In a recent government meeting, significant discussions centered around the stalled intermunicipal water agreement between the city of Brockton and the applicant involved in a subdivision project. The applicant detailed their ongoing efforts over the past year and a half to engage Brockton officials in dialogue regarding the agreement, which is deemed essential for the project's progression.

Despite multiple outreach attempts—including communications with the city solicitor, the mayor, and various department heads—the applicant reported a lack of response from Brockton, describing the situation as \"essentially ignored.\" They emphasized that under state law, Brockton has an obligation to negotiate this agreement as part of their membership in the watershed district.

The applicant is now seeking an extension to continue pursuing the agreement, which may involve litigation if necessary. They expressed frustration over the city's refusal to engage, highlighting that they have complied with all requests from both Brockton and East Bridgewater, investing significant resources into planning and reengineering efforts.

The meeting also revealed that Councilor Nicastro and the mayor of Brockton have publicly stated their unwillingness to consider the intermunicipal water agreement, raising concerns about the city's commitment to good faith negotiations. The applicant provided supporting documentation to the board, urging them to review the extensive efforts made to facilitate the agreement.

As the situation unfolds, the applicant remains hopeful for a resolution, while the board members expressed their understanding of the challenges faced. The lack of cooperation from Brockton raises questions about the future of the subdivision project and the obligations of municipal entities in collaborative agreements.