Hey. Hey, hey, hey. I'm sorry we're making you say that. >> I'll I'll do the >> You can always do just this, you know. Yeah. >> Okay. Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and
this is our regular meeting for April 28th, 2026. Uh, first item of business. I move that the select board go into executive session for the purpose of discussing strategy related to bargaining with
union employees and litigation. Bargaining with union employees in litigation must be discussed in executive session because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the town
and the chair so declares an executive session therefore to be necessary. So all in favor please indicate by saying I. John Bencoyak >> I. >> Paul Warren >> I. >> David Pearlman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I chair votes I. Uh we will return to open session after our executive
session. Thank you. Heat. Heat. All the Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, Heat. Hey, Heat.
Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh yeah. What do you mean?
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Heat. Here
we go. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Good evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and this is the regular meeting of the select board for April 28th, 2026. Uh, first item on the agenda is announcements and updates. Uh, Paul,
since this is your last day, I think select board members may want to say a few nice words about you. Um and I'd like to start off by just thanking you for your service on the select board and for the town particularly you know the uh hard work I mean incredibly hard work
and successful work you did to bring the town including its various factions right uh together um you know political factions and housing factions and other factions together uh around supporting the MBTA act. I think that was, you
know, sort of a highlight of your uh service on the board and something that we'll we'll remember for a long time. It will be beneficial to to the town for for a long time. So, I I thank you for that. Other select board members want to say something nice about Paul.
>> Don't feel like you have to. >> I would be happy to. >> Uh, may I? >> Yes. >> Yes, of course. >> Um, Paul, may I? >> Sure, John. Paul's the kind of guy you kind of want to be sure you're on safe ground, you know, if you're going to say something
about him. But um uh Paul, it's been a pleasure. It really has. And it's been a learning experience and that says a lot about you um that um uh you you taught all of us on the select board um a thing or two. um you know a as you worked your
way through issues and helped us to sometimes understand issues helped us to sometimes come around to your point of view but sometimes helped us to think maybe we don't agree with Paul on this and then we would sort of have our little disagreements and then we would
come back together um later um if if people haven't noticed Paul is a person with passions and I you know and we need passion on the select board because excuse me, I promise I'm not getting emotional. It's just I some I sometimes
have to clear my throat. Um no, po Paul really pours himself into >> everything he does. He u he he takes on causes. He fights for them. Um he is he can be persuasive when persuasion is
required. Um he he can be tough when toughness is required. And um boy has it been an interesting ride. you know, all three years, including the election campaign that led up to your being on the select board and and me being on the select board for a second term. So, you
know, to sum it up, I I I thank you for being you and it's it's it's been a great three years. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, John. David, >> just uh echo John's sentiments that you are very ardent about any cause that you
are taking up and very thorough. And for those of you who are just watching these meetings, I'm not sure you fully appreciate how much work Paul puts in behind the scenes. A lot of select board work occurs behind the scenes. Not meeting as a quorum of course, but in
terms of constituent services, meeting with staff, research, uh researching an issue, gathering the different factions that uh Bernard referenced, whether it's geographic or ideological. Uh and uh
Paul really did a phenomenal job of doing that to bring people together and uh we're definitely going to miss you here, but something tells me that you're not really completely going away. For one thing, we know you're going to be on town meeting. You're running unopposed. And at town meeting, uh Paul's vote
counts just as much as any of ours uh on the floor of town meeting. And so I'm sure you're going to continue to be very influential and impactful and we're very grateful for that. Michael. >> So, Paul, um I just want to say thank you for um the the time that we have
spent working together um and uh I have throughout that time really appreciated um your ability to communicate your perspective um and your ability to uh translate and understand other people's perspectives and bring those forward um
to me and to the rest of the board. Um it has been a significant contribution on many issues um and something that I have particularly taken note of your skill uh in that in that regard. Um so
thank you and I hope to continue uh all of us learning and growing from the works and the contributions that you've made. >> I guess I should respond Tom. So um briefly I will say thank you. I mean I this was unexpected. I do appreciate uh
the kind words. Um uh and that was better than being roasted. So, thank you. >> Um >> this is a toast. >> A toast, not a roast. Um you know, I would say that uh first um it's been a great honor for me to work with all of you and particularly staff and Chaz um
and all of the department heads um as well as the public um and town hall meeting members and advisory. it um it's been really um very very enjoyable mostly. Um I I I will also say that um you you come into this role and Michael
you're you're learning this and I think we all have learned this that you come in with uh big ambitions to get stuff done but you quickly realize that you have to work together. Um, and so, um, and that's I think that's the most important thing, and I I think I mentioned this, uh, to John the other
day, that, you know, that there's this there's where we are and where we want to be, and in between is creative tension. Um, and for those of you are artists and engineers, uh, you probably heard about creative tension. And creative tension is where where the
magic happens. It's where solutions get created. And in order for that to be the best outcome for Brookline, you need varying opinions. Um you don't want people sitting around this table that all think alike. Um it really takes a variety of opinions um to come out for
an outcome that's best for the town. Um for everybody involved. So I I learned that here. Um and I'm I've you know I'm I'll be 61 soon and uh I'm still learning. So it's good. I've I've gotten better because of this. um a better
person uh because of this experience with all of you. So I really appreciate it and I thank you for uh for being able to serve with you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other uh comments from the select board? >> I just want to say 61 is just a teenager. >> Yeah. Right.
>> Been there, done that. >> Like a teenager. >> He's, you know, he's the kid on the board. >> Well, we have a couple kids. >> And Mike. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, let's go on to public comment. >> News and announcements.
>> News and announcements. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. >> I do have one thing I want to say that I that was unexpected, but I do have something I want to announce about. Yep. So, um, you know, just briefly, last year, uh, around this time, um, we had adopted a resolution, uh, creating Aaron
Furristine Day, um, for during Jewish Heritage Month. and Aaron Furriststein Day um takes place on the 3rd Sunday of May um which is during Jewish American Heritage Month. Uh and for those who uh don't know who Aaron Furriststein is, um
Aaron was a longtime resident of uh Brooklyn. He was also the CEO of Malden Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts. And for some of you, you may recall when there was a very large fire there, the mill burned down. um it threw out thousands of employees from work. Um and
Aaron did something that um that has been really repeated um in our time. Uh he paid all his employees. He paid their health insurance. He paid their salaries um until the mill was rebuilt and they could get back to work um at a cost of
millions and millions of dollars. He could have walked away from that fire with uh hundreds of millions of dollars and he chose to to rebuild it. Um and I had the great pleasure of working for Aaron um when I when I was in college and got out of college and he was a
major influence in my life. Um and so this board adopted and proclaimed Aaron Friststein Day um and in celebration of Aaron Friststein Day um there's going to be uh an event on Sunday May 17th from
2:30 to 4 pm uh at I believe it's going to be in Brookline Town Hall room 103. Uh the featured speaker will be Yavila McCoy. Yavila McCoy is a nationally recognized educator who will speak about uh you know values of loving kindness
that really what Aaron embraced and its importance of our our lives today. It's uh sponsored by a whole bunch of great organizations uh in in Brooklyn. Um and I would just encourage you to attend. Uh we're also gonna have music uh by CLA's
Encounters which is um John Basset's uh quartet I think it's quartet right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um so it' be it'll be a great afternoon and I would encourage everybody to attend if you can. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. And and you know Bernsteeen is is really particularly
important in this period of our country's existence. Yeah. >> When we have so many billionaires and other rich folks who just take take you he gave, >> right? >> And and at great cost to him. I mean, it's the type of um of value that we're
we're losing in this country. And I think that uh seeing him or using him as a role model um should uh should help us improve our lives. And maybe some of that will rub off on some of the others out there who um sorry, I'm going to
make a political statement. Just take take without wanting to give back. Um, so Bernard, thank you. >> Okay, I take it there no other comments from the select board. U, Melanie, let's open up the public hearing. >> I I'll do it.
>> Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Melanie has langitis. So, we're g we're going to give her some I don't know, grace. Is that the right word? We can give her some leeway. >> I will be a poor understudy. Um, thank you for joining us for public comment. This is an opportunity for you to speak
to uh select board on things that matter to you. Uh public comment is available for items that do not say public hearing on the agenda. Uh so for things that don't say public hearing, for things that do say public hearing, we ask that you hold your comments until that public hearing is held. Uh so that you you will
have the chance to speak then under the same rules. Uh it's just that they will happen later in the meeting under that specific item. Uh all public comment is list limited to three minutes. Uh public commenters must identify themselves with their full name and either their street address or Brookline precinct number. Um
if you are online, you do not have to turn your cameras on, but we encourage you to do so. Uh members of the public sometimes have questions uh at public comment. We typically are not able to give an answer here, but we'll try and get back to you and respond. Public comment is not a dialogue. It is an
opportunity for you to speak. Uh and we will do our best to follow on. If three minutes expires and you have not finished your time, please conclude. Uh but feel free to send your comments to select boardbrooklinma.gov. Uh all one word, select board. Uh the board does read all emails it receives
and responds appropriately. So uh without further ado, uh who do we have signed up for public comment? >> We have Ann first. I wait I I think Melanie I didn't hear what you said
>> Francis and signed up for public comment first. >> That's totally fine. That's fine. Sorry. >> The clock started. >> I will start. >> Oh, I thought you'd say okay. three.
One, two, three. Okay. I'm Anne Lusk. I am in precinct five. Considerations for helping clear the 3.6 DPW walled yard at Lars Anderson Park that is on land given by Isabella Anderson to the residents of
Brooklyn. Citizens of Brooklyn recently paid 14.9 million for 3.19 acres on Fiser Hill. Citizens of Brooklyn have owned 3.6 acres of prime land at Lars Anderson
Park since 1948. Yet since 1950, these 3.6 acres have been locked, gated, and used solely by the Department of Public Works. Aerial photos from 2011 show that once there
were 17 cars and trucks parked around two metal sheds. Now this land called the Lars tell you the DPW Lars Anderson maintenance facility is primarily for storage. Brookline once had 3,000 employees in the public works divisions
and now has 180. Many jobs including forestry are now contracted out. Aaron Chute, Commissioner of Public Works, wrote in a letter to the Friends of Lars Anderson that she needs about.3 acres and lay down space to move from Lars
Anderson and that she had decided to think of this possible options in 2024. This is 2026 and items are still stored at Lars Anderson. Rather than find a single.3 acre site, items could be
divided among the DPW properties on Netherlands Road, Hammond Street, and Incinerator Road. At Lars Anderson, the tall, thick, and pebblestone skied walls that step down with grade are majestic,
but now covered with invasive vines. The main entrance is framed by tall columns with a ball on top of each column, while smaller entrances are charming arches. If the walled garden is free of the stored items and the sheds removed, the historic concrete walls could be
restored. Citizens could determine the best uses for the 13.19 acres at Fiser Hill West in conjunction with determining the best uses for the 3.6 acres at Lars Anderson. Please ask the Department of Public Works to remove the
items from Lars Anderson. In the sheet that I gave the select board members, I even itemized how to start. The beginning could be just inventory what's there, decide what you want to keep, and then decide what you can throw away or sell or donate. I counted and there are
currently five police cars stored there. And they recently moved two of the huge dump trucks there. And if you look at it from the hill coming up from Newton Street and you look to the right of the auto barn, it looks like a storage area
of all the sheds, of all the trailers, and the green tin roof. It's time since 1910 time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, introduce yourself. And >> next we have Francis. >> Francis, you're up.
>> Yeah, but but I'm am I considered a member of the public at this point? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Well, um I want to just um >> please introduce yourself and >> Sorry. This is Francis Labry. I am the
petitioner for warrant article 21 um requesting Brooklyn to support um a the motion that Massachusetts that we urge the Commonwealth to establish a
access to to provide access to a universal affordable health care system in our state. Um, and actually because I will be here longer, I would like to yield my
time to David Cohen who is here and is much more knowledgeable and experienced in this area than I. So, whatever time remains is >> so we don't we don't allow folks to yield their time because that lets them speak for more than three minutes. So, m if Mr. Cohen wants to speak for three minutes, he can. Um, but we don't we
don't allow people to pull time. >> Yeah. Um, Chaz, uh, we did get a request for a speaker u from out of town and I did say that they could speak at public comment. >> Okay. >> So, I I don't think it's it doesn't hurt
to give them opportunity to do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It doesn't set a precedent. I think that's what you're concerned about. >> David Cohen is that that speaker. >> Okay. Next. >> Hello. And I'll keep my remarks uh
brief. I'm with I'm co-chair of Massare, which is an organization that's been working to have a singlepayer health care system in Massachusetts. And I think right now um it's very important because cities and towns in
Massachusetts are all facing huge increases in the cost of health insurance. And not only does it affect the budgets of every city and town, it affects all the town employees because as the cost of health insurance goes up,
what they have to pay goes up. Um, and we're seeing many cities and towns facing 10 to 20% increases in health insurance while the coverage is getting worse year by year. More co-pays, higher deductibles. So the the legislation that
we have in the state house would essentially do away with in for-profit insurance companies and by doing that we save billions of dollars and we can set up a health care system that provides more coverage for people um and at a
lower cost to cities and towns and employees and it would be administered through a health care trust. So, you know, we're glad that this would be coming up before the Brooklyn Town meeting. Um, last week the city of East
Hampton voted a very similar resolution. The town of Conway, Mass, voted one, and they're coming up in many cities and towns across the state. So, hopefully you'll approve it to be on the warrant at the town meeting, and we hope people
vote for it. And if you have any questions in my last minute, I try and answer them quick. >> Thank you. >> Ne next is Katherine Nash. >> She's online. I'm not certain that Katherine wanted to
speak. She wanted to be here in and is in support of warrant article 21. Um, Katherine, do you want to add anything? Well, no, she's anyway. >> Um,
>> can I just say one one thing? Since you mentioned Aaron Furstein, I want to say I know some members of his family. I know. I'm familiar with what he did and I bet my bottom dollar he would be in
favor of this warrant article. >> Okay. Well, we can't ask him. So, okay. Uh, who who's next? >> Nobody signed up previously. I don't know if there's anybody in the room. >> Members of the public wish to be heard. You can step up to the podium or if you're online, you can use the raise
hand feature to uh be recognized. There are many participants in the room and many uh not quite as many online or about the same member online and no one is using the raise hand feature or coming to the podium. >> Okay, so let's move on to the next item,
our miscellaneous agenda. Um and we have uh minutes for three meetings, April 7, April 14, and April 21. Uh any I see that Michael did make some corrections through the minutes. Um, any other
corrections? No. So, I move approval of the minutes for April 7, April 14, and April 21, 2026 as amended. Um, all in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> hi.
>> David Pearlman, >> hi. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> And chair votes I. Next, I'd like to approve in omnibus fashion items 6B through 6D. So, that's 26 27 28 30 items. Um, but
first uh there are two items that uh if people don't mind, I think someone should read uh because they are proclamations. First for Taiwanese Heritage Week and second uh for the framers workshop here in Brooklyn
Village. Um, I can read them if you want or anyone else would like to read them. And I think it's important to read these proclamations in public so that people have an understanding of some of the things that uh institutions and individuals in our town do uh that we
are recognizing. Um and um you I think that that's that and and in the case of the Taiwanese uh proclamation and give help people understand you know the breadth of um of uh or the number of people from different countries that
make their home here in Brooklyn and the contributions that they make uh to our town and and our community or our state. So, um, if no one else volunteers to read the Taiwanese uh Heritage Week uh proclamation, I will do it.
Okay. Um, uh, sorry. Let me see if I can find it. Okay, here it is. Proclamation of the Brooklyn Select Board 2026 Taiwan Tai Taiwanese American Heritage Week. Whereas America has been
continually renewed and enriched by the many different people who choose to come here and become our fellow citizens. Whereas each brought part of their own heritage which over time became part of our common heritage. Whereas generations of Asian-Americans have helped make
America what it is today. Whereas there are more than 700,000 Taiwanese Americans in the United States with a significant Taiwanese American population in Massachusetts. Whereas Taiwanese Americans have made enormous contributions across all
sectors of American society while promoting democracy and freedom. Whereas Taiwanese Americans have succeeded as notable artists, noble laurate, scientists, researchers, scholars, professors, human rights activists, and business leaders. Whereas Taiwanese
Americans are proud of their roots and heritage defined by a quest for freedom, democracy, and self-determination. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 47th anniversary of the enactment into law of the 1971 Taiwan
relations act which together with the 1982 six asurances forms a cornerstone of US Taiwan relations. And whereas Taiwan has consistently demonstrated resilience and perseverance in the face of ever growing geopolitical
challenges. And whereas this week recognizes the long-standing friendship between the United States and Taiwan. And whereas during this special week, Taiwanese Americans celebrate the special commemorative occasion. Now therefore, the Brookline Select Board
does hereby proclaim May 10 through May 17, 19 or 2026 to be the Taiwanese American Heritage Week in Brooklyn, Massachusetts, and encourage all residents to to observe this week. Um,
and I think it's important to to read to the public uh proclamations like this, especially in this time when people from foreign countries are under such scrutiny and attack. Uh, it's important to see the the benefit that we receive
from re from from from welcoming and incorporating into our society people from all over the world uh who have made America what it is. We think of what we would not have without the inventions, without the business developments,
without the um you other activ uh our uh foreign uh residents have brought to America to make us uh much better than we would be otherwise. So that's what that's why I read these uh these proclamations.
>> Uh do you want me to read the framers? Uh >> oh, I'm sorry. I I thought that Go ahead. Of course. Well, the next uh proclamation is for the Framer's Workshop, which is a a framing workshop here in Brooklyn Village. Uh would
someone else like to read it or I'll read it? >> Do you want me to give your voice a break? >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Michael. >> Sure. Uh this is a proclamation of the Brooklyn Select Board honoring the 50th anniversary of Framer's Workshop.
Whereas the Brooklyn Select Board rightfully honors those Brookline businesses whose longtime presence in the community have provided important goods and services to our residents and contributed to the vibrancy of Brooklyn's business community. And
whereas Framer's Workshop, located at 278 Washington Street in Brookline Village, has served as a beloved custom and DIY picture framing shop since its founding in April of 1976. And whereas the shop was established by
art school graduates with the mission of making highquality framing accessible to all, a mission it has upheld for five decades. And whereas Framer's Workshop has remained an independent communityrooted institution supporting
Brookline residents, local artists, and cult cultural organizations including Mass Art, MIT, the New England Aquarium, and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. And whereas current owner Justin Lama, a Brookline native who first visited the
shop as a teenager, has carried forward this legacy since purchasing the business in 2012, supported by the shop's long tenur and dedicated staff. And whereas the business continues to be a welcoming creative hub and an
important contributor to the cultural fabric of Brookline Village. And whereas Framer's Workshop celebrated its 50th anniversary with a free community open house on Saturday, April 19th. Now therefore, in consideration of the
foregoing, the Brooklyn Select Board hereby recognizes and honors Framer's workshop on the momentous occasion of its 50th anniversary, expresses gratitude for its enduring service to the community, and extends its warmest
congratulations and best wishes for continued success in the years ahead. >> Thank you, Michael. Again, a local business that does a huge that that does a number of very good things for the town of Brooklyn that people need to
know about. And they've been around for 50 years. That's as old as I am, but it's pretty pretty long. Okay. So, let's go back to the rest of the miscellaneous calendar. Again, I'd like I'm sorry. Oh, just one one quick
note on items um uh uh X and Y. Oh, sorry. One second. Um I would just add um sorry for items Y and Z. Uh so the farmers winery license and
the farmers market. Um we are just pending final approval from the health department on those. So I would just ask that those votes be made conditional on the health department's final approval. Issues X and Z. >> Sorry, Y and Z. Y and Z. I sir YNC everything else is approved.
>> Okay. Uh unless someone else would like to take unless someone would like to pull out anything for further discussion, I'd like to take a vote on uh in omnivous fashion on items 6B 6 DD uh with the uh subject to the condition
that Chaz mentioned with respect to items 6 Y and 6Z. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I. Paul Warren. >> Hi, >> David Furman. >> Hi, >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I >> and chair votes I.
>> Next, uh contract renewal for blue bikes. I understand that that's going to be deferred to another another meeting. So, that is not going to be taken up today. Um boards and commissions interviews. Um we have the conservation
commission and the um and the uh pressure hill um uh west study committee. So uh first conservation commission um first person is Canden Baradar. >> So she messaged in the chat that she's
going to the conservation commission meeting and she was requesting that she be interviewed after 8:00 PM. >> Okay. >> And Kelly was not able to make it. She's in New York um for a family situation. >> Okay. After 8:00 p.m. So, she'll be
brought in next or next week or sometime soon. >> Yes, I can reschedule her for the >> Okay. So, we'll move on to the Fisher Hill uh West uh study interviews. And this is something I say you all the time just so people are clear as to what
we're expecting from uh candidates and members of boards and commissions that we appoint. We're looking for the following in an applicant for a public body. Uh an applicant that has the skills and background that is um um that
is needed on the uh public body. Uh an applicant that has good ideas and perspective. An applicant that brings relevant diversity to ensure that all communities and perspectives are represented in the work of the public body. um and the work that that public
body does on behalf of the town. And for an applicant that can effectively and respectfully with respect to other members of the public body and with town staff um can work effectively and respectfully with
uh other members of the public body and town staff um that will be working with the body. So, let's start off with the Fish Fisher Hill uses or West Uses Advisory Committee. And the first uh uh
applicant, let's see who's first on the agenda. >> George Cole. >> George. >> George uh George Cole. >> I see he's in the audience. Yep, he's back there. So, so we before we start just want to give some background. So um in February, one of our members of the one of the
members of the committee, Marilyn Tessle, who's a commercial banker, had an MBA in finance and marketing and whose job included analyses of financial feasibility of commercial projects, had to resign from the committee um because of her her workload. and that was a
great loss because she really contributed to the committee's ability to to look at uh possible uh uses of the uh the site and um it was a skill set that that we'd like to replace. Um so
all the applicants that I've heard have those skill sets. So that is a context within which we're interviewing uh applicants today. George Cole first and then Michael Sandman. >> Thanks Michael. introduce yourself and tell us why you're interested in being on the committee.
>> Sure. Um my name is George Cole uh uh 57 Reservoir Lane in Chestnut Hill, Precinct 13. Um the reason I'm interested in uh serving on this committee is because as a lifelong professional in real estate, this is
what I've done my entire career. I help institutions, public sector um uh entities and nonprofits align real estate assets with their mission and what they're trying to do long term uh
with their essentially business. Um, I chose this area because I was really interested in how people really exploit their assets to serve their mission. And if those assets aren't working to serve their mission, then um use them in a way
either monetize them or um redeploy them in a way that does actually help help their mission. Um, as you know, I've been a been on the building commission for the town of Brooklyn for over 25 years, and I've seen a way the um town
uses its real estate and its capital uh on real estate, and I'm really concerned about both both capital and operating expenditures um for its ever um expanding footprint.
I mean, we've just gone through an amazing capital program for its schools. I think for a town it size, it's astonishing that we've spent over half a billion dollars on educational projects. I think that's great, but it does mean um that we've spent a lot of money on
capital and we are incurring very a lot of increased operating costs associated with those capital projects. So for this project, I actually worked um earlier in my career for Newberry College um when they were trying to survive and they
were considering monetizing this very site. Um so I'm very familiar with the site um and its potential. I think it needs to be assessed as real estate um and understand its underlying value to the private sector and then make
decisions about its redeployment by the town in terms of that value and its possible reuse um by town reflecting town needs. Um and I can do that objectively. I do that for my clients every day. Um and I've done that
throughout my professional career. >> Great. Thank you. Uh I'll start off with a question that you somewhat answered already but still um you talk about the skills and perspective that you bring to the committee that will enable you to
help it sort through the many ideas that people um will come to the committee with um and how you can help the committee come to a decision that will address the needs and wants of every part of the town. Well, first of all, I
have to say I I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't have a prejudice as to what the site should be or even if the town should continue to own the site. So I think you start from um what is the underlying real estate value to in the market because essentially that
the town is making a decision to maintain um to hold and maintain a site that has underlying real estate value and you have to understand that value to make ensuing decisions about what should be on the site and how it's used in
terms of doing real estate analysis. Again, I've uh worked with, you know, major institutions of higher ed including Harvard, Northeastern, NEC. We're I'm currently involved with the BSO just assessing real estate um
options. And this is what we do every day is look help those institutions look at the underlying value of their real estate and how it's deployed. Um I also am a registered architect so I understand what physically can go on a site and I've done a lot of uh
valuations for monetization of sites as well. >> U Paul >> yep thank you George as always first thank you for your service on EDAB um and the building commission. It's greatly appreciated. We have benefited greatly from your council over the years. Um, you said something that
caught my attention. Um, which is that you want to start with this as a as the the private markets value of this. >> Sure. >> Uh, of this site and you know and and you then said, well, you know, you have no dog in the fight in this uh dog in
this fight. Is that what you said? Um, >> dog in the hunt. >> There you go. Dog in the hunt or horse in this race, whatever. There you go. I get it. But we understand the metaphor now. Um, but you know, you said something that caught my attention like we're not, you know, I'm not even sure we should hang on to it or I don't I don't have a So, I just want to remind
you that the voters approved the acquisition of this site not long ago uh through uh through um an override debt exclusion uh for the purpose of having it be used as a public benefit. So, I
guess I'm my radar is up a little bit when you talk about the private market and how to monetize this site. Could you explain what you mean by that? Because I may be misunderstanding. >> No, no, no. Absolutely. I'm not suggesting monetizing it or selling the site. I'm suggesting understanding. Say the site is worth
>> I don't know what did we pay for it like 13 million million 14.9 >> 14.9 million. That means that the voters decided that for the town's use, it was justified to spend $15 million plus
carrying that site for all this time for some use. And you have to keep that in mind. The site is not free. It is it is a $15 million site plus the operating costs associated with that site. And before you put any use toward it, you
just have to make sure that that's the best use. that's the use that justifies that kind of capital investment and if it's not justified then then I think voters have to make you know take that into consideration whether you
know whether this is a site that the town should should maintain and use or not. I'm I'm trying to be objective about it and take a real estate perspective. John, >> I'm loving the fact that Paul and I have
one last chance to take a different perspective on something. I I I you know, I'm not as um I'm equally as surprised as you, Paul. I I wasn't expecting George to say that. Um on the other hand, it immediately kind of
triggered in me some thoughts uh of yeah, that is something we should consider. Um it does have value. It is Annne Lusk, you know, who participated in public comment raised a question about a site at Lars Anderson um which
might become available for something other than storage of, you know, DPW vehicles. Um so what if we discovered, you know, months or years from now that the the use that we thought, you know, might be okay on Fiser Hill would
actually be even better, you know, at the site at Lars Anderson. And now maybe we have one site too many that has become available to us and actually might be a benefit to the town if instead of some imagined use that doesn't fit perfectly there, we realize
the gain from a sale of a property and then we have that much more money to sort of pursue that imagined use at a better site if there's a better site. I I I think all options should be on the table is all I'm saying. And um I don't want I don't want anybody to be alarmed.
you know, alarm. Um, no, I I I I think it we benefit if only from sort of making sure that whatever we do at that site um you know is equally as valuable or maybe even
more valuable than some sort of alternative um to the whole plan um depending on what what alternatives become available to us. I I don't want to get into there's properties that could come on the market anytime soon that are equally as dramatic as that
property. And at some point we may have, you know, uh the luxury of choices of several different sites, but it becomes a question of we can't we can't own all of them. So maybe one of them is the better one to own than the other two. I we'll see. We'll we'll just see.
>> Okay. Um and and it's also I I think it should be pointed out the origins of the pursuit of that site go back to um the question that was hanging over the town of a new Pierce school and there were people who thought let's buy that site because it might give us an option which
we could very valuably use if it turns out um we we need one choice in addition to the choice of demolishing the existing Pierce school and building a new pier school. >> Do you have a question for George? I'm just wondering, do you have a question for George? >> I I'm sorry. I I I I I appreciate that
I'm going on and on here, but George, I guess I'll I'll turn it into a question for you. You know, is that the kind of thinking that you are are representing in in your presentation? >> Exactly. I'm not suggesting selling the site or or monetizing the site. All I'm suggesting is looking at it objectively
from the town's uses and needs going forward. The site has really some wonderful attributes. that also has some very significant limitations. Um, and is there a need for this site and what is the what is the um uses most appropriate
to the site and are there better sites for potential uses? That's >> that's what I heard you say. >> Yeah. >> Great. Of course, you know, as a governmental body, you know, we are not going to be able to look at it in terms
of what is the best use for this land. uh we have to really take into account the concerns or the demands of the community to to uh make use of the site for the many many needs of the town. Everything from a senior center to
recreation, etc. And while um you know $50 million piece of land may um be better sold for some other purpose, you know, the community really wants this purpose and unless we can find other sites for for those purposes, we're kind
of stuck with with Fisher Hill. So, but I I get your point that, you know, let's at least know what this is worth so that we have a clear understanding of >> suggesting being objective. Is this is this really a good site for a senior center relative to its access access.
You know, I'm just trying to be objective. There are many needs and many um uh I think prejudices prejudices relative to the reuse of the site and what I can bring to the table is pure is
is really a deep sense of objectivity um from my experience as a a real estate professional. >> Great. Any other questions? Thank you, George. We appreciate your application. Uh, next we have Michael Sandman,
a familiar face in these uh >> these parts. So, good evening. Um, I'm Mike Sandman. I once sat with uh with you folks or with four of you and >> I know I'm >> that's right. Uh and um actually before
I started I want to say I want to add my own thanks to Paul. Uh I know this is your uh last meeting and uh you were a great colleague and I think everything that was said uh about you is entirely appropriate. And I also want to mention John because this may not be his last
meeting. I'm sure he's hoping it's not. But I think we should shine a light on six years of service as well. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you, Mike. And if I may say, it's one last opportunity for people to get confused between you and me. >> Well, I always did when we were on this
leg work, but >> Right. Well, well, I I used to get confused with Ben Franco. Remember that? >> Yes. I mean, yes, we're all confused, maybe. We're >> having fun now. >> All right. Um so uh Bernard you asked
the question uh earlier you know about you know you're what what basically what you're looking for is someone to fill the shoes of someone who's a did financial analysis and uh to be perfectly honest when it comes to real estate and financial analysis George has done a lot more of that directly than I
have. uh but I did spend 25 years in as a consultant working with uh large corporations helping them typically figure out what their competitors were capable of doing and that very often uh involved financial analysis and then I served for 12 years on the advisory
committee including two and a half years as chair so I'm really quite familiar with the constraints of Brooklyn's budget uh and revenue situation. Um, we bought uh the uh uh Fischer Hill West as it was called uh because it was an
opportunity to acquire uh three acres uh in of of land uh a situation that the town very very seldom has. Uh and now of course we have to figure out what to do with it. And um I read through the charge uh to the committee and the
select board's uh instructions uh uh posted online and I think uh they're appropriate instructions in that uh they they're um they include uh well let me give you a a paragraph to remind you
of what you wrote. Uh given the town's current budget realities and the amount of excluded and unexcluded debt taken on for the purpose of capital improvements, the select board sele suggest the committee prioritize focusing their study on uses that minimize municipal funding sources seeking out instead
options such as public private partnerships, grant funding, and the community preservation act. And that's a tall order. Uh it's a tall order partly because of one of the disadvantages that uh George alluded to which is access. Uh it's at the top of a hill. There's very
little uh uh easy access for public transportation. >> Uh and um if uh if there's a uh if there's a a use for the site that involves substantial amount of use by members of the public, uh some form of
transportation might have to be provided. I will say that the school um and I should should have added I live across the street now. Uh and so I have seen the impact that the school has had and the school has been a very good neighbor. Uh and the impact of buses
coming up um with the kids and picking them up in the afternoon has been absolutely minimal. There's been uh I don't think that that anybody in the neighborhood uh would have any complaint about it at all. But that was a challenge for the school and it's uh an easier challenge for the school to
handle because you can send a bus with 40 or 50 kids up there uh and you need just a few buses. If you run any other kind of service for the public uh using that site, you'd need smaller vehicles in all probability because you don't get 50 people all together at once. Uh and
uh that's a substantial um management and cost issue. So figuring out what would be an appropriate use for that is u is not going to be sort of a slam dunk task. Uh there are um 11 evaluation
criteria that have been set forward. Uh and I think they're they're all pretty appropriate and uh I'm quite sure that we that no committee will be able to meet all 11 perfectly. Uh that's just the way things are and we won't be able to satisfy everybody who has an interest
in having something done at that site. Uh so let me stop there and say uh well say one more thing I guess. Uh I've done uh a great deal of work in the town of Brooklyn. I know how process works. Uh and uh I know that one needs to be
patient uh listening to uh neighbors, listening to members of the public from outside the neighborhood. Uh there are uh an awful lot of very um intelligent and interested people in Brooklyn who are uh very active in providing their
opinions and one has to deal with that. Uh and I think I have uh had quite a bit of experience on that uh on that front and uh would certainly bring that hopefully that bring that skill I hope it's regarded as a skill to uh to this situation. Uh so be happy to answer your
questions. >> Great. Thank you. Any other questions? So I I guess my my other question was um you know talk about uh looking at this site from the standpoint
I mean not just of you know a few uses but the entire town um >> right >> and and geographically as well as in terms of demographically um you know seniors uh youth uh etc. but
also how can we make sure that this is seen as an asset for North Brooklyn, South Brook line, etc. >> Uh well indeed that's a tough question and that's a question that um I think the
committee is going to have to answer. It's going to have to answer that. I know that there's a consultant who's due to be hired uh to take a look at uh some of the uh uh some of the questions that that fall out of that that broad topic.
Uh and we have to listen to uh the various constituencies that are interested in it. Uh I've heard everything from uh well it should just be uh an office build basically the building that's there should just be uh office facilities or facilities for the
town uh to let's put a swimming pool there uh and um and just about everything in between. I do think that the proposal that uh that the town administrator put together with input from the staff uh and that you heard
about in September is an interesting one from the perspective that it tries to deal with all of the various alternatives that have been proposed and assigns some um some valuation to the suitability of
the site from each one of those perspectives. Uh, I wouldn't take that as the end point by any means, but it's it's input into trying to answer the question that you bring up. >> Paul, >> uh, Mike, first, thanks for coming forward and thank you for the kind words. Um, I've enjoyed working with you
as well. Uh, so you recently were the chair. Is he still the chair? >> I'm I'm still still am the chair. >> Okay. It hasn't that that committee still is in in force. >> Right. Right. Hopefully hopefully about to wind down. >> Yeah. And and I know that you know this
that you know I I sat through the very uncomfortable feedback meeting that you had uh from the the the group that was on that committee. Um and you know the the feedback was pretty strong about not feeling included not feeling listened to
that community the neighborhoods didn't the and so you know this one is a kind of a similar project although it may have a much different outcome or it's not it's not private development but you know what what did you learn what did you take because we're all learning still right what did you learn from that
experience that could be applied to this experience so some of the some of the things that were great could be repeated from Chesm Hill But the stuff that didn't work so good could be could not be repeated. >> Right. So, uh certainly I think the members of the committee that the Chesn Hill West committee their primary
concern um was that they felt disconnected from uh what the staff was bringing to them. Uh and I think they uh there was certainly plenty of discussion and they were very active participants in that discussion. And there were neighbors who
were unhappy. And I think that Ken Lewis perhaps characterized the situation very very well when one of the neighbors complained that after all of the meetings, the neighbors still hadn't been heard and he said, "Well, we heard you. We disagree with you." Uh, and
unfortunately uh somebody is with any of these situations, you're going to find somebody who doesn't like the u the end point that uh that the committee comes to. And I think that's what happened with with Chestnut Hill West. There will be people I'm hoping that the number of
people will be really quite small who aren't dissatisfied with Chestnut Hill West after some of the discussions that have been going on about the um modifying the warrant article. >> Any other questions? Yeah, Michael. Um, I I I would be first of all, thank you
for your application and um I I'd be interested if you could talk a little more about your thoughts about this site and its position relative to both, you know, other sites in the town, whether
it's Lars Anderson or, you know, other sites that the that the town may own and the uses um that are potentially being considered for this site and how you would think about juggling this that that set of
uses with the set of sites to come up with some arrangement that would be uh sort of beneficial and satisfactory to a larger segment of the community or a larger set of stakeholders. >> Right. Um so uh it's about a threeacre
site. Um, it's interestingly that interesting that we paid $14.9 million for it, but if you add up the assessments, the assessor has put a $22 million value on it uh on the the combined sites. Uh, and so you and it it's located, as I as I
said, in a place that's not terribly accessible. Uh, it's more accessible than Lars Anderson from the perspective of being a lot closer to the center of center of gravity in uh in in Brooklyn. Um uh and so uh there as I as I mentioned there is a
draft that came out of the committee that has uh uh 11 criteria on it and going through those criteria uh I can read them off to you if you if you if you wish but uh for example some of them is how does proposal meet specific goals
in town policy documents or industry standards and that's so one of the issues is how about housing uh does that fit on that site. Um, is that an appropriate use of the site? And by the way, the old the old Brookline uh
reservoir, the original Brookline reservoir had three sort of pools of water. Uh, two of them uh were domed, had were underground. two of them were filled in and there's a small street called Mstead Road which is now surrounded by housing
that was partly affordable, partly market rate uh constructed when um the town took over that site from the Massachusetts Water Resources Board. So, um housing is, you know, one of those one of the things that's uh that's
in a policy document. It needs to be all of the policy documents that we have whether it's sustainability or um uh uh climate uh uh climate issues or whatever. We have to take a look at that and go through these criteria and see
how they uh how they fit. So I can't give you an an answer as to what should be done. I don't that's certainly not and I realize you're not asking that question, but that's the process that I think the the committee should go through. >> Thank you. Um, David, I
>> I'm curious whether uh like George, do you feel that there should also be the question of do we even hold this? Is this really the best use for some kind of public or public private partnership or should we consider selling it and investing that money elsewhere? Is that
a factor for you? >> Yeah, I think that's a very good point. Uh it's uh I don't think we would want to sell it um uh sell it for commercial development uh without having a great deal of control
over what was going to happen on the site. Uh so a partnership of some sort u might be uh might be appropriate. But um yes, I think that's that's one of the things that has to be has to be considered. I wouldn't take that off the table.
Um there's one other thing I should say uh if you don't mind uh which is that um there have been a couple of times uh and I I'm certainly very familiar with one in which the select board decided to add someone to add more than one uh person
for a an open slot on a committee and uh George and I neither George nor I knew that the other was applying for this and uh I think we both think very highly of each other. uh and uh so I would ask uh you to think about the possibility of uh
adding uh more than one person. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Michael. >> Yeah. Uh Paul >> Bernard, I'm going to um uh indulge you for a moment um your patience with me. I know you have.
>> You're always patient with me. So, um I know that, you know, it's typically when we interview um candidates, we wait a week. Um it's not unprecedented for us to take a vote the same night that in that a candidate or candidates have been
interviewed. We've done that before. Um the reason why I bring this up is this this board appointed and created the Fiser Hill West Study Committee. um this board has interviewed each of the
candidates um you know and so what I'd uh like to propose is that tonight we have a brief deliberation and appoint the member as opposed to deferring it to a later date where there may be different people that haven't appointed the committee >> you want to be involved
>> I would well I I think well I would like to I would like to be involved but because I've sat through all the interviews um but also you know it's this board that created the committee, right? Um we we we appointed it, we created it. Um and I think it would be fully appropriate for this board to
appoint a replacement uh committee member or two. I'm not opposed to that, but I just I I would like to propose that as tonight we do the appointment. >> I'm not hesitant to do that because we have, you know, other candidates or one other candidate that we interviewed. Yes, >> Pam. >> Pardon me. >> You mean Pam?
>> Yeah. >> Yes, we have. So, we've interviewed all three candidates and >> there's no other candidates. And you know, I like to give an opportunity to think through uh the candidates before we make a decision sort of on the fly. And I also want to talk to, you know, make sure that we engage with the
planning department to get their views and get their input. >> Okay. And with I appreciate that, but I would still like to ask the the sense of the board if they would like to vote tonight before uh you pushing it off to a later time. and David.
>> So, I'm inclined to agree with Paul in the sense that it doesn't make much sense to me that we're going to have one or two new select board members at our next meeting who were not present for any of the interviews, didn't have an opportunity to ask their own questions
of any of the candidates. So, just procedurally, it seems a bit odd to me that we would delay the decision. >> Yeah, Michael. Um, so I would say I don't actually believe that I was on the
board when this committee was created. Um, so it was a slightly different board. Um, but but that said, um, I uh I guess I was operating under the expectation that there that the vote
would be coming later. So, and and to this question of how many how many uh people we might appoint to this board, um we we probably if would need to deliberate that as well, >> but I don't think it's a big long
deliberation, frankly. I think we could do it pretty quick. But again, I I I I believe uh that it makes a lot of sense. >> We can do it real quick. I mean, is that appropriate for for I mean >> I don't think I don't think I'm not worried about the time as well. >> Increasing the number of people for on the board. I have a real problem with
that. >> Let's not let's point one of the three that we had interviewed. >> John comfortable with that as well. >> So I mean obviously I'm in a little bit of an awkward position. Um I hope I'll be here at the next meeting. I can't guarantee I'll be here at the next meeting. Um but I you know frankly I
want to defer to Paul on this. Um, you know, just like we all said, >> well, well, >> don't need to be a weatherman to know which way. >> Well, okay. Yeah. I mean, but but if you don't mind, just let me finish my thought. Um, >> you know, we all spoke glowingly about
Paul's contributions and um I I I think you know what he's saying here is uh he's got some ownership of this and and he he has right to to sort of assert some ownership of this. We all do. Uh Michael acknowledged, you know, he he came along a little bit late in this
process, but um uh I would like him to have a say in this and I don't think we need to decide tonight if we're going to expand in the membership. That could be entirely different matter to be taken up at a future date. Um but for for tonight, um you know, I'm interested in
hearing, you know, who Paul wants to to suggest we we appoint to the board. Um, I have a feeling I I have a feeling I know who it is, but I can't guarantee that I know who it is and I think it's the kind of appointment that um we'd be making um inevitably.
That's that's my own view. Um and and we might as well make it while while someone who was kind of one of the authors of this whole process is is here to participate in that vote. That's that's kind of how I feel about it. >> Okay. I'm willing to vote on one person to the committee and defer the issue of
expanding committee to the future because um I mean that's a question that has to involve other people than select boards. >> Um and since you have three votes Paul >> okay >> it looks like it I might as well go
along with it. So how do you so now okay so now we're >> so the question is who who do we >> your normal process which is how you would you would handle this you go around and and ask for >> oh you also get input from the uh the staff people >> well I'm saying >> yeah you don't want to do that >> but you do you want one of us to make a
nomination or do you want to just go person by person and say who is your choice for the position >> um maybe that's the easiest way just go around >> I think that's what you're >> see who gets those yeah and I'm happy to I'm happy to explain will you. >> This is your show. Go ahead.
>> Well, well, yeah. I'm just uncomfortable that, you know, suddenly we're doing it this way, but >> I apologize. >> You have three votes. Um, that's really irrelevant what I think. Um, so, uh, let's go around. Um, and tell me who you think should be appointed. Uh,
we don't we only have fresh in our minds two two applicants. Um, but you know, >> yeah, I'm persuaded that George Cole would make an excellent addition to this. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh, Paul. >> Yeah. So, I um I appreciate all the
interviews. I appreciate George. Uh, George is part of EDAB. I think anything that this board does uh this committee does, uh, could be run through EDAB and George would have a great opportunity to provide his feedback there, uh, and also through the building commission. So, I think there's ample opportunity. I'm
also really concerned about his view on potentially uh getting rid of the site. I I that that threw me for a loop um to tell you the truth and and and frankly Mike Mike Sandman being willing to do that as well uh concerns me. So, you know, this this committee never had a
requirement for certain skill sets to be appointed. Um the individual that my understand that's being replaced was actually a neighborhood person who had financial skill sets. Uh Pam Lotish is the longest standing neighborhood applicant who has financial skill sets. So, I would nominate Pam Lodish.
>> Okay, David, >> I agree with Paul uh for that Pam Lodish is the longest standing resident of that neighborhood. she has the skill set. But my other reason is I absolutely value George Cole and Mike
Sandman's contributions, but they're already on a lot of committees. And part of what we've talked about is trying to spread out the number of appointments across uh various people. And I don't foresee the possibility that at a future
meeting we might decide to have more than one person join. I'm certainly open to that. I think it's something that Michael had raised when uh before we interviewed Pam. Uh but so far since we're only deciding on one member at this time, I would agree with Paul on
Pam Lotish >> Michael. >> Um so I was not prepared to answer this question. Um I I was just looking. So Pam is on the advisory committee. That is that is her one other other position.
Um See, this is why I'm just having to do it this way because if I may, this might make it easier for everyone is, you know, um, whatever Michael decides, I'm, you know, I may decide I mean, if it's necessary, I would like to change my
vote in favor of Pam. >> Yeah, I mean, I I would say um that uh Paul, I don't think you quite uh characterize George's position properly. I don't think he was saying that we should sell the property. I think what
he was saying was that we should do a an analysis and make sure that whatever use we ultimately uh determine is appropriate for that site is worthy of the the value that we that we should can
establish on the site. And we should just look at those two pieces of information in in in parallel. But we've raised the point before that that um you know there there's been a sort of a political decision here you know by the
voters in Brooklyn and by town meeting to acquire this site. So I I think it's it's it's more of a matter of comparison of the use to the site and not a question of should we or should we not keep the site. I think those two things are are distinct.
>> Okay. Do you have a name? >> Do you have a name? >> No. Okay, he's abstaining. >> Okay. Uh and I'm going to abstain also because I think this is a rotten process. >> I mean, you know, the fact that we're going to have a new board uh in in two weeks is is is a factor, but that board
can be brought up to speed by by uh summaries of of the interviews that we had them looking at the applica applicants materials, etc. Um we've done we do that all the time. So, I mean, you have three votes.
>> I'm going to abstain because I think it's a bad process. So, >> all right. So, >> yeah, I take it that you you've accepted my request and I appreciate that very much. Yes, I would like my vote to be for BAM. >> Okay. Okay. Three to um two abstensions.
302. >> Thank you, Bernard. And and I told you I was going to push your patience, so >> Yeah, you do. I warned you. And then I may take back what I said about you. >> Last chance. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next, uh environmentally
preferable products policy. Uh who's going to present? Oh, okay. We have our sustainability division here. By the way, Chaz, could you try to get this woman off the screen? I'm not sure she realizes that >> that she that she's up there.
>> She's not pinned. >> She I don't think it's going out over the U TV, but >> wait, do you mean do you mean me? >> Yeah, >> she turned off the video, >> you know. I I I'll turn off my video.
I'm waiting for the very end because I did not say I wasn't prepared to be a member of the >> There's just a six-foot image of you on our wall that you may want. >> My god, I'm so sorry. >> That's okay. You're That's perfect.
>> All right. Uh, good evening everyone. I am Alexandra Veio. I'm the director of sustainability and natural resources. Um, and with me this evening I have our zero waste program manager, uh, Miranda Hawtham. Um, Miranda's been with us for about eight months and is doing a fantastic job of helping us to advance
our our zero waste goals, and this will be her her first presentation before you this evening. So, I know she's she's going to have a lot of fun. Um, so, um, Miranda and I are here to talk about the town's environmentally preferable purchasing policy. Um, so we're seeking
adoption of this updated policy from the board. So in your packet you've received two versions um a redline version of the policy and then a clean updated version. And what's really driving this is um that mass is requiring some updates and changes to this policy. Um so we have uh
been working with our colleagues in the purchasing division um particularly our chief procurement officer Rick Seville as well as um the uh director of highway and sanitation uh Kevin Johnson um to make sure that this policy is both in compliance with what uh the state is
looking for as well as um what we need as a town to ensure that we are um making purchases that are environmentally sustainable and um take into account our various ious uh waste priorities and waste minimization. So um with that, I will pass things over to
Miranda to talk you through the specific changes um of the policy and um happy to answer any questions as they come up. Miranda. Thank you. Um, so Alex, as Alexandra mentioned, um, we're here tonight to talk about updates to the town of Brooklyn's environmentally preferable
purchasing policy, and I will be referring to it as the EP, uh, throughout the rest of this presentation. Um, so the EP refers to the practice of purchasing goods and services that are environmentally friendly and sustainable. And the goal of this type
of policy is to minimize the negative environmental impacts um from purchasing um non-environmentally friendly products and also to promote sustainability and public health. Um the town of Brooklyn had their first iteration of um a policy
of this type in 1971 when the select board voted to approve the recycled paper policy. and that was reaffirmed again in uh February of 1995. Um later in 2008, the town created um their first environmentally friendly
cleaning product policy which is now referred to as the environmentally preferable purchasing policy. Um and this was passed in 2008. We are now looking to update our EP because um the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection is changing their um criteria for us to receive annual grant funding. So every year the town of Brooklyn applies for the sustainable material recovery program which usually awards us anywhere between 30 and $45,000.
Um, this funding directly supports the town zero waste programs and especially helps with our composting within the school system. Uh, through the SMRP program, we're also eligible to apply for a variety of different grants that
fund special projects for the town. One example would be in uh 2024 when we received about $95,000 for a collaborative project with Mass Recycle to enhance access to recycling in multif family residences.
And we have received a deadline from Mass D to get this um passed and approved by um June 1st, which is when we will be submitting for this year's grant cycle. There are three main points that Mass D
is looking for in order for us to remain eligible for the program. The first is um to state that we have a commitment to purchasing products and services offered through the state's operational services division um whenever feasible. We also
had to state um that we will um adhere to the federal comprehensive procurement guidelines or other established criteria which establishes a minimum accepted recycled content level um for office supplies and other types of materials. And then lastly, they're also looking
for us to make a statement that we will um have a preference to purchase goods and equipment um through reuse and surplus property networks before buying brand new. and that when we are purchasing new products, we'll be thinking more towards end of life, looking for things that are more
durable, reusable, and refillable. And also when products are no longer needed, that we will all um try to get those back into our community and to our other departments through reuse and surplus um networks before final disposal.
Um so we have been working on these updates for a few months now. Um, all of these updates have been reviewed and approved by the town's chief procurement officer. The revisions have also been circulated to town staff and department heads. Um, to make sure that everybody
is aware of this coming up. Um, in March of this year, the school committee voted unanimously to support these revisions. And earlier this month, the solid waste advisory committee also voted unanimously to recommend the select board adopt this revised policy.
And so tonight, um, we are looking for the select board to approve the modified policy. Um, ideally no later than the end of May so that we can submit on time for our June application cycle. And that is the end of my presentation. And if
you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. >> Michael, >> um, could you go back to the slide that talks about the, uh, OSD program? >> Yeah. >> This one. Yeah. Um, is that program new? >> Um, I don't believe it's new. It's
through the state. Um, so Mass D um runs that and that um has a whole list of vendors that um meet those um criteria. >> I see. So, we're not actually directly purchasing from the state. We're
purchasing from vendors that have been >> pre-approved. >> Approved by the state. >> Correct. Okay. >> Thank you. Any other questions? John, um might you just uh for the benefit of all of us, including me, just a couple of examples
of, you know, what might be um no longer purchased um um under this policy. >> Um so, well, one thing that we would be looking at is probably um like paper content. Um, so that falls under the
federal comprehensive procurement guidelines of minimum recycled content. So instead of getting brand new paper fresh from the tree, you would be getting something with um a minimum recycled content. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And is is there it's almost inconceivable to me, but is there any
way of of estimating whether there'll be a cost impact on on our total purchases? >> It's expected that the cost impact is going to be pretty minimal or almost nothing. Sounds good. >> It does sound good. Yeah.
>> What can it do? Any other questions? >> Well done for your first presentation, right? >> Y congratulations. So, uh, do we have a vote in here? Um, >> you can just vote to approve the policy,
the the amended policy as presented. >> Okay. No formal vote in in our um documents here. So, I'll just I'll just create a vote. Uh, I move that we uh approve the um adoption of the environmentally preferable products
purchasing policy. Um, all in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vanco, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I chair votes I. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. >> Bernard, I have one question on the last item. I think we we did move quick,
which is obviously sometimes a problem when when it's unanticipated. Um I'm not sure I'm not I'm not sure I'm not well I'm not sure we actually took a formal vote on the appointment. Uh you pulled us but we never made a motion. So I would I would like to uh
>> Okay. So if we could do that. >> Let's go back to uh >> I thought we did vote. I mean >> I you pulled us but we didn't make it actually a motion. So >> Okay. Um, so, uh, I move Why don't you or why don't you make >> Yep. So, I move uh the appointment of
Pam Lotus to the Chestnut Hill West uh study committee. Advisory Uses Advisory Committee. Oh, actually Chestnut Hill Fisher Hill West Users Advisory Committee. >> Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Um Paul Warren,
>> I. >> David Carlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> abstain. >> And chair abstains. Thank you. >> The reasons why I mentioned um Okay. Next, uh we have a noise by excuse me, noise bylaw waiver public hearing um uh
with respect to the MBTA for work to be completed uh overnight from May 2026 to December 2026 >> on the MBTA Green Line, C Branch Stations, Hall Street, Kin Street, St. Hall Street, Summit Avenue, Brandon
Hall, Fairbank Street, Tapan Street, Dean Road, and Englewood Avenue. Um, okay. So, tell us what you want us to hear. >> Um, I've even got a whole presentation
as I think is typical for us. So, I'm pulling that up right now and I will happily go through that with you. U but as you stated, we are looking for a noise bylaw exemption for the work
we'll be doing on the C branch. >> I'm sorry. Could you introduce yourself, please? >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you, Michael. >> That's my job, but I'm on it. pull up this presentation first. >> Well, even if it's not in the
presentation, introduce yourself for the record. >> Of course. Uh, so my name is Gwen Dunlevy. I'm the deputy chief of integrated transit programs for the MBTA. Uh I run a department called green line transformation uh that manages a holistic group of projects that's made
to modernize the green line uh including this uh C branch project which this computer is not having a good time right now disappeared into the ether technical assistance. I I would love some, but
>> it appears to be crashing a little bit, so I don't >> Okay, >> so you're trying to share your screen? >> Where is this one? Right here. >> Here you go. >> Great. Um,
so As previously stated, we are looking for an exemption to the uh noise control bylaw uh for this project. >> Um we'll go over a quick project overview, although I know at least the
board, but many of people listening are probably familiar with the project. We'll make a quick uh we'll go do an overview of the construction process and what we'll be expecting and then talk about the exemption we're looking for. Um, so as stated, this is the uh C
branch uh accessibility upgrade project. It's going to address all of the inaccessible stations along the C branch. That's Anglewood, Dean, Tapen, Fairbanks, Brandon Hall, Summit, St. Paul, Kent, and Haw. Currently, nine inaccessible stations along the C
branch. Uh through this project, we will be making seven accessible stations. Uh we will be consolidating Fairbanks Brandon Hall due to their proximity to each other and closing Kent Street due to its proximity to uh St. Paul and Haw Street as well. Um through this process
we're going to be looking to get uh quite a few benefits here. Um the main one is be making all the stations accessible but at the same time we've been working hard with the town. Um we've been presented to this board I think a half dozen times now. We've talked to the transportation board,
Commission on Disabilities, Tree Planting Committee to make sure that we're trying to limit our impacts and give the best project possible. Um, we're trying to preserve the uh historic character of the corridor. Um, through this, we're going to be improving travel
times with uh having two less stations. um all those modern station amenities that we see at some of our newer stations like um signage, bent benches, shelters, um upgraded lighting, uh and we'll be minimizing our impacts
to the public shade trees and planting new trees at almost every single station. I think actually we're planting new trees at every station. Um in addition to providing that ADA accessible uh compliant crossings and uh ramps uh and getting some safety uh separation between the roadway and the
platforms themselves. Um to do this uh we'll be using a few different forms of access to get the project done. Um one that people may be familiar with is when we uh do diversions where we shut down the C branch for some usually short period of
time. It may be a weekend, maybe a week or or two. Uh we stop running train service, we replace it with uh shuttle service and we have our contractors work 247 uh to try to get as much work done as we can when the trains are not running. Um this is important for any
activities that have to happen very close to the tracks or have things like cranes or other items, pieces of equipment that could swing into the track area where the trains are running. Um, and we try to limit that as much as possible, put it in this condensed area
because we don't want to be disrupting service more than we have to. Um, we work 24 hours a day while we're doing that. Um, we'll be working at multiple stations at the same time trying to be as efficient as possible. Um, and it not only allows us to be a lot more efficient than trying to do it in like
two-hour work windows at night when the trains aren't running, uh, but it also condenses the entire schedule of the project. We're really trying to get this done and have all these stations open for use before the end of the year. Um, and to do that, we really need to move quickly. Um, now the noise control bylaw
currently allows for work Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on weekends and holidays, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., which doesn't necessarily line up with the 24-hour a day work we would be doing during these surges. um to kind of look at the construction
schedule that we are planning for. Um we have our first diversion uh coming up in just a couple of or I think it's a week from tomorrow uh starting May 6 through May 17th. Uh during that time the C branch will be shut down uh for this
project and some other projects to be moving forward with their work. Um that will be the first. We will likely be a couple of others. We're looking at tentatively one sometime in late August and possibly some weekend closures to kind of finish off that work or the main focus of the work in November, dece
December with the project being fully complete in spring. Although that work that falls into the spring will be uh more cosmetic work, maybe placing benches or tree plantings as we want to make sure we're putting those in a good time. We don't want to stick those in at the middle of winter. Um here we have a
laid out visual schedule. Um the blue kind of signifies those big diversion impacts that you may see. Um whereas the yellow is when we're going to be focusing on an individual station. That won't necessarily be a diversion, but will likely be a time that that
individual station is closed while trains are still running the rest of the line. Um we have tried to lay out this project and the work that is part of it to not close concurrent stations. So, while we're doing this, you'll never have too far to go to get to your nearest open station. We don't want to
close, you know, two or three stations in a row and then you have nowhere to go if you're trying to get a train and you live in the middle of that area. Um, but generally, other than during these diversions where the entire line is shut down, we'll probably working about two stations at a time as we work our way through this this project.
Um, while we're doing this, there will be some more heavily noise generating activities than others. things like demolition, uh, utility installation, uh, the construction of the, you know, concrete platform itself, um, and material deliveries. Um, we'll have some
equipment that is a little noisier than a typical car. You'll have your work trucks and like your excavators and your loaders. Um, but we will be trying to mitigate that noise, not just at night, but at all times, as much as possible. Um, we'll be limiting deliveries as much as possible to the day shifts. um doing
the most uh noise generating work during the day, even during these 24-hour work periods. Um and we do have some um the contractor using some mitigation strategies. A lot of their vehicles have um sound muffling systems on their exhaust as well as the quieter backup
alarms. Uh the newer style that's more of a buzzing noise than a beeping noise that can sometimes be less disruptive um while they're doing this work. Also, while we're doing this work during these diversions, we will have shuttle buses. Um, people who have used the C branch over the past years will probably
be familiar with this. It'll be a pretty similar setup to what we've seen in previous years through other projects. I know we had a bunch of uh track renewal projects a couple years ago that shut down the line for um I think at one point a month at a time, but a couple weeks at a time. and we'll be doing that same shuttling strategy to make sure
people still have ways to get in and out of uh town on the tea as they typically do through the shuttling service. Um there are a couple of places where we don't have a good place to stop the shuttles. So uh Brandon Hall, Ken Street, and St. Mary Street don't get uh
individual shuttle service, but all these other stations will have shuttle stops basically right right across from where the station is uh where there's a safe place to stop. Um looking at the noise bylaw exemption itself. Um one of the main focuses of
that is um notifying the public. Uh that includes uh mailing out to all property owners within 300 feet of uh where the work is going on. So property owners within that 300 feet of all of these stations, Haw Kent, St. Paul Summit,
Fairbanks, Brandon Hall, Tap and Dean, and Englewood um had uh flyers mailed to them on the 17th. Um, and this is for the construction period from May through December. Uh, we don't expect that any of this noisy night work will be happening after December. And in that
work we have to do in the spring. Uh, but if something turns out that we do, I'll be back here again with most of you um to ask for a new exemption for uh that period if it becomes necessary. In general, we expect almost all this
night work will happen during these surge periods. But any other work that can't fall into there that can't happen while trains are running. You might have a couple of isolated nights where that work happens at night. Um, but that would be typical to the level of noise you might have and kind of the emergency
maintenance that the MBTA does fairly regularly. Um, I can also say that we have done some studies um from previous work that is similar to this and have found that the noise levels are typically not very different from what you would see just from the trains
themselves running or from, you know, a box truck that's running through the corridor at night. Um, most of the time it won't actually be higher than that, although it will be higher than the decibel levels called out in the noise bylaw. Um, know this is a little hard to see on
the screen, uh, but this maps just highlight the residences that, uh, or buildings that fall into the area of the bylaw notification. So, all of the, um, buildings in these areas had those notifications sent to them. Um, this map
shows uh, St. Paul uh, Haw Street to St. Paul Street. Uh, the light blue outlines are for the neighborhoods and buildings that fall into that area. Um, we also have maps for the summit uh a to Fairbank Street area um and the Tapen
Street to Anglewood A. Um that that is what I have for today. I want to thank everyone. Uh I also want to point out or share that I have a couple other members of my team in the audience today. I have Julie, our senior director, and Josie, our project manager. um just because you know in the
day-to-day if we have people uh reaching out to the MBTA if they are having concerns about the project or things um these are the people that they will be uh getting in contact with and we'll be getting back to them. So I just want to kind of introduce them as part of the project team and show their faces in front of the group so people will know
who they're potentially talking to if they're sending questions into the MBTA. >> Okay. Um, this is a public hearing, so I'd like to open the public hearing first and then take uh comments from the select board. >> Uh, this is a public hearing. Members of the public wish to be heard in the room,
you may step up to the podium and just line up there. Uh, if you are online, please use the hand raise feature. If you're on Zoom, uh, remember you have three minutes and we ask that you identify yourself with your name and your precinct number or per or address. >> My name is Anne Lusk, precinct 5. This
is a very quick question. you referenced cutting down all of the trees and maybe that was a bit of an error. Um, Brookline has a policy against cutting down trees and you'll be making noise. You'll win far more favor with the
adjacent residents if you tell everyone the policy for saving the majority of the trees if you can because beside highways you have heat island and the trees that are mature then shade the asphalt and lessen the heat island as
well as lessening the sound. So, I would only like you to consider showing how many of the trees you're going to save and their maturity and then also relay that information to the neighbors. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Glen, do you want to answer
that? Uh, I mean, we've been through this many, many, many times. >> Um, yeah, cutting down all the trees. Um, if I said that, what I meant was cutting down the trees that have been approved by the tree planting committee and the select board after our many meetings and discussions about what
trees we could and could not save. Um, there are a number of trees that we will cut down. All have been approved both by the tree planting committee and the select board. Although again, the majority of the trees through the corridor um are being saved. um all of the ones that are possible and we will
be planting um at at the very minimum roughly an equal number of trees throughout the corridor through this project. >> Okay. >> Hi, my name is Steve Palmquist and I'm in precinct 10. My question is if the um
noise is going to continue 24 hours a day, how much shorter is the construction project going to be? because we're already going to be inconvenienced by having the tea shut down. So, if you're allowed to work 24 hours, what is the quantifiable difference in the in
>> Did you talk into the mic? >> In how long we won't have access to the tea? That's my question. >> Um, yeah, happy to do that. So, um, I think I'm going to jump up to the slide that talks about the hours under the
bylaw. Um, so the typical noise bylaw is 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., although it's even more restrictive on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Uh, so 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is roughly half the day. Uh, so the duration of the shutdown will be half as
long. um when it comes to the overall project duration um with these types of shutdowns. Uh doing this as opposed to trying to do all the work um either while trains are running or at night uh it saves about a year to a year and a
half on the entire project schedule. Um so brings it from a year and a half to two year construction period to uh six to nine months or whatever the however many months it is between now and the end of the year to reach that substantial completion.
>> Great. Thank you Michael. Yes. um Mike Sandman and the way I got involved in Brooklyn Town Affairs was because I lived on Beacon Street and was involved in the reconstruction of it design and reconstruction of it many
years ago. Uh and I was still living on Beacon Street when the MBTA got a noise waiver to work until uh 11 o'clock at night. Uh and then uh there was one particular night when they decided that they needed to work until two o'clock in the in the morning. Uh
and um uh the the major difficulty for the neighbors was uh the backup horn on the u the front end loader and I actually went out and sat down in the bucket of the front end loader at 2 o'clock in the morning and I said you
got to stop and they did by God. Uh so my question is uh what uh do we have assurance and can the T give us assurance that um they won't be using equipment that is required by law to have a backup horn going uh during
sleeping hours. >> So um uh we cannot give you assurance that we will not use any equipment that requires a backup alarm. I can say almost certainly we will have to use some of that equipment at times. Almost all construction equipment whether it be
um dump trucks, uh loaders, excavators, all of that type of equipment does is required to have those backup alarms. Although I will say that um not all but the majority of that equipment has the um as I said that buzzing sound the newer style backup alarms as opposed to
the um the beeping noise I guess that most people are familiar with that um tends to be less disruptive. Uh but we will be if when we are working 247 we will be using equipment at night as well. I would like some clarification as to whether
>> I'm sorry. Can you introduce yourself? >> I'm sorry. And I don't know what precinct I'm in. My name is Stephanie Sag. Um I live between Tapen and Dean, whatever precinct that is. Um I would like some clarification as to whether
this um exemption is for six months. How long at a time will it be happening at each station? for instance, will it be two weeks one time this summer near Dean and that's it for Dean and then maybe two weeks near Tapen, which basically
the same thing. But I'd like some clarification about how long in a row that's going to be happening. Um, and would also ask that the select board take into account the public health impact of sleep deprivation for extended
periods of time and would hope that you would all vote on this as though you live across the street from where this is taking place. >> Um, yep. So happy to share that. So we had the schedule we showed earlier. So I
believe the longest um consecutive period of time we would expect for this to be relevant would be that May 6th to 17th time period. Um if we going looking at this the calendar that we or the schedule that we shared here uh we have potentially another um longer diversion.
I think that might be 7 to n days based on what we're tentatively looking at. um and then some potential weekends or possibly another seven to nine day shutdown later. Um but that would be the longest periods we would expect. Um there may be some occasional like individual nights if there's some
specific task they realize that they need to get done and they can't continue the schedule onto you know hold off on that task for another two to three months till this next clo closure. Um but that would be the diver duration of those types of impacts.
Okay. Yeah. >> So, if I just might follow up >> sure >> on that question. So, you're asking for a noise bylaw waiver that runs from May through December, but of those seven months, how many nights in total do you expect to be able to to need to use the
noise bylaw waiver? It sounds like >> I would say with these full diversions, it probably adds up to roughly a month. Although not all of that work is going to be the my
understanding is the contractor's current plan is to be working at any given night, you know, two two to three stations at a time. So, not every not all nine locations are going to have the noise happen at the same time, but you'll have roughly 30 nights through these kind of more concerted diversions
throughout this nine-month period. And then you might have a handful of individual nights that come up. Um, that will just be that one night where they're working at that one location. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, I see someone in the audience is coming up. Is anyone online?
>> I don't see any hands online. >> Okay. Hi, my name is Timothy Stannis. I live at 1272 Beacon Street, directly across the street from the Green Line, St. Paul stop. Uh, I encourage you to vote against giving them a waiver for
the 20 whatever outside the hours uh construction. Uh, number one, I'm not sure why they would have set up the whole plan as if they were going to get the waiver to begin with. That seems
to be what they're suggesting right now. Uh that sounds presumptuous. So the question isn't how much faster is it. It's why would you suggest why why would they set up the whole plan as if they're going to get the waiver to begin with.
Number two, um there was already someone outside at 6:45 this morning uh with a jackhammer. So What's the point of giving the waiver if they're just going to do it anyway? I'm
not sure there's much good faith if before even you guys vote on it, they're out there violating what the current uh rules are. Come up to the mic to the microphone. >> Come on down.
>> Come on down. Oh, I'm sorry. Rebecca was let let her go first. >> Hi, Rebecca Stone. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 3. Um, which abouts a small piece of this and I appreciated Michael's um question just now um
about about the extent of time that it was going to be affected. So, I have two questions. One is was the board appealed to before this plan was developed about um to discuss the impacts on Brooklyn residents of this kind of closure so
that the plan could be developed in in partnership with Brookline um or is this the first the board is hearing about this request and it's >> been hearing this for months. >> No, I know the question is about the plan for the closures and the and the noise. So, I'm just I was just curious
about that. Um, and the second question is, is it possible to do a limited waiver of the bylaw to fit more closely to the schedule? >> Does anyone have a answer to that? >> Oh, not an answer. I was going to ask for more specifics on that, but I'll
wait until the public is done. >> Yeah. So, I do have an answer to the question about, you know, did we know? So, and Gwen, you you can help me with this. Um I've sat through many many meetings with the team uh and I never saw this. I
don't did we ever discuss in the working group that we were going to have a 24-hour noise bylaw uh request or what the implementation plan was. I I on this this is the first time honestly this this is a surprise to me
that we're looking for a 24hour uh uh work. Um so to answer your question, I'm surprised by it. >> I appreciate the honesty. >> Now maybe I now maybe I wasn't listening when it was being presented, but I don't I think I was listening. No, just it
does seem to me that this kind of thing is exactly where we need that kind of um communication and collaboration so that we so that you're not put in a position of look, it's a year and a half of this if you don't give us the noise waiver, the bylaw waiver, or you know, you can
give it to us, but but that's having public comment when we're at this stage without any prior um impact of uh of the plan just seems to me to be um putting the cart before the horse um and not
including the public in a kind of decision that um the public really needs to be involved in. There are an awful lot of people who live along that that Beacon Street corridor um and a lot of them have kids. >> So um I think that's the end of my comment. Thank you.
>> Oh, except that the question was is it possible to do a limited waiver? Is there any way to do that? >> Thank you. Is there an answer? >> Well, I I want May I refine the question
a little bit? Sure. Yeah. >> First of all, let's start with um what are the current limitations on uh noise uh within our noise bylaw? >> Well, let me me do that. Let me say this and be clear, right? The T as a state agency
does not have to seek our approval to do this. they do it as a courtesy to us to inform the public and to work through this process and to see if there's the opportunity for anything to be revised based on public feedback. So that's why we have this opportunity. But I do just
want to be clear that as a state agency, the T does not have to seek our approval to do work at night. Um, and what we've been trying to do with this is to build a better relationship with the T where they come to us and have these conversations so that we can get refined
plans in place. Um, but so I think the question is perhaps more aptly addressed to the tea, which is what other are there are there mitigations that can be put in place? Are there are there periods of time where we can try not to work at night um or otherwise? But
again, the reality is as a state agency, I don't believe they have I I don't believe they have a requirement to ask us to to be able to wave the bylaw. >> Yes. So that is accurate. Um as a state agency, we are not subject to municipal
bylaws. Um we are here, as you said, uh to try to be a good partner with the town. Um also, I think this the departure that we're seeing here is not that we're asking for the or not that there's going to be work at night, but that we're going through the process to notify and go through the exemption and
make sure we're doing all the mailings and do this. Um, I would say probably 80 to 90% of the work that happens on the tea happens at night. Um, typically with little to no notice. Um, no request for bylaw exemptions or any of that. They just they go out we go out and do it
because a lot of the work we do is an emergency. We're not going to say have a track break and say, "Well, we just won't run trains on that line to the next month until we get a select board meeting, put together a plan, get a bylaw exemption, etc." Um, we're trying to do something different with this
project. We're trying to be good partners with the town um going through all these processes for the d various bylaws um and agreements. And a big part of this is to kind of make sure the public knows not just the typical communications the TE does because you know all this information is available
on the TE's website when we talk about our different diversions and shutdowns but come specifically to the town um on behalf of this project um and I suppose the other projects that will be working during these shutdowns because we will not be the only ones um to make sure everyone is aware of the work that will
be going on. Um are there ways to do this work without um doing the work at night? Yes. Um it would probably double the cost of the project, whole thing would get canceled because we don't have the budget for it. Um and it couldn't happen because I mean the reality is the
options for doing work is either we do it when the trains aren't running or we we don't do it. Um and to not do it when the trains are running, that's either at night or during one of these closures. Um, the 24-hour closures, again, we can do a similar amount of work in, you
know, a 7-day 24-hour closure that would take months and months of doing it every night instead, which is not what we want to have for the community. Um, so we're aiming to do these during these kind of longer closures um to prevent us from doing the alternative which is all the work that can't happen when the trains
are running just happening in a two-hour night work window or you know 3 hour between you know 1:00 and 5:00 a.m. when trains are not on the on the line at all um you know one night at a time which I don't think anyone wants um to be the
alternative. Michael, >> um just just to sort of give a further clarification of of the impact here. Um you mentioned a couple of times um that you sort of do regular emergency work.
I'm not sure how work can be both regular and an emergency, but leaving that aside. Um, and it sounds like from what you're saying that the level of work that you're doing in this reconstruction from a noise perspective is roughly the same
as when you do that regular emergency work. So my question is uh if you have any data for the last year or the last two years about how frequently that regular emergency work happens on the
sealine relative to the 35 or so days over seven months that you're expecting to do night work for this project. >> Yeah. Um I guess emergency is the wrong word. a regular maintenance. Obviously, emergency is a a bigger effort and
sometimes, you know, you will have um a line that just stops running in the middle of the day for an hour because they have an emergency to fix. But the regular maintenance um happens nightly. Um there is no night where the tea is not doing night maintenance work somewhere and by somewhere I mean in
multiple places throughout the system. Um even spec each different line has its own crews. Not specifically the a sea branch crew but the green line, red line, orange line, blue line all have their own individual crews and those crews are doing maintenance repairs
somewhere on the system every single night. So um the proportion that is on the sea line specifically I don't know. It's probably proportional to the length of the sea line compared to the length of some of the other parts of the green line. that there are multiple green line crews from the
maintenance departments out every single night doing work and the level of noise is going to be similar. Um they're using equipment just like we are. They're working on track just like uh actually oftentimes noisier than what we'll be doing. Um so that level of noise is
going to be pretty typical to a regular maintenance activity that happens every night somewhere on the green line. David. >> So, if I can get it uh back to the question that uh Rebecca Stone asked regarding a limited uh noise bylaw waiver, I understand and I appreciate
you don't need to be here at all. You're doing it as a courtesy and I thank you for that and and thank you CHZ for providing that context. Uh nevertheless, from a uh prediction standpoint from the general public and just having people
aware of when they can anticipate having noise, I see that diversion one is very well defined. May 6 to the 17th. We don't really have that level of specificity for diversion two, the weekend diversions and final completion. And not that I'm trying to add a lot of
work for you, but once that is a little more finely tuned in terms of specific date spans, uh would another approach that you could consider be that we uh approve diversion one and we have more information on the next phases you
provide that and maybe it's not necessarily coming back here just sending us a report so that we can transmit that information to the public so the public knows. >> No, absolutely. I mean, we have um right now weekly meetings with um the
DP >> DPW um uh uh construction meetings. The first one was actually this morning uh to and we will be keeping not only them in the loop but uh publicly announcing any sort of diversion that we're doing
well in advance. Um, so as we get to the point where we can uh nail down these specific dates that these will happen, we will absolutely be announcing them. We will be informing the town of Brooklyn um typically about a month ahead of time uh sometimes more um of
what we plan to do and when. Um so those announcement will ab absolutely come when we have these more uh dedicated periods of work and disruption. >> Paul uh thank you and thank you for the the clarification. So, you probably know I probably told you I live I think 50 yards from from the tea. So, I really
and I've lived through the track replacements and everything. Um, and so it is it can be very disruptive. In particular, it's the demolition, right? It's it's the excavation and the demolition. Is there any way to limit
that to to daytime hours? Um, >> so we will limit it as much as possible to daytime hours. They are going to be setting up their the contractor is going to be setting up their schedule to try to plan all that work during the day as
much as possible. Um, the sequence of construction you have to dig before you build. Um, they're they're going to be working through the 247. Um, but they are going to focus as much of the noisy stuff during the day as they can. Um, that's not going to say there's not going to be any noisy stuff
at night. If that were the case, we wouldn't be here tonight. But, >> um, >> but even till even till like 10 p.m., like after 10 p.m., if you're not if the jackhammer's not going after 10 p.m., the backhoe isn't ripping up concrete. >> And I think that that that would be helpful. That was my first question. And
then and I realize you can do whatever you want, but I would encourage you to do the noisy stuff between seven and 10. Um, and then the moving stuff and reconstructing at night if you can do that. >> That that is the plan to do that as much as possible. >> You mentioned about the shuttles which was interesting to me that the there
wasn't space to stop and it caught my attention about St. Mary's because I live there. Um, usually there is a big bus that pulls up when the TE's shut down and it stops in front of I don't know like Japanese. Uh, and they pull up and away they go and there's another one
on the other side across from Barino. Are you saying that there wouldn't be a shuttle for St. Mary's >> um that is my understanding. I am that's a entirely different teams that comes up with the shuttle plan. I don't work in buses but this is my understanding is that they've reviewed I don't know if
it's one of the other projects is working too close to that area or what the reasoning for um not having a stop at St. Mary's. But that is my understanding um from talking to that team. >> So what would if you live if you usually use the St. Mary's stop, what would you
do? Um, >> long walk to Fenway. >> Uh, >> Kenmore. >> Kenmore or Haw. I guess >> Kenmore or Haw. >> Haw. >> Haw. >> In Haw. In Haw. And >> so you'd have to go up to Haw where the bus would stop.
>> Yes. The bus would be stopping at Haw. >> Okay. Any more questions from the audience? Oh, I'm sorry. >> I didn't mean Well, didn't mean to preclude audience. Um, but I did want to >> Oh, why don't you ask your >> jump in? Well, we're in such a peculiar position. Um, and uh, I'll be honest, I
didn't realize that because it says right on our agenda, um, noise bylaw waiver, public hearing. Um, I I kind of assumed we were here to discuss, um, setting limits on the allowable work under our noise bylaw. And we've done
that on many occasions. Obviously, there's a exception here for the MBTA, which I I respect. Um but um I I think in that case since since it it will have no um effect uh that's what we're being told tonight. Um I think we might as
well stick to what we would normally grant to let's say a developer who wanted a noise boiler waiver because they had to start early at a construction site for a particular delivery. We actually had that within the past year and we figured out um what
was reasonable in terms of the public health guidelines on the necessity of um certain number of hours of sleep um during the night for a person to um maintain their their health. And I I can't remember exactly what we set, but
I think it had something to do with um uh okay, it's usually 7 a.m. you can start work now. We'll give you 6:00 a.m. It's usually 10:00 a.m. when you have to end work. Well, I think maybe we granted an exception to midnight. Um, maybe not. Maybe maybe it was an exception that
that was from, say, you know, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. But we always did it within some kind of a framework of a certain number of hours of sleep are necessary for public health. Therefore, we need to s we need to preserve a certain number of hours of
um silence for for the sake of the health of the public. Um, I I see no reason to depart from that in terms of our vote. Um, if we're going to even take a vote on a noise bylaw waiver, I would make it exactly consistent with
what we've done in the past for private entities. Um, and at least we have preserved um, you know, our stance on what is reasonable for work being done during the night by whether it's the MBTA or anybody else. Um I I I see no
reason to just kind of bow to let's give them 24 hours with no limitation. >> Okay. Be before Chaz ask or answers or speaks, I'm a little concerned that we didn't catch the fact that you don't really have any basis for stopping
you from doing this. So why is this on our agenda? >> Yeah. >> So here's >> and why should we have a vote? So >> we want historically the tea and this is way back before and before historically the tea and the town did not have a good working relationship right the tea did
what it wanted and the town stomped its foot and couldn't do anything about it we have been painstakingly trying to build a better relationship with the tea to be able to say hey listen we know that theoretically you can do whatever you want on some of these things but not all of these things and on the time when
you need the town's help We want to be able to say and demonstrate that we are good partners and we have been good partners and we are making things work. Um, you know, and there have been times when the town has needed the TE's help, for example, building the high school. Um, and we've needed to, you know, work
with the tea on that stuff and in order to make that building over the over the green line possible. And so the goal here has been has been movement in both directions. And so the tea comes and gives these
presentations so that we can have these discussions. The public can be both informed and ask questions and make and make requests and the team may say no that's not possible. But at the very least we've had the conversation and the public is informed and the public can
can feel at least satisfied that the state is being a part of this and listening to us as opposed to just doing whatever it wants. um and that you in turn are able to say to the team, do you hear from the public their concerns? What's going on here? Can we do
something about this? Because sometimes the answer may be no, but other times the answer may be yes. And I think it's better to have that public conversation and get that public feedback so that in those cases where the answer is yes, we can make something better out of this that we don't just have what we had before, which is the tea does what it
wants and we kind of stamp our feet and and are impotent about it. But the way to do that is to have these types of conversations with the acknowledgement that yes, the state holds a lot of cards here, but there are there are going to be times when the state is going to need something from the town that where the
something is outside of their rightway and the town needs to be involved and you will have the authority to say no to something if you don't agree to it. Um, by the same token, there are going to be times when we need things from the tea and the tea is going to have the authority to say no. So, this is one of those it's along that spectrum of do
they have to be here? No. Um, but is it good that they're here? Do we want to encourage that? Encourage that dialogue? Encourage us to be able to be good neighbors and for them to hear from the public and for us to be able to try our best to in incorporate the public's needs into their work. I think that's a
net positive. >> Yeah, I I have no problem with that. And and I think, you know, bringing the team before us to just let us know what's going on and give people an opportunity to express their concerns about some of this is fine. My concern is that this is on the agenda for a vote and I guess I'd
like to just not have that vote because it's kind of irrelevant. >> Well, yeah. So, first I I now understand what so this the only mechanism really to hear from the public on the noise that
the tea is going to generate um outside of our noise bylaw is to have a noise bylaw waiver public hearing. Um, now 80% of this is good, right? They're they're proactively coming to us. They're telling us what they're going to
do. They're going to mail. I assume you're going to do public notice mailings. >> They've already done it. >> They've done that. So, now the public is aware that what's going to happen. This typically wouldn't happen. Right. >> Right. So, this is new. This is all goodness. I think the the thing that's unusual is that it's coming to us as a
bylaw waiver and really we don't have much of a say here. Um, I still think we should take a vote and I think the vote should be our ex what we're going to encourage you to do, right? Let's limit the noise between 7 and 10, 7 a.m. to 10
p.m. like major construction, demolition, whatever the time is that we want. We we should give you some some preferred guidance about when the most disruptive noise happens. Um, I I actually like David's idea that you have visibility into the first major
shutdown, but you don't after. I would encourage you to do this again and come back and let's talk about the the the second step. Um, so I I do think it's helpful, Bernard, for us to vote and give them guidance. Um, >> you don't need to vote to give >> Well, whatever whatever way you want to
handle it, but I um I I think it I do understand that this is a beneficial step, and I do appreciate what they're >> Yeah. No, absolutely agree. It's a beneficial step. I'm just concerned that we're putting it on the agenda as a vote as if we have some basis authority to vote. So there's a Michael but then a
woman in the audience. >> Yeah. >> Why isn't she's been waiting? >> Okay. >> Oh, okay. I thought she had >> Oh, she hasn't spoken yet. >> Yeah, she come on down. >> Please go ahead. >> I didn't want to be rude. I am
>> speak to the microphone. Hi, I am Cynthia Papis >> into the microphone. >> Close to the microphone. Yeah. >> Pull the mic down right there. >> Hi, I'm Cynthia Papis, precinct 17. And I live right across on the sealine
and been there for 65 years plus and um have heard all kinds of things. And I just want to say this, no one's going to be happy either way. I'm happy and I think we're all blessed
to have the tea because what would we do without it? We would be riding bikes. I like bikes in the country. Not so much in Brookline, but that's a that's a that's a topic for another day. What I'm trying to say is I have I hear
ambulances, police cars, as you all do. police cars and trucks and motorcycles in the middle of the night. Does it bother me? No. We're exhausted. We're a lodging house. We work 19 hours a day or we used to.
And um guests have never complained about the tea. the one time I'm not even sure if it was the tea or or just the DPW, but the lights were facing the building at night. So, that was a little
difficult. But what would we do without the tea? Let's think about that. And I think they're just trying to improve the look of it, too, and the area. Um I just did
you say you're closing Brandon Hall stop >> closer to >> you got we we so we we can't have a back and forth because we can't hear them. >> I'm sorry. Okay. >> Well, I just I just wanted to express that. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> But it was a lot of good points that Mr.
Paul brought up, too. Thank you. U I think Michael then John. >> So so first of all thank you thank you for your comments. Um and um I I I want to agree you know there actually is a trade-off here right? We
are trading off the the nighttime noise for the the length of this project. And and so, you know, I'm I'm thinking about the grant of this waiver as a way that we can like remove a year's worth of
disruption to the tea, you know, at that cost and with and with that trade-off. Um, I certainly take the point of of those who have said, you know, we should be voting on this as if we lived right there, and I agree. um and as if we
either use the tea or the tea impacts our lives and and the buses come by that would have to come by for the diversion. So all of those factors sort of uh are part of the trade-off that we're considering. >> John and there's a lot of people waiting
for further business on our agenda and I hope this will move this one along. Um I I'd like to propose a simple resolution uh of the select board that um our response to the MBTA's request in this matter is um resolved to let the MBTA
know that we stand by the limitations under our existing noise bylaw um on the understanding that it is not a bylaw that applies to them but as a message to them of the parameters of hours that we find to be the acceptable hours for
noisy work um and the limitations on on the acceptable hours for noisy work and um we stand by it and uh wish them well with their project. >> Um okay, you have that down. >> Well, can I can I amen can I can I amend
that, Bernard? >> Oh, go ahead. >> So, I I I agree with John, but I I think we need to be maybe a little more gracious in our um in our meeting them. Um, I I'd like to say that we the resolution say that we, you know, we
would ask them to do the loudest work, whatever definition that means, uh, the most egregious work, the jackhammers, the back hoes, um, between 7 and 11 p.m. um, or 7 and 10 p.m. And knowing that you're still going to work after 11 p.m.
and do other stuff, but we're going to ask you to the best to the best of your ability to uh, limit the noisiest work between those hours. Um, you know, I'd like to do something like that >> as a sense of the board. >> May I just amend that as a Do you want to say as a condition of granting the
waiver or just >> No, I don't think why we'd have any language about granting a waiver if it's meaningless. >> Okay. But I but I guess I the the one thing I will say here, right, is it's a point that Paul raised that's a good one. What's the mechanism you have to
let the public be heard is a hearing on a noise bylaw waiver. That's that's the process. And so I think that's why, >> you know, you you may not want to grant it here, but I think I think the the process is a good one. >> Even though it doesn't it doesn't achieve the results that everyone might want to achieve because the tea is a
unique body. >> You you want to create something that allows the public to be heard. Um >> we but we have hearings all the time on, you know, presentations that don't result in in in a vote. Um, we can
always have the public in for a hearing and, you know, a body like the MBTA coming in to make a presentation for it. >> The other component of this is the is the notice, right? So, I think >> you you're right. You don't have to take a a formal vote here. I just think you want to you don't want to abandon the
process because in in its entirety because the process is what triggers the things that you want the T doing. Perhaps in the future there could be some explanation offered that although this is being convened as a hearing you know to grant exemption to our bylaw in
fact you know it is on the understanding that the te does not need an exemption to our bylaw. I Bernard, may I? >> Yeah, >> I I do I I I'm okay with voting. I just want to make sure that the motion is prepped. We're not waving the bylaw, right? Where we're, you know, I I would
I would move that we acknowledge that the noise bylaw does not apply to the MBTA. However, we would like to encourage them to restrict the noisiest
uh construction activities, demolition, things like that between 7 a.m. and pick the 10 >> or to occur no later than 7 7 >> 7 a.m. to to 11 p.m. >> 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. >> to 11 p.m. Um and and leave it at that.
>> Right. And I'll second the motion. >> Right. Okay. Okay. Right. I mean, yeah, that that is what the T and DPW talk about all the time. Right. >> Right. >> So maybe maybe our motion or our resolution is to DPW to make sure that
on that that's on the agenda of their meetings. David, >> and I just like to amend that other little piece about when you know the dates certain for phases two, three, and four to let us know so we can communicate that to the public. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, >> we have a motion. Okay. >> Um, okay. If you want a motion, >> so moved in favor. John >> I. >> David >> I. >> I'm sorry. Paul, >> that's okay. Paul I >> uh Michael >> I >> and Chair Vai.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for coming. >> We're learning Gwen. It's really helpful. You're you're you're pushing us outside of our typical end. >> Okay. Come on. >> We do appreciate you coming being a part of this. Thank you. >> Okay. Hey, we have a bunch of uh
violation a continuation of violation hearings for category 3 public lodging houses. These are also public hearings uh that we are required to to um >> that they are required to have. >> So do you want me to talk a little bit
about where this where these are coming from? >> Yeah. >> Um so we have three noise bylaw sorry noise bylaw brain violation hearings uh for lodging houses. two of um one is a consolidated hearing for 53 and 57 Beiel Street. Uh one is at 233 Espanol Avenue
um and one is at 1459 Beacon Street. The first two hearings concern lodging house agents. Let me just be clear. So the select board licenses lodging houses. The select board's authority to license lodging houses comes from um the state
and the town administrator act and then ultimately town meeting and the bylaws. Um but the regulations for how by how how lodging houses are run are select board regulations which means that the select board has the authority to change them, issue waiverss for them as they
see fit um and and and so on. Um so the power to um license uh lodging house comes from the select board and you um you have the authority if someone presents a compelling case to you to
alter or wave regulations um in certain circumstances. For these first two, the applicants are asking that they the provision regarding a lodging h a resident lodging house agent be waved under your by under your regulations.
Sorry. It states that there must be a resident agent uh at any lodging house. Uh we interpret that to mean that they must live on the premises. Um there are requirements in the bylaws for how they are accessible. Uh and it says, you
know, within an hour for emergencies and within by the end of the day for non-emergency matters. Um so it doesn't require them to be on site 247, but it requires them to live there uh and be resident there and be accessible. Um
these applicants came to the licensing panel uh this past month. Um and all three of the applicants um made similar arguments which is that they satisfy the spirit of this section um if not the letter. Uh that is to say they would be
capable of providing the amount of coverage that the select board is asking for in the regulations without necessarily having someone living on site on premises as that designated agent. Um so what we told them was you can make that case to the select board.
The select board will hear it. Um the select board will hear from members of the public uh on whether or not to grant it and then the select board will make a decision on whether or not to grant it. And so that's the uh framework for these first two hearings, one of which is
consolidated. So it's three applicants, two hearings. Um and first on the agenda is 53 and 57 bills. I don't know who's here from that entity or if they're online. >> Hi, good evening. Uh I'm Mike Kylie. I'm
the director of housing operations and uh property management for buying straight in. Um you summed it up very nicely. What what we've tried to do uh while filling the house manager position is to take a team
approach uh fill the fill the uh the staffing with 247 operations where we have on-site case management, awake overnight counselors, um awake mobile overnight counselors
and um security if needed where uh so we would have um someone on site 247. seven. While we're looking for uh the house manager, we have um it's been uh a few months as we've been
trying to fill this position. I think um we have higher expectations for that for our residents, but also for our neighbors on Beiel Street and it has taken some time to fill that position. But um what we're requesting is that we
uh with board's approval we can continue to operate uh with the lodging house license and uh uh work under that uh team approach of 247 coverage. Uh, I'd also like to add that we have submitted an application
um for an awake overnight counselor to take the house manager training. Uh, and that is scheduled right now for this Thursday at 2 o'clock. >> Okay. Um, this is a public hearing. Why don't we open the public hearing for
this property and see what we get? Members, the public wish to be heard on the application for 53 and 57 Beals Street. Uh you can use the raise the hand feature if you're online or uh if you're in public hear, please come up to the podium.
>> Okay, seeing none, I I'll close the public hearing. Any comments from the board? >> Paul? >> Yep. Uh Chess, my first question. Was there any uh notice to the abuters of these properties or was it just what was on the agenda? >> It was just what was on the agenda. >> Okay. because I when I read this today
um I ended up sending you know we've we've had a lot of engagement with neighbors on Beiel Street. Um those two two properties there's been there's been a lot of issues um that we dealt with over the years and I don't know if it's gotten better um or not but um it was
often related to not having a house manager accessible. There was only one is it covering two units um and there was a lot of problems. So I, you know, I don't know why if there's nobody here because they they didn't know about it. I did send one email to someone um you
know uh alerting to them, but it was at you know 4:30. I do have one question for for the gentleman. Um so when you say there's there's you're doing a team approach, is that a team approach as an interim until you hire an on-site host
manager or are you asking to completely switch to that that team approach? No, we're going to continue the team approach while we look for a house manager to live on site. But even once that position is filled, we're going to continue with the team approach.
>> So, you would have both an on-site live-in house manager and you'd have a team approach of people who are overnight supporting uh the residents. >> Yes. >> Is there a particular reason why you're doing that? Is has there been a change in the in in the makeup of residents or
the services you're providing? >> No, I think I think it goes to your original point that that there were some concerns from neighbors that we wanted to address and um for the most part. Uh I think we've been
able to handle that for the last 12 months. Um having this additional staff on site including security available uh really has Uh, and I don't know have the exact numbers in front of me, but uh, the number of calls to the property has
dropped way off in the last 12 months. >> I'm I'm really happy to hear that. I know that we've tried for a long time, Chaz, to solve that. It sounds like maybe this this approach is working. >> Yeah, I think one of the big things that we've done here with Pine Street that um, Tiffany and then Melanie has taken on is this idea of a single point of contact, right? You know, there's got to
instead of having 12 numbers to call, what's the one number a neighbor can call if they have a concern? And that has paid off. So I, you know, I, like I said, I don't think, like you said, I don't believe all 100% of the issues are entirely resolved. I see there's someone who wants to speak on this. I don't know
if David's chairing willard. >> Well, but can I ask one follow-up question before Rebecca speaks? So, Chaz, you were pretty close to this when we were having issues at at two years or a year and a half ago. Yeah. >> Has have the number of complaints coming from that neighborhood been reduced? >> Yes. I mean, you know, remember, we we
we would have there's a lot happening quarterly meetings, right? having discussions. It has gotten better. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Hi, Rebecca Stone. Um, I spoke before and I'm not I don't have a comment of my own, but um, Eric Stone, who lives next door and is a town meeting member, did raise his hand and I just wanted you all
to notice that. >> Yes. Right. Eric Stone, you can unmute yourself, turn your camera on if you wish. >> Hi, folks. Uh, Eric Stone, town meeting member, precinct 8. Uh, sorry, I'll take my political guard off. Um,
I do live next door. I just wanted to briefly speak in in support of uh granting them their license. I've uh had the pleasure of speaking to the staff multiple times the last few years on behalf of neighbors. Personally, I've never had issues with them. Um, there
have been two or three neighbors in particular who have um not been so fortunate, but I've found they've been extremely responsive. They've adjusted their staffing. The consolidation of the number you pointed out has been great. Um, so I' I'd like to continue to see them uh be a part of our community and
appreciate the uh approach they've taken. Thanks. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Any other uh people online that would like to speak >> again? You can use the hand raise feature on Zoom if you'd like to speak. >> Okay. I assume we reopened the hearing
after I closed it. So, okay. So, let's close the hearing and um is there any other questions? Are we ready to vote? >> Okay. Um >> so, the vote would be to grant the waiver that they're seeking and reissue their license.
>> Okay. So, I move that we grant we grant the Excuse me. I'm getting what you have, Melanie. >> It's not for me. >> No, I know it's not contagious. So, um I move that we grant the waiver um for 53
and 57 Be Street um and renew the license uh as indicated by town administrator. All in favor, >> please indicate by saying I. John. >> Paul Warren. >> I Corman I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I'm sorry. I just have a question. Is
the grant of the waiver time bound? >> The the request for the waiver is until they get an agent. So yes, by by by the virtue of their request is that it's a temporary waiver until they get an agent. Uh obviously, Mr. Am I correct, Mr. Kai? Is that >> Yes, you are correct.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm just wondering if we should also time bound it like by a year so that if this is still an issue next year, it comes back to the select. >> Well, I think when the license renews, right, that's the opportunity. >> Okay. So, I don't have to I
>> and chair votes I. Thank you. Uh, next we have a continuation of April 15 violation hearing and possible vote on consequences including potential waiver application for a lodging house license
at 233 Aspenol Avenue. Um, licenses. >> Good evening. My name is Robert Bane. I'm here with my father John Bane. And we >> we all know Um, yeah, we've, uh, it's my first time doing this.
We're requesting a waiver or exemption for an agent on, uh, on site. Um, we live literally eight houses down on the same street. And we also run a clock uh, restoration business on site at where
the residence is on 233. So, we are there every day all day and if we're not there, we're at home down the street. Um, you know, we we're there,
you know, I'm on call every every day. If there's a toilet overflowing, I'm I'm there. If there's, you know, a a chirping smoke detector, I'm there. You know, I'm I'm pretty much on call. I've been the de facto agent pretty much
since 1997. Uh we really haven't had one. It's always been we've always listed one. It's always been myself, my father, my mother. And um now this this is the first time we've
had to come before the licensing board and ask for anything. >> I'm just this is why I'm here. >> Okay. And tell us about your clientele. I mean, it's sort of a >> my our clientele is mainly um traveling
nurses, technicians doing a three-month rotation um from all over the country, over the world, and it's they're usually working nights and because they are there to pretty much take over for the uh people during
the day. So, a house is pretty much empty during their during the night. And um >> I mean I raised that because the type of problems that you would need someone to respond to are going to be overflowing toilets and things like that. So
>> Oh yeah. I mean like I said we're we're there we're there on site every day between 8:30 and 5:00 and then we're home from then on uh pretty much seven days a week. >> Great. Thank you. Uh this is a public
hearing unless uh select board wants to ask questions right now. Yeah. Go ahead. >> I just have one question. I just want to confirm. Did you say that you typically don't have an overnight manager? This is the first time you've had to come before. >> We typically have not had an overnight man. >> Okay. And what was that just uncovered as part of the audit process or Okay.
>> This is the the whole the the you know the the benefit although uh unfortunately the the drawback for some and we do apologize is that we're learn you know >> we're learning. >> We're learning um we're doing a better job with our licenses. We're we're keeping up. Uh and that means we're catching these things that have gone
unnoticed for, you know, decades. Uh but it's good that we're catching it and it's good that we're having this conversation. >> And have you had any complaints from this? >> No, no complaints. Staff have no concerns about this request. Could I just add one more thing? Uh we were also since since I've been pretty much the
agent during the inspections, we are registered with the police department, uh myself and my father, and they know who we are. And you know, we are also our phone numbers are given to all our guests that we have and are posted um in
the house just inside the front door. So if any emergency vehicles come, our phone numbers are right there. And you know, we're little, like I said, we're eight houses down. >> Okay, this is John. >> No, just quickly, I just want to say
it's been a two-step process and and I hope everybody um recognizes that. Um, so, um, this has gotten a pretty thorough, um, going over. Um, there there was a prior, um, Senate, excuse me, select board licensing hearing on
this. Uh, first time I've been to one of those. They occur on Wednesdays. And, um, Chaz and staff conduct them. Michael represents the select board. Um, so this has been thoroughly vetted and, um, you know, I'm a yes on it. Um, and I
hope the board is a yes on it. Okay, this is a public hearing. So, let's open up the public hearing. Chair, you want to help? >> Members of the public wish to be heard on this uh hearing. Uh you can step up to the podium here or you can use the hand raise feature on Zoom.
I don't see a hand. Okay. In that case, I will close the public hearing and are we ready to vote or anyone have questions? Okay. Uh, I move approval of the um waiver uh for a
lodging hope, I'm sorry, waiver of the requirement for an on-site um uh agent for 233 Aspen Avenue and approval for renewal of the license for that lodging house. All in favor, please indicate by
saying I. John Vetscoyak >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I chair votes I. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, 12C, 1459 Beacon Street is actually kind of different.
>> Yes. >> Um, so 1459 Beacon Street, um, the building department did not recommend renewal of this application. Um, the building inspector has visited the site. Uh, and sorry, someone's someone's alarm going off. Uh, I hear some buzzing in
the >> Oh, >> fine. >> Sorry. >> It was on vibrate. I didn't notice it. I was just worried. Uh thank you. Um the um uh the applicant um uh has had a uh
issue with the uh building code. Um an inspector went out um earlier this week actually and confirmed the violation. Um there is a facade the structural integrity of the front facade of the building uh is not stable. Um and that
has been the case for some time. Um and again one of these things where we have in in tightening up our procedures conducting the lodging house audit and so forth this came to our attention um we again we had the initial part of this
hearing at the licensing panel earlier in the month. Um we spoke to the um owner Cynthia Papus who is here um and will speak on her own behalf. Um the concern we raised obviously is that this is a life safety issue. Um, the building
department has issued that potential violation letter. What the building department would like the owner to do is to have the structure promptly evaluated by a structural engineer. Um, and proof of that evaluation along with an affidavit deeming the facade properly
supported and structurally sound must be submitted to the building department. Um, and then the owner must obtain a building permit to repair the property um, and conduct that work um, in accordance. Uh the owner has said that she is in talks to potentially sell the
property to someone who people or persons who are aware uh that it has a you know life safety violation on the on the structure. Um but um we don't know where they are in that that process. Um
so we asked her to come in to the full board to have this conversation uh and to see what the board wants to do in terms of going forward. Um so Miss Papus is here. Um and uh we're uh happy to hear from her.
>> Okay. So as I had mentioned before, the building um >> and that's with a heavy heart is for sale. You can't hear me. >> Could you introduce yourself again for the >> I'm sorry. Cynthia Papis, 1459 Beacon Street, the Beacon Plaza, the largest
and the oldest lodging house in Brooklyn. We've been there 65 years. We've never been to a meeting. We've never had a violation. My father passed away in sorry, my dad passed away in um 2010.
uh the the pieces that you you speak of were already missing um when I took over in 2016. Um it took that long because it had to settle the estate.
Uh so at that point the building inspector, don't remember his name back then. Anyway, he uh said that I would need to put to um staging
scaffolding to to protect the building, which I did immediately with Isaac Blair. So, I've never had an I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be repaired. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that
we I have not had an issue at all with it changing, moving, dropping anything from above. I I would like to get it repaired. Um mainly for structural reasons, as you say, but also for cosmetic reasons.
We're right on Beacon Street. uh the the people that are interested. I have a couple of people right now that are very serious buyers and I have told them upfront that it needs to be done. It's going to be the first thing that
you're going to need to do if you purchase this building that this needs to be taken care of. They've agreed to that and they uh would get their own estimates from the
Masons. They seem to be moving a little too slow for me. I may move on to the other potential buyer. Otherwise, I will have to take this on myself. Uh but I just need time. I have spoken to a
few masons. As you know, when you deal with contractors, especially exterior workers, people that work on whether it be landscaping or building structures, they set up their work during the winter
in order to proceed in the spring when the weather gets good. I had one person tell me, "I can't even come look at it till the end of June. So, I'm trying to go as fast as I possibly can to take care of this
matter. Um, but I would like to, uh, excuse me. Um, engage within 60 days to do the work. So, I would like to, you know, keep you posted on what's going on, whether it be Nicole Lima. I don't know who you want
me to contact, but through email or telephone or >> do you have residents in your building? >> I have one. >> And how many >> I'm sorry. >> How many rooms are there? >> 41. >> 41 rooms and one resident.
>> The reason why is because I take care of the building myself. I do all the rooms, laundry, um, reservations, everything. I can no longer do it because I have a
health issue. So, um, that's why I'm selling. Otherwise, I would like to stay, but I can't. So, >> so I I understand the business uh the building department has some ideas in
terms of what what they're proposing to be done. >> Yeah. I mean, well, the building department the building department needs this addressed, right? We the the it's unsafe, right? That's the problem. >> May I say that I do did I did give the building department the structural
engineers paperwork. >> Yes. I I was never contacted by the building department till this year and I have been licensed in that time with an okay from the building department since that 2010.
So if it was such an urgency, why did they let it go for 10 years? >> Well, the building department reply responds, you know, to is unfortunately a complaint based system, right? It's >> okay. Okay. So, somebody walked by and complained. That's typical. Okay. But no, but in this in this kind of figured
>> in in this case, it's more we were >> we are conducting these audits of all of all lodging houses to figure out what's been going on. >> Um, and in this instance, right, you provided a report, but that report has expired in 2013, right? It's it's it's
out of date. Um, and the building inspector in their letter to you says, you know, even then the report said that there were structural issues that needed to be addressed. Um, and you know,
>> I we absolutely understand that 2013, as you said, your the estate was going through probate. There was a lot going on, >> right? And then there was the COVID too. We had that. I did not apply for any >> Wait, let me let me Yeah. Can we just finish? Um
the re the reality is, you know, I think we need to hear from the building department what a reasonable timeline is on this um because and again they just they just yesterday um were able to go back out
and issue this letter. So I would suggest to the board that we put this on for that we continue this hearing to the next session. Um and have the building department come back and
you know the applicant is asking for 60 days. Um let's have the building department verify whether or not that's a reasonable request under the circumstances and then make a deterine you can make a determination on what you want done based on that. >> John. Yes. Um those are welcome words
because for the second time I just want to say that we're way behind schedule and if this would move things along on this particular item. Yes, I would agree with Chaz. We should continue this. What did you say to the next meeting or >> the next meeting? >> Next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah, there's some complicated issues. I
think we can't solve them tonight. >> Uh Paul, >> well just I I want to understand a few facts. So because I'm looking at a picture on Google. uh >> with with with scaffolding and I beams holding up the facade.
>> Um and I just want to remind us of the building that we had collapsed. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Right. Um and thankfully nobody was hurt. Um so you said you have you have 41 rooms and you have one resident. >> That's correct. >> One resident. Okay.
>> That's correct. >> And so how long have you only had one resident? >> For four years. >> For four years. Okay. So, I have had, you know, >> hold on, hold on. These are two separate issues. There's an issue with with clearly uh the structural integrity of
this building. Um, and I think that this board has an obligation to take that extremely serious because this is on Beacon Street. Uh, you know, this and this is the picture I'm looking at is from 2022. Uh, you know, that's the Google picture.
So, four years have gone by. Um, who knows what it looks like now. Um, and she only has one resident. She doesn't need a She doesn't need a lodging house license to have one resident in her building. Um, right.
>> No. >> No. She could have she could have a guest in her this is her building. She could have a guest there. She doesn't need a lodging house license. She's only had one resident for four years. So, you know, I don't feel like we have to be we need to issue her a license. Um, I think
this is more of a building code issue. Uh, and the thing looks like it's dangerous. >> Okay. Uh, David, >> I have a similar question. I'm just curious as to why you want the license given that you have you've only had one resident for so long.
>> That's a great question. Thank you for asking. Um, one which means nothing to all of you is just the fact that we've had it for 65 years. And I Please let me >> It's emotional to me. This is this was a family business.
This was a family business, okay? For 65 years, we ran it and it was a wonderful time. I just want to express I've met people from every country all over the world.
And I would not trade that for for the world. And I never had to even go to Logan Airport to meet them. They came to me to us. So that's I know it doesn't matter to anybody but me and I get that. But the other reason for some reason
these buyers who should know better but they think that if I have a license it's going to be easier for me to get a license. And I say no we owned it at that time you know for 60 years and my I
my dad owned it. I still had to go in front of the board to get my license. So, you're going to have to go in front of the board to get the license, too. It doesn't transfer from me to you. That's what I try to explain to them. But I
think for some reason in their head, they just think that if I have it, it'll be easy for them. So, >> so a question I have for staff on that. >> Uh, so obviously this doesn't work the same as something like liquor licenses. Uh what would be the process for a new
owner to request a license when one is elapsed? is that >> it's the same it's the same as if they were you know there right there is no transfer of license here >> they just apply for a new one >> right that that's sort of separate issue the
issue is what do we do about this crumbling facade I mean picture I see doesn't show what I thought I would see um but apparently it's dangerous but that's not before us right now >> right so the bu the building department is moving expeditiously on this
separately um in terms of what needs to be done to shore it up, what we need to do in the event that there isn't action and so forth, right? The building department takes this very seriously >> and so do I. >> And so, and as as do you, we know. So, we're >> we're doing our best to make this work,
but separately, the issue is right. Is there >> is there a need to operate the lodging? Is there a need to operate a lodging house? Um, under these circumstances, >> she's not operating a lodging house. >> Well, You could argue she hasn't been operating a lodging house for at least
four years. >> She is she is applying for a license to operate a lodging house that we have to >> Well, she Well, yeah, we're Well, we're asking not to It's on the agenda to not potentially not renew it, right? But I I I see no indication that she's operating a lodging house, so why grant her a
license to operate a lodging house? >> Yeah. But what about Chaz's idea that we just continue this so that we can get clarity on some of these other issues? >> That's what we're going to do. continue this until we get more information and and not issue a license. >> Right. >> May I ask one question? Um you you had
mentioned that you have talked to Masons about this. Yes. >> Um >> yes. >> Have you have you started the process of getting an independent evaluation from a structural engineer? >> No, because I did not know I needed another one. I figured that's >> Oh, you figured that 2013 was
sufficient. Okay. >> Because nothing has changed, >> right? Yeah. So, so are you intending to hire a structural engineer? >> If I have to, I will. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that is what the building department is. Is telling you. >> Okay. I did not receive that letter yet.
>> Well, it's Yeah, it's they they literally just went back out to reconfirm all So, you if you haven't gotten it yet, you should. Um I can you know what we'll do tonight is we'll we'll print a copy for you. So, you have >> Oh, great. Thank you. Thanks. That'd be great. >> You you know, >> this is it's quite serious, so you really do need to address. Is there a
recommendation from the from the licensing committee on this one? >> The recommendation of the licensing committee was to see where we were um at this juncture. Um and you know, again, >> we're going to see where we are. >> No, no, no. My re my recommendation two weeks ago, the panel the panel's
recommendation two weeks ago was to see is to is to hear more from the applicant, let the building department be able to go out and see it again. And now we have the letter from the building department which came in yesterday, which says a structural engineer needs to look at this ASAP. um >> which is the next step. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, we're going to continue this um actually hearing until our next meeting and um we'll have more information at that point. >> When is that? >> That will be two weeks from today. >> Okay. During the day, I hope. >> No, sorry. At night.
>> Well, I'm sorry. I can't I physically >> You can always attend online and you don't you technically do not have to attend. I would suggest you do though, but um it would be Tuesday the 12th of May. Uh and we will do our best to put you at the start of the agenda so it doesn't go too late.
>> When is the next meeting of the licensing panel? >> Next meeting of the licensing panel is the next day, the 13th, I believe. Uh or it could be the 20th. Let me double check. Sorry. >> Because I'm wondering if we can just continue it to that instead of this. >> I would
It's on the 20th. It's May 20th again. and the build the building this this issue may be resolved by the building commissioner before then the building commissioner may shut the building down um and so um that is a possibility that's out
there um so >> Jess can I ask one just one quick question technically is does she have a license right now to operate a lodging house >> so technically her license has not yet been renewed so but as as we've said in the pass with
these things, right? You can't take away a license from someone without due process. So, this is the due process that we're doing right now. So, >> theoretically, yes, you could vote tonight and say, "We're not renewing this license. That's it." Um, and that's within your prerogative. Um,
>> okay. I I recommend that we continue this until the next meeting uh and not vote. So, if anyone objects, we'll do that. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Breen. Uh, next. Oh, we had an interview
>> uh for a um person to the uh conservation commission, right? >> She was online, but I don't see >> Okay. Can we we'll continue that until some future date. Okay. Uh, next we have
warrant articles public hearings. Uh, article two, collective bargaining. I assume and brag is on the uh online >> and is here.
>> Okay. >> And she's going to tell us what we're voting on the >> chair. >> Yes. >> Might we um given that these are all ones that we've we've had previous consideration of, right? >> No, these are >> Oh, these are these are all brand new to us. >> Y
Okay. Well, if there's any way that the um petitioners can speed up their presentations. >> Yes, I agree. >> Yeah. >> And and any way that select board members cannot be soquacious? >> I'll try my best. >> Okay. Um is she online?
>> Ann, are you on? >> Okay. >> Yeah, she's on. >> Okay. Ann, can you unmute? >> I'm gonna miss this part. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Why don't we go on to article 11? Um, >> okay. That's
>> so we'll we'll skip the budget for now. Um, and go to article 11. Melissa is currently double booked at the advisory committee and I would like her to be here for the budget if at all humanly possible. >> Right. >> Okay. Uh article 11. Rebecca Stone was in the audience. Oh, there she is. She's
still here. >> You want to come up and tell us what this article is about and why you why you um filed it? Hi, Rebecca Stone, town meeting member from precinct 3 and uh chief uh lead
petitioner. What do we call what do we call it? One of many competitive petitioners on war article 11. Um and I want to just um Oh, good. Marissa is still here. I just want to acknowledge my other co-etitioners, some
of whom are here. Um uh Marissa Vote um from uh precinct 6, Kim Smith also from precinct 6 and also not here um but here in spirit um Kelly Hardbec a town meeting member from precinct 7 and Alec Leovitz from uh town meeting member from
precinct 8. Um so the um so warrant article 11 is was supposed to be an uncomplicated request um for Brooklyn to embrace um and
establish a standard good government practice of a dennial government structural review. Um Brookline is proud to be recognized for its best in show budget book and commitment to maintaining its AAA bond rating. We don't give the same careful attention
right now to the structure and organization of government and we should. Um so the the nature of so let me see hang on a second. Um we haven't done this kind of review in
decades. It is something we have done in the past. Um in particular 1940 um and 1968 were big years for this. Um so we haven't done it in decades. Um but the nature of the reviews there most
people don't remember those and don't know what exactly happened at the time. Um but the nature of the review the review of this kind is simply not a mystery. It's it's um not a performance review. It's not specifically of it's not looking at departments. It's not a
departmental review. It is a review of our structure. If you've worked in the private sector, the chances are you're familiar with periodic organizational reviews to ensure that the current structure supports the goals and objectives of the business. It looks at
roles and spans of authority. It looks at departmental collaboration or isolation. It looks at redundancies within different departments. If c if three different departments have somebody doing the same thing, there might be efficiencies of putting those
functions together, something the town has done in the past. Um in some cases, um these these reviews ask, do we have the right positions with the right lines of authority to make good decisions both
expeditiously and responsibly given current conditions? The current conditions is key. That's why you do it periodically. We're suggesting um every 10 years denially. What the review committee finds, it
reports on. Um and if it finds things that could be usefully changed, it reports on those and makes those makes that as a recommendation for change. A government review does exactly the same thing. It looks at our structure and
asks all of those questions. in Massachusetts municipalities that have a charter that was written after 1966. Um that's accomplished with a standard every five or 10year charter review. So there are lots of examples from which
Brookline can draw. Um including CTO and NS's own government reviews in 1968. Oh, I forgot the one in 1985. Um both of which led to important shifts in how the town is organized for its decision-making. So this is not a new or
drastic or scary idea. A healthy organization, >> a healthy town takes a physical periodically and it should be our standard practice and that is what warrant article 11 is trying to do. The version that was published in the
warrant is not the motion that the petitioners plan on making right now. And I believe you should all have received the substitute motion um that we circulated several weeks ago. Um and that is the motion. So the the advisory
committee subcommittee that considered the original motion um did not um voted out favorably, but the full advisory committee no other committee has considered the substitute
motion. Um, CTOS has met three times and has not been able to come to any conclusion and is meeting again next Monday night on this. Um, and uh, the full advisory committee is scheduled now to meet on um, May 7th. Um, so what I
hope we will discuss tonight is the motion that was given to you all a couple of weeks ago, which has a couple of important changes from the one that was published in the warrant. The most important change is that the first
motion that we the first ait um sorry first article that we filed suggested a change in the appointment authority and would have involved the select board in appointing members of the committee on town organization and structure. That has been taken out of the motion. We do
not intend for that to be a change. So the the article as we have proposed it um only changes section 2.3.2 two, the general duties. Um, and it adds a new
section 2.3.2 um, small I um, to give further definition to this periodic denial review of government that that this warrant article would say that CTOS would be um, charged with doing.
In response to several um concerns that were raised by CTOS um we have we are now considering even even further um amendments to this um in order to be responsive um and I just
wanted to walk you through the changes and what what they are responsive to. So as I said we've removed the the appointment authority entirely. There were some concerns that um that having the select board be part of the appointing just three of the seven
members which which is what we originally proposed would politicize the process um in unhelpful ways. Um and since that was not a certainly not a need to have it was very easy to take that out. Um what we've changed we have
put the initial review um so the first time we do one of these reviews um was in the original warrant article fiscal 28 um members of CTO >> I'm sorry your time is up. >> I'm so sorry.
>> Okay. Um anyone have any questions? And this is going to be a hearing. >> I'd like to give her a couple minutes more to finish if that would be acceptable. >> Um I'll allow that.
>> How many more? >> Two. >> Okay. So, um the we've pushed the the first review farther out um to be sensitive to the to the budgeting >> um the to the need to budget. The this
kind of a review really does require um consulting help. It doesn't mean we contract it out to a consultant. Um but it really the a team doing this kind of review needs consulting help and for that there should be money. Um putting it starting in fiscal 29 is responsive
to giving us a couple of years to make sure that we have that either to budget it in um if Brookline can afford to do it or to find private funding for it. Um, we've removed the language about contracting for the article because actually putting that into the article
was not necessary. This was pointed out to us by somebody on the AC subcommittee. Um, and we hope that that will eliminate some of the concerns that were raised about handing this off to an outside consultant. The fourth thing is we clarified the scope. um CTOS was very
concerned that we have more specific guidance on what the scope of such a review would be and so we are adding language um to 2.3.2I which says that um that it shall commence by September of the relevant fiscal year with scope to be determined
by the committee. So it's very clear that the committee doing the review would in the first you know in in every instance start by defining the scope for that year's review. So those are the changes. Um and we hope that um we hope that next week that CTO and S will feel
a little bit better about it. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> Oh, thanks Rebecca. Um I did find it in our packet. I think I have the right one. It's a looks like it's markup from original Warren article not to be included in the combined reports is what
I'm looking at. Um and the question I have is related to the the how often this is being done. Um it says it's going to be done annually. >> No, it does not. >> That's not the I'm not reading that properly. It says it's uh in addition
beginning with fiscal year 2028 and thereafter in every fiscal year ending in eight. So >> CTOS shall conduct a review of the organization, >> right? So that's going to be changed um to nine for once for one thing. We're
we're um fiscal 29. But in any event, so if you do the first one in fiscal 29, then every subsequent year end any subsequent fiscal year ending in nine would be 10 years. Every 10 years. >> Oh, I Oh, I see what it Okay, that's how
we trick. Okay, I got you. Um, and just to go back to um, kind of having someone outside do this. I mean, isn't there's organizations that kind of focus on this type of work, right? >> There are organiz So there in
Massachusetts is very lucky to have um, two organizations that focus on helping with these. Yeah. Um it is very it it is unusual to have them do it because the charter review if a charter review committee for example does it. It's by definition an internal um citizen
committee. Um the consultants are there because they do this all the time but they they effectively staff the review. They don't do they don't do the study themselves. And is this replacing the the inability to get signatures for a charter review or
>> No, this has nothing to do with charter commission. This has nothing to do with changing the form of government. Um these reviews are done within the existing form. It's looking our structure and organization. It has nothing to do with changing the form of government. >> Okay. By the way, CHZ, we put in our
goals and objectives some time ago the um proposal to engage someone to look at a lot of the issues that Rebecca's talking about. Um where where is >> Well, you talked about being more responsive to, you know, finding a way
to engage with the community and be more responsive. We've continued to do, you know, for example, we do the PCO survey every three years. We do you know and as part of that last time around we did the analysis of you know what do you you know did you do you know about town government you know do you have an
opinion about it and all those things I also you know I you know this is part of my kind of bread and butter this is what I do for example I talked to CTNos about this you know we're talking about inspectional services as a concept you know this idea of ensuring that we have
a proper uh potentially a better model of handling how we handle inspections across multiple departments We've talked about it in the human services context with the resource navigator and the housing um and so forth. So >> what I was thinking about is the proposal that came to us through um I
think Sandy Gatsby. >> Oh yes, the yeah the the proposal out of the um >> um out of the um >> no but I know what you're talking about. Yes. The moderators committee on forms of government. Um
um that is a good question. I will come I will get back to >> get us an answer >> because I think it addressed some of the issues that um Rebecca was referring to. Um no give Mike had his hand up a lot. >> Sure. Um
I'm I'm a little curious about your thoughts on um the the reporting out of this of this committee. Um would they for example potentially uh provide um file warrant articles for some for you
know maybe some change in the town clerk's role or or something else or would they be uh advising the select board on different organizational structures within within the select board's organization
or is it or is it some other realm of consideration? >> No. So the so the report um is a series of findings of of the review. So they might find um I mean and and some of the things
that that Chaz and and Bernard were just talking about are this doesn't preclude those continuing to happen in the 10 years between reviews. This this is just a we shall be looking for these things in a in an organized fashion every 10
years. So um so the report that they would write literally does their findings and their findings can be um things that they were actively looking for. They can be things that they found as they were looking for something else. They just they discovered as they were
looking at the structure of of different departments or at the functioning of town meeting or various other things. They could say this doesn't seem to be working that well. Town meetings has said repeatedly that it wants to do X. it doesn't seem to be able to do X. We
ha we have that's a finding. If they have a recommendation for how to address that, they might also say so we would recommend that the following happen if and that recommendation so that report comes to town meeting. That is a report
to the town. So reports to the town go to town meeting. Um, and then the question is, um, and then anybody I mean it I would think that it would be CTO and S, but it doesn't have to be off of that report. The idea is that if there
are recommendations that require a warrant article, then that warrant article would be prepared. If there are recommendations that require a special act of the legislature, such as if they're recommending a change in the size of a a body, if they're
recommending a change in an elected versus an appointed situation. Um those are all things that would have to be done um through special act of the legislature. So what they would be suggesting what they would be bringing to town meeting is we recommend this to
happen and you know we will develop the warrant article the home rule petition that would turn into that special act. So that's the way that's the way the review gets to the report. the report would come to town meeting and then there would be um the the time in
between the May annual town meeting when the report gets made and the November town meeting for the development of any warrant articles off of recommendations that they they want to make. >> Okay, Paul. >> Yep. Um >> that's at least the way it works other places. >> You didn't have your hand up. >> No.
>> Okay. Sorry. um >> unfortunately I won't be here to deliberate on this so maybe that has me off the hook but I you know it's just as I'm listening to this and I and you know I know there was changes where the select board had an opportunity to appoint someone to CTNS >> that's not in it
>> and and and they cut that out because they thought it was going to be political uh which is interesting language to use um the moderator appoints CTNos right >> yes >> so this is this is the legislature doing a review of essentially the executive Right? Because because the vast majority
of what you're talking about structure is not town meeting, right? That's the moderator's domain. Um how town meetings organize or how they perform their function. It's totally up to the moderator. And the only thing that the moderator creates is the advisory committee uh and CTS and then periodic
appointments of moderators committees. So, you're really talking about having the advisory committee or actually the legislature review and recommend to the executive how to function. Is that is that really what we're talking about here? >> No.
>> No, it sounds like it. >> No. Um, >> sounds an awful lot like that, Rebecca. >> Um, I'm sorry it does. That's a complete misinterpretation both of our structure and of what this tries to do. So um
CTONS is a town organization. It is an organization of the town. It is appointed by the moderator. >> Yeah. >> Town meeting is a body that represents the town. When things are presented to town meeting, it is the same thing as
presenting it to the town. Um look at I have in fact looked back over >> 200 years of reports um that were done by and for the town. Um moderators
committees are frequently appointed to do the town's business. Um CTOS was set up in 1959 >> specifically to do this. The original the original vote of town town meeting
created the committee on town organization and structure. It created it after an ad hoc moderators committee looking at the structure of government recommended that there be a standing committee that kept a continuous
um interest and scrutiny of the organization and structure of government. It was designed to work with the town administrator um on an ongoing basis um and to look at just the kinds of issues that I that I just described as are done in typical organizational
reviews. This is not about department heads. This is not about how workers are feeling working for the town of Brooklyn. This is about our structure and whether or not it is well for well structured to respond to the current demands.
>> But but you will all it is. >> But I no I understand that and what happened whatever 50 years ago there was a point and I understand I'm just saying my interpretation of what you're presenting is that the moderator and a single individual who appoints CTN ands he can choose to put whoever he wants on
there based on their beliefs of how the structure of the government should work and they're going to go do an independent review of the executive on the structure of how government functions. I'm I'm just sharing with you that it doesn't >> but they're not doing a review of the
executive. They are they are >> the structure the structure of of of how it's functioning and >> but that is what they have done. COS has been the source of all of the recommendations for the changes to the town administrators act. That's they
would continue to do that. That would be a piece of this right. They have been responsible for looking they they are the committee. I mean, look at their bylaw, right? They receive every single proposal that's made um on anything that
changes any part of our structure. They already receive that. They would go on receiving those. This is an additional. So, the current bylaw for COS says that they shall review all of the things that are proposed by someone else. So, all of the warrant articles,
>> what they do, right? >> Right. It says that. The second thing it says in their current bylaw is that they may from time to time do a review that we're describing here. And all we're doing is saying they may from time to time do that. They have not taken
advantage of that offer that they may do that for many many decades. It is good government practice for towns to do this. Other places do it to good effect. We should do it. So we are changing that may from time to time to shall on a
dennial basis. That's what we're doing. It is not changing anything about CTO and S's um authority. This doesn't change their authority. It simply says instead of deciding that you want to do
this um town meeting is asking you actually to do it on a 10 year on an every 10-year basis um which is a wellestablished practice of municipal government at this point um and um and
report back. That's all we're doing. It doesn't change anything. Hey, this this is a public hearing, so why don't we open up the public hearing? >> Sure. >> Uh if people have other questions, we can take them, but I want to get the public hearing going. >> Um and I guess I can do it just as well
as you can, except me, you know, who's out there in the public. So, if you're in the audience and would like to speak on this Warren article, please approach the uh podium. And if you're online, uh raise your hand using the um the uh whatever the >> handra feature.
>> Hand raise feature. Okay. and we will uh we will recognize you. >> Um Regina. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Gina Frolley. Uh precinct 16. I just really have questions about it. Um who
would do the report? I didn't >> Well, so we we we don't we don't do the back and forth. Can you give can you give your qu Sorry. Can you give your questions and then she can answer them all at once? Who would do the report and is this depending on who I'm wasting
time by not knowing who do the report I would it would direct me in different questions. Um, if it's some other body appointed by whom to do the report, is that not also a way to go around the
authority of the um, COS? Because it sounds like, well, they recommend changing this or that. Um, it's been my experience with the COS that they don't do um, every single article that could change the town. They
make decisions about that. I haven't with article 13 was not invited to present to the CTOS. Um they they decide which ones they think would would feed into the concept of um organizing the town in an
efficient way. So I do want to know who would do the report and if it's some other group that who's appointing it. Um wouldn't that really just be putting them in opposition to each other potentially? And an end run to be able
to say, well, they recommend this, so therefore town meeting should have a warrant article. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience or online? >> We'll get to you. >> Okay, Rebecca, you want to
>> conclude and I will close the hearing since no one else seems to want to speak. >> Um the um this is the Warren article is asking CTS to do the review. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh I'd like to bring to people's
attention that the big hand just slipped past 12 and the little hand is on 10. Uh so we have about 17 additional items to go over. So please bear that in mind as we go through our discussions.
>> Um >> okay. But continue. I just um I just uh the only thing I want to say is I assume that this board will want to hear from CTO and S um and possibly from the advisory committee before making any
decision about your own support. I I don't want to put that on you, but um I I would find it very difficult if I were you um to um take a vote on this if um if you >> we're not going to take a vote tonight. >> Just just note though that this is the deadline for the combined reports. Um
that doesn't mean you know again there will be supplemental reports so it's not a big deal but you know there >> it's for for ones where you want to have something in the initial combined reports like the budget you're going to want to take a vote tonight just like >> okay uh David
>> uh as part of your research and drafting this did you find that there are many other Massachusetts communities that set as a requirement having these periodic reviews? Um it is a standard part. Uh it is it is absolutely best practice and practiced in many many towns. In most
towns that it's practiced or cities or towns that it's practiced, it's because they have a charter um an actual written charter document. And if they've done that since 1966, it is a standard piece of that charter to say there will be a dennial charter review committee and
that's what they do. Can I briefly add to that that the biggest chain the thing that makes Brookline as far as I'm aware unique in this regard because I was asked to talk to COS about this is that we have a standing committee on organization and structure. Uh and that is different than I I talked to the uh
uh MMA form of government committee about this. They are not aware of any other community that has what we have. Um, charter review committees are set up intentionally to be discrete bodies so that they're formed for the purpose and then they're disbanded um, when their
work is done. So having a standing charter review committee, I don't think I think that's that's unique and I don't I don't know if we've had discussions about the pros and cons of that specifically >> and this would not be a standing review committee. this is the CTO and s and
simply adding to what they do on an annual basis. >> You you see my you see my point though which is that's it's ordinarily there's a purpose-built committee. The committee is appointed specifically to do that work and nothing else and then it disbands when it's done. Whereas having a standing committee do it does raise
the potential however unlikely that someone could stay on that committee and do it again and again um you know 10 years down the line. Um >> which is possible. Um we have people who are on comm been on committees for 20 30 years here. >> If I may, there is no power in doing
this review. It is just doing a review and writing a report. >> There is no authority to make any changes simply to recommend them. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah. >> Uh Paul, >> one last comment um just just briefly. So, I think Rebecca, the thing that
concerned me the most about this is that you originally you had the the select board included in who was appointed to this almost which I think is probably the right way and that there's a more balanced holistic view of this group and the feedback that you got is well that's
political um if you had if you had the had representation from the select board and to me that's actually political that response was political. Um, and so it's I'm, you know, I do think my preference would be to have a
purpose-built review that is is is multidisciplinary. It's not just a group that's appointed by the moderator. Um, that's my that would be my preference. Um, so I'm I am just so you know I'm I am skeptical about this because of the fact that that
the if it was CTS or advisory I don't gave you the feedback that it was political to actually have representation from the select board is actually a political statement. So my view >> I I'm not going to argue with you Paul it's not it was not our original intent. >> Okay. Okay. Um we will take this up at a
future date. Hopefully we'll hear something from CTOS. I certainly hope >> they won't they probably won't come here but they'll send us their thoughts >> on paper. Did Did you have a quick question? >> Well, um I just want to entertain the
possibility um given you know this is the first time that I've thought about co not being part of the legislative branch of our government which I sort of thought it was given that it is um appointed by the moderator. um that you
know if this is if this is sort of part of the legislative branch of our body whether or not it's even necessary or appropriate for the uh head of the executive branch to weigh in on an opinion on the matter on this legislative matter just I'm just
considering that question. >> Okay. Thank you Rebecca. >> Thank you all. >> Uh can we go back to article two collective bargaining is >> Ann are you online? I am. >> There we go. >> Okay. So, we've got article two,
>> collective bargaining. Um, we have a couple things that we've um agreed to here. >> Go ahead. >> Sure. So, as part of warrant article 2 for town meeting, we have two collective
bargaining agreements. one for the 16 dispatchers in public uh safety for a 2% general wage increase of $18,82. And we have an agreement for uh and
these are each one-year agreements with engineers for fiscal 26 for the 12 engineers for a total cost of $25,34 each for a 2% general wage increase. >> Great. Okay. Um let's open up the public
hearing. Um the select board has already gone through this. Um, if anyone has in the audience who would like to speak, please come up to the microphone. If anyone online would like to speak, please raise our hand using the hand
raise function. There anyone looking to speak? >> Don't see anyone raising their hand online. >> Okay, then I'll close the hearing and um any discussion from the select board or can we vote? >> Oh, wait. Actually, we're not. We can
vote. Yes, you should vote. Yeah. Okay. I move approval of the um >> favorable action. >> I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> Okay. I move favorable action on um collective bargaining agreements with
engineers um union and the dispatchers u um in the manner that were was um indicated by Anne Braga or the the numbers. All in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I Paul Warren. Hi, >> David Pearman. >> Hi, >> Michael Rubenstein. Hi,
>> Chair Votes. I >> next. Are we ready for article three? I'm sorry. Article eight. >> Um, Melissa's not here, but I can walk you through it. Um, the So, right now, Article 8 remains a no override budget. Um, that is to say, it makes the assumption that the vote next week will
not pass. The ballot question next week will not pass. Uh, and that's the budget that will be in there. Um the budget we are in the process of building and finalizing a um uh a yes override budget that will show the difference between um
what was uh what was cut and restored and added and so forth once that comes through. Uh and that will be presented to you as part of the process going forward. because we want a clean budget recommendation in the initial combined reports. We would recommend moving on,
you know, having the hearing on this and moving forward on it. Now, I will note that the change, the big change from here to now is that we are seeing some savings in group health from the decision to cut coverage for G1s for our employees for weight loss. Um, roughly
$500,000 of that will flow to the town side. And so we have made restorations uh based on the priorities that you have identified, we on staff have identified and that the advisory committee has uh uh identified as well. Uh that information is in your packet. There's a
separate memo there totaling how that $500,000 will be restored even in a no override scenario. Um you know the highlights of this are um there are some critical positions in finance and public works that would be restored. um the farmers market would would come back
online. Um the um uh and just you know hybrid meeting support would be would be continued in a more robust fashion. We wouldn't lose part-time staff at the library. Um so we're doing our best to uh contain on that front. Um so wherever
possible we have tried to u use that spread that money around. Um it doesn't solve any of the budget busting problems, right? It doesn't solve the fire overtime problem. It doesn't solve the police positions being held open problem. Um, this goes a little bit of the way towards blunting the damage in a
no override scenario, but the damage would still be pretty significant. >> Okay, Michael, you >> I'm just I just want to confirm. So, what you're saying that that you you suggest we vote on tonight would include
all of those Yes. restorations? >> Yes. $500,000 worth of restorations. >> Great. Okay. Uh, John, >> uh, the statement that you made about how, uh, what we'd be voting on tonight is a, um, no override budget. Does that apply to the schools as well?
>> Yes. >> Um, and and um, you specified certain things that are cut in it, but then you said these other things won't be cut, but but that's true even though it's a no override budget. >> So, yes, in in so we we're getting some
savings back from healthcare. Yeah. And so we're using those to defay, you know, we said initially if there is no override to balance the budget, we will make these cuts. Yeah. >> And so we're we're proposing not to make some of those cuts because of the savings we would see in healthcare. >> Okay. That's entirely because of that. Okay.
>> Chess. Um we haven't seen the advisory committee's budget though, right? >> No, you have not. Advisory, I believe, is voting now. Um so you may you may you may want to wait a second for Melissa to come up. Um but uh as I understand it they are in the process of hearing
potential amendments uh and she may hopefully come up to you u in the next 20 minutes. >> Can we move on to other things and come back to the budget? >> I want to ask a question though. >> Um just make sure that I and the audience understand this is a no override budget. The special
appropriations um are would would be um appropriated even without an override. Yes. >> Okay. And and the money comes from >> free cash. >> All this is free cash. >> What? The special appropriations?
Like I'm sorry. What when what in particular are you? >> Well, the 32 special appropriations um in the U article. >> No, no, no. So that's those those are all right. Those those are all including in a no override scenario. Yes. >> Okay. So we would get >> Yes, we would still be doing
>> We would still pay for strategic solar initiative. >> Yes. Yes. Those are that's the CIP. Okay. >> So, yeah, >> some of it's coming from revenue, some of it's coming from free cash. >> Okay. >> Some of it's coming from the overlay. >> Okay. So, uh why don't we wait until um Melissa's back
>> and um move on to the next item, article 22, Prop 2 and a half resolution. Do we have petitioners here? >> I assume this will be quick. >> Yes. Uh thank you so much for having us.
I'm Bradford Kimble, TMM Precinct One. >> Um, we the uh warn article that was in the packet has not is not our most recently amended um version. We sent an email few hours before the hearing began with an updated version which calls for the select essentially for the select
board to create a committee to investigate the possibility of creating a municipal cost services index. Um, so the reason we we originally proposed the article was because we wanted to start a conversation in Brooklyn about the limits of Proposition 2 and a half and
how uh they affect our budgets given the growth of of mun the growth of costs of municipal services across the board. Uh originally we framed our resolution we framed our warrant article as a resolution. Um but upon revision from the advisory committee, thanks to uh
Neil Gordon and Cliff Brown, we came away with this this new approach that would call um for the select board to simply create a committee that would allow for the possibility of creating this municipal cost services index for Brooklyn. Essentially trying to create a metric that the public could see um for
which areas uh of services and goods uh for which areas those costs were rising um and how our budget was impacted by that. So I think that's that's sort of very simply our our warrant article. I don't want to waste anyone anyone's time too much if there are other
considerations. >> Uh Rob Sean, town meeting member precinct one. Um yeah the uh the advisory committee voted 150 to approve uh favorable action on this on this on the warrant article the revised warrant
article. Okay. Um, yeah, John. >> Um, I'm just looking to see if we have the revised. Uh, we don't I I just got it. I'll forward it. >> I emailed a copy about >> Right. Right. I think I think it went to Chaz. >> Yeah, I got I got it now. You have to
forward it to. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. Thanks, Bradford. Um, can you explain what a cost services index is, why we need it, how it would be developed? Is it uh aggregate? Is it by
product, by department? I mean, what by service? >> And what and whether you you determine whether it's already in existence somewhere either in the town or, you know, MMA or whatever, I assume. So I mean one of the things when we were
talking about the the the problems that are being caused by Prop 2 and a half and the interaction of that with higher inflation now um the one of the push backs we got right away is well you know like for instance the MMA has proposed
that you could instead of having a fixed nominal cap like Prop 2 and a half you could have something that's indexed to inflation and people have pushed back saying that well inflation's not the same as municipal cost inflation, right? That the cost that a municipality like
Brooklyn has are different from, for instance, CPI. And so we started looking into the idea of building a Massachusetts municipal cost index. And we talked about that with the advisory committee. And the idea came up that Brooklyn could create their own
municipal cost index or index that would track the inflation of municipal costs for for core services in Brooklyn. And we think that's a really good idea. We think that's a really a beneficial thing because in my experience with all this
override, you know, controversy and all this talk, you know, I find that people are very confused about what is being c, you know, how did we get into this budget situation? and how much of it is caused by um you know discretionary
spending versus I don't think people appreciate that a lot of the costs are just inflation being higher than 2 and a half%. And I think this would be a very useful tool for policy makers and for the public to understand better what are
hap what's happening with municipal cost and I think it would be I think would make future conversations about the budget a lot better and I the advisory committee agreed with with Bradford and I on that >> and as a town moderator found this to be
within scope. >> Yeah the town moderator has said that he he believes this is in scope. That's interesting. >> He proved he proved the language. >> Seems to me this is completely different topic or but anyway I don't care. Um
okay. Uh let's open up a public hearing. U public hearing on warrant article 11. I'm sorry. No what? >> 22 >> 22 uh with respect to proposition two and a half. Um, if you would like to speak from the audience, please approach
the podium. And if you're online and would like to speak, uh, please raise your hand using the hand raise function. Okay. >> No one online is raising their hand. >> Okay. Uh, then let's use that as an opportunity to close the hearing. Um,
and you you sent you you emailed us the final >> Yes. >> Okay. I will say we we on staff haven't talked about this. So we gota we got to have a conversation about >> Okay. Yeah. So I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I mean sorry. I mean that that was one
of the first things that that struck me in the resolve is does this need to be a select board committee or is this really a staff lecture? >> Well, I think I I would I I don't want to this is again I'm seeing this for the first time tonight. So, okay,
>> I I I would like to have a conversation with the petitioners about the aims of this and how we can better accomplish best accomplish what they're trying to do. >> Um, because yeah, I I have some I have some questions, but again, I'm just seeing this for the first time and I don't want to, you know, ask you
questions in public without having a chance to have a conversation with you. So, >> yeah. I just we didn't really know it was going to be till the last minute. We we didn't know that this was going to be on the agenda for tonight. So, I'm sorry we didn't get >> No, no, it's under this time. >> This is the crunch time. I understand.
>> I just I wonder if uh if would it be better suited for moderators committee um as opposed to placing it on staff? I mean, if there's some folks that have a passion for this topic and you know, I don't know. >> We would like to I mean, we would need
some cooperation from you know, staff to provide help provide data. >> Yeah. >> Right. And I don't know if that would be better that that would come better if it were if it were select board committee, but we don't have a strong opinion on that issue. >> I'm surprised that there's not already
an index like that. >> So, it's going to be my question. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, if I could I'm sorry. Uh I I did a lot of research on this and and there's really nationally there's no good um municipal cost inflation index, which really surprised me. There's a couple of
things like academic projects that have have been done. there's one in Illinois, but they're really not very they don't really address what are the real costs that municipalities are facing. So, I think this is a really interesting project where Brooklyn could really, you
know, um help pave the way and create a really useful tool for, you know, communicating to the to the people of Brooklyn, you know, what are the, you know, how much are inflation costs going up? because I feel like that's really an undercurrent
um with that's going on currently on the override issue. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, so uh we'll take this up at a future meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um do we go back to the budget of 2.3 >> still going down there?
>> Okay. Uh see if the town will adopt a resolution to increase siphons for select board members. Now, um I asked uh town or asked you to ask town council to tell us what we can say about this, >> right? >> As select board members, >> town council, >> you have an interest in this,
>> right? Um town council, um >> but I don't any >> No, you don't. >> Town council is online >> and I may not if I don't run because it doesn't start until 27. >> Joe Callahan is online. >> Uh good evening, Joe Kalan and town
council. Uh my apologies that I did not get back to you, but I can answer your questions. Uh nevertheless, um you can vote on this because the um warrant article would come into effect after every member of the board um has
faced an election. So that's a key part about when elected officials are able to vote on their on their salaries that they have to face the voters before they would be able to have that salary increase. Um this is done in Congress. There's a 27th amendment to the
constitution about congressional pay. So, Congress passed um a a bill that increases their uh pay but after every election. Uh it's done by the state legislature too and the governor uh and also most recently on the local level by
mayor uh um sheets in in Quinsey. So, you would have a conflict of interest if you were to vote on this and it would affect your pay say next year. But where this is drafted to come into effect on July 1st, 2029, every member of the board um in including ones that would be
elected next week, uh would have face the voters before that um salary increase would come into effect. Therefore, there's no conflict of interest. >> I I thought there was a um provision for something coming into effect on um uh uh
July 1st, 2027. Did I Did I misread that? Uh, I was looking at a revised question or >> Yeah, I was looking at a revised version. So, maybe that's the earlier version. >> So, well, answer the question.
>> Maybe we should do. >> Yeah, there should be an increase in 2027, but it's not a specific amount. Um, but my understanding of this of the conflict of interest law and I'm not a lawyer, but is that because there's like a rule of necessity that because they
they would be like there's no one else who can vote on um because they all have this the same conflict of interest and because they have to vote on this that that that they're that they're like allowed to um is my my understanding.
>> So there is a rule of necessity. So again, Joe Callahan, town council, uh there is a rule of necessity um but it wouldn't be necessary for the um the stipen to go into effect next year. It could go into effect after everyone has faced the voters. So it's there is a
rule of necessity when when for example uh more than a quorum of the board is conflicted out. But here that doesn't apply because you have this alternative of setting in into effect after every member has faced the voters. Okay. Um,
why don't we open up the public hearing? I'm sorry. You're gonna make a presentation. It's getting late in in >> Yes, I know. Sorry. I didn't introduce myself. Um, I'm Marissa Vote. I'm a town meeting member in precinct 6. This is my co-patitioner, Jonathan Golden, who's a
town meeting member in precinct 11. >> Um, we do have some slides. I don't know if you received them. >> So, we don't present petitioners. >> Oh, you don't present petitioners. You would be more than welcome to share your screen. >> Okay. Um, >> do you have it on your computer?
>> Do you do you have Do you want to do that or um >> I'm not My battery is running low. >> Um, it's getting late. So, >> you have you have the revised document.
Um we have um we are proposing to uh increase the select board stipens to $4,999 um by fiscal year 20 29 20 >> 29 >> um and
>> to $4,999. So we we we have we have okay so let's step back. We are proposing to increase select board stipens into um introduce school committee stipens. And the goal of this resolution is to remove the
barrier to participation in these boards. As you know, it's very late and you all work work a lot on these um you know, in these volunteer positions, but um there's there's this big barrier to participation where people who have caregiving responsibilities at home, who
have other part-time jobs or full-time jobs, might not be able to to um serve in these roles without receiving some kind of money to um reimburse them for expenses or to even, you know, cover some of their their lost salary that
they um are giving up in order to serve in these positions. So that is the the the driving principle um is to remove that barrier to participation and so we are proposing to increase stipens. We had a larger amount but after discussing
with the advisory committee um >> it became apparent that there would be a potential pension obligation if the stipens were above $5,000 a year. Um it's difficult to estimate the potential costs to the town and because we're not
proposing that anything would happen um until 20 fiscal year 2029. Um we are for now just saying let's set the stipens to 4,999 so that we don't have
to incur any pension obligations. And um uh sorry, I'm also very tired. Um uh uh hopefully in the future we can get a better handle on how much um those
pension obligations would be and then talk about you know increasing the stipens to the larger amounts that we had wanted. Um what else? What am I missing? Sorry, I don't have my slide. >> That's okay. Um, and so there's a proposal here that the retirement board and the advisory committee would study
the impact potentially in the future of pensions so that we would get a handle on that before anything would go above that 5,000 or above, especially given our fiscal situation. We think that's prudent and wise that that happened. Um, the advisory committee has already heard
they received the the version that you received tonight, they received just before their meeting. So some of the opportunity to review it they did not fully but they as a group decided I think the vote was 15 to9 to refer this to a moderator's committee for further study was a recommendation and we're open to that idea. I think that there definitely some areas as we're just
mentioning in terms of the pension piece that do need further study and we want this to move forward in some way just in terms of continuing the conversation for what Marissa said about access and just one point that actually that struck me that came up in the advisory committee was as follows. One ventured member said, "One of the reasons that the
select board has stipens is to cover and defay the cost of the many public events that they have to do over the course of their term of service." And what was interesting about that comment to me was that many school committee members came to me and said, you know, we too as part of our role have had to go to public events. And that is and we and don't receive the same stipen on compensation.
So in part from an equity perspective of that of people who serve in in these large public roles, that's in part why we want to add the school committee to the stipens that already exist for the select board. Okay. So, let's open up the public hearing and see if anyone wants to
comment. Anyone in the audience would like to speak, please approach the podium. If anyone online would like to speak, please raise your hand using the hand raised function on Zoom. >> See anyone? >> No one online.
>> Okay. Close the hearing. Any discussion from the select board? Just a question. >> Yeah. >> Is there a differential for the chair? >> Oh. Oh, you Sorry, you lose your differential. >> I'm leaving then. >> No. And it's not that we don't believe
that the chair is doing extra work. It's really more that um we we believe that the the $5,000 limit as it is is really not enough to compensate for the time or to even compensate for um you know any any um expenses that you have for like
caregiving or something. And so we just want to set it to the maximum that we can without incurring pensions for right now. >> David, >> in terms of how this is structured, did you ever consider an approach where there's a certain amount of money that's
pulled instead of giving to each individual? There's a certain budget for caregiving. Uh because not every member is similarly situated and some might utilize that budget more than others. uh caregiving being the primary example of
where that would come up. >> Um yeah, so I I think generally speaking the um the the consensus is that like these kind of um like need-based sort of um compensations is not um it it it's
not entirely it doesn't work out because um there's just so much like in terms of paperwork that you have to fill out. Um, it's it's like it's like the argument for why it's just better to provide a free school lunch to all students rather than to
like do this complicated means testing. Um, I think there's also the potential of like you don't want to be the the one that like you don't want to go through the public embarrassment of being like I'm the I'm the the school committee member who needs to get bring in my babysitting receipts, you know? So, >> okay. Uh, Paul.
>> Yeah. Um, I'm just curious. Don't take this the wrong way, but did you get any feedback on the timing of your article? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I um my greatest concern is your timing. >> Um you know, we're all rowing as fast as
we can to try to get an operating override passed and at the same time you're saying you're going to give people raises that currently don't get it. Um I I think the timing and I appreciate what you're trying to do. I I pay for child care often when I'm here
for a retail meeting. Um and I get it, but I think your timing is just kind of awful. Um and and what I would ask you to do is withdraw it and bring it back later. Um I I'd even want this on a discussion at town meeting when we're
having a conversation with voters that is very very difficult at this time and asking them to do something that's very difficult for them and to start having a conversation that well I hear that you know you're going to give raises to yourself and to the school committee
>> except the town meeting is a couple weeks after. Well, it doesn't it it's but >> and maybe the solution is the uh referral that you mentioned from >> Yeah, I >> advisory committee. >> That's just I'm I'm giving you my honest assessment as someone who's trying to get us votes. That's fine.
>> Um just I guess in terms of the timing I I mean I think there's there's maybe never a good time was one of the the other pieces of feedback. But you know we also wanted to set this is a resolution. It there's no it's not a budget amendment. there's no specific
requirements, but um and I I I totally understand what you're I understand what you're saying, but also, you know, I think we wanted to set the the um the trigger for several years in the future to give that runway to find where
the money would come from. And so, like, you know, if we don't if we don't do it now, we have to set it for another three years in the future. Um, and so >> but I hear what you're saying. >> Okay, David, >> just just in terms of my comment before, I'm not trying to suggest that there be
means testing, but I would liken it to almost like a tax deduction. So, if you're using it for an approved purpose and that is why you're withdrawing from that pulled account, >> uh, we already do that to an extent with things as simple as our our dinners. We
have executive session. >> Now, I suppose Somebody could do a public records request to see who's ordering the most expensive sandwich, but I I doubt that that would really come up. So, I I would liken it to something like that. >> Okay. So, um let's uh we've opened and
closed the hearing, so we will take this up at future time with additional information. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um I take it that Melissa still in advisory. Yep. >> Okay. So, let's move on to um
>> article 13. >> Yes. Article 13. Town bylaw require two additional hours in the town clerk's office. Okay. Is that Regina? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. And please speak into
the microphone. >> Oh, sorry. >> It's really hard to hear you, especially Bernard. >> Sometimes I appreciate a soft spoke, but I need to hear you. All right. Article 13, I think, is simple. It just wants to add a couple of hours in the evening,
and we're the only town in within 128 that doesn't do it. Um, I have >> Virginia, would you speak a little bit? >> Yeah. Who you speak in the >> Is it not coming up? >> No, no, you just weren't close enough, that's all. >> Okay.
Um, I've spent a number of hours talking with Pat Ward, who was the previous clerk who 35 or so years ago created the evening hours. They were three hours at the time. Um, he told me exactly what the bump in the road was for the first
couple of months. Um, and that it was sorted out quite nicely with staff without union issues. Um, he also had one half of of a uh full of
of a position less than the current clerk has. So I asked him point bl bank, did you ever have more than seven employees there, including himself and and Linda, his assistant? He said no. So we actually have an extra half hour uh
half position rather. And uh these advisory committee, have you gotten that? Uh >> yes, the advisory committee voted uh to uh ask uh offered a substitute resolution that the town clerk present
to the 2026 fall town meeting a plan outlining staffing and funding requirements, if any, to provide at least two consecutive evening hours, one evening per week, when the clerk's office will be open. >> Yes. And that was voted 19 to6. Yep. and I spoke to the six. Why didn't they
vote? Because they really wanted it to be a binding um bylaw. So, they actually support the concept. Um and for now, I can go along with the uh resolution, but I'm not going to withdraw the the my article until I know for sure how this
is going because it needs to be dealt with. Um it's not the big expense that paying you guys would be. Um and from according to the prior very experienced clerk um it they only
had a um about two months where they paid overtime and then after that it was condition of employment was that they would rotate and spend u one night a week for uh three hours at the time. This is only for two hours and this is really we cannot lose sight of the fact
that this is about making life easier for the public. >> So David, >> so specifically is your intention to make sure that there are night hours or because the way you have it phrased is two more hours, but in theory those could be in the morning or on Friday.
>> Exactly. That's why I go along with what Harry wrote and actually Neil Gordon had originally said we needed to have a specifically say that and we cleared it with the moderator and that was fine. So this is fine as well. So whether I do the one that Neil had moderated with
specifically using the same language that Harry did that but making it still part of a binding bylaw um remains to be seen but I would definitely add the spec specificity of having it evening. hours, two consecutive hours. Yes. And it's
very important that it be evening. I mean, you're listening to somebody want to pay people who have babysitting issues or they need to pay. They would do it for nights. And this is all this is doing as well is saying, "Hey, there are reasons
why people have difficulty getting to town hall, going to a meeting, etc. in the evening. Let's make it easy for them, especially for registering to vote more than anything. But, um, just about everyone I know from the old days, we all checked
into to the clerk's office almost on a regular basis on a Thursday night. >> David, question I have for uh, Chaz. So, this idea of working evening hours, I know that many of you do work evening hours. obviously are here right now. But
in terms of evening hours that interface with the general public, I I do see and respect the concern about those who have a traditional 9 to5 workday. They're they're somewhat stuck. Uh so is there any contemplation
of uh offering evening hours even if it's limited in this fashion is suggested of a couple hours a week after five. >> I really want to have a conversation with the town clerk about this. Um you know, it's his operations. I will say that the operations of the town clerk have gotten more complex. Um, and so,
you know, I understand the issue about, you know, staffing. They have half a person more now than they used to, but they also have to run, you know, more election stuff than they used to. They have more document requests than they used to. It's a bigger community than it used to be. Um, so I don't want to
necessarily commit to that without having that conversation with Ben. I think to the petitioner's point, the the resolution about >> looking into this and coming back to town meeting with a proposal for the cost and the analysis of what that would look like seems to be a good middle ground here. Uh would allow us to do
that kind of work. Um I also just think it's a really bad idea to legislate operating hours. Um it's just not that's not the purview of it's just you you're I don't I don't think it's wise to legislate operating hours. don't
>> in the past I tried originally to get Ben to consider it over a year ago and he just wasn't willing so and he didn't even respond when I wrote to him before I filed this before I even decided to file this it just left me no options
really and I care and I don't think there's anybody up here as little as some of you know me and as much as some know that I care deeply about community participation in government and this to me is one of the best things for whatever criticism people have of
anybody. This was one of the best things that Pat ever gave the town and it was used quite quite a bit. >> I I absolutely see the see the benefit of it and I think I that's why I'm not saying no. I'm just saying we I think it's a good idea to have the clerk do
the work. Um and so let let's have that conversation. >> David, do you have that? >> Oh, okay. Okay. Uh oh, this is a Yes, this is a public hearing. So, let's open the public hearing. If anyone in the
audience here in at the uh board offic's hearing room would like to speak, please approach the um podium. If anyone online would like to speak, please raise your hand using the hand raised function. Have any takers?
Okay, we'll close the public hearing and um take this up. a later date once we get more information. Thank you. >> And do what? >> Take this up at a later date and we'll have more information. >> Okay. I'm surprised he's not here. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we have two mustd do items and
that's >> you got the you're right. So, you got the budget. So, >> and the special town meetings. Uh I take it Melissa's still not ready. >> Looks like advisory is still going. You understand? You're not the only ones having a late night. Um >> Okay. And it's almost quarter to 11. >> But you've got you've got the team for
Chesnut Hill West here. Yeah. Okay. And uh Saddaf Kazny asked to um you know get on the speakers list and she's here and um let's let the uh staff make their presentation and we'll go from there.
>> Well, why don't we do it now? Thank you. Why don't we take a Is that your >> one or two minute break to stretch your legs? >> Or actually, let's take it a five minute break because I I took mine. >> I may have another >> 10 >> 1048.
>> We have hard copies. Heat. Heat. Let me make her statement at the um with Meredith Mooney. >> Uh great. Thank you. Um I'm Saddaf Cosm from Precinct 3. I'm here speaking on behalf of myself, Cliff Brown, and
Sergio Miglani, who couldn't be here unfortunately, uh tonight. In the advisory committee land use meeting on April 27th, articles one and two regarding Chesna Hill West zoning were discussed and voted on. Notably absent from this discussion was the extensive work completed by the future subcommittee of the expenditures and
revenue study committee earlier this spring. In its final report, the expenditures and revenue study committee made a series of recommendations in its economic development section that we believe are critical for the select board to undertake in order to ensure that Brookline is more effectively considering, assessing, and approving
new development, primarily commercial and mixed use. The goal of these recommendations is to ensure that Brooklyn grows its overall tax revenue base over time. This is relevant at any time, but it is especially relevant just one week before Brooklyn voters go to the ballot box to decide on the $23.25
million override requested required to level fund town and school services. This override underscores the need for the select board to put into motion the recommendations made by the ENR ENRSC report. While many of the other follow-ups are encapsulated in the
memorandum of understanding between the town and schools, the economic development recommendations are the sole purview of the select board. There are two key items in the ENRSC report that we believe warrant highlighting. The first is revenue diversification. We cannot impede new development
initiatives and also expect that overrides will slow down and/or decrease in frequency. Costs are increasing and it is critical that we have a focused strategy and commitment to increase commercial tax revenue in order to decrease the tax burden on residential taxpayers. This should fundamentally be
the headline in our conversations. Number two is the financial impact model. The town hired consulting firm RKG to de to develop a financial impact model that can be used to evaluate the net tax revenue from alternative development
scenarios. There's been a lot of debate about the validity of the net revenue analysis for Chesnah Hill West. However, the ENRSC future subcommittee conducted a thorough review and concluded that it was a reasonable impact model and should be employed for
decision-making and analysis of development scenarios in Brookline. This model is used by the citizens advisory group in the analysis of the Chesnah Hill West options to date. and that advisory group concluded that the net revenue analysis results were in fact reasonable, including the significant
loss in net revenue resulting from proposed reductions in height limits or alternate uses. Therefore, we urge the select board and town meeting to consider the due diligence undertaken by the future subcommittee and the citizens advisory group and to adopt the next the
net revenue analysis as a reasonable estimate for Chesa Hill West. Thank you. >> Thank you. By the way, the other the other item on the agenda that the futures committee uh discussed was the solar initiative, and
that is um one of our special appropriations for $3.2 million. Uh and that's going to bring fairly quick uh returns to the schools. And um you know I I urge you to urge people to really
talk that up because that that is something that has immediate payback, >> right? And I think that that is I think $400,000 or close to $400,000 per year of of cost avoidance, right? >> Uh you know, which is obviously impactful, especially over time. So, thank you for calling that out. Yeah.
>> Thank you, Bern. Thank you. All right. Good night, everybody. >> Hello, Miss Mooney. >> Good evening. Meredith Mooney, economic development director. I'm here tonight to um present an update on where things stand in terms of proposed amendments to
both the draft zoning in um or sorry the proposed zoning and special town meeting one article one and then um some uh amendments in the proposed MOA with city realy as well. Um, so then I also have a status update on recent board and
committee votes on both of the special town meeting warrant articles and then um some anticipated select board actions. So earlier today you received the most recent version of both the proposed friendly amendments to the zoning as
well as the MOA. Um I'm going to walk you through kind of the highlights of those and I'll try to do it very quickly. um you know the I have a handful of slides that summarize the key changes and I'm happy to pull up the track changes documents if that would be a helpful point of reference as well. So
the amendments kind of came in uh through three different streams. There were the uh staff initiated amendments. There was an amendment from uh Janice Khan, the Janice Khan consensus amendment and several amendments and iterations of those amendments from Dick
Banka. So, we're going to kind of walk through um each from uh the source of the proposed changes. So, the staff uh amendments um are I'd say the most substantive has to do with the tree canopy requirements. So, long story
short, tree canopy requirements will be required um on the ground level. Uh and there will be no option to uh provide a partial payment into the town's tree fund in order to meet their tree canopy requirements. And then uh there was a scrier's error that we're looking to
address. And then we also um made a couple of tweaks to the language just to make sure that we were contemplating all potential um scenarios in terms of how a developer might want to phase a project. So the Janice Khan consensus amendment
uh changes the proposed maximum heights that will be allowed in the CHC4 subdist. So, the way the zoning was originally proposed, the standard maximum height was 12 stories. Uh, and the applicants would need to have at least 51% commercial as part of their project in
order to get that. And then there was one uh allowed height bonus in the event that a developer had a proposal with 60% or greater um commercial, they would be able to get 14 stories. So, uh, Janice's amendment proposes to, um, uh, sort of
shift around the height maximums and the and reduce the standard maximum height allowed in the 4.0 to be 10 stories, uh, with a minimum of 51% commercial. And so, there would be two height bonuses. And so, she's creating a new height
bonus of 12 stories um, if proposals had a minimum of 55% commercial as part of their proposal. And then the maximum height of 14 stories would remain unchanged um for proposals that have 60% or more for commercial. Uh and then the
uh there's some additional language that would allow for the potential for an applicant with the approval through of the town through the select board to pursue the hype bonus of 12 stories but um uh with 51% commercial or somewhere
between 51 and 55% commercial. So, I think that this is a very elegant amendment that addresses the um request that we've received from the neighborhood where they feel that 10 stories is an appropriate maximum height on the CHC4 West. But because of the opportunity uh through an agreement with
the select board to reduce the 12story height bonus to 51% commercial, it still preserves a pathway for city realy to move forward with their proposal in its current form. And so there were a series of amendments
um proposed by Dick Banka. Um very grateful for a lot of the conversation thought and detail um that was included in those proposed amendments. So the in general the amendments address um several things. One they sort of
underscored and clarified an existing requirement in the zoning that once you build commercial square footage with the zoning overlay that has to be preserved for the life of the building. And so we just added some more clarifications in the zoning underscoring that requirement and clarifying it. We made several
adjustments to the setback requirements. Um so uh Mr. Banka had pointed out that because the zoning overlay was silent on rear and sideyard setbacks that the setback requirements in the base zoning would be applicable which is correct. So we explicitly stated that and then also
provided the flexibility that those setbacks could be reduced by special permit. Um and then we also made some pretty significant adjustments in terms of the minimum setback requirements from um areas of the study areas of the o overlay that abut uh two family
districts and I have a map to show you where those are. And then uh there was also some discussion I know this is something that we've been talking about a lot um and was a big uh priority in terms of community feedback. We've talked a lot about preserving the
existing character of Heath Street and trying to shelter it as much as possible from the development impacts. Our two um you know very big concerns from the neighborhood perspective. Uh so in response to that the zoning had a restriction on there can be no new vehicular connections or curb cuts onto
Heath Street from the west block of the CHC4. Uh and so Mr. Banka expressed concerns about sort of potential for development and new trip generation to have um you know additional traffic congestion on Heath Street. So from the
SAP perspective, we do feel that you know there's a strong justification for why you should treat the west and east blocks differently in terms of these restrictions about new curb cuts and vehicular access onto Heath Street because of the additional constraints that the developers on the east block are going to face. However, in the
spirit of um compromise, um we extended the no curb cuts um the curb cut restriction to the entire length of Heath Street within the CHC4, but did create the option that through special permit on the east block and with
approval from DPW, you could receive a curb cup if it was justified. And so this is a diagram of the um the setback adjustments. So looking in this section in the northernmost boundary in
the easternmost boundary we increase the minimum setback requirement from 5 to 20 which can be reduced by special permit. And then down here in the southwestern corner, so it's really just this small um section here, uh the southwestern
boundary that was originally 25 ft, but we increased it to 40 just so that there um so we're carrying over that 40 foot B uh setback requirement on the western boundary connecting all the way to Heath Street. And then finally, I if you look at the
zoning, the section of the zoning that deals with how developers will meet the minimum commercial requirement in scenarios where their project includes multiple phases. There was a lot of reworking of that language in terms of to provide clarity,
but then also to address the concern that um certainly we talked a lot about as staff and with the EDAP subcommittee as we were developing the zoning policy, but there was the concern that in um a developer could build a residential building and then provide the um you
know requirements that they would need in order to get their certificate of occupancy for that building and then end up not following through with the mixed use or the commercial building that was going to meet the requirements of the zoning. So there was a lot of concern about how we could put in some more
guard rails to ensure that you know there would be the balance of commercial square footage that the overlay zoning required and had envisioned. And so where we landed was that we did establish a hard deadline for when a project has has to be completed after
that first certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building constructed in their project. and that's three years. And so this is helpful because it sort of clearly identifies um a point at which the town can start to consider enforcement actions, but sort of leaves it flexible in terms of what
enforcement actions the town will take. Um uh but then it also includes some language similar to the Janice Khan amendment and where we have this type of provision in other parts of the zoning where it allows an opportunity for the select board to grant some flexibility or a waiver from some of these zoning
requirements. Um, and then I I think that and like member Rubenstein can jump in if I'm missing any other key points, but I think that's a pretty comprehensive summary of the substance of the amendments that we've made in the zoning in response to the
feedback that we've received over the past several weeks through board and committee discussions. I think the only addition or comment that I would make on the very complete uh presentation is um all of the discussions about um heights of
buildings when we talked about 10 stories, 12 stories, 14 stories, all of those are actually represented in the zoning by feet. Um and there is a reference to minimum floor heights. But um so where we talk about 10 stories, it says 125 ft or 150 ft for 12 stories,
175 ft for 14 stories, which is consistent with previous um versions of the zoning. >> And then I would also add that all of these proposed amendments have been ruled in scope by the moderator. >> Question. >> Yeah, John.
>> Um thanks Meredith. Um how would the town enforce um the commercial aspect of you know a development if if for example the developer says can't find a commercial tenant um what's the enforcement at that
point >> I would see if town council is still on to talk about sort of the menu of options I don't know if Jonathan is with us >> and I raised that question because I'm sorry to to be bringing up something I
brought up before but we have a situation which to me is infamous you know, in the Brooklyn place of prime first floor space that has been vacant how many years? Four now. Um, if we had
enforcement that could, you know, enforce commercial development, I should assume we would have used it by now in that space. >> Jonathan Simpson is online. Uh yes, the we we cannot make a
uh someone our zoning can't make someone someone rent their property or lease their property, find find a tenant for it. It's all based on what it's what what it's the the use it is intended for. The so the the uh enforcement would
be appropriate if they started to use it for something else. Um, for example, if they started using what they claimed was uh retail space uh as residences, for example. Um, but if they if they're simply unable to find a tenant, that's
not a violation of the the commercial percentage. Um, I would also add uh in in in the particular case uh that Meredith was referring to of not being able to meet the commercial percentages um uh the
requirements are laid out in the zoning and the options for waiver waivers are provided by the select board. But in addition to that within the memorandum of agreement that we've structured with
city realy in the case of uh uh the building building a residential building and the commercial building necessary to meet the minimum commercial percentage requirements in the zoning. If that if that building is not built in
a certain in a time certain and that time certain may vary based on other conditions. Um but then there is a proced there is a process for penalty payments that are made to the town um in order to uh ensure that the town gets
the expected tax revenue from the commercial development. So it's really a revenue protection mechanism. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, we we don't need to get into it tonight, but I mean, clear clearly someone who's having trouble
renting out commercial space, their situation isn't going to improve if we then start putting penalties on them. I just think it's all all I'm trying to do here is bring out how very tricky, you know, finding the right formula, excuse me, for a development to to click and to
prosper is extremely uh tricky. And um I think we're going to have to be prepared for some flexibility here, you know, once once we find out what actually the market um makes of of whatever development is is put in that place. And uh I hope it'll be something everybody
loves. We'll see. And wouldn't a significant uh part of that of excuse me, it's 11:10, bear with me. um isn't a significant part of the commercial space
we're talking about um hotel um medical office buildings >> you know so once you build I mean I guess once you build that it's stuck you're stuck with it right >> and I guess we're not requiring that it
be all leased out are we >> okay so I mean there's some protection by virtue >> the nature of, you know, their um, you know, construction pro project. >> But I I do
know what you're referring to at Brookline Place. I walk by there almost every day. >> Yeah. >> And wonder, you know, it's perfect place for a great >> restaurant and it's just empty. >> I keep praying one day I'll see something going on there. Last time I
walked by it, they've papered over the windows. I mean, >> what how how how bad can it get in terms of the message being sent, you know, from that development? >> Yeah. >> So then, >> okay. >> And I also have a few bullet points
about changes to the MOA if you're ready to move on to that. Okay. So um sort of corresponding to the proposed Janice Khan amendment to the zoning, there were also uh many amendments to
the memorandum of agreement. Um, and I've sort of highlighted some of the the key aspects of that. And I believe Janice outlined in a a memo shared with the select board maybe uh a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, sort of the
sort of additional context behind that. But um those amendments include uh $150,000 retail support fund to support small businesses in the Chesna Hill commercial area. Um there's the provision of various neighborhood enhancing design elements which are defined and then there are specific
examples that city realy has agreed to. Um there are incentives to try to expedite the construction of building A which is the hotel and condo building. Um and then there's the creation of a neighborhood advisory committee that would provide um input as appropriate
related to several of the other new MOA provisions. And then there's also the language exempting or granting the waiver for city realy to move forward with their 12story building, the medical office building with only 51% minimum commercial. Um and then there are also
some uh requests about the composition of the design advisory future design advisory team um for the city realy project. So those are sort of the Janice Khan related amendments and then other amendments that have been included. Um,
we've added a commitment for city realy to explore the burying of the utility poles and other related infrastructure. And um, there's also some additional language protecting the uh, 2% of hard construction costs that the town has negotiated for infrastructure and public
safety um, mitigation um, and improvements. Paul >> Meredith, did my tweak to the thing make it in the MOA about 12 and 14? Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. >> One other question. The the the there
was a reference to a waiver in section 2C1 that we talked about um with regard to the minimum commercial height. Um did the did that waiver actually has that waiver actually been added to the MOA yet or >> I think I think it is in there. Yep. >> Well, there's the one for section seven,
but I didn't know if there was also one needed for section 2C. is something we should check about. We don't actually have to decide on it tonight. All right. We should make >> double check. >> Um which is and actually just thinking about order of operations. I'll come
back to the update on boarding committee actions with these warrant articles. But um in terms of anticipated select board actions um there'd need to be a decision about uh to what extent you would like to incorporate the scope of amendments presented in the friendly amendments
document into the um article one and make the recommendations to town meeting. And so we currently have the um execution of the MOA with uh city realy on the select board calendar for May 12th. So there is
some additional time to finalize language um and have all of that um everyone comfortable with that before it's executed >> uh next month. >> Okay. What about article one
>> and then so uh boarding committee votes. >> Yeah. >> Trigger. Okay. So, um, >> economic development. >> Before we do that, can we just go back to the MOA just for one quick? So, are you saying
>> my understanding is if we have to approve stuff tonight in order to get into the combined reports, we want the MOA and the combined report. >> So, so the article can go, but the final text of the MOA doesn't have to be finalized until the 12th. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. You've got some time. >> You were going to vote on the >> Yes. One and two. Yeah. You're not going to vote on the text of the MOA itself,
but the article putting the MOA down. Yes. Okay. Are we ready to vote? >> This is a continued hearing. You do have to >> Oh, that's right. Um, okay. Let's reopen the hearing. Uh, anyone in the audience would like to speak, please approach podium. Anyone online that would like to
speak, please use the hand raise uh function uh to raise your hand. You see anyone? Okay. Regina, >> still Regina Frolley, precinct 16. I have a question though. Is is any of this being funded by u the state or the
feds? >> No, >> none of it. It's all private. >> Then I have no questions. Thank you. >> Anyone uh raise your hands online? >> No, >> no one online. >> Okay. So, let's close the hearing and um
I'm ready to vote. Anyone not ready to vote? David, >> I'm almost ready to vote. I just want to say thank you um Meredith and also Cara for putting up with us or some of us anyway who gave you a difficult time and I saw that you came in and at the outset of your presentation you were smiling.
So I appreciate that you're able to tolerate us and it was never personal. We just wanted to make sure that we're delivering the best possible project to town meeting. >> Of course. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think they realize that
we are on your side. Um, other people may give you grief, but we appreciate everything you do. Um, >> okay. So, uh, first I move favorable action on special town meeting one,
article one as amended in version 9 of the proposed friendly amendments dated 42726 that we discussed earlier at this meeting. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> I. >> David Pearlman. >> I. Michael Rubenstein
>> I >> chair votes eye. Okay. Next I move favorable action on uh special town meeting one article two uh with respect to the MOA uh on >> and tax certainty agreement
>> and tax I'm sorry tax certainty agreement. Yeah MOA and tax certainty agreement. All in favor please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyaki I. >> Paul Warren I. >> David Pearlman. I >> Michael Rubenstein. I >> chair votes I. >> Thank you Meredith.
>> Thank you so much your hard work and we're going to appreciate uh >> this great project that you've shephered through the uh difficult process of doing things in Brooklyn. >> It's very exciting. Thank you. >> Okay, >> let's do the budget.
>> Okay, with you. You ready? >> Yeah. So, the advisory committee is still going. >> Okay. Um, what Melissa has recommended and I think is a good idea is that you vote a clean budget, both a no override and a yes override budget. So, we have the tables. Usually what happens is we wait for the advisory committee motion
to come through. We show you that. They're still voting. They're still tinkering. Um, so I think under these circumstances, a clean budget is probably the way to go um to for the combined reports. And obviously, whatever advisory decides, you can
review when you get it. And if you decide to come into harmony with them on some or all of it, great. That can be revised. But just having a clean document to actually go to town meeting members, I think is probably a good idea. So, let me show you what Melissa has put together. I will put it up on
the screen here. And this does contain a yes override budget, but there's no surprises in it. It is the proposed override. So, let me show you. So this document, the TM tables document is what goes um into the uh along with
the warrant. You can see here there's a no override budget for FY27 of $439 million, $892325. Uh the override restorations between town and schools in year one total $9.852 million. So the yes override
budget would be 449 million. Um and you can see here those GIC restorations that we discussed earlier are included in this table. Um so you have original here. This is your original no override budget in column I. In column J you have those GIC restorations. The revised no
override budget that would go out is in column K. In column M you have these there's a hidden column here for what the advisory committee is doing because we don't have it yet. Um the override restorations are listed here. And then the yes override budget is contained
here. Um and so ultimately you can see the delta in year one $1.79 million for a total town budget in a no override scenario of 1 101 million 1.7 million and in a yes override scenario of$103.5
million. Um again there are no surprises in here no changes. You can see, for example, the money added for collective bargaining, the money added for the $800,000 in the fire budget, uh the police budget, and so forth. So, all of this is as has been discussed in the
override um presentations. Um are there any questions? >> Is what you're looking at or what's up there in our packet or >> No, because ordinarily we get this we we have this ready to go when the advisory committee votes, but because of how you're doing this tonight, >> got them.
>> Could you email that to us? Yes, absolutely. >> Um any discussion? John, >> does the no override budget um include uh changes in uh revenue? Uh
>> it includes the change in revenue from the GIC savings. So that the new the new version of the no override budget includes the GIC restoration. >> Does it draw any money from free cash? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> No, we are we are not using anyone. There's the the the this is the no
override proposal as has been proposed through this process. So it would be you know you know eliminating those vacant police positions. It would be all the things that we discussed. >> And uh does it close a fire company? >> No, not that that wouldn't come if that were to happen. It wouldn't happen until
FY28. >> Okay. >> So Chaz, I do have a quick question. So there's the 1.5 million that's going to the HAB, >> right? From free cash. >> Yes. Uh, >> it's it's actually lower. We we we anticipate that that may be lower
because we anticipate free cash may be a little lower. >> Okay. So, but my my point is though in the no override budget is is that whatever that amount is, it's still going to the to the HAB. >> All the policies are still being followed in the no. >> So, I so I um I would really like to
change that um in the no override budget. I don't think we should be putting money to the HAB in an O override budget given we've got the CPA. There's no compelling reason right now to put that money in there. Um I think it would be better served to be put into
the override stabilization fund uh for use for the next year um or un unforeseen situations. So this year the amount to the uh affordable housing trust is $1.24 million.
>> I'd like to move that entire amount into and then well I'm just going to make it I'm just talking it through. I haven't made a motion, Bernard, but I'd like to move that full amount or discuss moving that full amount into the override stabilization fund to seed the override
stabilization fund to deal with the cliffs that we know that are coming uh due to the firefighters uh the fire department budget, the overtime issue. Um that money can be used to help soften the blow um in in
the following year with respect to a fire company. Okay. Does that does that$1 point whatever million dollars include.3 >> the um investment earnings that uh you know >> No, this is new this is new money. This
is new money. Nothing about the investment. >> So it's new money from free cash. >> From free cash. Yeah. Instead of going into >> I I anticipate that this number will go down. We are still using estimated free cash numbers. Whatever the number is, I'd like to propose that we move it to
the stabilization fund >> in a no override scenario. >> In a no override scenario, >> you would propose moving. >> What was the consequence of that chair? >> Well, the HAB would get no, it would go from an aotment to no money. Um, again, they could seek money from the CPA
committee and so forth, but um, you know, that would basically that would limit what they could do. But we are voting. I mean the CPA includes money going to the HAB. >> That's that's one that's been one of those big problems. We would like the CPA committee and the HAB to come up with a process by which money
automatically flows or >> it's not automatic but there is some going to it. >> There's there's money going to housing projects. I don't think it's going to the affordable housing trust. >> Yeah. Except for a small amount, right? >> Right. 300,000. >> Yeah. I mean, some is, but anyway, I
just that's where I think it just makes a lot more sense instead of parking it in the HAB during just a really it's going to be a very difficult time um if the override doesn't pass. >> I'm really uncomfortable about using HAB as sort of the money tree when we have
problems. >> I'm also wondering if the advisory committee is going to take a look at that at that uh money that's being being allocated to have and move it somewhere else. And I'm wondering if we want to
wait for them to and I appreciate your particular timing, but um I'm wondering if we want to wait for them. >> Well, render render an opinion on that before we we jump in front of it. >> Well, we're not hearing opinion on from
them at all on the budget yet. So, we're we're trying to vote a clean budget. I'm just suggesting that our clean version of the budget uh is is moving putting money into the stabilization fund. >> Well, then I think we're going to need it, >> right? Then you run the risk it's not really a clean budget, right? It is a
change from it's it it departs from your policies. And so then you run the risk of someone filing an amendment, move it back. Um >> it's possible, >> you know, if you if you want kind of a single source of truth, like a base budget to go out to town meeting, it might be best to do this. But you know
we can always note in the combined reports that this discussion was had that in the event override >> you don't have to I mean I don't want to do an amen a Paul Warren tell meeting member doesn't want to have to make an amendment. >> Okay. Uh David I have a parallel question for FY27
what is the impact on public safety? I know we had that slide a while back. back on. >> So, in the event of no override, brownouts will go into effect almost immediately uh in the fire department starting in the summer um in order to
cover the overtime budget. So, we will likely the current plan is to close an engine company over the summer. Um so, for the summer months, there will be one engine taken offline and we'll just have fewer people coming in. Um or we won't have fewer people coming in. We'll have we'll have we'll have more people able
to staff in the event that there is a um uh that people are out. Um so those folks who would be assigned to an engine that engine that's being browned out would be instead reassigned. Um so um there wouldn't be layoffs. Um but there
would be brownouts um through the summer and then we would see where we were. Um, it's the chief's hope and Charlie's hope after analyzing this that that may get us some of the way there. Um, and we might not have to continue
brownouts except in certain circumstances like we might be looking at, you know, vacation weeks, you know, the week between Christmas and New Year's. Um, but the hope would be that if you target it in the summer months that you then don't have to do more
regular brownouts during the year, possible, but we don't know yet. uh we need to see how that would work. So operationally that would be how the fire department would run in FY27. It's in FY28 when the tail of the contract comes online that you have this bigger problem. Um
>> and what about the impact for police FY27? >> So we would not be able to restore the police positions. Right now we're proposing phasing those positions back in to continue to seed the override stabilization funds. So we do two a year. We would not do that. We would eliminate those alto together. um we
would not be able to provide extra funding towards upgrading Laramore. Um sooner or later we're going to have to figure out how to provide raises to command staff or people just aren't going to go into those positions. Um but we would need to take money from elsewhere to do that. Um >> and then for other departments as I
recall planning would lose three FTEEs. >> Yes. >> Planning again. So some of these things are being restored for example like Treasury was going to lose two. That's what what one of the things that we were targeting with the um GIC money um because those functions are just so
critical and we're already seeing how you know strains in those positions can wind up negatively impacting our financial operations and so we're trying to restore what we can to just keep basic functionality going in the event of a no override scenario.
So to broaden what Paul's raised a bit, I share his discomfort in voting in favor of the no override budget for FY27 and that there may be some modifications that we would want to make in a no
override scenario. Uh, I don't know that I necessarily fully agree with your specific proposal, but I do endorse conceptually that we might want to engage in some more tinkering in a no override scenario just to make sure that
the budget is truly aligned with our priorities. >> And I think that's certain I mean, I will be frank. I think if there if in a no override scenario, it is kind of all bets are off. You're going to get budget amendments coming in from every which way from people trying to secure their
own priorities in the event of a failed override. You're going to have people supporting the schools trying to save their pet projects. You're going to have people from town meeting focused on public safety, public works, what have you, trying to tinker with this. So, I do think it's important to have a
baseline document to work off of in the event of a no override scenario and then have those you have a couple weeks to have those conversations in the event that an override fails. Um, because I, you know, it is important to have those conversations. Um, but you know, a no
vote is an expression of people's priorities, right? I don't think you want to be in a situation where you say to folks a no vote doesn't mean what you say it means. Um that we can we can solve the problem by using one-time funds to paper over it. A no vote is a
no vote. Um you know the people voted for it, the people get it. >> Um are are we facing a deadline uh for getting this in the uh >> combined reports? Yes, >> combined reports. And is that this >> that is that is this meeting? >> This meeting.
>> Yeah. So, um, you know, I I fully respect Paul's interest in in taking an alternative approach here, but I do think I hope that there might be three votes, you know, here tonight to just go ahead with
with the administrator's proposal. Uh, and we, you know, we'll have plenty of time to deal with these issues as to whether everything in the in his proposal is as we would want it to be when we complete our town meeting actions, but we got to get something
done tonight. And I I think we're closest by just going with the town administrator's proposal. I can't can't speak for everyone here, but >> and and I agree with that, John. subject to the ability for us at future meetings
to further refine and also by then in the event that the override fails as you mentioned Chaz there will be many amendments that come forward will probably want to or maybe not harmonize with what some of the others are suggesting that'll help narrow the
conversation. I just don't want the public to think that by voting for this now, we're saying this is absolutely the budget we would go with in a no override scenario. I understand your point about the messaging to voters about what it is
you're approving or not. And I completely agree. We can't just paper over a no override scenario and cover absolutely everything. But there may be an FTE here, an FTE there that we might feel could be better allocated.
>> Okay. Um uh take the vote. Yeah, let's take a vote. That's >> Oh, you'd have to It's public hearing. I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm That's right. Uh let's open the public hearing. >> Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak or anyone online? Please do so by raising your hand using
the hand hand raise function or if you're in the audience just walk up to the mic. Anyone looking to speak? Okay, we'll close the hearing and um I move a favorable uh excuse me favorable action
on or article 8 the 2027 budget >> and the tables proposed >> and theosed table right which includes proposed tables. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vanco, >> I. >> Paul Warren, >> abstain. >> David Corman, >> I.
>> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> Chair votes I. >> Okay. What else do we have to do? >> All right. Now, you have the warrant articles that were continued from last time. >> Um, let's see where we've already held the hearing.
Yes. Budget. Okay. The budget amendment. That's fairly straightforward. Any um discussion on that? >> On which one? >> The budget. >> Article five. >> Article five, I'm sorry. >> You can see Melissa's memo from um
earlier in April is still there. Um the reallocation of funds for projected year-end deficits and for the Gulf Enterprise Fund as discussed still there. Um so we would just recommend favorable action on this. >> Okay. Um any further discussion?
All in favor of favorable favorable action on warrant article five the budget amendment please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak >> I >> uh Paul Warren >> I David Pearlman >> I Michael Rubenstein >> I chair
>> votes I okay we've already done 10 have we? No, >> no, no. Okay. >> Did we decide to continue that? Is that was that the one that was um Rebecca Stone? >> No. COS, >> right? >> This is the one that was used last year
was 11 and 12 and then got referred to CTO and S. >> Oh, okay. Any um discussion on this? Could someone sum it up for me? It basic it basically removes the language limiting um >> oh
>> limiting who can uh serve on these uh >> uh on the advisory committee. >> So the exception is for town meeting members and constable or constable. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And it's at the recommendation of the committee on town organization. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. Uh any discussion or can we vote? >> Vote. I'd like to raise I'd like to uh move favorable action on warrant article 10 AC committee assignments um from the committee on town organization
and structure. All in favor John Vancoyak >> I. >> David Paul Warren >> abstain. >> David Pearlman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein >> I chair votes I. >> Article 12 um transparency of public record requests and responses.
>> Yes. So of advisory subcommittee on this um uh voted 201 recommend favorable action. I will note however that the town clerk has objected to their report indicating li limited financial impact. Ben does indicate that there will be a
workload of monetary impact on this. Um he continues to believe um that the issue will cost, you know, more than $10,000. Um, and you know, is just his
his his view on it is um not is it continues to be that it's he doesn't have the capacity to do what this warrant article is. >> He he was pretty strong about that in his letter. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I'm willing to defer to town clerk on
this, but that's just me. >> Me too. >> Okay. I'd also I'd like to say, Bernard, too, that I just I think it's not the right time to expanding services and spending more money on stuff um when we're asking the voters for an override.
>> Um I just it it it's just it's just the wrong time. I >> when I when I talked to the town clerk about this, um, we exchanged some emails and I actually asked him for a sort of a
sample three months based on the request and response data. Um, and it see it seemed to me the two things that were really driving up the cost of this um were in the responses to provide the brief definition of the response provided and the list of any public
records provided because those the brief descriptions would have to be created uh ad hoc and the list of any public records doesn't isn't our current software doesn't provide. So I guess what I would encourage the petitioners
to do is to identify the the set of requests and responses that would be straightforward to produce given our current environment. um and determine how much of the need that they are
define that they are um expressing would be satisfied by the minimum the minimally viable set of information. >> Okay. So um interesting
I would like to move no action um subject to or you know it's changing if they do what you suggest on warrant article 12. Um anyone have a alternative >> second >> I second that motion. All in favor? John
Vansery. >> I Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Corman. >> I'm staying. >> Um, Michael Rubenstein. >> I don't think that's um I >> and chair votes eye. Okay.
Article 14. Oh my god. This is not going to be a quick one. a zoning bylaw change for accessory dwell accessory accessory dwelling units. >> Well, Maria Morelli is online. Um there
the >> um amendments. Um uh I don't believe there have been any subsequent amendments since this was presented at public hearing. Maria, is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Thank you. So you it's not as complicated as you thought.
>> No. Okay. Uh but is it is it 22 minutes less than 22 minutes complicated? >> Yes. No, it's ready. It's >> it's ready for it's ready for you. >> Already had the >> Okay. >> Um all in favor I move favorable favorable
action then on article 14. >> May I ask a question for >> sure. Um so as it currently stands does this have the support of the uh of the have Yeah, it does. Okay. All right.
>> Perfect. It came from HAB. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. All in favor of favorable action article 14 respect of Brookline zoning bylaw. Um access accessory dwelling units is what it's referring to. All in favor please indicate by
saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren >> abstain. >> David Corman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein >> I. Chair votes I. Uh next article 15 um exclusionary zoning uh to um for projects that upon
completion will create fewer than 11. >> Now it's 20 >> 20. Okay. Additional dwelling units are not located in Harvard Street Main Street Corridor District blah blah blah. Uh applicant may choose to make a cash in L of pay unit payments to the affordable housing trust fund that's
provided in the blah blah blah. Um, okay. Is is everyone clear on what that >> Well, I wasn't here for the public the I think you guys did this last week when I wasn't here. Is so this is this is a removing the restriction >> uh >> the reduction that was added for the
MBTA communities. >> No, that that stays in place because it's um bas it says except in that corridor um the cap raises from 11 to 20 units. So, >> oh, so this is townwide except
>> except in Harvard Street. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Well, can I let me let me just ask that for a minute because we had we had talked a little bit about actually removing it on Harvard Street. Why did they not remove it from Harvard Street?
>> Um, >> well, Roger Bled came and he was said that he was in favor of this. Um, and I think that they were trying to do the minimal amount of work and that that they were afraid that I mean I'm speaking for them but it's my best
understanding they were they just wanted to do the simple thing and the fact um they presented the data that there haven't been any developments in this range of uh 10 to 19 units. Um and so the reason
that they are doing this is because they are just trying to remove the disincentive. >> Yeah. >> As as decided. >> So let me and I'm and I'm sorry to be dense here but I'm going to ask just a few questions because um I want to
support this but I want to understand. So along Harvard Street we had added a requirement. >> Yeah. that you couldn't buy out >> right >> the right the inclusionary units you had to build them which
>> some believe and I am like mine at this point that that's probably preventing development >> right >> um can we modify this so it so it applies to Harvard street >> I think that the moderator would probably rule that out of scope because
we're doing more um but uh I would be happy to work on that with you for our November town meeting. Let's we can get that. >> Okay. Okay. So, make Oh, because if we >> I think it requires >> an expansion of scope if you incl if you allowed you expanded it to Harvard
Street. It would be expanding the scope of the >> I I'm making a guess. >> Okay, I get it. Holly and Maria can check check us on this, but I think that because you'd have to go tinkering around in section 11 in in in section 11 of the zoning code, which is the Harbor Street. Okay. Okay.
>> You'd wind up wind up in trouble. >> Let's keep keep going. Go ahead. >> Okay. I'd like to move favorable action on article 15 with respect to inclusionary zoning as we discussed. >> All in favor? John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> I. >> David Ferman.
>> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I chair >> votes I. >> Article 21 expressing support for the Massachusetts Medicare for all legislation which is really singlepayer not Medicare for all. >> It's no longer right. Yeah. Um,
>> and >> I'm I'm now trying to actually unmute my video, but >> she's still waiting to speak. >> It doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Now, I raised the question of um this statement that we would see $35 million
worth of savings or some huge number. Um, I think that was taken out, but you still say millions of dollars, right? >> Yes. Yeah. But I don't c may I just read the um revised
therefore section because this is the what the advisory committee uh voted favorably on and it reads and and it gives you a sense that what we are trying to do is
ask this our state legislators to develop a um singlepayer system not to we're not supporting any particular legislation. So I'll just read it that therefore be it resolved that the town
of Brooklyn urges the Commonwealth to develop and establish a state health care system that and here are two additional words that are not here. a state health care system that um
provides access to universal, affordable, and accessible health care for all its residents and reduces costs for municipalities and will communicate its support of such to our state representatives and state senator. It's
not about um creating a system. It's about trying to provide develop a system that will provide access. And um I don't know whether you saw um Perry Gman's report from the advisory committee. It's
a very comprehensive report and discusses the arguments um the problem the concerns people had about um singlepayer which was that everyone would all sick people would flock to Massachusetts
and proponents said this had not happened when Romney Care was established. It has not um the millionaire tax did not cause businesses to flee Massachusetts. Anyway, all this
is suggesting is that our state legislators vote for Massachusetts to think about this um possibility. It's it's a and it would and it whether it was $30 million or not, I believe it
would save Brooklyn money because it's the largest expenditure that the Brooklyn town has at the moment is contributing to healthcare. >> Um I just have a question. You added two words um access to um did when the AC
voted, were those two words part of what they voted on or have they been added since? No, they were added since and I have to bring those back. Um, and and Susan Granoff said she wanted to find out whether before okaying them, she's
fine with them, but she said if the select board wants additional changes, she doesn't want to keep returning um and making more and more changes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, in the most recent version,
you still have the language, um, such a law would save the town of Brooklyn tens of millions of dollars, >> or that >> Well, that's not the that's not the therefore it it it >> it's a recital and it's telling people what what's what to expect.
>> You want to strike that? >> Yeah. Strike that. I mean, if you want my vote, you have to strike that. >> Strike it. >> You have to strike. >> Well, can I say All right, fine. recital, you know, setting a specific number of our savings. >> Okay.
>> What would what would be acceptable? >> Just take that out. I mean, everything else makes sense. >> All right, Bernard, could you just read that again because now I'm The reason I'm not there in person is that I'm actually in California where >> Lucky you. >> Lucky lucky for me it's not almost
midnight. Um, but could you read this that that therefore or whereas that you would like to remove? >> It's the last whereas clause says such a law would save the town of Brooklyn tens
of millions of dollars in the first year alone. >> What if we not negotiate? Can we >> You want us just You want me just to take I >> I just want I just want to take it out because I I think that that's misleading and it's it's
>> Okay, that's fine. I I don't have an objection to that. >> Okay. So So we would amend this to say everything without without two things. Number one, I think we would take out the word and in the previous clause because that is now the last clause. Um and the second thing is that
when we vote, we should probably vote specifically to include the amendment for provides access to so that yeah, >> our version has all of the amendments in it that can just go to advisory for their consideration. >> Okay. And those are amendments from the
advisory committee. >> No, the advisory committee hasn't. >> No, the advisory committee report. >> So that that came from the advisory council on public health. >> I'll say that again. that that amendment the access to came from the advisory council on public health.
>> The other it was changed from coverage uh we took out the word coverage um to provide universal access that was from the advisory committee but the this additional noned two words were from the advisory
committee on public health. >> Okay I I think we got it. Um so I move a favorable action um on Warren article 21 first as amended by the advisory council on public health and secondly with the
deletion of the uh final or as clause um with respect to savings by the town of Brooklyn. So those two amendments I move favorable action >> and the previous word and >> yeah wasn't that advisory council on public health. >> No.
>> Oh I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Yeah, that Yeah. All right. And the removal of Yeah. fixing it grammatically. >> Removing the last warehouse. >> Okay. >> That's easy. >> Okay. Good. Okay. All in favor, please
indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak >> abstain. >> Okay. Paul Warren, >> abstain. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> And chair votes I. You got your three votes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, article 20 911 memorial resolution. Anyone have any issues with that or questions? >> No. Okay. I'd like to move favorable action then. Oh, no. We're not doing hearings. I'm sorry. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, then I move favorable action on warrant article 20 with respect to a 911 memorial resolution. I just want to clarify that it was back on your docket because the advisory committee did make some minor tweaks to it. So, >> okay. So,
>> so on the advisory committee version of the article, >> what did they do? >> Um, I don't have that. >> It's minor. >> It's minor. The factual corrections. >> Okay. So based on uh your representation, I move favorable action
on article 20 911 memorial resolution as amended by the advisory council uh to fix minor corrections to the language. All in favor please indicate by saying I. John Benoya >> I Paul Warren. >> David Pearlman >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein
>> I chair votes I. Finally, Lars Anderson, DPW, >> close out. I'm sorry. Article four. >> The article four is very quick. You uh didn't take a no action vote. That's all I'm looking for for article 4. Um >> they need an update on the Did the AC
finish the budget? >> No. >> Okay. >> Well, they maybe we will make it out to this meeting the same day we started it, but they won't. >> Okay. Um, so article four you said. >> So no action. You already had the report on the status of the special
appropriations, but you just need to move no action. >> Okay. No action on article four. All in favor? John Vansyak. >> Hi. >> Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Pearman. >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> Chair votes I. Okay. Now finally, Lars Anderson DPW yard discussion.
>> And you've been staying here for this >> last six hours. So the commissioner unfort the commissioner sent you all an email on this um which I'm happy to talk through. The long and the short of this is the the DPW has been trying to get
out of that yard for decades. You know um DPW has had it since pretty much since SLARS was deed to the public. It predates article 97 in the state constitution. That's why it's there. Um also um use for maintenance is an
approved use under article 97. So, um, that's why DPW has had it in the first place. It's been there for a long time. Um, park operations moved out of that space in the early 2010s. Um, the issue has
always, you know, for for a long time, we've been DPW has been proposing, there have been studies done about potentially moving these operations to the transfer station, and each time it's been proposed, there hasn't been money for it. What we've committed to this year is
a townwide facility study for DPW. Um because the stuff has to go somewhere. Um and it is not as simple as just redistributing it across DPW facilities. It doesn't work that way. Um, so we need
to actually get a full inventory of all of DPW's operations, think about where they're going to go in the long term, and discuss, you know, whether further consolidation at the MCC is appropriate, whether it's appropriate to continue holding on to the water and sewer garage
in Netherlands Road. You know, all of those things, those big questions need to be addressed and they've got to be addressed in a systemic fashion. So, we're making that investment um as part of the CIP this year. Um and we're really want to unlike with the previous
two attempts to move the to move the all the stuff out of Lars. Um we want to then have a long range plan to make it work. Um but the idea that we could just snap our fingers and make it happen is not possible. Um, so which I know you
were proposing, but I think people just seem to think >> why >> I'd love to be able to snap. >> I know. It would it would be it would be so easy, but it is not so easy. Um, >> are we als I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, I was just going to say, are we also going to do an assessment of
environmental issues there? >> Yes. Yes. Any any any sort of movement out of there is going to need to consider the fact that it's been used as a staging area for decades. Um, >> sounds like that's a huge cost. Mhm. >> It's going to take a lot to clean it up. So, Bernard, I may I So, we we did touch
on this >> two weeks ago, I think. Yep. Right. And what I heard was that two things were going to be done. >> The facilities assessment to find out where where could you move them? >> Yep. >> Right. Ideally, I I think everybody would like to see them move. >> Yes. Including
>> including the DPW. Um and I assume the friends of Lars Anderson Park would like to see them move as well. Um and also they to do some I don't know what it's called a study uh and you know and it it had not included the DPW site
>> and you committed to include the DPW site. >> Yes. >> To assess what potentially could be yes done or some recommendations and that was the that was actually the thing that we added. Yeah. >> As a result of the conversation. Is that still true? >> Yes. That's still true. >> Okay. And so those two things should
result in some movement for for finding out, you know, when and how we can free the space up and then two, what potential uses that space could be used for. >> Right. >> Sounds good to me.
>> No, it's not a public. >> Write us a letter. >> Okay. So, anything else we need to talk about? >> That's it on that front. >> Okay. Um, so >> there is public comment. So she could she could she could she could comment
during public comment. >> Okay. So let's uh give uh after the meeting public comment. >> Ann precinct five. My request had always been to do a study not to immediately click your fingers and move. I think
there's a lot that can be done in the study. I think there might be money that could be gained from selling some of the items. There are five police cars. Do we need five police cars? There are also the other do we need? I don't know that they're stored there.
They never move. They're just storing there. Um, also yesterday I was listening to the sound coming from the largest of the metal sheds and it was a loud motor and I know that Aaron had said that the metal sheds are climate controlled which means that they need
energy to run. I don't know if the metal sheds are insulated. They don't have solar on the roof because you can see that from the aerial view. I don't know their energy source for heating and cooling. But if new metal sheds are put elsewhere, then those could be far more
energy efficient and be a cost savings for the town. So everything I was looking at was what can also be a cost savings for the town as opposed to having that big warehouse and heating and cooling two buildings and having a lot of stockpiled stuff that has been
there since 1950. So all of all that I was asking and I was overjoyed that you did the RFP and you included Lars Anderson but if there is no movement at all about Lars Anderson then the RFP will be done and the the conclusion will be well we can
never include Lars Anderson for the pool cut study because everything is still there. So just having movement on everything allows the Fiser Hill property to be studied simultaneously to the Lars Anderson land to be studied.
>> So thank you. That was that's my request. I've been here. I've done all those reports to get us to this point because I knew that because I knew that um the historic preservation and conservation study was being done by Kyle Zik right now and then the RFP is
being done and that timing was tight to do all of this. So >> I'm saying thank you. >> Thank you for your >> You did what I wanted which was movement. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We can end this meeting on the same day it started. So let's uh let's end the
meeting uh three minutes before 12.