Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh, heat, heat.
Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, still chair of the Brookline Select Board. This is our regular meeting for May. What do you mean no? We haven't elected anyone to replace me yet. Any rate, I'm gonna assume that I still have. um for
May 12, 2026. Um I'd like to start off by uh beginning the reorganization of the select board. >> Thank you. Um so this is the organizational meeting of the board. Uh once again, I have the privilege to serve theoretically for a very brief
period as chair prom while I read these cards to you. Um at this the board's first meeting after the town election. I first like to call the meeting to order and direct your attention to the first item on the agenda which calls for the board to organize with the election of a chair. I am to read the results of the
election for select board. Uh the results are uh John Vanskoak 5,864 Anthony Buano 7,593 Amanda El Zimmerman 9,225. The results of which being that Dr.
Zimmerman and Mr. Buo are elected select board members. We thank Mr. Vanco Skoyak for his service to the board. Um, we will now proceed with the election of a chair. Nominations are in order and no seconds are required. Do I have a nomination? >> Yes. >> Uh, I'd like to make a nomination, but
first I'd like to read a statement. I've served as chair since May 2019 until today with a break from May 2022 to February 2023. So, I've been chair of the select board for a total of six
years and three months. They included some very, very tough times, including the pandemic and the national outrage over the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The period included a time when my in my opinion unwarranted
comparisons of the Brooklyn Police Department with Minneapolis and other police departments where killings and abuse of black residents occurred. unwarranted because the comparisons failed to acknowledge 30 plus years of
effort of this select board under the leadership originally of Marty Rosenthal and Jeffrey Allen and others working with former police chief Daniel Olirri to turn the Brookline Police Department into a communityoriented and highly
trained department that had extensive guard rails that minimized the risk of political or police abuse. The critics of the police saw themselves as helpless and assumed that because they couldn't do it, it couldn't be done. But it was done. Among the consequences of this
period was that Brookline was dangerously without a permanent police chief and top leadership of the police department for 30 months. Starting in July of 2020 when Chief Andy Lipson resigned and continuing until March 2023
when Chief Jen Pastor was appointed permanent police chief. This includes a short embarrassing period in 2022 when Chief Ashley Gonzalez was in command until being quickly dismissed for
inappropriate uh conduct. In addition, the anti- police fervor resulted in the ending of the school resource officer program in the schools and the walk-in talk officers in the housing authority. two programs that were successful in disrupting what was
widely called the school to prison pipeline in Brooklyn by creating relationships with youth and finding alternatives to the criminal justice system when youth did what youth do as we all did um and found themselves in
trouble. John Vancoyak and I were the two votes opposing that big mistake. It's been an exciting and challenging six years and three months and I thank the select board and town administrators during this period for entrusting me with that leadership. I don't claim that
it has been a that I have been a perfect chair. But to paraphrase Grace Jones, I may not have been perfect, but I may have been perfect for Brooklyn. With that, I'd like to nominate as chair new chair of the select board, David Pearlman.
>> Thank you, Mr. Green. Are there any other nominations? There being none, is there a motion that the nominations be closed? >> I move closure of the nominations. >> Excellent. I will take a vote on the nom vote on the motion that the nominations be closed. I'll do this in order of seniority. Uh Mr. Green, >> yes.
>> Mr. Pearlman, >> yes. >> Mr. Rubenstein, >> yes. >> Uh Dr. Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Mr. Bono, >> yes. >> All right. It has been moved uh that David Pearlman be elected chair of the board for the ensuing year. Those in favor of the motion will say uh I or
yes. Those opposed, no. Uh Mr. Green, >> I. >> Uh Mr. Pearlman, >> I. >> Uh Mr. Runstein, >> I Dr. Zimmerman, >> I. >> Mr. Bano, >> I. >> The vote carries by a vote of five to zero. Uh I Mr. Pearlman has been elected chair of the board for the ensuing year
and will take the chair. to find out where the cords are. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, thank you very much to the four of you for entrusting me with this position. It's especially meaningful to me as someone who grew up here in
Brooklyn, attended our schools. I've lived here for 40 straight years. So, this is particularly impactful for me to have this opportunity. So, thank you very much to the four of you. Thank you to my friends, allies, family, even
fremies who have helped make this possible. Uh, I feel humbled and I'm very grateful and look forward to serving in this position. And with that, we now will be electing a vice chair. I would like to nominate Michael
Rubenstein. >> All right. All right. So, are there any other nominations for vice chair? >> Seeing none, I move that we close nominations for vice chair. Bernard, >> yes.
>> Michael, >> nominations, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. And now for electing Michael as vice chair. Bernard >> I. >> Amanda
>> I. >> Anthony >> I. >> I'm sorry. Michael >> I. >> And I also vote I. So congratulations Michael. >> Thank you very much. back. >> I thought that came with the chair
position though. >> No, no, it comes with a sleepy person. >> With that, we will now move to announcements and updates. Uh, I would like to begin by addressing
a situation that occurred at uh, Michael's Deli. I know there's been a lot of conversation about this both on the town meeting members list serve. There was an event at Michael's deli um on Friday afternoon that I know that many people at this table were able to
attend and some other community members also some u recent past select board members were at that uh the anti-semitic vandalism at Michael's Deli deserves unequivocal condemnation. Defacing a
photograph of a Jewish family was not legitimate protest or protected political expression. It was a destructive act targeting Jewish identity in a profoundly personal and hateful way. Criticism of any government, including the government of
Israel, can never justify singling out Jewish people, Jewishowned businesses, or Jewish symbols for intimidation or harassment. To direct attacks at someone because they are Jewish is anti-Semitic. Period.
In a community like Brooklyn, where diversity and mutual respect are core values, there must be no tolerance for acts that attempt to intimidate or dehumanize members of the Jewish community. Brookline should stand firmly with Michael's Deli, its owners, staff,
and patrons, and reject the normalization of anti-Semitic conduct disguised as activism. Hate directed at Jews because they are Jews is hate regardless of the political language used to rationalize it. I want to thank
the dozens of civic leaders in our community who have already denounced the anti-semitic vandalism at Michael's Delhi, including elected leaders in their individual capacities, various leaders from faith communities as well. The outpouring of support for Michael's
Delhi, not just from members of the Jewish community, but also from secular leaders, Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups, leaves me with optimism that we will stand together as a broader community against hatred in every form.
Now, uh, Lisa Shatz, a town meeting member in precinct 11, has been circulating a petition on the town meeting list serve that I would like to read. Brooklyn condemns anti-semitism. We, the undersigned Brooklyn town meeting members and town leaders,
condemn the repeated targeting and intimidation of Jewishowned businesses and Jewish residents in our community. Brooklyn should remain a place where residents of all backgrounds feel safe and respected. Political disagreement must never become harassment or
intimidation directed at people because they are Jewish. Now I'm not sure what the precise number is in terms of who has signed on to this so far and obviously due to open meeting law we as a board were not able to discuss in advance whether we too would endorse
this statement or even our thoughts on this as a board. I know this leaves many in the community frustrated when sometimes select board seems a bit slow in issuing a unified statement but we are prohibited by law from having discussions even in those situations if
it's a deliberation. So that's why I've prepared my individual statement. Paul Warren who's here in the audience was very prompt in issuing a statement of his own while he was on the board and many others have uh issued statements. I would recommend that uh this board also
endorse uh Lisa Shatz's statement. That's not technically before us today as a docket item, so we may need to take a little more time to approve that, but I certainly share the sentiments that she expressed in her statement. Uh
something else I would like to bring up briefly, we had a uh farewell for Paul Warren and his last select board meeting where each of us were able to speak about his contributions and what we enjoyed about working with him. We did
not afford John Vancoy that uh same farewell opportunity because we weren't 100% sure of course about whether he would still be here today or not. So, I want to echo the town administrator's sentiment uh that he stated earlier in
thanking John for his uh six years of service to the select board and for his decades of service to our community. I'm confident we haven't heard the last of him. I hope we haven't. Uh he has put in a lot of effort and work into helping
make Brookline what it is today. and I look forward to his uh continued contributions along with those of Paul Warren who's here today and clearly misses us already. And with that, I would like to open the floor to others who may have some
updates or announcements to make. Michael, thank you very much. Um I have uh three uh sets of announcements to make. Um the first one is on behalf of the Brooklyn AsianAmerican
Family Network. Um the BAFN uh is hosting their 11th annual essay contest awards ceremony. Um that is happening tomorrow, Wednesday, May 13th, uh at 6 o'clock p.m. at the Coolage
Corner Theater. Um and all members of the public are warmly invited to attend. Um the second uh announcement that I have uh I'd like to recognize two important obser observances celebrated
together this month. Uh Jewish American Heritage Month and Aaron Fstein Day. On Sunday, May 17th from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. the community is invited to gather in room 103 at Brooklyn Town Hall for an
afternoon of learning and music in honor of Aaron Fstein. The event will feature nationally recognized educator Yavila McCoy who will speak about the Jewish value of loving kindness and its importance in
our lives today. The program will also include music from the Kles encounters band and light refreshments. Erin Fstein, a Brooklyn native and CEO of Malden Mills, whose remarkable act of conscience and compassion, paying his
workers salaries and rebuilding his factory after a devastating fire, continues to inspire people well beyond Brookline. This event during Jewish American Heritage Month offers an opportunity for all of us to celebrate
Aaron's legacy and the many contributions of Jewish Americans to our communities and our country. So I encourage residents to attend and join in this meaningful community celebration.
And thirdly, um though I know we are uh reading a proclamation uh in celebration of DPW week uh shortly in our agenda, um I would like to point out two uh specific uh events relating to DPW week.
Um the first is the DPW is holding the DPW public forum, an evening with the commissioner and DPW leadership team on Wednesday, May 20th from 6 o'clock to 8:00 p.m. Uh it is a Zoom meeting that you can sign up at
tinyurl.comdpw-pub-forum-2026. This forum is intended to provide town meeting members, elected officials, and interested residents with an opportunity to hear directly from DPW leadership, ask questions ahead of town meeting, and learn more about current projects,
services, and priorities. I know from my own experience, this has been a very valuable opportunity to ask questions and hear directly from the commissioner and her leadership team. So I invite you to join all of DPW and share this
information amongst your networks. And secondly, uh DPW day is on Tuesday, May 19th. Um there is a public uh opportunity to join DPW from noon to 5:00 pm on May 19th at the annual DPW
day at the municipal service center at 870 Hammond Street. This free, familyfriendly, community event is open to the public from noon to 5:00 pm and is a wonderful opportunity to meet our crews, explore equipment up close, and
see firsthand the working that goes into keeping Brookline running. So, I invite everyone to enjoy DPW Day as well. >> All right. While we're on the theme of cultural appreciation, I want to mention
that this is also Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. And as part of that celebration, there is an event tomorrow evening at the Koolage Corner Theater, which is sponsored by Baffin, the Brooklyn Asian-American
Family Network, and they will be convening the 11th annual essay contest award ceremony. Uh so for those of you who can attend again tomorrow 6 pm Kulage Corner Theater, I highly recommend it. Uh I also want to thank
Bernard Green for his six years, three months of service as chair of the select board. You did an excellent job. I uh very much enjoyed uh mentoring under you for the uh last year as your vice chair.
I learned a lot from you. Uh, and I also want to congratulate our two newest members of the select board, Amanda Zimmerman and Anthony Wono. Amanda, this is the first time I have a female colleague on the board. Uh, so you're really a trailblazer, at least on my
time on this board, and also the highest vote getter in select board history, at least in modern history, as far as we know. Very impressive. and Anthony, you're just 26 years old and elected to select board. As recently as a couple weeks ago, I was the baby of
the board and now I'm middleaged. I've got two who are younger than me, so times are changing. So, congratulations to you both. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah. >> All right, Bernard. And then we'll go to Amanda. Go ahead. >> Okay. I I have three things I'd like to
mention. I was also at the um event at Michael's Deli that uh Scott Gladstone organized. Um and yeah, I talked to Stephen PJovich um who had an interesting perspective on what was going on and I asked him if I
could use his his uh quote and he said yes. Um he said put stickers on other businesses and on mine but not just on mine because that is not how we have a discussion. We may disagree, but at least we should be talking. It's not
okay to single out just my business because that is not showing you want to discuss the issue. Rough paraphrase, but the substance is what he said. Um, you know, the right to free speech is important and gives us the right to discuss and disagree. It does not give
anyone the right to threaten or bully or intimidate, which was what I think happened at um, Michaels. No one should be shocked that anti-semitism or other forms of hatred, whether racism, anti-gay and anti-trans, etc., exist in
Brooklyn. We should investigate and prosecute vandalism under uh state law, uh, which, you know, has serious consequences for such vandalism. But we also must learn and teach others, including those foolishly vandalizing,
how to have a respectful conversation about hot button issues, even hot button issues. The people who vandalize only Michael's Deli with the stickers stickers may fear such a discussion, but we can't hide from it. Um, so that's
that's one comment. Um secondly, um I'd like to uh mention that uh Iana Lindo Smith is uh retiring. Uh she is uh head of community development at the planning department and I know her
mainly through the CBD CDBG advisory committee. Um, and you know, a little little statement here uh that was uh help that uh um Cara Brudin helped me put together. For more than four
decades, Iana Lindo Smith has been an an inspiring presence in the town of Brooklyn. Over 41 years, 41. Wow. 41 years of dedicated service. Her work her work has left a lasting impression
on the community reflecting not only deep professional commitment but also a genuine care for the people and nonprofit institutions her work in community development has supported. I worked with her on the CDBG advisory committee for a number of years and her
hard work behind the scenes made it possible for us to use this federal CDBG money uh to benefit communities that we could not as a select board directly uh fund uh with town resources um such as
the capital and other needs of the Brookline Housing Authority. the the money that we used from CDBG made a huge difference in the lives of people in the housing authority. Um her tenure stands as a testament to consistency,
integrity, and adaptability. Through challenging times and evolving community needs, Iana remained a reliable force, someone colleagues and residents alike could trust. Long-term service of this kind is rare and it
speaks volumes about both her love for her work, her joy is work in working with her colleagues and her belief in public service. Beyond the day-to-day responsibilities, her legacy is found in the relationship she built, the knowledge she shared, and the example
she set for others. She has helped shape the future culture of the work and the culture of the workforce and contributed to the stability that makes local government effective. She's a reminder of the value of dedication and the difference one individual can make over
time and she made it over 41 years. I it just blows my mind knowing her, you know, doesn't seem like she's been around that long, but 41 years is quite amazing. Uh so anyway, thank you. uh and um you know I think she's going to be
here later on when we have the CDBG discussion and we can uh all thank her at that point too. Um we're you mentioned a few things about John Vancoyak. I'd like to just say a couple things. Um John and I didn't always
agree. Many times we did agree and the times we agreed were times when both he and I were sort of going against the grain on on issues. And I appreciated that about John. Um, and maybe it's why he's not here. You want to get some grain on some issues. But, you know, he
was an important person on the select board even when I disagreed with him because he opened up my mind to things that maybe I was overlooking or not paying or not seeing as as important as I should have. So, uh, we'll miss John.
Uh but we uh will not um um or he will not u disappear from uh Brook town of Brooklyn and select board's uh work. So >> Amanda, >> I just wanted to say something really briefly that the town clerk uh said when
we were being sworn in, which is our last election was the highest turnout that Brooklyn has seen since World War II. Um or maybe World War I. Ben will graduate if I'm wrong. Um which I think is phenomenal. It just speaks to the level of engagement of so many of our
town voters. Um, and so we should all hope that we can even beat that number next year. So, >> what else? Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry. One more quick thing. Um, town hall, uh, the public health building and the main branch of the public library
here will be closed on Thursday the 14th. Um, that's for staff professional development day. This is a first for the town. Um, we've had staff appreciation day before, but we've never had the opportunity to actually take time for the whole team, especially folks who have to ordinarily work at the desks and
so forth, to do some training, um, to do some betterment so that we can better serve the community. Um, it's really rare to have that opportunity. Um, we want to thank the community. We understand it is a hardship when we have to close operations, but we want to be thankful to you all for your patience on this. If you have business with the town
that you need to come in for, I would suggest you come in on Wednesday, which will be regular working hours. Friday, which again is early closure, but it's regular working hours. So, um, just want to let everyone know again that is Town Hall, that is the public health building, and that is the public library
here in Brooklyn Village. So, again, thank you all for your patience and your forbearance, and thank you to the staff. Um, it's a real rare opportunity to be able to do this. We're very grateful for it. >> All right. And with that, we will now move to public comment. Melanie, if
you'd like to go over the roles. >> Sure. >> Thank you for joining us for public comment. This is an opportunity for us to hear your perspective on the issues in Brookline that matter to you. Each person speaking tonight is limited to three minutes. You don't need to use the entire time, but you may if you'd like.
Once 15 minutes has been met, there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the select board's business for additional comments. Members of the public sometimes raise questions during public comment. We may be able to provide a quick answer to a question, but are more likely to work with staff to get a more
thorough answer and respond over email. The onscreen timer will flash orange when you have 30 seconds remaining and red when your time is nearly up. Please conclude your remarks at that time. If you have more to say, you're welcome to send an email to board members expressing your thoughts in greater
detail. Any person wishing to speak must begin their comment by identifying themselves with their full name, either their Brooklyn precinct number or street address, and the specific topic on which they wish to speak. The board encourages but does not require that remote users
turn their video on when commenting. So, we have three people signed up. Um Paul Ser is first and Paul >> Paul, I'll let you know when your 30 seconds is near. Okay. >> Hopefully, you will not need to. Hopefully, I'll be long done. Uh before
I um introduce myself formally, I want to uh congratulate and thank Amanda and Anthony for stepping up to the select board. Uh and David Prman for elected chair. Uh but most importantly, I want to thank Bernard for serving for what I
believe, and I've been around a long time, Bernard, a record six plus years. I don't remember anyone serving that long, never mind in the challenging times that we've had recently. So um thank you um for uh a nice transition.
Uh I want to speak very briefly about one particular um uh sentence in uh the 2030 road map which um is on your agenda tonight and it's in section 3B which um
is the section that references increasing revenue through development and specifically I am suggesting what I think is a simple change and then I want to explain why. So rather than, and pardon me if I listen to my screen
reader, rather than proactively seeking out commercial development, I would suggest a simple um amendment to that sentence that says um uh seeking out um mixed
use. So insert mixed use including commercial and then following that insert in residential development opportunities. Why? Um two points. One first of all I didn't introduce myself Paul Sander
precinct 13. I'm not speaking on behalf of Brookline for everyone whose board I'm on but I am reflecting on my considerable experience um in a leadership role on the economic development advisory board. So um EDAB
has always prioritized um achieving commercial development but EDAB has also been practically realistic. So I'll point out that the three uh commercial property upzoning since 2016
um which include um Emerald Island, Waldo Durban in the proposal for Ches Hill office park at Chestn Hill commercial area rather. um those are all mixeduse um developments with a residential component. Those two phrases mixeduse and residential don't presently
appear in the draft roadmap. The second reason is that the road map itself says that the um pending recommendations from the um expenditure and revenue study committee now having been delivered uh
to the select board should be considered uh actually should be responded to. >> 30 seconds Paul. >> Oh my god. So um uh they have um set forth a development um memo to the select board which they unanimously
voted and that memo says that commercial development uh should be on a mixeduse basis with residential supporting commercial development and in many cases making it feasible. So in closing, I would like to
recommend that the select board consider an important amendment reflective of reality. Thank you. >> Next we have Lisa Schutz. Hello, I'm Lisa Shatz, precinct 11. Members of the select board, I want to
speak briefly about why a strong public response to anti-Semitic incidents matters, not only morally, but practically. History shows that hatred rarely begins with violence. It begins with words: intimidation, graffiti, vandalism, and the normalization of
targeting a minority group. When those acts are minimized or treated as insignificant, the message received by extremists is that the community will tolerate escalation. We have seen this pattern internationally. In Bandi Beach, Australia, anti-Semitic
vandalism and harassment escalated over time into increasing threatening public incidents directed at Jews and Jewish institutions. In London as well, authorities and community leaders have warned repeatedly that when anti-Semitic rhetoric and intimidation are allowed to
become normalized in public life, physical violence often follows. The progression is predictable. Offensive speech becomes harassment. Harassment becomes vandalism. Vandalism becomes violence. The point at which government officials speak clearly and decisively
can interrupt that progression. That is why public condemnation by elected officials is not symbolic or performative. It is preventative. It establishes community standards. It reassures targeted residents that they are protected members of the community.
And it tells potential perpetrators that Brooklyn will not look away. A strong response does not require panic or exaggeration. It simply requires moral clarity. We do not wait for violence before we speak up against hatred. Brookline should remain a place where
Jewish residents and all residents know that intimidation and anti-semitism will be recognized early, condemned clearly, and taken seriously. Thank you. >> Next, we have Mike Sammon. Uh, good evening. I'm Mike Sandman,
precinct 14, uh, 123 Fischer Avenue. Uh, before I begin, uh, I want to say congratulations to, um, to Amanda and to Anthony and to David, and I'm sure you will, um, even as a middle-aged member,
you'll you'll do just fine speaking to you as the former grandfather of the select board. And, uh, Bernard, thank you very much for your service. It was a pleasure uh to serve on the select board with you. Um so uh
Andy uh Andy Fischer and uh and uh Marissa vote have introduced a proposed condition of appropriation for the DPW's budget that would require implementing vision zero designs on streets that are being repaved. and I chaired the
committee that wrote the vision zero policy and I understand the desire to see it uh implemented. Um Paul Warren will be offering a condition of appropriation uh that res that regards the DPW budget that I hope you
will support as a substitute for Andy and and Marissa's uh uh proposal. Uh the impetus for their proposal uh is DPW's plan to resurface Harvard Street in the same way as Beacon was resurfaced and relined last year. The
proponents want a full-scale redesign along the lines of what's been done for Washington Street and they're hoping that that's what the consequence will be. But this is a classic example of the perfect uh being the enemy of the good. DPW sort of skim coats heavily patched
streets as a stop gap until funds become available for full redesign uh and reconstruction for a major street like Harvard. That means applying for funding through Mass Dot's transportation improvement process um uh that planning process. The tip is a five-year rolling
plan for street and highway work. Meanwhile, repaving Harvard and other streets including and included in the vision zero p plan would have to be put on hold or delayed. Um waiting for the uncertain prospect of getting tip funding for Harvard Street
and then going through the gauntlet of redesign will delay any improvements for many years. uh repaving streets and improving lines like what Brookline what DBW did on Beacon Street actually would contribute to cyclist and safety
cyclists and pedestrian safety right now. Riding on uneven streets like Harvard is uncomfortable for both drivers and cyclists and it's actually dangerous. Um I uh my business partner rode over an open seam on Babcock Street, fell off his bike and sustained
a spiral fraction of his leg. and I think of that whenever I'm biking on a rough patch street. Um, I hope you will uh enable the DPW to go forward with its planning. Thank you. >> We don't have anybody else. >> Looks like David Kroo would like to
speak. >> Hi, I didn't expect to speak this evening, but as one of the people who has been advocating for more um significant improvements on Harvard, would >> you mind just introducing yourself first? Sorry. or David Kroo um precinct
date. Um we have never asked for anything comparable to Washington Street on Harvard Street. What we've asked for is exactly what is specified in vision zero which is to consider road marking changes that can improve safety on the
road. uh vision safe. Vision zero is a very practical common sense policy which basically says try to figure out where the high-risk areas are and try to incorporate lowcost improvements as you maintain and preserve your roads. Um so
I just I I just want to make that clear. We're not asking for Washington Street on Harvard Street. And I also think the reference to the tip is really important because we can't wait for the next tip on Harvard Street for a safer Harvard
Street and we don't have to wait and that's what Vision Zero makes clear. Um, also just in terms of the reference to Beacon Street. Um, it is true that DPW did resurface Beacon Street, but remember there's already a complete
streets progress project that is in 75% design. Now there is no such project on Harvard Street. So not taking advantage of the vision zero approach could really delay improvements for more than 10 years. Thank you.
If you're online and you want to speak, you can use the raise hand feature. I don't see anyone else. >> Does anyone else in the room would anyone else in the room like to speak? We have uh one more slot left. We have up to 15 minutes at the beginning of a meeting.
Seeing none, we will move on in our agenda then to miscellaneous approval of miscellaneous items, licenses, and contracts. And for the benefit of our two new members, typically we will vote
these in omnibus fashion. But if there is someone who would like to remove one or more of the items to be treated separately or if uh anyone has questions regarding one of the items, we can address that first. >> There's also the proclamation in there
for DPW day if someone wants to read that. >> Yes. And would anyone like to read the proclamation for DPW Day? >> I will. No one else does. >> Or you want you speak better than I do. >> Okay. I I can Yeah, I have it.
>> All right. So, why don't we do that first? starts here. >> Is that is that it or >> Michael? Do you want to read from here? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Sorry, that's better.
Okay. A proclamation of the Brooklyn Select Board for National Public Works Week, May 17 through 23rd, 2026, rooted in service powered by community.
Whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of
the town of Brooklyn. And whereas these infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works employees at all levels of government and the private sector who are
responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, parks and open space, solid waste programs, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens. And whereas
it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders, and children in the town of Brooklyn to gain knowledge of and to maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs
in their respective communities. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association, be it now National Public Works Week
resolved. We, the select board in the town of Brooklyn, do hereby designate the week May 17 through 23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week. I urge all citizens to join with representatives of
the American Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events, and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees, and to recognize the
substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and advancing quality of life for all. In witness thereof, we set our hands and cause the seal of the state done in the town of Brooklyn, Massachusetts, this
12th day of May, 2026 by the Brookline Select Board. Thank you for reading that proclamation, Michael. And two other items I would like to highlight are 4 and 4 I. Typically when we are uh receiving uh
sponsorship funds or accepting a grant we acknowledge those who are providing it. So 4 is a question of accepting sponsorship funds from residents to the ODICR office of diversity equity inclusion and community relations and the Brooklyn
Asian-American Family Network in the amount of $1,50. These funds will be used towards the 2026 BAFEN essay contest. And for I is the question of accepting a grant from the Brooklyn Community Foundation to the ODICR
and the Brooklyn Asian-American Family Network in the amount of $8,000. This grant will be used to build its capacity to organize and support Asian-American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander residents and youth through affinity groups and community events, including
an annual A&I Heritage Month event. Now, in terms of the other items, does anyone have anything they would like to discuss further or a question or something you'd like to pull out? >> I think I have a question related to
item 440. >> Okay. Okay, just the parking fees. I just want to make sure we're >> Oh, I'm that that shouldn't be in miscellaneous. That should be pulled out. I'm sorry. That doesn't belong in miscellaneous agenda. I didn't realize that was off. Um, but by all means ask your question, but we'll we can we can
take that up at a later we can take that up later in this meeting, but I didn't realize that was a miscellaneous. >> So, we're not going to vote on this right now, though? >> Well, we the the goal would be to to take a vote on it, but um I think we should let the full board discuss it. Um, so if you have questions, um, maybe we should, if it's okay with the chair,
maybe we could just move that past the public hearings. >> Um, so that we, but then we can come back to that because I do want the board to be able to talk through that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, no worries. >> I have a question. Go ahead. >> Um, >> which is on this.
>> I don't even know which one. The sealing the cracks. >> Yes. >> Um, it just says on locations throughout town. And I'm curious as to if you might be >> uh it just says locations throughout the town and I'm wondering if folks if
someone here can give clarification on what cracks are being sealed where. >> So this is a standing, you know, services contract to be provided as needed. Um so they are they're providing this when when the need arises. We do the public bid and then when you know they quote us a price for this and then
when there are um repair jobs that need to be done they provide that service to us. >> Didn't we have to know the sites in order to put out a request for bids? >> No. >> Or this is just like a certain quantity of work. >> Yes. It's a service Yeah. It's a services contract. Not not necessarily a
um right you know a project contract. >> Thank you. All right. So, I move that we approve items 4 A through 4P excluding 4 O which we will address later. Any further
discussion? >> Seeing none. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. And with that, we
move to Chestnut Hill West. And Michael, would you like to introduce this? >> I believe Meredith Mooney is online and is taking upation. >> Go ahead, Meredith. >> Good evening, um, Chair Pearlman, Vice
Chair Rubenstein, and select board members Bono Green and Zimmerman. I'm Meredith Mooney, economic development director, and I'm here tonight to present um uh a few uh recommended actions for the select board related to
special town meeting one. And I have a slide deck here um just to sort of orient everyone um about tonight's agenda items. So, just to to recap, because it's been a few weeks since the select board has
been discussing the set of warrant articles, I just wanted to remind the board about um special town meeting one articles one and two. Um article one proposes to amend the zoning bylaw to incorporate the Chestnut Hill commercial area commercial overlay zoning. And
article two um authorizes the select board to enter into a memorandum of agreement and tax certainty agreement with city realy. And sort of related to article two, there are two documents. The memorandum of agreement with City Realy and a tax certainty agreement um regarding 12801330
Boilston Street, also known as the Chestnut Hill Office Park, which City Realy owns. And so tonight in your select board packet materials, there was um a a proposed amended version of special town meeting one article one. And those um
three edits are intended to reflect the final language included in the memorandum of agreement. And then there's also a final version of the memorandum of agreement and attached um several exhibits attached to that. Uh the final version of this the memorandum
of agreement was sent to the Slack board earlier this afternoon. uh along with a complete set of exhibits. Um the legal descriptions of the parcels in 1280 1330 Boilson Street were not included in the packet materials on Friday, but those are now um I I believe maybe uploaded to
the packet and at least in your inboxes. So tonight, um, oh, and just to to recap, recent select board conversations regarding special town meeting one. Uh, in a April 14th and April 28th, the select board held a public hearing, two
public hearings um on the proposed warrant articles. On April 28th, the select board voted favorable action on both articles and the um vote was for an amended version of the zoning which incorporated
a broad set of um amendments that were a reflection of uh contributions made from select board member Michael Rubenstein. It included the Janice Khan consensus amendment, several proposed amendments from Dick Banka, um and a few proposed friendly amendments from staff as well.
So this evening uh we are uh recommending and have presented to the select board uh a couple of actions um for you to undertake. So one would be the uh to reconsider and amend special town meeting one article one um with those amendments to reflect the final
MOA language and the provisions in the MOA. >> Excuse me. I think you mean article two. >> I'm sorry. Article two. Thank you. The second action would be related to uh voting to approve to ex so sorry so voting approval to execute the
memorandum of agreement contingent upon town meetings approval of the special town meeting one articles uh later this month and it is important to note that tonight's vote would be um to execute the articles but uh sorry to execute the MOA but you would not actually execute
the MOA until after town meeting and then um upcoming for next week's meeting uh we will be returning with a set of very minor amendments related to special town meeting one article one um that the select board should take up prior to the
town meeting and the uh supplemental reports. So just a quick overview and this was also covered in the cover memo provided in your packets. Um the amendments to the MOA uh incorporated the Janus Khan amendments. There was the Janice Khan
consensus amendment that was made to the proposed zoning and there were a corresponding set of amendments specific to the MOA um requirements. And so those are summarized here and just a couple of highlights. Um there'll be $150,000 for
retail support fund for Chesnut Hill commercial area small businesses. Um there are several incentives for expediting the completion of building A, which is the hotel and condo building that City Realy is proposing. Um and then there's some recommendations about
membership included in a future design advisory team for city realies project. Other amendments uh include adding some extra protections for the language regarding the um requirement about 2% of the heart construction costs to go towards uh for infrastructure
mitigation, public safety mitigation. And then the the key difference and the most substantive change since um the materials the MOA was sent in your packet late last week is that the final version of the MOA modifies and provides
some clarification around the timing of when the town will receive the infrastructure and public safety mitigation funding. And then uh proposed vote sequence and motion language for tonight. Um I think it would be appropriate for the select
board to consider amending special time meeting one article one and then um considering um executing the MOA. So I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Um excuse me Meredith. Thank you very
much for the for the summary. Um I just wanted to confirm also um if we received the executed signature pages from city realy on the MOA. Yes, thank you for the reminder. So, also forwarded to the select board earlier this afternoon
with the final MOA is um the set of signatures from city realy. >> Anthony um I had a question related to the 150,000 um which would be um used to support the commercial businesses that would operate here. Who would be doing out that 150,000? I believe I read it
was a nonprofit in theou. I was wondering if we had a spec specific uh one in mind for that. >> Yes, thank you for the question. So, uh right now the MOA the language is a bit broader with just a local nonprofit organization. Um we are in conversation
with Janice Khan about um one of the Chestnut Hill neighborhood associations um that is a nonprofit would be the um steward of those funds. Has the town put any thought into um operating the fund in itself through the planning department or the economic uh or like
EDAB or something or another uh town agency that could maybe do that instead of a nonprofit? >> So, we we did consider that. Um there's certainly sort of the administrative capacity considerations. There's also some complexity. Um there could be some
anti-aid amendment considerations. Um, but I think also just based on the intent of these proposed amendments to the MOA, the importance of having neighborhood input and um, uh, kind of control over about how those
funds are directed in support of businesses in their community is very important. So given that, I think it is more appropriate that a neighborhood oriented local nonprofit be the the steward of those funds. >> Okay. Thanks. Yeah, just so folks are aware, it's it's similar to the kind of
problem we had with ARPA where we can't directly fund a lot of programs because we're the government and that raises unique concerns, but we can provide funding to nonprofits who then have more leeway to do to run programs based on that. >> Bernard, >> yeah. Are there no businessoriented
nonprofits that could uh be used for this purpose? >> I mean, like a chamber of commerce type organization? >> Uh, great question. So, we we've had conversations with both the Brookline Community Foundation. They were unable
um to be the um administrator of this program because they have to support other local nonprofit organizations. So, they couldn't um provide the grant funding to for-profit businesses. And then we did have a conversation with the Charles River Chamber of Commerce who had a a similar set of concerns about
the complexities in terms of um administering and um uh giving out those funds. So, um, that's sort of why we landed on local nonprofit leaning towards one of the neighborhood organizations. >> Is there some way to include business
sort of perspectives in the local community organizations activities? >> You're saying in terms of developing the grant criteria for this $150,000 program? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's certainly something that um
from the economic development staff perspective, we can try to connect that group with, you know, local business organizations as they're finalizing the selection criteria for grant recipients. Anyone else? All right. So, are we ready to vote on
6A and 6B or any further discussion? Seeing none, I move that we execute the proposed memorandum of agreement between the town of Brooklyn and city realy contingent upon passage of special town meeting one articles one and two at town
meeting later this month. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Next, I would like to move possible reconsideration of
special town meeting one article 2 regarding authorization of the select board to enter into a memorandum of agreement and tax certainty agreement with city realy as amended. Two reflects the final language in the executed memorandum of agreement.
Bernard >> uh for reconsideration, yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. And I also vote yes. >> So Bernard, did you want further discussion or are
>> No, you're you're fine. Okay. >> Do you want to say anything on these changes? >> Uh, no. I I think um Director Mooney summarized them very well. >> All right, then could I ask one question? Sure. Okay. Um, if I want to
read the ex explicit on the tax certainty agreement, uh, Michael, do you know where that is in the in the article or >> um, so the tax >> Sorry. >> Uh, the tax certainty agreement I believe is an exhibit to the memorandum of agreement.
>> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So, I move that uh, we provide that authorization in 6B. Bernard. Yes, >> Michael. >> I'm I'm sorry. What do we >> Well, we're voting on We voted for
possible reconsideration. Now voting to actually >> recommend favorable action, >> right? >> And I think this is about executing the agreement. >> Executing the agreement >> conditional on town meeting, >> right? >> Can you say that one more time? >> 6B is um authorization of the sele. So
yeah, this is favorable action on STM1 article 2. Um and um right this would be authorizing the um I'm sorry ex >> Chaz. This is Jonathan. >> Hi John.
>> Hi David voted David had them take a vote to authorize the execution of the MOA already. Okay. Now you are voting to uh recommend approval amend your approval of the um of uh special town meeting one article two.
>> Okay. So, it's favorable a motion for favorable action then. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Maybe maybe maybe we should be clear and we glossed over this too too quickly. Um but the changes that were made to STM1 warrant article 2 um consisted of the
removal of certain conditions for the MOA which were no longer applicable because of negotiations in the MOA. So, they've been reviewed by the moderator to be within scope. Um and those are the changes that we are voting to recommend
favorable action on. >> Yes. So moving favorable action on STM1 article two >> still yes. >> Michael >> yes >> and thank you for that clarification. Amanda >> yes. >> Anthony >> yes.
>> And I also vote yes. >> So thank you Meredith. So, we will now move to boards and commissions interviews. And first up is the Preservation Commission, Vaseli Demenov. >> He's online.
>> All right. Yes, I'm here. >> Good evening, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to interview today. Uh, my name is Vaselov and I'm a Brookline resident, interpreneur, and licensed construction supervisor. I
co-ounded a local window and door company and uh have experience working with homeowners on renovation and preservation sensitive projects. Um, I'm also actively involved in the community um through volunteer work with
Brookline Tribes and Brookline Food Pantry and I'm interested in serving on the board because I care about Brook Lines architecture and would like to contribute a practical and balanced perspective that uh supports both preservation and the needs
of residents. >> All right, any questions? Go ahead, Amanda. >> How do you see the role of the preservation committee um and the desire of a lot of Brookline residents to make their homes more environmentally
sustainable? How do you see balancing that on that committee? And you know through my experiences cons in construction and u working with homeowners um I see that uh the
preservation commission should like uh you know the define the balance between you know saving um the architectural uh character and uh for sure the residential needs
but uh to save historical um design of the Any other questions? Michael, >> um, thank you. Thank you very much for your application. Um, first of all, I'm wondering, have you attended any
meetings of the preservation commission? Yes, I already attended few meetings and um I met with um two members from preservation commission with Elizabeth and Elton >> and um I reviewed um all the rules on
the website and I'm pretty excited to join the board if if possible and um I like to volunteer and contribute more to our great community. >> Great. Um I'm wondering in the in the
meetings that you saw or the reading that you did whether there were any areas of improvement in the processes of the preservation commission um that you would care to offer. uh it's always the gap to for for improvement you know and u in any kinds
uh for sure I need to spend more time um to know more how the processes works in the commission and uh what to suggest >> thank you >> in reviewing your resume I see that you've been uh an entrepreneur in the
agricultural equipment and parts business and I'm wondering how your professional life would help inform some of your work on preservation commission. >> Um it was a huge part of my life before I moved in states. So I spent 10 years
with a John Deere um in my home country in Kazakhstan and um right now it's not more like just a hobby for me uh to do the you know the consulting for for the farmers. Um I'm uh fully right now
involved in the construction and u business. That's it. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, typically uh what we do is we will interview candidates and then at a subsequent
meeting after everybody's been interviewed, we will vote. We won't be voting tonight, but thank you for coming. Thank you for applying and uh we appreciate your interest. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. >> All right. Next we have Lars Anderson
Rank Design Review Committee interviews. And first up is Robert Franklin. >> Thank you. >> I am Robert Franklin. Um I was approached by I think the director of recreation at one point
because I have a lot of involvement. People know me from the Lars Anderson rink asked if I would be interested in serving in some way fashion on the design review committee and I said I was uh flattered and enthusiastic to do so. So I submitted an application and I came
here today to answer questions if anybody had any. All right, any questions? Amanda, >> can you expand a little bit on on your role with with the rig right now?
>> Um, >> or with Lars right now? Yeah. >> What what what is my involvement? Well, I'm 78 years old and I uh skated at the rink the day it opened in I think 1955.
And very very often afterwards, I don't think I've ever missed a season except when I was away at school. um in college and so forth. Um it's very very important to me, dear to my heart. Um a lot of friendships over the years have
been developed from the rink. My grandmother uh and grandfather who my grandmother's a wonderful cook, so I spent a lot of time with her as a teenager and she lived on Rockwood Street um just on the Brook on the Boston side of the line. Um I don't know
if you're familiar with Rockwood. sort of it's parallel to Avon. Avon is at the bottom of the ski hill at Lars Anderson and um there was a little right of way through the woods that I could walk to the rink and I spent just a lot of time
there. A lot of my relationships with Brooklyn people although I was living I grew up in Boston. and I lived in Jamaica plane until 1968 when my parents moved to Brooklyn. And then I became a Brookline uh homeowner in uh 198 well 34
years ago, whenever that was, and brought up my family here. My children uh went to Baker School and I had a daughter who went to Brooklyn High School and she was on the first Brooklyn High School girls, if I can say that,
women's hockey team. Um, uh, I played, uh, hockey as a youngster and through high school and as an adult. Um, another son, another daughter who all played hockey. Although my interest isn't really that enthusiastically based on
hockey. Um, I see that as a sort of remote adjunct to what Lars Anderson rink serves to the public and to the Brooklyn residents. Um, I don't want to certainly don't want to overemphasize that. I don't think that rink is really very suitable for a big hockey program.
Although my kids went through the Brooklyn youth hockey program and and it was very important to them. Am I getting anywhere in the realm of what >> That's great. I just wanted to hear a little bit more about it. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Bernard,
>> so do you have any ideas or concerns about the design particularly since you've raised the issue of it suitability for hockey? >> Sure. Um, I don't think I'm really deep enough into it yet. Um, in terms of the the design review committee, I'm
certainly in my own mind deep into a certain a couple of issues that I think are important. Some of which I understand have been resolved. One of which is I would not like to see the rink covered. I think it is what it is and it's limited but beautiful as to
what it is. Um, I personally am of a minimalist style of of u uh approach. Uh, I don't like to see things overdone. I don't like to see money wasted. I don't think it's necessary at the rink. I think it's important to recognize the
rink for what it is and not to pretend that it's going to be something much more involved or glamorous than than what it is. It's a very, very unique. I've skated a lot of places and there's nothing like skating on a Friday night under the stars or the moon rising over
the city of Boston in the east and it's just magic. Um, so I would be getting more and more into it on the committee and finding out what other people felt and try to be understanding of other people's points of view and then add my own to it based on what I heard and
learned. >> Thank you. I'm not a skater, but your the image that you gave of uh of under the stars of the moon rising above. >> I skated yesterday. >> I'll go out I'll just go out there and stand around.
>> Yeah. >> Uh in your application, you talk about your experience with design and construction in your professional life. Can you elaborate on that a bit more? >> Uh professionally, I'm a lawyer, although now retired about three or four
years. Um, but I have a I've owned property. I've owned my own home. Um, when I purchased in Brooklyn on the Graange Street, I moved into a house that had uh two bedrooms. Um, and I had three children and a wife along with me. So, it was a little inadequate. I
remember my son, who was, I think, at Baker School or began Baker School when we moved in, was sleeping on a floor somewhere that eventually became my office. But the second floor of the house um was raw space and I drew a
design and um submitted it to the appropriate authorities here at the town and then was involved in the building there. I owned a house in Martha's Vineyard and did renovations. I've done renovations over the years. I was perhaps miscast as a lawyer. I like to
work with my hands. I like visual approaches to things and looking at blueprints and designs and cost cutting is very important to me. Not to be cheap but to be sensible and thoughtful about how money is spent effectively.
Anyone else? All right. Well, thank you for uh your application and for submitting to this interview and our questions. >> You're welcome. Thank you for the time. Next we have Wadner Oji.
Good evening. Uh my name is Wadner O and u I live close to uh right next to Lars Anderson Park and thank you for the opportunity to discuss my interest in serving on the community.
Uh I'm interested because I value thoughtful context design what it is you look at the community whatever you're going to fit put there it's reflect the character
so laws understand is a beautiful park and my kids always go there whatever the season is uh I go there with them to ride a bike in the winter time we go to ice skating. So I love the park. Um, so
I am interested because I care I care deeply about preserving and enhancing Lars Under Park unique
character and while allowing thoughtful growth design which reflect not the only the structures. There are a lot of structures in Lars and park including the ice wing so that they can fit there.
And then recently last night there was a beautiful picture uh about Lars. You see the design it's so beautiful. So that's what I want to use my experience on the zoning board of appeal
and as was my I have been a lawyer for approximately 20 years with the government. So you when you look at a the design of structure not just the appearance of it you have to look at whether it's the sustainability of it
whether it is accessible or whether it's connected to the community. That's what I intend to do to use my experience to look at whatever the design the architecture put in front of me. I have to look at whether it's going to fit there. It's a beautiful place and I
loved it. And nobody recommend me to be here today. I received a letter that was sent to my wife. My wife looked at say you should apply for it. >> That was on April 16. It was dated it was April 6. And then
later on I receive another email. They're looking for individual to apply as a public board member. This is when I thought about it. I said why not? I have appreciation
for the park and as well as for the rank and even though we're gonna improve it but it has to fit within the character of laws under sin park and also we have to make sure that it is accessible it is
usability and again connected to the community so that we can use it everybody in Blean can use it and I will entertain any question that you guys may have. >> Any questions? >> Go ahead, Bernard.
>> Do you have any ide uh the skating rink could be more accessible to a broader range of people in Brooklyn? I It's kind of isolated down in South Brooklyn. Um any thoughts in terms of
Oh, sorry. any thoughts in terms of uh ideas uh for for making it more accessible as you mentioned >> the idea making it more accessible would be if the town would be willing to create some kind of public transportation at a specific time for
example in the winter time and the town can have a special vehicle available at a specific locations that you know publicize so that the town every resident of the town will know a specific location they can actually use
public transportation. Initially as a a resident next to Lars Anderson Park, I was really concerned when initially they were talking about putting a highest rank all season used because where I live, I live on 147 Newton Street. That
intersection a lot of traffic and I was looking I was really concerned with that. And when they had the first meeting about the the rank what to do with it and I spoke out at the first meeting one of the suggestion is make it
accessible through public transportations and I think that that's where the town is uh is leading to toward the vision zero net zero toward that if you reduce the traffic you have public transportation available
you can reduce the traffic in increase the use of that facility and in I live in precinct 15 there's two major there's the golf course and there's laws in this in park and the ice
rink is one of the most usable facility in the town especially by young kids and I have a family that usually visit they visit us they usually come in in the
winter time from Canada. When when they come to the to the winter time in the can from Canada, I usually take them to uh to the ice rink to skate with my my my my daughter and my son. So, it's beautiful, especially when the when the
time the sunset, you can see the sunset glowing on the park on the ice. It's a beautiful place to be in the winter time. So I'm really connected to that project and I would like to to be part of the review community,
the design review community so that I can shape it so that it can sit where it is and it it is accessible, usable and it's connected to the community. Thank you. Uh, now you already mentioned this
somewhat in your opening remarks, but how does your current experience on the zoning board of appeals help inform how you would act as a member on this committee? Is there some specific experience that you think will be particularly useful?
>> Yes. Uh I have been on the zoning board of appeal for approximately uh four years right now and I have seen a lot of uh uh projects that come in before the ZBA board and one of uh the whenever I seen a project I usually see
is it fit and within the within the community as well is it meeting the the larger community goals. So you have to come in with a balanced approach to it statics massing you have to wait with the massing whether that project it's
fit in the massing and then you have to look at the set the static the access accessibility of the project you have to look at all take the all those I I usually see review it in a holistic approach so I see there's a need for a
certain project okay it's reflect modernity modernity and as well as I have to preserve the character of the neighborhood. So I have to balance both and at the end I try to come in with a consensus that achieve the goal the
larger goal and as well as preserving the character of the neighborhood and that will be the character of LZ Under Park and then with the larger community. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else with questions? All right, seeing none, thank you for
the interview. Uh, we I just want to provide some broader context for what's taking place here. So, the select board's taking an important step forward in the replacement and upgrade of the outdoor ice skating rink at Lars Anderson Park and the supporting
infrastructure around it. This project also includes the stabilization and historic restoration of the original Anderson era elements within the project area which are an important part of the park's history and character. This is an
exciting and long-awaited project for the town. It reflects years of work by the park and recreation commission, town staff, community members, and many others who have helped evaluate the future of the rink. Uh, by way of brief background, in 2020, after the
refrigeration system at the Lars Anderson Park ice rink failed, the Park and Recreation Commission established an ice rink task force to evaluate future options for the facility. A preliminary feasibility study was conducted in 2022
and the ice rink programming study was completed in 2024. Based on those findings, the park and recreation commission voted to advance a single open air rink and the select board supported locating the replacement
rink at the existing site. In May 2025, town meeting approved community preservation act funding to advance design work, public engagement, and the preparation of construction documents for the rink on the existing site.
This project is unique because it brings together recreation, public buildings, landscape, historic preservation, park planning, and community use. For that reason, the design review committee has been structured to reflect a broad and collaborative process. The design review
committee will include representatives from the building commission and the park and recreation commission who will serve as chairs along with the select board representative and uh members of the preservation commission and planning board. It will also include key stakeholders including friends of Lars
Anderson Park youth hockey and two members of the public and we just heard two members of the public interview for those spots. The role of the design review committee will be to guide the concept design phase, and help ensure that the project meets community needs,
respects the site's historic character, and aligns with the town's broader goals. This phase will also allow the town to refine project costs and better understand potential construction funding and grant opportunities. The design review committee will serve in an
advisory role. It will make concept design recommendations to the building commission, park and recreation commission, preservation commission, and planning board. The design will ultimately be reviewed and approved by the select board. Once the concept
design is approved, the consultant team will proceed with detailed design, preparation of construction documents, bidding, and necessary permitting. There will be several public meetings as a part of this process. And whether you are a member of this committee or not,
all are of course welcome to attend and opine. Uh these meetings are scheduled for May 18th, June 22nd, and July 30th. Additional public meetings will be announced as needed. These meetings will give
residents, user groups, neighbors, and other stakeholders opportunities to learn about the project, provide feedback, and help shape the design as it develops. The goal is to move through a thoughtful, transparent concept design process that produces a clear, buildable
plan, one that modernizes the rink, respects the historic Anderson elements, and improves the surrounding landscape and infrastructure. Uh now I do have some procedural questions uh from town council regarding
what specifically is needed of us as a board tonight because I see that the first meeting is scheduled for May 18th. Uh and we don't have another select board meeting before May 18th. Typically we would have
another meeting before we would actually vote on those who have applied to be on this board. And furthermore, I'm not sure whether we're expected to vote the full roster from uh these other categories that have been identified as serving on the committee. So perhaps we
could have some more clarity on process from town council >> and you may want >> and and also are there other applicants that have applied? >> Yes, there were. So if you look at the memo, there were other applicants that applied. the parks and recck commission conducted the initial um interviews and
analysis and have presented a proposed slate to you which you can accept to modify send back. Um you know it's it's up to the ultimately up to the select board to determine. Um >> but we we we don't know these other applicants >> but the the goal was to have the parks
and recck commission you know because it's their project make a recommend a slate recommendation to you know similar to how like you know if I'm appointing a department head I make a recommendation to you. I don't send you a slate of candidates and you can accept or reject um that candidate.
>> I I guess my concern is that we don't have a basis for accepting or rejecting what what is presented to us because we don't know what the alternatives are. >> Well, you have the rest of the applicants in the packet. Um and you know, in the same way that right, we
don't have six finalists interview for a position that has that level of uh uh review previously. Um the process here was to have the parks and recck commission review a slate and present it
to you obviously which with you know it's but it is ultimately your call as to you know how to how to move forward on this but Tim Davis the rec director is online um I believe um uh this is Joe Kalan and town council um so perhaps if
we could hear from town council about the legal aspects of who will be appointed appointed, why, when, the timing and the process. >> So, um Joe Kelly on town council, but um if Tim uh is able to answer those or
start to answer those questions, uh I'd defer to him, but if he's unable to, then I'm happy to. >> Thanks, Joe. Uh good evening everybody. Tim Davis, director of recreation for the town. Um so the the hope tonight was that the full slate of individuals that were uh included in the memo to you
would be appointed to the DRC uh this evening. Uh Mr. Pearlman, as you mentioned, the first uh DRC meeting is next week. Um so we are on a tight timeline with this. Um so there were the two members of the public that you uh interviewed tonight. to uh members at
large who applied uh for the seats as mentioned for the youth hockey representative as well as friends of large Anderson Park and then the four uh committee commission chairs um that are filling those seats as well uh park and w commission chair, building commission co-chair, preservation and planning
board representatives. So um all those names in front of you tonight in hopes to be uh approved to to serve so that we can begin the process with the uh hired architect uh as early as next week. So, so I understand the ask, but I'm a
little concerned that uh technically we don't have an item on our agenda to appoint the full roster or even their names. I know that it's in our memo, but all we have on our agenda is interviewing two candidates.
>> Joe, you want to opine on this? >> Sure. Um, so I would feel more comfortable if you waited. Um, but if there's an emergency that um, the DRC is under a timeline that um, you know, not
meeting it not being able to meet its first meeting would affect its kind of critical path. Then you know they that may constitute an emergency that the chair had not anticipated. I think the better pe path would be to put the
entire slate on um the next um select board meeting un unless you feel that or Tim can weigh in that there's going to be some emergency that uh the DRC would not be able to meet and do business on its first scheduled meeting.
>> I thanks Joe. I I don't want to say that there would be an emergency. I think we are all under the understanding. We want to make sure we're by the book and as clear as we can be on this process. So if the select board feels more comfortable uh putting it to the next agenda, um I'm okay with that. I can support that and report back to the the
commission appropriately. >> So I I would feel a lot more comfortable proceeding in that manner. I'm not trying to create undue delay, but hopefully everyone uh who ultimately gets selected for this committee could be even available the week of May 25th. That's a slight delay off the schedule
and that way we could vote the full roster and have some more time to think about uh the two interviews we had today. I personally think you both did well so it's not an indictment on the two of you, but there's certain legal processes that we really ought to be adhering to.
>> So your recommendation is we push it to the 19th push the vote to the 19th. >> Yes. >> Is there anything else that members of the select board would like to see or hear from uh before we uh on that date so we come prepared? Yes. Although even before before then perhaps we can have an answer to this today. I'm curious who
made the decision about the different categories that will be a part of this group. So for example, there is a spot that is reserved for youth hockey which is a private entity and I'm curious whether there is prior precedent for
having uh representation exclusively for a private entity on a public committee. So this the makeup of this board was we discussed it um internally with staff and then we vetted it with the parks and recck commission and so forth to to get uh consensus on what this is. And I want
to emphasize when we say youth hockey we didn't mean a particular youth hockey organization. We think you know the use more broadly of the space for hockey is not just limited to you know um you know one particular organization but it is a
use that the that the uh rink is used for and so we wanted to be mindful of the fact that you know many people have competing stakes in this but not necessarily competing stakes but stakes that need to be harmonized. Um and so one of the pieces of feedback that we
received during this process was to um in addition to all the important things that have been raised about preservation and making sure that you know the question about should the rink be covered and so forth is are the interests of the people who use this space for recreational hockey since it's
not a regulationized thing by any means and is is not going to be. Um but are those people being heard and addressed? And so that was the effort there. But it's not it's not a suggestion that you know one particular body uh or or private entity be given as an exclusive
seat. It was about a stakeholder you know maybe a parent maybe someone who works in that in that field. >> All right. What what do others think in terms of the slotting of different positions and categories? I I guess I guess my thinking is that
you know there there is a broad set of staff with it's like half the commission right um and you know for for outside voices and you know I think that that balance is generally is reason uh I
think that that balance is reasonable. Anthony, >> I agree. But I think the point that uh David, you're trying to get at is like why were these parameters around the makeup of the board not previously voted on by the select board? Is that kind of
where you're going? Is like why why didn't we have a why didn't the select board have a say into what the makeup of the board would look like? >> Yes. >> And I think I agree with your um kind of formulation of that's not really how we should be doing business. I don't think um but I appre like I I think we should
take the staff recommendations extremely seriously u but I don't think it's it's best practice um and I think I agree with you David. >> All right so in this the the is a little I mean ordinarily yes I 100% agree with that.
Um we don't we usually present char draft charges to you and suggestions on you know who should the board be made up with and you know you then vote those. I think the difference here is that the parks and recck commission is a um a statutory body, it has, you know,
authority over this stuff. Um you know, even though on the park side of it, it is still largely advisory. Um the parks and recck commission does have a role to play in this, which is why we presented the makeup of the of the commit of the POS commission to the parks and recck
commission. Um but as you pointed out, ultimately it is the select board's decision on how to go how to move forward here. So the structure of the committee was vetted by parks and wc. Parks and recck said, "Yep, that makes sense to us. We can bring that to the select board for their approval." >> And did parks and wreck or the staff
bring the charge to the select board for approval at any point? I'm trying to we had a conversation about this I know but I don't remember the exact we could we'll pull the minutes from that that discussion of when we talked about um the design
review process of this because I know there was a vote to put David um in as the select board representative dealing with this particularly with the commission committee of seven um but I don't recall specifically Tim I'm not sure you have a
recollection of this either um >> not a specific date unfortunately I know it was discussed. So, like you said, we can go back and pull the minutes for sure. >> Yes, we we can pull the minutes, but my recollection is that was just a vote about who's serving on the committee of seven. Not really what would happen with the design committee, how many spots,
who would serve on it, which categories. And I'm I'm not sure that we typically reserve a spot for a certain viewpoint. So, maybe it's not explicit to youth hockey as a private entity, but to a specific viewpoint, I find a little curious. Of course, when uh trying to
balance different interests, we would take into consideration making sure that all stakeholders are being represented. So, I understand it there. But having an explicit carveout seems a bit different. And I'm not sure that's how we typically comprise our boards. And and by the way,
the other thing is that typically the >> micro >> microphone. >> The other thing is that typically we get recommendations from the chair of of the commission or committee. Um as opposed to, you know, this is what you should
vote on. And I don't think that happened here, right? So >> well, in this case, the full committee voted, >> right? >> The full parks and recck committee. >> Yeah. But typically it's a recommendation to the select board. We get information and we make the decision. >> Yes. And that's that's what's happening
here. It's ultimately your call. Um and >> well, it wasn't presented that way in in this you tonight. >> Well, it looks like we're going to be taking this up again at May 19th. Yep. So, there will be >> further discussions with staff to try to
sort this out. But I mean, you know, I think the one last thing I'd say about the viewpoint issue is there's also a space reserved for the friends of Lars Anderson Park, which I think frankly is a is is not just a viewpoint. It is an organization, right? It's it's a >> so I don't think you can say, you know,
it's not appropriate to have hockey, which is not any particular group, but then have a particular group, a non-governmental entity on the commission as well. I think they they represent interests. Um,
and I just think that it is important for us to think about, you know, all the use cases of this without having any one use case potentially overwhelm the uh the operation just to make sure that everyone is heard. Um, no, I certainly agree there. We want to have viewpoint
balance. I just don't know about specific carveouts for a certain viewpoint and that applies to friends of Lars as well. Michael, >> um I'm just wondering as a matter of precedence, um if there are other
projects or committees, you know, I'm thinking I'm thinking about the Chesn Hill Commercial Area Community Advisory Group. I'm wondering were there carveouts for the Washington Street project that reflect the various interests along Washington Street? Um I
I suspect that there were. Yes. Um, and so I don't think that that that uh estab that having people representing specific viewpoints on a larger committee is something unique to this particular process. All right. So, we'll bring this back and
obviously if individual members of the board have questions in the interim or um if there's anything that we can give you to update this or if there's specific materials or comment you want to see at the next meeting, let us know and we'll bring it to you. Okay, thank you. >> May I dismiss?
>> Yes. Thank Thank you. Sorry for keeping you up at the lecture in so long, but thank you. >> All right, that brings us to our next agenda item, 2030 roadmap update and possible vote on the 2030 road map.
Abby, if you'd like to come up. >> Are we going to have a vote? I thought >> no. So we we we actually we discussed this um we put it on the agenda in case there in case there was but we realized with two new select board members who have not had you know time to work through it um and you know uh Michael
sent some comments today as well um which I think are worth reviewing and discussing. Um a vote would be be more appropriate at the next meeting. Um but we wanted to update you on the progress and talk a little bit about all the work that's gone into this and where we stand
now and any additional thoughts um that you all have as we uh continue to work on this. So this is the uh 2030 roadmap uh presentation and um just a reminder um the goal of this is to develop is to
develop a means for the select board and staff to be proactive in not just reactive in determining what our mid-range goals are as a community. You all set the agenda. you set the goals and objectives and we on staff are
tasked with implementing those goals and objectives um and figuring out what the measurements of success are to report back to you. So we want to capture those shared priority areas of yours in this document and guide us uh you know all
all both members of staff but also the select board itself as it continues to have policy discussions uh in their work. um and to do that through changing environments, which can be tough. Um but we want to come up with guiding principles and metrics that we can use
to measure those guiding principles so that um there's the opportunity um for staff to focus on longer range projects um and uh be confident that they are in alignment with the community's priorities. Um, I think a lot of this
stemmed out of these, you know, conversations that were had about projects that were longer range. You know, folks coming in, you know, at like with a project that was like an 18month to two-year horizon coming to the select board, you know, maybe a year into it and having the select board's priorities
have changed in that period of time. Um again there's no fault of the board for that but trying to figure out where the kind of loadar um uh priorities are so that we can follow those uh and not run a foul of your what what you want from
us um on those longer range projects is really an aim of this process. So um we hired Abby to facilitate the development and Abby has been uh is now more than familiar with the Brookline process of doing business. uh and has
really um just been a remarkable uh partner in this. We want to thank her and CBI for all the work they've done. Um it started with brainstorming and idea generation um way back in the fall, interviews with the select board, the select board office and department heads. A review of all of our existing
goals and plans. Some departments have very detailed goals and objectives. DPW is is an example. Planning is an example. Some do not. Uh and that's okay. it's it's just the you know some of them the processes that they follow. Um we tried to use to that to develop
values goals and strategies um through workshops iterative review with the select board and the select board office and department heads thinking about how to prioritize things. In the past when we've talked about this folks have said everything is a priority which means you know nothing is a priority. Uh and so we
try very hard to figure out what needs to be done now versus what needs to be done in the long term. And you can see that in the uh the uh roadmap tracker talking about what needs to be done when. Um and then decisions on implementation and update processes. Who's responsible for the things that
you put into the road map and what are the metrics that we are going to use for to measure that success and when are we going to update you about them? So here are some of the key elements. You have to have values to inform goals and decision- making. What do we believe in? We have to have actual goals. You
need to think about strategies to operationalize those goals. Then we need to actually come up with actions to meet those strategies. Um actions are the most likely thing to change over the five-year timeline and those are the things that are actually assigned out. Okay, department A, you're going to handle this. Select board as our elected representatives, you're going to handle
this. Um but those things can change. Um and that's okay. Um that's why we have these regular touch points for feedback and thinking about how best to implement them. But what we as you get higher up in that hierarchy, we want to try and think of ways, you know, things that are
foundational, things that can um can be um can continue to guide um the town regardless of kind of where, you know, where things wind up um in terms of how votes are taken and so forth. That's not
to say that priorities can't change. Priorities can change and they should change in response to the community, the community's voice. But we want to think of that in terms of practical things like how do we get the work done? How do we get the basic work done of running a community? Um what are those sort of
loadar uh guide uh guiding uh lights that we need to follow? And then you have these key performance indicators. What do we you know how do we measure success? KPIs very it's consultant lingo. Uh so this is the expanded sort of uh
framework here. Um you can see here this is a sample of what the document looks like. Um here's a goal. Here are the strategies. Um and here are the actions and you can see where they're assigned and where in the timeline they fall. Um so you have for example this this goal
of develop uh deliver core services reliably and efficiently within the limits of the available resources. Pretty broad uh pretty agreeable. Um but okay, how do we do that? One of the strategies is to document and communicate to residents the strength of town services and improve transparency on our performance. Do people know what
it is that we're doing? Do people know that uh how how those things are going for them? Uh can they see where things are good and where things need improvement? So you can see um the uh uh then the actual actions down here um are for example document the required base
services that each department provides um the level of service, the enforcement requirements and so forth. And then you see the KPIs down there. Um the KPIs are department set service goals by by the end of FY27, a dashboard developed to track service provision by the end of
FY29, and then the reporting dashboard is published at least annually. So those are your KPIs and the targets there. So the values of Brookline are being were in the current draft are being a welcoming, accessible, accepting and diverse community, being a predictable
and stable place for residents, visitors, and businesses. And the values of government are these continuous improvement of efficiency and outcomes, transparency and responsiveness, decision-making that incorporates feedback from affecting stakeholders, broader community based on the best information available and conducted in a
fiscally responsible manner, good governance, collaboration across departments and public bodies, commitment to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion for all and excellence in service provision and a growing economy. Here are the seven core goals. Deliver
core services to residents as we talked about earlier reliably and efficiently with the resources we have. Strengthen the alignment of goals and practices. Improve efficiency and strengthen governance. Increase our fiscal health and stability. Improve communication and engagement. Increase the racial and
economic diversity of Brookline. Maintain and improve the quality of our infrastructure and improve the town's ability to mitigate climate change and increase the resilience of our assets to climate change. So here are the how we talk about tracking progress and updating the 2030
roadmap. Um the select board office um our office will track progress on the KPIs and the status of each action annually in the first quarter of the year. Um the select the first quarter of the uh of the year we will update and review the road map annually at the
March select board workshop. Um you know you have these quarterly workshops that's the first one of the year of the calendar year. uh and then the updated 2030 roadmap will guide the development of the fiscal year goals at the summer select board workshop. So if you've updated some of the 2030 roadmap that
then becomes the basis for the following fiscal year's goals which you actually begin working on um once the fiscal goal once the uh once town meeting has met and the uh the budget is set for the upcoming fiscal year you already start talking about in this case it will be
FY28 in June of this year. Here's a sample of the road map tracker. Um, right now everything says not yet started because we haven't started. Uh, it's not done yet. Um, but you can see, you know, everything has a timeline. Everything has a start date and a
targeted end date. Um, and it basically puts in all of those actions from the road map into this uh, one document that we can then use to track and update regularly. You can see here timeline. Everyone loves a Gant chart. I love a Gant chart.
Um, it talks a bit about how these things go. Um, this is not really a Gant chart. I'm sorry because it doesn't list prior things, but it it looks like a Gant chart. Um, but it u it talks about, you know, when these things are expected to be done. Um, and who is responsible for
them. It's clear, it's uh it's colorful. It helps uh figure out uh who's responsible for what. And that's where we are currently. Um, and I think as we talk about this, we welcome input from the board, uh, and
continue to work through it. Abby, do you have anything you want to add? >> Yeah. Could I maybe set this up a little bit? >> Yes, please. >> Hi, everyone. Abby Fen with the Consensus Building Institute. I'm a facilitator and a mediator there. We're a nonprofit based in Cambridge. Um, it's nice to be with you this evening. I've had the pleasure of working with the Select Board over the last year or so
and some of the department staff and heads. Um, and to the new select board members, hello. It's great to meet you. Um, we are at the point with this document where we're trying to tie it up. Like we've done a lot of work on it. As Chaz mentioned, it is intended to
withstand some turnover as much as it can. This is a great case example for us to try. Um, that said, it seems very important for you both to get a chance to weigh in on it at this point. I think and David tell me what you want in terms
of timing for this but I'd love to hear I don't know Anthony or Amanda if you've had a chance to look through and if you have big thoughts that you want to share that you think would be useful for discussion otherwise I invite you to meet with me over the next week and we can see what we can like tweak in here
and if it's a bigger conversation that I think others like board members might want to discuss maybe we bring that to the May 19th meeting. I know um Michael sent some thoughts today. I don't know if people have had a chance to review those. I have a sense of like I think three of them might warrant some
conversation, but um at least and others I think are small ones that we can just incorporate. Um and then I want to hear also from Bernard and David if you have any mean thoughts. So I'm hopeful for tonight we can kind of say at the big level reactions that need discussion and then if there are more specific edit
tweaks um we can meet an email over the next week. Yes, please do. So, looks like Anony's chomping at the bit to go right ahead. No, >> I just I I I agree with all the values of the document. I think a lot of the KPI metrics that you've included on here are really good. Um, I like that we've included KPI metrics from the housing
production plan. That's they have some pretty, you know, hard quantitative metrics in there. Um, uh, so I like seeing that as a measure for success. Um, but there are just two things that I that I think uh could be helpful additions. And this might be too much minutia for now, but you know, I'm
seeing this for the first time this week, so I'm just getting getting at it. Um, one thing that I noticed in part six when it says maintain and improve infrastructure quality, um, when I served on the capital subcommittee uh, in the advisory committee, um, one of
the big issues that the Department of Public Works uh, faced was um, their uh, currently high amount of empty positions. And so I think one of the actions that I would like to see or even a KPI metric maybe um would filling those empty positions in the highway
department um the commissioner highlighted that a lot of that uh a lot of like you know the reduction in sidewalk uh sidewalk and concrete laying and and blacktop going down is is due to those uh open positions. So I I would like to see those filled. Um and then
and we could develop strategies on how to accomplish that. I have some ideas but we don't got to go into them now. Um and then also the expenditure and revenue study committee um highlighted some areas for costsaving um both related to green energy. One of which I
think is super interesting that I think can be added to an action in section 7 when we're talking about uh improve the town's ability to mitigate climate change. Uh in the expansion revenue study committee they highlighted um battery storage um for uh a demand
charge. Um, and I think that that is something that we should be looking into. Um, I think that we'll be able to handle peaks and valleys of electricity demand. And so I think that that belongs in that section, too. But I'll I'll stop there. >> Thank you. >> Um,
>> yeah, I I have a few points, but I'll try to lump them into general categories, and some of them I saw that Michael already highlighted. Um, so the first one is to E2F. uh develop a legislative agenda for town meeting. I would assume that most town meeting
members would bristle at the idea that the select board would be coming up with their agenda. Um and especially when you are surveying town meeting and the advisory committee that's doing something that doesn't currently occur as far as I know um to even do that.
Well, uh the second piece that I will highlight is in goal three. Um actually Paul Ser hit on this what and I had already made notes on it which is um for 90% of the time 95% of the time the way
you get commercial development is through mixeduse development. And so I think it is misleading to say seek out commercial development. Um you will seek out mixeduse development with a focus on enhancing the ability to create commercial development. Um but I I think
in and of itself housing will be a part of it because that's what usually makes it pencil out. Um then uh in I'm going down to goal six on
infrastructure um on infrastructure quality. Um hidden in there we discussed roadway safety and vision zero. Uh none of our metrics are actually tracking it other than um no fatalities. The vision zero
plan has a pretty clear action plan associated with it and I think uh if we actually want to make progress on increasing the safety of our roadways we need to make real changes to infrastructure um and we will not know how far we get if we don't track it. Um
so both tracking uh vision zero but also uh acknowledging the fact that um we need to figure this out and this will come up with the budget and and other things when people are trying to get at this. How do we fund infrastructure
improvements that lead to increased safety? Uh especially for those who are pedestrians and on bikes and um even those who are driving the cars um to make our roadways safer at the same time. Um and then the last piece that I
will add, I believe it was also Michael's point, which is um the Karp um on environmental policy. Um, again, that literally makes an action plan. So, we don't need the road map to recreate our environmental milestones. We can use the
ones that are highlighted as priorities to then track progress against. Um, and so I think you could clean it up and use those as as the focal points um to actually make real progress on on the goals that we have expressed interest in.
I can send more detailed things to you because I have a bunch of notes on here, but it falls in those categories. >> Perfect. >> Yeah, please do. Anyone else? Michael. Um so so there's an interesting part of this conversation uh with regard to to
the vision zero comments and um so I will note in one of the points that I made in my feedback document um with regard to the strategy around improving road safety was to mirror the select board goal that was related to
infrastructure work which currently reads establish and fund an accelerated target for roadway maintenance um and have a similar goal with regard to roadway safety. Um and I realize that
just as this first strategy doesn't uh doesn't reference the RAMPP, the roadway asset maintenance uh management and maintenance program. Um neither does uh section B where it
says improve road race safety necessarily reference vision zero directly. So I guess one of the questions that I have for you Abby would be interested in your feedback on is uh whether in situations like this whether it's in the infrastructure work or the
roadway safety work or in goal number seven um whether it is worth um referencing those plans directly as the blueprint for our action items and therefore our dashboards etc. Um, and I guess the comprehensive
plan is probably referenced elsewhere in here and would fall into the same bucket once once it comes to the select board. Um, or whether we should be actually looking at specific actions that the select board should be taking relative
to those plans like establishing fund and accelerated target for roadway maintenance, which is something that is is a particular role of the select board relative to those plans. Um because for example the KARP um you know the KARP
has uh it's a 10-year plan as it's going to be presented here next week. Um and vision zero I believe is a plan that runs through 2035. Um so these plans have sort of implicit uh funding goals.
But if the select board doesn't also step up and take on those goals as well, then it's going to be really hard for those plans within those departments to be driven. Um, and I think that we have uh both an obligation and an opportunity
to align uh our actions and the financing and budgeting with those plans in the context of this roadmap. Yeah, I would just on that and then maybe go to David and Bernard. I would
like we did for the comp plan and the housing production. Thank you. And the comprehensive plan and the housing production plan, I'd try to reference existing plans that you've already approved or likely will approve very soon rather than recreating it here. We want it to be pretty streamlined. And so
maybe we need to add something on the the Karp and then the RAM >> the RAM MP. >> Yeah. and the vision zero. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh David or Bernard, curious if you have any in your kind of review
of this finalish document if anything stood out that you want to see change. >> I think what Amanda said about setting up a um >> speak into the microphone, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I think Amanda's comment about um
telling town meeting about what what the legislative agenda should be is is is a good comment. And I thought we had addressed that in the last go round. So I mean just just look and see if if we had already addressed that issue and
and a little more clear as to you know what we're talking about. If I if I can >> if I can add to that I I think I mean I raised the question and I'm not sure if you're also raising the question whether
our roadmap should whether our legislative agenda the select board's legis legislative agenda should actually involve surveying advisory committee and town meeting members given that they are the
legislative body as opposed to the select board sort of presenting for their consideration, >> right? >> The legislative agenda that we developed in concert with whether it's public surveys or our department heads or you
know our vision zero climate plans etc. >> I do think there's almost two questions here that are being raised. One is should town meeting members um and advisor committees be surveyed when developing your own? And I think per Michael's comments and yours Amanda no.
So we should take that out as an example. There's like a number of you know plans you should consult and whatnot. So we could remove that. And then the second question is should you have your own legislative agenda of what you want to see happen each year and that I think is still on the table. Chaz. >> Yeah. I would just say that that and
that mirrors some you know what goes on at the state level. Right. The governor has an agenda requires the legislator legislature to say yes. Um and so the governor will present an agenda to the legislature. the legislature will look at it, poke holes in it, move it around, modify it, pass it as they see fit, and
then the governor has to say, "Well, I either agree I agree with this or veto it." Except you don't even have a veto. So, uh, there you go. Um, but the the the thing that I think is important, I agree we that surveying maybe not the right term, but one of the things that I
think is actually done we've done better over the last couple years is be more connected to the leadership of the advisory committee. And I think that really has made a difference in terms of building a better you know functioning town government um when it comes to um
being in alignment early and I think you know examples where there have been hiccups in that have been where either through timing issues or what have you we haven't been on the same page because they and then they feel like oh we didn't get any notice about this and that's you know they're the finance
committee um and town meeting and you know town meeting relies on that and so I do think it is important to keep them engaged in the process especially if there are things coming up that are of major importance to you the select board that we can continue to have those kind of conversations early and often you can
say look this is really a priority of the board you know this is you know or for example you know when we were dealing with you know tough collective bargaining issues right we talked about the fire department and minimum staffing like we had a meeting you know I I made sure that the leadership of the advisory committee knew hey this is coming down
the pike it's going to be a big and you should, you know, I'm not telling you how to feel about it, but I'm telling you this is an issue that's coming up and will need to be discussed. And so, um, having that connection is really important. Um, and I think actually builds goodwill and and and make sure
that we are, um, better aligned, uh, within the obviously, you know, the separation of powers, uh, and the ability of the legislative branch to ultimately pass law. A different verb here I think is warranted.
>> I I like that idea of different verb because I also agree that the executive our our the select board here should have a legislative agenda and it should be pronounced early in the process um of what we want to see so that the advisory committee has time to digest the
executive boards kind of what they're picturing um and then make changes and adjust through the legislative process as it needs to. But I I I agree with a lot of what you said, Chaz, like that um by having a legislative agenda, we're giving the legislature a lot of time to react to what the select board may do in
the future, which I think is really beneficial for the working relationship between the advisory committee and the select board. >> So I I agree with Michael's suggestion on this point mostly. The the one caveat is I do think having check-ins with town
meeting can be important because there's a tendency well-intentioned but there's a tendency for there to be last minute amendments sometimes a town meeting and if town meeting members are apprised of what we're working on and what the legislative agenda is then that can be
helpful because then town meeting members don't feel ambushed and obviously they do have opportunities to come to select board meetings to participate in board and commission meetings But still, it doesn't hurt to make sure that they are given some of these big picture updates from time to
time. So, I agree with Michael that surveying is not really appropriate, but I think check-ins can be helpful. >> Uh, and then when we're done with this subtopic, >> uh, I want to address, uh, Paul Ser's suggestions from public comment. I know
you brought this up as well, Amanda. Uh I think they make a lot of sense for us to incorporate his uh suggested edit which would add to that sentence we have in goal in goal three and include seeking out mixed use including
commercial in residential opportunities. >> Okay. So, what I think our next step is here is that I will uh incorporate the feedback from this evening into an updated draft and I can I'll do that this week and send it out again. Um, and
then especially Anthony and Amanda, if you want to talk to me about I can try to give backstory if that would be helpful on where how we landed at certain places. Um, does anyone have any concerns with what Michael shared that they want to flag? Otherwise, I'll go
ahead and incorporate those edits. I think I heard some seconding of of some of the points. >> I haven't had enough of a chance to read through it all. So, if I do, I'll email you. >> Okay, perfect. and and ju just as a a matter of positioning I think what
David's comment was in terms of uh uh not surveying but some other form of interaction it has it's it's somewhere within goal four improve communication to and engagement with residents but maybe residents should be expanded to
residents and other stakeholders um and that should include other areas of government. >> Okay. >> There could be consideration of alerting at least one town meeting member in every precinct of uh what it is we're
doing to sort of keep various delegations apprised of select board developments. Whe whether we want to uh publicly acknowledge this or not, I think every precinct has a deacto town meeting captain. And so reaching out to
each delegation so that they maybe have conversations amongst themselves about our legislative agenda and have check-in points. I think that can be helpful. >> Except it's so easy to send it to everyone. Why would you just send it to one? >> No, I we can do it on the town meeting list serve. I agree. It's not mutually
exclusive. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, the the other thing that that I would add, just from my own experience working with uh Chestnut Hill, um is that I actually had
delegation meetings with various with many of the precincts uh most um and in just in terms of communicating on that one issue, it was very helpful and it may be worth considering that kind of
uh activity um with regard to either the road map or our legislative agenda or some other >> activity. >> Yes, I would very much support expanding that structure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um very logistically, Anthony and Amanda, do you have emails yet with the
town? >> Yes, you do. >> We do. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We seem to have access. >> That's news to me. I didn't know that. Okay. >> Okay. I'll work with Jazz and others to figure out how to get in touch with you all >> and otherwise I think I will see you all next week. We'll send out some draft an
updated >> draft next week for hoping to vote on it really just so you can keep moving and start the fun part which is implementing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. And that brings us to our next agenda item, which is a
public hearing on the FY2027 community development block grant. Okay. Can you hear me? Great. Okay. So, I am going to share my screen
quickly. Give it a second. Great. Uh, thank you all for having me here tonight. For those of you who don't yet know me, my name is Jake Collins and I am the community planner in the planning department's housing and community
development division. I am here tonight to discuss the fiscal year 27 federal year fiscal federal fiscal year 26 HUD annual action plan the town of Brooklyn primarily focuses on our CDBG work
although we do get home funds. So, as some of you may recall, my colleague David Guzman brought the draft annual action plan to the select board last month, and now we are here requesting um that you approve the submission of the
plan to HUD, as well as a few associated actions in advance of our May 15th deadline. So, I won't read through the annual action plan objectives. Um, but I will point out that our available funding has
increased $17,000 this year, which is actually a big success. Um, generally we see decrease in funding, even a moderate increase like 17,000 allows us to better support our sub recipients. Um, for those of you who have not been
along with us on the ride through this CDBG cycle, um, here's a timeline. Um, we had a request for proposal in January, opened in January of last year. The CDBG advisory committee then deliberated on the responses
and um, developed allocations. We drafted the annual action plan. It requires 30-day public review. uh we published it widely and we did not receive any com uh comments and so here tonight we are really just looking for
final approval and a vote from you before submitting it. As a reminder, we've kind of identified four um priority areas in the action plan. Um this year we have been able to allocate money under the affordable housing category as well as public
services. And here is the updated uh recommended allocation chart um which reflects the $17,000 increase. Um we used the or we asked for guidance from the CDBG advisory committee on how best to allocate this
additional funding. Um what really happened was that all eligible public services got approximately $880 uh dollars um added to their total allocation um when they were applicable and that's basically to maintain the 15% cap. Uh
the rest of the funds the remaining funds went to BHA for their capital projects at the high street at their high street veterans development. So, they received roughly 15,000. Um, otherwise, everything else remains
unchanged. And here's just some language for the vote. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you. All right. Any comments from anyone? >> All right. Seeing none, I move that we
approve the submission. >> It is a public hearing. >> Oh, I'm sorry. This is a public hearing. So, let's first open it up to any members of the public who would like to be heard on this. >> Aman Lynen Boy online has her hand raised. >> All right, go right ahead. >> Yeah.
>> Hi. Um, so I um saw the draft fiscal year plan, please. >> Oh, Amy Lindenboy, precinct 5 resident. Um, so I saw the um that this was
discussed at an earlier meeting. um with I think with advisory in April, but and then I thought that there was going to be a public comment period, but I get all the email from town and everything. I'm signed up to receive everything and I never saw any notice of that it was
public comment period was actually open and that you know it was the the final copy was ready for review >> because they had presented something at that meeting which was on April 7th which was not um didn't look like it was a draft version and um so some those same
issues remain in the most recent version that I found and I wasn't able to um you know um figure out when that would happen. and I saw that this public hearing was happening. Um, I didn't know it was part of a select board meeting. Um, so even though most of my comments
are related to something that you'd probably want to have in writing, um, >> I didn't know any other way to make a comment. >> So, >> yes, we published in a local newspaper as well as on social media and I believe through our, um, community development
list serve. I'm happy to accept your comments and discuss them with you um, either now or offline. Uh, I wanted to have something to add. >> Hi, good evening. I'm Wana Lindo Smith. I'm the housing and community planning director and I would like to address
your question. We when we were at the select board on April 7th, we did state that it's um it is being published for 30 days in the um newspaper. So um and we have had it on our website for the longest time. all all of April. So,
there was plenty of time. You could have um we've said you could have reached out to us um when David made his um presentation on April 7th. And on the draft, it also says that you can reach out to us with any questions or comments
that you may have. Now, my I have one question for you. What the comment that you you what you've just said. Um, is there a particular question you'd like us to answer that we may not have answered um in the annual plan?
>> Um, yeah. And I'm talking about the longer document that is part of the materials for this meeting. The the longer um document, not the not the um what do you call it? PowerPoint. I'm talking about the document that was part of the um meeting packet. Yeah,
>> that longer document was also published when we when we came to the select board on April 17 um April 7th, I'm sorry. That that was also the the shorter document was just for um presentation purposes to the select board. The longer
one was >> um available. We um made that available from the day we published it. And unfortunately, you weren't you hadn't seen it, but it was there. No, no. I I did see it, but I I I didn't think it was um I was since it was draft, I
thought there was some point where there was going to be another version that would come out, and I would comment on that, but it's okay. >> So, um yeah, so I didn't know that because it said draft, but um anyway, so >> I did have a question about on something on on the page of that draft.
>> The thing about the draft that we we have we posted that draft, it it's the same thing that we have. We haven't had any changes except the dollar amount because when we did that, we did that on um last year's allocation that we got
because we hadn't received our new allocation. So, the only thing that actually changed on in that draft is the amount of money for each um activity that we're going to be um that we're funding. All right. The the purpose of
this public hearing is not to have a dialogue. Uh we appreciate your question. We understand your point. >> But if if the if the individual has a specific I think she's trying to get to a specific question that she has. >> If you have a specific question, go right ahead.
>> Okay. So um well, I have two question. Well, one is first is a question and one is um just to clarify and I have to give you some time to get over there, but I think it's on page uh like 58. It's right underneath the list.
It's right underneath table six. in the document where it has a list of the the project information. >> So there's a list there 1 through 13 in the draft anyway. And then in the and then it has a little paragraph under that says describe the reasons for the
allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs. And I just have a question about um for this thing I just have a question about the math um because it says staff recommended the
allocation maximum amount of public services for public services 15% or $25,23700 after subtracting $429,293 for staffing and administrative costs blah blah blah an estimated 7337
Separator 20 is available. So it it looks like I get a negative number there. So I'm confused. I think it might just be trying to say that that we need $733,720, but I'm not sure. >> Oh. Um All right. Let me explain this
really quickly. The um the public services does get 15% of the $1.3 million that we do get. So we allocated it as best we could um among the four or five the four public services that had applied um we gave them as as much as we
could um the the I'm sorry the admin part of it the to run the program 429 that that stayed that didn't change the the 733,000 that you're referring to um that goes
for housing projects um capital capital um needs projects and these are what they are the um the BHA two life had something everyone that submitted an application did get funded um they pretty much the only person that didn't
get well two two of them didn't get 100% funded and that was the BHA because their their need is like over a million dollars so we don't have that much so we gave them as much as we could and the um to life had asked for 40 40,000 is it?
>> Yes. And the the board when they went through all the stuff that needed to be done, the board decided that 29,000 would be best suited for a particular thing. Um the um the Brooklyn um elevators, the
community, Brooklyn community mental health, they need an elevator in there because they serve a lot of underserved folks and >> Yeah. >> Right. So they got the maximum whatever they asked for that's what we have there. >> Okay. I just I guess I'm trying to understand the purpose of the po report
is something that the draft act the action plan is something that you have to submit to HUD. >> Yes. We're telling that this plan tell HUD what we are going to be doing this year with the funds that they are they have allocated to us. That's what the plan is about. We have to tell them what
we're going to do with it. If we don't they won't give it to us. >> Uhhuh. And you're going to have to turn turn that to them on the 15th. >> Yes, we have to submit it by the 15th. >> Okay. Um I think that's um that's sufficient. Thank you for um the information. >> Now, I have one quick thing. Um if if
you'd like to know more on on how the CDBG program runs, we're very happy to help you. You can come. We're in the um planning department and you can ask for David Jake or Wana. will be happy to sit with you and go through in detail so you can better understand because this is
something that happens pretty much every year. Um I don't know when um the federal government would say they're not giving us any more money, but for now we're getting it. So if you need more information, please stop by and see us, call. We're happy to sit and talk with
you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All righty. Thank you so much. What >> one quick thing? Oh, go ahead, please. No, go ahead. >> No, I just This is something besides this vote. >> All right. I just wanted to check. Do would anyone else like to be heard while
we still have the public hearing open? >> There's no one online. >> There's no one online with their hand raised. No one in the room who would like to participate. So, I'll now close the uh public hearing and go ahead. >> Um I just want to say thank you very
much for the nice words that were said earlier. I do appreciate it. It makes me feel good. Thank you so much. >> Very welcome. 40 plus years was it of service of the town? >> Started when I was age 20 22. >> Oh, you telling us your age now?
>> Yes. And I've stayed since then. >> Awesome. >> Well, thank you very much for the 40 plus years you've put in uh in serving the town of Brooklyn. >> It was my pleasure. Really, thank you. >> All right. And with that, if we can
return to the slide with the question. >> All right. So, I move that we approve the submission to the FY2027 CDBG annual action plan to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. We authorize the chair to execute the application for federal assistance SF424
and other certifications required for submission of the annual action plan and authorize the director of planning community development to execute environmental review or other programmatic documents required for federally funded projects on behalf of the town. >> Can I ask a question?
>> Go ahead. Uh the SF SF424 has attachments in terms of um required certifications. Have have those changed to include some of the crazy stuff that's coming out of the administration?
>> Um it didn't not this year it didn't change. >> Okay, good. Looking forward >> actual application. The 424 is the actual application um to HUD. >> Right. All right, Bernard, your vote. >> Yes.
>> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. So with Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. >> You're welcome. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Thank you for 41 years. >> Most welcome.
>> So now we will move to our next agenda item, which is a continuation of violation hearings for category 3, lodging houses. So, I'll reopen the public hearing uh specific to the vote possible vote on consequences for a
lodging house license at 1459 Beacon Street. Yes. And I know we have the owner here as well. Thank you for coming back. I know it's it's not easy to come to these evening meetings. So, we appreciate you coming. Um at this juncture, uh the building department, why don't I why don't we have an update?
Is there any update from you? >> Of course. Of course there is. Yeah. Good evening. First, I'd like to say congratulations to Amanda and Anthony for your new positions on the select board. And good evening to the panel of the select board. Sorry to see you go,
Mr. Green. >> Pardon me. >> Sorry to see you go, Mr. Green. >> Oh, I'm still here. >> But you're still here. Okay, good to know. >> And And he has the burden. >> I know. Well, is it a burden >> sometimes? >> Doing They're all doing a great job, I
think. Anyway, so yes, since the last time we met, I contacted several >> I'm sorry. Could you please introduce yourself for the record? >> I'm sorry. Cynthia Papus, precinct 17. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Beautiful. Okay. So, yes, I contacted several uh structural engineers. They
told me the same thing, which made sense to me. Need a mason to take it apart, to assemble it, to see what is going on inside. I have contacted I spoke to before I decided I spoke to several some not so
great and I uh did get a um I'm going to read this but I guess I don't have to a restoration company that is pull they're pulling the uh permit to open it up and then have their structural they work with a structure I guess he has a
structural engineer that he wants to use which is fine with me and he's going to after they open it up, they're going to look at it and decide what it needs and work from there. I'm very excited about getting it repaired and getting it up and running as the lodging house again
because we have such a great need for rooms in Brooklyn. We h This is why we miss out on a lot of conventions. um years ago. These young people probably don't remember the Hines Auditorium in CPPley and um they had to turn away so
many great events uh you know which is bad for this city, the state, whatever. So um we've had people stay here from all over the world. We've been there for 65 years going on
66. It was always filled and um it will be again. We've had people from uh we've had for instance a lovely lady her name was Tashika Tanaka. She's one of the
best violinists in the world who used to come she came every year for 40 years with her entourage to play with Yoyo Man in the Boston Symphony down in Boston. And um >> it's funny because I recently just had three one one call and two emails from
previous tenants who still contact me and uh from one from Peru, one from Argentina. >> So So just with with respect to what you were referencing at the outset about disassembly and possible repairs, do you have an update on a timeline for when
you might such? >> You know, that's my that's my you know, let me contractors, you have to kind of put the kid gloves on because if you rub them the wrong way, they will hang up on you and say,
"Find somebody else." So, I can't I can only push it so far. I kind of asked like, "Oh," he says, "Well, I'm I'm working on a project right now, but it's almost over." And he's blah blah. And I said, you know, what do you think? You know, maybe like two weeks. So, that's where we're at right now. I don't want
to lose him. Um, >> so you feel that you have someone who can take care of this within two weeks? >> I didn't say that they can fix it in two weeks, but they >> started within two weeks. >> Yes. I I'm hoping between two and three. Yes. >> And as part of that mitigation, you're saying they're going to open it up,
which means presumably they'll put netting up. They'll make they'll they'll make it safe. >> Oh, yes. Oh, it's safe right now. To be honest with you, it is. It is. It is stabilized very well with the I'm not saying it doesn't need to be repaired. I'm not I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying that it is safe. I wouldn't
stay there. I wouldn't have my tenants stay there if it wasn't. It >> I I hear you. But the building department doesn't agree. >> I know. I know. But they should, you know. Okay. Whatever. Yes, I understand. >> What What is the building department's recommendation at this time? >> So, the building department has recommended that she take the action
that she's taking, which is bring in a structural engineer, bring do this work. We understand that it takes time um to get an engineer on the premises, but it sounds like you're moving forward. >> I don't I don't think it's so much the engineer. I think it's the Masons because as you know um or if anybody
doesn't know this that contractors that work exterior buildings, they book people in the winter. They they line up their projects in the winter which makes sense. They don't want to wait for someone to call them in the spring when the time is going by because you know we
have such short summers, springs and well spring if you want to call it spring. Yeah, summers. So >> all right. So >> limited time to work outside. So on this then if you're if you're telling us two to three weeks, why don't we do this? Why don't I recommend if the board is amendable to this? It sounds
like it's moving forward. We want to be respectful of this and but you know, >> appreciate it. >> The the 100% number one concern that I have here is safety. Um and you know, as um Mr. Warren mentioned last time, right, we had we had a sight of a building collapse. It was a very serious
matter. I understand your feeling on it. The building department has asked you to do something. It sounds like you're moving to do it, which is good. That's what needs to happen. Um, but the building department will check back in with you in two weeks time. Okay. >> See where things are. >> Sure. >> If we're not making progress, you may
need to come back here a third time. And at that point, we may need to talk about whether or not the license is renewable. >> Okay. >> So, >> okay. Well, yeah, >> I understand your concern. I've worked with contractors before. I've worked with a lot of contractors. I get I get it. Um, but they can you
>> they know they know we need them more. You know what I mean? Yes. And you you can do do your utmost to get a firm timeline out of >> Absolutely. I will. Yes. >> Anthony, >> I'm I'm wondering if it will be possible uh to request um uh a notice of
interaction between uh the the contractor and the individual as soon as possible within like you know a oneweek time to making sure that the engagement um is ongoing. >> Sure. Why don't you send us Can you say uh you have an email address? >> I do. Okay. Why don't can you mind
sending the select board office just an update where you are uh by on uh next Tuesday? >> Next Tuesday. Okay. >> And let us know that you've reached out to the contractor. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Okay. You're welcome. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Uh so we'll we're we're
holding this in obeyance. Um and we will the building department will reach out to you if for some reason there's a need to take it up again. I'll let the board know. The board will decide what to do about it. I I did email early on to Nicole and just said at that time it was right after the meeting and I said to her that not said
to her but emailed her and told her that I was looking for the people I need to get this going. >> Just let us know where you are a week from now if you >> I will. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Have a good evening. >> All right. Thank you. And we already closed the uh public hearing on this. So we will now move to our next agenda
item. Contract renewal blue bikes. Question of entering into a 5-year contract. >> Excuse me, David. >> Yes. Were we going to take up item 40? >> We will. That'll be after the blue bike item. >> I see. >> Okay. So, contract renewal blue bikes. Question of entering into a 5-year
contract plus two two-year renewal options with Lift Bikes and Scooters LLC to operate the regional Blue Bikes Bike Share System. Do we have anyone who will speak to this? Sam DS is online. >> Hey, good evening. Uh, can you guys hear me? Okay.
>> Yes. Uh, I'll reiterate what other people have said. Congratulations to Amanda and Anthony and cong congratulations to chairperson Pearlman and thank you to Bernard Green. Uh, it's been a pleasure. Um, my name is Sam DS. I am the deputy
director of engineering for the town. I've been with the town now going on four years and I've been very involved with the blue bikes um, system uh, as a proud owner and original member. Um, Brookline was one of the four original municipalities who started
the bike share system uh back in 2012 with Cambridge, Somerville, uh, and Boston. Um, and tonight I am here. Um, I'm happy to give the board a quick overview of Blue Bikes. Uh, before we, uh, dive into the contract request,
uh, I will just share my screen briefly. So, for those of you who do not know about uh Blue Bikes, uh we currently just hit uh our 600th station across the 13 municipalities that uh own uh and
maintain the network. Um we have expanded into Watertown, uh as far north as Salem, uh Newton, uh Quinsey is about to to join, uh the network in the next year. Um, and so
this is a system that is owned by Brooklyn and the other municipalities. Um, we are, um, uh, we are purchasing the stations and the bikes and we are asking Lyft to manage the day-to-day operations of this
system that currently, um, sees over 4 million rides taken per year. Uh, since 2020, we have registered over 22 million rides across uh, the network. Uh so the blue bike system really plays an
integral role in in transportation uh for the for the greater Boston uh area. Uh it's the reason why so many different uh grant programs from the state level and as high as the the federal uh federal level uh fund the
expansion of this network because it offers 247 um access to to transportation. Uh we have been uh working on an expansion plan uh that went through robust public process and the transportation board recently uh and we
partnered closely with uh Boston University uh around that planning. Uh I'm not here to talk about that tonight. Um uh as I mentioned there are many grant programs that are are funding the current expansion of this. Uh we are very fortunate to have received uh a
legislative earmark from representative Vlo as well as a number of mass DOT uh grants and as I mentioned an upcoming uh federal highway grant through their congestion relief program uh that awarded the the greater Boston um area
um I believe it was $20 million um in funding. Um so the um the last uh last contract with Lyft which previously was known as Motivate um started in 2017 and ran a similar
course of a 5-year contract with two two-year renewals. Uh we went through a very uh robust RFP process uh and a blind evaluation um for um for proposals to operate the blue bikes network. Uh this includes
maintaining the bicycles, maintaining the stations, uh operating customer service, um and it's a it's a it's a large undertaking. And so uh through this RFP process, uh the 13 municipalities work together, uh and we
have uh decided to continue with Lyft for uh the additional uh fiveyear plus two two-year renewal options. Uh and the contract that I'm asking for the select board to enter into tonight uh was originally agreed to by the city of
Boston and subsequently has been also signed by the city of Somerville uh and the city of Cambridge. Uh the other municipalities are still working to finalize their contracts. Uh but uh we are the core four uh municipalities and
um I'd be happy to answer any questions um that you all have about this uh uh opportunity to renew the contract with Lyft to continue to maintain and operate uh the town's uh portion of the blue bikes broader network. Thank you.
>> Any questions? Michael, >> um I'm wondering if you can share the amount of of revenue from this program that goes to the town. Um and what percentage of that revenue flows back to
the operators uh as part of this contract? >> I will do my best to to answer that. So um each year um it of course our revenue uh is continuing to grow as writership uh numbers grow as well. Uh the town
sees approximately 15 to $20,000 uh in revenue uh every year uh that goes back into an operating fund uh that is held by Lyft. Uh this is to cover expenses, unexpected expenses that might come up if a station breaks. Uh we're
able to use this um that revenue uh to fix, you know, fix the system uh replace bikes if they break. Um that revenue uh is also only 15 to $20,000 because we currently are uh subsidizing
uh uh we are currently in a a model that subsidize subsidizes rides for both income eligible members um town employees uh and also uh the new ebikes that have been introduced or the e assist bikes. Um so all the 13
municipalities have agreed to subsidize um a certain percentage of uh cost to help help maintain a low level a low enough level that it entices wrership uh but also not at the expense of not generating any revenue. Um so I hope
that somewhat answers the revenue question. Uh and then in terms of the the annual costs that go to Lyft, I will have to cycle back or circle back with you on the exact dollar value that Lyft gets from operating uh the system. Uh
but I know that it's been agreed to by um our fellow municipalities. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Anyone else with questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, I move that we
approve the 5-year contract with Lift Bikes and Scooters LLC to operate the regional Blue Bikes Bike Share System. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. >> All right. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. >> And with that, we will now move to item 4. which is the question of approving increases in various fines and fees including parking fines as recommended
by the transportation board. >> Sure. So we have two sets of proposed fine increase uh fine and fee increases for you. The first is around parking fines and the second is around building permit fees as well as the fees for uh certificates of occupancy. Um the um
motor vehicle parking fines is uh one that came before you. um uh a while ago um in back in April. Um this was envisioned as part of the uh budget for FY27. This increase in fines and fees as a means of offsetting any potential
override that would be put to the voters. The single largest source of potential increase here is in parking fines. Our parking fines have not been raised since 2007. um they are in most cases uh between $25 and $30 for various
violations. Other communities including Boston have raised them to 40 and beyond. The question about a fine is unlike a fee which is supposed to be assessed only for to provide the cost of the service, the fine is about deterring behavior. So it's a question of um is it
is the fine commensurate with the behavior you're intending to deter. Um ultimately, um and then the other aspect of this is that the state caps the amount of any fine um in Brooklyn that is basically not an initial fine is not
to exceed $50. Um if it's paid uh beyond 21 days of the date of the ticket um but before it gets reported to the motor vehicle registar then that increases to $55 and then after that once that report is in we can't charge more than $70. So
those are the caps for the fees and f uh for the fines. So with that in mind, um in your packet is a memo uh reflecting all fines that are not currently at $40. Um and we are recommending that you increase those fines to $40 in all
instances except for parking on a sidewalk or parking in a crosswalk. there. The transportation board recommended and we on staff agreed um that given the severity of that and the desire to deter that behavior that an increase to $50 would be more appropriate under those circumstances.
So that would be the maximum potential fine that we could levy. Um the transportation board, this is, you know, transportation board is also a creature of special act, a special statute. Um it has certain roles and responsibilities that it plays, but there's also a role
for the select board to play. Last time we raised fines, we asked the T-board to make a recommendation to the select board and the select board to ultimately vote on it. And that was the process we followed here. The T-board has recommended unanimously uh that the fee that the fine schedule in your packet be
adopted. Um and um under these circumstances um we are going to take some of the money that we anticipate raising from these increased fines and reinvest it directly in parking control. um you know the work that needs to be done to ensure that we are doing better
at um collecting uh collecting fees appropriately. Um uh assessing fines appropriately um not uh losing out uh when someone appeals successfully appeals a ticket because a meter is broken etc. Trying to get a trying to
build a better process around ensuring that our parking structure is appropriately managed and maintained. Um, and that includes looking at Passport as a system. Um, there aren't that many other mobile parking games in town. It's it's not a racket, but it's a
it's a it's a closed market. Uh, and so we're trying our best. We But part of that is assessing whether or not we re-evaluate that reevaluate that relationship, talk to competitors, talk to Park Mobile, which is the other big game in in the region. Um, and just really assess the landscape there. So
reinvesting directly in that, but some of this money will also flow through general revenue as it has uh for a while. We anticipate that it will bring in around a million dollars of additional revenue. Um most of which will flow through the town school split. >> Okay. All right.
>> Yeah. Um you mentioned mentioned problems with the parking meters. Is some of this money going to go to maintaining parking meters so that you people can't appeal based on a broken parking meter? >> So, one of the things that I'm working on right now, we're we're building cross
departmental working groups um in the departments to try and figure out these issues. And so yes, one of the one of the things that I want to do here is sit down with police, DPW, treasury and figure all that out because right now how parking used to work was basically, you know, someone who really liked
parking took it on and it was about the person and not about the process. And right now there's a vacuum in there. Um it's not that anyone it's not that anyone isn't doing their job. It's just that no one's one job is oh I got I got to I got to be the parking zar. I got to deal with this. it was just something
that people a succession of individuals took on in the town and worked on and that's obviously not a sustainable model. So a part of that is building out processes internally to then ensure because there is a um there is a line item in the budget for parking meter
replacement um and it's about making sure that that money is is that the right amount of money? Do we need to increase it? Do we need to change the replacement schedule? All those are questions that we want to answer. >> Okay, one other question. Um Um, excuse me. Quarters or parking
meters paid with quarters? A lot of people really really want to continue um being able to put quarters in the meters. >> Yeah. >> Um, any plans to change that? >> No. >> Okay, good. >> I am I'm one of those people. Um, >> I am too.
>> I don't like it tracking where I park. Uh, >> Anthony. >> Um, so I understand that the the new fine structure um and be capped out at $50, correct? >> Yes. Y Okay. So, I see the majority of them are brought to 40 except for on
sidewalk and in crosswalk. >> Um, I just did quick inflation calculator. $30 in 2007 is $48 today. >> Yeah. So, what that means is we're saying that the social harm of a parking limit permit violation is less in 2007
than what it is today with this current fee structure. I'm not really comfortable with that. >> I think I think the I I think all the fines should be put to $50 to be perfectly frank. I mean, one of them is double parking. I can't think of one of the more one of the more dangerous things on here is double parking in
regards to cycling or anything else um and pedestrians trying to cross. I think there's a lot on here that could justify moving up to 50. Um, and I don't think I'm super comfortable with the current fee structure, um, given the fact that the majority of these are under where inflation would put them in 2007. >> And I think so the other big thing here
that we got to keep an eye on, right, is what where other communities are. That's a big and so, you know, and we're going to talk about this when it comes to building permit fees, which is a different rubric, um, but it's a similar thing. What do other communities do? Right now, Boston does have fines that
go above $40. There's some that are in the 70s, some in the $90 range, but they got a special act at the legislature to do that. Um, right now, our special act, our own little special act of the legislature, which we haven't amended, says that we can't go above 50 and the,
you know, the structure here and we're following what Cambridge has recently done, right? Cambridge recently increased a number of their fines to $40. So, we feel comfortable saying, you know, if Cambridge is doing it, we can do it. Newton, by contrast, is still at 25 for a lot of their fines and fees.
Um, so Somerville is a little higher. One of the kind of second part of this and the thing that I talked to the transportation board about because I I take your point. Um, it may well be time for us to submit a request to the legislature to increase the amount that we're able to pay to find. Um, you know,
to both do what we're doing now, which is to increase it commensurate with, you know, comparable communities, but also then go to the state and say, "Look, you've kept us at $50. Clearly, there are social goals that are not being met here. And when you adjust for inflation, by increasing to $40, the
the real dollar value is still lower than it was um in 2007. >> Do do you think that it's worthwhile to put them all at 50 in the meantime, or do you think it's it's not worth that? >> I think it's a risk. Like, as with anything, it's a risk. Okay. Right. Um I
I don't think it's I don't think it's irrational. I wouldn't be like, "Oh, no, no, don't do that." Um, but I do think that you're more likely to make it stick when you have a clear comparator that you can point to and say, "Hey, that, you know, we're just doing what Cambridge did. We're not we're just
doing what Somerville did. We're doing, you know, we're not where Boston is, but we're not Boston. We can't get away with putting some of these things at 70." >> So, I feel more comfortable um at the $40 range, but I'm I wouldn't, you know, I'm not rejecting it out of hand. I'm not saying no no like if
that's what the board wants to do, that's okay. I just think it runs more of a risk. Um >> I'd like to hear what my colleagues think on that. >> Anyone want to be heard on >> what what is the risk? >> Well, that someone will Well, for one thing, as as someone pointed out, I
don't think this is the transportation board. I think it was at I think it was here. Um someone pointed out people are more likely to appeal a ticket that is of a higher dollar value. Um, some people are likely to, you know, eat the cost of a $25 ticket, but if they say the ticket is $40, it's just there's
there's a psychological barrier that may be crossed there. And I think it might be more likely to be crossed at 50 than 40. Um, but again, that's just armchair psychology. I don't have any data on that. Um, I I would be and then once you enter into that challenge process, then you have this
question of is the fee proportional to the offense? uh is the is the fine sorry proportional to the offense uh is proportional to the harm that's being caused. And what we talked about with the transportation board is yeah we have this policy that we really want to incentivize safety on sidewalks and in
crosswalks. So parking on sidewalks or in crosswalks is a particularly um antisocial anti-pedestrian activity that we want to limit. Um once you start increasing that across the board, you know, you're going to have to make the argument that yes, as a as a ma as this
matter, um you know, we are, you know, it it's um it's commensurate with the with the offense in question and reasonable under the circumstances. The big argument that you have going for you, and the reason why I wouldn't say no to $50, is that the legislature let you do it. Um the legislature passed a
special act 20 some odd years ago saying you can bring your fines up to $50 if you so choose. Um and I think that is strong evidence for the argument that the comm you know the the the state
considers that to be a reasonable penalty for what they call all other offenses which I as I read the statute it's not well written. It's basically anything other than parking in front of a hydrant which is more expensive. Um, so we have the uh benefit of two transportation board members gracing us
with their presence and I would like to invite them to come up and address this if they would like briefly. >> No pressure, guys. >> Yeah, I don't want to step on your toes. I'm sorry. So question on
>> so go ahead introduce yourself and also >> transportation board member council town meeting member in 16 >> and just if the if you would like to address what your thinking was in this vote in this fee structure
>> um we know that it's a balancing act like Chaz says as far as uh about 5% of tickets violations ations uh are they they win the appeal. Um whether
it's a broken meter or for whatever the reason uh the appeal process is not hard because you can use the app. Um so uh there is that balancing act and how fast we do increase the fines. Um I think
double parking Anthony is a major issue in and around Koolage Corner ext you know but we see it everywhere. Uh um we're planning to work with Tommy Vatello this summer on a home rule petition with the idea of being able to come back uh and be able to address some
of these safety concerns because uh Somerville has had a lot of success with some substantial fines um with their safety stick program that they have and uh what has been the net result is the violations don't happen. uh so people
quickly learn uh you know with the stick uh that you know safety is above all what we're trying to achieve here with the violations. So anyways, Brian, >> thank you. >> Good evening. Uh Brian Kaine, I have the great honor to chair the trans station
boards. Congratulations all first of all or condolences as the case may be. Seriously. Um so uh Anthony um we also wanted to go to 50. There was a lot of discussion about that at the transportation board for everything. Where we sort of came down was um a
couple of things. One is we needed we we thought there was wisdom in having somewhere to go 40 to 50 assuming the home rule doesn't pass. We've had various luck with home rules uh in the past. So we we thought it was important to have somewhere to go. Uh Chaz, I'm
going to also uh ask you I I think there was also something about there was a limit as to the amount of a search charge that could be added if someone didn't pay. Right. And that was a big reason why I think we wanted to stay at 40.
>> Yeah. It's it's this it's this issue of you can't raise the you can't put on the search char the search charges under this structure are you know are kind of have follow the logical pattern $15 after 21 days $15 after it gets reported to the registar. If you go up to 50 you
have less room to go up after 21 days right. So there's less of an incentive for them to pay on time because it's like you know what's five bucks? Um as long as I get it in before the state gets it. I don't have to pay 70 bucks. >> So, we we sort of felt that that plus having the the need for some some room to grow um made sense to go to 40 except
for those two areas which we felt were particularly egregious. Um but yeah, very much agree. Um and the the legislation as the town administrator said is is pretty terribly written. So, we we got to definitely clean that up. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any further input
questions? Amanda? >> Um I would say if anyone is thinking of not going with Anony's suggestion of raising it to 50 across the way, adding double parking to the higher value, I would certainly get behind. Um, in all of the conversations
we had running, like from people who never bike to people who drive everywhere, everyone hates double parking because of the risk that it it brings to everyone. >> Michael, uh, before you sit down, Richard, um, I have a question. And I
know you did some detailed analysis about, you know, which of these fines were uh uh more common to be issued. And I'm just wondering where double parking fits in the sort of overall scheme. Is it a is that a highly issued ticket or
or not? >> It's in the top 10. Yep. >> It is in the top 10. >> Yeah. I would say it's if I had to guess from memory, it's about number six or seven. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so I I guess in answer to your question, Amanda, I'm I'm more
persuaded by the sort of the the issue of the gap between the 40 and the 50. So, I would I would be agreeable to raising the amount specifically for double parking, but I think that the work that they're
planning to do with the legislature and getting a home rule petition and us getting behind that and then and then sort of re re-evaluating this question. Um, at that point makes more sense. >> Anthony, >> I think I think I I could I make a
motion for a recommendation? Sure. Yeah. I think I I would make a motion to raise all rates to 45 and then double parking to 50. And I think I would make that motion as the select board's recommendation to the transportation board. >> And go ahead. >> So you actually So you you you actually
set the rates so you don't have to send it back to the transportation board. I don't want to. Oh, then that's that that's what I would that's what I would do. I I would set it at 45 across the board and then 50 for double parking. I think that leaves enough room to go up 10 bucks for when you're when you're late. Um trying to incentivize the payment. Um but then also it's not
leaving money on the table. Um >> of course, >> uh crosswalks at 50 or 45? >> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I apologize. Um the two that are at 50 stay at 50. Double parking goes up to 50 and then everything else goes to 45. I think that
uh gets more money into the revenue. I think it will incentiv uh disincentivize bad behavior and I think it catches all these fines up to inflation from where 2007 was or at least the best we can. >> So I make that motion. >> All right. Anyone else want to discuss
this motion? >> I just want to ask Chaz whether he what he thinks the impact of of just nudging us a little higher than Cambridge would be in terms of our ability to collect It's it's yeah I I think it it makes
sense. I think it's you know I think it's doable. I think it's worth doing. I also think um that you know the one the one other thing I'll say is right the the risk here if a fine is overturned is that there's going to be some sunk
costs. Right now when you vote this I'm going to email the chief of police and be like start printing those ticket books. Let's go. Uh we got to start we got to start issuing these fines. Um, and if we have to do it again, like that's just a cost. That's that's going to be a onetime sunk cost. That's that's
difficult. That's my that's my primary that's my secondary concern. My primary concern is that we then have confusion for that period of time where we where the fines are low. Um, but um, you know, >> I think theoretically you could I mean
is Joe, are you on? may not have been expected to be p pulled up. >> Sorry. >> Um, >> could we structure a motion such that the select board votes fees or fines, sorry, I'm confusing these words, fines at $45, um, but that if any of those are
found to be unreasonable, that they spring back to 40. >> Sure. And you know it's in the concept of a sever by the way Joe Callahan town council and uh uh you caught me before. So let me uh say to everybody uh
congratulations on uh to Amanda and Anthony for your um election and now service on the board and thank you Bernard as being chair and congratulations David to being chair. But um Chaz to to your point um you know
think of it as a severability clause. Um so you know we that's frequently included in bylaws or or statutes that if this is uh deemed uh by any court of you know a competent jurisdiction to be unlawful then you can fall back to the previously
um you know enacted uh levels of the uh fines. >> Okay. So we could structure it that way. >> Yeah. >> What do what do you mean unreasonable? >> So if a court were to say oh no 50 $45 >> court. Yeah. But why why would a court say that $45 is unreasonable since we
have authority to go to 50? >> I mean, that's where I'm that's where I feel like you are. You that's your strongest argument is that the legislature has said you can go up to 50. Um, but the argument that they would make in in in response is look at other communities. Look at where every look at where everyone else is. Look at Newton staying at 25. You know, are you really
disincentivizing the behavior any more than Newton is um by saying >> that's not a legal argument, is it? >> Yeah. It's, you know, ultimately it's about whether or not it's it's it's a rational and reasonable deterrent because remember the point of fines is not revenue. The point of fines is to
deter the behavior. Um, and so the question then becomes, is it disproportionate to the offense? >> Yeah, >> I I would I would say in support of Anony's argument though that given the inflation adjusted value of the fines in
2007 that that the argument that inflation adjusted the number actually hasn't gone up is >> right like the social pain is the same the social pain is the same but our fine structure is less than the social pain we just signed it in 2007
>> so I I also appreciate that inflation argument so I I think we can go ahead and vote on Anony's motion Bernard >> so wait can I can I can I can I offer one can I can I offer the the the severability sort of language you give me just a second so I make sure that we
got it we have Yeah, no worries. >> And then while Chaz is drafting, if I may. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Um to address Bernard's concern about a legal challenge. Um I think the best kind of legal challenge that someone could make, which I'm not worried about
at all, but it's um where Chaz is kind of tripping over fee and fine. Um so if this is a fine, we'd certainly be able to charge up to what we're uh authorized by statute. That's a pretty easy defense. Um, someone might argue though it's not a fine but it's a fee and then
we have to then u meet the Emerson College test about the money that we're bringing in is used only for the purposes of um, you know that tax collection or that you know fine uh, fee collection. U, but where the intent is to have this money go back into parking
enforcement. We would have a very strong case even if a court were to think of this fine as a fee uh, and meet the Emerson College test. So, >> got it. >> Can never stop anybody from suing, but I feel very strongly that this is a pretty, you know, strong defensible uh action.
>> Cool. >> Robert, I'm getting really jealous of that coke you have, man. >> Pardon me. >> Getting really jealous of that coke you have, man. >> Keeps me awake. >> Experience. I love it. >> It's my first lesson. All right, we have uh Chaz working on the wording of the
vote and then we will make it momentarily. >> Yep. Sorry. >> It's okay. We're good. And after we vote on this, we will then move to uh various Warren article discussions and we will hear from the uh
sponsors of the warrant articles as well as anyone who is offering amendment. All right, I got I got language. Hopefully Michael can Do you want you Why don't we move on to the building permit fees and then we'll
let >> Yeah, good call. Yeah. >> All right, good call. >> So, now we move into the world of fees as opposed to fines. Um, building permit fees. Um, >> the town of Brookline has not raised building permit fees in recent memory. Um, by record, Dan Bennett, our building
commissioner, is retiring this year after many, many years of service. He first came to the town in 1993. At that point, building permit fees were still $20 per $1,000 of construction value or fraction thereof. Um, similarly, certificates of occupancy were $50 per
dwelling unit. Um, since then, obviously, the regulatory environment has grown significantly more complex. Um, there's a lot more for building inspectors to do. there's a need for their services more. They are working longer hours. They're doing more complex things. They are positions that are
being re-evaluated in terms of how we pay them and whether we need additional resources and so forth. Um so there is a critical need for the fees to be commensurate with the costs. Um and so a slight increase in the building permit
fees is appropriate under the circumstances we feel. Now I think the obvious question is it's been since 1993. Yeah. >> Why on earth is it only $1? And the answer is because $1 adds up um per thousand of construction value. And
right now, no other community has breached that $20 cap. We would be the first community to go to $21. >> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. >> Yeah. No, it's okay. >> No, I just want to say that fee structure makes a lot more sense of dollar per 10,000 of construction because that's almost adjusting it for
inflation in of itself because construction costs are increasing over time. So that fee structure makes way more sense and kind of alleviates the inflation concern I had about the parking fine. >> Right. And in this case in particular, we will be we will be pioneers here. To be fair, we were pioneers last time.
Other communities crept up to Brookline's fee structure and are now there. Um they are now at $20 per thousand construction value. Can you give an example just so that I can wrap my head around what a normal construction fee would be like
for I I don't know whatever example you want to give. I just don't understand per thousand. Well, I mean, so take, you know, ordinarily, you know, the value of the constru like the value of a home renovation constru, you know, construction project, it might be a couple hundred dollars um for a minor
minor renovations and so forth. But when you think of big projects like the projects in Hancock Village, that was hundreds of thousands of dollars um of revenue to the town that then went into free cash um and became a major source
of uh um revenue for the for the um community because it exceeded the uh expected uh revenue coming in from building permits. So building permits because they scale like that um the bigger the project, the lumpier the source of income. It is a highly
volatile source of income for the town. If you look at the five-year average, it bounces. Um, so >> I just think it's interesting because I remember three years ago, we were talking about this huge influx of free cash and it was because of building permit fees. That's right. And at town meeting there was a presentation where we had a talk about, okay, we know free
cash is big right now, but it's because these building permit fees, they won't be there forever. >> Right. Right. >> Combination of building permit fees, ARPA, the federal money being in the bank and earning interest, you know, there are all sorts of things on that front. So yeah, I hope that answers your question. And the other aspect of this that the
building commissioner flagged is right certificates of occupancy. Again, the when someone asks for a certificate of occupancy, applies for a certificate of occupancy, there's a final inspection that needs to take place. That's significantly more complex than it used to be. Um, and it costs more of the inspector's time, more of the
inspector's effort. So, it makes sense to bring this into the modern era and say it's should be $100 a unit. Other questions? >> All right. So, do we have the language? >> This one. Yes. I have both I have both votes now. This is the easier. This is
the easier one. Okay. Do you want to do buildings first or we'll do building? >> Sure. >> All right. voted to increase fees for construction related permits listed in the town administrator's memo of May 8th, 2026 from $20 per $1,000 of construction
project value or fraction thereof to $21 per $1,000 of construction project value or fraction thereof. and to increase application fees for permanent and temporary certificates of occupancy from $50 per dwelling unit to $100 per dwelling unit. Such fee increases to
take effect no earlier than July 1, 2026. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. >> Okay. And now the complex springing one
for parking. uh voted to increase all fines for parking violations not currently set at $45 to $45 except for parking in a crosswalk or parking on a sidewalk which are to be increased to $50. And to increase all fines, parking
fines unpaid after 21 days that are not currently at $55 to $55. and to increase all fines reported to the registar uh that are not currently at $70 to $70. Michael, you have a question.
>> I have a question. Do we have any >> parking fines that are higher than those numbers? >> We do. >> That would be lowered because you used as of as opposed to not less than language for the $45 designation. >> I used increase though.
So there are for example parking in front of hydrant is $100, >> right? >> So increase fines for all parking violations. I could say and supposed to not currently add I could say below $45. So amend the motion below $45 to $45. Below $55 to 50
>> and one more. Do we include the double parking up to 50? >> Sorry. Thank you. uh adding as well add in double parking to $50 and further voted that in the event that any such fine for parking violations set at $45 as a result of this vote is held unreasonable by a court of compet
jurisdiction that said fine be lowered to $40. Uh such fine increases to take effect no earlier than July 1st 2026. >> All right. So do we have that language straight now for the vote? >> Uh question. Are there a lot of people parking on sidewalks?
That's not as common. >> I've seen that. >> Yeah. I mean, it's I mean, so it's it's it's it's up there, though. Um, you know, we had in 2024 there were 125. >> Wow. >> I I see it. >> Yeah, I see it a lot. >> You know, where you see it is out by Baker. Um, >> okay. Amanda, you had a question.
>> Oh, I was just going to say in delivery drivers in Brooklyn, >> unfortunately. >> All right, Bernard, your vote. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. and I also vote yes. >> Thank you very much. We'll be back with
a couple more fines and fees over the next couple weeks, but they're less complicated than this. So, we got we get the get the big ones out of the way. So, thank you. >> All right. And with that, we will now move to warrant articles. So, first up is article 8, the FY27 budget.
>> Uh Melissa Goff is online, I believe. >> Good evening. Um so, the last time the board uh took up Article 8, you did not have the advisory committee motion under this article. You do have that now and that is in your packet. A few things have changed since the last time you
took this up. Uh we have a final free cash number. So there are revised recommendations that are articulated in the AC report. I'm happy to go through those with the board if you want more particulars about that particular item. Um they also had not voted yet on the CIP, but we had a sense of where they
were going with that and some of the adjustments that they did make to the CIP allowed us to deal with the um reduced free cash estimate that we had. Um then you also should have in your packet uh a memo from me uh outlining some of the language changes that the
advisory committee made and some recommended um motions around those changes as well. Um and then you also uh under conditions of appropriation have two motions that have come in this week. One from Andrew Fish Fischer and a Marissa vote which should be in your
packet. Um another one today from uh Paul Warren, Mike Sandman, and Brian Kaine. Uh that should also be in your packet. Uh and then after we deal with the conditions of appropriation, um we do have uh an item that uh the board um would need to weigh in on. Uh, one of
the things that the advisory committee also did was to um reduce the town council budget by 31,000 and take that money and add it to the council on aging budget. So, that's kind of the brief overview. Um, and if you want to kind of, you know, ask questions or, you
know, go into this further, I'm happy to answer any other other questions you might have. So, one of >> um I should also I should just also mention that um uh one of the language changes um that they did take was to strike uh an appropriation that we had for um lighting at the golf course. You
should also have materials in there from advisory committee member Murphy and then also a memo from the recreation director uh as well and I believe that they are both here in this meeting as well. >> Thank you. I was just about to ask about the amendments for lighting at the golf
course. Thank you for bringing that up. All right. So, regarding the condition of appropriation, since we have uh some of the petitioners of those amendments here, perhaps we can invite them up to speak to them. So, uh
Marissa, are you going to be speaking as to the Fiser amendment? Fisher votes amendment. >> Hi everyone. I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 6. Um nice to see you all and there some
musical chairs that have happened here since the last time I was up here. Um uh so um Andy Fischer and I have filed a condition of appropriation on the rehabilitation of streets budget item that asks um uh what does it say? It
says um that any money spent on rehabilitation of streets should um if if the streets that are being worked on are part of what's called the um high priority network in the vision zero plan um which those streets are the I think
28% of streets in Brooklyn that are the identified as the highest priority because they have um I think it's like 100% of the um pedestrian crashes and and um it's there's there's text in there, but these are these are the streets that have been identified as the
highest priority for vision zero treatments um to uh save lives for um when there's a vehicle crash. And um so if any work is being done on those streets, then um that that work should
include the vision zero treatments unless approved by the transportation board. Um, so the the reason for um for saying this is because we want to make sure that um we want to make sure that these vision zero treatments are are
moving forward. Uh we want to make sure that if we're doing work on these high priority streets that we are um servicing all road users and every um uh mode of transportation in our community.
Um, we do not want to bind town staff's hands. We don't want to make it difficult for them to um to work on these streets, but we do want to make sure that there's a public meeting from the transportation board and a a public
process um where we're weighing the costs and benefits of doing those vision zero treatments that have been recommended. Um, and you know, maybe it doesn't make sense to install all of the protected bike lanes or safety humps or something, whatever it is. Um, but that
that decision would be made at a public meeting of the transportation board where we hear the the costbenefit analysis and then the transportation board could say, you know, it at this time it doesn't make sense to put in that that bike lane. We're going to wait a couple of years. Um, but the idea is
that there would have to be a decision not to do those things and that's the gist. >> Now, the $100,000 threshold, do we know what percentage of projects and repavings that would capture?
>> Um, I don't think the condition of appropriation um relates to the $100,000 threshold, but I I don't know. I >> think that might be the normal condition of appropriation. That's standard language that we have that anything over $100,000 requires
board approval. That's on every appropriation. Okay. >> Special appropriation. >> Shoot, Commissioner of Public Works. Uh that would cover nearly all of the capital projects >> and and I will >> $100,000. I will say, you know, I've
spoken to um Commissioner Chute about this and um and I know that there are some other folks who have another condition of appropriation and um to the extent that you know that uh Commissioner Shute feels that this is still too restrictive on on staff um
we're very willing to work with her um to to change the language. The goal here is really to um to give town meeting a way to say that we want this money to be spent um where feasible to further our vision zero goals, not just to only
repair the street without without taking advantage of the opportunity to make the road safer for both um pedestrians and cyclists. And um so, you know, we're we're very willing to have have a conversation to change this. Um,
but that's that's the the the draft text that we've filed. So, >> right. And I appreciate that. The reason I asked about the 100,000 though is it whether we're going to expect that almost every project has a public hearing at the transportation board. So, that's why it's helpful to know what
your typical costs are. Anthony, so if I'm I'm confused on the uh parameters because is it a $100,000 threshold threshold or is it if it apply if it's outlined in the rehability if it's outlined in the major artery
network of 28% of streets. So even if it's greater than $100,000, if it's not in that artery network, it would not apply to this condition of appropriation. Correct. >> Um sorry, I'm it's been a long day. There are a lot of negative double negative. >> I apologize. I apologize.
>> So, the condition of appropriation that Andy and I filed um is is does not have anything to do with the cost um of the project. It's it's just Yeah. >> Can I try to clarify? Um based on the way this is written, the bold underlined
text is the added part that they are doing, which is the condition. And the $100,000 is in their original text which says any project over $100,000 has to come before the select board for approval. >> I understand that part, but I'm wondering about the volume for transportation board. >> So the the volume has nothing to do with
the threshold. It has to do with the streets. Um so I get your question, but I I don't know that any of us can answer that because it has to do with which streets are on the high priority network on the vision zero plan. um and how many of those are assumed to be coming up for
repaving on a yearly basis. >> So I so I think that it says any work so theoretically we you talked about these patching contracts, right? You're are you are you then saying that even routine patching work needs to get
approved by the transportation board the public hearing? Um, if it were to be taking place on one of these high priority streets, um, then I I suppose that would I mean, yes,
according to the the text here, I I guess one one option would be for the transportation board to just give approval at the beginning of the year or or for someone to provide some some language about how to define those small patching jobs. Um, >> yeah, but I mean, yeah, you you see you
see the complexity there, right? It's it's you know, basically these streets become untouchable um without a hearing. Um and that's that's not workable from a So, we've got to think about how you how you differentiate that out. Um because I
and I can we can try and think about what that looks like, but yeah, I just I worry, you know, there's an emergency pothole somewhere. The transportation board meets on once a month, so we can't have a situation where the streets can't be touched absent a
So, >> Anthony, sorry. Go ahead. I >> I I was just going to say I'm I'm interested in hearing the other the other amendment described and sort of looking at the intent. >> Yeah. >> And I I was just going to say, Chaz, I I
I agree with that a lot. Um, and so like I'm I'm super amendable to the idea of if we're doing like a whole repaving of a street, then we should take in vision zero. uh when we're doing that process um not necessarily, you know, throw
everything at it and given the Washington Street treatment, but to do a little bit of something like that, I'm amendable to that, but I I take Chaz's point with the language of it being too restrictive to staff of even the smallest thing needing a transportation board approval. That does get me worried. So, I think there will have to
be some language change on that. >> Amanda, you had something else? >> I I liked Michael's idea of hearing them both in in tandem. Um, but I I would be curious to see I I'm envision there could be language change to separate out Chaz's point of like pothole filling
versus like full street work. >> All right. So, why don't we hear from uh Paul Warren? >> Paul Warren, town meeting member from Precinct One. First, I do uh want to congratulate Amanda and Anthony on their
election. uh welcome to the select board uh and Bernard for your service uh and your uh your your work and partnership over the years and David and Michael for your leadership roles. Um Amy's wondering where I where I am tonight. I
thought you were done. Um it's not true. Um I do want to I have some prepared remarks just to keep me on track. Um I I first uh do want to recognize that the petitioners that brought this forward uh the the amendment that you just heard um
uh the Andy and and Marissa you know their amendment does identify something that's really important and that's our vision our commitment to vision zero um and highlighting that we haven't yet really figured out how to integrate that
into our roadway um and how to co coordinate our street work with those with the investments in our streets with um with the vision zero program. Um by the way, this amendment is brought forward by the chair of the transportation board who's standing next
to me. Uh and also the former chair of the vision zero committee, Michael Sandman. Um so we're kind of partners um in crime on this. But I do want to uh acknowledge that I think we have a common goal in mind here and really what we're doing is coming forward to see if
there's a path forward that can accommodate the issue that they're raising but also come up with a solution uh that could be kind of proactive and and and systemic. Um, I do want to highlight that, uh, Brian, Michael, Sammon, and I two and a half years ago,
uh, met with Commissioner Chute, um, our, uh, transportation engineers, our consultants, and we spent a lot of time looking at complete streets and the the various set of policies that affect our roadways with the intention of figuring out how to rationalize our our
investments. And over the past 18 months, the select board and the transportation board has adopted four policies uh related to this and governing how our streets are planned, maintained uh and made safer. They include the traffic calming policy, the
roadway asset management, maintenance and preservation policy, otherwise known as the uh ARP, the no the the RAMP, the ramp is the acronym for that. Our complete streets policy and our vision zero action plan. Together, they represent a genuine commitment for safer
streets. But these four policies don't currently work together in a systemic way. Vision Zero calls for safety treatments on up to 28% of our streets. And this is defined, we've heard about, as the high priority network. The traffic calming policy prioritizes
streets using crash data and v uh and vulnerable road user exposure. Yet, the ramp and complete streets explicitly require that safety and calming investments be funded and designed on separate tracks from pavement rehabilitation. So, the traffic calming
policy even acknowledges this tension, noting that its own procedures do not apply when large complex uh complete street projects are involved. The result is a gap and there's no owner for that gap. Uh, a corridor can be repaved and
the safety investments vision zero calls for on the same street can be left behind and that's a problem. um not because anyone chose to ignore them, but because there's really no process in place uh to connect the two. And I think that's what the petitioners of the the other amendment are trying to do.
They're trying to do it through funing everything through uh through the transportation board. So, this amendment that uh that we're bringing forward, um the amendment doesn't slow down paving or restrict how this uh appropriation is spent. The 5.2 2 million still proceeds
in full uh under the authority of the commissioner of public works. But what it does add is one condition that the DPW and the transportation board form a working group. That would be the trigger. That's the condition to develop a prioritization and communication
process that integrates all four policies into a coherent framework. one that identifies priorities, aligns expectations, supports public engagement, and allows rehabilitation work to proceed in a timely and cost-effective manner. The benefits
pretty straightforward. Residents will know not just when their street will be repaved or redone, but what safety improvements are coming and how those decisions are being made. DPW and the transportation board will have a clear shared process for coordinating investments rather than managing each
policy in isolation. And Town Meeting will be better positioned to fund those programs with confidence. And Brooklyn has the ability to build to take these strong policies that we've already developed and integrate them into uh a process and a solution that's much more
transparent uh to the community and also making our roadways safe without slowing down and stopping uh this important work that is to maintain our roadways. And as I think someone said earlier, maybe it was Michael at the beginning of the meeting, Michael Sammon said, you know, it's dangerous to drive down our roads
when there's a pothole and a crack that's not filled and you know, these things that get in our way. It would be nice if it was a protected bike lane, but even having a smooth surface would be a great uh a great improvement. So, that's the amendment that we're asking for your consideration. and it's more processoriented
still uh creates a trigger for the appropriation and we'll put the work in place to make sure that for the next CIP we'll have those procedures in place. >> Did you want to say something M? >> Uh if I might. Uh thank you. Uh Brian Kaine, chair of the transportation board. Um the reason I am a co-itioner
on this amendment and let me just echo everything Paul said. Um we we agree uh I I Marissa and I spoke before we all want to get to the same place which is safer streets in Brooklyn. That's the goal. It's really a question of how do we get there. The reason why I am not in
support of the original amendment and supporting the revised amendment or what we're calling this um the administrative burden that would be put on my board is is simply almost unworkable. Um we do not have the staff support that the
select board has. We meet monthly. Um, and getting my folks to meet monthly is not always easy with with folks schedules. I'm not telling you folks anything you don't know. But the administrative burden that would be placed on my board to try and oversee and approve and have a public meeting on
every single expenditure over $100,000, which we've just heard is almost every single project. I is simply too much with the current resources and the current structures that we have right now. We I want to get to the same place that the original petitioners want us to get to. We share that same vision, safer
roads. We are going through a prioritization process. When I heard the work that you folks were doing with your 2030 roadmap, it sounds very similar to the work that we're doing in the transportation board, trying to merge and meld all these things together and find a path forward that is proactive and very clear to everyone who's looking
in as to why we're doing what we're doing. We all want to get to the same place. I'm just asking you to please not place this this immense administrative burden on on the transportation board. It really will harm our ability to get things done. Thank you.
>> Any questions, input from other members? Amanda, >> question. So, I I do really appreciate the process argument. I think it would be great to have a cohesive process. Um, and I'm glad that you're putting that in as something to do. My worry is that if
um if the version that Marissa and Andy didn't put forward doesn't pass, there's nothing that influences the road work that's happening in the next year. And there's nothing time bound that says when this process will finish, when that
will influence the next decisions on CIP funding for roads. Um so I think I I do not know how to wordsmith this. I would love to have a situation where we could do process and address the more immediate need of what's happening. Even
if it's having DPW come before the T-board and say these are the next six streets that are coming up and also by the way two of those are on the high action or high priority network in vision zero um to do something in the short term as well as the long-term
process stuff. >> So if I might Mr. Chairman um I agree 100%. Uh there we will be done with our prioritization work this summer. Uh we've begun the we we've started this in January. We are 100% in agreement that
this has to happen fast. There are and there have been some projects that have fallen between the two processes. We all know what I'm talking about. Harvard Street. Uh and that's unfortunate and I I take responsibility for that. Put that on me. Um we I don't want that to happen again. I don't think any of us want that
to happen again. what we will have what what will come out of this prioritization process based on the scoring in the rubric that has been created by the way which I want to come and explain to you folks and have a whole presentation about uh will absolutely seemingly put most of the
high priority streets that are on the vision zero network which by the way we we all spearheaded here and I think we all agree with those will be the priorities that will I believe will come out of our prioritization scoring process which means we will be coming to you folks and to town meeting starting
in September for the first time the transportation board will weigh in on DPWC requests through this process by the way and I imagine that a lot of what we will be asking for we don't know but I imagine will be those high priority corridors I agree with you and as I said I think we all want to get to the same
place it's really just a question of how do we get there >> and Amanda I would add one thing thanks Brian that again you know this this work is been uncovered that it's going right it's already it's already started but I I take your comment um seriously that
you know the way this was originally written it was saying that it needed to be done before the CIP was submitted for the next year. Um and then I got feedback from the moderator that it had to be a gate. Um and so I've rephrased it as a gate which was you had to have a you know appoint a committee before the
money could be released. So it, you know, if if the transportation board and the commissioner DPW create this working group to work to actually document and do the work that they're already doing, but I think it's going to be more formalized and visible in the CIP um as a condition of appropriation. You could
actually amend this tonight uh to actually time bound it and say the work's got to be completed by before the submission of the next uh CIP that includes road work that you could then time bound it that way. Michael.
>> Um I'm wondering uh if the commissioner can speak to Amanda's question about like what are the roadways that are upcoming uh just in terms of uh management,
maintenance and preservation. I believe that there is a there is a listing or a spreadsheet um that at one point enumerated the set of streets that were being uh uh worked on in various years.
Um and I'm wondering whether that list is being maintained and has been updated and is available for review and incorporation into this process. Thank you very much. Uh great question.
Erin Chude, Commissioner of Public Works. And uh just by way of a little bit of background, it was probably four years ago where the select board um really put maintenance of the town's
roads at the top of their priority list and directed public works to to develop a strategy to um maintain these assets. And so um you heard about uh this working group with uh select board
members, chair of the transportation board to try to figure out how do we maintain our roads and yet also at the s same time push forward and prioritize all of our complete streets uh work. So we have in terms of our roadway um
maintenance and management plan uh and that's supported by this roadway asset preservation maintenance and management policy. Uh a conditions assessment that is uh done on the roads uh we've been doing it about every 3 years. We just
completed it and it uses artificial intelligence. It actually takes um images of our entire roadway network and applies a um value condition value 0 to 100 on every block segment. Uh that's
all been mapped and we're presenting all of that at the transportation board uh tomorrow evening. So I welcome you to attend. We also presented this information to the advisory committee uh during our budgeting process this year. We presented it last year to the select
board. There have been some um modifications and and updates uh with the new data that we have, but we've really every year we've been um presenting that through the budget process to show what that 5-year plan looks like and what the conditions analysis look looks like. And we have a
dashboard on our um web page where you can actually see the map um with those segments. Uh what we're looking to do is to annually present this full um asset management plan for maintenance to the
transportation board and then move into our prioritization um process for the transportation CIP projects. Um so we'll look at traffic calming pl projects, we'll look at vision zero, we'll look at our complete streets. We have a whole slew of of
really important transformative projects that are underway now. And then we want to have sort of design and construction moving forward each year within the 5-year CIP so that everyone can see what's coming up. We also have developed guidelines for community engagement. So
all of this needs to come together. It is uh going to be a new way for the transportation board and transportation staff to approach and communicate all of these projects proactively. Um I want to
thank Marissa who reached out to me uh with the amendment and wanted to talk about how do we do this? You know DPDW understands uh the goals behind this amendment. Vision zero complete streets our bike safety accommodations all of
that. They're not only town goals, but um many of this DPW led the way uh and partnered with um the community in terms of writing, managing, and leading these policies. So, we're very much on board. I think it's really not an issue of
where we're trying to go. It's we agree on the destination. The issue is how we realistically get there. And um historically the town has been in a place where it really has um been very difficult to move forward. Um rehabilitation and maintenance in terms
of asset management is different and distinct from um infrastructure changes or changes operationally around how we share the road. And that's why we're putting this um sort of clarity forward in terms of community engagement because
while it all seems um very straightforward um Washington Street for example which is a major um major construction initiative with a lot of changes in curve line but that community engagement process and the need to really work
through all the issues added two years um to um when we're going to put a shovel in the ground on that project. And so we just want to make sure we're not losing the overall condition of the assets um because we need to maintain
this in a state of good repair. And that is equally important for safety, for liability, and for um the town's uh financial solveny. Because if we let the roads degrade to a po point where they
are all full reconstructions, it will be incredibly ownorous for this town and we really won't even then be in a position to move forward with u multimmoal projects. We're just going to be hanging on uh to keep our roads. So I think it's I think it's really important that we
have this process but I don't think we really I don't think we should conflate uh basic maintenance and operations and asset management with our bigger picture vision zero complete streets multimodal
and I think another sort of just little point because we had the the question around the crack sealing you know crack sealing our roads is helping prevent vent um water infiltration. So as you see seams opening, they can be large, they can be small. So it's preserving
the longevity. The patching does the same. The potholes and filling the potholes does the same. And when we have those contracts, it's like a pruning contract for trees. We don't know exactly how many tree, you know, which trees we'll be pruning through the course of the year, but we know on
average the volume of trees that we're going to need to prune and the capacity that we have both in terms of funding and staff to do that. So, it's it's similar uh in terms of um preventative maintenance and best practices.
>> Michael, >> um first of all, thank you very much. Um and this is this is obviously uh a lot of thought has been put into how to improve our processes and also how to communicate them. Um, I think that one
of the challenges that was uncovered in the Harvard street process was the fact that the timing of the of the maintenance work um, relative to the community's understanding of that timing
and their their ability to identify I mean, as you say, not necessarily large changes, but I know that there are some uh, small safety improvements ments um that are that are incorporated into that project. Um that there was a ch
that there was a challenge within the community of understanding that timing and understanding the capacity to impact um to make changes along the lines of of to meet our vision zero goals. And so
the thing that I'm trying to establish is that moving forward, you know, Harvard Street has been contracted and it's design has been voted on by the T-board and is set. I'm just trying to establish that moving forward that the
projects for 27, the projects for 28 have also been established and are accessible by the public. So that to the extent that whether it's you know curb extensions or ballards or um other other
uh improvements to the existing infrastructure that those can be well understood within the context of the RAMP and I I just want to make sure that that's gets communicated to the public um so that people can understand that
and weigh in appropriately through the transportation board process. processes um that are already in place and are being developed in the course of this prioritization. >> Yep. Absolutely. So that will um they'll be presented. I think that they're clear
in terms of it's in a list format with the streets and a year. There's a little caveat in terms of outy years um are subject to change. Uh you know, so we're going to revisit this every year. there's development work, utilities
work, um you know, other things may come up that that cause a shift in uh the roads that will um you know, be moving forward as part of the maintenance. And uh as you mentioned, there are we
think a lot of safety improvements that are happening as part of the Harvard street uh rehabilitation project that don't change the way people share the road um but puts more protections in
place um in terms of you know the better striping and ballers and daylighting intersections and rapid flashing beacons and um improvements in terms of uh bus stops and greater visibility overall.
So, we see those as opportunities with these maintenance projects that are pretty easy for us to to apply and move forward. Um when we get into projects that require community process,
then we're going to have to build in time. um we're gonna have to build in time and those projects and initiatives. We also want to build in a supplemental funding source to be able to uh fund
those other um improvements uh that we're looking to build. So that's something that that's why we're working to develop this CIP um together with the T board. So not only is it transparent, but we're understanding the time it's going to take and the dollars it's going to take
to implement Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments from board members? >> All right. >> Let me just make a quick one. I don't think I will finish having this conversation now. So I just want to to
plant the idea and you not apart from the budget amendments but I want to plant the idea that um we should be thinking creatively of when we spend money how we can utilize some of these smaller scale changes so that not every improvement goes to sort of the Washington street
>> way of two-hour process two two-year process and so I think even if we end up supporting um Paul Warren's amendment um that should be looking at how to speed this up and make it a much more transparent process. Um, so that we can
actually move forward on these things and not get into this separate pools of money discussion because we think everything has to be huge and really expensive to make safety improvements. >> Agree. >> Can I just um add one more uh thing? You know, the proposals that are in front of
you tonight for the budget, I would like you to take a position on. I know that there's talk about potential language changes for these particular um items, but that we are running out of time in terms of the deadline in order to file an amendment to the budget. So, um I would want to be able to transmit
something to the advisory committee so that when they take this up, they understand how the board feels about it. >> All right. So, given that constraint, I'll take that recommendation. I think that uh both amendments are are very well-intentioned to have the same goal
in mind, just different paths on how to get there. I found uh Brian Kaine's remarks as transportation share quite compelling that this would be a tremendous administrative burden on his board to have essentially everything
road related funneled through the transportation board. Uh by no means is that an indictment on this vote, Mr. Fischer who again have the same goal in mind as Paul Warren, Brian Kaine, and Mike Sandman who used to chair the vision zero uh committee. So obviously
this is uh a shared goal by all. So I would like us to support the amendment brought to us by Paul Warren, Brian Kaine, and Mike Sandman. Uh and certainly I agree with you Amanda that we want to make sure that this isn't
just talk but that there's action that goes along with it and the way it's structured there is that uh trigger as a condition of appropriation that at a minimum this working group is created and gets started on on work they've
already done informally to an extent but this would formalize that process and I think that's a good approach to take there is also nothing that would preclude further conversation s between the uh petitioners of the uh Fiser vote
amendment and the Warren Kaine Sandman amendment from perhaps further refinement as we approach town meeting. Uh as even our two uh new members well know even on the day of town meeting sometimes we have additional votes and
changes if those uh become necessary. So, I would like to move the uh favorable action on the Warren Kaine Sandman amendment. >> Before we do, I I'm so sorry. Just a quick I have like a legal question. Is it possible for us to put a timeline on
how long that that committee can stand for before because I'm I'm afraid of just creating a process that just drags everything out way too long with too many more meetings. And so, I'm wondering if the select board can say we we approve of this, but we want to say like you get four meetings. I don't know if that's >> I think we would do that by by
amending the amendment to include >> okay >> some language. >> I I also think too there you you want to be careful about setting a setting that end date or at a number of meetings in particular. Okay. Um, and that's I I think that's something that
you as a board can do via executive action that I think is that actually winds up being both more flexible in the long run, but also then like you can ask us for example like hey it's been three months what is the progress >> as long as we have that tool. >> Yes. >> You were like you're the executive you
run the show. So >> I still would love to have a with the goal to have the process done by the next CIP planning process. I I don't know how you word smith that but like instead of a time bound it's a milestone bound >> um constraint
>> so it looks like Paul might have some suggested language >> the as I think I had mentioned ear thank you Amanda um that I had uh had original language which said that this would be done um uh in time for the submission of
the 20 what would be the next year the 2027 >> 28 >> the annual 27 27 um >> 28 28 >> 28 Well, but it would be for the annual town meeting in 27. >> Oh, yes. Sorry. The annual meeting. >> So, so you could you could just tweak the language. There's probably a a
couple of commas in here that would um would so it says form a working group which will develop and prioritize and communicate process that integrates the um the public enhance the public way and then at at the end of the sentence instead of having a period have a comma
that says uh and is completed uh prior to the submission of the CIP for >> FY28. >> FY FY28. >> All right, that sounds good for me. I like that. All right. I would say I would say adoption of the CIP that gives you the time up until town. >> So Chaz, it's just at the at the end of
the under you you know it development. >> Wait, but if if it's the adoption of the CIP, then they're not having a say into the makeup of the CIP because the process is >> it should be the sub I would I would suggest Chaz that >> so submission the reason why submission is not submission when submission at
because remember the CIP work begins in the fall, >> right? >> Um >> that that's what I was going for. So, so one one quick thought I I would the way I originally had it was that it was completed by the time of the annual 2027 town meeting. So, if it's done,
>> why don't you have it completed by the if you want it sooner, why don't you have it completed by the submission of the fin of the 2028 financial plan, which is in February. >> So, if I could just add, you're our appointing authority. We're going to do this. We're going to do it quickly. So
feel free to put in the language, but just know you have my absolute commitment that we will get this done by the by the fall. >> So I like Amanda's approach of having the explicit language in there, not because we don't trust you, but for >> for uh public purposes so that people
have an understanding of what the timeline will be for that reason. >> So it looks like Michael's typing up the precise language >> plan for uh by the town administrator, right?
>> Y >> for fiscal year 2028. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So the the proposal uh is to amend
um after the words uh governing the maintenance enhancement of the public way which previously ended with a period to add the phrase to be completed before the submission of the financial plan by the town administrator
spelled correctly for fiscal year 28. >> All right. So moved. Any further discussion? All right. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. >> Will the petitioners of that amendment
take that language and resubmit it to the take accept it as a friendly amendment and resubmit to the moderator? >> So, um, I can submit that. This is now the board's motion. So, I can submit that to the moderator. Um if the if the petitioners are okay with that then they can just support the select board's
motion under this particular um item. >> We've got it language. >> Thanks to everyone on this. Thank you to Andrew and Marissa and to the team over there and the group. Very helpful. >> All right. So next up related to article
8, the uh $31,000 reduction. >> Chair, can we take a break? Sure. We're going to be here into the next day right now. >> All right. Why don't we take a >> five minutes? >> Five minute break is fine. All right. >> You want to be real
Heat. Hey, Heat. As uh Bernard Green used to say, welcome back to our vast television audience. And we will now take up >> 19 people. >> Uh again, Warren Article 8 FY27 budget.
We will go with the amendment for lighting at the golf course. Who will present that? So I the petitioner of that amendment is currently at the advisory committee but Tim Davis is here from Wreck if you have questions about the process from Wreck as is Justin
Lawson who's the head of the golf program. >> I mean ideally I'd like to hear from the proponent of the amendment or someone who has uh her position. >> Yeah. >> Did you did did we receive an email from her? >> You did. It's in your packet. your packet there's a in your packet there's
a memo from Jocelyn to the board that uh describes the um rationale behind the decision to uh not move the item. >> We do have a memo. So that's fine if others are satisfied with that as the basis of our explanation of her
amendment. Uh so does Tim Davis want to speak? >> Good evening everybody again. Uh Tim Davis, recreation director for the town of Brooklyn. I am joined tonight by Justin Lawson, general manager over at the golf course to help answer any questions that you'll have tonight after
our conversation. Um, and again, caught me off guard earlier just like everybody else. So, I echo everybody's compliments tonight. Um, thank you Bernard for your guidance and participation over the years with the rec department and Mr. Brono, Dr. Zimmerman, we look forward to working with you and welcoming you into
the recreation department. Dr. Zimmerman being a frequent flyer already, so glad to see you again. Um so as mentioned in my memo in response to the advisory amendment um and the purpose of my note to to shed light on arate um which is the requested
transfer and allocation of funds from the golf course retained earnings for future future capital planning in this case being the potential for lighting the golf course driving range to expand that recreational opportunity in town. But um even just as important um ensures
further financial stability of the course. Um it as mentioned late last month uh the advisory board voted to strike the warrant article and took a vote of no action on the transfer. Uh that was due to concerns expressed about
the project and perceived inaction of the department to address the initial concerns that the the community had. Um and also the want to have a more robust public process. Um this project from the beginning has been and continues to be a
planned uh public process. Our first meeting was um notified our our first meeting included notification to abutters uh notification to neighbors um and included significant public comment um and our future meetings will do the same um until we seek final support from
the park and rec commission on this project to move forward. Um really the concerns that were brought up and shared by the committee uh and also residents in the neighborhood regarding the impacts um of this project such as dark skies compliance and environmental impacts were valid um and heard and the
department's been working Justin and I um and our whole department really have been working on these concerns since they were shared to us uh in December. Um and we recognize that we're now in May. Um, and the explanation for that, as was explained at advisory, simply comes down to the fact that the actual
lighting plan from the vendor we have is not to our satisfaction. Um, and not to a level where we know the town would find it favorable. Um, the delay has been unexpected and we're doing all we can to work through that process. um because at the last thing we want to do
is is bring back something to the town that's that's incomplete or or causing more more uh questions than than answers. Um this project also, as a reminder, is is funded out of the golf course enterprise retained earnings, so no impact to the town's operating fund.
um seeking the funding now um prior to the final approvals of the project um as is customary with most capital items um just um allows us the timeline to procure what what is needed. Um so if those funds are released this this town meeting u making them available for us
to move forward on the project. um if this project is found unfavorable um that money would simply go back into retained earnings of the golf course um and be spent on further future operations or or future future capital. Um so really we're the the concerns
brought forward around that public process and around the response of of what we're working on um are are really all being met and and being planned. Um, so you know, we just wanted to to offer our our side of it. Um, as I know you need to take a position, as Melissa
mentioned, getting close to town meeting. Um, we're trying our best to be good stewards of of the ground, good stewards of the property, good stewards of the neighborhood, um, while expanding these opportunities in town. Um, and I will, uh, and I'll toss it to Justin if you want to make any comments, Justin,
related to that. But again, here to answer any questions um, on on this piece. Yeah, Tim, thank you very much. Uh folks, uh Justin Lawson, uh general manager at the Brooklyn Golf Course. Um as Tim alluded to, and I'll keep it my
comments brief and short, um you know, we've been uh learning and responding to a lot of the feedback that we've uh received during our public process. and uh we just haven't uh found the solution yet to come back to the park and recreation commission and continue that
public process uh with uh the modifications and that sort of stuff that we felt would be uh warranted to present. So um thanks for the opportunity to be with you all and and uh appreciate what you do. >> I would add one one more thing which is it's not uncommon for projects to be in
this position when they go in the CIP, right? It's not uncommon for us to be in a situation where we say we think we're going to be ready for this at some point in the fiscal year, but we acknowledge that there is a process that needs to be followed before we actually do it. Um, and so it's not as though putting this
on the CIP is writing a blank check to the recreation department to build this. It still requires approval of the parks and recck commission. It still ultimately requires you all to approve the contract. it requires all of that process to go forward before anything happens there. So, the idea that it's
it's it's not common for a project because there's a concern about a process that's that is in the process of being followed but hasn't been followed yet. It's not common for it to be yanked from the CIP.
That's not generally what happens. >> Michael, you had a question or comment. Yeah, I do I just wanted to clarify sort of to Chaz's point. There's something in in this um appropriation. It's like a $300,000
amount that says it's if it's for any contracts more than $100,000, it will come before the select board. And I just wanted to confirm that there will be uh what there will be a contract that's over $100,000.
Uh >> in terms of in terms of fulfilling this this project. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So it will definitely come back to the select board. >> Yes. >> So I appreciate that it'll come back to the select board and the acknowledgment
that the issues raised in the uh Murphy amendment are are valid that still need further vetting and analysis. My concern relates more to the timing with the return of a dark skies related bylaw
because as uh you may recall there uh was a referral to a moderator's committee to address dark skies that will probably be coming back to us at the November town meeting and that may
or may not have an impact on the proposal regarding uh extended hours at the driving range and I would like to make sure that those are in harmony. I I think that procedurally that's a distinction from
uh what you were saying about that we don't necessarily pull something from the CIP just because all of the study hasn't been completed. Here we have a reasonable certainty that something that will have a likely will have an impact
in some manner on a proposal is coming back before us in November. So why wouldn't we time both of these votes for November to make sure that they're in concert with one another? >> I would I mean I'll let the project team answer some of that, but I think a part
of this is right dark sky regulations there. We have you know draft municipal ordinances out there that we are following that we're capable of of providing. um when you start the process, when you start the the development of the design and so forth,
you can say to a developer to the designer that you want it to be compliant with the town's future Dark Skies principles and all of those things, but if you wait until November to even know whether or not you're going to go forward with it, you can't do any of the other things that you would be
ordinarily be doing to bring the project forward. um other aspects of the design for example um the environmental impact and so forth that needs to be done. So I think you know putting you know basically saying we can't do anything
until we get a dark skies bylaw through is unnecessarily limiting to what they could be doing while they're waiting for the dark skies bylaw to come forward. But would we want to expend resources on something that may not be able to be realized ultimately?
>> Well, if that happens, then it falls back to free cash, right? And the work that can be done in those circumstances is still valuable work. It's valuable information for the golf course. It's helpful to them in terms of their operations and it doesn't have a negative financial impact on the town,
right? Because it's the use of the golf course's retained earnings. Um, so Tim has a comment on timing as well. Well, that and just no, that's okay. And to the to the dark skies piece of it, we're design the design of this project and the from the beginning has been dark
skies compliant. We're aware of the draft in mind. The vendors that we're utilizing for this are aware of the draft and have extensive experience when it comes to dark skies. So, we we hear that concern and and that has been kind of at the forefront of everything we're doing when it comes to the design of the
project. Just to to point that piece out. >> Yeah. and dark dark skies doesn't mean you can't have light. It's just as guidelines in terms of how to reduce the amount of light that sort of seeps out into other areas. And I I guess the
answer it was just given by Tim that you know they're designing it to meet those guidelines. >> All right. So >> I assume those guidelines are are what is going to be in our bylaw. >> So as Bernard Okay, sorry. Go ahead, Anthony. >> No, it's fine. I I just have some money related questions. Uh, so the project,
how much is it? $300,000, Tim. Is it's in that range, right? >> It's in that range. >> And that's coming from our capital improvement plan budget. >> So, no, it's coming from golf. >> Go ahead, Melissa. Sorry. >> It's coming from the golf enterprise fund. So, they're they're using their
retained earnings to fund the project, but it will be transferred out of the golf budget to a special appropriation. >> I understand. So, this isn't touching town money. >> No. >> Okay. That changes my calculus. Okay. Noted. Thanks. >> I was just going to ask a logistics
question. The only reason in my head that you would not move this article is if there was a chance that lighting would not occur. Um and it seems like the whoever is making I don't know who's making the decision. I guess that's the
question as to whether lighting is possible because if um if lighting is going to happen and they are going to try to do it in a dark skies compliant manner already then I don't understand the weight on releasing money. Yeah.
>> Um but is is the thought that like the select board could just say like no lights on the golf course. >> I don't I I think it's more right. It's it's a question of where are the where are the checks on the process, right? I think that's really what it is. It's not it's less, you know, do you think
there's a risk and more, you know, who who controls when a project gets to start. Um, and you know, I I I understand the concern here because there is this uncertainty about, you know, dark skies, but I think I would hope that, you know, the assurance of
wreck and the fact that there are checks on this, right? If it if the if it doesn't check out, right, if we come back to you and we're like, we know we said we'd be dark skies compliant, but just kidding. Here's here are flood lights. um that wouldn't fly, right? Parks and Recck wouldn't approve it and
you wouldn't approve it. Um so I think that's the kind of comfort in terms of the control over the appropriation that we're talking about. And I think that's really what I I don't want to speak for the petitioner, but I feel like that's what kind of motivates this concern is once you once you put it in the CIP, do
you lose all control over it? And is it possible that they're going to pull a fast one and install flood lights on the golf course and we won't have any opportunity to say anything about it? And I think in I would hope that in this conversation the answer to that is no. You know, we are making a firm commitment that we're not going to do
that. >> Michael, uh, in fairness, you know, and I spoke with the pet the petitioner today and yesterday on this and other matters. Um, in fairness, I think I
think there's there's larger concern about things other than just the lighting and things that the lighting would engender in terms of more activity at the golf course at later hours in a residential neighborhood, etc., etc. Sure. >> Um, but I but
>> to to the point you made, Amanda, I don't I don't I think that we still have the controls in place. Um and so um we don't need to use this as the blocking gate for consideration of those and the
other issues. >> And I will also say that those conversations have been had though, right? Those have been had at the parks and wreck level. Um and those have been had as part of the presentation of the wreck budget. When REC presents its budget, it's presented to the select board. It's been it's been talked about now for two years. This idea of we put
lights on the course, it's a on the driving range. It is a major benefit. It's a major boon. We understand that there are drawbacks. There are potential things that need to be considered. We need to take the neighbors into consideration and make sure that we're not shining lights in their houses and all of those things that are critically
important to being, you know, a good neighbor in that neighborhood. Um, and we have to deal with the impact on, you know, bird migration, all of that stuff, which is what the dark skies compliance is. Um, but those are discussions that have happened. Um, and I don't I do think that the will currently, at least
on the at the parks and recck level and at the in prior iterations of the select board, has been we should go forward with this. Now, if that changes, that changes. That's okay. Um, but I I don't think we're in a position now where there's disagreement over does the
project should the project go forward. I think the parks and recck commission, and Tim, you can correct me if I'm wrong. Um the parks and recreation the parks and recck commission has heard the concerns expressed that they are valid concerns but still feels comfortable moving along with the project at this
stage with the idea that those concerns will be addressed. So the uh petitioner's amendment in her memo she states that the parks and recreation never explicitly voted on lighting at the golf course at any point as part of
the master plan. Is that inaccurate? >> That's not inaccurate. No, that's that's not inaccurate. Um this this project is in response to to demand and again looking for other avenues on the golf course to be financially stable. Um as
our um as the needs and the the the course and the site itself has progressed. Um where we are with the the park and rec commission, they've had an initial uh review of the project. They've had the initial public hearing of the project. um they've you know sent their concerns to us as well as as well
as the neighborhood. Um so we are they haven't given their official stamp of approval to move forward. Um but that will be you know hopefully the next public meeting that we have to address their concerns as well as everybody else to to get the project going. >> So I just think we're putting the proverbial cart before the horse if park
and wreck hasn't even appedined on something that is in their jurisdiction essentially. Why would we move ahead of them? Isn't this in the mini CIP though? >> Did they vote to support this as part of the overall review of the CIP programs?
O >> overall review of the CIP. Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. So this was included in the CIP for this year. Um last >> we we call it the mini CIP. Parks and Rec does an evaluation of all the projects under its purview that included this. Um and
>> right so this was part of the parks and wreck mini CIP moving forward. Could you >> They also hold a public hearing on all their CIP requests. This is the same process that Erin is trying to replicate with the transportation board, but it's been in place for park and wreck for decades.
>> Could you detail the uh opportunity cost of not being able to proceed right away and taking steps toward having uh nighttime lighting? >> Justin, go ahead. >> Go ahead.
I just want to touch on why there's kind of urgency with the vote now. Um it has to do with construction timeline. Uh if we have to wait till November town meeting for funds to be appropriated, then we can go out to bid after the
funds are appropriated. If there's no funding, we really can't go out to bid uh until it takes place. And then in terms of snowfall and that sort of stuff, the construction window then would go into the golf season to put lights up. And looking at based on what
we're hearing from the manufacturer, it's about a month worth of work to do lights. And that would be uh financially uh very detrimental to our current daytime operations to do this project. So, it's ideally, you know, slated to do a October to
November when we're, you know, the least busiest uh during the the the current golf season the way the calendar year works out. So, um that's kind of also, you know, a big reason why um we would like to have the vote and then let park
and recck make their decision ultimately. Anthony. >> Um, do we have a do you have an expectation on revenue generation uh yearly after this investment? >> Yeah. So, conservatively, we looked at it very conservatively. Um, and right
now we calculated about $157,000 annually um in in additional revenue that would be realized. >> Is that is that uh is that is that net after cost of operation during the hours? >> No, that would be gross. the the the
cost of the operation would be, you know, very minimal manpower. Uh we can operate at the range with one or two staff persons. Uh and then the cost of, you know, the energy cost would be not very expensive because they're all LED lights. So, it's not a it's not a huge
uh energy b. >> Okay. But you couldn't give me a number on what it takes to to get me to a net estimate. >> I I don't have that information. We haven't gone that granular because we're still finalizing how many actual lights and uh the final design of the lighting
package. >> I gotcha. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to make sense of I I I understand like the the golf course wants to expand its revenue generation in order to protect its services and I totally get that. Um, I'm just trying to see if this is the right path given the community
feedback is fairly not it's not positive. And so I'm trying to just see if this is a a good way to invest the capital you have from my that's the that's the calculation I'm trying to make in my mind right now. But thank you. >> And I see Anony's point, but but I add
to that just the procedural order we're going in. It sounds like the reason you want this vote now is so you can begin construction to make the lighting happen. And we don't even have direction from uh park and recreation yet that they even want to go in this direction
specific to lights. There was sort of a broader uh increase revenue, but not necessarily the how to do it. And if the very next meeting it sounds like or very soon Park and Wreck is going to take this up, I would prefer that we wait for
their specific recommendation on this. And I appreciate what you're saying that you don't want a lot of delay and maybe park and wreck can get to it before town meeting even. Uh looks like you have something to say. >> No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, that that's basically it. >> Yeah,
>> the sequencing. >> Yeah, I think the sequencing is is problem. you don't have another meeting before the deadline closes on budget amendments, right? So, you won't have the opportunity to take, you know, you we would ideally like you to take a
position on this beforehand. Um, and I think the the the last to to your point, right, the the opportunity cost of or the the potential cost of saying yes here, I think is amilarated by the fact
that, okay, suppose we do this, parks and wreck meets, you know, after town meeting or whenever they're next scheduled to meet and they say, you know what, we we've we've changed our mind. We know this was in the mini CIP, but we don't see a way of clear on this. So, we're going to say no, no, we're not going to do this. At
which point, okay, the money is not impacting other town projects because it's coming out of a different source of funds. It will it will stay in the CIP um or where it can be reappropriated um for other purposes. Um and the project just won't move forward. Um there won't
be a cost um to doing nothing on this other than, you know, the time invested to date in moving forward on it. But to the point of the rec team, if they don't have the ability to move forward once they get a green light on it until
November, that's pretty significant and that's why we're in the position that we're in. Um, so I'm sorry. >> I I just had a logistics question. Um, this is not AC puts forward the main budget.
>> Yes. And if they do not have this article of appropriation, it would have to come for from the select port in order for town meeting to vote on it >> or some or another member of town meeting. Yes. >> We would be amending the budget. Yes. >> We would be amending the budget which is why we have the same deadline. Yes. That
we would need to do. >> Correct. >> Okay. And um one other clarification of what you said, it's coming out of the golf revolving fund and if we approve like if town meeting approves it and the
recreation department or us in one of these checks is like nope this can't go forward that money goes back and can be spent on non-gul related expenses. >> I don't >> we essentially close the account out in November. we would basically ask town meeting to revert the funds back to the
golf enterprise fund >> because it can't be used for non-golf purposes. >> I'll just finish with here. I I don't think I'm comfortable voting on it without seeing a net revenue calculation on the money generated because I'm not convinced that it's a good investment. So that that's kind of my position.
I'm very comfortable voting on it. >> I'm very comfortable voting on it as well. >> Yes, this this is and we can't uh nickel and dime, you know, them. I mean the the the costs are according to uh Justin relatively minor. Whether that's >> you know
>> 25% less or 10% less. I mean it's still a good a good deal for for the golf course. >> Do we know when specifically Park and Wreck will be taking this up head on? >> Jim, we yeah we don't know specifically. Again, we're we're still flushing out
the actual design and we're having some holdups with that. So, you know, we're hopeful in the next few months, but I I can't dedic I can't um dedicate myself to an exact date right now, unfortunately. >> Could we perhaps try to bridge this gap by including another condition that
before the golf course takes any action, there be a meeting by park and wreck where they do a thumbs up, thumbs down on this approach? So, so are you asking basically the part the the golf course to not start their other
processes environmental review and and so on. >> No, spec specifically the moving toward construction of apparatuses for lighting until we know that's the direction Park and Recck will even go in. And apparently that's imminent. But they
can't do that without going back to parks and wreck and us anyway. >> Right. I >> there's a there's an easier way to solve this is um if you take the language and instead of having the $100,000 threshold just have any contracts to be approved by the park and rec commission and the
select board. That way anything that is related to this project would need to go through. >> All right. I think that can work. I I just don't want staff time to be wasted if parks and wreck shoots this down in two weeks. I know, but at the
same time, I appreciate the that the golf course would like to be able to move sooner if they do get that approval. I just don't want them wasting resources if this is going to be completely blocked off to them as a path. >> But I think you can hear in Justin's, you know, Justin is being modest, I
think, but like that from a from an operations perspective, this means a lot to the golf course. um it's it's a priority for them. But that with that said, if it's not a priority for the community, then it won't happen. Um and that's that's that's the brakes. You know, the what the community wants goes. Um
>> but I think Melissa just suggested wording that would be this except getting rid of over $100,000. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> And that basically means right before anything moves forward, parks and wreck has to give a sign off. That's the other thing, too. This is this is now we're getting into like budget 301. But when
it comes to Rex's budget, parks and wreck actually has a lot of control over it. Um, in a way it doesn't over the parks department. So that there there is enforcable action there because it's a wreck project. >> Okay. Can we have a motion? I can make the the motion to appropriate
$300,000 or any other sum to be expended under the direction of the recreation director with uh with any necessary contracts to be approved by the select board and parks and rec commission for lighting at the golf course driving range. >> If I could just amend that slightly, the
are any other sum gets struck when we have an actual budget motion. So that language would just be um you just need to strike or any other sum. It's 300,000. >> Appropriate 300,000 to be expended under the direction of the recreation director with any necessary contracts to be
approved by the select board and parks and recck commission for lighting in the golf course driving range. >> Okay. >> Okay, >> I'll make that. >> All right, Bernard. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony,
>> no. >> You can vote no. Oh, I mean I I I think I'll go no. I I appreciate the direction this went, but still I I prefer sequencing wise that we would have heard from parks and wreck first, and I don't know why they haven't voted on this yet.
>> But the the yeses have it, >> right? >> Okay. So, with that, >> the final piece in the budget that um I'd like the board to weigh in on is the uh change in town council's budget. They um the advisory committee has reduced
their budget by 31,000 and added that to the council on aging. If you have the combined reports in front of you, um you would want to look on page 8-18 where they provide some narrative that talks about uh what led to that decision. And I can um I'll copy the
link for the combined reports in case you need to access it and put that in the chat. Does the Council of Aging did they request more of a budget? >> No, they actually don't. That's not what they want.
>> What Council on Aging doesn't want the additional money. >> The director So, >> so the the the Council on Aging thinks that the the the Council on Aging is very supportive of additional funding for transportation and members of the Council on Aging um are also advisory
committee members. when they made the motion, the intent was to fund for transportation. Um, they did not talk to the director in advance of of that making that motion to understand what the priorities of the department might be. Um, I believe if Emily was given the chance to formulate a budget proposal,
it likely would be um to help with some administrative burdens that they have uh at the Council on Aging. But um I believe that the council is um you know supportive of this. Um but obviously you know I always when people
are making budget motions it's always good to talk with the department head in advance so that you can understand how the realities of how this would be implemented >> right so I should I should the senior center the director of the senior center is not supportive of this she would rather if she going to give her extra
money she'd rather it go somewhere else but this is also not we we haven't had this happen before um for obvious reasons we haven't had a situation where someone has said, "We're going to take money from one department, give it to another department." Um, not
for any specific project, but because we don't think that department is spending its money wisely. >> And can someone answer to the risk of taking money from town council's budget? >> So, town council's budget is town
council is a good steward of money. He turns back money on a regular basis, but he has plans that he would like to continue to expand outward. He would like to continue to have legal interns and continue to do, you know, these projects. It just it creates less of a cushion. Um, you know, we don't know
what the, you know, expenses will be in any given year in terms of his budget for outside investigations or needing outside counsel or what have you. So, if you reduce this, you know, um, you know, the other thing he's expressed interest in is he would
like to reclassify some of his staff and he would take money out of this line item to do it, but he wouldn't have that money anymore, so he couldn't reclassify staff. So, those are the those are the concerns that he's raised. Michael, >> um has is there any argument
for making this transfer besides um the AC's uh opinion of the town council's capacity to do their job? >> I don't see anything in the report. I
don't know what their what the discussion was like. >> It's just retaliation. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, let's be honest. Let's Let's >> And that's a bad precedent. >> Yeah, it's a terrible precedent. >> All right. So, I think we see the will of the board here. Uh so, does somebody
want to make a motion on the AC amendment regarding the 31,000 reduction to the office? >> How how would we make a motion that says no? Would it be no action on on the amendment or >> Well, it's not an amendment. It's their budget. Um well, when when we've had
these issues in the past, how we've the select board just submit a substitute motion. Right. >> I would provide amended budget tables that essentially um restores the original appropriation recommendations which um provided 31,000 to town council and would reduce 31,000 in council on
aging >> and that's and that would be part of an omnibus substitute motion that you would make including the >> we'd have to make a clean motion to the board. Yeah, we would basically have the motion which would replicate most of the advisory committee motion but you would have two distinct changes here. you
would have the um the change in the uh budget amounts for town council on aging and town council and then you also have the motion that you just adopted um on the roadway uh work as well. >> So what do we need to vote? Thank you so much. >> You would just vote to make a substitute
motion that that um that it restores $31,000. >> I I move we make a substitute motion restoring $31,000 to town council >> by reducing the council on aging budget. by the same amount >> and including the CIP.
>> Do we need to do that? >> You've already made those. We can consolidate all of these proposals into a single omnibus motion. >> Any further discussion? >> I'm just going to flag that that will mean a certain discussion is going to be on the floor of town meeting. >> Um, and just everyone should be aware of
that coming. >> Yes. >> Well, I mean, my hope my hope would be that we that discussions are had prior to that. Um, and maybe we can avoid that conversation. Maybe we can >> maybe we can work something out. >> There's still time. >> Okay. All right. Bernard, your vote. >> Yes.
>> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> abstain. >> And I vote yes. All right. With that, we will now move on to article 9, FY27 CPA appropriations.
>> Oh, article 9. >> Easy as it should be. Well, you could decide to make it easy or not. The advisory committee essentially voted to divide the question. So, I do have their motion. Uh it would require several series of votes should um the board choose to do this.
Um your current position now is the petitioner motion which is included in the combined reports which is just one vote for all the recommendations under the CPA. Um, so the board can decide whether that whether or not they want to support dividing the question or whether they want to keep with the motion that
they currently have in the combined reports. >> Did AC vote down any of the projects or did they >> I don't believe that they did. I think they just wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity for everyone to weigh in separately on each project like they did with the CIP. >> And I certainly see the merits to that
position. So my position would be we adopt the AC motion on this. >> I agree. >> Any other thoughts? I don't have a strong opinion. I do think it's worth us thinking about the division between categories for the CPA
and this might be a way to get town meeting to start thinking about how they get awarded. >> The the other thing u my question which I know the answer to is what does the uh CPA committee think of this idea? Do
they have an argument for or again? I think that they if the if town meeting is supportive of dividing the question, I think that that would probably change the way that they formulate their motion going forward. >> I'm sorry, formulate their motion going
forward in subsequent town meeting >> in the same manner. Basically, if this is the desire of town meeting is to have the question divided so that they can individually vote projects, then I would imagine that that would inform the way that they work going forward. >> Okay. So, so you're saying that they don't really have a really strong
objection to do this or you not >> if the motion is going to be made every year to divide the question in this manner in order to be able to do this then I would imagine that they would probably want to just move forward and and present it in that way. >> Okay. All right. So I'll go ahead and
move that we adopt the advisory committee motion for article 9 for a divided question. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Um I procedurally we probably should
have had you reconsider your earlier motion and then take >> So first I uh move that we reconsider our prior vote on article 9 FY27 CPA appropriations. >> Yes. >> Michael
>> Amanda. >> Yes. >> Anthony. >> No. Yes. I'm just kidding. >> And I also uh vote yes. Just as a as a technical matter, the two of you may want to consider abstaining because you weren't here for that vote. >> I I think town council, can we have an
opinion on that? >> And this has come up before with new members. >> Oh, right. If you're recon. >> Oh, yeah. That's interesting. >> So, good evening, Joe Call and Town Council. Actually, I have a memo uh in draft forum to uh advise people about abstaining, and you do not have to.
>> Okay. uh you know there's there's uh there's requirements when you do but if it's just simply um that I wasn't here before you can rely on kind of the good faith of the board before or the staff uh in
preparing minutes but you're not obligated to abstain just because you weren't um you know at the meeting before. There is what's called the Mullen rule which applies to planning boards and kind of permitting but that doesn't apply. Um, so my advice is if
you can, you know, trust the staff and your prior board, you could, uh, you know, vote on the on the on the question before you, even if you weren't here at that meeting before. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. So now then we can vote on adopting the advisory
committee's motion for article 9 FY27 CPA appropriations. >> Yes. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you, Melissa, for catching that. So, with that, we will now move on to article 11, committee on town organization and
structure, charge, and composition. I'm going to turn this one over to Dick Benoa, who I think provided you with an update and a memo. >> Thank you very much. And I see that Rebecca Stone is also here, the uh lead
petitioner on this article. Um, Rebecca, I'm happy to just do a quick summary if uh if that's okay with you. >> Be more than happy to have you do that, D. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, I'm Dick Ben, town meeting
member, precinct 14, and a member of the committee on town organization and structure. Let me add my congratulations to the uh new board in terms of the new members and the new positions. Um and uh
turning uh very quickly to article 11 um there has been agreement uh between the petitioners, the advisory committee and CTO and S and uh that agreement is
uh set forth on page 550 out of 573 of your packet for today's meeting. Um the vote uh is is there both in uh the form that shows the changes
from the existing uh warrant uh the existing bylaw and also in a clean format. Uh according to Sandy Gatsby who will be moderating this warrant article uh what you see on page 550 to 551
will be considered the main motion. Uh the uh explanations uh for the changes from the uh original warrant article uh are set forth in the original filing uh
by CTOS for the combined reports. That's on page 545 of your packet. Uh in addition to that uh petitioners uh determined uh to retain uh appointment by the moderator uh before the uh
warrant article reached CTO and s subsequent to that uh the advisory subsequent to the CTO and S vote that's uh reported on page 545 in the combined reports um there was action by the
advisory committee which made a couple of clarify ing edits. Uh CTO and S accepted those this past Monday. So at that point, uh COS, the advisory committee, and the petitioners were all
in agreement. I am happy if you would like to go through the halfozen or more changes from the original warrant article, but they are uh set forth um in your packets starting on page 545.
If I could just add one one clarifying thing. Thank you, Dick, for for summarizing the um the roller coaster we've been having um on this one. Um the bottom line is that the that the main motion now before you for um I hope your
approval um focuses in the change to CTO and S's general duties. it basically we went back to original language in a couple of different places to retain abilities to do reviews on a on a
periodic basis at their discretion um that that CTOS already had. So essentially we went back to the original um version of CTONS's bylaw and simply added the requirement for a dennial review of government and structure. Um
so that's what's changed here. It's the core of what we wanted. Um, which is why petitioners are are fine with this version. Um, and it gives CTONS the ability to um to do to determine the scope of those reviews. Um, which
believed was was implicit in the original language, but CTONS wanted spelled out and so it's spelled out. Um, there you go. >> All right. Any questions or comments by board members? >> So, everyone's on board with the same version.
It appears that way. >> Yes, everyone's on. >> Yes. >> All right, then. I move favorable action on warrant article 11 as amended. >> Did we already vote on this one before? >> Yes, >> we did. Okay. So, first move to
reconsider our decision, our prior decision on article 11. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> I also vote yes. All right. Now, I move favorable action on
article 11 as amended. >> Yes. >> Bernard says yes. >> Yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you very much to the petitioners. >> Thank you.
>> With that, we now move to article 12. >> We put article 12 on because we were anticipating that the advisory committee would be taking a position. I don't have a report from them yet, so I have nothing to share with you. So, we can just skip this and have it at your next meeting.
>> All right. I love that. Article 13. And we have >> So, article 13. Um, I think the town clerk has joined us, but um the advisory committee does have a motion under this article. They turned it into a resolution. Um, so I have that on my screen right here, so you can see um
what the advisory committee voted. All right. Thank you. And we also have the petitioner for war article 13 present as always whether she's a petitioner or not. Uh Regina, would you like to be heard on this? >> Thank you. Froley, the petitioner uh for
13. I'm keeping my article as a bylaw for now, but I've been very pleased with Harry Boes and the efforts on the part of the advisory committee to push this along because the consensus was
universal that there needs to be some evening hours. The the compromise was to give the clerk a lot more time to get it together. Uh I haven't heard a word from the clerk since I've done this, so this is the first I'm hearing he's even online.
So, if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer. >> Michael, >> so I just want to make sure I understood what you said. Um, did you you said you're keeping the bylaw version for now. Does that mean you're not accepting the amendments from the AC?
>> I'm keeping my options open. Several people on the committee voted no to Harry's amendment because they wanted me to keep the um keep it as a bylaw. So, I'm keeping the option open for now and you do what you're going to do.
>> Okay. >> But I'm very pleased with the efforts that uh Harry has made. >> All right. We we have the town clerk on. Uh Ben, if we could have your opinion on the Warren article, your thoughts. >> Uh sure. I I I shared much of my uh my
thoughts in the uh memo that I uh sent to the select board. I think a couple weeks ago, you guys had a meeting shortly before the election. and I was unable to attend due to it conflicting with the deadline for vote by mail ballots uh to be sent out. Um but uh in the memo I outlined some of the cost
constraints uh that this would impose on the clerk's office. Um even if it was a situation where we simply offered overtime to staff um it would run close to $10,000 and a budget that my office currently doesn't have. Um as well as some of these staffing constraints. uh would be likely subject to collective
bargaining and there's been a general shift among staff uh away from being interested in uh taking overtime even when it is paid at that overtime rate. So having staff available for these evening hours uh would be uh a burden on the clerk's office. Um at the request of
the advisory committee, I reached out to a number of neighboring and peer communities um to ask them how they operate evening hours. Um num a number of our neighboring communities, Boston, uh Newton, they do not offer evening hours. Uh Welssley used to offer evening hours, but they saw low utilization. So
they've actually stopped offer offering evening hours as well. And those communities I was able to speak to uh which were mostly peer communities uh Belmont, Plymouth, Dam, Arlington, and Lexington uh all shared three things in common. Uh the first was that in no
situation is only the clerk's office open uh evening hours. In many cases, it's actually the entire town hall, or at least many departments within town hall. In all of those communities, they uh accommodated this by adjusting the operating hours of town hall itself, often either opening later, closing
earlier, or being closed entirely on Fridays. Um, in all of these communities, the clerks uh when they corresponded with me indicated that utilization of evening hours at the clerk's office was actually very low. Uh we've put a number of our services now are available online or available
through the Dropbox um and don't require a visit to town hall um and that they've seen in their communities um that there's more utilization for example in the treasurer's office paying bills or with the human resources department doing um onboarding work um but they're not seeing that kind of traffic in the
clerk's office. Um, so I'm happy obviously to explore uh the possibility to have conversations with the union about what those potential costs could be. Um, but we want to make sure that we are uh allocating our very limited budget um to the highest needs and the
highest uh ways that we can serve serve the public. Um, one other note that I will have, there will likely be other knock-on costs, um, that are also worth exploring. Um, both in terms of the actual application, uh, you know, things like having to, uh, have, uh, electric costs for extra hours the town hall is
open, custodial costs, um, potential safety concerns of having, uh, the town hall open with only one department present. Um, as well as concerns for uh how the CL clerk's office is going to staff some of its other responsibilities, especially related to things like elections uh and town
meeting where staff is already uh working uh excessive amounts of overtime um and uh working quite extensively uh not even at town hall, often over at the high school during town meeting um and how that can be uh accommodated within uh a requirement of having two staff in
the clerk's office uh away from those responsibilities. So, I certainly hear the the concern, the request. Um, I'm proud of the efforts we've made uh in the clerk's office since COVID to make sure our resources are available online. Um, there is only one item that the
clerk's office uh one service the clerk's office has available to the public that requires in-person attendance. Uh, and that is filing a marriage intention. Um, other than that, uh, we've put everything online. Everything is available by Dropbox and I'm very proud of the work that's been done there. Um, so that's some of the background on it and obviously I'm happy
to answer any of the board's questions. >> So could you expand a little on the overtime ramifications and costs of having evening hours if for example uh Brookline adopted the model where you
town hall opens later uh where it's the same number of hours. So it's not necessarily adding hours onto a person's workload, but shifting them around and maybe staggered start times. Sure. So, uh, so if there was a change wholesale in the operating hours of town hall, um,
so that staff stayed at their, you know, regular within the regular confines of working hours, uh, I would have to speak with the union. I'm not sure if having one longer day might impact bargaining because, uh, my understanding is that overtime can kick in after a certain number of hours worked in a day. Um,
but, uh, that would require a full shift in the timing of a town hall. Um, it's been kind of generally understood during the advisory committee and and I believe this very much so that having the town clerk's office open at the same hours as the rest of town hall is very important. Um, I don't think it would be
appropriate, for example, uh, for the town clerk's office to open at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday and stay open late uh, while the rest of town hall is still open at 8 a.m. Um, because you'll then have three hours where uh, people might come in and we actually do see a decent amount of usage uh, in the morning. and that's typically our busiest time in the
clerk's office. Coming in with the expectation the clerk's office is open and it is not otherwise. Um so reducing hours of the operations of town hall is a much larger conversation and one that uh would involve much more than my department. Um but uh uh that would be a
way to do this without having to do the overtime within the current requirements of our operating hours 8 to 5 Monday through Thursday 8 to 12:30 on Friday. Um it would be imposing additional overtime. And my understanding when this was implemented before was that uh staff were paid overtime for working those
extra hours. >> What about staggered hours for employees? So it's longer hours in general that the clerk's office is open, but for any individual employee, their hours aren't changing. So you'd have two shifts within the same day, for example.
>> Certainly. One of the reasons why we do not like doing that is because of the volume of work that comes into the clerk's office. We typically see our largest uh amount of visits, whether it's at the counter, on the phone, uh happen in the morning between the hours of 8 and 10. So having us be short
staffed during those hours um would really compromise our ability to effectively serve the public. And that's why we uh are I am uh very hesitant to have half staff essentially run at that time. There's a requirement because uh
of the union uh work that's done by staff at the front of house that it needs to be covered by union staff. Uh my office has three and a half uh union staff uh currently assigned to it. So if you were to have two of those come in late uh to cover the evening hours, you
would be essentially running one and a half person covering the front counter um which uh is a very low number for the workload that we see especially during the morning hours. And in terms of sorry, just my last question. In terms of the traffic to uh the clerk's office,
do you formally track this? Is it anecdotal? >> Uh we don't have formal tracking numbers. Uh much of it is anecdotal. Um we could certainly pull numbers such as if there's uh date stamps on the transactions that go through. Um but for the most part, basically from when staff
clock in until lunch, uh what they are handling is front of counter and phone call work. For the most part, we aren't able to shift staff over to back of housework until after the lunch break because that's when we do see a lull in traffic. So I will say anecdotally as the general operations of the clerk's
office things like uh you know going and processing a large number of dog licenses that came in online that work is generally done in the afternoon because that's when we see a lightning of the foot traffic that's actually coming into the clerk's office while that foot traffic is much heavier uh in the morning and typically doesn't allow
staff uh to come away from the counter or come away from the phones. >> Thank you. Any other questions for >> I have a couple of comments I'd like to add. I will go to you eventually. Just letting everyone ask Ben just people had an opportunity to ask you questions. Go ahead. >> My my question is whether your idea of
having people come in late um and and then work in the evening is outside of the scope of this article. I this just says town clerk office will offer at least two additional office hours. Um >> well so I'm not I'm not sure it's even
relevant, but maybe it is. I I'm not proposing specific textual changes to the Warrant article, just trying to understand the different ways that I get the clerk's office could fulfill the terms of the article as written. >> Yeah, >> I think David's line of questioning
lends credence to the idea of passing the supporting the resolution, allowing the town clerk to figure out how he could possibly logistically accomplish it. Um, and then come back to us and be like, "Hey, this is how I could do it if you really want it." Um,
But that isn't our option to say no action on the on the warrant article. >> Yeah. On the warrant or on the on the on the bylaw version. Yeah. >> Which one is before us or on both? >> Both are before you? There are competing
motions. >> All right. Regina, you had some more comments. >> Yes. Um, a couple of you heard me say this, but there were two new people here and they may not have heard me say this. Um, I went out and spoke at length with former town clerk Pat Ward, who for
30some years had the evening hours. He did not think it was a problem. He said that it cost him overtime for about two months and then he made it a condition of employment and they rotated so that the
staff would rotate as to which one stayed at the counter. And of course, the town clerk or his assistant has to usually be there for any questions that the staff is not always trained to answer, as many of us know. So, he did
not see that as a big cost the way we're hearing it here because it it wouldn't end up being uh time and a half later. >> Did Did he give you any indication as to utilization of those evening hours? Um he said it was very busy and and
several people town meeting members because town meetings were not done on Zoom as they consistently seem to be now but in fact every night of the week there was something going on at in person at town hall. Many of us use those services. Um I have found that
when I've gone in even during the day to see if they if I could look up meetings unfortunately staff had not kept a book. They didn't know what I was talking about, but it used to be kept all the time at the counter and you could tell what meetings were on that day, what time they were, etc., etc. So, that was
one of the main things that many of us used used it for. Um, but ultimately, this is a service to the public. It would need time to catch up on it, but ultimately um we need to be able to provide a
service. And if every other community is doing it, and we always did it very successfully and it was within budget, why are we not even considering doing it? At least the clerk has made it very clear he doesn't want to do it. >> Michael, >> um I'm wondering in your conversations
with the clerk whether um whether you uh established of the services that were being offered and people took advantage of the in the evening. How many of those services are currently available online?
>> I'm not sure, but I'm the worst person to say go online. I don't believe in it. I think that we should make it for I have constituents who don't have a computer >> and I I have to call one in particular to tell her anything because she she is
adamant about not having one. So, I mean, you have to to go to the least common denominator for some things when it's a public good. And I think in this case, allowing people to be able to have their job and be able to show up for only two hours. The clerk, the previous
clerk had it for three hours every Thursday night. So, I've only asked for a couple because when I researched the other communities, they were all offering only two hours. And I thought I'd stay within that, not go back to Pat's original three hours. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Any further questions, comments? >> I would just jump in. I I want to jump in on behalf of Ben because he is a department head, but he's different than other department heads. So, he's more constrained in terms some he's free in
some ways, but he's constrained in others. He's elected um as opposed to appointed, but he is a department head, which means in some ways he answers to the structure of the select board office. Um I just really worry about a slippery slope here. I don't think we should be legislating the hours that
offices are open. That's a core operational function. Um the town clerk is elected to set those hours. People disagree with those hours, they can vote for a different town clerk. So my position on this is I am uh very supportive of the gap that the
petitioner is trying to fill. However, I agree with the town clerk that there are various ways that need further exploration to figure out what would be the most sensible approach to fill that gap if we decide to move in that
direction. So I am more comfortable with the advisory committee's version of article 13 that essentially expresses support for the sentiment behind this warrant article but would not create spec would not specifically legislate it
to uh the town administrator's point. Uh so I would like to move favorable action on the advisory committee version of warrant article 13 and this one we haven't taken up so no need for reconsideration first. Any further discussion? >> All right, Bernard.
>> No, because I'd like to say no action on both of them, but so no. >> Okay, Michael, >> come back to me. >> Oh, we can do that. Amanda, >> no.
>> All right, Anthony. And I also vote yes. >> So my you know, that's the that's the downside of this. Um, I'm going to vote no. >> All right. >> If that passes, as you just voted,
you'll be the only town in the greater 128 area that doesn't offer evening hours. Keep that in mind, please. >> So, um, can I just clarify, David? Um, you vote the the motion to support the AC motion failed, but I still need the
board to take a position. So if you um I think Bernard is intending on moving no action. I just want to make sure I'm following. >> I move no action on the warrant article uh 13 uh in its original form as a bylaw. >> All right. Bernard,
>> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> I also vote yes. All right. With that, we will move on to warrant article 22. the proposition two
and a half resolution and we have uh one of the co-etitioners here, Bradford Kimble. >> You have the other one online. >> All right, we have both. >> Yep. >> Good evening everybody. Uh Bradford Kimble, TMM precinct 1 and one of the
co-petitioners of Warren Article 22 along with Rob Shown uh TMM1 who's on Zoom as well. Uh we came to the select board a couple of weeks ago. Um, but I'd like to give sort of a a re resummarize what our warrant article does, why we think it's a good idea, and sort of
where we stand. Um, so our warrant article, warrant article 22, as amended on the combined as available on the combined reports 22-6, calls for the select board to create a new town committee that would study the feasibility and possibility of creating
what we call a municipal core services cost index. essentially a single statistic that would track the effect that would track the effect of inflation on the town's budgets whether it comes from uh employee compensation, capital costs, utilities increases, uh etc. And
so we think this is a good idea because this singular metric would show the gap between cost growth and existing services. And the proposition 2 and a half levy cap improved override discussion providing a real helpful benchmark and singular statistic that would help uh that would help with
transparency enables comparison to peer communities and provides an important data source for any discussions about Proposition 2 and a half in town and also regionally and beyond statewide. Um, and we also think it fits really well with sort of the select board 2030's roadmap commitment to transparency, having the singular metric
that tracks the effect of inflation on the budget. Um, so that's sort of uh where we are. That's the that's the summary. And uh my co-partitioner Rob Shown met with the town administrator this afternoon. Thank you for for doing that. So he might be better equipped to answer some questions
that arose in that meeting as well. Um we also want to specify that this committee's charge would be limited and specific. It's to create a singular metric and we think that this committee could do it and that the town and townwide town citizens have the capability to produce this metric with hopefully minimal effort from town
staff. Though we acknowledge that the town administrator um has some concerns about that as well. >> All right. Any questions or comments from board members? Anthony. Only comment I have is I love the idea as someone who reads the CPI prints the
minute they come out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is genuinely excited for non non-farm payroll stats. Any municipal indices like this uh are right up my alley. I believe they're super important for good government. Um I love quantitative metrics like this that helps us communicate the growth of
costs. Um and I think it's really a good way to bring the discussion of Prop 2 and a half up to the focal point. And uh I think it's a great idea. All right. So, at when we last discussed this Warren article, there were some concerns about staff bandwidth for uh
interacting with the tracking of this with those who would be monitoring the tracking of this. Could you comment more on that? >> Yeah, I just I I think and I agree that it's a value it would be this is a the idea is valuable. Um the idea is valuable. The aims of this are laudable.
to try and you know get some get some data and use it to good ends. Um the concerns that I have are one I do think that it would require more staff time than the petitioners think. Um it's almost always the case. It's not it's not their fault. I but I think it is the
reality of the situation that when you create a committee you have two choices. You can let the committee do its own thing which can result in the committee then getting away from you and doing something that you may not want it to do. or you can staff it. Um, and that requires someone to be at every meeting.
That requires someone to to keep people on task. That requires going back and forth on this. Um, and you know, it just creates a situation where I'm going to have to send someone to this committee's
meetings and do the kind of work necessary to ensure that the committee is accomplishing the goals that you've set it out to accomplish. Um, and I don't know who that person would be, frankly. Um, and I
think that the and the other kind of concern that I have on this one is kind of to what end? Um, as I was saying to Rob who and we had a really good conversation about this, the one of the co-etitioners, um, ironically, Brookline to some people on
the outside is a success story of Prop 2 and a half. Rline passes overrides on a regular basis by wide margins. We are proof that the system works to them. Um if a community wants higher taxes, they can vote for higher taxes. So if our goal in this is to change the perception
of Prop 2 and a half and to demonstrate that it exacerbates the tension between the halves and the have nots, you know, I'm very grateful to the voters for what they did to to fund our municipal budget. I think it is a huge vote of confidence in local government. I think
it makes a huge difference in the community. It's just it it is it is a really heartwarming story. But then I compare it to Malden where the need was acute and the vote was not there. And I compare it to Chelsea where they can't even do it. You know, where the concept
of asking the people who live in Chelsea for more money is just impossible. Um, and I say that's, you know, if if all we're doing is indexing in Brooklyn, we're not really providing information that's going to
change the minds of the people whose minds need to be changed on this. I would rather, if we were to do this, work on building a regional index. I would rather work with the met Metropolitan Area Planning Council um
who run the Metro Mayor's Association which is now up to I think 18 members and it includes a diverse array a basket of communities. It includes Chelsea, it includes Malden, it includes Everett, it includes Lynn, it includes Arlington, it includes Brainree, it includes Boston.
Um, and I think the conversation that we've had in those in those meetings about Prop 2 and a half and what could be done to address it at the regional level um have been productive. Um, and I would be happy to take the subject of this and bring it to that body and say,
"Hey guys, like we pay we pay dues to be part of this organization. Um, can we work together and and build this index on a regional level?" Um, but I think just the information from Brooklyn is not necessarily going to be helpful in the broader discussion. And I don't
necessarily think on the education level, although I think Rob, you know, Rob can prove me wrong on this, but the lesson that I took from this election is that it was a turnout election. Um, and that I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed on the doorstep about
the override. Um, I think it was a question of getting the base out. And in this instance, the base that was gotten out was a base that was very pro- override. Um, and again, I'm grateful for that. But I don't necessarily know how our the benefit the costbenefit
analysis of getting that additional information out there is going to change people's minds because I think the conversation is still going to be the same that it's always been since Prop 2 and a half was passed, which is I don't want my property taxes to go up. This is all I have. or I need property taxes to go up because this is how we fund the
services. So, I see that uh co-patitioner Rob Shown has his hand up. Go ahead. >> Yeah, just I I don't think CHZ takes enough credit for the job that that he and other people did in communicating ahead of the election the benefits of
voting yes. And I know personally I I told Chad Chad Chaz this is I had just had conversations with friends of mine that were firm no voters and by explaining this inflation issue I was able to change I believe I mean I wasn't in their in the voting booth with them
but I feel like I did manage to change some minds. So, I'm thinking ahead to like, you know, we're probably going to have future override votes and I feel like this would be a tool that would be really helpful in future override discussions in Brooklyn. And then the other thing I would say is that while,
you know, I was surprised that the the margin that the override did pass by, you know, I feel like it still was a very divisive vote. I mean, we still had what, 40% people vote no. And you know, there's a lot of people in town that are
are still kind of sore about, you know, about the override. And so, you know, I would like to do if there's something we can do to change some of their minds by helping them explain the inflation component of these budget situations. I
think that would be a great thing. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, I think uh addressing the town administrator's first point, uh this committee, right, is is not necessarily intended to be a long-lasting body. It has a very specific charge, the creation of one metric, you know, which could be broken down into several metrics, but it
doesn't advocate or make specific recommendations outside of that specific mandate. So, it's extremely limited in scope to this one metric that we think would be extremely useful. Uh the second point regarding sort of um objections regarding the override and also regional
and versus local distinctions is that we envision this committee as being a a combination of starting local conversations that that educate voters and educate the town and educate decision makers in town but also starting this starting the step for creating sort of regional change. We don't necessarily think that this
committee is a political tool, but it is also true that the Massachusetts Municipal Association's recommendations for reforming Prop 2 and a half all essentially rely on the decisions of municipalities opting in. Whether it's multi-year overrides or whether it's having municipalities opt in to an
adjustable levy cap, these are likely not recommendations that would be passed in sweeping fashion statewide, but recommendations that could be adopted by individual municipalities. So if Brooklyn has this index, it would provide a really strong foundation to see how how does one municipality sort
of tackle the effect that inflationary pressures have on the budget. And then the second part about voter education is that I think a common objection to the override was why not just cut waste? Why not cut discretionary spending? And I think this metric would help voters understand what is discretionary
spending and then what is re what are the cost drivers that are that come from inflation. And there's a there's a difference there. Michael. >> Um, >> so first of all, thank you both of you uh for bringing this question forward.
Um, and you had mentioned before, you know, the issues of transparency in the road map. Um, and I'm one of the things that I'm a little bit concerned about in the way that you've you've sort of structured the Warren article at this
point is that you know there's a set of data that you need in order to create this index. Um but but in terms of of sort of the message of the index, you know, I think what what the town
administrator is saying is that that the message that you will get is relatively well understood and can be reasonably well articulated. So I'm I am concerned that by setting up this index as something that we maintain over time
that the cost of maintenance over time will uh overtake the value of producing that index you know in order to you know establish the argument that you're trying to make. Um and so one of the
things that I am wondering about is uh and I and I don't expect an answer right now but I'm wondering whether there is some way to separate the question of what is the data that the town needs to expose in order to produce this
particular index and is there a way of uh of exposing or releasing or sharing that information such that it is generally available not only for this index but for the potential of other transparency ideas
that are that are brought forth by the public. >> I think the one the one area here where you're going to have the biggest problem is with the schools. The schools are going to have to play ball with this. Um, and one of the biggest drivers of
school costs, as David knows, is special education and transportation, particularly for medically fragile students. Um, and I think you will run into a great deal of resistance from the school committee to give you that data because the school committee will say
there are privacy issues involved even at the statistical level. And um it creates this idea that special education is something they're you're going to see all the numbers and you're going to see special education volatile year-over-year but generally going up
sometimes by double digits even as a result potentially of one student moving into the district. And people are going to say well there's your waste. That's not waste. That's a kid you know that's someone who needs to be cared for. Um I worry that that that you when you talk
about the data that is to be provided that that's an area where you may wind up inadvertently um needing to do remedial education um because when you see numbers go up by that I eyepopping amount or down by that
eyepopping amount um people say what's going on here um and maybe that is helpful in the long run um but you know I've just you know I I I I want us to be mindful of the fact that we are required to provide everyone with
a free and appropriate public education. Um and that sometimes means spending a lot of money. Um so it's I I think the school you'd run into resistance from the schools when it comes to what needs to be given. And I think that then does unnecess does potentially make this more
of a political project, right? You know, how are we how can we get information from the schools? Why aren't the schools giving us this information? If the schools want an override, they better give us this information. Um, I could see that getting ugly. >> Yeah. I mean, actually, it's not just
the schools. I mean, it's the town, too. I mean, our procurement rules increase cost of of everything, and that creates sort of a political uh situation where people think that uh there's waste in town services. >> Yeah. But I I think that's easier to
explain explain though. I think you know and you know we when we were on expenditures and revenues we did this exercise on the town side. I think Dick Ben did a really good job of presenting for example here's all the town budgets that went up since last override by more than two and a half%. Can I can I understand why? And we had to answer
that question. It was a good question to ask and it was a good exercise for us to be able to answer that and say yep this went up by this amount for this reason. Um and you could see that when you did that exercise that there wasn't waste or bloat. there wasn't just, you know, adding positions that the budgets went
up for good reasons, but when you looked at them from numbers on a page, it might have looked like, whoa, what's what's that huge increase doing there? So, building an building an index that accurately reflects um you know the the costs, but then also
does the work of educating um is is tough. Not impossible, but is is going to take some doing. Could you explain why you see value to this exercise at a regional level rather than just at the hyper local? I think that then impacts it then
demonstrates that it is not just rich towns, poor towns, towns that are towns that have commercial development, towns that don't have commercial development. This is a problem across the Commonwealth and it's going to require I mean to your point about the MMA solutions I I think what the legislature
is going to say to those opt-in solutions is that exacerbates a have and have not problem. It's the same reason why they don't allow us to raise the meal tax and the hotel tax. That's why they're not letting us do the governor's um proposals on um municipal um uh x
taxes um because they know that there are communities that have that stuff and communities that don't. um and they don't want us to be continually leaping out ahead. But if we're able to demonstrate that no, there is a through line here. Doesn't matter if you're Brainree or or Brookline, um you we the
problems we we experience are universal. Um then there is a universal solution. Um whether that's something like what New Jersey has where they exempt health care from their version of Prop 2 and a half like that's that's a potential solution that I could see working with
the political will there but that has to be butressed by the right information. >> Anyone else? >> Amanda, >> I I like the idea of this and I hear what you're saying and I hate committees just as a general rule. if there's a
different way to do it. Um, I don't know that I I can wordsmith what the solution I would like to see is, but I kind of like where Chaz was going of saying if you could make the and we maybe work
with the petitioners offline to say um essentially a resolution directing the select board or yeah to uh get in conversations across the region to create this sort of uh information structure.
um so that it would accomplish the goals of the petitioners um but more more in a regional fashion and also wouldn't involve a committee members that may or may not know what they're talking about uh for lack of a better way and to be able to do it a little bit more quickly.
I'm not sure >> to to your point on the regional approach. Sometimes there have been uh town meeting members and others who come forward and say, "What are we getting in return for our Norfick County dues?" And
uh Elizabeth Childs does a nice job of explaining that. But I wonder if we take this regional approach, could some of our dues money to Norfick County go toward this effort of what you're concerned about with uh with staff uh
bandwidth and then maybe do it on a countywide basis? I would love to talk to the county commissioners about that. Um, I can send them an email. Um, and I think regardless of where this goes, I I do, like I said, I think this is a good idea. And so I'm more than happy to continue to work with the petitioners on
this. You know, I think if this moves forward, that's fine. I mean, it is what it is. And so I'm not, >> as I told the petitioners, I'm I'm I'm okay with this. Um, but I would prefer that we do it on a regional level. And so regardless of how this moves forward at town meeting, I've made a commitment
to the petitioners that I'm going to reach out to MAPC and talk to them about this and see where we get. So, you know, >> and David, we have no say over the Norfick County assessment. It gets taken off the cherry sheet. So, we don't even get a get a choice. It's our >> We don't get We don't We don't get a say in in in giving our money away to
Norfick County, but we can ask them to use it for certain purposes. >> Right. That's what I mean. I'm not suggesting we remove it, but given that we're paying dues, maybe this could be a task we give them in part. >> Michael, >> I'm I'm wondering two things. Um the
first thing I'm wondering is whether this is something you know when we talk about a committee and the cost um if we decide to continue the work of the expenditures and revenue study committee whether this is the kind of analysis
that would be appropriate for that committee to take on such that it wouldn't require additional staffing support for setting up another committee. So that's that is my first question. Um, and the second question is
given your commitment to continue working on this and that the article itself is a is a motion to refer this to a the select board. It seems kind of silly to offer a motion to referral since this is already sort of a motion
to refer something in and of itself whether um the select board actually needs to take a position on this warrant article at all. Well, I mean, we don't absolutely have to, but I think typically we do take a position on almost every Warren article,
which I know is a change from a few years ago. There was a brief period where some Warren articles were not. >> We tried to create a system whereby, you know, we we we don't didn't have to take a position on whether the Cuban blockade was >> right. Right. >> But I think I think this is something
that is very relevant to our our work as we're hearing about uh staff time. >> I I agree that it is relevant to our work. I just I just think that with with Chaz's commitment and the the things that are being handled administratively
that I'm not sure that it's necessary for us to weigh in on whether or not the legislative body thinks that this is a value independent of the work that's already been has already committed to do.
>> Right. I I wonder whether we need to take a position on this tonight at least because it sounds like the petitioners might have some flexibility around whether this becomes a regional exercise given this feedback. You the two of you
may want time to think about that. We don't absolutely have to vote on this tonight and perhaps some further refinement if that's a direction you want to go in. Something to think about of course. Uh, so my recommendation will be that we not vote on this tonight, but
possibly we take it up at a future meeting. >> We're good with that. >> Okay. >> Y >> All right. So, why don't we move on then to warrant article Thank you very much to the two of you. >> So, why don't we move on now to warrant
article 23 to see if the town will adopt a resolution to increase stipens for select board members. And do we have the petitioners online at this point? >> I believe I did see Marissa, but I I wanted to let you know that the advisory committee did vote to refer this to a
moderator's committee with the request that there be a report back in 2028. >> All right. I see that Marissa Vote is on. Go right ahead if you'd like to address us. >> Yeah. Hi. Um Marissa Vote, town meeting
member in precinct 6. Um I'm joined by my co-patitioner Jonathan Golden. Um yeah, so we um initially filed this warrant article. I'm just going to take a a step or two back um for our new
select board members um uh sake. So we initially filed this um to significantly increase stipens for select board members and um and introduce school committee stipens for the first time. Um
this is a resolution. Um the stipens would not go into full effect until um FY30. Um which would give the town some time to find um potential revenue source. Um
we discovered during the course of the warrant article review process that um the it was it was difficult to quantify the expected cost of the um of the pension obligations that would in
that we might incur by offering stipens above $5,000. So, we have now um amended the article to offer stipens of $4,999 for all select board and school committee members. Um,
and we also have some language in there um that would refer that would not not refer that would create a moderator's committee to study the other outstanding issues um of things like um how much the
pension obligations would be. uh make recommendations for how to increase the revenue um or where expenses could be cut that would offset the the cut the um the costs of these increased stipens. Um
and also that the committee would uh consider additional compensation beyond that $4,999 um stipen amount. And um I just wanted to add that for so for the select board um the stipens were for members are
$3,500 a year and for the chair is $4,500. That level was last set in 2011. So um if you kind of take uh the official um federal calculator for inflation um I
forget where it I think it's the Bureau of Laborers labor or um but but whatever it is um that $3,500 in 2011 would be um like $5100 or so in today's money, never mind in um FY30 when um these stipens
would go into full full effect. So, um, you know, this is really, at least for the select board side, it's really just bringing the stipen amounts up with inflation and then creating school committee sipments for the first time. Um and so I would just encourage you to
support um our version which also you know does provide for a moderator's committee to study um you know some of the outstanding questions but uh allows us to go on record of saying we support these increased stipens once we figure
out um all of the the implications and to figure out a way to pay for them. >> Let me make sure I understood that last part. So, you're supportive of the advisory committee's motion. >> We are supportive of discussing these
issues in a moderator's committee, but we want um we are presenting our own petitioners version because we uh think it's important to have that affirmative vote on this the text of the resolution that says that we want the increased
stipens. So, can I just be clear, Merc, are you submitting a revised motion for town meeting? Because I I only have your original article. >> We have a Yeah, we have a final version that we submitted to the moderator yesterday. >> Okay, great. >> And um John Karen is moderating this
article. >> I'll forward it to you now. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Any questions, comments from anyone on the board? >> I was I have comment. Um, I feel like if we're going to abstain on any warn article, this is the one we should be
doing. Just it seems a pretty clear conflict of interest. >> So, I uh agree with you in spirit. Town council explained at a prior meeting that we actually could vote on this, at least those of us who would be facing an election before it would be implemented.
So, that might be different for the two of you. Uh, but for the other three, we technically could. But in spirit, I agree. It's something I'm uncomfortable with as well. So, I would be inclined to abstain on this. I I don't know how the
two others who technically could vote on this feel. >> And we're talking about pennies, >> right? And and you know, it's principle. do do does a town respect what we do and and be willing to to uh you pay for it
uh or not? So, I'm I'm comfortable voting on this. It's not not as if it's bringing a lot of it would be bringing a lot of money to our pockets. >> That that is true and I and I'm sort of in the in the same boat that you are. Um
I mean I I think I think the the original motion and the the whole question of to at what level we should be uh the town should be compensating select board members and school committee members is like probably
worthy of of some committee con considering um as as they're proposing. So, I I think I'm sort of in the same boat. I I mean I don't feel any more or less valued based
on this particular increase to $4,999 because I also believe that the people the people who would actually be uh affected by by this change as to whether or not they feel like they have the
capacity to enter, you know, to run for these positions and and to perform the the duties thereof. Um I mean the difference between 3500 and 499 is not going to change that population in any
any meaningful way. >> All right. >> You already said that we can't anyway. So it's a question of >> say you can't. All right. So >> you say we can't or they can't. >> Uh the two of us can. I'm not 100% sure on you.
>> Okay. Okay. So, I'm not sure we can vote on this before we actually see the language. Right. Right. >> In case we put it off. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Why Why don't we hold this off to a future meeting? Uh, also clarify who can actually vote on it. I think only two of us can.
>> Um, it it's hard to know until we see the language. We should see the AC's motion and we should see the >> the um petitioners revised motions. >> Agreed. I I see Marissa, you have your hand raised again. Did you have
something else? >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that um we're going to be voting separately on the select board siphon part of the article and the school committee part of the article at town meeting. So, you know, you could as a board decide to
weigh in on one or both parts. >> So, did did the moderator endorse dividing the article in that manner? Yes, they have. And >> that was that was the intention when we when we filed it. I just made an oopsie. >> All right. So, do we want to take a
position on school committee stipens? >> Again, I think we should see the language before we answer that question. >> All right. Agreed. Anyone else have strong opinions otherwise? All right. Then we will take this up at a future meeting. Thank you again to the
petitioner for coming on and talking to us about your warrant article. Uh, article 24 has been withdrawn. So, >> you need to uh reconsider and move vote no action if that's what you want to do. >> So, I will move that we reconsider
warrant article 24 for no action. Can I actually move this? So what what was the >> the original vote was uh Paul Warren's on Paul Warren's amended language um which just took out the words evaluate.
Um so if you voted for that you were in the majority you could >> Yes. All right. I did vote for that. All right. So, I move reconsideration on Warrant Article 24 to see if the town will adopt a resolution which advocates public body's usage of a town email address to archive electronic
communication when generating public records. Bernard, >> did I vote for that or not? Well, I'm >> You did. You voted for it. Michael was the only one who was >> Michael was the only one who didn't. Yes. >> Okay. Um, yes, >> Michael. This is for reconsideration so
that you can open up and vote no action because >> can I can I vote yes? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Amanda? >> Yes. >> Anthony? >> Yes. >> And I also vote yes. All right. Uh I move that we recommend no action since the warrant article is being withdrawn.
Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. With that, we move to article warrant article 25. Last one. >> Exactly. Resolution response of federal immigration enforcement and police
protocols. Do we have one of the petitioners, one or more of the petitioners available? >> You should have material in your packet coming from Chi-Chi. Um, she did revise her motion. The board's current position is no action. And I think you also received comments from public safety
about the composition of the committee that's recommended in the revised motion. Yeah, I will forward this to you too since your email addresses aren't up yet, but both chiefs have weighed in and they're not they they are concerned that the current version of the so the original version that the site board
voted no action on was a resolution calling for a number of things. This new version calls on the select board to appoint a committee to address whether or not they should be doing these things. Um and it lists a number of people who should be on the committee at a minimum. Um
the chiefs still don't like this. Um they point to the fact that some of the whereas clauses continue to, you know, make accusations that they don't agree with. They continue to say that it's um and they're concerned that by basically
dictating the membership of the committee and putting so many people on there that, you know, it's pre-ordaining a certain outcome. Um, and you know, if this were to go forward, their recommendation would be if you were inclined to support it, which they would
recommend you not be, um, that you would strike that language about who's on the committee, and you could decide for yourselves who the committee would be. But again, the ultimate recommendation of both the fire chief and the police chief for the reasons that they've stated um many times previously is that
this is just it doesn't it it's it's a well-intentioned attempt to address issues of national importance. But unlike Warren Article 17 that tries to implement a policy that we've been that
the select board voted on, it tries to do tries to basically refight a bunch of old battles. That's their position on it. We've had these conversations about the brick before. We've had these conversations about Yuasi before. Um the conversation about fingerprinting is new. Um but to the chief's point, we'd
lose our accreditation if we stopped doing that. Um so um you know, in in all of these cases, I'm supportive of the chiefs on this issue. So just to be precise about the proposed membership, it would be a select board member, a
member of the commission for diversity, equity, inclusion, and community relations, a member of the police commissioners advisory committee, an expert on immigration law, and representatives for immigrant communities doesn't state how many, right? But again, how many people is
that already? How many how many more people you know the the chief of police's point was none of those people are necessarily you know how many how many people who have technical expertise about these issues. how many people, you know, and then and then at what point, you know, how big is your committee? You
know, are you going to appoint 13 people, 15 people, 20 people? Like, you've already stacked a large number of people um to be put on this committee and then there's the impetus to say, well, all right, we got a bunch of people already. Why add more? >> Well, it looks like the select board would choose.
>> Yes. >> I think Anthony, I think, had his hand up first. Go ahead, Anthony. >> Um I I just had a question about the fingerprinting thing. If the if the federal government requests data from us that we currently have, >> aren't we legally obligated to give that data?
>> In most cases, not all. Um, it depends on for what purpose. You know, we don't share agree. We don't share data with ICE, right? >> But but we don't proactively share data with ICE, >> right? >> If they request data from us, isn't it like federally mandated that we have to give data >> if they subpoena it or if they if
there's a court order? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So when they say we can't share fingerprints, isn't that like immediately that's just illegal? >> Well, what they're what they're asking for is is more nuanced than that. It is this it's right now if you are arrested, you're booked, you're fingerprinted, and when you're fingerprinted, that is those
your fingerprints are run through a database. And that d and when that database is run, it triggers hits. And one of the things that it triggers hits in is ICE's containers. And so whenever that happens, and this has happened now six times in the last year, we get a phone call from ICE saying, "Hey, you
guys, you guys have someone who has a civil detainer out. Please hold that person until we get there." And we say, "No, we do not cooperate with you. Do not do that. Goodbye." We hang up the phone. >> A followup on that. You said six times it happened. >> Yes. >> In the last year. >> In the last year. Yeah.
>> Um do we know the composition of uh of those six people? >> Yeah. I mean I I can I don't want to yeah I can I can give you the details of the individual cases but in all of these cases these were incident in incidental to arrest. Um and it wasn't like I don't
think in any situation it was it was a >> you know it was not for example it was not a situation where someone was cited and then it was escalated to an arrest for no reason. Right. It was they were they were being >> they were being booked on serious offenses. Um, and so that's what you
know we when we run prints, that's what happens is that it's not that we are actively sending these to ICE and saying, "Hey, >> do you have anything on this person?" It's when we query the federal database, they know that we're querying it and they see that, "Hey, we've we've got someone on that list." >> Got it.
>> Anyone else? Bernard. >> Yeah. Um, a couple things. I agree with the chief that the structure of the committee is is um is inappropriate. However, this this Warren article does some questions and that is you know brick is
a problem and you know the fact that the chief says that they're errors in fact in the recital in the warrant article means that will tell us what those errors are and and I think we have an obligation I think we should we don't have an
obligation we should um be a little aggressive in terms of finding out information about you who who who is the brick keeping records on the racial and and other composition of those people uh
and and all the other questions that that are are asserted as well as some that aren't in in the Warren article. I'm not sure you know what what that means we do but um you it may mean that you know the
criteria or that the committee set up if any committee is set up has to have some direction in terms of you know what it does and that has to include getting some transparency out of out of brick. I mean they're going to say oh this is law enforcement we have to keep this
confidential. I think we have to really push back on that. Well, but to that point then why can't that be the select board? Um, you know, I think it means more coming from you than it does from a committee. Um, if you say to us on staff, hey, we want,
you know, we want to hear from the brick. Um, when we don't want Okay. >> a form letter. Um, >> I think we ought to do that and and I ask you that. >> Yes. And I and I and we are we can do that. Absolutely. Um, >> also, is this a question that the police commissioner's advisory committee can
take up? Because to Amanda's earlier point about creating more and more committees, yeah, if we have existing committees that are compatible with addressing certain issues, why not assign certain tasks to committees that already exist? >> Yeah. And I think that's true certainly for the brick. I think fori is a
slightly different beast, right? It's more about emergency management than you know it has a policing element to it, but it is broader. The ambit is broader. Um, and you know, that's that's really, you know, the area that I'm I I I I share a lot of Chief Sullivan's concerns
about this idea that UASI is an inherent evil. Um, it's not. Um, the the conditions that the administration has tried to put on it have been enjoined. Um, and the the the fact that money from
the UASI grant goes to things that we don't like is not an excuse to deny ourselves those funds that go to things that we need. Um, particularly for emergency management um and and you know
disaster rate of preparedness. So that that's an area too where I feel like there's been there's been a lot of effort to explain what YASI is and what it does and why how we spend it and why it exists. And the response that I feel like we're getting is well that's all
well and good but also funds the brick and therefore is inherently tainted and we shouldn't take it. Um and I just don't agree with that. Anthony, >> um could we just do a quick overview of the current ICE uh cooperation policy that we have because I went to the
select board meeting where we where you guys discussed the uh issuance of general order 43, I believe, and I spoke on behalf of passing that general order or reaffirming it that was originally passed in 2017. And can we go through that again and just specify what that
does on the record here tonight? >> Sure. So, General Order 43 in the police department says we do not participate in civil immigration enforcement in any way. We do not participate in raids. We do not particip we do not provide material support to civil immigration enforcement in any way. Um, we don't do
any of that. Um, you know, we will abide by a valid judicial order. Um, so if someone shows up with a court order, not an administrative order, and says you have to do you have to provide us with X, then we will do it. We will follow a lawfully issued subpoena. But we're not
cooperating with ICE or any, you know, CBP or any of those folks in civil immigration enforcement in any way. >> And that basis of general order 43 is perfectly in line with like the anti-comandeering doctrine that goes all the way back to like the fugitive slave act of like northern states not wanting
to catch uh runaway slaves. It's the same exact principle at stake here. So what is the petitioner's I'm I'm just trying to understand that what the petitioner is asking for is I see a lot of resolution demands at the state level. I see a lot of that and then I
see the the other two organizations that you brought up and what is I'm trying to understand the direct benefit >> of of the of that on our immigrant community. >> Yeah. So the the brick is a regional intelligence gathering group. It's was
founded in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing and it is designed to ensure that you know we have a bunch of little municipalities surrounding a big municipality. It's designed to ensure that we are sharing regional intelligence and that we're all up to date on what's going on and that we were able to crosscoordinate. I mean that
shooting in Cambridge, right? Like we got an immediate warning from the brick on that and they were, you know, hugely responsible for a lot of that coordination in terms of effort there, coordinating between the state and MIMA and the Massachusetts emergency
management and so forth. Um so the brick with that said the when the brick was founded um there were concerns that they were keeping a database that it was easy to get into and hard to get out of
>> right where if you were um associated with a gang then brick would put you in a database and that would mean that you were eligible to be surveiled that you were you know that there were there were more um that that you were subject to heightened scrutiny. Um, and there was
nothing you could do about it. >> And the criteria for being a gang member was very loosey goosey. >> Right. Right. They did not have strict restrictions on who, you know, how to how to determine who was a gang member. They did not there was no due process involved in it. Um, you know, you often
didn't know that you were in the database until they picked you up. Um, they're like, "Yeah, we have you on suspicion of gang activity." Um and um ultimately um there were you know there was a very serious situation in which
someone was held on suspicion of being a gang member and was charged with crime. Um there were immigration there were immigration consequences for it. Um it really was a pretty devastating case and ultimately the state or the federal
courts were very um uh damning of the bricks operations in that regard. Um, and as a result of that, Boston passed a number of laws, including the Trust Act in 2019 that was basically designed to
reform the brick and bring it into compliance with these requirements. Since then, I understand that the ACLU and other organizations still feel like the brick does not have adequate oversight. And I think that's what the petitioners I mean I'm are are arguing
is that the brick still does not have the amount of oversight that they uh that they need that they're still not being fully disclosing of of all of this. Um what I will say though is that since then there have been discussions at Boston's level about leaving the break. At one point the city council did
I oh no sorry that was the city council voted to stop accepting Yuasi briefly and then reversed itself. Um but you know there have been discussions about the brick at Boston at the Boston level since it's their center and we just we share it with them
>> and they have not taken those steps. They have definitely held hearings. They have called for greater oversight but the mayor has not called for the brick to be abolished. Um and the mayor just got reelected. Um so I think there's a strong argument to be made here to
Bernard's point. oversight is critical and we are I don't think there's anything wrong with us requesting that that oversight be maintained >> but I think it's a step too far to say you know we call on the select board to to to step out of the brick um when it
is a crucial regional intelligence gathering tool >> I think the other thing is that unless we we show town meeting that that you know we know what was going on in the brick they'll pass you know, this warrant article something worse. So,
>> I agree, >> Amanda. >> Well, I was I was gonna ask one if AC has like heard this to see if we're going to do something. Two, if we need to decide tonight. Um, and then Well, you're figuring out that answer. Um
there's some really uh valid concerns based on what we have seen around the country >> and I think it would behoove us to be able to come up with a version that we can support um that speaks to the concerns. Um, and I I don't know that
the petitioners would be willing to work with folks on the select board or a person on the select board, but to come up with some version that and maybe it's the keep most of the things petitioning to the state legislature plus a
commitment on Bernard's point of actual oversight at the level of the select board um that maybe we would get buy in from the petitioners on Um because I I do think something like this is likely to pass um because of the very real
fears people have on what they see on their TVs. >> Yeah, I do agree with that. >> I mean, the idea of having the PCAC do this probably makes a lot of sense provided we give them clear guidance as to what they need to do. I mean it's not
just you decide whether we should be in Brook or not but you know specific answering specific questions as to how Brook operates and you know that the you know who who who's in their database you know criteria for getting in the database all those issues
>> the only thing I will say about that committee is that the folk the petitioners of this Warren article and the folks who see themselves as immigrant advocates are very underrepresented on that committee and I'm Not sure how you sort of mesh that other than to acknowledge that you're
going to need to do explicit outreach to folks that are not already on the committee if that's where um that lands. >> So it it does sound like there is majority sentiment at least three maybe more. Uh go ahead Michael.
>> Okay. Um so just in in the sense of where we are um number one I I agree with Chaz here that the the the UASI program is is just
is not something that we should be considering leaving for the reasons that you described. So leave that. um and the issue of the fingerprinting likewise you know there are questions of accreditation and so forth and you know I don't like the fact that our finger
the fingerprinting uh process leads to information by ICE getting to into ISIS's hands that we don't necessarily want it to but you know that's that's that's a that's a problem with ICE right that's not a
problem with books processes So to to those to those two points, I wouldn't want to see a warrant us to develop a warrant article that included that that left those things in the context of the warrant article.
Now with regard to the brick specifically um one question I have and and I'm really not there there are two sides to this question but I want to raise it anyway is the question of whether or not you know we want to focus
our oversight of the brick for example like what's in your database and how do you manage and how do you determine who goes in and who's gone in thus far to Brookline specifically or we want to necessarily take
responsibility for all of the communities because I mean from Chaz from your description of the chronology here it sounds like there was a lot of problems with with the brick and information getting in there through
Boston. Um I I believe at one point there was some talk about um the use of SRO's um in terms of providing reports that added people to the brick database. And I'm and I also believe like we don't
have SRO's right now within Brookline. So I'm just curious as to whether there's a disparity there and equally, you know, whether or not we as a town should care about that disparity or we should take a position that, you know,
there are people being harmed by this in other communities as well and our oversight responsibilities um should care for those concerns also. >> All right. So it sounds go ahead B.
>> Yeah, we we we can't say we only care about Brookline people. Um and and it's not a question of you know whether we're we're doing something. The question really is transparency of brick in general. >> Okay.
>> They wanted to be a secret secret type organization. Um because you know we we know that there's a lot of danger in the world today and brick is a piece of it um or can be a piece of it. Um the the I
I guess I have a question for Chaz and that is uh the fingerprinting um piece of this um distinguishes misdemeanors from minor fingerprinting of minors. Do you have the same problems with
denying uh the um release of fingerprints of minors as you do of the uh >> Unfortunately, yes, because we have people who lie and claim to be minors. Um we've we've had that happen in recent memory. Um, it's it's a tactic that's
used and if you if it gets out that I won't get fingerprinted or my my I won't I won't get run through the database if if I claim to be 17. Everyone's going to claim to be 17. >> Could I also make a strategic point that this type of stuff, which I am highly in
favor of in trying to block our cooperation with ICE at all levels possible, um, is seeming to be better handled through general orders. Um, and I think that is a good sentiment that we should try to get out to town meeting because I've I've seen the success of
that. And I think it's also uh just strategically more effective in the practicality of it um rather than uh uh these types of resolutions that are calling for like the most extreme which then uh damages the position in the
public's eyes which makes Brooklyn a target for other things, you know. So I think that I think that the general order way of going about this is probably for the better. >> Just in terms of what we're specifically considering tonight, it's whether first to reconsider article 25 because select
board already voted on a prior version of warrant article 25. So first we would have to vote to >> reconsider and then uh perhaps appine on the current draft. It sounds like at least three members were interested in
approaching the petitioners about a compromise select board version >> or isn't there an option of us sort of setting up a or or or uh directing the PCAC
to do this and making it possible for the petitioners to withdraw their motion if PCA what we set up is is going to satisfy their concerns. >> So, we can certainly do that. In addition, but in the context of Warren Article 25, which is what we're
discussing now, I think it sounds like none of us agree with the exact wording is currently constituted. So, I don't think we need to take a vote on reconsideration given that we're not necessarily on board with the current
version. And from there, if a non-quorum wants to meet with the petitioners to try to reach agreement on something andor separately, uh this doesn't involve or article 25 at all. We can be uh inspired by some of the sentiment
behind it and ask the police commissioner advisory committee to take this up or any other body we think would be appropriate or select board directly asking for uh some >> briefing >> meaningful >> briefing.
Those aren't mutually exclusive options. Is it is it possible or even worth considering just proposing a set of amendments and and sort of offering them ourselves? >> We could do that too, but we don't have
an actual draft at this time of what that >> somebody would have to develop a draft. >> I'm not the person to help develop this, by the way. I do not understand the weeds the way some of you guys do. I I would be willing to develop a draft um if if I could work with you guys in a non-corm basis, right? >> Yeah, I'll work with you.
>> Yeah, thanks. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I would suggest you reach out to the petitioners and >> Yeah. >> both both chiefs and make sure you know maybe there's a grand >> a grand reun weaving weaving of the of the words here. >> Threading the needle.
>> Threading the needle. >> The needle. Well, and it it's helpful because we understand sort of public sentiment, maybe more so than the the chiefs are in Yes. terms of that to be able to come up with something that works. >> Yes. Yeah. All right. Any further
discussion on article 25? >> Sounds like we have a plan of action here. >> Okay. And let's talk maybe tomorrow or something. >> Yeah, I'll call you. >> By the way, uh there's a um a ceremony for the police department. Yes. On at the library tomorrow. Yes. >> Do we have I mean it's an award
ceremony. Do we have any print out of what the awards are for? >> Yes, I can get you all that. The chief has sent you that, but I'll make sure you I'll reforward it. Michael, >> I I I apologize for doing this. Um but I am I am just a little worried as a
matter of process and Joe has to weigh may have to weigh in on this. But if the two of if the select board has collectively agreed that the two of you are going to work on this then it sounds like we just formed a subcommittee um in which case there are OML issues to be
considered and I don't know if we have just done that. >> I'll pick one of you then. >> Well what okay why don't we have one official point person but there's nothing that would prevent two of us from talking to them.
Yes, you can't you can't seriously individually seriously debate. >> Um but no, Michael's point is well taken. Um >> why don't we why don't we >> Why don't you ask Anthony to take point in talking to the petitioners? Why don't
you talk to the chiefs >> and see if you can't get the chiefs and the petitioners to the table? >> That's a great idea. >> Okay, that's a great idea. >> All right, sounds good. Thank you for raising that. I'll try to draft some some language. >> Perfect.
>> All right. Okay. So, with that we a moment. So, with that we no lot we do not have any further warn articles to address. We have no more agenda items other than a second opportunity at public comment which for our two new members. We uh allot 15 minutes at the
beginning and then any overage on that there's an opportunity to speak at the end. Go ahead. Thank you, David. Uh, Regina Frolley from precinct 16. First of all, um, this was a very important discussion, but it's not an emergency,
and that would be the only reason that it wouldn't be on the agenda. There's nothing here. >> Mike, I can >> 25. Excuse me. Nothing on the >> 25 is on the 25 is on the published agenda. >> Huh? >> 25 is on the published agenda. >> Not on mine that I was handed.
>> You have an ear. You have an earlier version of it. It's on our agenda. >> You still have to do it within 48 hours if it's not an emergency. So, I don't know when you did it that it couldn't have been provided to me yesterday that it was changed, but it's important for
you to know that it has to be here and I don't know if the petitioners were notified that they were going to have their article discussed. Um, there's the second point I want to raise because I'm really concerned about this procedurally. Um,
I was never notified that other than my seeing this last night when I went through the packet. I was never notified you were discussing my article. It was standard practice for 26 years that people got notified that we're going to be discussing it and they'd be in the
room. It was very clear that several people seemed to know about it. I did not unless I saw it myself. I would like the courtesy of all petitioners being notified in advance that we're going to be discussing your article on the Tuesday night board of select.
>> Right. Understood. Thank you for letting us know. >> I beg pardon. >> Understood. Thank you for letting us know that you weren't notified. Sorry about that. >> Absolutely. And sec. And finally, um, if it weren't for Dick Banker tonight, I would not know that there were over 500
pages in my packet because I had none of the ones he referred to. Mine ended in the 400s. So, I'm getting a packet that's incomplete to begin with after I fought so hard to get the packet to begin with. So I would like those missing pages is looks like it's about
well I don't know where where it ended with you but it ended with what he said 545 I think >> and mine ended about 485. >> So to that point my packet goes up to 564 pages but the page numbers that Dick
Benoa was referring to didn't seem to match up with the page numbers I have. So >> and and if you look at the combined reports online >> Yes. Go ahead. The packet has maybe eight iterations and it gets changed right up until the meeting when Regina's
packet is printed. It's usually presented to her on Monday. >> Okay. >> Um people are, you know, are told that packets change. We cannot print 500 pages five minutes before a meeting. It is impossible for our staff to keep up with that. Just wanted to address that.
>> But it also meant that my article 13 also wasn't in there. So again, along with not being notified, the actual uh text wasn't there before me, nor were any of the articles I heard discussed tonight. So I'd like appreciate that
that be dealt with. >> All right. I I definitely agree that petitioners ought to be notified of when their warrant articles are being discussed. >> Yes. And the other point is has didn't rise and I'm grateful to what Michael said. Um, there's a bylaw, I don't think it's been changed, that if you're going
to vote for reconsideration, and it sounds like this article 25 would have been a reconsideration of your original vote, you have can't do it without notifying the petitioners in advance to give them a chance to speak and be here. So, I don't know if you've done that,
but again, it wasn't in on my agenda. >> All right. Do we have anyone else who wants to participate in public comments? Anyone online? >> All right, seeing none, that concludes our meeting for the night. >> Thank you.
>> Good job. You guys out of here before the >> change of midnight. >> For us. >> Oh my goodness. >> Recording stopped. So they
they voted to cut out single short-term rentals as they voted to remove TM subdist 12 to 10