence with us I think he offered some clarification as well uh as
to what the town would maybe view their mandate to be with this new language. Chaz, do you want to speak to that? >> Yeah, thanks, Alec. I think it's just right. It's not, you know, we have no intention of reading people's emails. Um, it's just the the count. It's just figuring out who's sending what. All right, what board are they on? Okay,
that gives us a general sense to Paul's point. Some people are on multiple boards, so it's not a perfect count. Um, but we generally know, okay, there are folks who are using it and folks who are not. Um, we send an email to the boards on a regular basis saying, hey, here's here's the number of emails that we got.
um from members of your board. Um just a and you know not not even a you know just a reminder this number doesn't mean necessarily that you're not doing your job because what if you have no email traffic from doing from being on a board but as a reminder if you are doing official if you are conducting official
business you need to be copying this board archives email. But to so may I bring up? >> Yeah. >> Uh so but to be clear, you're still saying you're going to go query the email database >> and see if >> Paul Warren or whoever's on the
commission uh has actually had email traffic. Yes. >> Um I think I I I think that's a terrible idea. I think if if you wanted to assess uh you could send an email to uh the the the board periodically and say, "Are you aware of this requirement? Are you doing
it? please let us know yes or no. But to actually go and do data mining around a person's activity um I think I think is is is a terrible idea. It's surveillance. I don't think we should be doing it. >> Michael
>> um I I have a question. Uh, have you considered uh in in sort of this this search um that you could also look at emails from
uh public body members to anybody with a Brooklynmma ma.gov address. So, for example, if a if the chair of the Brooklyn Commission for Women sends the select board leazison, who is a select board member an email,
that would that would be captured within our system. And I'm just wondering whether or not the the analysis should include such information as evidence of activity or are we trying to measure something else? >> We're trying. So I I think you know at
that point and then it starts becoming too much of a too much of rig rigomearroll you know I I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to ensure that in situations where there's interaction with the public as opposed to interactions with staff um or other
individuals that have made.gov email addresses that we are adequately capturing that so that if there is a public records request for those files, it can be easily addressed and in such a way that doesn't require the board and
committee member the border committee members to do more work um or worse come up with come up against a situation where a border committee member refuses access and then we have public records that we just can't access. Um, so I
think for our purposes, I don't want to build a giant system that tries to figure out what every what every board and commission member is emailing at any given point. I want us to do enough to ensure that compliance is being adhered
to. And so if that's something less than checking people's names and making sure that that's happening okay um we can send a more general compliance note. Um but you know at a certain point the proof is going to be you know at at some
point someone will test this right at some point there will be an issue you know there will be a you know I don't know a ZBA member or something um and there will be an issue of with public records from emails back and forth and then the question will be do we have those yes or no we know they exist
>> are did they copy >> and then you'll find out >> right the question is what what are we doing to ensure compliance before that point. >> So, so I I do think I do think education is important, but you know, let's run a scenario. You send Warren, Warren's on moderators committee,
>> moderators committ a bad example. You in your wisdom, you appoint me to some select board committee, which I don't want you to. Uh please don't if I ask, don't. Um and and I get this email uh you know, you haven't you haven't sent any emails to the to the the thing yet.
I I what I realize is, oh, I need to send an email with X in it, >> right? X. And that's what you're gonna get. I'm gonna I'm gonna satisfy the the the the the surveillance requirement of being present in in the surveillance database. I again I just I think it's
>> creepy. It's creepy. And I actually I I mean, if I I'm going to volunteer and you're starting to say I'm modering your emails, like talk about scaring people off from wanting to participate. I think it's a terrible terrible idea. I am not in favor. >> And I guess I'm not really clear as what
purposes. >> I mean, if I wanted to send emails to someone, you know, town emails to someone outside the system, I can do that. >> Yes. But you have a So, the whole point of this, as Paul knows because we talked about this, is that when this initially
came to us, it was a why don't we give everyone Brooklyn.gov email addresses. And the reason for that, as we've discussed, is twofold. One, it's expensive. Two, it's a security risk. Um, so we don't want to do that. Um, it's a bad idea. Um, but we understand that the petitioners want to promote
transparency and allow for public records requests to be better done. And there is a benefit to having a centralized place where public records are kept. It's actually better for boards and committee members because then they have it's less invasive for them if they get a hit with a public records request to be able to say, "Hey,
just check broad, you know, let the let the town do that work for me instead of me having to go search my Gmail for my my stuff." Um, that does, you know, that feels pretty invasive. It feels more invasive. Um, so I think there's a happy medium here. I think I think the if the
concern is we don't like the idea and again I I wouldn't be sending an email saying hey I noticed that you don't you haven't been sending enough emails there's no quota it would just be like here here's the data um there's no judgment call about it just says here it is um please be sure that you're copying
this if you're having conversations outside of the ecosystem um so that we always have a record on a Brookline server so if that's the concern if the concern is we don't want to do that we want want to just we want to just do monitor we want to ensure adherence
through education only that's if that's the will of the board sure I'm happy to do that I just think you know we got to we got to balance that out um and you know I balance out the competing priorities here because I really don't want us to be back in this situation
where everyone's saying we need agov email addresses that's that's just it's asking for trouble um Um, first of all, um, I think in support of what Paul is saying, um, this is
another case where, um, I I appreciate the intent. Um, but I think the intent and the impact are significantly different. Um, and I think Paul has has clearly identified the the potential
impact of of presenting the data. Um, and it it's not neutral. it's it's not neutral. Um I mean yeah I think that's that's clear to me that the will what the will of the board is. So I'm happy to I'm happy to structure this in such a way that
doesn't mine the data and just instead reminds people on a regular basis of their obligations to comply with this rule. >> But you have to get the approval or the comments of the petitioners. >> Yeah. I mean I I'm reminded of the TMMA
list serve monthly announcement. for example, I mean, >> if I can briefly just respond on on this point, I I would say, you know, we we've, I think, deliberately tried to soften the language to to allow for more flexibility here. And certainly, you know, this is a resolution. Uh we make
no specific prescription for how this uh verification has to be done. Um I I would suggest that uh you know the executive branch is well within their purview to to set parameters and uh I don't necessarily think that you know going to a proactive outreach approach
would in any way really impinge the spirit of the article and uh I'm certainly open to that. >> So I guess what I what I would like to um what I'd like to propose is we change the word. So, I do appreciate you went from surveillance. I forget what you what the word monitor. >> Oh, monitor. Sorry. Monitor. Uh, and now
what's the word we're using? >> Assess. >> Assess. Um, I I would change the assess to educate. >> Yeah, that's kind of where we are now. >> Yeah. Educate. Yeah. I mean, and basically what I mean what the resolution is doing is saying there the
primary issue here is to expand the ask to other boards and commissions, right? um beyond what I think the select board had done. I think we're now into uh into moderators committees and stuff, right? Is that the is that the expansion, Alec? >> Who knows?
>> There there were two expansions. So that is one uh Paul for sure. >> Yeah. >> Expanding scope. The other was that the new word was evaluate uh instead of monitor with the idea of giving CHAZ and others the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of an
education campaign for example because maybe it is effective but if it's not the idea is to allow you to evaluate it and see whether other options are are more appropriate >> to folks adhere to the select board's own policy.
>> Right. So, so I think an alternative way to to assess is when you actually do get a public records request, if you can't fulfill it, >> yeah, >> from the from, you know, the archive email account, um there there's an
educational email that goes out to boards and commissions and says, "Hey, we've got a we had a a request for this particular commission and we were unable to fulfill it because we couldn't find responsive documents because you're because no one was sending them. Um,
that to me is a way to do it with information because there was actually a proactive request to do it versus something that appears to be more like surveillance that would be misinterpreted. Um, so again, I would I would I would just call it I would I
could be I could be supportive of the article if we changed that word to educate um or in you know, educate the boards and commissions and you can do that as as regular as you want. >> Okay. Um, by the way, Joe, do you have a
deadline of midnight tonight? >> Oh, okay. Good. Because it's five up. Okay. Okay. So, what are we what are we doing here? Um, >> so I I would like to I I'd like to move I'd like to move uh I'd like to make an amendment to the article,
>> propose an amendment. I I don't know where I don't have the article in front of me, but the the word that you had of assess um I would like to change it to educate. >> Just so you know, it's the word is evaluate that you're changing.
>> Evaluate to educate. Not sure a big difference. >> Well, evaluate evaluate was interpreted by the by the town administrator to go mine the data. Um, educate would be send a regular
reminder. We could actually call that specifically say it. Send out regular reminders that to to uh to use the uh email address. >> Okay, let's wrap this up. Um, >> you want to make a motion? So I think I think basically what you're saying is
you want to remove So tell me if I'm tell me if I've got this right. So the the proposed amendment would be the whereas clause currently reads whereas the town administrator and IT director believed that the handbook procedure could be more comprehensively used if public body members were better trained adherence was periodically assessed and
reminders were more regularly sent. >> Get rid of adherence was periodically assessed. >> Yes. >> Public body members were better trained and reminders were more regularly sent. Then the other change is at the bottom of page two reads, "Town Meeting asked the town administrator and IT director
to provide a report in December 2026 to update town meeting on the extent to which their training assessments and reminders, cut assessments, just training and reminders. >> Does that sound right? >> That works for me. >> I don't you know so that's that's the select board's motion on this."
>> Well, I just Well, we have to with vote on it motion. Okay. for the petitioners. Uh so the version that we uh spoke about tonight had already changed the word monitoring to evaluate
and we are uh pretty comfortable with the idea that we want to keep the word evaluate which gives a lot of difference to uh Chaz's team to figure out how to evaluate but we think evaluation is a useful thing to keep in our in our petitioners.
>> Okay. Okay. So, there'll be two versions going to town meeting. >> Oh, one version with an amendment. >> With one version with an amendment. >> So, I I would I'd like to move the amended article for favorable action. >> Second.
>> Okay. John. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> David. >> Hi. >> No. >> And um I don't like it though. Say I. >> Okay. Um that brings us up to
uh Joe's matter. >> Ballot mailer. ballot. >> Oh my god. >> What do you have to say? >> Happy Wednesday, by the way. >> We had two. There's more in article 12. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 12. Never mind.
>> We've already gone into another day. >> Uh Mike and Alec, I'm sorry. I said thank you before you were done. >> You've got article 12. >> I don't recall receiving any amendments on this one. Have there been any amendments? Mike Alec.
>> Uh, nope. >> Okay. Has advisory voted on this yet? I don't know. >> Nope, not yet. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I'd like to prop
uh to propose an amendment. >> Okay. Uh and that is uh in to add the word clerk after the word town. Where it says the town shall ensure that all public record requests, it should say the town clerk
shall ensure because the town clerk has jurisdiction over public record requests. And it gets the select board out of the position of having to direct the town clerk to do something. Is this considered a friendly amendment by the petitioners?
>> I do not know the answer to that question. >> John, >> well, I actually agree that that is how it should be worded. Um, but I also, um, would argue that by making that
clarification, we get to the heart of a problem with this article, which is I'm not sure that we can order the town clerk um, on aspects of how the town clerk is required to do the town clerk's job. town clerk reports to the secretary of
state uh in terms of recordkeeping and in matters where the town clerk has not complied with the state secretary of state's requirements for recordkeeping that then becomes a matter of appeal to the attorney general. >> Uh it's not for town meeting to dictate
to the town clerk how the town clerk does the town clerk's job. >> Yeah. Michael >> um section 3.4 four of the bylaws, which is entitled town clerk, um specifies a number of uh activities and requirements
that the town clerk has to do in terms of managing the seal and transmitting uh information in various places. And I believe that this warrant article uh comports with those other warrant articles in its direction of the town
clerk. It's been a long time since I checked all of the duties of the town clerk, but I think you might find that the ones um in the bylaw are the ones that are are in fact covered under state um you know statute. >> Joe, do you have an opinion on his
point? >> Not at this time. >> Well, then why are you here? >> Why don't we put this off until someone come up with the answer to that question? I I would like to know if the petitioners are ready to answer the
question of whether they would consider this a friendly amendment. >> Uh thanks Michael. So I think what we would want to do is check in with both the town council and with the town clerk and with the moderator to understand
first of all if this is a scope issue and also to you you're you made an assertion that I just want to check in with both Ben and Joe where you said the town clerk is responsible for I think you said all public record requests and
I would just want to verify that that's true. If all that's true, I would be comfortable, but I'm not sure that's true. And so I I'm not comfortable at this moment. >> Okay. So, let's take this up in our next meeting. >> Okay. Just >> just >> Okay, Joe.
>> Are there any other amendments? Are there other any any other amendments we should be considering just so that we can think about them as a package? >> Uh, no. I hear I don't see any. Okay. Thank you, Mike. You have a quick question. I'm sorry. With your original
phrasing of the town shall ensure, what did you envision for how that would work? You envision that the the town clerk just takes control of it or because the town that is somewhat openly phrased? >> Well, David, the current petitioner's
motion um has been amended. So now the expectation is that the um clerk would be periodically producing the index essentially of the request the town receives with a summary description including a list of the actual public
documents produced for response. Um so it's changed somewhat since it was introduced but that is the current expectation. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mike >> um just for reference uh to Mr. Mr. Toffel's question. Um, he should check
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 66, Section 6A. >> Okay, good. So, let's hear from the from town council. >> Good evening, uh, Joe Kalan, town council. So, I'm before you on this last
item to seek your approval to send out in mail 30,000 copies of the section 18B local ballot question mailer. Uh I was before you a couple weeks ago about the process that we uh went through. We solicited uh arguments from proponents
and opponents. We got a principal advocate. We worked with them. We got their 150word uh argument along with a graphic and a QR code. I prepared a summary. You guys um uh voted on the question. Uh the town clerk has a cover letter, so it's ready
to go. There's a final draft in front of you and I'd seek your approval to send it out. Any objection? >> I move approval. >> I'm sorry. I did have a question. >> Yes. Um and does does this um um what you're referring to get into the
language of the of the calculator of of uh >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All in favor of approving the um ballot language uh please indicate by saying I. John Vancoy. Hi. >> Paul Warren. Hi. >> David Pearlman. Hi.
>> Michael Rubenstein. Hi. Chair votes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in public comment? >> Okay. Uh with that uh I will end this meeting.
Thank you. Record.