##VIDEO ID:TV6AbWDQTWo## good morning I'm Bernard Green chair of the Brookline select board and this is a regular meeting of the select board here at the um Golf Course uh that we're calling a workshop uh the purpose Prim is primarily to set aside time for a concentrated focus on important issues facing the town in the current and upcoming fiscal years for example we have our December workshops on budget rejections forr current fiscal and budget current fiscal year budget hearings and in the summer after town meeting we start working on our goals and objectives which we further develop at a fall Workshop which is what we're doing now this kicks off the budget preparation process for the next fiscal year which is 2026 this meeting will include um various miscellaneous and regular board items a discussion of Select board goals and objectives uh policies and procedures uh a vision plan not for your eyes but for what we view as our shortterm or medium-term goals for the town and finally a discussion of uh the Park and Recreation commission's Capital plans which is something that does require concentrated um attention by the select board all these items uh other than uh the miscellaneous items will require a thoughtful intense discussion and we'll need all the time we are giving it so please be efficient and focused in our discussions um let's start off with uh miscellaneous items so our miscellaneous items includes items a to H which are matters taken up by our by our licensing committee on September 11th at which time hearings were held and the committee was comfortable with the with passing uh these items onto the select board for final approval and two uh items I through o which which include accepting a a $26,500 grant from the National Environmental Health Association transfers of appropriation for the building and fire departments and change orders for the Pierce and Drisco school projects so unless a select board member wants to pull any of those out for more detailed discussion I'll try I'll vote these in Omnibus fashion any interest in pulling anything out seeing none all in favor of items a through o in the miscellaneous Calendar please indicate by saying I John Van scet I um Mike Mike's not here um Paul Warren hi David Broman hi and chair votes I hey next item recruitment of the next Council on Aging Senior Center Director yes so you're gonna leave that discussion sure I just want to provide an update to the select board I went to meet Council AG last week to talk about the process by which we will be hiring within Do's replacement um but I uh want to give both you and the community are timeline so and so on um one uh just brief you and the community um has not set a retirement date which we are very grateful for um we do want toce this expeditiously so that she can retire and enjoy her retirement um but um she just wanted to you know make sure the community knows she's not going anywhere on an expedited basis she said a lot of people when we announced for retirement emailed her and I get meeting with you before you go uh she's not going anywhere she um she's very has graciously agreed to stay on to help uh hire and uh on board for successor with that said we can served this community for almost 42 years now so we really want to give her the opportunity to take some time for herself so we're going to move on this process exp the goal is to have someone hired by the end of the year um so we have I put together uh as we did with the police chief and the recreation director um a u Handel an advisory panel um of members of the community um and if you can see in the packet that panel is Richard B former select board member meeting member Susan granof who's the chair of the Human Services sub commmittee on the advisory committee for green chair the select board Patricia mayor who's a nurse practitioner and a former member of The Advisory Council of Public Health fsy paup who's the president of the senior sener Foundation Eland Rodriguez who is the Council on agents chair and Ruth who is co-chair um that group will be serving in an advisory capacity along with Gran to work through a three round process by which we will hopefully select and for uh to and replacement um we will have post position today um or first thing tomorrow uh we will keep it open for the appropriate amount of time um we will then resumes uh the panel will conduct standard interviews interviews with candidates we initiative invite will be went down there will be a second more intensive round I discussed with the council and aging and members of the senior community what they would want to hear from a candidate in that second round you know Focus questions um we tend to do hypotheticals hypothetical presentations can select for as well as writing exercises um we'll have that process um and then as part of the third round ially with finalists and finalists I will give give them the opportunity to visit the senior center talk with staff ensure that there's a fit there as well as with department heads simly ensure there's a fit there and everyone's uh aware of what they're getting into um and at that point I will present a final candidate to council and aging and the select board for your consideration the then goal is to have this process complete by the end of the calendar year um knowing that it can take time um and that there's a lot going on in the fall um between various and me so for but I do really want us to move through this Expedition there a lot of candidates out there um but this is a position that where um the qualifications are really important particularly social work qualifications so we want to make sure we have a strong any discussion okay no discussion by the way I I just okay can I a discussion but I have a question okay ask a question so um you know we've heard that uh ranne has done the work of two or three people and um you know she Not only was running the center and being contact with the community she also was doing a lot of funding and rant and all that um are we going to be able to have one person do all of the activities that responsibilities it's a big job it is a big job um I do think you know we one of the things that was important that we did here to really work through the job prescription and update to make sure that the roles responsibilities were set and one of the first things that the next candidate is going to have to do is look at that scenario look at those scenarios understand where the roles and responsibilities among Senior Center staff are but I will say the senior center staff is very strong um and we do have a good core of social workers under rean who have been doing who been supporting that work um and it would just be a question of making sure the roles and responsibilities are clear if people need the help we will analyze in the budget for theed space that but we're confident that job descrition accur reflects current interesting to so I we just need to pay attention once we get the personel on we set them up for very true and if necessary you know make hiring decisions to provide support oh we have the money of course that's also a consideration yes late ra here um I I don't know if I I I think I recall correctly that these names were not mentioned and I am not suggesting that they should be added to the panel but seems to be an excellent excellent pan but I just wanted to mention two more names who I think you know should be in under consideration for consultation during the process and one is Matt was who um has been chairing the the uh a friendly cities Comm for for a while now and um has a very good working relationship with ruanne uh and the other is Carol Carol um who has what is known as can um Community aiding Network um and um as as the Survivor um after the loss of her husband Frank who was just a towering figure along with Carol um in advocating for the interests of senior citizens in she knows a lot she knows a lot Matt knows a lot so I thought I I will make sure we definitely want toe commit so make sure yes absolutely May while we're actually on that subject we happen to have the individual presence here I think Regina fry would also be someone good to consult with as a lot of senior initiatives that pertain to South Brookline often Regina has a lot to do with bringing the South Brook Line Community together almost anything you're saying I'm saying that you you often arrange events at the putterham library including for senior citizens and senior citizens in South Brooklyn sometimes feel cut off from the activities that are taking place in North Brooklyn so to the extent that you have a network of seniors who are uh interested in participating in this process I think that your input would be useful as well okay thank you by the way uh I don't know if anyone else has noticed but we're way ahead of time we are way ahead of time I was going to ask you a question about that um well well actually since um you only put or we only gave 15 minutes to the discussion of boards and commission's policy maybe it's uh good that we're ahead of time because that's going to I believe uh involve a little longer than 15 minutes the discussion but just be aware of that but don't waste that extra time we're not under an obligation no since this is the published agenda right yeah the the agenda we we made clear those are es yeah okay uh any other discussion of the council aging position we need to vote on position to hire okay that's right um I move approval of the authorization to hire a replacement for Ruth and Doc is uh head of the Council on Aging of the director of the Council on Aging all in favor please indicate by saying I Dan vanak I Paul lawren hi David bran I and shair votes I and Mike is not here okay okay um let's let's put off the boards and commissions policy until after Mike Sandman is um online and go to goals and objections uh which was scheduled for 10:15 is now 9:4 10:30 I believe right yes yes okay I'm sorry I I got an updated um agenda and since we seem to be so fared was there anything about either news or announcements that um announcements I know we're not doing public comment but no it's my fault I I ask that know well you might have something say it on Brookline day well uh I think I said it at the last meeting but but yes Brookline day was fabulous um and um but also um this past week um the commemoration for September 11 you know a week ago Wednesday um was very moving and very special and uh for folks who have not experienced it I think um they all next year when this rolls around give some thought to showing up for the September 11th and I will say to our chair um by way of uh paying him a compliment um one of the outstanding parts of it was when our chair invited people who were attending to share their thoughts on September 11th and bookine has many connections to September 11th and some of them are uh as you know as high Lev as having relatives um or acquaintances who died on September 11th as was the attack and some of them are as simple as having experienced how the community came together and healed um after September 11th um it does US good to talk about these things that was the theme of Tommy B's speech this year and um it's a good theme U for people who are still exper experience and all these years later something of the after effects of the trauma of September 11 um it was a healing uh moment and we we need as many healing moments as we can have in good line that's my comment thank you PA I one if it's okay um actually two uh so first the um the comprehensive plan a quick update um the uh it'll be a kickoff for It's actually an open house it's going to be a two-hour open house um on October 9th from 7: to 9:00 p.m. um the community can come they can pop in they can stay for the whole time uh there's basically going to be various stations where we're going to be addressing various aspects of the comprehensive plan um housing you know commercial districts Recreation things like that um so it's October 9th 7 to 9:00 p.m. at 22 tapest Street the new Freshman building and then then that's only in person it won't be over Zoom the next day on October 10th there'll be a virtual uh program very similar drop in uh that will be entirely uh virtual over Zoom so people that if they can't attend in person they can attend the next day there'll be more information about that U emailed out widely we've got posters that are going up there'll be information on the town website and I'm hoping that John with his very popular newsletter will share it widely um and and you know this is the first part of our vision plan so this is where the community can help set a vision for the future for the time how will go around from using and meeting on those objectives there will be an online survey that will be sent out uh widly um to gather information from the community um and folks can sign up for that there's a website called bookline comp plan.com um I believe that might be accessible from the homepage on on the town website but that's up and running it get you all the information about what's going on what the schedule is and how to get more involved so uh that's the first thing is comprehensive plan I do want to uh touch a little bit on the Washington Street complete Street budget that's under because there has been a number of questions I've got a lot of Point thoughts about this um and the question was about kind of a process of of of uh of the submission of the 25% design um we're actually going after transportation funding which is both state and federal and there's been a uh design committee that has been meeting for quite some time um I think there's a there was a meeting this week there was going to be one tomorrow and uh eventually the the recommendation for the redesign of Washington Street will come to the selective is this correct CH yes uh for uh for review and prepar to provide feedback But ultimately it's je it's our understanding that the select would would need to approve this because we're the only entity that can actually bind us to an outside agency that's correct okay so the select board uh will have an opportunity to um meet on this discuss it provide feedback uh you know to the design Review Committee and my understanding is that ideally uh the commission of DPW is trying to have something submitted by the end of the year for the first of the year so we just want to make sure we build that time into the process so that we can review it get feedback and make any adjustments so that we can go ahead to submit it so I just wanted to assure the public that there'll be more opportunities to be heard on this uh and for the select board to to to be Providence feedback and approv it David were you uh writing down things you wanted to talk about taking notes whatever okay uh okay uh thanks for for reminding us that uh our agenda although special agenda still should cover the things regular meetings cover um okay next since Mike is not yet on on the zoom uh let's go to goals and objectives um D do you want to lead the session or um sure um and and and the purpose is to to the extent possible finalize our goals and objectives so we can put it into the budget making process um doesn't mean that uh necessarily we're going come out of this meeting with a final final product uh but you know we should try something sufficient to that I can send to Department the goal of this is to have a document that I can attach to the regular financi meal that I send to all Department I say you know as you put together put together your budget 26 please um you know Focus your attention SL more goals objectives uh and um in particular when you ask new initiatives or change priorities please be sure to uh memorialize how uh they fit with they they comport with these goals and objectives why um you know we go back to um one of the things that the school department does very well which is it this set goals and objectives and then it says with regards to the policies and procedures within the budgets budget document this is being done because it lines up with you know goal 1.5 goal 2.4 sometimes more than one of them so there won't always be lines drawn that easily because for some departments these items are relevant for some they're not um but in many instances there will be an opportunity for departments to very clearly say to the board you know we are doing this because it build one of your goals and objectives so that's the that's the aim of this we've been through three rounds um we also on so so in that regard many of these goals and objectives really don't have a budget aspect to it right for example the first one review our financial policy respect us for instability Etc I mean that's not you unless we're talking about Lincoln hiring someone to do X right I that really is not a goal that uh has a specific budget U impact um but it does give Department some guidance as to what the select board thinks is important and um you know that that that department should focus on uh in the budget process as well as otherwise so this is for third round this was what was presented at forine day um we got some feedback from members of the community um but by and large I think the the general consensus was that this document was close to final and we wanted to do your feedback uh on any changes you would like to make again the goal was to keep this at 20 um I and I did take the U feedback that um some of them were uh we tried to cram too much in there um there still are a couple that are you know I would say multi-e objectives um but I think at least there through line where you can see there's a discussion of specifics in the context of a broader goal um so U more possible we the language and try to focus the goals on be just about one thing so um any feedback you have any recommendations or final um uh uh comments and then I will uh we will send out the kind of the opening um opening them up for Budget okay why don't we start with um preserving Financial Health um can go through that any comments there I I have a few myself but anyone else want to start off why don't you start Trigg covered so um the first one I think the last two lines are sort of out of place there um I mean in a certain sense we're trying to message to particularly the the senior community that we want them involved in you know our processes through boards and commissions Etc um we should say that in someplace other other than this first item that's so I think that taking out we should take out the words particularly those involving Public Safety Equitable Recruitment and community members from all age groups from young adults to seniors I think all of that is sort of out of place there okay is there somewhere else where you think that might go or should we just I I think just delete it I mean it I mean simplied elsewhere okay uh the other thing is um item two uh let me put it this way it seems it's confusing me okay because what we're really trying to say is identify opportunities and resources for the acquisition of new property and opportunities for the disposition of existing property I mean I think that you know that those two concepts need to be separated okay okay if you don't mind uh chair um explain that a little bit more I I'm not sure why the phrase the words resources for the app but what what's the significance of adding that well if we're looking at new property I think it's important to just um make the point that we have to find resources to acquire that property that maybe that goes without saying but not always you know what I'm thinking is you know um an opportunity for the acquisition of new property to me suggests that that buil in is this would actually be of benefit to us financially this acquisition this property um and so you know it it's not so much a question of the resources because if it's going to be a benefit to us financially we should do it however we find the resources because at the end of the day it's going to be a net plus for for us you know financially yeah net plus but over a time frame that is different from the time frame of getting resources to do it for example Newberry College that that long term is going to be a huge financial benefit to it yeah I was thinking that yeah but uh you before we could do that we had to figure out you how are we gonna how are we going to get the resources to make that acquisition okay so so I wondered Bernard maybe this is this is an action item that says you know go like potentially identify things to for dispos of should we maybe take a step back and talk about a strategy and policy around assets yeah like the homes that we own or you know I think that's kind of what we're getting at here versus should we go you know something's on the market we should go grab yeah and I think I think that's that's where I now have it up on the screen actually conversation change it somewhat to standardize our processes so that rather than just saying we're going to identify it's Russia have a clear process in place for devel a policy related to that which could include the the process but we should have some intent um about why would we why or or hang on to an existing asset um we don't have any guides right now Poli we do not other Comm have a standing that's used for this acquisition disposition property and that may something you want to consider when we were uh discussing the properties at the golf course Anderson the golf course lease there a the country club leasing right we talked about a policy developing a policy to address those issues have we gotten anywhere there we've um so one of the things that I want to do with the building department is actually building without a comprehensive inventory and then you know basically make get the committee together to meet that um buildings has been working on that because I want we we have obviously we don't we don't what I really want is they graning more details about current leases the history of the property that's what's taking that together we have we only 80 something par all told and so getting the granular details of what we're doing with those we have done with the past is the first step there but yes we're working could we separate those into Government properties and non-government property so that we have a clear understanding of uh of parcels that may give us opportunities I mean we can't you know use a school for um for whatever other than a school but you know maybe some of the other properties we can yeah I mean these things that aren't currently being used for Mis purpose yes so can did you start to Smith is so develop a policy yeah an approach right I guess the policy would include the approach but I think it's really is taking a step back some what we have in our ear policies we're going to talk about today is what's our policy okay um I just want to go one step further that well I think it's an excellent start to review the 80 Parcels that we already have I don't want that to be the end of the inquiry because for example with the uh Clark Road property that's made available opportunities like that come up sometimes it's not always predictable and we want to be in a position where we are constantly and actively assessing opportunities that exist and ideally before something comes to Market if we have some idea that a parcel may be available that's of interest to us uh and then the part about serving the uh existing Parcels in their ownership and the potential that maybe we want to sell some or redevelop some for other purposes uh so I do think a policy would be helpful in that regard as you're saying but I would I would also like it to be prospective rather than just sort of a review of what we already have certainly joining us now as well hello Mike should be on here wa um I have one other this is um on item two on on on uh Financial Health okay yeah so um you know one of the I served on several of us have Ser on served on the advisory committee um and you know the advisory committee uh in addition to holding public heing and kind of adjudicating commenting on war articles there also are Finance committ right they service that um and I just I have a sense that for whatever reason um over time the the relationship or the collaboration between us the executive and and the advisory committee is um is not to the level that I would like to see happen um and this there's no blame here but I think that given that the advisory committee is the finance Comm for the time they do end up submitting the budget I think their participation in um reviewing policies developing policies partnering on the budget part I think that's really important and um you know I'd like to discuss is it is it worthy uh to put something about um improving collaboration uh uh with our finance committee the advisory um because I I I don't think it's where we it needs to be um we may think it is but I don't think they think it is and I think it's a missed opportunity and it certainly speaks to Financial Health because it does it directly go but does that need to be in our goals and objectives that that's it's sort of saying you're not doing the job we want you to do so we put a goal and objective to be coll well yeah I mean the goal could be um you know preser Financial Health you know continue or increase or improve collaboration with uh you know our finance Community I think that that's just something that we're saying to everyone now um by bringing it up I'm sorry dude I think I land closer to your position uh I would like our goals to be clearly measurable in some way and I'm not sure how you tangibly measure improve collaboration there there might a way to do that and it's certainly a worthwhile goal but I don't know if it's something that we would want to formally articulate as sort of a checklist item um that that's just good practice always yeah yeah yeah I think but it does it would since all this is going to be shared and communicate to to the town departments it would send a message that we want to consciously improve the collaboration with the advisory committee from the aspect of of Finance Finance that's again I that's why I'm raising it as a point of discussion I don't know if it's sufficiently we should go in here but it comes up again in the um policies here John you had something say I saw you one of those areas that it's kind of hard to get your arms around it because I do think we have to be mindful of the fact that the advisory committee isn't our committee it's Town meetings that is the committee that is appointed by the moderator um and it is to advise town meeting as to uh what what their response is to the budget developed by the Town Administrator and the select one so and I'm not saying we should have an adversarial relationship but um I I think as much as possible we should sort of maintain the that distinction so that if there's something that they would see in the in in the document that might require them to say to us you know we think you got it wrong um and you know we want you to consider the possibility that this budget should actually be adjusted here here and here um that they'll feel um you know that that within their traditional role that's that's what we depend on that we we don't depend on them to you know work with us and cooperate with us in developing the budget we sort of depend on them to on behalf of town meaning take a second view of of the budet well an example would be um so we're going to talk about four three or four or five policies was The Advisory consulted and ask for their feedback on any I think we talked to some members of advisory about the CIP but uh generally speaking no I conversation so this would just be an example right that if we're going to um I I think it's an opportunity to get additional feedback a number of folks on advisory they again they while it's it's it's a statute right men law that we have the advisory Comm finance committee so so with respect of that issue I think we we we should direct the T administrator to get some input from the advis commit but in general I think we have to be very careful I agree with John that you know um Town staff and the advis Comm have different roles and we have to make make sure that they're focusing on their roles and not you know other roles for example Town staff in terms of of the budget in general it has the expertise to figure out what we need how how we can achieve those or satisfy those needs of budget decisions the gy committee's role is to look at that and say have they convinced us that um you know this is a good expenditure of funds have they done all their due diligence in terms of um you know what the implications are of uh making this expenditure I mean they're different roles and if we you know combine them or try to confuse them we sort of undercut the uh yeah I'm not I'm not suggesting that that the advisory committee take over the role staff that's all or even be involved I'm suggesting that there' be improved communication and cooporation throughout throughout the process of developing and and reviewing a budget and measuring the budget so so CH you uh you don't want to add it to the the goals it's fine yeah um so the idea of Consulting with the advisory committee on the policies um I mean do you have a problem with that I think that that really um probably should be done before we finalize approval so these are select policies so you know I'm kind of still in the the mindset of you know you've got your legislative bran that provides a check against the executive and so so I I think that's you know in the past these policies have been reviewed separately by committees defac was the last group that looked at these um they didn't recommend any changes the changes that we're putting in front of you today are in response to feedback that we got from Moody and then also um additional funds through the override and so anything more substantial changes to the policy I think we would recommend that there will be another group convened to to review that and that we would problems we have advisory committee representation on that CL I agree with John and Melissa in terms of the separation of powers argument we're talking about select board policies I think that's for the select board to determine yeah certainly soliciting public input which can include advisory committee but just as I don't think advisory committee would appreciate if we said hey we want as select board want to be involved in formulating your policies or if we went to school committee and so we want to be involved in school policies we have that separation for a reason and we certainly respect their input and it's always welcomed but I don't think we need to formalize it okay good but you believe that so the policies that we have in front of us should we should as a select board should we ask for their their feedback on the policy changes I think we can certainly ask for it but I'm not sure that should be part of a goal or part of a my concern is only that you know got a second set of eyes to look at this and and identify problems that maybe we Overlook um but definitely not I agree with you m said that you know we're not asking for their approval fine line I to Paul's point though I actually think that over time you know even if maybe it's not where not necessarily where advisory my element wanted to be I do think we actually have increased communication in the development process with advisory I also think this has unfortunate come this also just came during a rough period in terms of and you you'll see when we talk about the policies about free cash um so much depends on the certification of free cash and so as a result I think the concern that we've been getting from advisory was it took a long time for us to get a free cash number and as a result it took a long time for the CIP to be finalized and then it felt like things were truncated and they were getting information late that was that that die but actually the process that we go through we talking with the capital subcommittee and talking with the members you f the whole body of individual subcommittees about how our budgets are going I think that process hasn't unfolded played out as it should you know over the last budget season and I think the area where you really saw even in areas where elect board and advisory diverge it was a minor Divergence and in the areas where really matter for example holding Council partn split the select V of the advisory committee one on that which I think is really important um in assuring town meeting that the the hard decisions that we have to make in tough times are being made ined by voice so but I I definitely take all plan I want to be responsive and respectful of even though they're a separate body um separation po we need to be respectful of the role to play right it's their budget um at the end of the day it's their name budget and so we are we we are absolutely responsive and want to be collaborative with that so to the degree that there is a need for addition communication we're happy possible uh another way to increase collaboration so something that we would occasionally do back in my school committee years is we would have joint meetings there weren't a lot of them but on occasion there would be a joint school committee advisory committee meeting we've done that too right so we could do that at the select board level at an increased to an increased degree when dealing with financial matters of import to both okay and indeed one of the things we're talking about through your your winter uh Workshop where we'll discuss the long-term Fork theft is potentially inviting advice um either doing that in one big day or having even two separate meetings for the members of both bodies give be advisory Tiffany um Mike on could you just or tell me if he's raising his hand because I can't see no there he what's the uh what's the question we want to make sure that if you have a question or raise your hand that we're aware of it oh don't worry I'll speak up yeah thank you I'm listening to this and thinking uh do I really wna do I want to weigh in on this I'm I'm gonna stand back but thank you very much yeah yeah about okay go too low Mike can you hear us yes sure okay we can hear you yeah get okay um item three I really didn't understand what that was trying to say it seems to me that what what I think is important about it is you're you're saying we should do a proor of budget for the period after the um the override funds run out get a sense of you know what what what we're going to be facing at that point really what I'm saying is you we need to put together as St um another study committee yeah the time is um we need to we need to put together a study committee for how we're going to address the the Gap that we that we continue to see kind of yawning in a long range forecast um we will be at the end of an override cycle if there is to be another ask to the community which I believe the school committee is going to make that ask going to ask you to make that ask regardless of whatever the town does um we need to we need to be confident that ask is based in toar data and then be looked at every other oper option on the table before we go to the voters and ask okay so we should say propos that we proposing stud commit I think at our the summer workshop the reason that we landed on this land anguage is we wanted it to be neutral sounding to not sound like proposing another override as a foregone conclusion so if we go in the direction of study committee I'd want there to be neutral wording okay yeah I and I think I proposed a change to this and the way it was originally worded was you know we need to find Opportunities to increase revenue and we should also assess our efficiency and opportunities to you know balance what we're doing right I agree with Paul I I don't want us to sound like we're presupposing a certain outcome how do you how do you um address both of those issues need we need study in the future study John well the way we've always done it in the past is we appointed an Overlord study that's what it's called and I think we have to stick with that because otherwise we're just trying to soft battle that's what this is it doesn't presume there will be it okay but it is a study of whether we're going to do that okay I mean I have no problem with that I think that what David is saying is that when you talk about override anything a lot of people are going to assume that we're we're predisposed to have an override and and I think that's what's always happened has there been an override study committee in at least in recent decades that did not recommend an override so I just want both sides to essentially get a fair shap here in terms of perception so we could say appoint a study committee to ass set both Ry and spend recomendations for L the conclusions of the current year hey can we say that without using a word stud committee I I don't know well I think study committee is fine it's just when you put in the word override I understand that's how dungeon but just every time there's an override study committee they recommend an override and I think people are going to look at that and say oh they've already made up their minds and just because we've always done something a certain way doesn't mean that's the that we should stick with it I feel like you're just adding step if we think it's a for down conclusion that the the pre- study committee will recommend if we appoint an overall study committee then well okay so let's let's make up this is not to have a multistep process right this is one study yeah right and and I think I think what David I is saying is instead of saying it's an override committee right it's a it's a more neutral committee to to study both revenue and spending to come up withy that in you know in the mission statement that is needs to this particular over St this this committee does not presume you know that there will be an override on the ballot nor does it present that if there is an override what the size of it will be it's for the purpose of determining what our Revenue opportunities are and also what our needs are I'm just so even if there was no override or even outside the override context I me we still want to do an assessment as you call it or or study you know what happens in five years out you know among other things we won't have the money from the override but there be other factors too that we need to be thinking of in terms of medium-term uh you know fincial and I do think it's wor you we will have that we we have the money from this over um we will have that going forward that is General Revenue that is that is accessible to town and schools at the end of this cycle um you know the um you know obviously on the P side it's ourt to continue using those funds for their stated purpose um but that's that's just the Natural end point at which if there were a need to Shi General government funds around from those State purposes we could at the end of the override cycle um we have no intention of doing that but that's just that's what it means to have the over cycle um and um and then you know on the school side I think you know you saw this year you saw in the past we're seeing the cliff from arpa and on there Esser um we seeing um the continued um stagnation of funds at the state level um which legisl did not aggress this year um in terms of uh the proper index to inflation for um the growth of um funds especially for minimum a communities like us um you know uh we're not seeing the benefit of millionaires tax the state is not CH has chosen not to put that into General Revenue um because it's so because it's so new but we don't know if and when they would ever allocate millionaires tax money to Chapter 70 um and and I I think it is more likely than not um that on the school side there's going to be an Ask of some kind um and what I would just say you know from your perspective is that town School partnership is going to be critical for this um and um that there's going to need to be real U dedicated buyin on the school side or the school committee side in particular to ensure that um you know all of us are on the same page with regard to you know where where belt tightning is necessary where efficiencies are realized um because on our end um we've we've done a lot of that belt tightening exercise already when we approved the contract um not a lot more discretionary extending in our budget that I would feel comfortable um and I think you know and we you talked about it as a board I think you the same conclud um so we need to um we just need to be aware as as we go down this path that it's going to take real buying on the school side for us to be able to successfully land this is why though I think an important part of this process is to look at potential Revenue growth and I know it's difficult to do that but with the current wording what I like about it it's not exclusively about an override cycle but about what we're going to do after this current cycle expires and that can include longer term planning that's not necessarily in a three-year window and so if we're identifying that we will have X amount of revenue from such and such parcel that will now be ready to be added to the tax role we can factor that into our thinking and sometimes if it's going to be one leaner year you can get away with that we've sometimes done that where it's threee over override budget actually covered four years and they're able to limp through it and so that's why I think looking at the revenue growth side of this very important and why the language of an override study committee makes me nervous because usually they don't tend to necessarily look at that longer term Revenue growth potential and I really want to make sure that we're giving equal Focus to that and uh certainly efficiency is important um but as you just said Chaz I think that we are pretty efficient overall and everybody who looks at that says that there's not a whole lot that you can make up ground there but on the revenue growth side potentially and so that needs to be a major Focus I think Mike yeah uh so we are are presumably talking about item three on this list um and I'm a little surprised that BAC has not come up uh and uh whether we're thinking about uh sort of having a continuous brookin Financial advisory committee which you know was intended to go beond beyond the uh the year-by-year uh look that the advisory committee typically follows uh and they made a number of recommendations some which were implemented and some which have not been uh so uh what I'm you know I I I don't want to reinvent that particular wheel it was a really good wheel when it went when it was delivered to us Paul give your hand I do not oh fing my hands well um this is actually um these are goals and objectives for FY 26 we have to kind of think through a calendar if you don't mind on all of this stuff um which as everybody at this table knows you know be begins in in the annual in year 2025 we're doing a lot of way ahead planning here including way ahead planning of whether there's going to be need of an overw in in FY 26 and because of the way these things work if you're going to have an overright study committee and if you're going to have recommendations made and then if you're going to schedule a ballot question you pretty much have to get starting um in calendar year 2025 to study this stuff and so you know I think we might as well just bite the bullet here um and acknowledge that whether we end up with a recommendation for an override or not we've got to start the study um in FY 26 my my goal in terms of timeline is to is to have a charge ready for your approval and a slate of candidates ready for your approval actually December work um so that can also be discussed with the advisor pres um and but you know to work through that through town School partnership over the course of this season talk through work out what the the scope of the charge should be finalize it with your input in December um and have the um the committee operating in Janu right um a recommendation really needs to be made to you by start right so so I'm I'm very comfortable with the way re War I you know I think we're really twisting in the wind a little bit about yeah about it this we know the intent we're discussing the intent he's going to bring a charge to us and with they offsite um and our goal is to say look holistically at the budget land spending make a recommendation which may be an over okay so I withdraw my comment although the the word alignment still bother it's a buz people like to use it yeah but sometimes it undermines The credibility of what you're trying to say but well I what we're really talking about is balancing the budget talking about revenues and expenditures um and and figuring out um how to make right making recommendation balance the budget of the do that I'm fine with that so we want to change alignments of balance and to balance the budget okay okay any comment any other com comments just I'd like to follow up what Mike was saying about BAC um I was on BAC they did do excellent work produced a great report do we want to consider bringing back the band and having them sort of look off of what they already produced and see if they want to Tinker with it at all so I think BAC was actually and I I learned the long history wasn't weren weren't there there's a BAC committee and there's a BAC follow one right it was basically EAC 2 um which kind of looked back and said what have you done for us you and it's kind of gotten increasingly recursive there um um that was but that was a moderators committee see just did you do did did you review assess and Implement P fact recommendation wasn't FKS so there two different well except that it was the moderator committee because we the select board was not going to uh set up such a committee um I do yeah I think it's worthwhile to think through for you all to Think Through who you want in the room on this um so I think regardless of you know if it's getting the band back together if it's getting some of the people who were involved in BAC I think that's smart they have they did the digging into the budget right um and the processes and I also think you know some of the some of the recommendations from BAC came out of a space that will perhaps a result of the the more business oriented focus of that committee uh as opposed to a General government Focus which I not put the committee down I they did really excellent and hard work but some of the recommendations there kind of stand you know for example the rotation of the auditor the um you know came out of I think um there's kind of a private sector lens that came up came over that um where there wasn't necessarily A alignment on government and the recommendations of beback there were 20 of them are are quite broad so I want I want to be sure when you think of the people who you want to bring into this that they understand that the focus of this that that conforms with the charge right work within the charge that you said this is going to be very specific yeah that that we're setting up but but David does bring up a good point about BAC I don't know if the select board ever uh seriously considered the recommendations no we did in in great detail okay so for example multiple meetings they're quarterly they're quarterly budget SS uh which seem to be a great invitation to do um I don't think we've ever have we ever implemented well we we had budget 101 meeting that weren't exactly what they're talking about but was trying trying to create a a way in which we could address some of those concerns when I came on the first things I actually put together with the board was a report on the VAC recommendations to where we were with them and I can pull that back up visit just to see if there's stuff in here that might we weren't ready to do and during my school committee tenure we would regularly actually go over were we implementing the BAC recommendations or not if not why not and there was a very uh fluid conversation there between BAC 2 as you called it and uh school committee and I thought it was very useful so I I do think reconstituting bebac in some way would be helpful I I would be happy to be a contact on that since I was on beac myself um that's obviously up to you as Shar but I think that's something important that we should do yeah I I I thought Chaz was suggesting that U you we incorporate um members from BAC into um into our you know study group yes okay uh any other comments on about four maximize use Community preservation act funding I mean who objects to that um number five uh I I have a problem with the idea that we're negotiating or renegotiating Pilots with nonprofits you know we don't really have any leverage to negotiate uh what we can do is provide or think about additional incentives that uh we can use but you know the idea of negotiating suggests that we that that they are required to make payments and and that's just not the reality I agree with you that might be strongly worded but perhaps even just something like discuss yeah so that it's clear that it's a priority that we want to discussions with them but I think that softens it to take out the word negotiate or renegotiate I agree with you any other thoughts well just just and Lincoln can say got this right but uh I think people need to keep in mind um there's a process that is following um automatic um you know when when a property that had been the taxpaying property suddenly falls under the ownership of a nonprofit the the nonprofit doesn't simply um get the benefit of uh never being build for taxes um the nonprofit has to sort of assert its RS and and its obligations as it sees it because not every piece of a of a parcel that is owned by a nonprofit is necessarily equally tax exemp um you know parking lot for example am I right yeah so that those are the kinds of things that can be negotiated and are and then there's a term for the agreement in other words a length of time and so at the end of the term then it gets renegotiate let's revisit this you blah blah blah blah blah so it's not like we take in the middle of a three-year agreement we want to suddenly renegotiate with anybody I don't think that's good practice and we are routinely negotiating and renegotiating agreements all the time right correct corre yeah to be clear so any entity that is asserting that this piece of uh this parcel of land is being used for the nonprofit purpose annually needs to file What's called the form ABC from the Department of Revenue to assert that and as you say um we certainly have uh uh property owners in town some of which some of their property is used for purpose and some is not for example uh we out to commercial tenants and that portion of properties is taxed and Commercial so we're not we don't have pilot for the parking lot you they just pay regular tax yes so if if the parking lot is not being used for its nonprofit purpose correct it's taxed at the commercial well I'm actually this I'm uncomfortable with this even being in here um because I think we're it signals to nonprofits that let's come and renegotiate with us and you know we've I think we've heard some wanting to change not been a good one us um and I I'm concerned about that um you know we we know that as you said there's not a lot of wiggling here um and leverage to uh to to increase these agreements um and for those that we could increase the return is we're not talking huge I know there was a group that thought it was some large amount of money I I disagreed with it actually um I just think we need to be careful about signaling to nonprofits that it's time to renegotiate um and as a strategic objective for the town um I'm just not sure it's it's so we take we agree to take out negotiation or renegotiate right I think if we it to discuss then it's fine the reason I still think it's important though to have some version of this in our goals is I think it's actually a fairly easy lift to improve the quality of life for our residents by gaining more access to some of these properties and in informal conversations I've had over the years with some of our uh nonprofits they seem really open to it and I was very presently surprised amenities corre not talking about Revenue at all I'm talking and it says that in here with a focus on access to facilities uh and to other amenities they seemed very open to it they were saying that no one to talk to them about it so I just want to have those conversations uh because I think that increasing amenities for our residents if it's free why not yeah okay well I was just going to say that we could preserve five and simply take out the phrase involving negotiate or renegotiate and it becomes review the towns paying the taxes with open non props the focus on access to the Sol that's fine how about adding and Inc incentives to the nonprofits because there are some incentives that can encourage them to make those payments focus on incentivizing access to well incentiv incentivizing in the sense that U you what can we offer them you know purchasing program example you know small matter for many of them but that incentivizes them to um enter into pilot agreements and you know there are a number of nonprofits that just say you know go count Sal by by if I may just make this point you know to reach an agreement on access to disabilities and other amenities is a pilot base because they will then dollar value on that and say that's our PRI opment yes there's a a linkage here back back to uh uh item two the policy for uh acquisition of new Pro new property I think the PX and Rec um commission is identifi a need for something on the order of um I think I'm right of a 100 acres worth of uh additional play Space of various sorts uh and if we can uh get access to some of the uh um some of the facilities owned by local colleges and for that matter local private schools uh that would that would go could go a long way towards uh achieving the goal that that Parkson recck is looking for so I I think the emphasis needs to be as we say discussed not renegotiate but discuss with a focus on as it says there access to facilities and other amenities that's I think that's great right and to Mike's uh point there that's sort of where I'm going with this why I think it's very important because we have that shortage of field use and if University X said yes you can have our fields on Wednesdays and then University y said you can have it on Thursdays that that's a huge H and I think that's doable okay so basically we're taking a negotiate neate Lincoln um so nor Eastern University gives us or allows us to use their field on on K Street um do they also pay a pilot they they do not make a financial pay to so so the field is their financial pain yeah I so uh or do we rent it so I that U agreement um but I wasn't involved in in the negotiation I think the parks and W um committee was um but so I'm not precisely sure I can find out what specifics do we have access to the fever that Park School has an outdoor swimming pool as well do you know if we have access to that we no feel I know on that one it's just okay okay um let's move on to planning for the future any comments there just on number five the uh make it easier to open and operate a business in Brooklyn by lowering barriers from construction permitting licensing I certainly like that idea I often hear that as a complaint that it's difficult to do business in Brooklyn because of all the red tape uh but how are we going to actively pursue this goal how do you envision this being pursued would there be some other committee is this a staff undertaking if so by whom so this is actually it's in our office and currently Tiffany is taking point on the licensing aspect of it she's working with um Tiffany Susan and Michelle Mar in the select Board office to basically undergo we're going through a license by license analysis of you know how do you get license how easy is it what processes are you know who's you know what's um what do you have to do and who says you have to do it bylaw is the regulation is it State rule our goal is to simplify simplify simplify get it down to more um we want the process to be um clean and we want the process be consistent um so that's a that's a longterm undertaking we're just now you know moving through the process of theual licenses um we will have before you an update to the outdoor dining policy by the end of this calendar yet um so but it is you know we offer you know huge variety of licenses so this is an medication that's going to be you know a year plus I think the other important area especially in light of the the mbtca uh Construction related licensing so beyond what existing businesses would apply for or businesses that are about to open an existing structures but uh facilitating the process of being able to build new commercial or refurbish yes and that's one area where I think the consistency of our inspection teams is really good now and you know I know Paul has been you great work in the building department and that's feing on inspectional services and making sure that that's you know uh a real area of strength we obviously continue to hear concerns about the Accel system that it's not intuitive that's it's difficult to use response to that um but um there I think the most important thing is um consistency in response to concerns that we hear we never you know you don't hear about the projects to go well when you hear about someone complains and then the question is what you know what can be done we want to be sure that in dealing with um anyone comes to the CH they are confident that they have a consistency of outcome that even if someone you know important there someone that you know is well connected comes to the s for I don't like what's happening here there's a process in place where we say was the process followed yes then I'm sorry you know you're I understand your complaint and we'll have to happily work with you but we're not going to there's nothing you could do jiz you know it might be helpful to measure this um you know can measure the amount of time and reduce it but at the end of the process where a license is issued and they open it would you know it would be helpful to ask them for feedback yes and rate US on various aspects of the process just to see where we are I my sense is businesses don't think it's easy to do business of work and you know that's um anecdotal of course but if we can start to measure the effectiveness of what we're doing and just on that feedback piece also from the public so I think this was something you implemented that I really like that now when a uh before a business opens and they're doing the renovation you see the actual permit now the window about what's going to go there but it usually will just say the LLC and it might not be entirely clear what is actually going to go into that space so I'm wondering if we want to take it a step further so that there's an easy way for the general public to know what's going to be opening in a certain space and that increases public awareness I think what you're referencing here is there's not now is part of the the planning board right there's a plaa that but that's not it's not for everything right it's only things that are related to if they're going to do a structural change to the building but if it's just someone moving into an existing space and looking for a common B license I don't think there's any okay so if I can make a comment here um yeah uh you know in a way we we get these we get our packet in electronic form but um I'm the page that I'm looking at right now uh is somewhere around page 230 uh the previous 200 or so Pages uh are all um applications for uh various sorts of things that organizations have uh have made and I I think um we don't because we don't get printed packets anymore we don't realize how much how many pieces of paper need to be produced by an applicant for almost any license or permit in Brooklyn so Chaz when you're when you're going through the process if you assign somebody to actually fill out an application as though they were opening a business um especially a restaurant business but other businesses as well um you'd get a sense of what kind of rig roll they they have to go through and there may be there are certainly state requirements and health require ments and so forth when it comes to to food service and alcohol but um just the same I think if we if we had to do it ourselves we recognize that uh it's really an onerous process and it it could possibly be made less onerous if we got a little bit more familiar with the nitty-gritty of it it is a great idea and that's actually what Tiffany is what we should add to that also all of the paper and work that staff needs to do because there's an equal volume of paper sign offs and memos and that that adds well the real issue is how much of that is necessary right and so that's what we're deting through right there are four departments that need to sign off P for Comm how much of that is necessary and how much of that can be cut down um a check box versus a memo okay um any further discussion on that uh ensuring better Greener income diverse housing my only comment is um on the second line housing for people at middle and lower income levels because when we're were talking about the housing affordable housing trust that does go up to I think 100% of Ami so we want to clear that that that can be used for that purpose middle income hous any other comments um so I I have a a an observation if I may uh that we um we have a number of uh rules in place speaking of rules and applications uh regarding uh preservation of existing structures especially uh structures that are supposedly of historic value um and to some extent to some extent keeping the streetcape in place means that you swap out the demographic that lives there if you agree to change the streetcape to accommodate different kinds of housing more housing more density you may very well be able to retain or move the demographic sort back to back to where it was Where Brooklyn had a larger um a larger you know middle inome uh uh middle inome population but what we're doing is uh is exchanging preservation of uh buildings for uh preservation of the Dem of demographics and I that's another area where I think we could take a careful look and see whether uh preservation really is what we uh want to emphasize uh as to the extent that we do so uh should that go into are you suggesting this be incorporated or that idea being incorporated into uh I would love to see that incorporated into this I mean there there's one there's one uh the preservation commission I think it was a preservation commission um recently decided that a couple of uh 1940s brick uh Ranch houses on Bellingham Road were historic structures uh and needed to be protected uh and uh the um uh the developer in this case is a is a um an orthodox synagogue a group that wants to to build a new B building on the site that of these two properties that it owns um and honestly to say that those are historic structures to me that is uh very strange um and and I that's not on our agenda that's a different issue I think no no but it's an example uh of uh of what I said that's not not to the point it's not it's not generating housing you were talking housing Mike and and that's this is talking about turning into commercial well okay so uh building a synagogue is not building housing uh but uh absolutely but the the Hoops that people have to go through to build housing uh is nonetheless um illustrated by the the that issue so we are so um two quick points and M I think you're raising certainly an interesting point about the streetcape and know we just swapping out you know one type of Resident and income level for another type of Resident income level right I think is what you're saying this goal here is saying that we're supporting the development or Redevelopment of areas that were that we that came out of our MBTA communities act legislation that passed right right that that's what this goal is saying housing and and challenges with housing and warehousing should be um you know that certainly is part of the comprehensive plan and also the the um the housing production plan which was which was recently uh you know completed so I don't know if necessarily if we need a specific goal um beyond what we have here which is let's make sure the thing that we work so hard to get approved along Harvard Street yeah is support it actually taking place right when someone wants to bring something to us well I mean if if you have language I mean I think that that's that's an important goal that we don't um you know un intended consequence of swapping out U you know the preservation or using the preservation of buildings to sort of undermine the preservation of demographic uh makeup of the town I'm not sure how you do that by going the comments noted but figure out how to incorporate it you could say development would analyze the potential impact of preservation strategies um so the analysis is explicit uh that way feedback that we been present to you as part of is not just here are the strategies we're undertaking but here are you know Point are there are there unseen consequences of this strategy um that we might want to consider as we as we move forward I like that um I think John has hand up well three is quite specific uh develop preservation strategies for existing middle income and Workforce housing stock the whole point of isn't to um somehow create unintended consequences that will destroy middle income and Workforce housing stock it's to recognize that sometimes in some occasions actually in frequent equs the most direct route towards um fostering middle income and Workforce housing stock might be the preservation of existing housing that's where a lot of our middle income and Workforce housing stock exists and it's what drove the most recent initiatives to stem the tide of demolitions that was driven by recognition that um through some changes in in zoning we we might incentivize preservation of existing middle income and Workforce housing stock that would be at risk of Demolition and replacement by luxury housing okay so that's a good three is good yeah I don't know why we need to do anything to change three I I agree with John I think it's very focused and specific into the point and even the the camp that says that if you build more housing the prices come down there are arguments ultimately Stills down to and the existing housing stock will become cheaper because you have these newer places that presumably will cost more so no matter where you are on the ideological Spectrum on Housing Development I think everybody can agree on this goal yeah okay I I agree I I agree also um okay moving on anything else in that section I'd like to um item four um I'd like to add to related to short-term property rentals add and how housing discrimination that's that's an area where there's always some concern that we're not doing enough to determine if there is housing discrimination and if there is you know what we do about it okay anything else uh there if not move on to improve a public way for all users uh only only thing I'd like to add there here is where we put in our you know concern that the elderly be involved in the planning process um and I would add to item five um ensure that all voices are heard in planning for streetway redesigns including those of individuals with Mobility limitations I would add comma the elderly comma and local businesses I elderly involvement in some of these projects is the issue that has been uh you know brought up to the select board numbered Point that's item five item five and and this would be added where at the end yeah the bottom line act limitations comma the elderly any other comments it's worth analyzing I think on some of these committies the makeup that you have um is um there these some of the Committees where this issu has been raised do have senior citizen members on in fact several um where we have trouble recruiting is young people um that's really where we're having trouble getting membership on commities people with families people who have jobs people who don't want to take time um and we're going to try and continue to diversify that but I do think it's worth you know you've done a very good job appointing committees ensuring there's diversity of voices that are being heard including members of the senior committee a lot of your committees are really well staffed in that way so I just think it is important that we focus on this if someone says you know I don't think there's representation next committee if you want to check with Tiffany about who's on that committee I think you know we can give you information and so that you can have an informed response and be sure that that you know it's that that we are but but but all you're saying is that everyone involved in town government is old no that but I mean that's that's the reality um I think what what we're trying to get get at here is not that you know there all the residents on on these committees but that committee members include individuals with an an understanding and perspective that responsive to the needs of the elderly population um Paul yeah um this isn't related to specific goals but follow on to this discussion about boards and commissions um we are assessing and inventorying are we still do we still have an initiative underway to rationalize our board and commissions and um you know which ones are working which ones need to maybe yes okay what's the we a Time on for that so right now we've done we've done the analysis of you know the the kind of lower hanging for what Comm more the Committees aren't meeting anymore can be rolled up now we're going to go this reporting process where committees are coming to you and justifying you know mean not justify reporting out but they're reporting out to you which is help and then you know you can that discussion is then you know has your one concluded does your chart need to be updated all we haven't done that like the big and this is this is off topic I'm sorry but a complete list of inventory of boards and commissions and committees that we appoint their you know Mission are they are they meeting are they effective whatever it would be good to look at that holistically um I can't do it when someone's coming and presenting to us at you know 9:30 and get ready you know at the end of a long meeting um it seems like that's a long process but we're we're doing it right Tiffany slly just shortly uh David also what Paul's saying look at where there are significant overlap between existing committees my sense is that sometimes we have three committees doing the same thing and so to look at that as well may I just ask a question about that process of reviewing our existance me as part of that review are we um taking note of uh are they fulfilling their obligations to keep minutes and are they fulfilling their obligations to record attendance because to me I think that's one of the key measures um that that might be lacking in in a few instances I I sometimes find it very difficult to get recent minutes there might be minutes from six months ago but you know from of two weeks ago you know we then have to wait we'll follow up in yeah besid that and I think to Paul's Point yes I think at the conclusion of this process we want to sit down but we also want you to have we want enforcing committees to have the opportunity to speak with you time um once that process concludes we can we will be able to do thep and and make sure that you know we're all on the same page here are the boards and committees here's what they do um is there any overlap or the change to charges you like to make um that process okay um it is a couple minutes before 11:00 and we still have fiscal policy policies and procedures and the board and commission's policiy so um be aware of that so we have 15 minutes for boards and commissions policy um I think that we're going to go over on that so we're done with goals and objectives my op so you will I will take you that and again this is the the final final of this will be published as part of of the um financial plan um but um this is the version that we'll go to Department to I think as work in progress as long as there's consensus in the board weend for thank okay so um next item boards and commissions policy um that is a new policy that was drafted by staff with respect to um our committees uh entering into um sponsorships with other organizations or outside organizations so how do we discuss that I know that Mike has has a concern there um is a policy is it in the packet or is it so this this came up because um the housing auy board um is uh co-sponsoring with a number of organizations a discussion on housing um it's more than that it's a planning board there's three there's three committees I think yeah without going into great detail and I raised the question whether um the have ought to do that and there was discussion my concern initially was that the the language in Habs on Habs agenda was um suggesting that uh the meeting would be an advocacy type of meeting that that they would not only discuss housing issues but housing ads vacy and I thought that was inappropriate U that was just um as it turned out that was Roger blood's um way of describing it and uh it was inappropriate so they they uh viewed it or they or we agreed that there would be no advocacy uh um aspect to this uh to the meeting that H was posts sponsoring um and we went forward with it um in the meantime Paul U wanted to rethink this issue and um you know suggested that we have a policy where select board memb or select board appointed committees not um uh not co-sponsor um forums of outside organizations and that is what's in our packet and um I think Mike had an objection to that yes my yeah my thinking Mike is that um you know when we put together our boards and and uh information procedure policy back in October of 2023 y uh you the focus there was to make sure that the boards and commissions that we appoint are aligned with the select board and the and the community and the towns um goals uh and and objectives um for example we didn't want to have a situation where a committee was co-sponsoring a for with a group that is stilling the select board on on the general topic of that form or any other topic so you know the idea here is that you know the potential for those types of conflicts could be avoided by just uh you know saying that boards and commission should not enter into these Partnerships a proposal um was that we approve U such forums before uh they they occur but that great problems of um possibly Viewpoint discrimination on part of the select for so I think that this is the uh alternative that we've come up with can I add a Berard so um first let's let's be clear about this um education of the community transparency about education bringing experts in hearing uh from experts whether they be housing business whatever the topic may be this is good for the community to be educated um and I think we should do a lot of that um the the challenge when you have a board or commission um co-sponsoring something first they are now getting into viewpoints and specifically uh when it's with a 501c4 a lobbying group so this came up because of a very well-intentioned and probably very informative uh for it's take place tomorrow night um the the the individuals that are the groups that are putting it on are um es in Brookline which is a 501c4 lobbying group uh for for housing uh Brookline for everyone uh who is a 501c4 and C3 registered lobbying group uh for housing um and uh gbio which is I I haven't looked at their registrations but I suspect that they're probably registered for as a 514 because they're all involved in lobbying activities and when a boarding commission co-sponsors something like that it's it's almost an endorsement and I think that in my view and I heard from many community members that that there's nothing wrong with a board or commission saying come speak to us during a public meeting give us your point of view there's nothing wrong with the bard of commission attending and participating in these things but to actually co-sponsor when the the entities that are putting it on are actually lobbying groups I think it it it creates a potential problem of perception um that's that's why uh that that was what was raised with me ber and I think what you as well okay Mike you wanna yeah um so first of all I think uh this is I I I I think you you have to recognize that boards and commissions are supposed to be advocates for the constituencies that they are uh either drawn from and for example the Council on Aging or the uh Council and disabilities uh but um uh even uh you know conservation or uh or preservation they they Advocates that's their intent that's that's why they're they're there and uh for them to team up with another Advocate I think is is first of all perfectly reasonable we and you can say well you know suppose they teamed up with somebody that was you know some politically politically hot in some ways and all I can say is you have to um trust the good sense of the boards and commissions that we've appointed and I think that by and large we have people who are indeed um uh people with with uh with good sense uh to me this is censorship and I I I find it very objectionable uh and I think if you uh uh if you consider the consequences you would recognize that um you you have advocacy groups like The brookly Community Foundation or um uh steps for Success uh that uh and they may be 501c3's not C C4s in fact they are but just the same they are advocates for their own uh for their own constituencies and I I don't see that that we should be uh putting a break on that go um I think Paul excuse me has come up with a good idea and I do trust our the good judgment of our boards and commissions and you know we do our best to appoint people to boards and commissions that that have good judgment but we also owe them some guidance and what this is is a simple effort to give to these boards and commissions guidance and as one who witnessed the um the uh uh the H Hab meeting housing Advisory board meeting where this request from you know it's perfectly fine group yes for Brookline but they take a position that is not the position of some other groups that also exist in Brookline and are engaged you know frequently with town meeting and with the select board um in uh discussions of what policies that the town should favor and what policies the town should not favor and when um as I say this perfectly fine group yes for Brooklyn I included their meeting in my newsletter that I sent out this morning um when they came to the hab and said would you co-sponsor this meeting with uh us um it was not an automatic yes and there were some members of the group who clearly struggled with the implications of posts sponsoring that meeting and I think if they had this guidance they would have been uh much more able to assess the qu the request that was being made of them and to say no because they would simply be able to say we have been given guidance by the select board that you know requests that we co-sponsor go beyond you know um what is seemingly a cut and driveable who could be against a meeting where there is information shared and become um you know unfortunately could be easily interpreted by other people as somehow taking a position in favor of this group's position on housing issues and and the housing Advisory Board shouldn't do that nor do I think the select board should do that and you know I'd be kind of surprised if might saw no problem uh if this yes for Brookline group had come to the select board and asked the select board to co-sponsor would he would he have been comfortable um as as a select board co-sponsoring it knowing that there's going to be groups that say wait a minute now you've taken a position in favor of that group's housing agenda and there's many housing agendas not just one you know who the you know who the speakers are here right question there Mich no no one's questioning the Integrity the intent of the individual speaking the content this is not uh censorship this is just saying that board Commission hold on let me just finish boards and commissions that are that are meant to be essentially independent and represent all residents of Brooklyn should not be endorsing specifically lobbying groups that have a certain point of view they're not endorsing a lobbying group they're they're co-sponsoring a meeting with two very Pro very very authoritative I mean Amy sheckman really is this Michael you have to look at the the the topic and again once you start once we have boards and commissions co-sponsoring and partnering with lobbying groups you I think you lose the trust of the community I and I've heard this I've got many phone calls about this I'm sure you have uh I still think it's h it's censorship and I don't think this is guidance this is a restriction that's not guidance yeah David I completely agree with John and Paul on this I'm very worried I'm very worried okay I quit Mike to your to your point about censorship no one is saying that these events shouldn't happen no one is saying that these boards shouldn't participate just saying that they don't co-sponsor I think that's pretty simple and it's not necessarily about this particular event we're looking at a policy that will shape all events coming in the future this event may have sparked the conversation but it's not about this event or the yes group or Brooklyn for everyone or any group in particular just that as a practice it's not a good idea to have select board appointed boards representing the interests of everyone aligning with a specific interest or creating that perception at least and I think a very clean way to um do that is yes it's a restrictions we'll just call it what it is but is to restrict them uh upfront you don't get to co-sponsor but again it doesn't mean they don't attend that they don't participate that they don't express their views right um well obviously it's it's it the vote is not going to go in the direction that I would like it to so I'll stop because I don't want to use up time that's raising the issue by way but I've made my point okay and we have a history in this town of boards and commissions having taken adverse positions uh to the select board and aligning with other organizations outside um basically against the town's position on particular issues without going into the details okay uh any other discussion but my only question Chaz is why are we not incorporating this into our um existing policy on boards and commissions but we can we can definitely um we can provide a revised integ sever policies out there just consolidate so what why don't people uh look at the existing policy and make sure you you agree with incorporating this in so do that can we can we vote on um the substance of the guidance and we're what doc it ends up living in I think that we we'll get you a Consolidated fors and commission omous fors and commissions policy docum in the next couple weeks and we'll vote then you can vot can vot on that but you can vote on this now if you want okay why don't you move over a vote so I move um I move uh uh adoption of the um boards and commission's uh Co SP event sponsoring uh policy okay all in favor please indicate by saying I John vak hi Mike sandon no um Paul Warren hi David Broman hi and shair votes I okay and that took 13 minutes so we're back on time we have an hour so next our fiscal policies and procedures we have an hour for this unless you want to um allow it to eat into our lunchtime eating right here eating time pun intended um so um Jaz Are You Gonna Leave This Melissa meliss fin team here Melissa Charlie and so um we discussed this at the last Workshop um you know we received feedback when we went through the last rating uh for our Von sale on the changing metrics that Moody has for AAA rated communities and then also uh a need to update the policies to reflect the override funds that are additional so basically increasing um what used to be the 6% policy 6% of Prior year net revenue that goes to 6.6 so uh in your packet you have the original policy and then um the revisions that say 2024 on them um so just a summary that this Capital Improvement policy that that revision just reflects the additional override funds um The Reserve policy um that reflects the change of metric for moodies uh going from 10% of revenue for your unrestricted fund balance to 20% of Revenue um also includes the goal that we talked about that within the um Moody's uh rated triaa communities trying to be in the median uh for um the metrics that they have uh so that reflects the goal that it will probably take a little bit longer to get there but it's something that we want to strive for um and then the free cash policies have um both of those adjustments uh in them uh so the that's essentially what we have in front of you and I know that there have been conversations about kind of um you know more more substantial changes to the policies around the board's priorities for the allocation of free um with Tommy member Bano uh who I believe will be coming back in October to present his his proposal to you um so right now what you have are the proposal the changes just based on the the two um areas that we discuss to the last Workshop there's one small edit to the CIP policy um that um um and team discuss under the evaluation project the sub subsection there we just have language added that will say that an initial draft of the CIP shall be presented as part of long just memorializing what way the system should be working so that there's time for feedback and I appreciate you adding that in okay so that's that's different from what you proposed earlier yes okay yes I proposed more substantive change and I back okay we made a tweet but I do um can I make a quick comment on free Cas so um the free cash um which I'm fine with it with with the change with the changes but the CPA I I had a long conversation with Nancy H about this yest the CPA um can provide funds to the Housing Trust or appable housing right and the and I just don't I can't figure out how to do it meliss but I'm wondering is there a way to have the preash policy take into consideration funding from the CPA around uh around affordable housing I I do think it's it's possible I've read a PA some guidance somewhere from from the state um so when I talked to Anthony we talked specifically about that because I wanted to understand kind of what his overall concern was so I think he does have an adjustment in what he's well well he's trying to tie the amount to to uh to inflation that's not what I'm talking about well no he also he also um because as we talked through it I said what is your concern and he he had the concern about the CPA kind of diminishing what then would be provided to the affordable housing trust fund so I I suggested that well maybe you want to acknowledge that and put that in what you're proposing so I believe that that will be what he'll be talking with the board about yeah I guess I and I maybe I haven't talked anything I may have a different concern my concern is you know for example the CPA just put in was it three and a half or 3.7 million 2.7 million right for the housing affordability trust it didn't go directly to the trust but it's for High Street uh for the Redevelopment of B housing so a significant amount of money went in and it will be used now I don't know if that use will end up putting us below the 5 million but we just committed a significant amount to affordable housing and would it make sense during this period to then add more money to the Housing Trust Fund even that the money just went in and it's being used it's just mon that that's what I that's what I'm getting at there are two very disconnected policies the CPA um and free cash and the CIP they're all kind of disconnected policies um but it would be good if there somehow there was a connection well I I think that's where we need the board's feedback because we need to understand what the priorities are yeah so you know what what is the goal more less you know maintain the level that you currently had you know that that's important for us to understand then we can make a recommendation I had talked with Nancy about um there is a mechanism where a CPA can make a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund right there needs to be a there need to be an agreement right it says you you accounting the these separately and when you actually use the funds you it needs to be in compliance with the CPA um this kind of gets towards a CPA policy is there a minimum that should be contributed to the Housing Trust F from the CPA uh each year um as as an allocation I know that's right now there's a committee that's set separate from our bylaws that's set up by our bylaws that's separate and they got to decide on the priorities but these two things are connected because if money can come from the CPA that would create Tas for us to do something else right while still achieving the goal of making sure we have funds for that affortable housing that's the issue raising so I don't know how to solve it for could could somebody put a dollar amount on what this is going to mean in terms of it to our available funds um if we apply it strictly this coming year um so in terms of the um the override funds that that's already kind of Incorporated in the forecast and has been it's just formalizing what we've built in uh in terms of the on ated fund balance I think we need to look at where our overall position is and then um make an adjustment right now we are at policy Target so it's just a question of whether or not we've maintained that ground um over the next year so for fiscal 24 how we plan it we're we're at 20% unreserve fund balance stabilization fund right so our most recent measurement and that says at the close of fiscal year 202 23 um the town was at 23% and and change of uh available fund balance ratio so um so committed unassigned assigned funds as a percent of previous year's Revenue yeah so fiscal year 2024 that's what we're doing right now with the Auditors okay to you know to close fiscal year 2024 and see where we are now we feel confident that you know we're going to continue to meet the minimum threshold that this policy would set and as recommended by Moody for AAA rated municipalities but the precise percentage we'll know when the audit is fin this but but but by what I'm reading here um the Pol the Target in our policy has been 10% but but we've actually been at 20 or above per so there'll be no additional hit to to up the policy Target to 20% so we've been providing additional funding in the stabilization fund and that is what has allowed us to achieve that goal so we would likely cons continue to recommend funding into the stabilization fund so that we don't move it ground yeah so we could adopt these policies without necessarily starving uh you know programs of Revenue in the coming fiscal year as long as our pre cash is similar to what we've been certified for the past few years I would say yes yes okay okay pretty large PR about well I mean I think you know there is you know acknowledgement that we've had the benefit of having the high interest income um generated for the past couple of years that is not going to be the norm it's something that we're seeing um one because of our arpa funds that we've been able to generate interest off the balances that we've had for arpa funds and then also just the interest rate environment as well so you know as you know as we adjust revenue and local receipts and our budget tighter um you that level of free cash will probably um be reduced but at least for this coming year we're expecting that we're going to be kind of in a similar position um you know it's the out years that we're going to especially if we have the working group that we'll be looking at um you know revenue and expenditures um making sure that we're still meeting those targets will be part of what we'll be talking about as well and and I think the reach is the the the further policy the further aspiration that's in this policy which is to meet the Massachusetts median of triple the Massachusetts AAA rated Moody's municipalities median so the median is 37.9% right we're at 23.1% so meeting the lower threshold um and have been me lower threshold that Moody is now set of 20% but still a ways away from that aspiration of the 37.9% which you know who knows where that Medium will go in the future mhm may come down a little they go up a little but you know we're still at this moment low so I think you know just consistent infusion into the stabilization fund is what we would be recommending for the near for sure and the stabilization fund is being used to calculate our percentage of correct and I guess what's confusing to me is that seems like for cting gim I missing something how so well in the sense that U we're saying that we have money here in the stabilization fund um in addition to the revenue the percentage of Revenue that goes into our reserves we're just adding this in as um as an additional amount right I mean in order to meet the target I mean essentially the stabilization fund is to kind of um be a way for us in terms of a catastrophe in a town needed to make payments that is you know what we would rely on to do that is okay with that yeah and I think you know we're you know we're evalu evaluated a little bit differently from other communities outside of Massachusetts because you know one of our Revenue sources property tax is so stable and so you know the the measures are a little bit different but they they do try to standardize across the country so um you know even though we understand that property tax provides some stability that other communities don't have we still have to achieve the same targets that they do as well John um I I hope this is is uh properly under the topic of the fiscal policy um I you know every time I see the latest version of the story about Boston's predicament um and you know mayor W's determination to get the legislature to help her out with bost's predicament which Loosely defined is that because of the impact on covid of covid on uh property values of commercial property in Boston um they've had to adjust for a significant or at least they're anticipating having to adjustable a significant decline in their commercial tax base um which would then grow the weight of Taxation very heavily on residential taxes still wouldn't be at the level of Brook Lines by the way but you know Boston's residential taxpayers have been used to you know a very light touch yes res I appreciate and all of a sudden uh it's going to change and and they're going to have to sustain you know a 30 40% increase in residential tax bills just to compensate for what they're losing from their commercial tax base every time I see the latest iteration of that story I think to myself there's got to be some level of impact like that in brooklands um have we figured that out do we do we know what to anticipate in terms of a shift to residential that will be required to make up for a loss at the commercial end yeah I mean I'll let lincol but I I would just say that I think that you see that every year when you set the tax rate you see the way the values have changed and then that's how you're making your decision on how to what extent you want to use the the ship that you have available to you to kind of move the burden um between the different classes but l so there's there's a few factors that are different for foring experience uh aggregate than from the Boston experience one being that our percentage overall of commercial intive personal property commercial industrial property is less than what it is in Boston secondly um the the commercial values as a whole in Brookline because of the nature of the the majority of businesses in them is not affecting us in the same way that Boston is because we have a large as a total percentage of our commercial a larger piece of that is hotels smaller businesses Etc versus office space So Co so for example hotels you know we see that in the hotel motel excise taxes that that Brooklin receives our hotels are doing well which is great and and that flows through to Value so so we're so because of the overall percentage of um commercial industrial property in Brook that is less than the overall percentage of Boston and because of the nature of that of those of that commercial property and and the businesses that are there we're not seeing the same impact but we're not immune we're not immune by any means but but we are not seeing it in any extent similarly to Boston but is there any kind of way you can quantify I mean what was an additional 1% shift because what Boston is trying to do is to compensate for for the loss Ship by by increasing even further the what do they call it ship and you know we might have to make that kind of a decision but I can't make it if I don't know exactly what are we anticipating in terms of a a a loss um from commercial property Revenue so so Boston is at the maximum shift that is allowable under state law now so that's why they're seeking we wouldn't need special but we would need a vote of the select one correct and and that's what you do at the at classification hearing year and you know we've we hovered around uh you know around a shift over the last few years so for example um you know last year the commercial shift came down uh 1% point my recollection Ser so so but you still have room to do that if you choose to if the board chooses to yeah well so I just and I think John I appreciate you raising the point but what is our exposure I mean my sense is our exposure to what Boston having is very very limited most of our commercial spaces but it's not nothing it's not yeah but it's are we see I mean have we seen do we have vacancies space I've seen properties listed below what we're currently assessing just as in Boston you'll see properties listed at a quarter what Boston is assessing that yeah so and I'm not saying that you know there's that kind of dramatic you have an exam I'm just is it is it it's not is it it's not it's not restaurant right it's is it office there's a couple couple of commercial properties near Washington Square but I don't want to get into it yeah it'll be good to know exposure yeah is the the question is specific to commercial office space right so I mean because can try to do an analysis to look at well excuse me but I answer Paul's question I should have been more more specific than I was because I I don't think this is any secret um but the look that we're doing at CH Hill West um those properties changed hands in May yeah and the value they change horns at is substantially different than the value that they are assessed on the books side and you're on this slate to be redeveloped into something else yes got way more moreable Mikey listen but that yeah that's different from the Boston situation yeah we just I why is it different from the Boston well the Boston situation involves loss of tenants in in in commercial office space this is this is a which reduces their value and property taxes they paid what you're talking about is reduction in value because they're being prepared for development yes but it's I mean all I can say is if if they were taxed at at the price that was paid for the properties umus tax they're paying currently it would be be a substantial blow to our our tax RS they they pay you know substantial amounts of taxes um and and are on the books at substantial values and you know those those values I think were like 60 million and now affording them so does that any different from what happens whenever there's a an area that is developing as opposed to you know the hit that Boston's taking because of Co you know caress be much better able to answer I think sort of rephrasing Bernard's question a bit is there do you see when we're R developing a parcel that had a higher value that there's the uh proverbial step backwards to take two steps forward is that what we're looking at with chest Hill West I I want to look at an analysis of that you know because because the so commercial properties are are entirely assessed based on rents right and and rents received so and and there's certainly an opportunity you know for any entity that is that is paying more than what was just paid for in the certain opportunity forment process right right um but but in terms of like the historical um piece of how assessments match sale prices I I I want to go back and PR want some yeah but it just as to put a on this John you're you're worried about what is our really what our exposure is and what that exposure might create in a ship is that what you're trying to understand ultimately what shift might occur yeah and um just to put this in context earlier in this very meeting we were discussing about forming an override study committee and uh you know if there's going to be future near future request for additional tax overs it's going to be impacted by whether we've been doing a shifting of burden to residential taxes because of impacts in the economy to our commercial tax base so we got to S you know put all of these things together in making decisions on whether we do an additional up on FAL tax base in the coming year so this information has just be part of when we set the C time know what's coming down the load and I'm I'm seeing a possible something coming down thead I just love to get more information about so so we can I can see with assession staff to seek some sort of analysis to see specific to office space and and what the trend is recently in yeah be helpful yeah well commercial Broadway yeah which isn't just office you know right fre yeah but I thought you wanted to focus in on office because that is a comparison with um it's all commercial Ian I mean commercial being office indust we have but the hit the hit the Boston suffering from commercial commercial yeah which is more than just off I'm sorry not that didn't mean commercial it's it the hit that they're suffering is because of reduction in in uh tendencies in office building well that's where the biggest impact is because most of their commercial space is office space office yeah I just I think John I think that if if we're going to ask for it to be helpful helpful analysis it would to focus in on where we think the ACT risk is and the risk is if you look at like Boston is experience it's because of office tenants leing yeah and we should if we're if that's the risk then we should probably do a comparable analysis to find out what is our exposure office or whether we have we have additional other risk uh David some questions I have on something else but with then fiscal policy so you talked a little bit about the CIP budget allocation as a percentage of net revenue that changing to 6.6 you talk a little bit about how you came up with the free cash change from seven and a half to eight and the um tax Finance allocation from one and a half to 2.1 just how did you come up with those numbers so basically it's all the votes are rising so when you increase the 6% Target that increases like what your overall Target for the CIP is so you that's why the S do half to go up by a half a percent and then because the override funds are specifically for the roadway account that account is revenue financed account so that is why the adjustment was made in that particular part of the policy okay and those are targets for the balance between of the 6% you know what what piece of it is tax Finance or Revenue Finance CIP versus bond Finance C Paul uh just the the one person subscri I support all thees um it might be helpful to hear advis she back yeah decision but you know we don't have to take their advice yeah they also take pride in that they these are your policies that you don't need to follow them but I'm happy to hear that yes we have to say but it might be it would be interesting to hear that yeah abut they had any big issues with on a minute okay any further discussion yes another on the free cash policy we have plenty of time so on the free cash policy there's there's there does seem to be a significant change where free cash shall be used to maintain an unreserved fund balance plus stabilization Fund in an amount equivalent to no less than now it'll be 20% of Revenue as opposed to 10 that does seem like a dramatic difference it's the moodies change their metrics so we're reacting this just about moodies correct but but before because we're including stabilization funds um our actual percentage Reserve percentage was much higher than no so this has always been you know when we were um kind of in the middle of the BAC process we had we were below the 10% Target and that is part of what they flaged so we had been working towards that goal of getting over 10% um and then Moody's changed the metrics even further so the goal post has moved um and we're just reacting to that and making the adjustment to the policy well I think what David is saying is that you know doubling a contend to 20% is a big hit on our budget right but we've been infusing we've been putting money into the stabilization fund as a way to try and make sure that we're above the target so now we need to do that we need to continue to do that is essentially the takeaway there any insight into why Moody move the goalposts by such a substantial amount I think because of Co I think that the way that the communities kind of um you know went through Co and what they were seeing in terms of um how they were addressing their problems that that really caused them to you know make that make that adjustment do do you anticipate that we're going to have significant shortfalls through this change in terms of our operating I think that um you know in terms of the way that the waterfall Works um you know the what we end up doing when we have when we meet to policy targets instead we toward additional funding towards things like Ops pensions um additional CIP I think that we realized that you know opep and tension liabilities are definitely things that we want to focus on but in order to really hit the target with moodies we have to have this number be better um because that is the thing that is the what we have the most control over um and what they what will help us maintain the triaa um rating and so you know we still feel like we're in a good spot with our pension schedule and with our opep U funding um and that you know until we're until we're in the comfortable spot with unreserve fund balance um you we won't be able to provide additional funding for that um and then potentially the CIP if we had additional funding we' we've been you know putting additional funds towards the CIP um that's another area that might be um vulnerable in the future do you know whether other municipalities are similarly jumping up to 20% as their goal so I mean I think that there are um I don't know how many are adjusting their policies um this is a fairly new um Revelation that we you know just through this last Bond cycle that they just changed their um their metrics so I I don't know how many communities even have a policy process or a fund balance so but I think that it's um good to try and make sure that we're kind of keeping in line with what we're hearing what we're on the ratings calls as well and what standard in PO is though so we um we likely will need a standard and pors rating when we go out for the peer school because a lot of times our financial advisor will tell us based on the volume um how much we're borrowing that we would want two rating so it's very likely we'll know that in the next year or two the standard and pors is not requiring 20% you can just use them well right now we're Moody joke okay a joke switch hes John um so I I'm looking at our CIP policies and um two in particular and I'll start with first one um total outstanding General obligation debt for capita shall not exceed $2,385 um uh do what what is our current for SP and general obligation thatt happen y so I can um that we present that in the financial plan so if you give me a minute I can yes sure that up yeah I didn't need to put anybody so we have um in the CIP we have a box that kind of measures those metrics so I can I can speak to something briefly just as it Qui is doing that it this is a from the 10 to 20% it's both a quantitative change obviously but also a qualitative change we talked about this a little bit last which is that um Moody's now for the first time when it's considering fund balances including um things that in Massachusetts are Enterprise funds so in our case call and and looking at unreserved fund balances there where in the whereas in the past they had so the way that we're approaching this is because this is sort of the meaningful metric for Brook line the meaningful chunk is to look at stabilization but again it's both a quantitive change quantitative change but also a qualitative change in that they're including they're including these other funds in the past they had and when you incorporate those other funds what's sort of the real percentage change that we're saying so so 20 so well it depends on municipality right but for us 23.1% is is all okay this is the metric under you know including GP in our case GP and Sewer LC all right does that make sense yes um so for um we look at it two different ways the policies are around debt that was within the levy and obviously when you um vote to exclude debt that that kind of works outside of the policy so um for projects that are within the levy the per capita debt is 2353 and then for um fund debt per capita all inclusive is 8773 okay even if you're just including um you know um funded inside as you said um we're bumping up against that ceiling and I I don't want to S rework all the numbers I'm just amazed that that $2,000 inflated annually since July 1st 2004 by the consumer price index only comes to 3395 but who might argue that and what about the next one uh total outstanding General o actually I'm looking at the note in the CIP I think that the policy needs to be updated to include the so the fisal 23 value of that is 3,152 okay so we can adjust the policy yeah we're not we're not that near the same y okay and how about the total outstanding General obligation that capita shall not exceed 6% of per so uh within uh the levy is 2.6 and outside of the levy is 9.6 okay and is it is it um written in stone that that that number shall always be within the levy and not including the outside the so the that exclusion numbers I think we've talked before about whether or not the board wants to set kind of parameters for outside of the living um right now the only limit we have is General law so um if the board wants to kind of provide a little bit more of structure outside the levy um that would obviously um you know indicate what what you'd be able to do in future years for J exclusion projects I sure would one member of the board maybe come with recation I don't know how you decid what starters maybe we continue this process of what we've been do so is a good point we should we don't have to do it but it be good to understand what other is to do yeah I mean just in case people are wondering why why bring this stuff up um it gets to affordability you know of our of our taxes you know the most simple measure of that as far as I can tell is um taking taking your debt as against your per capital income um and so just to review the discussion we've got two numbers you know one is the the number set by Statute I guess that it shall not exceed 6% for the um so that's the select board policy but then the overall the overall limit is dictated by state law the oh the one we haven't talked about that um the overall is shall not exceed 24 toiz valuation is what is never get to that right and no one's there yeah maybe one small municipality in Western might right but but you know as I was just I hope a point clear I I don't think you know measuring berer anywhere else uh measuring the town's debt obligations against ass set value of property is a measure of a portability for for average folks you know um as most people would tell you they couldn't afford to buy the house today you know um and so we probably shouldn't use the value of the House properties and other properties as the basis for whether it's affordable you know to tax up % 1.2% the real number that means something to people is you know take as approv measure a average income per capital income and and as a food measure you know total debt per capital versus private inome I'd like to see what policy said see the recation okay another CIP policy related question so I see that this is not a change so we already have but priority will be given to projects that preserve essential infrastructure is that something that we're really doing because it seems that I hear a lot of proposals about new projects or are we already far enough along in uh preserving essential infrastructure that we can be entertaining the project no I think that there is definitely a balance between trying to keep you know the things that we have maintained properly I think that that's something that parks in open space struggles with especially um you know we we've been talking a lot about you know the the park um projects and the the life cycle and making sure that there's no failure um with a park you know that that is the priority invols talking about roadway and and making sure that those accounts are properly funded um in terms of newer projects I think um you know that's part of what we need the board to kind of set some direction on as well in terms of um you know you we we he we've heard a lot about you know the desires for additional facilities um you know and whether or not that's something that we can undertake um we would need you know board direction to kind of help us figure out how to put that into the plan so part of what we discussing so I think we may want to consider uh changing the language around in that paragraph because if we're not truly prioritizing projects that preserve essential infrastructure that's certainly an element of what we're doing but it's not exclusive to all else we might want to expand on that a bit because otherwise our practices are not in alignment with the policy I mean I I do think that our practices are um aligned with the policy because a lot of times when I'm evaluating the project it's really about um you know is is the project on the point of failure if so that's where the prioritization kind of Rises to the to there so um you those those projects are green before everything else I would think though that overall cost matters too so if there's a new proposal that is a relatively small dollar amount that doesn't NE necessitate a debt exclusion or anything like that I could see that maybe going toward the top of the list even though it's not observing uh existing infrastructure if it's a truly low dollar moon for instance somewhere in here is a proposal about having a volleyball court and I don't know how much that costs i w need to look into the detail but if that's relatively small dollars that might not be a heavy lift so that type of example is that something you also look at so I think that when it comes to things that are kind of nonexisting in the current plan and something that maybe you know we haven't heard from the board about that's where I need Chad to tell me you know is this something that lines up with what you're hearing from the board or from other areas is this something that is really where the funding needs to be so as an example the Davis path Li Bridge you know when that failed you know we had capacity in the out years of the CIP and so I'm asking Chaz is this the area where the priorization should be are we want wanting to make sure that we've got funding in place to restore that bridge or are we're also hearing about other aspects that need you know Improvement should be be putting it there instead so that's where you know he's talking to you getting the feedback from the board as to where the priorities are and that's how a pro of that WIS in the CIP Paul just a quick point maybe following on to what DAV it's um the evaluation criteria which is a list I assume it's not ranked in any order no I've used in Waiting I've used tools in the past to kind of try and evaluate and I've also um tried to make sure that as I'm vetting projects I have a team um you know Lincoln's on that team uh we have planning we have sustainability um in years past I've had Caitlyn from odcr um to kind of make sure that we're getting like a broad view perspective on you know what the projects are and other issues that must come out I guess it might be helpful to have a little more meet on the down here with the weightings like how do we what are the priorities with respect to weightings something that's more important and the other um it'd be helpful to to see that and then the other thing that's on my mind is the state of our roadways um which we've spoken about in the past um I I had copy with commissioner she last week and she quoted a very significant number of of the backlog you know and it's escalating rather rapidly um you know I maybe this gets to free cash but I I feel like that's essential ential infrastructure and we've been underfunding it for quite a while you know is there a way to have a minimum that automatically goes against roadways well we do so like those those targets have historically been sent by the overit so to the extent that the board wants to shift more resources from other areas of the CIP to roadways I would need that direction from you because the entirety of the CIP could be devoted to roadways and we' still be behind right and so you know so one of the things um that I was thinking of is you know we have a schedule that's been in place for a long time for when we renovate yeah right and even just extending that by one year right would potentially add a lot more Capital into the into the CIP um you know are we are if we if we added a little more time to a park what is what's the current policy is it 10 years or I think it's a 20e policy it's a 20 year policy so if we went to 21 or 20 is it does that help I I think you know I would want to so the DPW they go out every year and they evaluate the parks and make sure that they're not at the point of failure and so I think that they probably have a good sense of what an additional year would do but I want to make sure that I yeah and I'm not saying I'm not proposing that as a just ideas like that is there a way to allocate you know priorities a little bit differently um so that we can get that essential infrastructure which is our roadways areal infrastructure I think the single most important thing you can do on roads is what you would and and might have been doing come back to the board which revising revising P creating the P right because it's even to most The Log Jam at this policy yeah that's that is she's made they've made a lot of progress as you recommendations right related I I think I would like to see perhaps a new draft on this policy around weighing certain factors because the way it reads now it it's somewhat a morphus in terms of what actually takes place in terms of what gets prioritized and what doesn't sure and so to be able to have that more clear about what the process is what are the factors you list the factors I mean which ones are more important than others what's sort of the rubric that you go through what is the set of procedures you go through in making a decision about what should be prioritized because uh at least on the school side the tendency has been things kind of jump up and down in priority and there's no really not always a Rhyme or Reason to it and so if there's a policy that's fairly clear about how you make these determinations I think that'll also be to the public benefit yeah I agree I agree yeah I think that maybe in October when we go and talk about um the free pass policy we can add this to the list but I think for now you know the these edits I'd like to see the board act on and then we can you know forther refine in um when we you can be yeah he any further discussion um Mela thank you so much for um enlightening me and others on on all of these issues and I just had a couple more to ask ask you about and this is nothing new nothing has changed but I'm just kind of checking in on our policies regarding debt financing for projects and the limitations um that that for example Bond maturities shall not exceed the anticipated useful life of the capital project um and should be limited to no more than 10 years except for major buildings and water and store projects are we keeping within yes we're keeping within that and um are we keeping within the limit of 60% of all outstanding that that um shell mature within 10 years yes right great great okay cool yeah the Deb exclusion obviously those are 25 year terms so that kind of is outside of what but with everything else most of the terms have been 10 to 15 years and are are we um basically following the guideline as to what is to be a debt financed project um in other words the $250,000 threshold yeah we wouldn't be able to borrow without yeah yeah okay David another question I have this time under Reserve policies so the section liability and catastrophe fund currently reads um it mentions and other one-time revenues so rfo is obviously an example of that but are there other one-time revenues that are being referenced what would those be and is 1% still the appropriate level yeah I actually talked about this with Joe because I you know I I'm concerned about you know uh Lo potential losses and things like that and I think he felt that you know this this target is served as well um and that you know to the extent that the target moves that the you know the the exposure for liabilities would kind of drift with it so um you know I think you felt comfortable with we were world with the policy Targets in terms of other the one-time funds overlay is another example of funding that we've used um in order to kind of address onetime items like CIP and and other things like that okay looks like we've exhausted that topic um this does not require a vote I would like you to vote because I'd like to put the RIS policies okay it's not in the agenda can can I ask do we want to um wait till we hear from advis um think so you need you need vote then we'll come back I think if there are additional revisions based on their feedback we can come back with too okay um and we've made a few adjustments to the policy so I move of approval of the uh uh board fiscal policies as revised um on in favor please indicate by saying I John V hi Mike Sandman hi Paul Warren hi David bman hi and Sher vot I so thank you um lunch time yes I think the food is now ready um so we're actually a bit of had of schedule Bernard we plan lunch for 12:15 so do want to come back in an hour um what people want yeah let's come back in an hour maybe we can leave early this is where we do the round of golf and yeah quick round do I was uh was think thinking that I would come out and join you but I think not I have a cold and I've decided that between what else is going on in my life and the and the risk of exposing you all to my coughing it'd be better to do to stay on Zoom so I'll be back in an hour on Zoom thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e py attention we're about to starty are you going to do the vision plan oh okay okay welcome back to the select board meeting for uh what's today's date September 17 2024 um next on the agenda is uh our vision plan it's not our I Vision plan it's discussion of a request to create a vision for the town over the next three to five years right uh CH you're gonna introduce this yeah um so we had a discussion um last uh your last Workshop uh in August and the takeaway from that discussion was we discuss strategic and the kind of consensus with the board is we understood it was um it's good it's good to do strategic planning work it's good to have it's good to have a mid mid-range uh planning place but desire was to scale it back a little bit not do a full you know 30 page color plusy photograph document but to really drill down on goals and the the longer term goals and objectives you know coming through coming with a couple of CER through lines and getting help for the board to put those together and then also identify clear um metrics that you would use to identify success or progress towards fs and so we then took um you know our key language that that other communities used we you know did our own edits on that and clean through and have this doc um which is a draft art the for your consideration um and we welcome your comments thoughts uh and then we can um we'll take those back and our goal will be to have uh a document hopefully ready to go um as soon as possible for you for us to go out to bid so um yeah the the a this discussion is to talk through um what you'd like to see change to the RFP but also kind of you know ensuring that our we on the right track in terms of making sure that we get a mid-range um um strategic document in place okay any thoughts I have one um I mean it'd be useful just in terms of my understanding I think other people's understanding uh on the board and off the board to really have a good sense of how this Vision you know what five to six-year Vision plan fits into the structure of our planning process it starts with bothen objectives you know decision plan strategic plan and even the comprehensive plan I they all really fit together uh and I think it'd be best it'd be good to make that clear in the RFP both so that the uh the um consultant that that is responding know what they're responding to but I assume they they generally understand that but more importantly um that the community knows what we're respond what we're doing so we don't get the type of reaction we got to The Branding I think you know one of the pieces of feedback I heard you know is there's also there's a lot of data out there you know we have the Poco survey response we have the um needs the Gap assessment did the commun the um Community Health Improvement plan did all of those uh we did a lot of community we've done we've been doing a lot of community outreach we have a lot of data points um and so I think one of the questions we had is um is this the right level May the engagement on this or is this a document is this an RFP that needs to be more focused on the select board um as opposed to yeah acquiring more Community data do you think we're at a spot where have information sufficient to sort of crack this or back well so um I do think that there's a lot of information that we've gathered um from all the list that Chad just come up with and I'm wondering if instead of going out to the community and say ask for another vision statement by the way we're doing visioning right now for the comprehensive plan in October so there's a survey uh that's going that's going to be fielded and there's going to be work shops and stuff to get the vision for the future from residents so I a little concerned about multiple Vision things happening um but you know I see this as really an engagement to help us as a board set a fiveyear goal set of goals and potentially actions to support that goal and ways to measure success um of course what we come up with as with anything that we can do we can get feedback from the public um the public will yeah we will anyway um and you know could we modify the RFP instead of going out to the public and having this a process like that let's inventory what we have and have the consultant pay that information and present it to us and say this is what we've heard what you're hearing from the community from these you know various sources um and use that as a way to help us then initiate the process of setting goals that would be the adjustment we can yeah that's very help David Mike yeah um so I I've mentioned a couple of times uh at our meetings the idea of U going through a strategy map process uh and this has some of the same flavor to it uh person I would rather see a strategy map or specifically um which um well I I I would rather do that than uh than this I think that that in the absence of a strategy map that going through this kind of a process uh is a an acceptable substitute uh but Chaz I wonder if you thought at all about the that strategy map as an alternative I I think it's I think it's of a piece um but I actually think you know I have your um you know the materials that you put together for example the the strategy map that you pull up for um uh for Canyon City Colorado um you know I think the process I think the the outcome is going to resemble the outcome here and I think you know the feedback that you gave us in August is going to shape that I want uh but I also think it's important maybe not to um to bring someone in who's going to have access to multiple um multiple methods of developing this work um and not necessarily go down um see you know be be focused on a single path if that's not if that doesn't wind up being productive for the full board um like a single a single strategy to produce the document that's not going to be productive to the full board but I can I think we can put direct reference to strategy mapping as a guy as as a as a guy um in the RFP as an example of the kind of U process that we would want to follow make these results okay all right I want Mike raised a good point about the strategy map and I had a question for Mike Mike could could we use as CH says strategy map as an example but as a as a potential way to communicate the strategy right that that it does is exactly that right that's what it is right so um if the RFP reference strategy Maps as a as a potential method of you know communicating the strategy um would that be sufficient I I think it would be for one thing I think it would attract bids who uh understand what a strategy map is and perhaps uh that would uh that would give us somebody who uh um would follow at least the the the outlines of that that same approach I that's that that would be useful change and I don't think that would chess I don't think that would significantly knock this off track do that that's great go do we have an estimated cost that this will come for so they do range in cost so it's hard to know my guess it would probably come in between 50 to 100,000 um it's really just going to 52,000 50 to 100 oh 52 I would say starting around 50,000 yeah depending on how expensive um you know I'll just put my cards on the table on the you know the wet blanket when it comes to to Vision plans um and and in this case U I think Paul has reflected this somewhat although you he can speak on well for sure um it it's it's an a difficult time I think to be starting this process when we have a comprehensive planning process underway we have a Chestnut Hill West you know planning process underway I am on the open space and Recreation comprehensive planning process that's underway um and we've got a number of you know similar types of initiatives uh um that are being undertaken in the areas of health and you know you can name a bunch of other areas too and I'm not sure how this layers on top of the others and I'm a little worried about people in Brookline developing the impression that um you know once once or twice or three times or four times a year they're going to be asked again to help us with some kind of vision of the future comp the comprehensive planning process is a vision it's 2040 it's you know it's Brookline 2040 this is Brookline 2030 you know what if the results of the 2030 visioning don't line up with the results of the 2040 visioning and and I know that you know there's an emphasis on zoning but it's not an exclusive evidence um emphasis by any means we have a lot of ongoing planning aimed at figuring out how we achieve climate goals um o over the next year two years 5 years 10 years and every time we do one of these we go back to the public and we say okay yeah I know we asked you six months ago but now tell us you know what you think your vision is in this area and then we have to draw the distinction between this visioning process and the comprehensive planning visioning process and the open space and Recreation visiting visioning process and the climate visioning process I think it's getting pretty confusing and I'm not sure what uh the useful product is that we will get from this RFP at a cost of 50,000 to $100,000 D I agree with John and also I think another challenge is that um sometimes if we take on too much at the same time we don't necessarily do as thorough and as strong of a job I of a philosophy that it's better to do fewer things really well than to try to juggle a hundred things and do it mediocre and so I also wonder about the timing of this and the confusion it could create especially now with the roll out of the comprehensive plan and also we mentioning with chessen Hill West and Washington Street Corridor there are tons of things that are already underway so I think I I I hear that and I think it's important Bernard said the ab of this really f on what what this is and how it see this is intended to be a process to develop a fiveyear strategic set of goals and objectives with slate in the same way that you did that for the fiscal year the coming fiscal year this morning the goal here would be to have a more in-depth process that would then generate set of goals and objectives and the metrics by which you measure that success for the next five years so it is when you talk about the comprehensive plan that is a longer time Horizon but it's more narrow and focused when you on the subject when you talk about chal West and uh Washington Street you're talking about discreete projects the question there is how how would those discrete projects fit into an overarching Vision or strategy for the community and one of the benefits to that I think actually one of the Cal benefits to that is that when community members ask me what are you doing uh it's not just we're doing Washington Street we're doing West it's we have we have a vision we're working toward and these are the F the things that you see us putting our attention in onto our facets of that Vision um and so I think that's the Hope here it also then I think gives you you know um um I don't want to say cover but it it gives you something to point back to um when the community said when someone said says well I really have a high priority like you focus your attention on this you're able to say we understand that we can take that into consideration but what we heard from the community in developing this is this set of strategic goals and objectives and so you don't get P under different directions some says I want you do this I do see the value to that but what I'm where I remain a little skeptical is why we would need to spend 50 to 100,000 on a consultant to produce something that when we looks at the the summer workshop at what n Tucket was doing and I think Canton and a few others ultimately they're about 90% the same and why isn't it that we couldn't look at what already exists in other communities and Tinker off of that and save the 50 to 100,000 well no I so I um I see value in doing something I don't agree with what is being proposed one I don't think we need to go back to the community and ask for yet another vision for the future right I look at what we just did today it's taken us months to come up with golden objectives right those golden objectives are only for one specific year and they're not really tied to a longer term objectives that we have as a board right we I think we struggled a little bit in figuring out what it is and if they're not tied to longer term goals um and so I think that you we can do two things at once we can do three things at once um we can continue our efforts on the comprehensive plan at just west and you know sustainability plans all of that's helpful and can give us inut but I think it would be beneficial to us as a board to be able to have a longer term longer term goals in mind as we set the next year's objective so we finished today I think our goals and objectives for 20 25 or 26 26 are good right um next year when we sit down to do our goals and objectives I would hope that we can tie them to what we want to achieve in five years I just don't want us to go out to the community and have this big Community engagement visioning boards surveys we have lots of input already I don't know when the RFP would come back when You' start this I assume it would be sometime next year but you know we'll have already completed a lot of input from the conf plan chest Hill West hopefully will have a better Direction um but those are discreet projects I think the fiveyear goals might will be higher level issu sustainability and affordability and education things like that and I think David to your your point which is is a good one question why you know do I we need to go out from this and I think what we've seen is we when we when we did when when I first came on board and we brought in consultant to kind of talk about goals and objectives more broadly we had a good conversation but we weren't really able to carry forward there's too much day-to-day going on in terms of our operations that will ultimately kind of uh that makes these exercises for you sort of more um abstract uh for you board members more abstract you have too much going on in your day-to-day work and then we in the select Board office I think are not our are focused on you know day in day out operations to a point where we don't have someone who would be able to take that project don't full time um or even you know part time um what we would really what we would get out of this is someone whose job it is to really um steer us through this process and ensure that we weren't spinning all or you know you know kind of doing the first half know whiteboard exercise um so that just gets me back though to the bandwidth concern so if the reason for U taking out an RFP on this is because there's not the current bandwidth but the reality is that we would need staff support for this we don't want this to be entirely driven by an independent consultant who doesn't necessarily have any long-term ties or interest to Brooklyn in particular so the reality is even if it gets farmed out there will be significant components of it that require staff attention that's and so staff is busy now with other items which it's very understandable there's a lot going on do we really want to take this on at this moment I think you know we we have capacity with the assistance of a consultant I think that's the that's the important distinction if someone is doing the the um you know the the Frontline work of of cohering this putting it together putting it on a document then what we're doing is quality control and quality assurance we have the capacity for that it's that first step of being able to actually translate the goal making discussions that we have into the coherent document um that just takes a lot of time and energy that you know the seven of us are you know we just don't we don't have the sustained time to do that work Mike did were you trying to get our attention yes so um I'm not quite sure where to begin except to say that I I think uh it there's an enormous advantage in uh bringing in somebody from outside not so much because of bandwidth um but rather because they don't have any ties direct ties they have no vested interest they have no uh history that tends to move them in One Direction uh or another they can look at the situation uh with a a very cold I which is the way you want a consultant to uh to look at your situation and I say that having been a consultant for a a career in a quarter um so um I I think there's a there's a significant advantage to doing something along these lines and uh if we're not going to go ahead with this in particular I would like to volunteer to work with uh Chaz and maybe drag Paul into this uh because he has some of the same uh business related and Consulting related experiences as I have to um uh to put together something else that um might have more um more appeal to the rest of the board if the rest of the board is going to go along with this that's fine I think the certainly the message we've gotten from the board is we have added work I think there's there's and this is why we're having this conversation F so so I you finish i' like to are you not I'd like to change just narrow scope so I I wouldn't I don't want to call it a vision CR I think that has the WR identifier um I I would eliminate going out to the public and having a fiveyear vision statement drafted by the community I don't think we need to do that I think we have a lot of information already um I'd like to see us the consultant should help us set the 27 goals and objectives as well as the context of of five-year objectives so at the same time as us developing our next year's goals and objectives we're also setting the longing Target goals and objectives and how we be measure success that to me is very practical will help us do the work that we've struggled with for a few months that we concluded today um and at the same time we'll end up with fiveyear uh Target that will help Us in in future years at gos would it be helpful to the board I like Mike's idea would it be helpful to the board maybe if Tiffany and I work with Paul and Mike to re redraft this in a more limited scope um and bring it back to full board for consideration again not for additional feedback well maybe I mean the answer I mean think that's the thing the answer can still be no at the end of the day yeah I don't want to spend time if there's three votes to say no and we're never going to if the the limited scope that Mike and I just described with Chaz is acceptable um I I do believe there's value but I don't want to be spending time on something if we don't John mat yeah yeah yeah you um I I'm just going to cite a couple of examples um so we actually came up with a vision stat um you know summer of 2023 and it's cited in the RFP um you know but I have to say I think 18 pages is a lot of pages I know maybe that's one of the problems I'm having is the blor taking over everything um but here's our vision statement Brook line should be a diverse community that is well integrated socially economically and racially making it a place where people of all backgrounds can and want to live and work so Mike um thank you Mike um cited apparently um in a conversation with Chaz uh the Strategic plan in Canyon City here's Canyon City's um strategic plan vision statement Canyon City is a vibrant attractive and Safe Community that values Quality of Life Adventure and prosperity so you know with a couple of differences and a couple of key words we're kind of both saying the same thing um and then you know so so what is what is having that vision statement get you well it gets you all of these sort of underlying things that you commit to um Canyon City continually improves the citizens quality of life boom uh we're a customer focused business mod Community I think you would get my point just like the rfps tend to be built around boilerplate the end product to me to me tends to be built around boiler but and we already have a vision statement that we agreed on um and I'm not sure we need to go to the expense and time and also the time of our citizens who be drawn in if or maybe not you know and Paul made a good point there um to flesh out that statement that we have already made so my understanding is that you know those vision statements are one thing but they don't really mean anything we have to have some you know um some tasks yeah to to achieve those those those lofty goals and um my understanding of what what we're talking about what they're talking about is you know that almost a checklist of things that we we do to actually actualize the vision statement that we have so so we need as broad a thing as as what's being proposed but we do need something more than my sense my sense is um give me an hour and you know I tell you how I think we could operationalize you know division statement that we have and you know not not to be too um you know egotistical about it but um you know we're the elected leadership of the town for reason you know we we have managed to convince you know a sufficent number of Voters that we actually have pretty good feel for the town and we also have pretty strong ideas about um what the town needs to do to be you know the town that our voters and our residents want it to be um and I think our ideas are the most important part of this frankly um and and we should try operationalizing our vision plan ourselves before we assign it to somebody else okay Mike yeah so um I think I mean we could John John you're right that we we could certainly take the vision plan and help sort of do some work to figure out um to figure out what needs to be done to operation to as you say to operationalize it but when you're talking about operationalizing it but you're talking about going down into a level of detail that requires quite a bit of work and and having seen the process be done with some outside help I think it works very that that some outside help can work very well but I'm thinking about things like if you go all the way back down to the foundation um what sort of what sort of Staff do you need at different levels in the organization uh what kind of it do you need in place uh in order to to provide the transparency that you that you'd like to provide to the community um there there are a whole range of very specific things that you need to do in order to make something actually happen in order to um to realize the really the lovely words in that in that Vision plan that that in that vision statement the statement itself is not a plan to do anything it's an aspiration um but if you're if you're going to try to figure out how to get there uh you actually have to do some pretty detailed homework and doing this kind of thing as I say this you know I I would like to see this this worked on uh uh and tweaked but um perhaps more than tweaked but worked on and uh uh recast uh perhaps but that is the objective is to uh figure out what the um uh what the details uh should be in order to get where we say we want to go David Mike I agree with you about the importance of being mindful of what the staff implications are and that you need staff to uh actualize some of what it is that we would be looking for in our vision but to me that's all the more reason why we should not be going to an outside consultant unless it's absolutely necessary because 50 to 100,000 per uh Consulting study it adds up 10 of those is a million dollars think of what we could do with a million dollars and as John was saying ultimately these plans almost all look identical we could look at existing ones we can modify them somewhat to what we think would be particular for Brookline and I just don't see this as high enough priority to be spending those kinds of dollarars again I'm not saying it's not worth the effort to have a Five-Year Plan of course we should but I think we can do that work ourselves I don't think it's as complicated as where making it sound and as John points out from uh Canyon City and you can look at almost any of these they're almost all identical and how useful is it really to have a consultant to produce something that we know what it's going to look like and to and again your point Mike if we need more dollars in it well we're actually making it harder to do that if we're spending the money on Consultants the money that could have gone to another it worker I do I do think me we have money in the budget for this for that level of now we can strategic we can we have the Strategic we have money that we set aside for um outside services and slide forth budget um we're confident we have the money to do this sort of to do this sort of work it would be something where be making choices but it we be making choices about where else we would look for outside services so there is money available in the budget um it means that that's where our Focus would be in terms of our outside Services honestly I don't think it's it's a a it's good find there's money in the budget and you know that that's good that not there may be money in the budget for things that we don't nonetheless don't want to do um I think that the idea that one could just take a look and change a few words from some other community's plan um honestly I'm just stunned at the na of that uh this is a this is a very different Community uh in a great many great many ways there are commonalities certainly all municipalities have certain functions they all have certain kinds of needs but we have a particular demographic we have a particular um Urban combination of urban and Suburban setting um we're surrounded by a by a very by a very unusual City uh that's unique in its own way uh and that that puts in an estate that puts U certain kinds of uh of strictures on uh on what municipalities can do uh we have a tax base that's um that's that's unique to us um there's an enormous amount that's unique about procine that um just uh you you just kind of take a cookie cutter uh approach uh to uh uh they're putting together what Brookline needs to do to um as as you say to operationalize its vision okay uh Paul yeah so just um what to reset us for a minute you know this this effort is supposed to help us this this isn't a broader eye Creak it's not a broader vision statement involv you know boil the ocean um it's really meant to help us as a team um identify the things that we want to accomplish as a board in the next five years maybe we're here maybe we're not and that would in turn help us set our goals each year um if we can't have consensus about that we shouldn't have a divided board about how we're going to work together um you know I guess I'm I'm concerned that that um some members my colleagues are so adamant to not do this um this really is meant to help us as a team and if the team is not um ready to do it then we should wait um that's D it's not that I'm against doing it it's that I'm against getting a consultant to do it because I think that the end result is going to be boiler plate and we don't need to spend 100,000 to say we're a Vibrant Community that values XY at five o'clock this morning I rewatched last Summer's discussion right that's what I I watch and and at that time I I had said that we don't need a big consultant project but we need someone to facilitate us because you know as we go through the goals objective Bernard's been facilitating it and it's hard to participate you know so I don't think we need a subject matter expert on you know develop a strategy it' be good if they have done it before but I think having someone that is a resource to help facilitate us through a multi-step process to come to a valuable um outcome that's practical that we can use I think that's I think that would be helpful for us I do think narrowing that scope should also in effect M low the cost somewhere we would lower theost we're not going out and surveying the entire Community we're not it's not be 100 surely it's so I just want to jump off of what Paul said so um David you weren't here last year when we we attempted a goal setting um effort you know the the whole day was actually supposed to be for goal setting we started with a vision and the goal was to actually come up with goals and put them on a timeline and say okay how many you know what goals are our short-term goals versus medium-term goals versus long-term goals we walk through this EX ex ized and all of the ideas that the select board generated ended up in the short-term call because everybody wanted their ideas to be done first the highest priority the soonest as possible we had no in fact no long-term goals um and maybe one or two medium-term um and so we you know I think From staff's perspective yes it helps the Board to have long-term goals it also helps us to have your long-term goals when we're thinking year-to year about budgets and operations um and so we' consistently been trying to push us in a direction of okay can we find a way to come up with some long-term goals right we sort of encourage that that direction um and I think you know while we could engage with that effort ourselves the evidence has shown that that's quite difficult um and that it really helps to have an outside voice and to do it in a multi-step process um and I would Echo what Tiffany said which is you know those other studies you're looking at those are the ones that cost B you to $100,000 you know what I mean a few sessions facilitating coming up with long-term goals five to six year goals is going to look vastly different from the cost perspective and producing a long strategic plan document um so I I think the feedback we're getting is good um but I just want to remind folks that we have tried to do this ourselves um in a sort of you know less formal fashion um and we just haven't gotten there yet you know uh so the outside perspective is good and that's the reason why we've put so much effort into thinking through this and just a quick correction David was here last summer it was the summer before that we that we had the facilitated okay John I want to defend my colleague David against SC scous accusation that he is naive and I I I I admit that I took that uh personally myself uh as as a person who first spoke the words that David agreed with um I'm looking at um uh this Canyon uh report Canyon City report and I am struggling to find something in this report that because Brookline is so unique uh would not also be in the Brookline report um you know number of new businesses that are still in business in three years we can measure that uh number of business prospects that open um we can measure that percentage change in hotel occupancy rate year-over year we can measure that um so on and so on and so on and so here's a good one city Bond rating year over-ear rationale this gives us an objective Outsider view of our economic standing we know this stuff we really know this stuff we done it yeah but those are all those are all talking about a but Mike I think we don't interrupt each other during these meetings we try not we try not we should also be gentle with each other we about to um uh we're talking about an RFP for a two-year process to get done what we're fauling ourselves for not having gotten done in a couple of hours one afternoon we can get this done yeah so yeah okay so so John we can measure also sorts of things the question is how do you affect events so that you do have more businesses formed and survive what is it at the time we had a discussion earlier about licensing and permitting and so forth how do we uh how do you actually do something in the community um that will promote the kinds of things that you're interested in getting good measures on that's the the thing that we're really that we're that we're missing and I'm not so interested in spending lots of money I think we're but that I don't that's not the point at all I think the point is that the effort that you get by bringing somebody else in is an effort that you don't put into it don't put into it ourselves just as Charlie said uh we've got too many other things going on it's a it's there's a reason why there are consultants in the strategy world uh it's because the people tend to be very very involved in day-to-day tactics and living day to day and I think to your to to your point um Paul and David there's a there's there's a way to do this there's a way to do this on on a reduc what what I think the the thread even among folks who say I don't think we should do this think folks who say we we there's value to this if we were to do it there's there's an argument for scope that needs to be reduced and then I think the question is if that once once you have a once you see that reduced scope does the board still think there's value in it or if the board feels like it's not something we do now then we don't do um but I think that's the feedback that we're getting seems to be along that does that sound right to me yeah um to me anyway I mean DAV so I think we're talking cross's purposes a little bit Mike I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about the value of consultants and providing particularized expertise and how to effectuate something but I see that as very different from a consultant coming in to produce one of these boilerplate reports that don't really say anything and so if it's a if the purpose is to bring in a consultant because we don't have the bandwidth to get an important job done that is something I'm okay with if the purpose is to produce a report that we can do on our own if we dedicated more than an afternoon to it then I don't support that I do think it's important for us to demonstrate the value of that and if you don't see and if you you don't agree you don't think there's value I think that's fine I just I think we need to we need to do a better job on our end of explaining that that intrinsic Val because there is BWI concerns certainly of subject matter expertise to the point that Charlie raised there's this issue we we've attempted this and the question enough um but I think um ultimately the U the sort of uh I mean when you you talk about the boiler play nature of the reports the S of it I I didn't hear that but I also it was funny just listening to about the the Kenyon City Vision state heing that you know like the word Adventure in there and I was almost like aha like it's yeah it's it sounds kind of samey it sounds kind of boiler plate but it actually to me does differentiate that community that community statement is a is a c differentiation and to give you a sense of how words even you know what we think of is border PL language is an impact I this is one of the issues that's going on in the comp plan world now there is no document in Brookline that says it is the goal of the town of Brookline to produce housing now um they talk about affordable housing they talk about mixed use housing they talk about preservation of existing housing the there is no language that says the production of housing is good or bad um we've never done it um we think we've done it in the housing production plan but we have read the housing production plan doesn't say that you know that the there is an end there's an end good or net bad in housing house and that level of you know when you talk about you know even you know out words having meaning um that's a big thing um and that's something that the comprehensive plan process is really going to work through this question um is that a value what is that what is with what cat with What structure and so so even having it at that highest level um there is an I do think there's an intrinsic good in doing that kind of work and thinking through what do we what do we want to Define Us and how do we measure um but I think your points are all well taken and if at the end of the day they don't don't pencil out for you in terms of the value then I agree you're suggesting that you come back with a different well yes yes but I also I also don't want to presuppose the false point the board doesn't feel like this feels like it's going to be a approv as exercise yeah that would be implicit and coming back to me so what I'm I'm hearing I'm hearing Paul staff staff provided context to say we need this from you for right we need we need direction that's long as than just the first year 46 and we need something a little sooner than 2040 right there's an intro they're saying it's a it's a fiveyear ask an ask from the board to give strategic Direction about what we trying to achieve in fiveyear time um I think that it's worth having Chaz I'm happy to help although I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time I don't think I think we're making it way too compc at frankly we need some help to facilitate the production of that because we haven't been able to do it yet we tried it two years ago we haven't made no purpose um I think it's worth a little more time from staff perhaps a select board member or two to see if we can refine the scope of this thing and make it very practical and come back and if we and if we decide that that's not right then the board will vote not to do it hey D so on the Practical part I personally would be most interested in how a Consultants would help with what Mike is talking about with the howto portion the howto portion I think is more useful than the overarching message yeah yeah I'm not worried about a vision statement David I'm worried about the having someone help us stay focused on producing fiveyear goals I might all nothing I'm my I'm I'm sorry you're you're clearing your throat right yeah uh yeah I have a cold as I say my throat's a okay sorry I just want to say I I I think Chaz has made a very appropriate offer to come back with a proposal that reflects the concerns that he's heard raised and and others have heard raised in this conversation I'd be fond with that and I think we should just yeah go ahead and and send that message that we'd like to see we'd like to see that I agree okay okay now we can get to the most interesting well I would suggest Bernard that we wait until two for that one because we do have more folks joining us um so perhaps we should take a caring at two o' or no but staff presenting St yet oh they're not the Parks and Recreation yeah we may have more audience participate no that's fair to come back and e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e countdown or okay so this is a discussion with representatives of the Park and Recreation Commission regarding select board guidance on proposed or potential capital projects including but not limited to I hope it is limited to though um replacement of the skating ring at LS Anderson Park and additional aquatic facilities so who would like to start off a question sure ju just for clarification is it with the members of the commission or is it with the park and rec department uh Rec division Park division Etc I mean are they in the room I know I'm just reading with know I realized that s all right so and I think other Commissioners were going to try to yeah to join remotely I think I'm the only commissioner that's I don't know why see there but I I would a big knowledge you there's a couple names on the audience that are Commissioners that I can see from here there are some okay okay I just wanted that okay what why don't we start off by everyone introducing themselves actually from the park recreation staff as well as a commission sure uh Tim Davis director of recreation par okay I'm clar I'm chair of the Park and Recreation Commission and I'm Alexander beo I'm director of sustainability and natural resources and currently acting director of Parks Place um okay this audience introduce yourself I'm not part of the board oh okay okay just ARA boy meeting member pring 15 also preservation commissioner on the CPA committee and just here too okay sorry didn't mean to put you on the spot and if I can Aon Freeman in the back assistant director Recreation dep as well and I hear there are Commissioners online maybe yes are there Commissioners online thatd like to introduce them so I have to need them alexand remind me Anon off is one I promoting Antonia who else um chest in my eyesight is that no Teresa maybe addict Jan again Jane Jane J uh Jim Carol no John John John pan oh Anton is okay good good on on Zoom okay okay so let's start uh who's going to start off with this H presentation or discussion yeah I can start off happy dud um um first off nice to finally be in front of you all sorry I've been here a few months H the ground running so thank you for having me today hopefully it's the first of of many meetings um the reason for coming today is as mentioned to receive guidance from the board on the plans uh for the study and potentially build an outdoor swimming pool um coming into my position a few months ago this is one of the projects that was on my desk to start implementing and as we dug into it with the help of Alexandra as well as the the commission um we just wanted to be sure that the town was in a position that they felt comfortable to move forward on this project currently after this Ptown meeting um the recreation department would their revolving excuse me their revolving account was earmarked for $85,000 um to do a feasibility study for a pool um in years past we've done conceptual studies fit test studies things of that nature around the construction of a swimming pool um and just before before we dive into this potential study uh we just wanted to get an idea from the board um if it is their recommendation to continue the study knowing that on the other side of the feasibility study will come to ask for construction um of a substantial amount um where we sit now with what we have and a lot of this is in the memo that was submitted as well as the packet with all the studies uh we have done a fit test study of conceptual ideas of where the pool should go um within those studies what we really found was the spaces that are available our current Open Spaces U passive and active recreational spaces that are already being utilized by the town um So based on that initial study uh we will be decommissioning open space um areas to build a pool from again based on this one study um but also as we um look at the cost obviously from previous T articles um beyond the study we're looking at to to potentially $4 million in construction um based on the examples that were were put forward as we work together with parks and open space um we also identify that you know the the master plan calls for the acquisition and the additional building of open space and retaining open space and green space um of substantial amounts so just one of the concerns that we have as well as if we're going to go forward with an outo pool uh we would be once again taking away active open space um instead of acquiring more as the master plan said um but the other piece of it too from my perspective and what I believe is my responsibility is looking at Recreation as a whole and kind of our portfolio of facilities um and when we look at our facilities and what we have the ringy is one of them that we're going to talk about soon um but also all the other cor facilities that we have we have needs for capital investment of the the assets that we currently have specifically our indoor pools so um you know it's a it's a small concern of looking Beyond and building um a substantial facility uh when we still have some items within town that that need some attention um so it's 85,000 that's on on the table right now again is coming out of the revolving account um so that's the account that the recreation department operates on uh for all their programming um directly thises the financial aid employee salaries things of that nature so UTI izing the revolving account for this amount of money is a substantial hit so again um coming to today just to be sure that this is the desire of the board to move forward um with this study and with this project at this point in time um or get your opinion to potentially hold off and look at this at Future and I think that's um well said you know we we don't the commission doesn't understand whether we're we're required to do the study we're often accused of doing studies and going nowhere with them it's my understanding that the town doesn't have the money right now to run a pool if constructed we don't have the money to build the pool um but we're more than prepared to request a study be done we did U in-house fairly careful study as Tim presented of where we could put the pool and it does require losing field or losing other open space to the pool I also think can presented to you um public pools that are are pools that are available to residents of ban you know the MBC pool right across the be Bridge which is accessible by public transportation from Bine is a has just been renovated is a very nice pool there's an MBC pool at Cleveland Circle but if it's the wish of the town to do a study we will do that we just really need some guidance I'm sure whatever we do will be criticized but um we would like to hear pardon me Welcome to our okay um you uh the putting a pool on the sites that you've selected which would take away open space and recreational space uh assumes that that's the only space that's available I mean we've talk about uh possible uh opportunities occurring around town where we can acquire additional l so I I I think I'm not advocating or for anything one way or the other so let's just be clear that um you know if we were to go forward one of the options would be something comes available like Newber did and we we whatever in whatever way um do an acquisition that opens up possibility of of um putting in pool there so just want to make clear that you know it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to reduce open space and Recreation of space both but but I have a question um looking at land we don't currently own and do that something you would recommend I know we the planning department has asked us not to look at Newberry they want to do some planning around I mean there are plenty of other um sites around town they could I'm not saying that you know we have any evidence or any knowledge that they will but they could be come open I just don't want to you know present this as that's the only place that's the only place you know to put this Paul sir Tim thank you for the note memo I after I when I read it I was like oh we shouldn't be doing we shouldn't be doing the study that was how I concluded from just what you wrote um you know there's limited places to put it there's big tradeoffs or we'd have to acquire a parcel as Bernard has mentioned um you know we uh don't currently have the resources the capital to go build a pool um there are many Alternatives currently available to Residents um as you mentioned and um so I'm I'm inclined to hold off on moving forward with yeah I'm sorry that's my opinion and I think I I don't want to sit here and come across that this is off the table completely I'm just trying to be realistic at that point in time because I know with acquisition of land of course that was follow out in the master plan as well but I would feel that we kind of put in C the horse as one if you to do a p Sky study without actually so I just want to be clear I'm not against it I'm just kind of thinking about the proper Point yeah um so Tim thank you very much for that presentation uh I also want to thank um the folks who through town meeting you know pushed an initiative U that really kind of brings us to to the table today to make a decision um you know the initiative was to spend some money to study locations to be honest um it was not something that um I I thought was a good use of the money from the very get-go um I have some very special friends who would love to see Brook have an outd pool um we just happen to disagree on whether that should be a priority for the town um but I think more important than that um the the parking Rec commission um wasn't the initiator of this idea that we needed an outdoor pool they have to sort of very carefully weigh all of the um possible uh uses of Park and wreck funds uh for providing a park and wre services to the town of Brookline and in brookly we happen to be very um fortunate in that we have an indor pool and there are people believe it or not who Envy Brooklyn they're indoor pool who have an outdoor pool because they can't use their pool in the winter and Newton just went through the exercise of spending a considerable amount of money to approve upon their existing outdoor pool people in Brooklyn were looking sort of enviously towards Newton meanwhile there were people in Newton who were quite angry that when the money was appropriated to upgrade the outdoor pool it didn't include a complex with an indoor pool so you know per perspectives um change depending on what you have and we sometimes tend to overlook the advantages of what we have which is one of the first municipal pool facilities um in this nation um and set an example for municipal pools um all over the country and we have it to this day and it has needs so when you look at the park and rep commission trying to weigh you know are they going to prioritize trying to find a site and trying to find the funding and the programming funding for an outdoor pool when the indoor pool that we have um has needs and they they have to figure out how we're going to meet those needs um the other aspect of this that I think is is important here is that the select board um uh appoints the parking commission and we look to the parking Rec commission for guidance and as much as possible we want our views on these issues of spending of town Monies to align with the views of the park and rec commission and we've heard from them loud and clear and I I don't think we nor any other body should imposing should be imposing upon them excuse me the necessity to spend $80,000 uh when in what they have told us would probably be a fruitless effort and not only a fruitless effort but one that has already taken place there have already been considerable efforts towards figuring out what might be a feasible location for an outdoor pool in Brook line and they pretty much led to stand um so I respect the park and rec commission's report on this and park and rec Department's report on this and and that's how I'm going to vote I understand that Lauren Bernard a member of the commission is uh has her hand up Lauren and then Michael thank you Bernard hi um can you hear me okay uh yes hold on just a second commission hasn't voted yet on how to go forward with the study I just want to thank you okay Lauren oh yeah that that was actually one of my first points um I uh I'm I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person I attempted to but I just got out of a meeting and wouldn't make it um I want to just add a few things for thought and Bernard this kind of um uh reinforces what you said which is um something that that I would really like for the commission to discuss and the opportunity just has not presented itself is that I I also am uncomfortable with the idea of taking away open space but I think there needs to be a lot more creative thinking on our part on on everybody's part about why why does it have to be open space why can't we build a pool in a parking lot and add Green Space you know like a municipal parking lot build over the parking I mean I think put setting aside the money issue I'm just talking about the the issue of you know the discomfort that all of us have about taking away open space I don't think it has to be that kind of Zero Sum gain that's my first point I think and and secondly um you know about the money uh clearly I I agree with Tim you know we have to think about the facilities we have that need Improvement the pool's about to undergo a big Improvement the indoor pool so you know building new things rather than investing in in the things we have is partly um what led us to the the fact that the rink you know had 20 to 30 years of deferred maintenance and we don't want to do that with any of our other facilities but I would also like to introduce the idea of something I think that has been batted around is you know a private public partnership that you know they're doable other towns do them Boston's done a lot of them Newton's done some in other towns but I think that's a direction that we really really have to start think thinking about um going forward and uh you know it it it it takes C again creative thinking thinking out of the box but I would just like to put that idea on the table as well those two ideas and and like Clara said we haven't voted on anything about a pool and I think we need to have a more in-depth discussion about the possibility of an open pool and the last thought I'll leave you with is yes I agree the the resources the financial resources aren't there but this summer 88 public beaches both freshwater and saltwater in Massachusetts were closed due to high bacteria levels so you know there is an argument to be made that an outdoor pool a place to cool off in summer for residents is becoming a public health necessity in some time you know for some weeks and perhaps that's a resource to tap which would be the Department of Health and Human Services you know those are that's a resource I don't think we have tapped if it be an issue of health and public health there are other monies available and I think again it goes back to thinking creatively that's pretty much all I have to say but thank you thank you L uh Mike I excuse me well I do think I mean almost everybody has referenced the issue of money uh including uh Lauren and appreciate the remarks um and you know the idea of using a parking lot and is sort of a non-open space not what we think of as open space uh and and building up is a great idea but again you as you said you you run into the financial uh issue and I think it's a practical matter we'd be far better off to maintain the facilities that we have in tiptop shape uh it's open uh the the pool that we have is open 12 months a year uh and uh I think as far as pools go that's as far as we should be um we should be going thank you I'm sure there's more discussion just going to join the chorus here with Paul and John and Mike that we don't have the funding to even operate a pool uh let alone build one and so I don't think this should be a priority in something that we pursue at this time yeah you know I don't think this should be a priority either however I don't want to let the idea that we don't have funds to operate s Go unchallenged I mean these pools have have membership fees and other sources of revenue that could um cover those costs I'm not advocating that I'm just saying this be you know very clear uh and very clear about you know what the parameters are that we did temp did was that in your calculations of certain user fee for the PO well on the various other in the discussion of other communities pools there was you know their revenues from membership fees and other things and the C you relative to the cost that's that's true but um I think what's missing from all of those calculations and I looked at them as well is um yes you can actually make a small Surplus from operating a pool perhaps uh but um there's a capital cost that we have to take into account and that's not covered in any of those statement true uh I could just suggest that I think there's there's a majority of the board that would um support not moving forward with a study of the pool just would like to make a motion that we is this discussion right for a vote well uh I think it is but if I may okay yeah I'm sorry yeah well clar made a very important correction to what I said and I just want to be sure everybody understands um that I misspoke when I said that the park and rec commission has indicated they don't think we should go for the park and rec department you heard today and even their report was judicious Paul um I think spoke for several of us when he said reading between the lines of what we have in front of us they're they're seeking uh for us to say what do we think they should do um and it's pretty clear to me that you know what they're hoping will say is U Save the money uh you've got better things to do um you do not need to go ahead and spend $85,000 on a study that you think won't have a any kind of a result at this time the park and rec commission still has to weigh in on that I hope they find our decision as to what to say in response to that useful but it's up to them to decide what they them thanks for the correction it looks like people are tired of this discussion but I will move um let's see how should we put it I move um that we adopt the position of the Department of recreation in the memorandum that may not be required to go forward with the study uh of um the pool there's no yeah to be fair they don't take but in response to the m okay in response to the m so how would you phrase that well the move the in response to the Nal from the park and Recreation Department uh that we we indicate uh that we do not think it would be useful to spend the $85,000 on further stud of a location for full this time so Mo all in favor you think that was the motion I made I just want to make sure okay I just just wanted to allow everyone to have have their say and bring out the sure discussion but I did um okay so on favor please indicate by saying i j V SC hi Michael Simmon hi Paul Warren hi David Perman hi and chair votes I okay next uh the I rank right yes H good afternoon everyone uh Alexander beo as I said director of sustainability and natural resources and for the past three and a half years have served as the Director of parks and open space within DPW uh so I too prepared a memo for you all that has um a lot of attachments to it with a lot of background so I won't go through all this because it is a uh really a five-year process that's led us to where we are today uh which is back in 2019 there was a failure at the rank that led to um both a decision on how we were going to keep the rank operational for the next several Winters um so that folks could still enjoy uh Lars Anderson ice rink and outdoor skating and then also a process um to develop an ice rink task force to look at what are the options for uh the facility long term knowing that there was a mean te issues as well as operational issues and um usage issues uh so after a um the I task force commissioned a study uh which was our ice rength feasibility study um it's a it's a very very large document um that fills up this entire binder um so um if you've never had a chance to look at it I do recommend but um that was completed in 2022 um and gave kind of some preliminary options on what the design of the rink could look like it also looked at what are the locations that the rink could be located at one of which was Lars Anderson Park and then it had an open option for for a second location after that really robust public process it was determined that Lars was the preferred location for any ice rank facility that that would be constructed um and since then the ice rank task force had a series of recommendations that they made uh to the Park and Recreation Commission to gather more information to be able to make a decision um about the next steps for the ice ring one of those recommendations was that we complete an ice rength program Revenue analysis so really to understand um given the different design options on the table if it was indoor and outdoor rank one ice rank two uh what would be the impacts to revenue both you know thinking back to pool discussion cost of operation as well as uh cost of ongoing care maintenance um and so after um reviewing that study which was done by Ed Sports wible on July 9th the commission did take a vote um and they made a recommendation that we move forward with the design of an I rength that is outdoor a single I rength outdoor open air uncovered um and try to make that as modern and energy efficient as possible that vote was not tied to any specific location um but uh I think given that so much of the preliminary feasibility studies focused on analysis at LS Anderson Park uh I do think that that's probably the place where we would pick up from um as we move into the next phase So today we're really here in front of you one to update you on what has been a fiveyear decision in the making um and two to see if um the board uh concurs with the commission's recommendation um that that be an open air outdoor ice rank facility um and then two uh our plan is to use community preservation uh funding to uh for the design process and we've submitted an application that we just received actually um since I drafted this memo determination on um that the project is eligible for us to apply for full CPA uh dollars for the full design review process for the ice so the recommendation being that we Ed those dollars certainly for design um and then moving forward for construction as well happy to answer any questions any CLA sorry please if I something well I think we also the question remains does it go exactly it will be at LS Anderson but does it go exactly where it is does it go in the DPW Yard um I know when we took a vote someone suggested we won't put a cover on it now but maybe we put the footings in that would allow a cover to be constructed later we cannot have a cover on it and it's if we build it in its current location so even I as chair I'm somewhat unclear do is it going exactly where it is or can we look in the general area and move it a little bit it's also incredibly sunny on that location if you moved it in the DPW Yard if that was allowed um does that help with our energy consumption and things like that and would we and I assume we would have an open process to confir the location of the that that that that is at this point I'm I still feel we need to confirm you know it's going in that general area but exactly we're in that general area I I don't know f is that you know one of the ISS is it one of the issues the um um the fact that the BPW site has a lot of issues with environmental issues that would have to be addressed before anything go there and that's going to affect the timeline so there was an underground um storage tank a gas storage tank at the DPW but that has since been removed and and when it was removed um as far as I'm aware there were no breach with the tanks and no leaks um but no matter where we were to locate it because there have been leaks uh with the ice rink in its current location um so ammonia for example um and um I believe uh anyway some of the other chemicals that we've used operate it so um I think no matter where we were to locate it the first part of any construction process and design process would be for us to do an environmental assessment on the land itself um and so I think that kind of to your to that question Clara that that would be part of the you know a public design review process would include looking at the invations of um the trade-offs in space and the trade-offs in cost depending on the exact location of the the uh Paul yeah uh thank you thank you for outlining um the process andum the recommendation so the uh moving the rank to the BW would that trigger article 97 uh yes which you that um we just went through that with the p School uh project um and I assume that that that would include me to a town meeting and then to the state I would assume is that correct well actually let me take that back a step so when we went through the preliminary ice Frank feasibility study because it was and particularly because it's not an enclosed um uh ice spram facility I believe that the preliminary um response that we got back from the state was actually if you're doing an Recreational facility in a park that's being used for recreational activities as is and it wouldn't need to go through that full article 97 process but um and that was particularly if we were talking about a rank that didn't wasn't fully enclosed that we weren't building a new building um structure Jo is Joe I think Joe is online Joe pop on Jo you now good afternoon sorry can you repeat the question so uh the question is the uh relocating the ice rank at Lars which would include assume now the rank and the facility that people use for change thank you the warming Hut um moving that to the location where the DPW uh formal garage or space would that trigger article 97 because you're yes because you're removing a recreational facility from Land protected by article 97 so if you were to create uh a recreational facility on the DPW um uh how' you describe it uh DPW garage if you were if you were to create a recreational facility on the DPW garage you wouldn't need to go through it but you're here you're taking the facility away from protected and moving it somewhere else that's a change in use and would trigger article 97 yeah and to be clear Joe um the the location of the rink today is as you know is Lars is Lars Anderson which which is protected by article 97 it would be moved within Lars Anderson to another location in LS Anderson the DPW Yard is in L um the but I thought the DPW Yard was excluded from the protected area of article 97 that we took the property um for multiple uses and they U I'd have to check on that I thought DPW Yard is excluded from article 97 okay thank you maybe that's an issue that no one ever looked at yet is so so the so the idea is how the property get into article 97 if you take what I understand of the will is we took the property into the town for multiple uses and you would have to figure out um you know which portion went into Recreation um the controlling case here is mahadin this is dealing with Long Warf a portion of Long Warf was to be protected portion of long Warth was not so you have to figure out which portion went into that protection under article 97 even if you you can't you know it had multiple uses so my understanding is that the DPW garage came long after we took possession of Lars Anderson and it's all article 97 and frankly the DPW garage being at Lars Anderson is probably in violation of the will um then I'll also look into that yes oh D it appears that the path of lease resistance would be to keep the open air rank at its current location which is also what I believe the community prefers we've heard from a lot of community members who really like that spot and the views there uh and that would be what I personally support I'm not sure why we need to move it down slope to another location where there are legal complications environmental complications and we can just keep it where it is yeah I'm sorry I I was just going to say just to clarify I think the one of the concerns that we have is that um right now what we have as the facility for the ice rink this particularly that warming Hut that support facility is inadequate doesn't have locker rooms it doesn't have enough space and so um in order for that to grow we would need to reconfigure either losing ice rank space or um uh taking moving it elsewhere in the park and so I think the idea that we're going to put it back where it is assumes that we're going to put it in have the exact same footprint of the new design which I think is part of the process of why the location can be discussed as part of that design process of what are the size of the facilities we need and where would it fit within the park best does it need to fit within the exact current footprint or could the warming PT simply expand backwards a little bit or expand upwards a little bit or what will be the restrictions there yeah so once you uh move uh back behind that then you are getting into the the DPW maintenance yard and on the other side is the the grassy slope area as well so different different uses of the park I guess are happening outside of that um currence and John um I I agree with David um and I would like the the recommendation the Cy to be that we follow through on a project that is is replacement of the existing ring on the existing site and I know that that leaves open-ended this s question what do you do about the warming Hut um I think the park and recck commission working with the park and wreck department can figure that out but um the the path of lease resistance as David put it very eloquently is to do what people in the majority and I say that based on a lot of emails see a lot of meetings I've witness witnessed um in the majority those who want and treasure the ice Bank as it is now at at LS Anderson Park want a replacement rink that is as good as it can be um as res resilient given given um you know the um uh the weather that's unpredictable as it can be um but it will be enjoyed for years to come and I think we should make that message clear tonight so that the park and rec commission can then in response um having heard a clear message from the select board um move forward with this project as exper as soon as possible can I get a word in here I'm sorry go ahead yeah thanks raising your hand only works up to a point um um I turn around and look yeah right exactly uh so uh I I would like to give the uh PES and Rec commission a little bit more latitude uh I think it's possible that um I mean people have said we have heard a lot of comment about please leave the rink where it is don't build a a an indoor rink and so forth and I think you I'm actually very much in sympathy with uh recreating an outdoor rink not an indoor rink uh and uh uh leaving things very much as they um and certainly not building two rings but I think in terms of uh if if the location down by the DPW garage um is a better location for what we want to um recreate really uh then we should uh provide that that flexibility to pares and wck and if if they come back and say no we want to put exactly where it is uh that's fine or they come back and say you know in order to really make this work we need more space and the space isn't there then uh and we'd like to put it down down here down below then we can consider that but let's give let's provide a little bit of flexibility oh um so I'm going to uh I'm gonna agree with David and John um about keeping the rank in its current location um restoring it or replacing it um in kind um I'm not in support of moving it down the hill to the to the DPW site um and I and I would go as far as to say that I think the the warming Hut um is is part of the historic experience and nature of that site um and you know I would support and I think we should provide some some specific guidance because this thing could take another life of its own on around the design um and retain the footprint uh of the warming Hut I upgrade the services so it's functional that it's you know more green um but you know uh I I would support I just I just want to support focusing on restoring replacing the ice getting it back up and running so the community can enjoy it for many CL Antonia has her hand up can let her go first Antonia uh thank you um thank you for all your comments and all the work today I've been listening on and off throughout the day but um I just wanted to add that we all know that this is a very complicated and long drawn out process we're not just dealing with recreational ice skating but we're also dealing with our some Town Sports practicing on this um ice rink and other uh Hookey organizations too um so there was a long conversation with a lot of constituents I personally come also from a landscape architectural point of view and this is a Historic Landmark in town and I don't think it gets talked about or looked enough about how we are proceeding ahead without obtaining a cultural landscape report which many times has been said we're doing it we're doing it I think that cultural landscape report would actually helped help in figuring out where is the best place for this ice rink to go um and give us some other options if we're building bigger and better we all know that it means bigger access more parking which is yet again more intrusion on this park and i' just like to put on the table that it should be considered as one of the additional and strong design um influences we put tons and tons of millions of dollars in this park um we provide a huge amount of recreational both active and passive so we got to weigh what our options are and how to proceed best um carefully um I don't think that the commission has talked enough about it um in that light so I think we should be with your guidance and all the suggestions that you've been providing I think we should talk about what the best options are thank you thank you claa yes I I would like to uh direct my comments Paul and his um adding that the warming Hut is a historical uh structure and should the footprint shouldn't be changed all the enthusiasm for the ice shink where it is it's my understanding uh there had there weren't comets and don't touch the warming Huts all the people all the hockey players that play there the dressing rooms are totally inadequate there's no separation of girls and boys it needs a little bit more space so I would really respectfully request that you do not limit us to the footprint of the facil the built facility the sorry the what do we call it the I don't want to call it the changing room the warming Hut sorry the warming hutan Pavilion The Pavilion The Pavilion yes yeah um I don't want to speak for Paul but I think he was saying more that location if the footprint changes slightly and that works within article 97 in order to modernize it I personally would be fine with that I think the broader point is that the community expects the tradition to be adhered to loves that location you have the 360 views qualitatively it's a totally different experience from being down the hill in the sheds area so the the broader point to me is that we should be replacing and improving the rank at its current location not necessarily the exact footprint but as close as practicable I think that's thank you yeah I I would not presume to to add to Clara's remarks but she she said something which actually was contradicted by an experience I had and I think it was at one of your meetings had I assume it was there was a there was at least one person and and I I think he spoke for more than just one person who was a lifetime user of that Waring and spoke um eloquently about what a beautiful beautiful you know structure building he wasn't raing about you know the accommodations but you know he he wanted people to know it from the perspective of a lifetime user of the warming Hut it's a beautiful building and I don't know if you're going to hear that from other people but I I don't want us to lose sight of the possibility that that that structure itself you know is kind of a historic part of that complex deserves a close look uh that's all and maybe you could keep that an add off the back I I was when fall said don't change the that's what I went oh so I'm speaking for the athletes we've had lots of athletes come to us and say it's just not Beau for so Lauren she addressing a point Paul made might be more logical to finish that thread this me okay make your point oh I can make my point yeah well thank you David um so you know my point about the warming Hut is that I'm concerned that you know that it will turn into a structure a functional structure that goes beyond the bounds of what can keep that facility at the top of the hill um you know if you're able to provide the accommodations um and retain the location without triggering a whole bunch of issues then I I would support that and I do agree with joh I think it's a beautiful structure it's part of the experience um I get that it's a small changing room and you know everybody's together it's kind of a charm of the place frankly in my view um and yeah it's not a hockey facility it's a it's a ice skating ability of woman um and keeping with what that location is it's not a iing okay um um Arisa Lauren Bernard had her hand at full Lauren I'll get to you Lauren Warren I just promoted you again oh okay I couldn't unmute myself before thank you ah now I have I have a camera as well okay thank you um I wanted to I mean we've been talking about the warming H but I wanted to Echo Clara's you know beseeching request is not to limit us um with the with this warming Hut um I think that there's real potential with within the footprint of the entire facility to have something that will bring more Revenue to the rink in terms of the indoor space for example instead of kids going out to buy three pizzas and selling them for 50 cents over the dollar we could have a real concessions Booth we could we could you know have some real food some kind of Cafe something that actually becomes uh you know a facility in and of itself um I'm coming at this background of a of a restaurant retail consultant which is something I used to do and I feel like we don't we we're not we're really just ignoring the potential of what this indoor space I'm not going to call it a warming Hut uh could could offer in addition to you know like a real locker room or or or bathrooms or something like that but I would urge um everyone to think again creatively about the way that we could maximize revenue from concessions from skate rentals from things like that um not ripping people off but offering a better service and More in line with um you know pricing in other skating clubs and outdoor you know rinks and things like that so that's my first point um so I I Echo Clara's request that we not be limited to just recreating a warming Hut I I can't imagine that the warming Hut itself has tremendous historical significance um the study uh the programming and revenue study that was commissioned um by the prior director of uh Recreation um part of its charge I thought should have been to look at the specifics of an open air rink in terms of you know modern refrigeration and uh because that was not given to them as part of the charge um I took it upon myself to do a lot of that research and which is what ultimately informed my vote on the facility itself which was uh I spoke to Charles River kayaking who runs the rink at Kendall Square they directed me to the people who uh built the rink for them who directed me to the company that sells them the refrigeration equipment and the chemicals so I I spent a long time researching this in four or five different states and the consensus was and if you talk to just the people who run the ring or Kendall is that with modern refrigeration uh uh techniques and chemicals and insulation and all of those things we could probably get a month at either end of the skating season so you know that's something to consider too when you're thinking about this DPW site is that with modern refrigeration um and modern uh techniques and all of that we stand to have a seasonal rink that is has way more skating time and skating days you know rain aside but in terms of temperature so that's just something I want people to keep in mind is I felt for a long time we were not comparing Apples to Apples and the study that was commissioned by the former director does not take this into account um and I guess I will leave my my thoughts there thank you so I want to just say that um this is not a public hearing take I just wanted to preservation perspective if I may I didn't know if I was allowed to um could you do that after this I just don't want to open it up to the public because this is a very very hot issue and and a lot of people are looking to Mike yeah um I really interesting to listen to this discussion about the warming Hut and its and its appeal and so forth I'm thinking about Fenway Park um and uh at one point there was some consideration of moving Fenway Park uh just rebuilding in in in in a nearby site and tearing it down uh and building a more contemporary um site along the lines of what Baltimore has done uh and uh instead of that the ownership uh they took over 19 what's the sorry in 20 23 or or 22 and they they uh uh they rebuilt Park from the inside so they added seats along the wall uh for those of you who are old enough you'll remember that there used to be screens up there to catch the balls instead of people uh they put seats up uh along the right field line uh they changed the seating itself uh so that the um that that the the seats were while they continued to be pretty narrow they were a little bit higher so that people uh who were a little bit taller didn't sit there with their knees in the way of the of seeing the baseball game uh so there are a lot of things that could be done inside the inside the existing structure or without uh and and yet retain the spirit of the structure and I think it's it's it's possible to do the same sort of thing listening to laen listening to some of the other comments so again I would I would make a plea for some flexibility here okay if we don't want to uh give the flexibility to moving down the hill I you know I'm I'm not going to die over that that particular one but I do think that the let's let the Parx and Rec Department do its job and the parks and rec commission do their job uh and come up with a plan and you know their not their plan still has to come back through this board uh it still has to be funded in some fashion so uh let's let's see if we can get the best plan uh or the the that they or what they think is the best plan and then we can make a judgment okay Paul so for the so for the sake of discussion I'm ask let's just assume that the uh the guidance from us is the location Remains the Same it's rebuilt modern refrigeration as ran Bernard's mentioned to extend the skating period um there's there's flexibility around the design of the uh of whatever you want at the Pavilion uh to be more supportive of some of the Clements that you let's say that that's the parameters what's the next step to go to what would be what would happen next yeah thanks for asking that question because what I was sitting here thinking is a lot of what you're having right now is a design review process meeting and so that is the next step so the next step is we've applied for Community preservation act funds for design process that would be a public design process where it would be a community meeting with public hear multiple Community meetings most of our Parks have at least four for each design some have up to 10 um that we would listen to the input and then it would be the designs team's job to say okay these are all the things you're looking for here's three options four options of what the layout could look like bring those back get input on those and then slowly narrow it down to one design that is supported by the design Review Committee that then is supported by the Park and Recreation Commission and ultimately that's usually the end of the line however the SL board could decide that they wanted to weigh in on that final design but it's a very robust public process with a lot of iterations to it sory transports and okay yeah and I just have one followup question Bernard so um that you applied for CPA mons so I guaranteed you're going CPA funds how much did you apply for we applied for CPA funds for the design process um and so it was just the eligibility form that we've submitted so far and so essentially the budget uh $800,000 with for design okay so if if the CPA committee doesn't allocate it or town meeting doesn't approve it improv we would need to fund that through the CIP I assume CH or where find make final approval yeah we need to find some we need to find some okay I was just going to say that what it sounds like to me and summation is that the select board or at least a majority of Select board I'm not sure you're position yet would support restricting the rebuild to the top of the hill but not necessarily uh the exact footprint for the warming Hut but maintaining the spirit of it and its character and providing flexibility and leeway around positioning of a concession stand and locker room facility so flexibility in in that respect but in terms of a location top of the hill I think that's what I'm hearing so we can make it 10 feet longer so we have a regulation Place stuff like that you know right is that the consensus of the board that's that's I I agree with the what he just said so sounds that sounds good okay the one the one question that I have been Happ process is if we if we encounter a situation if we encounter a situation like 88 compliance we may be back and for um that's the only area where I think we as the design process goes forward I know for example warming we're we're touching a very old development and so we need to be very of bringing it up to code um well we didn't say that we have to PE the one them no they see right we we're going to we we're providing flexibility exactly just stay on the top of the hill that's that's that's all we'll be back to you there if if if there are things that fundamentally we worry that might compromise the overall Integrity of the vision which is what you're telling us you want to maintain the vision of this thing on the top of the hill so we will be back to you if we feel like the during the design process there's something that us okay and I'd also like to make sure that we uh look at the issues of environmental uh conditions at the BPW site from what I heard today it's not as bad as I thought it was and there are environmental issues at the top of the hill potential so you know just make sure that we have a clear and and complete understanding of those uh those issues because and that can make all of this irrelevant you know the DPW lot there enir environmental issues that we talking about I think would come into play if we were to remove that line right if we were to just take those buildings down you know deal with the possibility of lead as best isting oil and ground ground oil or whatever but again tank is gone so that that risk is gone okay so that's not the only environmental I think we should find out because at some point go um I was going to try to frame a vote is that is that right yeah I mean long the lines that David suggested this is off the top my head I hope it comes out right um keeping in mind that that the paring Rec commission hasn't actually voted to confirm the the top of the hill has the site um so it is the select board's move that it is the select board's recommendation to the parking Rec commission that the needs of the Jack terrain ice rink facility in including the so-called warming Hut or Pavilion uh be met through a project that will rebuild the rink and uh restore um as SE fit um the U warming Hut also known as The Pavilion uh and at the site of the existing rink and Pavilion and it will be uncover and it will be uncover not the exact footprint from on top of the yeah perfect timing okay so wait so that we um close at 3:00 I move approval of the motion articulated by John all in favor please indicate by saying I John V hi Michael sanon hi Paul Warren hi dve Perman hi and Cheri and before we leave I want to give um um Arisa and and anyone else an opportunity to to uh make statements or or add information thank you so much uh Arisa a recing 15 meeting member I'm also a preservation commissioner and the reason I wanted to Simply put out there is that um The Pavilion itself is also historically relevant and that anything that is planned in this space we have to remember that we have um also a responsibility from a preservation perspective and that we agreed last year at some point that anything that goes forward needs to be done with preservation uh that the CPA funds that have been applied for have also been for both Recreation and preservation and so that anything that is done including expanding the footprint of things now the preservation commission is happy to work with you know that's what we do to maintain the Integrity of and spirit of but I do think we talk about drastic changes that nothing should be done without the preservation commissions involvement well we will hit problems because these are protected sites they're on the national register and that's what our commission is chared doing and you know the preservation commission is also a local um you know government issue of its own right I my concern is that there has not been enough um cooperation between the two areas and I really want to stress that I hope this left board will encourage moving forward that it becomes much more of a partnership because we are talking about a historic site that the preservation commission and the town I mean there's been a lot of demolition by neglect going on up there and it should should be REM remedied and any design that happens from theater you know and I'm not saying that we can't expand some of footprint but those columns are original from LGE those things and we will work with Recreation but it should really be a joint process not simply this is not just Recreation this is Preservation as well thank you and and and I assume that you've heard this and take into consideration okay uh anything else uh okay that means the meeting is over Gooding thank you great it's 3:00 great