Heat. Heat. Good evening everyone. It is May 19th, 2026. Welcome to this evening's select board meeting. To open our agenda, we will be entertaining a question of entering into executive session for the
purpose stated in item two and to reconvene in open session. Uh I move that we go into executive session pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 30A section 21A3. Purpose three, for the purpose of
discussing litigation strategy related to a claim by five town meeting members seeking reimbursement for attorneys fees following an investigation into potential violations of town policies and state laws. >> Bernard,
>> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> abstain. >> All right. And once we conclude executive session Oh, yes. And I vote as well. Thank you. I vote as well. >> How do you vote? >> Yes.
Uh after we convene an executive session, we will uh then return to open session. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey hey. Hey. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Hey, hey hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening everyone. We are back at our open session for our select board meeting tonight and our next agenda item
is announcements and updates. Does anyone have any announcements or updates to make? Bernard? >> Yeah, I'd like Excuse me. I'd like to comment on two matters that occurred in the past few days and the lessons we can learn from them.
David is going to talk about an incredible event uh this Sunday uh the Aaron Fernstein um event here at town hall. And if he doesn't say everything about it, I may add some some of my observations. But first, uh, the ICE
arrest um, here in Brooklyn that turned chaotic once they reached Chesna Hill that put our residents lives really at risk and resulted in threats against residents who were legally filming the action in Chesn Hill. Something else
happened that is noteworthy. According to the Brooklyn news, the ICE agents told the observing residents that the arrested person will get a lawyer and go before a judge. That was likely a lie, and ICE usually doesn't feel the need to
say anything in defense of their actions. But the fact that the agents felt apparently under pressure to tell the lie is evidence that uh the coolish corner stand out on Saturdays and the various large no kings rallies and the
many small acts around Brooklyn and around the country uh resisting you know this ICE craziness are having a subtle impact. The lesson we should we should learn from this is that the resistance to ICE
is creating a psychological environment where ICE agents may feel that they must defend themselves in the only way they can with lies. Um we should keep it up and we should be rejuvenated by the impact of what people are doing around
this country. Secondly, the terrorist shooting at the Islamic Center in San Diego in which three innocent people died in addition to the two white supremist terrorists who killed themselves. It's concerning that the US
intelligence community's March 2026 threat assessment talks about homegrown Islamic terrorists, but not a word about the white supremist and Nazi terrorists who are operating in plain sight.
As I always say, hatred is indivisible. We can call this Islamophobia just as we can call attacks on Jewish businesses and religious institutions anti-semitism. But the reality is that we are facing a massive upsurge of
hatred in general. And we should think that think of that hatred as having a commonality of purpose. And unfortunately our federal government is ignoring it. Although it's right there in plain sight. That does not mean that we ignore, for example, the historical
uniqueness of anti-semitism, the targeting of Muslims by the federal government, or the unique historical roots in America of antilack racism. The lesson we should learn from this is that those who propagate hate are united across the different types of hate and
we should be united in defense. >> Thank you, Bernard. Uh so this past Sunday uh three of us here, Michael, Bernard and I attended Aaron Forestin Day. It's the uh second annual Aaron
Forstein Day and it was a celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month and specifically honoring the legacy of Aaron Forstein. For those who do not know, he was the CEO of Malden Mills who after a devastating 1995 fire destroyed
his factory. He chose to keep all 3,000 workers on the payroll and to rebuild the factory, putting his workers uh and their families ahead of profits. We also heard some uh anecdotes from the MC Paul
Warren uh about how Aaron Forstein was personally kind to uh Paul Morren and his family. Uh and we heard some other stories about the for the forens family and what they have done to uh help others. Yavila McCoy, a nationally
recognized educator uh spoke at this event. She spoke on hessed which is the Jewish value of loving kindness, mercy or steadfast love. Hessed encompasses selfless acts of compassion, empathy,
and devotion that go far beyond basic obligation driven by genuine generosity rather than the expectation of a reward. And Aaron Forstein definitely embodied that concept. Uh hence the speaker
talking about hessed and her own experiences uh with it. uh as this is also Asian uh American cultural month uh the concept of hessed also exists in many Asian cultures. So in Confucianism
their equivalent would be ren which is loosely translated to uh benevolence. So I wanted to acknowledge that as well. Uh many people came to the Aaron Forest event. There was also live music by the Kles Encounters band outside in the
lobby area on the first floor of town hall. Uh the select board had voted a couple years ago to create Aaron Forstein Day and it's something that we hope to continue to observe every year. >> Anyone else? >> If I may.
>> Sure. >> Um what what what I took away from this is the uh fact that the morality that uh was talking about practical reality morality. You just don't think about how
you need to be nice and decent to people. You need to do things that actually express that morality. And you know that's something that not only is in um you know many eastern uh religions but also in the um uh Abrahamic
religious tradition which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And you know that's It's an important message I think that I picked up from the from the >> Michael. Um I have uh two announcements
from the Department of Public Works. Um the first is for Springfest. Uh please mark your calendars for Springfest on Saturday, May 30th from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Allertton Overlook in Olmstead Park. This free all ages
community celebration will include live music, a tree ID walk, and I've gone on those before. They're fascinating. Um, an environmental activities, snacks, games, and opportunities to quote spring into climate action. And there's more
information on the Springfest 2026 web page on the DPW website. Um, the second is the announcement that next week, May 26th through 30th, is trash amnesty week. The DPW provides a trash amnesty
pickup as part of Brookline's hybrid pay as you throw trash program. During the week of May 26 through 30th, 2026, during this week only, residents on town trash collection service may place out extra bags of household waste without
incurring an overflow fee, and purple overflow bags are not required during trash amnesty week. There is more information on the town website. >> Thank you, Amanda. Um, yeah. I just wanted to uh add one point of note, a
special thank you to the DPW staff for working to open so many of our splash pads earlier than Memorial Day in time for the super hot days today and tomorrow. Um I can give at least as of yesterday the ones that are open are Pierce playground, Murphy playground,
Emerson garden, Koolage playground, Lton playground, Winthrop rose garden, Cory Hill playground, Harry Downs, and I believe Robinson and Juniper also were opened. Um and then one more shout out to DPW because I heard really good things about them hosting a third grade
field trip today and the third graders learning about welding and reported back excitedly. So, thank you guys for doing a great job with that as well. >> Nick says it's it's between him and Officer Bayer as to who is the most popular exhibit at DVW Day. Um
um just a couple of quick announcements. One, um it's Memorial Day next week, next Monday. Um the schedule for our annual celebration is up on the town website. Um the big takeaway here is that the um in initial uh ceremony for graveside tributes at both Walnut Hill
and Walnut Street Cemeteries um the that will begin at 8:30 a.m. uh with a shuttle bus departing the VFW at 386 Washington Street. Again, that's 8:30 a.m. 386 Washington Street at the VFW Hall uh Sharp. So, please do uh uh
attend uh for the moments of reflection at the cemeteries. Um, the main ceremony at town hall begins at 11:00 a.m. Uh, it will be held on the town hall lawn at the war memorial there. The program will include the traditional laying of wreaths, musical tributes, and remarks from local veterans and guest speakers.
Everyone is encouraged to attend. Um, in the event of inclement weather, it will be held up here in this room on the sixth floor of town hall. Um, so that's Memorial Day. Um, I wanted to um just uh thank everyone for their patience uh
last uh Thursday um for the town's uh first annual um um employee training day. Um we greatly appreciate folks uh patience on that front and we greatly appreciate all the employee participation there. Um it's a great opportunity uh for us to serve you
better and so we're grateful for the opportunity to take a little time on that front. Uh and we're grateful that you all in turn were so um appreciative of uh us taking that time. Um lastly, I did just want to comment a bit on the um ICE arrest and or this the ICE uh
incident that occurred here. Um in a couple of ways, um I do think it is really important to focus on the facts of these issues. um and um not get taken away in one way or the other. Um I
noticed, for example, that unfortunately the very factual and appropriate statement that was put out by the police department was picked up by a far-right in in instigator on Twitter. It's been all over the place. The police chief has been receiving threats. Um it's really
just awful. Um, and that person who picked that up doesn't care about us, doesn't care about anything that's going on here. They're just in it for clicks and and nonsense. It's a scam. Um, and I really think that person should be ashamed of themselves. Um, so um, awful.
And I condemn their decision unequivocally um because it's simply untrue what they're stating and they are um fermenting uh uh uh threats against a law enforcement official who is doing their job. So shame on that person. Um
and I don't expect them to get kicked off Twitter because Twitter is a hot bit of that nonsense. Um but there it is. Um but the other thing I will say is I know folks are concerned folks are folks have concerns when these things happen. They say, "How is it that this person was picked up? How is it that they know? How
is it that, you know, how is it that ICE knows?" I just I want to be as clear as possible on what happens in these circumstances and reiterate the police do not cooperate with ICE. We do not affirmatively, you know, I I' I've seen this out in public and it's really
unfortunate that this gets out there and transmitted this way because it's not it's a not accurate way of saying it. The police do not transmit fingerprints to ICE like, "Oh, here you go. go get them. Um, that's not that what they do. They have to run fingerprints through a national database. And when we run it
through a national database, ICE knows if we do that, they see that there's a hit. But it's not as though we're out there sending those fingerprints affirmatively to civil immigration enforcement to be like, "Hey, you have any interest in this person?" That's not how it works. Um, we have to take the federal government as a whole on these
things. Unfortunately, if there was a way to do this in a better fa fashion, we would be working on it. But that's not the way the federal government works. Um similarly um you know how do people how do they know whether or not someone is being released when someone is put is we don't make any decisions on
whether or not someone gets bail right that's being set by the district court here in Brooklyn which is a thing of nor which is a creature of Norfick County. It's not of local government. It's of county government. Um they make the determination on whether or not bail is set. Um once bail is paid that person is
released. But it's you know and at that juncture by the time that that in this case that person was released ICE was already here. ICE was waiting. Um so it's not as though we are picking up the phone and saying hey this person will be released at such and such a time. We do not cooperate with ICE and I think it's
really disingenuous to suggest otherwise. So, just as I would condemn in the strongest possible terms this this nonsense on Twitter, I would ask folks to be careful about how they frame what the operations here are because
it's not accurate to say that we cooperate with ICE. And it's better for us to be frank about what the limitations of our operations are in regards to the federal government so that people have a better understanding of what we can do and what we can't do because there are things that we can do.
there are things that we're doing um that can make this better um to the extent that we can. But if we over if we overdescribe what it is that's happening here, that just lessens that just lessens the opportunity to have these real these realistic conversations. So I
would just say to folks, let's all be very cautious as we talk about these things. Uh let's condemn the rhetoric um but also think carefully about how we describe what's happening here. Thanks. Thank you. Any more announcements or
updates? Seeing none, we will move to public comments. Melanie, if you could go over the rules. >> 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 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 are 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 Brookline 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. We do have two people signed up. We have Janice Con first. Thank you very much, Janice Khan, town
meeting member from precinct 15. And um first I'd like to thank the select board members who came to the walkthrough um of the Chesnut Hill Commercial Area last evening as well as the many town meeting members who also joined us. Um I'm on the board of the
Brookline Neighborhood Alliance, so I appreciate that very much. Um, and I'd like to um address an issue that you'll be taking up later today um later this evening, which is a u an amendment to the zoning of the um Chestnut Hill
commercial area that was voted by um the select um the advisory committee recently. I am on the advisory committee, but I'm here really to give you a neighborhood perspective. So, um, so we voted, um, the the amendment is
that there should be no, um, short-term rentals allowed in the overlay district. And I want to be clear that in this area, the underlaying zoning will still exist and that has certain uses and certain um, constraints in terms of
development. And then there's the over overlay district um the overlay zoning rather for the commercial area that has different uses and also different um different zoning requirements, different heights, densities. And so, um, I think
it's really, um, the the neighborhood I represent is very much in favor of not allowing the, um, the short-term rentals to be in the overlay zoning um, that is being presented and will be voted at
town meeting. And, um, part of the reason is that um, this is a tremendous upheaval already in our area. There's a lot of development that's going to happen um when the zoning passes, which I predict probably will happen um at
town meeting and short-term rentals and any great um amount actually is very destabilizing to the neighborhood. And we really are trying to have our um you know our community stay welcoming and and stable for the people who choose to
move in and become part of the fabric of the Chestnut Hill um commercial area in general. And so I urge you to please thoughtfully consider um putting this restriction into the overlay zone um for
the Chesnut Hill commercial area. Thank you. Next we have Regina Frolley. >> Thank you. Uh Regina Frolley from South Brooklyn Precinct 16. I rise for two issues. One, uh if you read the Sunday Globe, Massachusetts is one of five
states in the country that has no law about how AI can alter and use images. And it's time we do that. And I would ask you to draft a letter to all our state reps. There's a downside to having
so many because they have one precinct or at the most two and only Tommy Vlo has more. Uh but now you have I think five votes that you can push to write a letter to them saying please get after this. Uh we shouldn't be one of five in
the country that doesn't seem to have a law to protect children from having the their images used. uh profanely, very profanely. That's point one. And the uh what was the other one? Um yes, uh speaking of AI, you need to get
ahead of it. And I think it's time for everybody. Certainly, I'm reading the business pages. Other companies are getting on top of what AI is going to do in terms of their employees and the work product. We need a a a study committee
that will get ahead of this before it's forced down the throat of many people because AI doesn't care. The companies that own AI don't care. They're just going to do what they're going to do and people are going to save money by using AI and that will eliminate a lot of jobs. And I'd like to see us get in
front of that. Thank you. online. >> Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, it pains me to do this, but here is a picture of the maintenance shed at the golf course presently. My
name is Richard Nangle, town meeting member from precinct 15. I am an avid golfer, regular user of the Robert T. Lynch Golf Course and as such a person deeply concerned about the conservation of nature and animal habitat living in precinct 15. I'm fortunate to live near
protected open spaces including the golf course. The 2025 open space plan approved by the select board and filed by the state described Dne Park and the Robert T. Lynch Golf Course as passive by day and protected conservation area by night. Each provides walkable paths
of recreation by day, but they also include wetland habitats, vernal pool for amphibians, migratory bird paths, and serve as home for much wildlife, including several types of turtles, wood ducks, red fox, coyotes, deer turkeys, three types of owls, eastern screech
bard, and great horned owl. Bad exterior lighting disrupts this habitat. The golf course has recently added unshielded unshielded exterior lighting counter to the park and wreck requirement of no lights from dusk to dawn. And in fact,
the lights shine from dusk to dawn. They're brutal in their impact, lighting up a significant section of the course. And even the new trails of Potaham Woods, of which I am the uh co-chair, if you can believe it. I mean, lights, not me. Um, now we have in the CIP a request
for 300,000 to extend the hours of the driving range through lighting at night. This was brought to Park and Wreck several months ago. There was opposition raised not only from nearby residents, but people across town who were concerned about the disruption to habitat. It was decided that meeting
that the golf course was to hold publicly noticed meetings to get input from the community about lighting at the range as well as an extension of the patio at the range with food and drink service. They were also supposed to obtain a mass D impact study consultation with Mass Ottabbon given the golf course is on a migratory bird
path and to provide information about the specifics of the lighting. Um there was much opposition to what was presented at um the public meetings that were held. Um they have not held meetings. Uh they have not obtained either of the studies and we've been
assured that whatever they will do will be dark sky compliant. But what they're doing with the lighting at the golf course right now from Duster Dawn is anything but Dark Sky compliant. This project should include a design review committee, but to date that's been rejected. A majority of the AC has voted
against this item in the CIP, including Michael Burgerer and Janice Khan in our precinct. The usual golf course support from precinct delegation and other elements of the natural constituency of the golf course have eroded through this process. Climate Action Birkline supported the AC position. from others
out front is opposed to the lighting. And although they've taken no position, members of the BGSA, Brooklyn Greenspace, are opposed to the lighting, Chaz has stated sustainability is a priority of the town, and I agree. Um, we need to respect that this is a conservation area at night. I urge you
to reconsider your vote. Um, supporting the 300,000 dedicated to this item in the CIP. Let's avoid a damaging floor fight and address these issues and come back in November with a plan that everyone can support. Thank you for your time. >> Nobody online and I'm not sure if
anybody here. >> Right. I don't see any hands raised from people in the room. No one else online. So with that, we will move on to miscellaneous approval of miscellaneous items, licenses, and contracts. Uh but
first, let's take up the question of approving the meeting minutes from May 12th, 2026. Those were deferred. >> That's been deferred. >> Has that been deferred? >> I don't believe so.
>> Okay. I'm wrong. Sorry. >> Okay. >> I heard somewhere. >> I I do however want to uh amend the minutes so that they include the statement that I read uh regarding the anti-semitic incidents at Michael's
Deli. I don't see that in the minutes. So, I would like to move approval of the minutes subject to that modification. >> And I'd like to amend to include my statement on leaving the chair. >> Yours is in there. >> Oh, it's in there. >> Yes. >> And I also sent earlier a group of
minute of amendments. >> I think Kate incorporated those. >> Those have been incorporated. Yeah. >> So, as as amended. >> All right. Per your proposed amendment, >> I move approval of the meeting minutes from May 12th, 2026 incorporating Michael's edits and incorporating my
edit right now to include the statement that I read on anti-semitism. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. With that, I want
to skip down to 5e. question of approving the 2026 Arbor Day proclamation. Amanda, would you like to read it? >> Sure. >> Whereas the Brookline Tree Planting Committee was created by a special act
of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1886 to protect and preserve the town's tree resources. And whereas the town of Brooklyn, the Department of Public Works, and the Tree Planting Committee are committed to planting and maintenance for all town roadside shade trees. And whereas the town of Brooklyn
encourages neighborhood organizations, schools, families, and individuals to learn the importance of trees in observance of this tree planters holiday. Be it therefore resolved that the town of Brookline through its duly vested tree planting committee proclaims
May 30th, 2026 as Arbor Day in Brooklyn. >> Thank you. So with that, I would like to move that we approve the 2026 Arbor Day proclamation. Bernard, >> yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes.
>> And I also vote yes. Next, we will take the remaining items under five in omnibus fashion. Are there any particular items that anybody would like to ask questions about or further commentary? All right. Right. I do have one question
regarding item 5C. The question of awarding and executing a contract for roof replacement at the Baldwin and Lawrence schools to Almer LLC in the amount of uh 1.3 million. >> Uh so that I'm only asking about that because it's a fairly high ticket item.
So if you could just tell us about what the process was there. >> Sure. That's a standard. So this we have a um roof replacement schedule um as part of the CIP process. Um we replace roofs um depending on their um uh when when they were last replaced and the current uh uh quality of those roofs and
at this point in that rotation Baldwin and Lawrence are up. Uh the contracts are expected to be completed over the course of this summer. They start when school is out of session and they are to finish before school comes back into session. Um you can see there uh in the director of public buildings memo there
were a number of bids. This is the low this is the lowest responsive bidder. Um, and uh, the contract is standard language regarding what's to be done and the timeline for it being completed. >> Michael, >> um, I wouldn't necessarily ask for an answer right now, but do you know, um,
how the fact that this roof replacement is happening now affects the possibility that at some later point we might put solar panels on top of the roofs as part of that whole initiative? >> Yes. I mean, we we think about we we are thinking about how these things
intersect going forward. But I do think it's also important, you know, we only have so much in the summer. The good news here is that when we think about what are what are phase one of the roofs that are eligible, it's roofs that have been recently done. So, we can go back to this as we continue to expand
outward. But it's a matter now of we we're we're still integrating those two processes. Um, but at this juncture, we do need to move forward on these two roofs. So, yeah. Sure. Sure. But yes, it doesn't preclude us from evaluating them for solar in the future. >> And just procedurally in terms of the
bidding process, uh was the bid put out in such a way that it would be one roof replacement company for both or did Elmer happen to have the best bid on both? >> As I understand it, it's a package deal. >> Okay. >> But I will confirm with the director of public buildings.
>> Okay. All right. So with that, I will move approval of items 5B through 5N excluding 5E which we already voted separately. >> Yes. >> Bernard votes yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes.
>> And I also vote yes. So with that, we will now move to boards and commissions interviews. The Conservation Commission, Kandan Baradan. >> Good evening, select board. My name is
Kandon Baradaran. Uh, and thank you for inviting me to speak with you tonight. Um, I've been a Brooklyn resident for over 30 years, including uh from fourth grade until graduating from Brooklyn High School. And I remember the first
Arbor Day I ever knew about um was here in Brooklyn and I was given a tree that I planted in my parents' backyard in 1973. Uh I currently live in Kulage Corner and I also reside in Cape Cod and Key West.
I'm a scientist by training. Uh I'm a verologist. Um and for the last 30 years I was in the biotech industry um primarily in the regulatory compliance function um and most recently have worked in gene
therapy. Uh I'm now semi-retired and um that's the reason why I'm interested in joining the conservation committee. Um I've been a member of the Ottabbon Society for nearly 30 years. I also belong to the Cornell lab of
ornithology, the Harvard alumni for climate and environment and the association to preserve Cape Cod. Um my interest in the conservation commission arises from concerns about the human impact to our ecosystems and human
health and um climate resiliency. Um, and I'm very passionate about trying to um do what we can to save the bird ecosystems with uh improving the number of trees in our urban canopy.
uh of course um to look at pollinator friendly plantings and noise and light pollution and um some of the other things that we need to be thinking about. Um and of course smart energy solutions which I think are also very important in
that mix. Um and so I'm I'm interested and and I'm happy to answer any questions. I see that the 2026 um climate resiliency plan just came out and um that's looks like
it's focused on greenhouse gases which is very good. Um and obviously the 2025 open space and recreation 10ear action plan. Um and obviously, you know, I would like to support that, make sure that we have um sufficient funding,
oversight, um project management, coordination, um and um that we have a good strategy to look at the things that we do do and to make sure that um if if we have some problems, let's say after planting the
mini forests, we see a 30% uh loss of the new plantings, what can we do to prevent that kind of thing from happening. So, uh, and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. So, a question that I have
for you. I notice in your application, you mentioned that one of the issues you would focus on would be new housing projects, and I'm just wondering uh how your interests in new housing projects dovetales with conservation.
Actually, I'm not sure that uh I was mentioning new housing projects, but what I am concerned about is that when um there are new uh new homes built in my community and um I'm I'm seeing that
happen also in other communities in Massachusetts. Very often what happens is that um the surrounding lom is converted into hardscape and um that's concerning for me on a number of levels. One is the
trees are removed. Two is that the lom is converted into hardscape which makes it much harder to plant even pollinator friendly things. And so it makes me realize that we have some work to do to educate um residents and also
landscapers and um you know people that we uh give contracts to to do uh housing projects and and uh building new homes around here. and to help them understand the impact to the environment and to the urban canopy when they remove the trees
and they remove um the soft um the soft delomme and replace it with things like concrete and um and pebbles and things. So I think that was where where that was coming from. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions?
All right. Well, thank you for your interview. and we typically don't vote the same day that we hear from someone. We sometimes do, but there may be some other applicants. Uh so we'll get back to you later. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. >> You're welcome. And next up, we have
Kelly Brilliant. >> I don't see Kelly online. >> All right. In that case, we'll give Kelly a chance to come on a bit later, but we can move then to number eight on the agenda. Continuing with interviews. I suggest we start with 8B and then go
to 8A. So 8B, Lars Anderson ring design review committee interviews. And first up, Debbie Hats. Debbie's online. Let me just bring her over, make her co-host. Just note um Arlene Fortunado withdrew her application.
>> Okay. >> And I did just want to flag because I know um this came up last week. Just to remind folks um this is a select board committee, a design review committee. Um the process of this of the rink design is unique. It incorporates a number of
different departments. Um the opaces of this originated in the building department um because it's a large scale capital project. So it falls under the building commission's purview. The building commission took the initial vote formed the committee of recommended the committee of seven which David served on voted you know the architects been selected and so forth and that
process is moving forward. This is the next step in that process. Um and so um because it is it involves um the parks and recreation commission's work. The board asked the parks and recreation commission to submit uh a slate. staff
worked with the parks and recck commission to figure out um a potential slate, but it was al it's ultimately always been the select board's decision as to who to appoint to this commission uh committee. And so the board has asked this week that the folks um who were uh
who everyone else who applied also get the opportunity to interview for in front of the select board so that the select board can make an informed decision on who it is that gets picked. So that's why we're having these interviews. I just wanted to confirm the number of people is is the number of people set or
not? >> Um, no, theoretically you could add people, but it's already it's it is already a nine person committee. So, yes, theoretically you want you want to have an odd number or so. Um, but yeah, and I would say it is at this juncture ordinarily you don't do this, but at
this juncture it is um important to get the work started. We've already delayed by a week. So, if you have a final slate tonight, we would really appreciate that. Though, obviously, it is it's your call. So, whatever it is you want to do as a board >> and and we could add two people. >> Yes.
>> Um to make it an odd number. >> Yes. >> Not suggesting that we should, but >> All right. So, why don't we go to the first interview that we have lined up? >> Debbie's online. >> All right. Debbie, whenever you're ready, go ahead.
>> Oh, hi. Sorry about that. And I'm sorry I'm not there. I was I was going to leave and go over. I didn't know you bulked all the last one all together. Um the se the section and I was going. So anyway, uh Debbie Hatia.
Um and I applied as an abuter to be on uh the board. Um I have been in this process since the beginning. I've been on all three um the design review, the OPM um for uh this
process. I have lived near Lars Anderson for 38 years. And I just will say that, you know, I'm a lifelong Brooklyn resident and I grew up in north side of Brooklyn. So for me, come going to Lars Anderson was like a field trip. Um, and
then when I had the opportunity to live here, uh, it has been so special to me. And so I've raised four children in my home at Lars Anderson Park. And then when I had to retire, I was a police officer in town. And when I had to
retire, I ra I was babysitting for my two grandchildren. So I raised them over there also. Um, my my kids were hockey players, my grandchildren are hockey players. We skate up at Lars Anderson. So, it's my backyard and I have, you
know, when people talk about Lars Anderson Park. >> Uh, Debbie, we lost your audio here. Hold for a second. Sorry. Debbie, can you hear us? >> She seems frozen. >> Okay. No, she's
>> Oh, looks like you're back. While you were for a moment. >> Is that It might be us. >> Yeah, it's us. Sorry, Debbie. We lost your audio for a second. Um, >> um, >> it's not your fault. I think it's on our end. Give us a second.
>> So, this is the the big computer. It's reconnecting. >> So, did you throw everybody else out? >> No, this the meeting is still going online. I have the I have it on my my screen here. Uh
folks are talking and hopefully they're >> recording in progress. >> Dropped off. They >> can you hear us? >> They've been dropping in and out today. I don't know why. >> Oh, okay. >> And I see Melanie is back. So, >> okay. >> Yeah, we're on mute, though. >> At least our computer is back. >> Everybody should be okay.
>> Yep. Okay. Sorry, we're having we're having some connectivity issues. I I've noticed we've been having that across the connections today. I think it might be storm related, unfortunately. Um, can you hear us now? >> I can hear you. Did you hear me at all? >> We we lost you about midway through uh part of your uh conversation there. So
maybe back up a back up a couple steps. Um >> um I don't know. So >> we heard we heard the part that you grew up in North Brooklyn. Going to Lars Anderson was like a field trip for you >> and now you're in a butter. So maybe take it from that point forward.
>> Sure. So you know I raised my four children here and then raised them at the park. I raised my two grand, not raised them, but when they were babies, I was watching them full-time and brought them at the park. My kids were hockey players. My grandchildren went to Brooklyn High School or hockey players.
So, I've been in this process uh you know, from the beginning. And when I got the letter in the mail to apply, I did. And um so, you know, when I talk about Lars Anderson, I say it's my park. I still go there frequently and just so I
applied to be part of the process. I I I love, you know, the rink. I I just I love everything about the park. I'm also an empty neester and, you know, I I could move, but the only reason I don't is because of LZ Anderson. So, I I
should downsize, but I don't because of the park. So, any questions you guys have for me? No problem. >> All right. Anyone have any questions for Debbie Bernard? And uh could you give me a sense of why you're interested in the
design review committee and and you know I know that you love Lars Anderson Park um and u use the skating rink but you know what is your specific interest in the um in the design review committee?
Well, so you know, we fought I I was also uh past president of Friends of Lars and got involved because of, you know, the whole rink that they were going to tear it down and build the indoor rink and just thought that was a
travesty. I love the historic uh aspects of it up there. I mean, you go up there and you see Boston and then you go and you see the remnants of the Italian gardens that were there and it's such a beautiful place. Um, I've been really
sad to see that, you know, parts of the um parts of it were falling apart are falling apart and so excited to to um that we're going to finally, you know, preserve that and I just would love to
be a part of it. Um it it's really such a beautiful place uh up there and I'm so excited that we saved we saved the rink. We saved it and that you know we the town you know this is a gift that we
have here and I'm just excited to be a part of it. Uh I live here so I'm a part of it and just want to be part of it further. >> Any other questions? All right, seeing none, uh, thank you very much, Debbie. We'll now move on to
our next interview. Uh, Ethan Yanovitz. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Ethan Yankoitz. I'm a I'm a town resident and have been for the last 13 years. I live in South Brooklyn on Allenell Road nearby to Lars
Anderson Park. um and have with my wife and three daughters. Um use the skating rink every winter. I go there five, 10, 15 times with my with my kids. Um have always appreciated the historic and cultural um gem that it is. Um as the
previous applicant said, I agree with everything she says. Um about how beautiful it is as an outdoor rink. uh would love to preserve as much um as possible in the new design and so would like to be a part of it if if the town
needs me to. Um I uh um that's about it. If you have any questions, that's uh I'd like to be a part of the process if you need me to. Any questions? >> Sure. >> Anthony, Michael, >> go ahead. Um so uh in terms of in terms
of uh joining this this committee is there some particular um uh sort of design aspect or some particular quality of the rank that you are thinking about promoting um as part of being part of this committee.
>> Um sure. Well, I've I've um I guess I've read about over the last few years also rink could look like. >> Um I think the rink um I think the simple aspect of an outdoor rink uh up
on top of the hill as it is with the um um the historic u sculptures around it um uh I think are are worth preserving to the extent possible. Um, and so I think the simplicity of it, um, being
outdoor uh uncovered um, and just a place, uh, that that people can come and and skate, um, I think is important to preserve. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Anthony, >> uh, thank you. How do you believe your
professional background um, what can do you think your professional background can bring to uh, this committee? Well, uh, when I was much younger, I worked, um, for a couple of years in in historic preservation. Um, and I'm a lawyer now. Um, although not this kind
not this kind of lawyer. Um, so, you know, I I guess I I might bring some expertise, but um, I think just being a um, a resident who uses and appreciates the park, I think, is probably most important. >> What do you see as the greatest
challenges to the site? Um, in terms of design review here, >> um, I don't know. I I don't know enough about it. Um, so, you know, I I I come to this process, uh, I guess, fresh. I haven't been, um, a part of, um, any
prior fights to preserve or maintain open space at Lars other than being a town resident. So, I guess I'm I'm kind of green in that respect. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, with that we'll move to our uh next interview. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Next we have Isabelle Ta. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Isabelle Tabby and uh I'm just going to read my statement. Thank you for inviting me to interview for the design review committee position. As I mentioned in my
application, I have a have had a lifelong connection with the park. As a child, I frequently played and sledded in the park and skated on the rink. As an adult, I continued to visit the park, but my interest in it has changed as I
have spent over a decade researching Isabelle and Lars Anderson and their homes in Brooklyn and Washington DC. I think the ice rink has become an important feature of the park and I would like to contribute my understanding of the history of the site
to the design review process so that we can arrive at a state-of-the-art ice rink that is enhanced by its historic setting. Yes, I'm interested in the historic aspect of the site, but I'm also realistic. I'm passionate about the
Andersons and their history. I've written on this topic and thought about it extensively and I'm an art historian by profession. However, I fully understand that we have several perhaps at times competing needs here. An up-to-date ice skating rink, the
restoration of an historical setting, and a limited budget along with the practical aesthetic and financial concerns that accompany them. I find this challenge exciting. I've already had to deal with similar challenges in a New York City cooperative building where
I was the board president for over five years. I managed a limited budget, major systems upgrades, and the competing voices of board members and shareholders. In addition, on a practical level, I'm ready to engage. I've gone over the past
meeting recordings, the designer review materials that have been posted on the Lars Anderson Ice Rank Design website. Not that that's a requirement, but I want you to know that I'm already familiar with and interested in this project. Finally, I would welcome the
opportunity to represent the public on the design review committee. As stated in Isabelle Anderson's will, she offered what is now Lars Anderson Park to the town, quote, for public purposes of public recreation or for charitable p purposes or for purposes of public
education. Outdoor public recreation with direct access to an experience of nature was important to her. The outdoor ice skating rink with views of the park during the day and of the sunset and stars in the evening aligns with her
wishes. I also take seriously the duty and responsibility to represent the wishes and needs of the public at a large at large on the design review committee. That means taking into consideration the groups that use the ice rink, those that use the park more
generally, and the neighbors. Thank you for considering me, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Any questions, >> Michael? >> Um, so, um, thank you for your statement and thank you, uh, and to all the
applicants for, um, applying to this position. Um I'm one I'm I'm interested in your historical perspective and how you see um sort of the intersection
between design and his and your historical understanding and how you think that that can inform the designs of a 21st century project. >> Right. So, one of the things that I really liked about Maryanne Thompson,
who you chose as the architect to lead this project, was that she's talking about how yes, the park, you know, exists here and now, but there are ways to illuminate and also restore some of the historical elements. So, one of the
things that I was thinking about is that yes, we need an up-to-date, you know, ice surface that's going to have as low maintenance as possible and a facility that includes this warming hut and ideally, you know, might be all net zero. But also, there's a sense of the
presence of this ice rink in the park. And one of the things that I keep returning to is that, you know, the season for ice skating is actually relatively short, especially in an outdoor rink. So, I think we need to think about the aesthetics and the history that goes along with them in
terms of thinking of the ice skating rink as a garden feature in the park in the same manner that we might think of the Tempietto or the lagoon or other aspects of the park so that it would really have a you know a full year in a sense presence in the park. And so I
think that you can combine these very up-to-date, you know, concepts of what an ice skating rink is and the types of ice you use and the barriers around it, but then consider aesthetically how you might change, you know, not having a chainlink fence, for example, as we have
around there now, but what some of the other options might be to enhance the historic quality of it. >> Thank you. Any other questions? I have a question. And so some of the others who interviewed, they mentioned whether they are in a butter or not. Do
you live in that part of town? >> Sorry, I do not live in that part. I actually live right up the hill here from Brooklyn Village. So I'm not I'm someone who actually and believe it or not, I don't own a car in Brooklyn. I know most people do here, but I actually walk from my house. It's about a mile and a half to the park. And it's, you
know, part of my exercise and my experience of the park, which brings up another thing that I'm interested in whether or not I I'm on this design review committee, which is transportation to the park and access to the park as well is something that I would be interested in thinking about
and how the design of that also works with the the ice rink. >> Thank you. All right. Any more questions, Michael? Um, I would just make make a general comment to all all of the applicants.
Um, all of the meetings of this design review committee are public meetings and I would encourage you whether you are on the committee or not to continue to stay involved and to share your public comments and your ideas in the course of the committee's deliberations.
>> Thank you. I certainly am planning on doing that. So, thank you very much. >> All right. So now uh we will move toward 8A or a modification of 8A. My suggestion after hearing these interviews uh I'm I'm very impressed
with the interview we just had with Isabel Tabby and also I know from my work on the committee of seven with Debbie Hats that she was really instrumental in the selection process of Maryanne Thompson. She asked great questions during those meetings and I
would hate to see her excluded in the second half of this when she participated in the first half. So following up on what Bernard suggested which is sort of where I'm leaning, I would like us to add two more to the ro to the roster of names under AA. I would
propose that we add Debbie Hats and Isabelle Tabby. I'd like I'd like to ask if there's a member of the park and wreck commission here who made the recommendation slate and whether or not they have any
comments um on their recommendation. >> I don't see a parks and recck commissioner online. Um Tim Davis from the rec department is on as I believe is me Pradan the director uh
the the park of the parks division. Um Tim or me any comments on that process? >> Hi everyone. This is Millie Praan um director of arts and open space. Um so um the parks and reccomission did review
all the different applications and um their recommendation uh was Robert Franklin and Bradner OG um and who both of whom you had interviewed last week and um you know re
reviewing their applications like Robert Blank Franklin was unanimously voted by the commission primary because you know as you heard from his interview last week that um and he is a really longtime
user of the ice rink and you know is up there uh you know as a user experiencing the ice rink and um you know pro is able to really provide that like deep user perspective you know as a child himself
and raising his um children and now grandchildren. So he was for that reason unanimously voted and for uh Wagner OG um you know uh the commission felt like they had uh you know he again like
provided um that like nice perspective and balance of you know being in a butter and also uh from the user level. Um there was uh you know quite a bit of discussion between um you know um Isabelle um and um Debbie being on you
know as um you know the other candidates um that they were contemplating to recommend and as the commission were voting on both Isabelle and do and Debbie had um you know three yes and three nos um at that time and you know
one of the reasons why um the the commission or the chair of the commission clar or a bachelor who's not here right now. Uh but um you know the the viewpoint was that like uh you know the the DRC committee should be well
balanced and you know not weigh in heavy in one direction or the other and they felt like both Robert and Wagner provided that balance. Tim, anything else you'd like to add there? >> No Millie, thank you for that. Sorry I'm having a little issues with a storm over
our house as well. Um but no, I think you summed it up uh great. The park and rec commission had a very robust conversation um at our meeting um and the slate that was put before is the result of that. >> So there was an earlier question about whether any members of park and wreck are on. I'm told that Jane Flanigan's
on. >> I don't see her name, but Richard is >> right. I think she's with him. >> Yeah, I would imagine she's with him. Yep. Go ahead. >> Jane, >> who is she with? >> Uh Richard Nangle. Okay, hang on. Let me
make promote him and he's raised his hands. >> Yeah, there we go. >> Hi. Sorry about that. Um, so it is James Flanigan. I am Parkin Commissioner and I think me summarized it um pretty well. There was a lot of confusion about who
could be on um the design review committee. Um so I think that was caused a little confusion within our own group. um there was some sense that it shouldn't include um a second park and rec commissioner but Debbie Hutz was encouraged to apply but then also encouraged to not be at the meeting. So
that was a little confusing to many of us and it's a process we have since talked about um but I do want to say we there was as Millie reported there was support for both Isabelle and Debbie Hats. Um and I just want to say that like we really there was it was on the 3
to2 side or whatever the vote was. It didn't it didn't vote in their favor, but there was definitely um I guess it was more four to three now that I think about it cuz there's seven of us. No, it had to have been something else. Um but anyway, they definitely were supported um by several of us. Um so I don't know if you're talking about adding new
members, but um I think they would be excellent choices if you are >> Bernard and then I'll go back to Michael. Yeah, I I agree with you, David, that um Isabelle Tal and Debbie Hatel Learitis, if I pronounce that correctly, would be
great um additions. Um however, I don't want to lose the sort of perspective and expertise of Ethan Yanovich just based on his interview today. I think that we we probably want to encourage him to remain involved in in in the process
both with respect to the ice rink as well as other things because I think you can bring a lot to the town in terms of this project as well as other other things. >> Yes, absolutely. I just want to make sure everyone speaks once. >> Oh, I I was just going to say I I'm uh
impressed with the number of people whose names I don't recognize. And I think one of the problems that we run into when we all lot so many positions on a committee to certain groups or certain representatives is it does not leave much room for members of the
public. And I would say all three of those who interviewed today I would love to have on. Um, and it it just I would push us to not be overly prescriptive with filling like threequarters of the slate with specific people, including
representatives of commissions. Um, because I I think it we miss out on a lot of members who aren't already engaged in the public that I would like to see plugged in. >> I agree with you. Go ahead, Michael. Um I might propose a as a way to make this
a little more manageable for the group that there are already nine people on the group. We also have the capacity to nominate or appoint um associate members um as opposed to full members um who would participate in meetings and could
step in for full members in the case where they weren't um the other the full members were not present. um at the discretion of the chair. Um I think this is all laid out in the select board handbook and I wonder if for logistics we might
consider appointing these three people as associate members. >> I I'm not sure that going from 9 to 11 is such a a big jump. >> Well, there was a proposal to 12 but >> and the issue is you want a odd number
of members. >> Right. >> Yeah. Theoretically. Yes, you >> I agree. I agree. >> Only that ever happens. I mean, >> Anthony, >> I think I I I would move that we take David's advice um and add Debbie and Isabelle as full members um and then
make Ethan an associate member. >> That's an option. >> We could do that. I accept Anony's proposal. So moved. >> Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. So, congratulations
to all three of you and to all five who interviewed. We were very impressed with all five. We couldn't make up our minds. That's a that's a that's a good problem to have. And with that, we will move to our next item, which is FY27 annual water and
sewer rates public hearing. You're just going to share your screen. Stop. set up. I was left alone for too long. Let's get back to that screen. >> Great. Well, uh, good evening board
members, um, public in the room, public online. Uh, my name is Jay Hersy. I'm the director of water and sewer. Uh the commissioner, Aaron Shoot, apologize she couldn't make it. She um lost her voice today, so she wouldn't normally be here. Um but but she can't. So you'll um get
Dave Fox, who's our financial consultant with Raf Telus and and myself to to kick off this presentation u for the FY27 water and sewer rates. Uh before I get started, I do want to just say publicly that um how much I actually really
appreciate all the men and women in the water and sewer division. It's those folks that actually make it all happen. Um they're the ones that make sure we all get good, clean water every single day when you turn on the tap and then um on the opposite side of it, when you flush the toilet, everything goes where
it's supposed to do. So I really thank them. You know, they're the ones that do it all and um make it work for this town. So, with that, I'll just get started with our slides here and uh we'll get going. I'm doing this right.
There we go. All right. So, for for some of you like the select board has seen our budget. Um it's been through advisory. It will go before town meeting next week. Um our budget is 35.5 million. Um, as you can see with the the pie chart here, the the bulk of it or
the lion share is actually our MWA assessment. Um, they're the ones that supply us u with the finished water which we distribute through our pipelines um to our customers. Um, we also send all of our waste water to them for treatment and disposal. Uh, the other items in there you can see, you
know, builtup uh personnel costs and, you know, basically everything else that we need to to run our operation. And here's a further breakdown um of our budget. You know, different salaries, you know, are up slightly, services are
down a little bit. Um supplies um typical breakdown as you've you've already seen. Um but we're looking at basically a little bit over 3% for our budget for FY27. Um here's also another sort of further
breakdown as to where the costs are. you know, obviously, you know, personnel, contract obligations, we have our services, and we've actually seen a decline in our credit card service charges. I don't know if a lot of you remember, but a couple years back
um it used to be that we were subsidizing um our customers and their credit card service charges. So, we actually flipped that around um and got rid of it. So, now it's on on those that actually use that service that they pick up the tab.
And again, here's the other breakdown. You know, you can see actually we've got some savings on our MWA s sewer services and charges there. And that's actually a function of um our INI program or infiltration and inflow program where we
actually have gone in and lined a lot of the sewer pipes and that keeps a lot of the clear water out and saves on treatment costs. So, that's actually brought our assessment down, which is which is great. Um, and here's actually sort of a segue
into that that same process here where you can see that basically putting a pipe inside a pipe to pro protect it and to keep the clear water out. We also sealed the manholes. You can see the the before and after. Um, a lot of water actually does come in through the manholes. And by sealing it with a
special epoxy resin, it keeps all that water out. And um, we're about halfway through the program now. So hopefully, you know, by 2032, 2033, we'll be wrapped up and u it'll actually be a good success story.
Um on the water side, you know, we're looking for this, sorry, this is all of our capital requests. Um we're looking for another two million to continue our um service line replacement program. And what we're doing there is we're looking at all the older service lines in town.
Um we don't have any lead pipes per se. Um town's been very proactive on getting rid of that over the years. But we do have um what's called lead goose necks. It's where actually the the iron pipe connects to the cast iron man in the street. It's a flexible pipe that does
contain lead materials. Currently not regulated, but we want to stay ahead of the game and be proactive and get all the lead out of the system. So, we're prioritizing our work, trying to do, you know, a couple hundred replacements every year and we're we're um sort of coordinating that work with the
engineering division on the roads that they're going to pave. Last thing we want is um to have an old pipe burst and then we're digging up a freshly paved road. So, it's a good program. Like to continue with that. And then on the storm water front, again, we're we're looking at a half a million dollar request and this is to
help, you know, deal with climate change. Um actually you've probably seen and heard the rain and thundersh showers outside um because of the heat. That was actually a pretty minor storm. We've had way worse that as you can see in the picture will flood out Beacon Street and make it not passable. So we're trying to
look for ways to to mitigate, you know, flooding. We're also using the money to put towards a permit compliance and also fund our elicit discharge and detection program which basically um like bacterial contamination or sewage that ends up in the drain. So, we're trying
to locate it and remove it so that that water that flows through the drain to our resource areas are as as clean as possible. Um, so with this, I'm actually going to turn it over to Dave Fox, our financial consultant, and he's going to walk us through uh what we're looking for for a
rate revenue increase this year. So, Dave, thanks Jay. Good evening, everyone. Um, I recognize some of you from last year and the year before that and year before that. Uh, my name is Dave Fox. I'mma vice president with Rap Telus. Rap Telus
is the the largest firm in the country predominantly focused on financial and rate related matters for the utility industry. We do some other things, but that is our primary focus and it's certainly my area of expertise. I've been working with the town now for I don't know the last seven or eight years
um getting to to where we are today, which is uh good news. A a really great financial position that we're just trying to to maintain. Um I'll uh walk you through a number of slides and then turn it over for any questions that you
might have. So uh where we thought we might be uh this time last year is exactly where we are. We're recommending a 3% across the board increase to both water and sewer rates. Um, just as a a bit of a a comparison for
you, um, across the country for the last 25 years, water rates have gone up by approximately 5 to 5 and a.5% every single year for the last 25 years and we're looking at a 3% increase here. Um,
I think that has a lot to do with the foresight that the the town has had and a lot of the good work that has been put in. um both with uh Jay and Aaron, their staff uh looking at the financials on an annual basis as well as the um water and
sewer rates task force that has meets annually to to look at this. Um rather than taking a what a lot of communities do is they don't look at their water and sewer conditions for five or six years or five to 10 years and then they're
they're in a world hurt from a financial position. looking at this on an annual basis, uh, making projections, making adjustments as necessary, and then keeping up with them allow for more programmatic, lower magnitude, more manageable increases, which certainly a
3% increase is. Um, I would say just working with a number of communities in Massachusetts and New England as a whole, um, this year and last year, high single digits and low double-digit increases are the norm. Uh, 3% increase, I would say, is absolutely an anomaly.
um and certainly to maintain the financial position that the town is in. So I think that's a a fantastic thing. Um we are assuming that the uh town will not have to utilize any of its reserve fund balances which we have um been building up over time and I'll get into
that in a little bit of why we're trying to do that, why it makes sense for an enterprise fund or enterprise funds like water and sewer to have a reserve fund balance. Um, and as always, just I think the like I just said, the reason that you're in such a good financial position, this financial plan should be
updated annually just to make sure uh the utility industry is very volatile. It it changes rapidly. Um, both from an operational perspective, a capital perspective, a regulatory perspective, a customer base. Uh, we just want to make sure that the financial projections that we have, which are just that,
projections, um, are reasonable and accurate, as accurate as possible as we're moving forward. Um, just a couple things on reserve funds. Um, everybody in this room to the greatest degree possible, uh, myself included,
uh, should probably have some sort of a savings account. Um, I wish mine was a little bit higher than it is, but that's fine. Um, water and sewer funds are no different. Um and uh enterprise funds especially water and sewer which are predominantly their their revenue base is is contingent upon the amount of
water that customers use which is potentially volatile or is volatile from year to year. Um there's more volatility in the revenue. So there is typically more um that is required or standard in terms of reserve fund balance for an enterprise fund as of water and sewer
compared to a general fund. Um this just allows for uh a mitigation of of risk associated with capital improvements that pop up that we're not planning for. Um emergency repairs that we weren't planning for. Um
uh fluctuations in consumption. You can imagine uh you know from and we have looked at this on on an annual basis. Consumption does fluctuate. Um, and if there's a down year of consumption where customers aren't using as much water, uh, your revenues take a hit because of
that. And we want to make sure that there's enough sitting there in a reserve fund to be able to balance that out such that you're still able to pay for all of your obligations, your operating expenses, your debt service, your capital obligations. Um, so we do recommend uh kind of building towards
and this is something that uh myself and Jay and Aaron have been working towards as well as the task force uh for the last several years of getting to a a strong financial position with that reserve fund. I'll now show you um what our our
projected cash flow looks like with those 3% increases. Um, again the the columns uh going up and down the bars if you will are the revenue requirements or your cost the water and sewer costs on
an annual basis. Um, and then the line going across with the diamonds in each year are uh the proposed revenue with 3% increases and we are showing except for those out years 2030 2031 really just 2031 a slight deficit there. um that
gives me absolutely zero heartburn whatsoever. Um you know, we have a lot of time between now and then to be able to make adjustments as necessary. And I certainly want wouldn't want to make a recommendation uh to to have a higher rate increase here in 2027 to offset a
very slight deficit in 2031 given that we have plenty of time to be able to um remedy that if if absolutely necessary, which is probably not the case. Um and again our reserve fund balances um
we have gotten them to a strong position and all we're trying to do at this point in time is to maintain that strong position um you know above our what our minimum target is but again we have looked at uh fluctuations in consumption
historically and all it takes is one bad year of consumption um and that reserve fund balance can dip down below our target very quickly. Um so again I I don't think we want to do anything to start drawing down on the reser reserves. We want to just maintain
the strong uh financial position we have right now. Certainly never let it get below that point if at all possible or below that target if at all possible. We want to maintain what we have. Uh a lot of times I work with communities and they're starting at um you almost no
reserve whatsoever and we're fighting a very much an uphill battle of trying to build their reserves up to get to that financial v viability perspect point and it's it's very difficult. It requires higher rate increases than are technically necessary. um it puts them
in or they're already in a very vi um um financially poor position if they do have one of those down years. Um so you're in a strong position here. We just want to maintain that. Um these next slides are going to get a
little repetitive so I will apologize in advance. I'll spend the most time on these first couple slides and then I'll just try to just um hit the high notes on the remainder of them, but please bear with me. Uh so I wanted to to put into perspective a lot of times, you
know, we hear a a 3% increase. Well, what does that mean? So, uh these next several slides, I think we have four or five here, are going to uh put that into dollars and cents terms for different customer types within the town. uh starting with a a low usage a low volume
single family account. Um this is about 10 CCF per quarter with a 58 inch meter. This is very um typical for a single family account. Um a 3% increase amounts to approximately a
$25 increase for both water and sewer service for this customer. If we break that that down further, um a $6.32 per quarter increase. If we break that down even further, a $211 per month increase
or getting a little crazy here. If we break that down per day, it's a 7 cent per day increase. Um, but for $211 more for both water and sewer, this is the increase that we're talking about for a low usage customer. Um, and then 2028
and beyond, we show you here what we're thinking, which is approximately a 3% increase, which is exactly what we thought 2027 was going to be this time last year. Um, we're not voting on that or you're not voting on that this evening. We're not proposing that this evening. We just wanted to show you where we think the um the fund is going,
which is absolutely incredible compared to a lot of the other communities that I'm working with. Um, a typical or median volume uh single family single family residential count. This is about 1,800 cubic feet per quarter. I should have mentioned um 18 CCF. CCF is 100
cubic feet. That's about a CCF is about 748 gallons. Just to to put that in context for you, um, a typical customer is going to pay approximately $38 more per year. Uh, approximately $10 more per
month, $3 more, sorry, uh, $10 more per quarter, uh, $3 more per month, or approximately $10 or 10 cents more per day. Um, and again, 3% increase. And then you can see the the increases
thereafter. Um a typical kind of commercial multifamily account. Um the dollars that we're seeing here are different magnitude. Still a 3% increase because we're having an across the board increase. Everybody's feeling the same
um or seeing the same increase with from a uh percentage perspective just different dollars because of the magnitude of their bill. They're using more water here. approximately a $90 per year increase or approximately $7.50 more per month for this this customer
which is typically a two to three family account. And then if we look at a a very high usage multif family account, think of a a greater than a 100 unitit apartment complex. Again, please take into consideration the magnitude. A lot more
consumption here compared to a single family account or a two to three family um you know, duplex or triplex. Um you know, a $2,200 per year increase or uh you know, approximately $183 per month. But again, still a 3% increase here
because we are just proposing a 3% across the board on both water and sewer. And I'll end with this. Um I Jay knows this. I don't always love to show bill comparisons to other communities because they are not a perfect apples to
apples comparison. However, I think uh certainly in Brooklyn's case, this is this is worthwhile of showing to you. So we took a typical single family residential account um in Brooklyn. We looked at your billing data uses approximately 1,800 cubic feet per
quarter with a 5/8 inch meter. We calculated that same bill for all these other communities from Boston to Watertown all the way to Somerville. Um even with the increase that we're talking about 3% increase, you are still very much on the low end or you are all
the way on the low end except for Boston um compared to all these other communities. I think that is indicative of the strong financial planning the uh the you looking the town looking at your
financial position the capital that you're working on um the operations on an annual basis and keeping up with things rather than kicking the can down the road and then dealing with the inevitable when things get more expensive and there's emergency repairs and things become more expensive. Um, I
I would applaud the town for for looking at this every single year the way that you have been. And I think that's indicated here compared to a lot of these other communities. And again, I I don't love showing these because it is an apples to oranges comparison. Um, especially if the community that I'm working for is on the far right of this
chart, but you are not. So, I wanted to show this to you. Um, with that being said, uh, this last is if you all are to vote on this this evening. These are just the rates that you would vote on. Um, and with that I will close and entertain any questions you might have.
Thank you. >> So, a question I have uh here in Brooklyn, do we have shared pipes for sewage and storm water? >> Yes, we do. Yep. >> All right. So, how are we doing in terms of combined sewer overflow compliance?
>> We actually don't have any combined sewers in Brookline. Everything is separated. I mean, we might have a couple catch basins that are tied into the sewer here and there, which we're in the process of investigating, and when we find them, we remove them, but there's separate pipes in the street to
take storm water, you know, independently, and sewage goes there. So, we're not in the position, as in other communities across the river that have some significant challenges with combined sewer overflows. >> All right. Uh, do we have any anticipated sewer system upgrades where
you anticipate that our rate would have to go up significantly? >> I don't think so. We've done, as Dave mentioned, we've done a really good job here in this town, like planning well in advance to to keep up with our our wastewater system, and that's why we do all the lining work. You know, that that
actually helps a lot because it's getting a a lot of that clear water out. So then we have more capacity for actual true waste water. And that slide showing the uh bill for Brooklyn relative to others as a percentage going up 3% is
actually a lot lower than many other communities nearby, isn't it? I think Somerville went up over 12% last year. >> Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly with the other committees communities, but you're you're right. A lot of other folks are seeing significant increases where we've
because we've tried to focus on making everything sustainable and predictable with our rate increases. We're not like going way up and way down. It actually is a nice smooth trend line so we can we can manage that going forward. So you don't have all that fluctuation in in
the race year to year. >> All right. >> Oh, Dave's got something. >> Ju just real quick one comment on this. I should have mentioned uh that's a great point that you you brought up. This is assuming this is um we're comparing Brooklyn today and also if you
are to approve the 3% rate what it is in fiscal year 27 to all these other communities bills today and that's assuming that they're not going to have rate increases for 2027. And I can assure you that all of these communities um if they're not going to have a rate increase they should have some sort of
rate increase and you're still in that that that picture there. Anthony, um I I I was on the capital subcommittee when we went through your CIP plan uh last year and I asked this question. I I don't remember the the the pipe treatment. Was that funded through
state and federal grants at all? >> Excellent question. Yes. Um it is. We actually see receive very generous grants from the MWA which they are where we send our wastewater >> and most years we actually get a 75%
grant and a 25% 0% loan. >> So we're putting in $3 million but effectively you can do the math. The Y >> the grant takes a lot of that out of the equation. So, it's a a really awesome program and that's why we've been trying
to expedite things as much as we can because who knows that program could change and then we're back to if we're lucky, you know, a 0% loan, but you know, other places have to do a utility bond and now you're looking at, I don't know, 4% interest and >> and that's and that's like the perfect
example of a perfect CIP project. Um, so then my next question on that is when I saw in the out years there was a yellow box for proposed debt service in the future and I want to know what what that proposed debt service is. Is that capital items that are coming up this year? Uh, yeah. That's that's sort of
the compounding factor because we keep doing uh these projects and in building the debt. But also Dave, correct me if I'm wrong. We're we're assuming in our out years that we're not getting that grant. Uh, >> so we're forecasting that it's going to
be a utility bond with interest. >> Why? >> That's just to be ultra-conservative. >> Got it. Got it. >> So looking way out into the future, hopefully that picture is going to be much brighter because we're ultra conservative. >> That's why I was that Okay, that makes more sense. >> That's a very good question. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Okay. And then final um where do where do your
reserves sit um right now? Are they invested in treasuries or something or like where do they sit? >> It sits within the the enterprise fund. So Chaz, the enterprise fund, where is that? >> Um, I'd have to check with Treasury on uh what they are what they're earning in there. >> Got it. Cool.
>> Yeah, I think we're if I ran the last report and again it's we haven't closed the year yet. So on a bad year, if we >> spent way too much money, we would have to dip into those reserves to to balance for the year. But >> so they are they are liquid. >> They're liquid and they are invested in something. Got it. Cool.
>> Thanks. Thank you so much. Great presentation guys. >> We'll follow up and get you that information. Anyone else? Michael? >> Um, a couple of questions. Um, I'm looking at at the the slide of with the expenditure categories and reserve and notice, you know, that that number
increases a pretty uh substantial amount on a percentage basis up 79.62%. But my understanding of that number is that the that it's not like that number is going to go up that much every single year. Is is that right? How's it how is the change in reserves going to map out
over time? Did I can you explain that a little? >> Well, that that can change. We just kind of plug a number in for now just to keep building the reserves. But the reality is if we don't spend all of our money and we have surplus, it all goes back into our retained earnings,
>> right? So that effectively becomes your retained earnings. Correct. Recash or wherever you put the extra money. Okay, >> Bernard, >> correct me if I'm wrong, Chaz. You said the reserve fund is is in liquid assets
>> like shortterm or >> No, it's accessible. It's not It's like we're not buying certificates of deposit that we can't easily liquidate. >> Could you uh find out what our interest rate is? >> Yes, >> Amanda. Um, I'm new to this also, forgive me if this is a naive question,
but a lot of these rates are showing the difference between single family residents and other customers where in Brooklyn the majority of our homes like your your median home is a condo building. And I'm wondering if there is if I'm reading this correctly to say
that if you live in a condo, you pay a almost double the rate that you do if you live in a single family home. >> It depends on the condo. Like if the condo has its own dedicated water service line and its own individual meter, you actually fall into the single family category. A couple years back, we
actually did an audit of our customers and and we found a fair amount that that were in that sort of category. So, we actually moved them out to make sure that they were in that single family structure. But for those that are in a much bigger condo association, like a threeunit or whatever, um just by usage,
they're going to fall into that sort of multi-family type category and their their bills will be higher. >> Be higher. But it's based on usage or it is >> it it's based on um the actual the units in in the building. So more than like
one unit versus like a a condo that has, you know, just a single unit. It's effectively like a single family. So, >> right. So, I live in like a 30 condo association and I'm wondering if the our water rates at at an individual level are double that if I lived in a single
family home. And I guess the answer is yes. >> Yeah. >> And it doesn't have to do with usage. >> Correct. It's just by individual. >> Yeah. >> Fascinating. >> Question. Uh, how are you coming up with double
>> 6.92 versus 3.46? >> So the 3.46 is only for the first 1,800 cubic feet of consumption. And then it's $8.65 for every 100 cubic feet above that.
Whereas it's $6.92 per 100 cubic feet for all consumption for all multif family properties or larger properties that are outside of that. Um, we actually we did a a very detailed analysis where we looked at every single customer in Brookline system and we
said, would they be better off on this two-tiered system or would they be better off on the one-tiered system? And what we found is once we got outside of uh certainly single family and then we looked at uh two family and three family. Once we got to two and three
family, it was like a 5050 split of whether they'd be better off on that kind of two-tiered system. Um, and then certainly when we got above that three family to some something like your property, much better off having the 692
versus that um that two-tiered system. >> Thank you for explaining it. >> You're welcome. >> Anyone else? Michael, >> um you had mentioned um that you're getting savings from the INI program in terms of uh future costs on primarily on
MWR assessments. Um are are those savings uh incorporated into the town's financial projections going forward? >> I believe it's it's separate because this is all the enterprise fund, not the not the general fund. >> So So it's all separate there. Um and
you also had mentioned before um uh how uh the one of the purposes of the of the reserve is to manage the fluctuation of usage um compared to your fixed costs um on the expense side. And so I'm
wondering what what percentage of the of the costs you regard as fixed >> um for the actual fund. >> No, no, no. for the expenses for the expense side is it is it like 80% fixed or 20% of of 90
>> I would say 90 90 plus >> is is fixed that >> okay >> very few of the actual costs on an annual basis are >> so like the MWR assessment is fixed >> on an annual basis
sorry I'm speaking to the microphone for folks um moving forward it it is historical based based on on the water side, the amount of water you use on the sewer side, there's a lot of different components that go into that. Um, so that it could be changing going forward,
but on an annual basis, the MWA assessment, which makes up the vast majority of the budget, is absolutely fixed. And then most of your other costs are are fixed as well. Very few of them are variable. I'd say, you know, 90 slightly over 90% I would I would estimate. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Sure. >> All right. Well, this is a public hearing, so I'd like to open this for a public hearing. Would anyone like to comment on the water and sewer rates? You can use the hand raise feature if
you're joining us online. No one in the room. I don't see anyone online. >> All right. Seeing none, I move that we approve the proposed increase of 3% to the FY27 water and sewer rates. >> Yes.
>> Is there a formal >> vote that we have to record? >> Yes. So, there's a recommended vote on the screen here. Uh you've got you actually you actually have Yeah. Uh >> sorry, >> that's okay. You've got um you can I think what you can do is you can vote to
um adopt the proposed language set forth on the um uh in the presentation presented by the uh uh director of water and sewer. >> All right. I move that we adopt the recommendation of a proposed increase as set forth by the director of water and
sewer. >> All right. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. Anthony. >> Yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Um, one flag. I just wanted to go back
to item eight before you move forward. I realize that you did vote to expand the committee, but you didn't actually vote to approve the slate, the full slate. So maybe you move to approve the full slate, including the two new members and the one associate member. >> All right. So, moving back to 8A, I move
that we approve the full slate and in addition, Debbie Hats and Isabelle Tabby and Ethan Yanowitz as an associate member to read all the names on there. It's Clara Bachelor, Orisa Boy, Jason Bowers, Mary Dart, Robert Franklin,
Andrew Mullen, yours truly, Wadner Oji, Mark Zerillo, and then Debbie Hats, Isabelle Tabby, and Ethan Yanowitz as associate. >> I thought we had agreed to make Debbie Hats and Isabelle Tabby full members. >> Yes. Yes, they're full members. The only
associate member is Ethan Yanowitz. >> Okay. >> I just want to say I don't believe we got an interview from someone named yours truly. Who are we referring to? All right. >> Yes. >> So, David Pearlman, a select board representative. >> All right. Bernard, >> Michael, >> yes.
>> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. >> All right. With that, we will now move on to presentation of the climate action and resiliency plan. >> Um I Erin had asked me to introduce the
team here because she unfortunately lost her voice at DVW day. Um but um I want to introduce um Alexander Veo whom you all know is the director of sustainability and natural resources. We also have here uh Rich Swanson who is from Blue Strike as a project manager. I want to thank them both. I want to particularly thank Alexandra. Um this
has been a year and a half doing this work to get this carp through with a huge number of stakeholders and community conversations and efforts while also getting us certified as a climate leader community while also building this division up from you know the ground. Um it's a really been an
amazing undertaking and we're really grateful um for this and the work that you're doing. Um it's um none of this, you know, none of the things that we've been doing sustainability wise like the solar initiative, like getting this grant certification, like winning the
community first partnership grant for tech assistance in multif family homes. None of that would have been possible without sustainability. So I just want to highlight the amazing work that this division has done already. Thank folks for the support of the division and the override and um really uh thrilled to
see continue the uh the strong efforts um of the sustainability team going forward. Um so the we're going to have these folks talk about the the long-awaited carp. >> All right. Thank you, Chaz. Appreciate that very much. Um uh good evening
everyone. As Chaz mentioned, I'm uh Alexander Becky, our director of sustainability and natural resources. uh really thrilled uh to be here this evening. Um it's it's been a journey uh with the plan and um you know uh really excited that we're able to share this final draft with you this evening. Um
I'm also joined online by two members of our team uh from the sustainability division. Uh Rebecca Manley, our conservation sustainability assistant, and Katie Weather Seed, our sustainability and outreach program manager. uh they have truly put in countless hours uh to make this plan
actionable, easy to read, and easy for the public to uh follow along. Um making it simple for us to track implementation as we move forward. Um they know that this work matters deeply to Brookline and so that means a lot to them. So they put a lot into their work, but I also
know from working with these two that it matters to them personally that they carry this work very close to their heart. Um, and it's truly uh my honor and privilege to get to work with them every day. So, I just want to commend them for their efforts. Um, they've gone above and beyond more times than I can
count. Um, and they would be here in person, but the 90 degree heat and 500 third graders kept them away from you today at DPW Day. Um, so uh I also want to thank our uh consultant uh Rich Swanson. He's been our project manager
um with Blue Blue Strike Environmental for the past year and a half and has been um very uh patient uh and working with us uh to get us to where we are. So um with that um our plan this evening is to give you all an overview of the KARP
development uh process and um highlight some of the goals in the plan. Uh and then uh we will talk about any questions that you may have. um in your packet you've received a draft letter of support for um your consideration. There's also some letters of support from um the zero missions advisory
board, climate action Brooklyn and Brooklyn mothers out front. So we'll talk through the plan and uh its purpose, the timeline of the plan and the intended impact. We have some data that we want to share with you all particularly our greenhouse gas inventory that we conducted as part of
this um plan process and then talk through the uh engagement and strategy development and then most importantly um talk about how we're going to implement this. So for those um who uh were on the board
last year um you've seen this chart before but um I just want to flag it for folks again. Um it's been a a long process and that is in part because uh we have really wanted to make sure that it was very inclusive not just um of members of the public which is extremely
important but also making sure that we had really robust staff input uh from this because this is a plan that is going to require a great deal deal of interdep departmental coordination um and so we've had a staff steering committee that has been working with us um on this plan and so I also want to
thank them for their work um and We started off with our baseline data gathering looking at Brookline's existing goals and plans um that intersect with this um over uh the early winter of last year and then moved into our public engagement process and Rich
will talk a little bit more about that. But that happened in the spring and summer of last year and then since then we really been iterating on this plan um and worked very closely with our zero missions advisory board. Um so I also want to thank them for their support on this. they've really served as technical adviserss to help guide and continue to
refine uh the plan. So, as we all know, Brookline has long been a leader on climate action, but something that I heard when I started this job was that folks uh would say, you know, I feel like we're falling behind. I feel like I feel like Brookline needs to be doing more. We need to we need to get out front. Uh we
need to, you know, kind of take back first place, if you will. Um, and I would say I think one we're doing a lot more than people realize. We aren't always communicating that super well, but we are doing a lot. Um, and so I think that was one of the goals when we were developing this plan is making sure
that once we started moving towards implementation, we had a really clear way for people to engage with the work we were doing and be really transparent about that process. Um, but the second thing that we really wanted to do is make sure that this was an uh actionable
plan, an ambitious plan, but that it was really focused um and that we were really addressing two key areas. Climate mitigation. So, how do we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and climate resiliency? How do we build capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change?
And so what you see in front of you is a plan that's a 10-year roadmap to address both those causes and impacts of climate change. Really recognizing um how much work there is to do, but also recognizing that we have resource limitations. And so we have to um
prioritize some items um to move them along. And we also have to be flexible that as technology changes, as policies change, um as politics change, um things will look different and resources will look different. So it provides that level of flexibility. Um and so our
intention with this plan is that we will um be working towards um certain goals uh that are prioritized um as priority one, two or three. Um but we will be continuously um evolving the uh
implementation of this guided by input from the community, guided by input from the staff, guided by those external factors. So the impact here that we're really trying to achieve is that we are trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions um and then also prepare for the climate
impacts uh particularly those that are most common in Brooklyn. Um so extreme heat uh more intense storms and um flooding as well. Uh we also this plan um prioritizes uh the protection of vulnerable communities. So those most at
risk to the impacts of climate change um and also um aims to strengthen our local economy and protect our natural resources particularly those that are serving as carbon sinks which is a important component um for us in our goal to reach net zero. and it
identifies opportunities for new funding because this work does require money. Um, and so we are constantly looking for ways that we can um be creative in how we um are able to implement this and uh attract those dollars. The good news is
that Brookline has uh you know interim climate targets if you will. You know net zero to 2050 sounds great but that's a ways away. Um so looking at uh the year 2030 um we have a goal of reducing our emissions uh 50% uh based off of our
uh 1990 baseline levels and um we have actually already achieved that. Uh so very exciting. Um and I'm going to hand things over to Rich. He'll talk to you a little bit more about our greenhouse gas inventory um and the progress that we've made so far as well as our engagement
process. Do I just advance here? >> Great. Thank you, Alexandra. Um, and thank you, uh, Select Board for having me. Um, I also wanted to just express my thanks to Alexandra and her team, Rebecca Manley and Katie Weather Seed,
especially for their partnership in developing this product. Uh I work with many sustainability uh directors across the country and in that category, Alexandra stands out as one of the most rigorous and missiondriven leaders I've encountered. Uh her team is actually
unsurpassed. Um they have been generous, collaborative, and very forward-looking through this process. They've worked extremely diligently across departments to ensure that the details of this plan receive buyin but also produce meaningful change. Uh Brookline I think
is really lucky to have them. Uh one of the first activities we did was to perform a GHG or greenhouse gas emissions inventory using 2023 data which reflected the most complete year at the time of the analysis. The
inventories that we accomplished were accomplished using both US and global protocols. So the standards uh by which various agencies measure their greenhouse gases. We completed the inventory in two categories. Um the
first was for the entire Brooklyn community. Those are emissions that happen here in the boundaries of your town. And the second was a subset of that and is labeled here as emissions from municipal operations. So you can
see that that municipal operations emissions is relatively small compared to the other number. Uh but it is very important as the town has direct control over the sources of those emissions and how you steward
them. You can also see how Brookline's 2023 emissions compares with previous years. uh they have come down considerably primarily from the switching of uh heating sources in individual homes from
fuel oil to natural gas which was a big dip uh and also a large percentage of electricity consumption that is purchased as renewable energy through Brooklyn green energy. Um you can see that significant dip there between 2008
and 2023. Uh, I should probably say that another dip like that is probably unlikely just because um those emissions were relatively easy to uh uh eliminate. Uh the rest are a little bit harder and
will probably occur a bit more incrementally. So the plan contains goals and strategies that if fully embraced will keep Brookline on track to reduce emissions by at least 85% from 1990s
from 1990 levels and achieve net zero uh by 2050 which is uh the date set by the state and pictured there as that black line that runs all the way across the graphic. In this graph, you can see where you
have been, which is the uh dot at the far left side of the chart up there at the top of the dashed blue line. Uh that are those are your 1990 levels. You can also see where you came uh across three different inventories. And then in the
first of the series of bars there, that is 2023 data. Uh you can see also the gray shaded area that would be your business as usual apart from any strategic investment that you choose to make. That green shaded area merely
suggests that you will likely need some sort of uh some sort of um uh uh syncs. Uh you'll need some sort of offsets to offset the emissions uh that remain at the end of the time. That's
what's meant by net zero. So while residual emissions may remain, there are uh some offset opportunities for you to participate in. So the second big component of our process was engagement. Uh this was a
major component for this effort. Uh for highlights, we hosted two public forums which were attended by about 80 people across both events. Uh we uh published a survey that was taken by over 500 people uh and stayed in regular communication
with about 19 or so staff who made up our steering committee. As a sample from the survey, you'll see some of the most selected strategies there in the right-hand panel uh from respondents. Uh some of those are increased tree canopy, municipal solar, other green
infrastructure to name a few. Those inputs really significantly impacted the plan. Uh others also gave their input including staff, the zero admissions advisory board, our project team to refine those and other initiatives that
were eventually prioritized for the plan. And from all those efforts, we arrived at a five category framework for the plan. Our goals, strategies, and action steps have all been categorized to reduce emissions and promote uh
resiliency in areas of buildings and energy, resource conservation and management, um sustainable transportation and mobility, natural systems and community well-being. And because this is uh in addition to a mitigation plan, it is also a resiliency
plan. We have a dedicated strategic section on initiatives that promote resilience, adaptation, and risk reduction. So with that, I'll pass it back to Alexandra. >> Thanks, Rich.
So, as Rich uh just mentioned in the plan, you'll see we have our goals. So, those are kind of at the top our sector specific emissions reduction or resiliency target that we have. Then, we have strategies um that help support each of those goals. So those are are um specific uh or excuse me high level
steps to achieve that goal and then within each strategy actions and so those are really discreet activities that support that associated strategy. Um, I will say that uh we did our best to be as comprehensive as possible, but obviously with a 10-year plan, some of those action steps are going to evolve
and uh change over time, which is why those uh check-ins with um various members of the community, including our zero emissions advisory board, um as well as tracking um the implementation of this plan um on our public dashboard is really important as well. So, uh on
the right hand side, you'll see that we have um this prioritization framework. And so, you know, the plan, as I mentioned, really recognizes that not all of these initiatives can be pursued simultaneously. We just don't have the resources. So, um, the zero missions advisory board worked closely with our
team, um, to develop this, uh, prioritization framework. And it was really developed to guide the sequencing of strategies and support a really focused um, actionable implementation approach. So, that's not to say that some of the strategies are more
important than others. Um it's all critically important work. I assure you if I could go out and do you know all 10 and something strategies uh immediately I would um but uh it really is about thinking how we can use the resources and assets that we have most strategically. So we looked at each one
of these thinking about their climate impact um about the cost associated with those um implementing it could be the resident or the town. Um the financial return on the investment um what type of staff resources we had to implement those assuming that we those were
needed. Um funding availability in terms of grants and other resources out there. um and then how easy it is to um uh to implement that particular item. Again, that could be for the town or the the end user. And then, as I mentioned, we
really had this focus on um equity in the plan. And so, we uh had multipliers in our prioritization process. So once everything was scored in that step one, um we then went through and uh gave everything um additional scores depending on if it was a direct impact, so directly reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions or directly addressing um one or more of our resilience priorities. Um those that were uh targeting our most vulnerable populations, um those received a higher elevated score as well. and then those that we know have a
great deal of either public support or public visibility to use them as an opportunity for learning education um and to engage more people. And so together that's um how we developed our priority scores that you'll see in the plan um as priorities one, two, or
three. So, I'm not going to go through each of these, but I'll just say that um this is a overview of our um priority one uh items in the plan, our priority one strategies. What you'll see is, you know, we went through this prioritization process and then we took
a step back and said, "Huh, okay, does this make sense?" And what we ended up was with a really good mix. Um we have about half and half of um priority one actions that are resiliency actions versus mitigation actions. Um we have a good mix of uh targeting our buildings
and energy and transportation and mobility as those are our two greatest sources of emissions. Um but also have uh strategies in here from our other three categories as well. Resource conservation and management, natural systems and community well-being and resilience um adaptation and risk
reduction. Um, and so again, um, these are, uh, just some of the strategies in the plan, um, and are the ones that based off that prioritization framework, um, received a priority one score. So, um, if you've looked at the plan, you'll see that once you get to the
implementation section, each one of our strategies has a page that looks like this. Um so for each one we tried to um calculate what the greenhouse gas reduction potential of that strategy is or um the impact for our resiliency
goals. We determined if there were co- benefits of doing this particular item. Uh thought through the partnering departments or divisions. As I said this is a very interdisciplinary effort. Um thought about our external stakeholders and then um developed a start by year.
And I want to be pause here for a sec just because the start by year I think is um something that's really important to understand. Um again we had to sequence this plan um it was our goal to make sure that we were um doing that in a efficient manner but also a
responsible manner and so um for each start by year that is uh kind of the end date that we are hoping to start each of these planning to start each of these but some things might proceed earlier um than that particular year. Some of these things that have a start by year of 2029 are things that we could be starting in
a couple of months here. Um so uh just to say that we wanted to provide some uh flexibility um when we were doing this again given the technological and uh resource uh changes that could come. We also provide a very high level uh cost
estimate and a staff estimate um thinking about the capacity of existing staff and new staff. And then um possibly most importantly um Blue Strike did a really extensive uh search for us on um possible funding sources again looking outside of just municipal
budgets uh to be able to implement these items. So I'm really excited. Uh one of the other pieces that we've developed as part of this plan is our dashboard. And so you're seeing some screenshots of that on the right hand side. Um we're still fine-tuning this a bit, but this
will be um a website that um anyone can access through uh brooklinma.gov. Um and uh will be a way for us to track our um different strategies um in terms of where they are at in the process. Are we have we not started yet? Are we in the
planning process starting to gather resources? Um are we um starting to move towards actual uh execution of that thing? um and have we completed it? Some of these are ongoing, so some of them it will continue on for, you know, some
time. Um but it'll allow the community to have a really nice snapshot of where we are and what we're currently working on. And we anticipate updating this um on an annual basis, but also providing um updates on active projects um to the Zero Missions Advisory Board, select
board, and um senior staff um on a more frequent basis than that. Um and then most importantly, this is a 10-year plan, but um we said that in five years we would revisit um possibly um change things based off of uh the research,
technology, all of those different things um and um update it as needed at that point. Um and provide ourselves the opportunity to uh possibly rep prioritize or or shift priorities based off of that. So, I should be clear, this is an
ambitious plan and it will require um an investment of of town resources, uh staff time, uh political willpower, and um it will take a a lot of coordinated work for us to be able to complete all of this over the next decade. But I have
to say, I am confident that if any community can do that, it is Brookline. uh they are well poised and um have the right resources to do so. And by that I mean the wonderful people um that I get to work with every day both on the staff and within the community. Um and I really want to thank all of those folks
uh for their their input into this document. Um so we are seeking um a vote of adoption by the select board, but of course happy to take any uh questions and uh comments that you all have before we move forward. Thank you so much. Any
questions, comments from anyone? >> Michael. Um, so thank you so much, Alexander, for the presentation and for all of the work um that you and your team have put in over the last year and a half. Um, in my work
with the Zero Emissions Advisory Board, I've had the pleasure and the honor of seeing that team work with you and with with Blue Strike. Uh, and um, it's it's really been impressive. Um I will note uh one particular area of your
influence. Um goals goal seven of the road map um that we'll be discussing uh shortly on our agenda this evening is to improve the town's ability to mitigate climate change and increase resilience of assets to climate change. Um it has
um as you might uh appreciate a uh strategy of advancing climate action and resilience and a uh action of reviewing and adopting the climate action and resilience plan with a further action to implement and track progress on the
climate action and resilience plan. Um, and I just want to bring that up to highlight um, both the uh, the interdependency of this plan with other work going across the town um, and the influence that even this plan has had in
the structure um, and the formulating of goals uh, across the rest of Brook Linestown government. So um I I hope to see that carry forward as well and want to uh particularly highlight that work.
Um in the context of of those goals that we have as a select board um I I should just ask the question since we're the select board here is reviewing this and thinking about how to uh advance this
the carp uh even more successfully. Um, are there any particular aspects of uh partnership um or collaboration um with this body that would be particularly
helpful in your uh plans for implementation or communication or the overall success of the carp? >> Thank you, Michael. Um it's a great question and thank you for all your work on on ZAB and your uh partnership on this plan for the last uh year.
I will say that I think for this plan to be successful um there needs to be um a clear prioritization of the goals that are are identified in here. Um, and not
just for the the sustainability uh staff, but for all of our um other folks across boards and commissions, um our town meeting members, our um you know residents, our uh other staff departments and I think um understanding
if this is the priority um you know does what does that mean for for some of the other important work that's happening and of course there's never just one priority. I don't mean to say that, but I think um it will be important that we have um a clear united voice um behind
uh some of these goals and uh driving them forward. >> Anyone else? >> Amanda, >> um thank you for all this work. I I will second what Michael said. Um I just had a question when you were thinking about alternative funding sources given what
we know at like the national level right now. Is there some thought into uh prioritizing programs that might go away as funding sources for for some of this work to try to do sooner before it disappears? >> Yeah, great question. Um I would say
that we are thinking about some of that. I mean at the at the federal level um a lot of that is gone or or gone very soon. Um so I would say uh the investment tax credit is one that um we are working towards with our municipal
solar initiative which is um one of the goals here in the plan. And so we know that that's something that has a time constraint on it. So we're actively pursuing that um as fast as we can to try to to try to utilize those funds. Um thankfully I will say that right now there is a great deal of support for
this work um across the state and so um we are really focusing a lot of our uh uh efforts to bring in funding um on state grant opportunities. Um and so we've been pretty successful in doing that over the last couple of years. And
so I feel confident that we'll be able to continue to do that. Of course, as things shift um at, you know, federal, state, local levels and other resources become available, um we will certainly be pursuing those and that's where the flexibility of the plan comes into play.
>> Makes sense. So, I have a question regarding collaboration with the metropolitan area planning council and sort of other regional organizations that look at CARP initiatives on a regionwide basis. >> And if you could comment a bit on that.
>> Sure. um in terms of what that looks like or >> what that looks like specifically for Brookline and whether uh collaborating with these regional entities could help advance some of the goals articulated here in the carb. >> Yeah. So, I think what uh those regional
organizations do a really good job at is identifying um what our common shared goals are and helping us work towards possible uh projects or funding sources or um different initiatives that won't just impact Brookline but will impact, you know, our surrounding communities as
well. And so, um, the MAPC does have a regular gathering of sustainability staff like myself and they come together and are really talking about here's the funding sources that we're seeing out there. Here are the goals from the state level and the state plans. Um, you know, what are you all working on and is there
an opportunity for um us to uh bridge some gaps and some goals um between the two together. Um and then they also really serve um I will say as a a bit of a technical adviser too um so that we at the local level are aware of things as they're changing at the state level um
and can provide us the opportunity to uh comment or or uh possibly influence some of those uh priorities as they evolve. >> Is there a bit of a competition for funding with other local municipalities?
>> Competition makes it sound bad. I mean, I think uh that we are all chasing the same goal and so um we know that and so we're often looking um honestly more to help point people in the right direction um I think than than uh then pull people
apart. Uh but I will say obviously there are some funding streams through the state that there's you know a limited pool of money and we're all applying for that same pool. Some will get funded and and some will not. Um and so we do we do recognize that. Um but many times uh you know for example MAPC actually has a
grant out right now that we're working on an application for on uh climate resiliency. Um and when we submitted an expression of interest for that grant the feedback we got was this would actually be better as a regional project. And so now we're looking to figure out how could we expand that so that we could work with some of our
surrounding municipalities to to achieve that. So um at times that's feedback that we get and we can work with one another. Um but at the end of the day there is a limited pool of money and so we're aware of that >> because that's my main concern. So funding is obviously finite. >> Multiple communities are applying for
funding for similar initiatives which means not everybody can pursue the same initiative. And I I wouldn't want to see a situation where area towns and cities are working at cross purposes with one another. And I would hope that at the very least there's some coordination to
ensure that what one municipality is doing is at least compatible with what another community is doing and is not going to cause harm in some way. And so I wonder what kind of coordination takes place between your office and others just to be aware of what others are
doing in surrounding communities. >> Yeah, there's um actually a few different uh places that that collaboration occurs. Um, so we're part of uh the Massachusetts Green Communities Program. And so that program has a regional coordinator um that sends out regular updates to us and that
includes everything from educational opportunities to um you know uh grant opportunities and then also uh brings our group together for a quarterly gathering as well where we're sharing ideas and and highlighting some of the work that we're doing. And um so that's
um a consistent group that we're part of. There's also kind of like an ad hoc group um that's developed over the last couple of years of um sustainability professionals in municipalities as well. And so oftentimes we're reaching out to one another um and actually meeting um
on a bi-weekly basis uh to talk about kind of some of the burning questions and um hear about people's experience applying for some of those different funding streams. So I actually think that it's a very um and there are many other examples but those are the two that immediately jump into mind for me
because I interact with them the most but um just to say that there's um a great deal of understanding that we are all working towards these really big important time-sensitive shared goals with a finite number of resources and so we who are doing that work at the municipal level are actually trying to
support one another to to help us achieve that. You mentioned at the outset of your presentation that this is a very ambitious plan. Is it ambitious in the sense that there's some concern as to whether you can fund it all? Ambitious in the sense of bandwidth
issues within your office? All of the above. Can you expand on that? >> Yeah. Uh it's probably all of the above. Um I mean part of this is as you saw from um our greenhouse gas inventory, you know, a great deal of our emissions aren't coming from things that we as a municipality can control. it's coming
from um our homes and businesses here in Brooklyn. And so fundamentally that means we're asking people to make changes um to their to how they live, to how they work, to how they how they move around town. And that's hard. Behavior change is really really difficult to do.
And so um it's particularly difficult if there's, you know, a disincentive. And by that I mean possibly an associated expense with that. So, um, we have to be mindful as we're, um, trying to advance different policies and and projects that we need to make sure that there are
resources uh technical financial um that sort of thing there to support those who are making who are making that change. Um, because honestly, we can't do this, um, without them. Um, and then I would say that because the work in here is so interdisciplinary,
um, and because, you know, our town is doing so many great things, um, you know, it's difficult. It's this ambitious plan because it is really asking us to work um uh across departments and across divisions um to
achieve these things but while being mindful of of a everyone dealing with a lot of work and a lot of other important things as well. So um it just requires a great deal of coordination and and sequencing to the work. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else?
Anthony, >> I think I I have a question. And I I don't know if it's fully about carp, but I think now is the right time to ask it. What the the main aspect of KARP that I'm the most interested in is uh goal one strategy two. That that's that's something that I heard a lot on the
campaign trail that was really important to a lot of voters in this last election. Um and that's maximize solar and battery energy installation on public property. And I want to understand how that currently fit into our CIP item this year for the solar initiative. Chaz, I'm hoping maybe you
could help me with that. >> Sure. Sure. Our the solar initiative is the is the start of this process, right? It's it's it's a but this is phase one of a multi process that we where we've identified multiple roofs, multiple potential areas where we might be able to build out solar >> and it is a key component of our overall
goals for net zero. >> Um but I also think that you can see that this year it's very much a pilot. Um, it was, you know, a lot of this too is based on the, you know, success of the override, the question of whether or not we were going to be able to continue this work and sustainability more generally. Now that we have that clarity
and that certainty when we build out the CIP and FY2028 and beyond, you're going to see a lot of reference back to not just your 2030 roadmap, but to this plan and others about, you know, what's going to be reflected in there, you know, what how these priorities then show up. So,
the answer is there's more of this to come. Um, and it's um, you know, now that we have more clarity on what the immediate future looks like, we can start building that into the FY2028 and beyond CIP. >> Awesome. And because so much of this is expensive and I want to be able to get
it all done over the 10 years that we have as much as possible, um, I really like the idea of frontloading the projects and the strategies that are cost net or cost benefit, which I see that you've highlighted. And by frontloading those hopefully it makes
the ones uh that may not be immediately costbenefit down the line more possible or so that that's the strategy I hope we can adopt here. Good work. >> Thank you >> Bernard. Yeah, we we had a solar initiative that Oh, I'm sorry.
That's a perennial problem of mine. We had a solar initiative that really was not dependent on the overrides. I mean that's that's how aggressive we are with respect to you know moving into solar >> that you know that was on the CIP for a while. Yes. >> And um I think it's important for people
to realize that you know we've we've been doing this for quite a while. >> Yeah. But I think the the when you think about what's what the next steps are. This is an order of magnitude beyond where we were and which is which is good. It's what we need to be doing. It is both good from a obviously an environmental perspective our long-term
goals perspective but it's also good from a financial perspective. The last point on that is just the PPA agreements, right? The power purchase agreement thing. That's also something that I really hope we explore in the coming years. >> Yeah. And we have in the past, you know, some of some of our solar arrays are part of PPA agreements. Um, but also,
you know, there there are pros and cons to that depending on the construction and so forth. The I think that all of the ones that we're looking at in phase one now, we're going to own outright. It's not going to be part of a PP. >> That is the that is the goal. Um and that is uh in part because we are working very hard to take part um take
uh advantage of the investment tax credit. So um that allows us to get uh 30% back on these projects um and if we're owning them. But prior to the Driscoll Solar Project, um, which is in that photo right there when we were craning up our panels a few weeks ago,
um, that is the first project that Brookline has owned in solar project that Brookline has owned in 15 years. Um, so we primarily most of our solar has been through power purchase agreements previously. >> Understood. Thank you.
>> All right. Anyone else? So, you're looking for a vote from us of a letter of support essentially. >> Yep. So, a vote of adoption of the plan and then a letter of support. Um, and you know, I have a draft in there, but you're I kind of defer to you all if you
would like to have the chair edit that or one member and um or have it signed by everyone. >> All right. Have all of you had an opportunity to review the draft? Are you comfortable with the draft as written? >> All right. So, I move that we support
the 2026 climate action resiliency plan and adopt and issue a letter of support for it. Uh, that letter being the one that was included in our draft. >> All right, Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony,
>> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you all so much. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. And thanks to the team online as well. >> Thank you. And then just a Go ahead. >> Want to take a break? I mean, man is leaving. I'd like to leave.
>> Sure. But just one moment. I just want to do a little bit of house cleaning. We didn't close the public hearing on annual water and sewer rates. That is now closed. And we will take a fivem minute break. >> Okay. Hey, hey hey.
and we are back. So our next item is boards and commissions Fiser Hill West Uses Advisory Committee. 11A expand the Fiser Hill West Uses Advisory Committee from seven members to nine. and 11B
appoint applicants George Cole and Michael Sandman for that expansion. Uh so as some of us at least recall, we had interviewed multiple people for the Fiser Hill West committee. At one meeting we voted Pam Lodish as an
additional member. Staff has recommended that we also add George Cole and Mike Sammon. Mike Sammon actually, you know, talked about how all the applicants had such incredible skills that the committee could really
use and suggested we expand it uh and add an extra person. He's thinking of George Cole and staff came back and suggested that we expand it to two additional members. odd number of people
and that we add both of them to the committee. >> Can someone clarify who's currently on the committee? >> Oh god, >> pull a list here. Hold on. >> A lot of people.
>> Sorry. I'm the chair of the committee. I don't remember all the names. So currently Steve Hiken, Michael Roer, Steve Soua, Carol Goodman, Carlos Rodjo, and Bernard and Pam.
All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, I move that we expand the Fiser Hill West Advisory Committee from 7 to 9 and fill those two additional spots with George Cole and Mike Sandman. Bernard, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes.
>> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. That brings us to our next item, the 2030 roadmap review and possible votes. >> Hi. Um Abby Fulham is joining us online.
Um Abby, do you want to maybe just talk through the, you know, additional edits that we've made uh since we talked last week? >> Yes, can do. Hi everybody. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah, we do. >> Okay, great. Um, nice to be with you again for the second time this month.
Um, yes, we are hoping to tie up some of those loose ends and then hopefully vote on the document for adoption. Let me pull up. Um, I'll just say since I was there last week, I incorporated the comments um, uh, that were suggested
during the conversation and in the memo in advance as we had discussed. Um, and then there were a few other changes in the last day or so here that I just wanted to flag for people. Um,
okay. So, one, we added in the name of some of the plans that you all had mentioned. I realized I didn't include that in the version that I sent out um over the weekend. We already had vision zero down here. And then Amanda, you had followed up to suggest one other tweak beyond what we discussed last week,
which was in the goal five write up around housing um and wanting to around preserving existing subsidized affordable housing. So just wanted to flag those two. Those are the only line edits that are made from the version. >> Say that again. Could you Yeah, the last
one we didn't catch which goal. >> Oh, sorry. >> So yeah, we're in goal five here. Um, and Amanda was proposing in the second paragraph. I'll just maybe read the first two sentences slowly. So, in addition, the select board is working to
expand middle inome and lowincome housing opportunities, which will enable the town to attract and maintain racial and other diversity. Preserving existing subsidized affordable housing and creating opportunities for housing of all income levels is essential for
economic diversity, civic stability, and a sustainable local economy. Okay, going to take that down then. So, I'm wondering if if any of you have last comments or questions either on the version that I sent around a few days
ago um or on this tweak. >> Anyone? >> Amanda, >> I have one thing in goal five, roadway safety. I realized there's a line in the vision zero action plan that says
incorporate an update on the action plan implementation and progress towards vision zero into DPW's annual report that's from the vision zero policy because I was wondering about how we're tracking vision zero progress besides just checking for zero fatalities. It
seems like we should have more regular updates as to progress being made. Um, so I would like to add something to track progress on the vision zero plan. Um, but it could, >> this was in the key performance
indicator section. Sorry to interrupt you. >> Sorry. Improve road B, improve roadway safety. Um, we have um town staff developing and setting targets for reducing maintenance backlog. Um, but we have nothing to say
track. It could be a key performance indicator or it could just be town staff updating the select board annually on progress towards enacting the vision zero action plan. Um either way I would be fine with. I just
I want to make sure that we are having some interim step other than just looking at zero serious injuries or accidents um that we can actually say mark progress on the vision zero plan in some way
shape or form. So I was going to suggest we add the line that is already in the vision zero action plan which is just that DPW has an annual report and there are now supposed to incorporate an update on the vision zero action plan implementation
and progress into that annual report that goes to the select board. >> Okay. So like say 6B5 >> 6B5. Yeah. Yeah. So take the line on I can >> Y >> you you understand what I'm saying? >> I understand what you're saying. Yep.
Take that line. So DPW starting in year one since this is something that we're going to do going forward >> is um um >> incorporate updates on progress into v uh on vision zero action plan into annual report to the select board.
>> Yes. Great. >> Anyone else? >> I just really want to thank Abby for her tireless work on this over many, many months. Um it's um it's really not and I will actually want to thank all of you
both board members who have been working on this for many months and for the two new folks who have come in kind of gotten your hands in um and also just had a really positive impact on it. Um this is really important for us on staff to be able to point to this to be able
to take this as kind of our guiding uh u policy document in the mid in mid-range stuff. And so the work you've done on this is really important to us. Um, and this is not something that sits on a shelf. This is something that has that dashboard and that tracker that we will be going back to and updating you on on a regular basis because you you know
it's and it's a great opportunity for the community to track progress as well. So when someone comes up and says what have you done for us lately? You can say aha I have done many things for you lately. And then they can see whether or not those are the pri their own priorities and you can continue to develop that
feedback. So, this is really a really great step towards proactive governance in Brooklyn, which is a real amazing goal for us to have as a locality. And so, I just want to thank you all for your participation in this and thank Abby for making it happen.
>> Yeah, I want to thank Abby, too, for the incredible work she's done, but also her patience and helping us move this >> move this along. I mean, it was u a big job and uh I think we got there. >> Yeah. One last thing to the department heads and division heads who
participated in this as well um who took sometimes contradictory statements from different select board members and were like how do we harmonize this? How do we how do we do this? Uh and it happened. So um it's very very much a team effort and to that point regarding uh Aby's patience with us there were multiple
iterations of this roadmap and sometimes we went in one direction and then by the next meeting we went in the completely opposite direction and something we suggested incorporating that we then decided to eliminate. Uh but I think that the end product is uh clearly going
to be very beneficial and it's something that I believe we're all about to agree on. We'll formally vote on that in a moment. So thank you very much for that and to our department heads and all the other stakeholders who contributed. So with that I move that we approve the
2030 road map >> with Amanda's amendment >> with Amanda's amendment from today. >> Yes. >> Bernard votes yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you again.
>> All right. With that, we will now move on to special town meeting warrant articles, discussion, and a possible vote on amendments to STM1, article one, and article 2. You have Meredith Moody online. Um,
she's joining us via phone because of the power outages going around here. So, we There's Meredith. Hi, Meredith. >> Good evening. Um, I'm gonna uh my Zoom connection has been very spotty tonight. I apologize, but it seems to be cooperating for the time being. So, I'm
I have a few slides just to um set the table for tonight's agenda item discussion. So tonight, staff is presenting some additional proposed amendments to special town meeting one article one,
the proposed Chesnut Hill um commercial overlay zoning and then also providing an update on advisory committee's amendments to uh the zoning. Just as a recap, um you had a couple public hearings in April regarding the special
town meeting warrant articles. on April 28th, you voted favorable action on um special town meeting articles one and two. Um in uh that vote of favorable action, it was included a a large uh range of
amendments um from a combination of contributors. At last week's meeting, you reconsidered um and amended special town meeting 1 article 2, which is the um authorization
for the select board to enter into a memorandum of agreement with city realy. You also voted to execute the MOA contingent upon town meetings approval of special town meeting one and um the expectation was set that there would be a consideration of some minor proposed amendments to the zoning article at
tonight's meeting. So in the agenda packet for tonight, you received a cover memo that summarized the amendments. Um they are uh all relatively minor in nature. Uh and I just summarized them quickly here. So, we updated some of the labels in one of
the figures regarding the ground floor commercial requirements just to be consistent throughout the zoning in terms of how we were labeling and referring to um particularly the commercial subdists, the um CHC3 and CHC4 subdists. And then we corrected
several scribers errors in sections 9,3 and 14. Um and then the uh correction in section 9 um also in addition to correcting the scrier's error, we added some clarifying language as well. And then I did want to just call to the
select board's attention that there was um an a publishing error in the combined reports in the vehicular parking requirements table. This was brought to our attention by a town meeting member. We're incredibly grateful for the fact that they caught it. Um it was a
technical error. I think it had something to do about sort of how the table converted when you um viewed it on desktop versus um browser versions of Word um and then converted it to a PDF. So staff is aware of the issue. Um we're
going to make sure that for the supplemental reports that uh we don't repeat that mistake. Um and then our recommendation would be that the select board in uh the supplemental reports just make a note of correction. um so that town meeting members are aware um about that misprint.
And then in terms of advisory committee amendments, advisory, we had uh several public meetings and continue public um or public hearings uh with the advisory committee and the land use subcommittee regarding special town meeting one
articles. On May 12th, um advisory voted favorable action on the zoning as amended. Uh the two significant amendments were um advisory removed short-term rentals as an allowed accessory use. Um and then they also um
removed the transit oriented mixeduse subdist from the zoning as well. Um and then they move favorable action on special time meeting one article one. So, I wanted to make sure that you were um aware of advisory committee amendments and just wanted to put it out
to the select board if you were interested in um uh adopting any of those proposed amendments along with the um more minor amendments that you're considering this evening. So, I'll pause here.
So, I see that Linda Pel has her hand raised. So, is she going to speak about the advisory committee amendments? >> Linda, if that's what you have your hand raised for, I'll give you the opportunity to speak to them. >> Yes. Thank you, David. That is why I'm
here to um tell you a little bit about why the um advisory committee did what we did. So, um, as far as the short-term rentals go, we felt it was a pretty, um, clear-cut question because we're looking
to build long-term um, resident housing as opposed to transient housing. And, um, at the time that the amendment was discussed, city reality was present and they said they didn't have a problem with us removing
that. Um, so I I would hope the select board would think similarly that we do not necessarily want to be building housing for transients. And I would also say that in terms of being a resident in a building with a lot of um short-term
rentals, it's it would be very unpleasant. So I hope you consider that. And then in terms of removing the transitoriented mixeduse district, um that came about because of a number of reasons. Um one,
as you know, the site currently um hosts a parking lot for the star market, but also a gas station and a CVS and four two family homes. And what
became obvious to me and others on our committee is that um having zoning that allows seven and eight story I mean seven and yeah seven and eight story buildings
uh with a 5-ft setback that can be um abbreviated at the zoning board of appeals on Hammond Road and that doesn't have stepbacks for these tall buildings that may in fact find themselves located
next to a two family housing unit. Um that it just it didn't the zoning itself does actually not relate to anything that is there currently. And in order to actually develop it meaningfully, it
would seem that it needs to be worked out with the other occupant of the quadrant of that angled um area. So it's also does not require a
percentage of commercial. It does have a first floor commercial requirement that is only 60 ft wide and 30 ft deep. and that requirement can also be waved. So this is not the part of the reasoning
that is significantly contributing to commercial development. In fact, it could potentially threaten the commercial development that we already have on the site, which as far as I could tell, it already gives us over $400,000
of commercial tax revenue. So, it was a feeling that maybe this area should be looked at in the future in relation to possibly the comp plan, but that it really didn't make a whole lot of sense in this context. also requiring
um active use on Boilson Street on the north side really doesn't relate at all to the way that it is developed now where the street has the circulation and the storefronts internal to the site. So, it just seems to be coming from
outer space and we were told that the current property owners aren't have no plans to make any changes in the near future or even the mid to far future. Um it is also obvious that the traffic
estimate from this development was contributing to the poor results of the traffic study. And because this intersection heart of Hammond and Boilston Street is the critical choke
point in all of the circulation here, having development right on that corner is only going to completely exacerbate that. So for all of those reasons, the fact that we have a a viable functioning,
wellused commercial businesses there, now we have zoning that does not seem to be it's it's really it's not Fbased. It's only given a height and some of the design guidelines that get thrown in at
the end which are not required and there's just no stepbacks or anything. So, I I just feel that this zoning is very um preliminary, not well thought out, and potentially making the
situation much worse with the traffic. And we heard testimony in that regard from other members of the um study committee that had looked at this for years. >> What was the advisory committee's vote on this amendment?
>> Yeah. So the the vote for the amendment to remove the transitoriented mixed use was um I believe 12 to 10 to two or something like that. And the vote to remove the short-term
rentals I believe was unanimous from everyone there. And then we all voted on the main motion as amended. So could you >> as you see >> could you offer us a summary of the sort of where the 10 people who were against
removing the north parcel what their >> well I you know I I think they were persuaded by things that we had heard in the subcommittee about missed opportunities and being kind of um unhappy with the
current situation. because of the parking lot being in Brooklyn and you know that's ancient past. We we weren't around when that happened. Um so they just thought well maybe if we do some
kind of upzoning someone will someday want to do something and we will have put our stake in the ground. But if if that's your goal I would say it needs much more work. And you know, as you know, we're doing the comp plan. We're
looking for areas that need resoning. So I think that if it gets set aside now, there's no reason to think that it can't be identified for reasonzoning in the future as a result of the comp plan work.
>> All right. Thank you, Anthony. Do we have a solid definition of what short-term rentals mean when we say >> Yeah, it it has to be you have to have a lease and you have to do it longer than 28 days, I think it is. >> Okay, got it. Thanks. Do not be a
short-term rental. >> Amanda, >> didn't we already pass a townwide Sorry, this is not directed to to everyone here. A townwide ordinance on short-term rentals. I remember this in one of my first times being a town meeting member
>> already regulating like pretty stringently how that would happen and I would love to be reminded of that. Um I don't know if >> looks like Linda has an answer to that. >> Well, it I know that it's that the
short-term rentals are allowed in all um zoning districts. there is a an inspection and certification process that the building department goes through. Um there are
some restrictions in terms of uh smaller uh condominium buildings like uh two family say you're the owner and you have a rental then you could rent the the um the extra room but I think
you can't rent both rooms but we're it in this case we're talking about large multifamily buildings and condominiums there is a requirement if you want to do a short-term in the condominium situation to prove that it is allowed
through um the condo documents. So, you know, you can't just up and do it. Although, I'm sure people do. This is one of these enforcement issues that's really challenging because you have to be reported and you have to have your suspicions and you have to have,
you know, pictures of the people coming with their suitcases and all this kind of stuff. But yeah, so um it's rented in term I mean it's regulated I would say in terms of the safety of the potential tenants and what has to be present for
them in terms of you know building code and fire safety and things like that. >> Michael, you want you had something you wanted to say? Uh, no. We should finish the conversation about short-term rentals and then move on to the conversation about the
transitori mixed use district because I think they're separable. >> Yeah. All right. So, for short-term rentals, it seems that everyone is in agreement including city realy didn't seem to mind. >> Can we get out of that? Um, does any
Sorry, not I I just it's like third hand right at this point. I think we actually do have confirmation of that because city realy require uh is required to at this point sign off on any change that
might affect the economic viability of their project. >> Um and if they don't sign off then they can void the MOA. >> So I think they are good on this. >> So they've already the economic viability of the project. uh they could um
>> so the way so the way the the way the MOA is written is that any change that occurs after the combined reports is presumed to uh invalidate the MOA unless they affirmatively say it's okay >> and they have >> and they have in this case affirmatively
said that it's okay. >> All right. So it sounds like this is not necessarily a point of contention. >> Yeah. I feel like this just this just blocks like Airbnbs, right? >> Right. pretty much because if short-term rental, we're just talking about under a month >> basically. >> Yeah. >> Uh so I I'm fine with it. It sounds like
the board is fine with it. So why don't we >> uh discuss now whether to remove the north of Route 9 parcel. >> Should we vote on that? >> Um well, the first thing we would have to vote on is a vote to reconsider um STM or an article one,
>> which we can do. Well, we can, but I think uh where we want to go in terms of removing the north parcel or not might inform how we formulate that vote. Understood. >> Well, the I mean the vote to reconsider would be the same. >> Well, yes, that part. Yes. Right. I know what you mean. Okay. I guess you were
going. >> Okay. >> All right. So, Michael, I I I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about removal of the north parcel. >> Okay. So, so there so there were a couple of of things. Um the f the first is that um the the parameters that are
specified for the um transit oriented mixeduse parcel were designed to do to do two things. Number one was to integrate with the rest of the commercial um area um the rest of the overlay district. So, for example, um
that uh the TOM for the most part, but not entirely, has the same maximum height as the CHC 3 subdist uh which is directly across Route 9. Um and it obviously has the
step downs um for the northwest uh I'm sorry the northern tip um which provide and that whole area um provides an opportunity for creating transit oriented housing and mixeduse development. That is that is the goal of
that area. Um, it is certainly true that the majority of that area is uh a parking lot that's owned by WS Development and they obviously control whether or not they want to develop that area as well as the
two of the two two of the four two family houses um which they also own. But part of the intention of the overlay district, in addition to providing the town's vision for that area, is to
actually provide incentives to um to property owners to consider redeveloping their buildings. Um and those considerations may not happen in the next five years or the next 10 years. But by putting those that those that
zoning in place, it provides a stable framework for those developers to consider, you know, what do those properties look like in 2036 or 2046? Can somebody take advantage of the um
the four two family units and build transit oriented housing? That area is only a three minute walk from the Chestnut Hill T-top. Uh you know, there is at the moment a CVS right there. There is a Star Market right there. Um
there are additional protections aside from what Linda mentioned. Um the her definition of the ground floor uh commercial requirement wasn't exactly correct. It's not a requirement of 60 feet. Um it's a requirement of 60% of
the of the ground floor uh space must be commercial to a depth of 30 feet. Um and that is along the entire length of Boilston for that district and halfway up um basically for the dimension of the
current CVS building. um it's required and in the in the next section on Hammond Street um it's not required um and it can be waved with um with a special permit from the ZBA. Um the other thing that she didn't mention is
that there's also requirement in that area for a pedestrian corridor that connects Hammond Street and Boilston Street or Hammond Street and and the current shops on the street. Um which will serve to break up the massing of
that area. Um, and in addition to the 8-foot sidewalks that are already present on Hammond Street, that's part of the public way and the five feet of of additional um setback that's required. There's that distance plus the
um plus the pedestrian connection that's required. Plus, in the event that um that WS development actually develops all of their properties there, they're also subject to the large site open space requirements that are required for
any space that's over two acres, which their combined spaces would be. So, there's actually been a lot of thought and consideration um in terms of all of the massing choices that have been made and how that space would integrate into Brookline's
uh commercial area and what we're trying to develop across the entire 27 acres. So, I wouldn't say that it's necessarily hasn't been thought out. Certainly the planning committee has looked at it. The economic development advisory committee has looked at it. Um the housing advisory board has looked at it in
conjunction with all the other other opportunities. Um and there's an there's the opportunity for housing. There is an opportunity for increased tax revenue um from this space. Um uh I did a series of uh possible analysis on the minimum and
maximum range of just the additional net impact. I checked that with uh staff in the planning department. Um and there's somewhere, it's a pretty wide range, but there's somewhere between 170,000 um if you just did the the housing to
one and a half million if you if you sort of did everything at the maximum scale just of net new uh tax growth. Um, and again like our other tax growth calculations, this takes takes it uh
into account the $450,000 that we were already getting plus the cost of service. So the net new tax growth is on top of those things. >> Can I ask a real quick question there? >> So when you said that 1.5 maximum bound >> and that 170 or whatever you said minimum bound, is that coming out of the
5.5 original? No, that's just chestnut, right? That's I'm sorry. That's just the current development is the 5.5 estimate that >> yeah the 4.2 to 6.3 million range. >> Understood. That is just that is just city realy. >> So that's in addition to >> this is an this is in addition to that
and and there is additions for the NMU subdist as well as as well as all the other possible places that there can be development. Um, and lastly, I will say that there is there is a the value of redevelopment, which Linda
made reference to, of being able to communicate a cohesive plan across the entire uh overlay district. Um, to not only our not only developers who might be able to take advantage of that of that space, but also to our municipal
and state partners. um when we're talking about the traffic problems on the corner of Hammond Street and Boilston Street for example and we need to go to Mass DOT and we need to coordinate with the city of Newton. I know those conversations are already uh
in place. Um, I know there was a recent conversation um that the town administrator told me about between him and the mayor um of Newton and the um the interim secretary of transportation um Philip Ang, you know, all for the
purpose of moving that problem forward. And um as we all know that problem has to be addressed independently of the zoning that we are going to um implement or not. Um because that that
intersection is going to is not performing well now and will continue to degrade over time. Not because of anything that we do, but because of the um development activity that's happening um to the west of us and the fact that
those people use Route 9 as a corridor to connect um the LMA and downtown Boston with western suburbs. And so, so there's going to have to be something done in that corridor regardless. And for us to be able to have a vision for
what that area is going to be and also to have re the resources from the mitigation payments of development in order to help fund studies and our assistance to the bulk of the state financing that would happen and be
required for Route 9. We need to also include the entire area as part of our resoning. >> Oh, thank you for that very detailed explanation, Michael. Uh, one question I have. You mentioned uh that the first
floor commercial requirements can be waved for the portion of Hammond Street that currently has the uh four multif family homes. That would be waved by a special permit. >> That is correct. >> It can be waved for the whole district. the way I read it.
>> No. No. >> Yep. >> Why don't we have Meredith weigh in on this? >> So, the the ground floor commercial, um there's a diagram in the zoning, which was actually one of the um minor amendments. Uh we changed some labels in
that. So, we're really trying to concentrate where we want the ground floor commercial to absolutely be. So, it's along Boilston Street and then wrapping the corners of the intersecting street. So, Tully, um, Holly and then Hammond Street. Uh,
so, and then we provided the flexibility that if developers really felt that they would not be able to have ground flooror retail that would be successful um, in places that are not sort of part of the core along the Boilston Street corridor that we provided the ability for them to
um, have a waiver from that ground floor commercial requirement within certain areas through the special permit process. So along Boilston you cannot get a special permit of non-ground flooror commercial. Is that correct?
>> Uh yes except on the sort of western most and eastern most parts of the study area. >> I see. Perfect. Thanks. >> All right. Any more questions, comments? >> I have a comment. Go ahead. >> Um Michael, thanks for the details. I'm going to go more high level because I don't have all those details. I
appreciate that so much. Um, I think it's important when we look at these types of uh, zoning opportunities uh, to take into account um, not just what the current property owner holds, but what we want this area of our town to look
like. And I think that that's not just important from a planning perspective, but I also think it's important from an economic perspective in order to capture the best elements of a free market economy that we're in. If we um set the rules before the race begins, um there are going to be developers who compete
against each other and make something that and work to make uh to get their project built. And by having the the rules of the race defined before the race begins, um the town benefits a lot more. And so I I just kind of want to put that out there, too.
>> All right. Anyone else? Okay. Okay. So, I will first move that we reconsider our vote on STM1, Article One. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda,
>> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Next. Do we have precise language for this? Because lot of elements to it. >> Two two votes. >> So, there's actually three. Um, so you have you have the technical amendments
including scrivener's errors, corrections and so forth that have been proposed by the planning department which can be taken in an omnimous fashion. Am I correct in that Meredith? >> Yes. >> So you could take all the staff recommended amendments as referenced in the planning department's memo. Um,
and so I you could take that motion if you wanted. >> All right. Right. So, I move that we accept all the staff recommendations as outlined in the memo for uh an amended version of STM1 article one, >> right? Which the advisory committee has adopted.
>> I don't know if they saw it yet. Did they say >> they No, they haven't. They have not yet taken. >> So, they're they're going to react to us, respond to us, >> but hopefully these are these are these are relatively minor technical. >> Bernard votes yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes.
>> And I also vote yes. So now you have two other proposals from the advisory committee. One is to remove short-term rentals from uh as an allowed accessory use and the other is to remove the transit oriented mixeduse subdist altogether. So you want to take those one at a time.
>> So I move that we remove the short-term uh rentals from the prior version. >> Bernard, >> so that that that impacts the existing houses that are there in addition to anything new, right? >> No. >> No. >> No. Um, it is
>> no because the underlying zoning still exists. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> I vote yes. >> All right. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> thank you for the AC for catching this. Yes.
>> And I also vote yes. >> Then you have the possibility of removing the transitoriented mixeduse subdist. Um, so my question is what happens if we don't just don't take a vote on this? >> So then the then there are two separate
motions that go before town meeting. Um there would be well so wait a minute this is your this is your this is your warrant article. >> So you don't have to do anything on this. You can say that we this then the advisory committee's proposal would become an amendment uh that is not
accepted by the select board. And so you would the order of operations would be this town meeting would mo vote on the amendment first. It would need a majority to pass and then if it passed it would become the main motion and then that would be subject to a two-thirds vote. If it failed then the original
proposal would be the main motion and again to a twothirds vote would be required to pass. >> Can the select board recommend no action on that amendment? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Is that what you're moving? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, Anthony moves no action
on the advisory committee amendment to remove the transit oriented district. >> Yes. >> Yes. Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> And I also vote yes. Meredith, do you have anything else for
us on this? >> That's all. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Michael. >> Um, there's potentially one other vote. Um and that is if the advisory motion passes and becomes the main motion,
>> do we have to specifically recommend whether to vote favorable action on that in that case? >> Couldn't hurt. So, I'd like to I would like to move uh in the case where the advisory
uh amendment motion passes town meeting that we recommend favorable action on that. >> Can we talk you moved it already? >> It's okay. You guys you guys are not as strict about Robert's rules of order right as so yes you can have the um
>> we can have the debate but that but that would that would be the motion is to recommend favorable action on the amendment if it passed. >> Anthony, do you think that's a smart move given
the no action recommendation we have on the AC motion? >> Can I can I weigh in here for a minute? Sorry. Um I just want so you wouldn't know the outcome of that and then the board probably wouldn't want to take a position until that became the main
motion because you want town meeting to know where you stand with the article as presented currently. >> Yeah. Right. My my >> So if it does change then you would then you would want to shift that position but your votes at town meeting would indicate that shift. I I share Melissa's
concern that we don't typically take votes on hypothetical amendments that might change the main motion. Uh and I'm not sure we want to go down that path. So obviously depending on how that amendment is
voted, we'll take a position. And I think everyone on the select board is pretty clear that we think that the that the underlying development project is extremely important. >> Right. >> Right. So Chaz, you said it couldn't hurt. >> Yes. Yes, but Melissa is right that it's a deviate. I mean, right, the the issue that I see is that you're probably not
you're not going to have time realistically because the my guess is as with other other matters where this is taken up is that the amendment will be put forth. It will be moved, town meeting will vote on it. Um and then my guess is there will probably be little
opportunity for additional debate once that becomes the main motion. Um that, you know, debate will terminate. there'll be the vote on the amendment and then there'll be the vote on the main motion. At least that's how in the past that's been handled. For example, with the MBTA Communities Act, there was
a motion to refer and when that was defeated, um the the main motion proceeded. Um um so I think it it's it's ultimately up to you. It's up to it's up to the board. Um I do think it is I I see the pros and cons to
it. Um, you know, I I think to your point, David, everyone I I think the general consensus of the board is known and there may be a detriment to saying, you know, this isn't so important to us that we don't think, you know, but at the same time,
>> it is it is, you know, I I just wonder, have we ever has the board ever done that before? Taken a vote on a hypothetical outcome of an amendment? >> I'm not aware of you having done that in the past, >> right? So, I'm not sure we want to start doing so. >> That's great. >> That's fine. I withdraw my motion.
>> Okay. Uh, any further discussion on this? I know we just voted. Apparently, we were possibly going to take a vote on article two. >> I think we just noticed that in the event that something came up at advisory that needed to be addressed. >> All right. Okay. With that, then we will move on to
review and possible vote on article 8 FY27 budget. >> Uh Melissa, you want to talk through where where we are after advisory last night? >> Sure. Advisory met last night. Um they considered a couple of items. Um they
did um two things. You should have in your packet an amendment that came from Paul Warren, Mike Sandman, Brian Kaine, Mercivoke, Andy Fischer. Basically, all of the parties that had two competing amendments got together and made one amendment to the condition of
appropriation for a roadway that was taken on and uh voted favorably by the advisory committee. Um and then they also talked about the um potential condition of appropriation um for the golf course lighting. Um
Joselyn had thrown some language uh at us pro last week. Um we tried to react to that but there wasn't really a lot of time to really work through it. Um so we are hopeful that there might be some language that we could present the night of town meeting but at this point um
right now we don't have anything and the advisory committee hasn't moved from their position of no action on that particular item. Um then there is also um the uh town council budget which um had been uh one point where the board was not aligned with the advisory
committee as well. Um what they did last night instead of reducing town council's budget by 31,000 and adding that to the council on aging um they uh instead took that 31,000 and put it into the reserve fund. Um and you know basically in
anticipation that that potentially if there was a need for that fund um funding that that they would be able to visit the advisory committee for a reserve fund transfer should that be um necessary in order to fully kind of um use utilize the funds. So um that's
that's essentially what happened last night. >> All right. So, should we take a vote on any of these elements of Warren Article 8? >> So, I think yeah, you've got you've got two potential u motions here. Um unless you want to talk a bit about the golf
course, which we're happy to do. Um but our our hope, as Melissa said, is that we can continue to work with folks who are proposing. Right now, the advisory committee's proposal advisory committee version is no action on that. Yours is moving forward with it. Our goal is to
get to uh a yes with with certain conditions of appropriation. I know one of the main barriers is hopefully no longer a barrier, which is whether or not it's subject to the design review committee process. We agree that we it can be and so we will just we'll do that. So I think hopefully we just need
to work on finalizing some language that's acceptable to the the folks on advisory who would like to see you know some conditions of appropriation oppo opposed here. Um the moderator has given the select board and the advisory committee dispensation to come into
alignment on this uh in the run-up to town meeting. Um which means that um you and the advisory committee are not bound by the um 8day rule. You're only bound by the one uh I don't know if he's even bound you by the one day rule, but the >> rule, >> huh? >> The one second rule.
>> The one second. Right. the go the go the goal and again the moderator I don't want to speak for the moderator but I I understand the moderator's purpose in this is to encourage and encourage the select board and the advisory committee to reach consensus on these things. So we will continue to work with the members of the advisory committee who
are interested in reaching consensus on the golf course lights. Hopefully we can have something for you by Tuesday. Um I I I think we can get there. Um we'll just continue working with them. Um so it sounds like we have two votes we could take. The first would be to
reconsider our prior support for the Warren Kaine Sandman amendments to incorporate the new consensus amendment that also adds in Fiser vote. >> Yep. So there's a new consensus amendment with many names attached to it um that advisory had signed off on and
we're signed off on from a staff perspective. Um and then right there's this question of the 31,000 um going into the um reserve fund. And I think if you again in the interest of reaching consensus with the advisory committee in
the context of the broader discussion that you want to have here with the changes to the policy on fraudulent conduct and so forth, um it's going to be hard. I I don't think it's a good idea for us to try and rush changes to a policy that has financial
uh implications in a week's time. But I do think it's important for us to do that work. Um, and so I think coming into alignment with advisory on this, even though from a staff perspective, it's not our preferred outcome, it's certainly a better outcome than pitting
departments against each other. Um, and I really do appreciate the advisory committee taking taking the first step here and making a decision to basically put this in a holding pattern while you continue to work with them on these issues. Um,
so I think moving the 31,000 out of town council's budget and into the reserve fund is probably the best way forward here in terms of getting to some sort of consensus on how to address these issues that have led to this happening in the
first place. >> All right. Okay. So, going back to the compromise amendment of Warren Kane Sandman, I move reconsideration of the Warren Kaine Sandman amendment. Yes. Reconsider, >> Michael.
>> I'm I'm I'm confused. >> So, we at the last meeting, we had uh voted our support for the Warren Kaine Sandman amendment. Since that time, uh they the petitioners of that amendment have met with Andy Fischer and
Marissa vote. They have a combined consensus amendment now that they all agree on. So, first we're voting to reconsider our prior support of the Warren Sandman Kain amendment alone so that we can now express our support for the combined consensus amendment.
>> So, the thing I'm confused about is my understanding is that warranted article 8 is the main motion that is being brought forward by the AC, right? and our we have a current vote that says we
recommend favorable action on an amended version, right? A substitute motion that has differences. >> So, isn't that the thing we have to vote to? >> I was going to say it might be cleaner just to do that. Yeah. To to move reconsideration of your position on warrant article 8 and then adopt changes. Yeah.
>> All right. Move reconsideration to warrant article 8. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> Anthony, >> yes. And I also vote yes. All right. So, uh, two changes that we will vote on at
once. Uh, supporting the compromise amendment between Warren, Sandman, Kaine, Fiser vote, and supporting the AC's uh, 31,000 into the reserve fund.
>> All right. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> Amanda, >> yes. Anthony >> abstain >> and I vote yes. >> Thank you. So basically the only difference on the budget right now is the golf lighting project. So we'll we'll and we'll likely take that up the
night of town meeting. >> Yeah, we will do our best to get to us there. >> All right. So that brings us to 14. Can I ask with respect to the golf lighting project that includes both the driving range but also the maintenance shed and
the uh >> no no those are separate issues. I understand that the the comment tonight was was based on the shed. I don't have any information about that. I will follow up and get back to you. >> Okay. >> So, you're working on just the driving range.
>> Well, this this this appropriation is just the driving range. It's not about the work. It's not about the light, current lights, it's at the shed or um so but I will follow up on that. >> Okay. >> I think the concern is it's part of a broader issue of illumination right
>> at multiple parts of the golf course. So it's the shed is lit up as we saw in the picture. The uh clubhouse is lit up. The deck at the restaurant is lit up. There also some lights of trees near the putting green area. Uh so a lot of lights are appearing.
All right. And with that, we'll move to article 12 to see if the town will uh address transparency of public record requests and responses to ensure that requests made to the town of Brookline as well as all responses except those subject to a statutory exclusion are
made publicly available via the town's website as soon as practicable, but no later than 14 days after either the town receives a request or the town issues a response. Do we have the petitioners of article 12 on? >> So I just give you a a quick update as
to where you are. So currently the board's position is no action. Um and that is a 401. David, you were the abstension on that vote. Obviously this was under the prior version of the board. So our new members may have different feelings about this article. Um you have a revised motion in your
packet and I believe Alec can speak to that. The advisory committee I believe also adopted the revised version of this article. And Melissa, what was the AC vote? Do you know? >> Um, if you give me a minute, I can look it up and I will uh I'll let you know.
>> Thank you. >> It It was favorable action by a a large margin, but I don't remember the actual vote. >> Are we asking Alec to explain the difference? >> Right. Go ahead, Alec. >> Yeah. Thank you so much uh Chair Pearlman and and congratulations to
yourself and and vice chair uh Rubenstein on your uh recent elections to the officer positions and welcome uh Anthony and Amanda to the board. I think this is my first time appearing before you. So excited to see our new board in action. Um as Melissa mentioned, there
have been some um substantive changes to article 12 since this was before the previous board. Um uh we have amended the petitioner's motion which as as was mentioned has now been uh endorsed for favorable action by the AC um to again continue to try and make sure that
implementation of this bylaw will be as um uh or use as few resources both in terms of staff time and costs as possible while still achieving really the spirit of the article which is to um create an advanced layer of transparency
and accountability around the town's response. responses to public records requests. Um, so as David mentioned in reading the the previous title of the bylaw, we had originally envisioned the posting of all public records requests and the public documents provided in
response to those requests uh on the town's website uh essentially on a on a twice monthly basis. Um what became clear in the review of that original proposal uh in conjunction with town council and with the town clerk's office
um was that for a number of reasons that approach would be um really from our perspective the petitioner's perspective cost prohibitive to pursue. Um what we then did was we modulated our model um to base it much more closely on actual
products that the clerk's office has produced in the last um two years in response to um fairly expansive public records requests that have sought to get at what this bylaw attempts to take on. Um, so one in particular was submitted
uh at the beginning, I believe, of this calendar year by Brookline News and requested a list of all the public records requests the town had received during calendar year 2025 as along with a brief summary of the response uh sent.
Uh that was produced by the town clerk's office at a total cost of about $2,400 is our understanding based on cost estimates provided by their office. Um I I also would point to another public records request that that Michael may want to speak more about. Um, after our
first appearance before this board, uh, Michael submitted, um, a public records request that was fairly analogous to what we are now calling for to be published, um, through our, uh, revised motion that the town clerk was able to produce, um, essentially the results that we would we would request through
this bylaw for the first 3 months of calendar year 2026 for an approximate cost of about $400. Um so to be clear in terms of the deadline and what we're now requesting to be published in our amended motion um rather than posting
both the requests and the documents provided um the town clerk would now be asked on a monthly basis uh rolling throughout the year. We we envision probably at the end of the month um that an index be posted to the town website
that includes um any public records requests received during that month. Um as well as a very short summary as to what if anything was provided in response to that request. Um we specifically envision that being um primarily just a list of the public
documents provided but not the actual posting of the documents themselves. Um, we feel this accomplishes really the original intent and spirit of article 12 um by showing any interested member of the public how responsive the town is to these requests um what is being
requested of the town um and when if at any time the town fails to live up to the standard of the law or our internal policies or if an exemption is exercised by the town clerk as is um his right uh under state law. Um, additionally though, this as I mentioned really
minimizes the implementation costs associated based on the actual products that have already been produced. Uh, along similar lines, we envision uh, a total implementation cost here in the low thousands for a given year as opposed to a much higher cost uh, should
we request that the actual documents continue to be posted. Um, additionally, we also feel this still expands public access to relevant public documents because um, the clerk in responding to any initial public records request would redact and prepare the public documents
to be sent to the requesttor as per usual. And when this index is then published on a monthly rolling basis, um any other interested member of the public could quite simply uh submit a request of their own should they see in that index any listed documents that are
of interest to them. Uh and the clerk could then provide those documents at essentially no cost given the fact that they had already been redacted and prepared for a previous requesttor. So, we've we've kind of been trying to take, you know, as many steps as possible to
get to a consensus here. We were very pleased that the advisory committee unanimously recommended favorable action. Uh, and I would uh encourage this board to consider reconsideration and we'd hope you'd uh also consider favorable action on our amended motion. And I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you. >> Any questions, comments? Bernard, >> um, what what is the response of the clerk? Um the clerk has unfortunately I I think primarily due to the election had some difficulty in attending uh the public
meetings since we've reformulated our article. Um we did um run our cost estimates by the clerk as well as talk to him extensively particularly through the AC subcommittee process um about the logistics of how his office handles
these responses um and as well as how his office would anticipate handling um responses under the um proposed bylaw before you this evening. Um I'm not aware of him having taken any position on the article itself. Um, but I will
note that that he has been helpful in in establishing the logistical implications of the bylaw. >> Anthony, >> I have an understanding of whether uh town council uh will be able to abide by this amendment. Like is there difficulty? >> Joe. >> Um hello Joe Callahan, town council. Um,
I have testified before AC uh before that, you know, uh imposing further obligations to town staff to comply with public records law is going to cause problems complying with the state requirements since we have difficulty
responding timely. Um, the proponents have talked about they did a survey of of uh the TMA list serve about the town's compliance with the public records law. Most of the complaints um were about timeliness and do we respond within the 10 business days we're
allowed. Some of the complaints were, you know, I didn't get everything I wanted. That's news to me. You need to contact us if you don't believe that you got everything. But u we do have a problem complying within the 10 days. Um so if further obligations are going to
be imposed upon us, it's, you know, a 10 pound bag of flour and a five pound sack. So something's going to have to give. It's not just, you know, the cost of a couple thousand dollars as the as the petitioners say. There's limited hours in the day. So we only have
limited number of hours that we can devote to public records laws responses in addition to all the other obligations that we have. So something's going to give and it's probably going to be further compliance with the existing state obligations under the public
records law. Um, it seems to me that if we are having difficulty complying with the public's record law as it is in a timely fashion, then that's an issue that we need to be addressing outside of this like by itself. And we have to figure out the
resources to do so that that our town staff can follow the letter of the law. And I don't think that should get in the way of adopting transparency measures um because we should be addressing that backlog regardless. And I'm I'm not in the town council office, but I'm also
hoping that this might actually encourage better compliance. A and if I may very very briefly just for the benefit specifically of the two board members who who were not here for the original presentation I think one of the important um aspects of the current
application of of the state's public records law that uh was of great concern to the petitioners and a number of the people that we spoke to in preparing this article um is the fact that the state which is responsible for the enforcement of the public records law
has essentially thrown in the towel um the procedure by which the state is empowered to enforce the public records law in a case where a municipality um goes over the allotted time limit or is non-responsive without citing any exemption is that you can appeal to an
administrative position within the secretary of the commonwealth's office. They have no direct enforcement power, but they can adjudicate claims and then uh were a finding that a municipality is in breach of the law to to occur. Historically, that position in the SOC
would then have referred the complaint to the Attorney General's office for actual legal enforcement. They ceased making any referrals to the Attorney General's office 3 years ago out of a recognition that simply the enforcement was not happening. So, we're now in a
situation where the law that's supposed to be enforced by the state to keep the municipalities honest in the in the eyes of the people is being completely uninforced. And this is why you are seeing a wave of locally focused actions, not just in Brooklyn, but in
many communities. Um, we've pointed to several in our article explanation that are already ahead of us, you know, on the curve here. Um, is because without local action, there is no enforcement of the public records law currently. And I think our town does likely do a better
job than many peers. I I don't contest that. Uh but there are problems or there is at least the very real perception of a problem as we learned in our public outreach. And I would just highlight that I heard from multiple town meeting members who didn't claim simply that they didn't receive everything they requested. We have multiple firsthand
accounts of people who claim they received nothing. So this is about accountability. It's about transparency. We've done everything possible to minimize the operational impact of this. But I think uh Amanda is right. These are in some ways separate and related
issues, but I think we can chew gum and walk here at the same time. >> I think so. Ben I don't think has commented on this in a while but I you know his initial memo to the board I think raised a couple of points which is the goal of this article is to or again
what the what the article references is and they point they post they say here's you know uh here's what Newton does here's what Framingham does you can see that if we release all these you know all these things um using foyer direct
it's not that hard The issue that the clerk has raised in response to that is the problem is if there's a public records request made and the content of that request needs to be redacted, there's no way for us to do that. Um, we
either have to hide the whole thing or we have to show the whole thing. Um, and so there's no easy way to use the current system to partially redact a request that may itself because, for example, it references ongoing
litigation or it references the subject of an investigation or it references, you know, it has personally identifying information in it or something along those lines. We we can't selectively redact that. We'd have to hide the whole thing. Um, and
this warrant article does not I I don't think under the current structure because it is prescriptive about what a request is and what a response is. Um, doesn't give the
opportunity for the clerk to basically do that, right? create a situation where all right, this one request I'm not going to show anything from because it contains it contains something that is subject to an exemption. Um, it requires us to create something new. It requires
us to create a new document, a new Excel spreadsheet, a new database that is then updated once a month. Um, and that's his that was his concern is that although I think all of us appreciate the aim of this and appreciate the petitioners and trying to be iterative on this, Ben's
basic concern has not really been addressed, which is people say, "Well, couldn't we do it the way other communities do it?" And when he says, "Well, here's why." There hasn't been there there hasn't been a response to that or that I that I've heard. And
maybe I've just not been in the loop on this, but my understanding is that Ben has raised a legitimate concern, which is it's not so easy to do what petitioners want in this article, which although it is brief, is prescriptive in
how it describes a request and a response and requires us to create something new. Um, and that in turn, even though it may not be a particularly ownorous mandate to the outside, is still an unfunded mandate. Um, and
that's where I feel like if there was a way to structure this in such a way that we said to Ben, okay, all you, you know, for ones that are that have personally identifying information or any other thing, if you could just click mark private and then the other ones
potentially leave them public. I don't again, I don't know. I don't know how this works in practice, but that might be an easier solution, but that's not the solution that I see here, Michael. Um so I want to I want to concede a few points and then say nonetheless. So I you know
I will concede that the the definition of the requests and the responses are prescriptive um and that the way in which um the information is made public would not is not prescriptive. It could be done as you say with an Excel
spreadsheet or a web page that is kept up to date whatever. Um so to uh Alex's references earlier um I did make a uh foyer uh I'm sorry a public records request as he described um the cost uh
the estimate uh that I was given from the town clerk was that that request would take 10 hours of work um of which he would charge me $25 for eight hours because the first two hours um he wouldn't charge me for or the the
clerk's office wouldn't charge me for. Um, and so it was $200. Um, to which I submitted an amendment to my request that said, um, well, instead of doing three months worth of work, just do two hours worth of work. Tell me how much you can get done within two hours and
just give me that much information because the thing I'm really interested in knowing is like how quickly he goes through that. I'm I don't need to spend $200. He doesn't necessarily need to spend 10 hours. Two hours would get would give me that information. And I have not yet heard back from the town
clerk um on that request. Um which you know he you know I believe he's still within the time frame but but I indeed haven't heard. Um so so I will concede that this is going to
take away time from some other activity of the town clerk's office. Um I am a little concerned by the fact that the town clerk uh indicated to me at least that um he is the only person in his office who is trained to be able to do
this work and support support this process. Um which which just from a redundancy and uh perspective is concerning like that there's nobody else in the town clerk's office. Um not that I not that I don't wish him well and
continued work in this in this function but just as a matter of sustainability that's an issue. Um so um the result of that is that I'm inclined to support the petitioner's request and reconsider um
for the purpose of transparency which is one of our roadmap which is also one of our roadmap goals um and just get a better understanding of the functioning of the office. I will just say one other thing for for um uh just for the sake of
when we talk about the costs and so forth. Um we are capped under the public records law at $25 an hour even if someone's time is worth more unless we petition the state and then we can go up to $40 an hour. >> Um and that again is more time and more
effort to write a letter to the state saying can we please go up to $40 an hour. So, I don't think the $25 an hour necessarily reflects accurately the full cost. >> No, but I think the 10 hours that he quoted as the time frame for meeting my request was relatively
or his best estimate. >> All right. I see someone has the hand raised. I'm not sure who it is. >> Joe. >> Joe, you have something else to say? >> Yeah. And it's a couple points. Um, one, you know, to address Amanda and Michael's concerns about um, you know,
could we do better? and um you know could we do what the other communities are doing? The petitioners gave us two examples, Framingham and and Newton. And Framingham has a full-time person who does public records laws. So if there's an interest in helping out here and
doing something to improve transparency, which I'll also get to, it's adding staff as opposed to adding further requirements. Um, you know, the idea that this uh public records law is uninforceable, I would absolutely disagree. Um, maybe somebody in in
Brookline has not wanted to uh bring suit again because our issue is timeliness and not lack of response, and I'll get to that, but if they were to bring suit, um, there's a fee shifting. Um, you know, if you're successful, you get your attorney's fees. So, for
example, Worcester uh is a community that is less transparent than Brookline and had $100,000 attorney's fees uh you know, assessed against them for withholding documents. And you know, I know that we're uh better because you can ask the supervisor staff. Um we have
fewer appeals to the secretary's office. Most of our appeals now are again on timeliness as opposed to lack of transparency. um every town meeting member gets at the beginning of the uh year, I'm sorry, at the beginning of the month that uh I
believe that uh town meeting members uh emails are public records and the TMMA reminds town meeting members every single month that uh those town meeting member emails are public records and they're given to Brookline News. So, it
isn't an issue of transparency. I've gotten a lot of complaints and the TMMA despite this being, you know, going on for three years, still reminds the 250 members each month that I'm more transparent than they want to be. Uh, but also going back to when Chief Gonzalez was uh terminated, we posted
the the result of that uh report. Unlike many communities like Worcester, uh they withheld police misconduct investigation reports which led to that $100,000 attorney's fees. But we were criticized for publish publishing that report. So the issue of transparency we have been
doing for the past four years I've been uh here as town council but again we have a problem with timeliness and I know that because I was reading the town meeting members listerve uh emails when this issue came up and three of the people who said that they didn't receive
uh emails did two of them did so they might not have received everything but they did receive something and the third one who said that he didn't receive anything was because he had requested about 15 to 20 days earlier and we hadn't got back to him. He ultimately did get uh the records he was looking
for. But again, it was an issue of timeliness, not that it's an issue of we don't produce documents or we were not transparent. Ask Sam Mints, ask the supervisor's record, ask the people who are complaining that we produced the TMMA listerve and ask the people who complain that we produced Chief
Gonzalez's report four years ago. It's not an issue of transparency. It's an issue that we do not have enough time during the day and need more resources, not more locally imposed obligations. >> Michael, >> um,
thank thank you uh, Joe for for that perspective. Um, I I first of all um, at least on my own part, I was not I was not claiming that the Newton solution or the Framingham solution was appropriate. So that that
was that was that was not uh my position. Um and this the second thing is that um while I appreciate that the the town overall is tra is is relatively
transparent compared to other municipalities as you indicate and I I take it uh I take your word for this fact. Um the the the the idea I the idea that you
know this particular public records request that that is being made um is can't be handled. Um you know maybe it's going to take more resources, maybe the requirements need
to be tweaked. Um but the but the idea that we can't get an ongoing list of our public records the the public records requests that have been made um uh seems
I I have too many negatives. Um it seems like we should be able to get this information. Um and I you know I appreciate it is that there are confounding factors and that there are things that need to there are things that we have to take into account but
but nonetheless >> chess just I mean just quickly to your point about Framingham like I look on page four of the of the uh petitioners warrant article with the explanation Framingham uses the same software provider as Brookline but does not hide requests and responses as Brookline does. A search for all requests seals a
total of 4,418 requests, only five of which are marked private. The issue here is that the current warrant article doesn't allow us to mark things as private. It requires us to do something different. I think I don't know because I haven't talked to him about this, but
I think if you were to talk to the clerk and say, "Hey, what if we just did this where we allowed you to mark things as private if there was a need to mark them as private?" Then we have a database, then we have this system. Um, and that
might save us all a lot of heartache um as opposed to reinventing the wheel. And I'm not sure why that hasn't been done. Um, but I think it's I I don't think it's right to just jump to we must create a new solution when there is a
potential solution on the table that theoretically could do what needs to be done here. >> I can I make a point on that really quick? Go ahead, Anthony. >> Um, I have a question for the petitioner. Um, have you thought about in inserting that language about allowing for things to be marked as private as Chaz is referring to here?
Have you thought about making that amendment? Uh so thanks for that question Anthony. So just very quickly on on two points um one is the model that's before you tonight we have moved away from foyer direct to be clear. Um and the the reason we did so was because of the
concerns that the town clerk had raised. Um despite the fact that as as Chaz has mentioned there are other communities that have moved forward with this model. Um, this is why we wanted to base this on something that the clerk had already produced. And we actually have the
results that were produced for that Brookline News um, public records request that we looked at. And my recollection, and I will double check this, but one of those requests, I believe, and what he produced for Brooklyn. News is marked private. And it was a it was a request that has come up
or there's been reference made to it um, at a previous meeting. And it was the one request I had mentioned I think at the beginning um where Ben in his capacity as the records officer had essentially exercised an exemption under
state law that that legally did not require the town to respond to a a particular request. Um, so, uh, you know, I think in in those rare circumstances, um, we I don't think we would be opposed
to that kind of omission. >> Chance, is is there language that we can insert into this that you think could fit in your framework that >> I would want to talk to the clerk and make sure. Um, >> okay. >> You know, yeah, I I I let me let me see
if I can get the >> And about staff time. I I think we could just automate all this with AI about trying to keep updates spreadsheet. Like I think that's just that we don't got to worry about that. >> The other big problem here and something that I think we should as staff talk about is that sometimes I just get an
email saying I have a public records request. Um and historically what we've done is we've treated that okay it's public records request handle it this way. we should just, you know, we try and adopt a no wrong door philosophy. But under this rubric, I think we will have to abolish that and basically force
people to file a public records request in one specific way because >> I I support that. Yeah. >> You know, and just just so people understand like I I think that will lead to an a a funneling of public records requests in one direction because I wouldn't want us to be underresponsive
to this. Um, so, >> so I'm wondering if we could move to support the petitioner's version with the caveat that if CHAZ comes up with some language to add a privacy exemption, we can revisit it. Is that
something that we could do? No. >> Well, I think there are a couple of approaches we could take. So, I I I think the specific language that the town administrator comes up with, we would want to know. It's a little too amorphous to frame a vote around that. But what we could do if we want to, we
could adopt the petitioner's motion after reconsidering and then we could amend further at a subsequent meeting in the event that there is some kind of compromise. So I think that would be my suggestion. I personally can't be the one who moves reconsideration because
>> I sort of supported this in the last iteration, but anyone else can. >> Well, I don't want to do that. >> Michael can. setting a bunch of steps before we get to a final vote. And and I I think that it makes to me makes more sense to wait and see what we hear from
the clerk and you know allow Chaz to sort of put together some some language before we um you know make a final decision. >> I kind of agree. I feel like we could table it and just see what happens before town meeting. Is that what you're
saying Bernard? >> Roughly. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, we'll meet >> we'll meet on Tuesday of town meeting beforehand. >> So, we would we would be taking it up taking it up there. So, presumably at that point on Tuesday, we would either
vote to recommend uh vote to reconsider and then either vote this language or amended language. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Amended language and or or based on what we hear from the clerk
also. >> Right. And it also gives the clerk another week to respond to my requests, which is more information that's useful. >> Right. Yes. We don't need to necessarily change twice. We can change once. >> So, >> okay. Um, Alec, I'll reach out to you.
I'll try and try and I I'll reach out to Ben and I'll reach out to you and Mike and we'll try and try and work something out here. >> Thank you all. Much appreciated. Thanks, Alec. >> All right. Thank you. So next we will review article 22 proposition 2 and a half resolution. We have both
petitioners here. >> You do have the advisory committee motion in your packet. Sorry I can't see who's in the room. Um but I know that the petitioners did work with CHAZ this week on revised language. So I'm sure that's what they're about to present. >> Good evening everyone. Bradford Kimble,
TMM precinct 1, joined by co-patitioner Rob Shonne. It's good to be back. Feels like I have a nice standing appointment. Um, so today we're introducing a new version of the resolution uh, which we sort of came to today. We've emailed it to some
of you um, in broadstrokes. Instead of referring it to either a select board committee, referring the matter of the index to a select board committee or torsc or any other committee, we changed it to a resolution which calls on the town administrator, the select board
andor town staff uh to evaluate the possibility of constructing a regional index um and reaching out to the metro area planning commission to do so. So instead of referral just a resolution if helpful I can read the clauses that have been changed or if you have it in front
of you we don't need to do that. Um but we think that it addresses some of the issues that have come up in discussions. Um it was ruled in scope by the moderator. We think that it offers more flexibility for select board time and staff time than a referral does. Um we
think it it alleviates concerns about uh townwide versus regional action as it specifically calls for regional action. uh mentioning explicitly the metro area planning commission um which we also hope alleviates some concerns about data collection that were raised last week at the select board meeting and ultimately
it brings us back I think closer to the intent of our original article which was to add to the statewide conversation about the uh the about uh municipal budgets and how inflationary pressures are affecting them. So we think that by adopting this resolution, we hope to offer a more flexible approach that can
ultimately lead to the goals of our warrant article being achieved in a in a more efficient and and more efficient manner. >> Thank you. >> All right, Anthony. >> I'll just say I commend the petitioners for a lot of work on this um a lot of
iterations and I really appreciate it. >> I just want to add my thanks to the petitioners. This we've been through a lot of this. It's been an iterative process. um really appreciate your willingness to think creatively with us about how to make this function and how to achieve an outcome that I think we
all are working towards. So, thank you both. Really appreciate it. >> So, I don't believe we ever voted a recommendation on this Warren article. >> No. >> So, I'll go ahead and move favorable action on Warren Article 22, uh Proposition 2 and a half resolution.
Bernard yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. Anthony. >> Yes. >> And I also vote yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for all of your time. We really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that, we will now move to warrant article 23 to see if the town
will adopt a resolution to increase stipens for select board members. >> So, you also have in your packet um the advisory committee motion on this, which is a referral motion. And then you have the revised petitioner motion, which is also in your packet. And I see that Jonathan is here.
Great. Good evening. Um Jonathan Golden, town meeting member of precinct 17. So I'll briefly summarize the differences between the two and happy to take any questions. First I think where we agree. Um, we also, you will see as part of our, uh, proposal, have a moderator's committee
to study one of the main issues which came up with this Warn article, which is if the town were to give stipens of $5,000 or more, those could would have uh, pension liabilities uh, going forward, especially if someone served the town 10 years or more. And that's a very complicated figure to figure out.
We know that that would take more time and process to do. So that we agree with the the advisory committee that there that area needs to be studied in particular. What we're proposing that's different in ours is we'd like to make some modest movement in the both the current stipens for a select board
moving to the figure of 4,999 just below that $500,000 threshold which gets the stipen closer to thinking about inflation since that stipen was set back in 2011. Also the timeline of our of the report back from the moderators committee we would hope it be in 2027 by Tom meeting.
So a year from now as opposed to 2028 as in the advisory committee report. And the last piece I think worth noting is that originally Marissa had intended to submit these both as as separate warn articles for select board and school committee and we've asked the moderator
if it be possible to split the vote. The moderator has said yes to that and I think that with our petition that would create that opportunity to vote separately whether town meeting would desire to have the stipens for board to be raised and then school committee really for the first time to have those
to be possible. Uh the very last thing I'll say is that what I've really learned through this process is the stipens. We're not talking about certainly that this is going to replace a full-time job or be a major compensation, but it is important compensation from an access to government perspective that we learned
even from one member of the advisory committee shared with us in the hearing that these stipens have been used for people to as select board members have to represent the community at various events and that this money can go towards that. and school committee members came up to us during the process said you know we wish we had that same
opportunity as we also have expectations of the communities who represent um given our role um so that's why we're hoping there will be support for our version which will give just a modest step forward in thinking about the idea of stipens and recognizing that if we want to go any further than that that yes that's the area that should be
studied so I'll pause there >> thank you any questions comments >> can we ask town council to weigh in on what we can weigh in on. >> Uh Joe, can you explain to us what we
can appine or not appine with respect to this vote? >> Uh good evening, Joe Callahan, town council. Um I uh haven't seen the latest draft. So if I can ask the petitioners, have they
changed the effective date? No, that the effective date would be July 1, 2029. >> Right. Exactly. So, in that case, um all members of the select board can vote on this because it wouldn't become effective um until after they face the voters. So, there wouldn't be a conflict
of interest that you'd be changing um your salary um because you'd first have to face the voters. This is typically what's done um in other communities. It was what Quinsey did when they sought to increase the salary of the mayor. Uh it's what the governor and the state
legislature do uh at the state level and also Congress does. Um there's a further reason why you do not have a conflict and that this is a mere resolution. So it wouldn't even be a conflict if it was a new bylaw because again it wouldn't come become effective until after you face the voters. So you wouldn't be
voting on your um you know uh salary. you'd be voting on the salary of someone who would be potentially coming after you or could be you, but you first face the voters. So, the fact that this is also a resolution takes that even further away from being an actual conflict of interest. So, I have
absolutely no problems with you voting on this. There wouldn't be a conflict of interest or even an appearance of a conflict of interest. >> Isn't there still language in the whereas clauses though recommending an increase sooner than 2029? There is language which says like should
the compensation as deemed appropriate that maybe it should be raised but we do not give any particular figure um to that what that number should be >> and again even even if that's the case you can make that statement but you'd then have to then have a future action a
future bylaw you know future warrant article that would do that. So at that point uh if it did become effective before um everyone faced faced an election then you might have a conflict. But the fact that this language talks about a potential future action
potential future warrant article potential future warrant article that you may have a conflict. Yeah, I still don't have a problem with you voting on this resolution. >> Well, I appreciate town council's explanation. And I I still feel that the optics of voting one way or the other on
salary increases while being a sitting board member are not positive. So I'd rather just not weigh in on this. But that's maybe just me. Bernard got salary increases. I this is a small stipen that's insignificant in term I mean to
the extent that you use it for you know various town events fundraisers and things like that it's it's not a significant amount. So I don't see it as in the category of raising salaries. This is this is not not bad at all.
That's just me. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. Michael. >> Yeah. I agree with you, Bernard. I'm I'm sort of feeling a little whiplash on this in terms of like trying to figure out what the ultimate goals are because
it feels like the goals have shifted. Right. At one point we were talking about the question of like what is the impact of this on terms of professionalizing or opening up the range of possible um members of the select board, you know, by by
substantially increasing the salary. And we're not we're not really doing that. This more feels like how much um how much petty cash is in your account to do select board related things. Um
which just it it just feels like a much smaller ball and and and I'm not I'm not convinced that that it's just worth our worth all of our time. >> Anyone else agree with that last sentence?
So, um, I get what you're saying along those lines. The petitioner's version does suggest studying it for increases past that, which is sort of what you're you're getting out of for if you increase it to a point where you get more substantial representation, either
people throwing their hats into the select board race or the school committee race. Um I think in particular for the school committee I I think we should weigh in um just to acknowledge the fact that you have folks dedicating a lot of time and in a position of power
to make sure the education of our children is going according to uh I don't want to say according to plan but going in the right direction >> according to our values >> according to our values and so I think I would very much support uh the school
committee version of it and I I do um like the idea of getting both the school committee and the select board to a place in which you can increase representation by recruiting folks who might not um have the time to donate
andor might not be willing to shoot themselves in the foot financially in order to do so. >> All right, any further discussion? Any motions? I move favorable action. >> All right. So, Bernard moves favorable action on on what exactly? On the select
board portion, on the school committee portion both. >> Both. >> Okay. >> And are you on the AC motion or the petitioners motion? >> Okay. The AC motion is with the study
>> is is to refer the subject matter of warrant article 23 to a moderator's committee to report recommendation back to town meeting during 2028. And the petitioner's motion, the reporting is more specific.
>> And the petitioner's version also has stipens starting in 2029 for the school committee and increasing the select board stipens starting in 2029. Okay. the the AC doesn't do anything with >> I move favorable action on the
petitioners version. >> All right, Bernard. >> Yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> abstain. >> Abstain. >> One, two, three. Okay.
>> All right. So, thank you to the petitioner and we will now move on to warrant article 25, resolution response to federal immigration enforcement and police protocols. >> So, where are we? I've been working
really hard with the petitioners. >> Oh, >> I was just going to say last week you gave yourselves homework, so I think Bernard and Anthony probably have something to report. >> Yes. Yes. Um, we're really close on finalizing language um where all stakeholders can agree. We're very close. We should take it up Tuesday
before town meeting. I believe we're going to have a consensus. >> I do I do note that the advisory committee vote did vote to refer this to a different committee. Um and Susan Granoff, who was chair of the ad hoc subcommittee, did ask to address you on this if that's okay with you. >> Sure. We'll go to in a moment, but
Bernard, you had a >> I was going to say that that we we we got rid well make sure that the petitioners agree. got rid of the uh UASI language and the U fingerprint um language, you know, requiring us to not
send fingerprints and not to take the US grants. And the focus is to u to to uh invest basically investigate the brick to make sure that we are getting honest information from them that they are not
uh engaging in the type of um collection of data that um is uh um violation of people's due process rights etc. In other words, get we're asking the PCAC to to look into brick and make
sure that we are comfortable that this is not going to be um a relationship that is going to force us to violate all of our values and and expectations. And I'll add to that another piece is the UASIA language that does remain is
understanding the is is tasking the committee to understand the current process or or the current point we're at in litigation where what UASI currently says under current grants 10% of your grant funding has to go to immigration enforcement. It's currently held up in court. Um we're tasking the committee to
say okay what does that mean to say 10% to immigration enforcement? So we we want to understand what does that mean if that if that if that does survive litigation. >> Yeah. Michael thinking >> I think I think we also want to understand to what degree we can uh
accept that money uh with letters of condition or other such things that we've done in the past or other such things that we've done in the past which um in which we've gotten the money but made very clear that we're not >> that's in scope of the language. That's
in scope of the language. And then also uh in regards to fingerprints, most of the language there has been removed um given the important importance of having a fingerprint for public safety. Um however, we do advise the PCAC to look into possible points in the booking
procedure. Um that could uh better allow Brookline to live by its values of pro immigrant sentiment. Um one of which is is trying to see if we can um get detainees uh a phone call at a specific time. and then also looking to see if we
could possibly um uh request uh request um a heads up before an u an ICE enforcement happens at a given time. So those are the types of things that we're we've added in pivotal language. >> In terms of that last part, Chaz, doesn't that already occur that ICE will
contact the Brooklyn Police? Well, >> prior to an operation just so that there's no confusion. >> They used to. They don't anymore. >> See? Yeah. That's why it's there. Okay. >> And so that's where the language is moving right now. >> All right. Why don't we hear from the
petitioner and then we'll go to the author of the AC motion. I see Alec Levitz. Go ahead, Alec. >> Uh yes, thank you, Chair Pearlman. Um uh Alec Levitz, town meeting member precinct 8. Um I'll I'll try and be very brief. Uh on behalf of the petitioners,
um first just want to express our um sincere thanks to the members of this body um and in particular Anthony and Bernard who have um taken a strong interest in in these really critical issues and and produced some uh language for us to take a look at and and
consider as we uh strive to reach um a consensus um version of this article here. Um the language that we received um earlier today um I think was very encouraging from our perspective and um we largely are are in agreement with it.
Um and and I think we are uh motivated at this point given given the interest and the buyin from that we've heard from this board to um to proceed to a to a final version that would be um acceptable to all parties. Um I I'll very very briefly and at a very high
level um and happy to follow up uh about this more offline if that's helpful. Um there there were just a couple large themes um for some feedback we wanted to provide on the draft that we reviewed today. Um so just four quick kind of
buckets. Uh so one was just in you know acknowledging that we think PCAC is is a good place for this review to occur. Um we we do feel it's important and one thing that was honored in both the petitioners revised motion and um I
believe also in the uh Rosenthal um referral motion was that there would be a role um in this review process for immigration experts, immigration uh attorneys and representatives of the immigrant community. Uh I understand
from Anthony that that may have already been incorporated into the draft um subsequent to our receiving it. Um but did just want to flag that as one area that we feel is important. Um I >> and that would be a representative from the diversity commission's immigration
advancement committee. >> I I think that would certainly fit the bill absolutely but um we you know we did not prescribe it to that level of specificity but just to to ensure that that perspective is part of the review we feel is very important. Um, moving on
to the brick. Um, we were very encouraged by the the new language that the board has drafted, um, pertaining to an inquiry into the brick. Um, one thing that was just flagged um by a number of our petitioners, many of whom have um
some subject matter expertise in this area, um is that uh while there's there's a lot of value to the specific charges for the investigation into the brick, um there was some uh desire that the board may wish to consider broadening the scope as well as going
deep on on some key issues. Um for instance um a few of the uh brick practices and functions that um were identified by by co-etitioners and partners uh that are not explicitly called out in um the revised language
include the counterterrorism and threat analysis programs uh monitoring of first amendment protected activities um the production of intelligence reports the real-time crime center um surveillance technologies such as automated license plate reading to the extent they've been
deployed. Um, a number of databases that it employs may not be covered in the language here. Um, so there there's a few more kind of specifics there. So, as I mentioned, we'd be happy to follow up offline on that, but just would um cons urge the board to consider potentially
broadening that scope as well as diving deep into the issues that really merit um careful consideration. Um, we did want to inquire about the reporting date. I think in the version we received that was still left blank. So, uh would
welcome any feedback from uh the board or Anthony or Bernard or whomever is is kind of uh envisioning the PCACled process when we would um expect that process to to wind down. Um uh and finally a a very very uh minor language
request on um section B sub bullet three which which as Anthony referenced makes um uh or focuses rather on a review of the Brooklyn Police Department's booking practices. Um that language uh reads
that it potentially will include fingerprinting practices. Um I think you know with full acknowledgement of uh the very real concerns that have been raised around fingerprinting um we do feel that in any comprehensive
review of the booking process should include that question. Um there's a number of reasons for that, but I I will just for now say that I think one of the real values to including um fingerprinting or review of our fingerprinting policies um as a in part
of a kind of a larger review of the booking process is um it has been somewhat ambiguous through this process to what extent our current fingerprinting practices are driven by law and by andor by accreditation
concerns and or by internal policy. So establishing um where exactly those divisions lie I think would give us more clarity around um any future consideration of changes to um our practices and certainly should
be included in any comprehensive review of the booking practices. So those are those were kind of our four main buckets of feedback. As I said in the beginning, we are um really very encouraged uh to see this language. Um and I think we're very eager to to come to a compromise
and consensus on the path forward with this board and would just again thank um all the members for their interests, but also in particular uh Anthony and Bernard for really taking the lead here and I'm happy to questions. >> Alec, can you send those notes to Bernard and I? >> Uh yes, we we will follow up with you. >> Thanks.
>> All right. I I would have a little concern, Alex, about expanding the scope of uh PCAC's work, but you know, we we we'll see what you're see what you're suggesting and and you know, work through that >> and and we'd welcome any feedback you
have on that, Bernard, as well. So happy to to iterate on this. >> All right. Now, let's go to Susan Granoff reporting for the advisory committee. Hi. Well, since I haven't been sent a copy of the latest version of the uh
work that the select board has been doing on it, uh I'm just going to say that I'm pleased to hear that there has been uh greater thought to the composition of the study committee and uh hopefully uh the advisory committee
will be included in the loop so that we'll have a better idea of the direction that the uh petitioners and the select board are moving so that when Tuesday comes around we'll be in a better position to um to weigh in on the
matter. Uh, I had wanted to make certain that the select was aware of the motion to refer that the advisory committee had overwhelmingly voted in favor of uh at the uh April 30th meeting because it too
involved referring the subject matter of warrant article 25 to a select study committee. But um I think that at this point it would make sense to see what the final result of the collaboration
between the select board and the petitioners are are will be. And uh and so my request is that we you send a copy of that to me and uh as chair of the subcommittee that uh held public
hearings and multiple um uh public meetings on war article 25 and to uh Lisa Dennis uh on the advisory committee so that uh we will have uh something to
discuss. We currently have uh Thursday night set aside for a potential advisory committee meeting on Warren article 25 should the version that you're discussing uh is available but it sounds
like the select board will not have voted on it by that time. Uh so there may be nothing for us to discuss. Uh so my request is that you keep us in the loop and that we're aware of the nature of the changes
uh that are being proposed so that we will have a an opportunity to consider it in a thoughtful way. >> Absolutely, Susan. Yeah, I'll send you the language uh as soon as we make a little more progress. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, just >> And when do you think that might be?
>> Tomorrow or Thursday. Soon. >> Okay, great. >> After this meeting. >> Yeah, right after this meeting. I I can send you my draft copy in five minutes. You know what I mean? >> Acknowledging that there there's still >> I mean we're not going to hold you to it at this point, but just to get an idea of the direction that you're moving it. >> Absolutely.
>> Um just one flag from a staff perspective on the referral motion in the event that this doesn't go through. I would just flag Susan, I know I see you've I know you you're concerned the time is of the essence, but September 1st is not a realistic response date if you want to have staff involvement in this. um the police and fire
departments. I've asked the police department to participate in two separate working groups of pretty significant importing enforcement and um um inspectional services reform. Um and and everyone is
working on uh ADA accessibility as well. Um so we've got three different working groups, staff working groups that are going to be doing some pretty significant work over the summer and fall. Um, I just I I worry that if we try and push things in the through the summer that we're pro that you may not
get a good product. And so I would suggest maybe just talking it through with the with the chief with both chiefs to see what a realistic timeline for them would be if ultimately a referral motion goes forward. Yes, I'd be happy to do that once we
have an idea of the sort of study uh the study committee would be actually asked to do. >> Great, Susan. I just sent you a draft. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. So, it looks like we won't be taking any votes on this tonight. The work remains in progress. And thank you
very much to Anthony. >> I do want to notice Marty has his hand raised. >> Yes, that's going to be on the referral motion, I believe. Does he still have his referral motion? I'm not sure. Marty, do you still have a referral motion that's pending?
>> We can provide him. >> You're on mute, Marty. >> Am I not doing one right here on unmuting? >> Do you still have a referral motion pending on warrant article 25? >> Well, yes and no. the the motion that
Susan's referred to has been referred to as the Rosenthal motion, but I'm assuming it might be moved by the uh advisory committee because I am now uh in what Justice Brandise referred to as the most off most important office in
the democracy. So, um but I I'd like to address what Chaz just said and answer. Could I just speak briefly on that the question you just asked me? >> Sure, go ahead. Um, first of all, what what Chaz just said that that makes sense to me, but
what strikes me about the whole discussion tonight and and the difference between the advisory committee motion that uh was voted by I think 20 to three, but that Susan has sent you today that was originally my
motion. They added a date September 1st. And I I would certainly accept what Chaz said as being a date that might be difficult for certain parts of this. But the parts that are being lost in the shuffle here are the other parts of
article 25. And that's where I think uh article 25 should not be voted as is the rest of it. And I'm happy to see some parts of it being referred by a consensus to a study committee, but the rest of it should be improved. And I
sent you all, I think it's nine things that would improve the rest of 25, including two general orders that could be done over the summer. 50 and 43 need improvement. And so anyway, I I hope
that you're going to not focus on just those trees, but focus on the rest of the forest to to help the immigrant community that need some help right now. >> Absolutely. And Marty, I want to say uh I'm totally in alignment that General orders is a really good place for this
type of work. So when you have ideas about stuff, we can obviously discuss um and workshop something. Okay. And >> Well, I've sent them in already. >> No, I know. I know. But I know I want to talk about them further, but that's that's work that does not stop after the vote is taken. Um, just so you know.
Okay. >> All right. We have some of the other warrant article 25 petitioners on. Do any of you want to be heard? All right. Doesn't look like it. Uh, so thank you for attending. We will not be taking a vote today on Warren Article 25
as this work is in progress. Michael, you have a question, comment. >> Yeah. After after 25. >> Okay. All right. So, our next item, general discussion of warrant articles and amendments related to transparency, responsiveness, and community input.
>> So, before we get to that, my question um in in 14A on the on the on the agenda packet, there's a reference to article 11 supplement one. Is that strictly an FYI or is there some >> Yes. No, we we put it on there in the in
the in in the event that there was um any movement at the advisory committee on that, but generally we if we have stuff we we put it in as potential catch all, but there's no need there's no need for action on that currently. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, for general discussion of warrant articles and amendments related
to transparency, responsiveness, and community input. >> I think this one's >> Yeah, go ahead, Michael. >> Um so, um thank you, David. Uh I' I'm I'm noticing a theme in this uh
in this warrant um and in some of the other discussions that we've had around around town uh u whether it's on the TMA list serve or just in conversations that I've had with cons with other with other town meeting members and constituents um
relating to these questions of transparency and community input um and And the reason that I wanted to to raise this issue is, you know, whether we're talking about article 12 or we're talking about article 22 um or 25 or or
you know, talking about the CARP and all the other things that we're doing in order to prove transparency that um that that we look at these questions not only, you know, not only
from the sense of like what is possible and what are the what are the costs and benefits of those of of taking the actions described. Um but also just in the general um ability for for the
select board to lead an executive branch that provides transparency broadly to the community. Um my sense is that there is some ripple effect from the national
level and the challenges that are um are being faced with so many people struggling with um the issues of you know transparency and good governance um at various levels of government. And I
suspect that that is also uh impacting our ability to um uh engage with the community on similar issues of transparency and trust. Um so um I don't know if there if there are
other sort of spec we can talk about this spec as it specifically applies to warrant articles. You know, I talked about it certainly in terms of article 12. Um, but um there may be there may be a more general discussion about how we
as a select board want to uh approach or consider the question of balancing trust, transparency, uh efficiency, uh productivity of of getting thing other things done that the community is interested in meeting our roadmap um
etc. Um, so that's why I brought this question forward for discussion. >> All right. Anyone else want to be heard? >> I like that a lot. I feel like, um, coming up with actionable steps is
something we could should definitely do. Um, something off the dome that I think was really beneficial was always like my precinct level warrant article reviews. You know, let me go my mic. the Warren article reviews um was always something really beneficial. Um and it might be
interesting if like each select board member, you know, got like four precincts and we let our own warn article review with like different members of the community. Feel like that's not a terrible idea and I think that that's a way to get us involved. I don't know. Spitballing. And also to
your broader point, Michael, about maybe having the select board take a little bit more of the lead in trying to develop warrant articles that fit into these categories that we can see as topical that somewhat fits in to our roadmap in various contexts. And I think
it's a good practice for the executive branch to also have a legislative agenda and of of course consult with the legislative branch and have these frequent um opportunities to meet with town meeting members and discuss what their priorities are so that what we're
doing at this level is a reflection of what the broader population is interested in. I might also add that it it's probably almost more important to do it not in town meeting season. >> Um, and it it takes the time crunch out
of it, but like when people are brainstorming ideas that they want to put on the November warrant, like the time to be having those conversations is over the summer >> and to say like this is our this is the select board's roadmap. These are our priorities. Where do they overlap with
some of the petitions that the town meeting members want to be putting forward and how can we help work together as opposed to reaction reacting to them on the fly right before town meeting? >> Bernard, if I understand you, it's something that
we can incorporate into our summer workshop. So, you know, it's it's out it's outside the uh craziness of town meeting. It also leads into, you know, the the fall budget development and and other things.
So, >> yeah, I think certainly we can put that on the agenda for your summer. You could also even come back to it in the fall. Maybe something that you do is have a have an agenda item that is an oper is a public hearing or opportunity for further public comment where you say to
folks if you have an idea for a warrant article before you file it come to the select board and let us you know let us be your sound let us let us offer you feedback. Um, and you know that then offers people an opportunity because I I
tend my general take on this is when I first came to Brooklyn in the fall of 2022, there were 42 warrant articles on the town meeting agenda. And I said then and I continue to say now, a longer
warrant is generally a sign of discontent. It's a sign that there's something wrong. Uh, and we've been lucky that we've had shorter warrants the past couple years. this one is an anomaly. It's ticking back up, which I think reflects that there is some discontent in the community that we need to address. We on staff, the select
board and so forth, we need to be responsive to that. Um, and I think giving people the opportunity to express that in a way that is then ensures that their concerns are heard and channeled in an effective way that if it's something that can't change or that
there's a good reason for, they understand why. And if it can change, then there's an opportunity to change it that is outside of the legislative process. Like unfortunately, the legislative process can be is is by nature blunt um and and broadly
applicable. Um and there may be solutions that are more narrowly tailored that you as an executive can craft and build out and hopefully address without the need for a bylaw. Because the other thing that's hard about bylaws is it's hard to change them. um once you pass them um you got
to you got to go back to town meeting if you want to change them. Um, so thinking about how to do that, you know, one potential option may be, you know, for example, regular office hours. Um, if select board members want to hold office hours in the community, if you would like me to hold office hours, I it's
something that I've had an ambition to do for a while. Um, I'd like to do that so that people can present concerns directly to staff. Um, all that's possible and I think maybe you we'll put it on your agenda for the June retreat and have that discussion there. All
right. Love it. >> I I I will say that I have gotten direct feedback from constituents about the need for office hours. >> About the what? >> About the need for office hours. >> What would office hours look like?
>> Well, for the town administrator, it would be the publishing. >> Oh, no. The town for for us. >> Well, >> a select one room for two hours once a week. I don't know. >> Any of us could hold office hours independently. I I'm not sure we could within the context
of open meeting law coordinate them but you could take them in rotation um um you know for example you could designate um you know Friday afternoon uh or Friday morning or you know a time where you feel conf confident that people
would be able to speak with you um and you know have that conversation. Um I'm I've I've been giving some thought to this. It's something that I thought about when I first came in here and then as our processes improved, I felt like we're making the progress necessary. I don't know necessarily if it would be
helpful, but now I am getting the same feedback that it would be helpful to have a direct line um an outlet, an opportunity to be heard and to at least be understood in terms of what the concerns are from the community. So, >> we could we could try something on a
pilot. All right. Any further discussion? Okay. So, with that, we will now move to item number 16, policy against fraudulent conduct. >> Uh, you want me to talk a little bit about this? >> Sure. Go ahead.
>> Um, so we've had this policy since 2011. The town has had this policy since 2011. Um and it has been the subject of concern as part of this whole dispute between the select board and the advisory committee about a certain investigation that happened that involved advisory committee members as well as a transportation board member.
Um that investigation was begun pursuant to this policy um and incorporated things within it. Um, and I think when I went to the advisory committee to talk about this, it was the subject of concern from advisory committee members
because there's this perception that the executive can use policies and procedures to infringe on the uh prerogative of the legislative branch particularly the advisory committee which plays a really important oversight role. Um, it's really important and I
think critical to re maintain the advisory committee's role as an oversight body that has broad authority to investigate, ask questions, get responses, do all the things that is necessary to do um without feeling like
um while knowing I let me speak clear while knowing the clear delineation of what is you know an invest what is a legitimate use of oversight authority And what is it? Um there's a difference between investigating something and
seeking information from a department and directing a department or using department resources or any of those things and there needs to be clearer lines about that. So the feedback that I got from advisory among some members of the advisory among other things is this policy should be looked at and we should
be very clear about what we can and can't do what to be what the executive can and cannot do in relation to the legislature when it comes to potential allegations of wrongdoing. Um and I don't think that's a bad idea. I think
it's you know again the policy is now 15 years old. um time has come for us to take a another look at it. Um I will say though I wouldn't want to edit this policy on the fly because the reason why this policy exists is to satisfy the
requirements of our of the bond rating agencies when it comes to the fact that we have strong controls in place. We have strong policies against fraud, corruption, misuse, etc. Um, and I don't want to create a situation where we accidentally create a weakening of that
that then is identified in an audit as a defect of some kind. So what I would ask given that the this has been an ask of the advisory committee and I think you all agree I that this is something that should be looked at. Um that you direct
us on staff to look at this do review this document with an eye towards ensuring that the prerogative of the legislature to conduct investigative activities is not inhibited by this policy or any other policy and to bring
back a revision that reflects that. I don't think we can do it by town meeting, but I think if you give us the direction, we will give you we will I will meet internally with our team and get you a timeline on when we can expect that. >> Is there someone in particular with the bonding agencies who you would consult
with to address that potential concern? >> I would want to I would let me do some thinking about who um exter externally I would want to talk to. Um we are in the process of hiring new a new audit firm um and so for the FY25 audit which needs
to kick off. Um that's where I would start. Um because they are going to be evaluating our policies and controls anyway. Um but you know I think definitely ensuring that the audit committee is signed off on any changes
here um would be appropriate. But I still think we can accomplish that relatively expeditiously. I just wouldn't want to rush it. I wouldn't want to try and rush it in a week. That's my concern. Okay. Anyone else?
>> Let me add something related and and that is the audit committee >> used to be uh the the select board layers on used to be Paul. So we need to fill that seat because I mean we need to get the audit committee working a little
more aggressively than has been. And the other thing is the whole range of committees you need to begin to yes think of how staff. >> We are I think the timeline of that I spoke with Chaz about that will be after town meeting for most of the liaison will be assigned and at least on an
interim level if not permanently you've got the audit committee. >> You brought it up brought it up. >> No, but I I we are we are trying to get the audit committee to meet now. Um and because Paul is off, I was going to ask you to do it anyway just on an interim
basis. So to your point, we do need to get up and moving and I do think it's important. We've we've got some followup from the FY24 audit to address and I want to be I want Treasury to address it publicly with the audit committee and make clear what's changing in this audit
process going forward because we've got to get back on schedule. >> We're what two years behind schedule >> almost. And how did that happen that we ended up two years behind schedule? >> Oh boy. How much time do you have? Um
it's it's a combination of mergers, acquisitions. There are issues on our end. I'm not saying that we are blameless. I think there were issues on our end in terms of certain responsiveness. Um there was turnover in the treasur collector's office that led to a backup in certifying that certain
accounts were settled. Um, we've addressed that on our end, but it need it now we need to make up for lost time um and ensure that proper controls are in place which I'm working with the comproller and the treasurer to get on that.
>> All right. Okay. Any further comments on this agenda item? >> Do we need do you need a motion? I think it would be helpful if you wouldn't mind ask making a formal taking a formal vote on asking us to revise this policy with
an eye towards the issues that we've discussed. >> All right. I'll move that we ask staff led by by you and at your discretion to formulate a modified policy to the current policy against fraudulent
conducts. >> Yes. >> Michael. >> Yes. >> Amanda. >> Yes. Anthony >> abstain >> and I vote yes. All right. So with that at the end of our meetings we offer further public
comment opportunity. Is there anyone in the room who would like to deliver some public comment? >> I will say you you did have public comment already. >> It's all right if you want to go again. Go ahead. >> Something else.
>> You can talk transparency and look what happens. When I did my warrant article in November, it was a non-binding resolution that all elected officials would be on the town website. I was advised legally to contact the
state ethics commission. I was grilled. five legal phone calls, interrogations, word for word of the article and I was approved because it incorporated all elected officials,
not just that I might benefit from it by getting work because I'm a constable. I'm really surprised that you are not going to the state ethics commission when you're voting on a non-binding resolution comparable to mine where it's
exclusively about your beneficial interests. I would go to the state ethics if I were you and I appreciate that two of you have abstained. I think that's the morally ethically right thing to do. But I think the other three should be in definitely inquiring about
whether or not this does constitute a conflict. And your benefits are not just the stipens. People are talking I believe your town employees. You get health insurance. You get opportunity to have your children go to uh school with
the lower rates of the town employees blah blah blah. So there there is more to the package than that. And uh I would definitely go to the state ethics. That's just my recommendation. >> Didn't Miss Frolley take away our health insurance
by Warren article a few years ago? >> I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> Do do we have anyone online who would like to participate in public comment? >> No. >> All right. Then that concludes our meeting. Okay. >> Recording stopped.