Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening. I'm Bernard Green and this is an unscheduled regular meeting of the select board for
April 21st, 20126. Let's start off uh we have a number of warrant articles on our agenda. Let's start off with warrant article 5, a budget amendment for the fiscal year 2026 budget. Um are you going to
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Um I meant to interrupt you, Bernard. We had some requests to move around the schedule. Um, if Melissa doesn't mind, I'd like to take Warren Article 14 first because we have the petitioners here. Jonathan Klein, I'm going to promote you now. And we also have folks from um, planning department
um, as staff support online. Um, and just so you know, Bernard, we don't have Melody tonight. So, if you need anything for the Zoom meeting, I am your I am your host. So, um, Jonathan, you've been promoted. Uh, >> Charlie, I I didn't understand what you just said. >> I was just saying I'm I'm running the
Zoom tonight if you need anything. Okay. Okay. Uh, Jonathan, you have the >> uh, good evening. Uh, do I have the ability to share my screen or is the uh, someone else going to run the slide deck? >> You should be able to, Jonathan, if you have issues, I will pull it up, but give
it a shot. >> Okay. Okay. So, uh, good evening everyone. Uh, thank you for the opportunity. Uh, my name is Jonathan Klene. I'm a town meeting member from precinct 17. I'm also a member of the housing advisory board and
I am the chair or was the chair of the ADU subcommittee of the housing advisory board serving along with Alex Kger also of the HAB uh Tommy Rankus of the planning board and Kelly Hardbeck of the uh uh AC land use subcommittee. Um and
uh I am uh here to present uh warrant article 14. So I want to start by giving you a quick overview of the timeline here. Um on you know nearly two years ago in August 2024 the Affordable Homes Act was signed
by Governor Healey. Um it revised uh and uh made uh certain changes to the state law regarding accessory dwelling units which we call ADUs. Um in the fall right after that we approved a revised ADU bylaw at town meeting hoping it would
comply with the new law. Um, in February of 2025, a little over a year ago, the state finalized regulations for ADUs that um clarified the law in ways that were inconsistent with what Brookline had done. Um, we got a letter from the
attorney general in June 2025 disapproving many provisions of our bylaw and saying they were uninforceable. Uh so in August to have appointed a subcommittee to review that. We worked closely with the planning department staff including uh Emily Dhoo, Maria Morelli, uh Jonathan
Simpson. We met five or six times, maybe six or seven times uh with uh in public meetings under the open meeting law uh with uh a lot of public part well we had a lot of parti public participation from one individual uh Dick Banka uh and some
participation from a few others uh and we are now presenting our uh our conclusions and a proposed recommended bylaw for this town meeting. So that's uh the long- winded background. Um the uh warrant article 14 has been already
uh heard and recommended by the planning board. Um it is going to be heard tomorrow night by the uh housing advisory board. Um I expected to be approved there. They have gotten a preview of it. Uh it was reviewed and recommended positively by the land use
subcommittee of the advisory committee and is being heard tonight by the advisory committee. So, uh, there is a new term that we're introducing into the bylaw from state law of a protected use ADU, which is an attached or detached ADU that's located
or proposed to be located on a lot in a single family residential zoning district. Um, now the key here is that we had previously understood that to mean a uh one of our Sz zz zones, single family zones. The state law and regulation clarified that a single
family residential district is any district which allows a single family home. So that would include our two, three and multif two two home, three home and multif family districts. So that's a key change. Um the guidance we have from the state law is that uh ADUs must be by right and
cannot be have more restrictive regulations than for principal dwellings or other accessory buildings on a uh on a lot. uh and they cannot have more restrictive dimensional standards. Um and under the do amendment which is part of the mass general laws uh one ADU is
considered a protected use. So what is the do amendment? The do amendment limits how municipalities can regulate certain protected uses. Because of this one ADU must be allowed by right. Local zoning cannot prohibit or unreasonably restrict it. regulations
cannot be more restrictive than those for similar structures. So, as a result, some of our bylaws were deemed uh uninforcable. Um the ones that are I've highlighted in bold here, this is a table. I won't go
through the whole thing uh to respect your time. Uh is the uh limitation to single family districts. I discussed that already. uh the requirement that a dwelling be in existence for 5 years before applying for an ADU. That's disallowed. Um and we
had a maximum height for ADUs of 22 feet or one and a half stories. That was also disallowed as being more restrictive than uh uh other uses on the lot. Some other changes as well. So the purpose of article 14 is to bring into compliance.
Uh we do not want to have laws on the books that are uninforceable. We want our bylaw to be in full compliance with state law. Uh so here are the highlights of our warrant article. It makes predicted ADUs by right uh uh allowed with a maximum
size of 900 square ft. I will note that our prior bylaw allowed ADUs to be up to 950 square ft, but the state law uh uh you know protects them only up to 900 square ft. We decided after some debate not to create a separate category for
nonprotected ADUs between 900 and 950 square feet uh and decided that was not going to be consequential. Um we removed parking requirements for protected use ADUs which was required under the state law uh for all but very tiny parts of
Brookline and we decided to simply extend that to to the entire town. Um, we changed the height and setback requirements to be consistent with those for single family uses. Uh, a principal structure or an accessory dwelling. The one thing I want to highlight here
is that if an ADU in many of our single family districts, a principal dwelling can be 35 ft. For example, if an ADU is over 22 feet in height, which is one and a half stories, the owner has to submit evidence to the building commissioner to demonstrate that the additional height's
necessary. Um, however, we could not condition that on building inspector approval. Uh, and that's something we were told in a consultation with the attorney general that that would be an unreasonable regulation. Uh, we also added language to ensure that to the extent possible, the
protected use ADU is actually used as an ADU. We wanted to not it not have it be a back door to uh allow uh owners to simply extend their dwellings. So uh we have updated height and setbacks. The minimum sideyard
requirement has to be the most permissive uh as it can be for either the principal dwelling or the single family dwelling or or or an accessory structure. Um and so uh those are changes that we made to the bylaw. Uh, as I said, I know I'm repeating
myself here, the maximum height has to be the most permissive allowed. Um, but for any protected use with a height of more than 22 feet, we require evidence being submitted to the building commissioner. And then we have a couple of permissions
on compliance uh requiring that before a building permit's issued, the property owner certifies to the building commissioner that it will maintain permanent sleeping, cooking, and sanitary facilities separate from the principal unit. And we also have a requirement for a certification on
change of ownership. Um, we also added a provision to make clear that if the owner of a protected use ADU discontinues its use, you know, stops using it as an ADU, uh, that the structure no longer complies with zoning and that we could take the actions
enforcement actions that the town could normally take for any building that doesn't comply with zoning. uh including refusing to issue further permits or even in egregious cases requiring that the that the the building be changed back and that the ADU be eliminated.
So, I've tried to be brief. I know you have a lot to do tonight. Uh I'll be happy to take questions. Uh Maria and Emily are both here. Uh I will also note that uh let me stop sharing. Uh, I will also note that um
well I I just forgot what I was going to note. Uh so let me let me let me stop there and see if uh there are oh oh I'm sorry that there were a number of modest changes made to the bylaw as filed um in
the course of the uh hearings both by comment from comments we received um as well as a couple of comments that came up in the AC land use subcommittee. Um those have been accepted as uh at this point friendly amendments. Um, they were
in the updated draft that was distributed with your materials. Uh, if you'd like us to walk through those, we could, but in the interest of time, I think I'll stop here first and see what the board's pleasure is. >> Okay. Unless someone else would like to have walk through those. I don't think
we it's necessary. >> Uh, thank you, Jonathan. I thought that was a very helpful um presentation. This is going to be a public hearing. So, why don't we open unless people have questions from the board, I'd like to open the public hearing and see if
there's anyone who'd like to speak. Charlie? Sure. Folks online can use the hand raise feature if they'd like to speak at this public hearing or if you're in person, you can feel free to approach the podium. You'll have three minutes to speak.
>> Okay? and we'll use this time to also take any questions from the select board. >> Michael. >> Okay. Um, first of all, thank you very much, Jonathan, and please thank the rest of the petitioners as well. Um, I I
don't have any questions necessarily of deep substance. Um, just a few questions about uh language and some definitions. Um, am I am I right to assume that single family residential zoning district,
single family residential dwelling, and accessory structure, which are all capitalized terms, uh, in the warrant article, are defined somewhere, and if so, where? >> Hi, >> maybe could answer that for you. I just
want to say that um those are defined in the regulations, the state regulations. >> And are the and are those regulations incorporated by reference somehow into the bylaw or do they need? >> So I just I just want to um
uh so there's definitions for principal dwelling and that is under section five, >> right? So, are these other terms that are defined in state regulations incorporated >> somehow >> or do they need to be?
>> Um, see, I just want to see where there's a reference to the CMR. That would be CMR7 um 760 CMR71 um protected use. So there's I think what
might be helpful is the protected use accessory dwelling unit is defined and it says um on a lot in a single family residential zoning district as defined under 760 CR CMR 71.02
and that's for the purposes of this section. >> Right. And what about the terms single family residential dwelling and accessory structure? >> Um accessory accessory structure is defined in the zoning bylaw and single
and single family um is also defined in in our bylaw. You just have to look under article two under the definitions. Uh >> but but for this purpose in 5C, if you're looking at the draft we sent out,
5C specifically says that the term the use of single family residential zoning district is as defined in the the regulations, right? That's in 5C. >> Yes. But I think Michael is speaking about structure and not single family residential zoning district. So we do we
do cover those individual items under article two. Um, but just as uh Jonathan pointed out, single family residential zoning district has a specific >> Yeah, I I looked in the S section of uh of uh
>> it it wouldn't be under S. It wouldn't be under S. I'm I can I can locate it. Um, it should be under dwelling. It should be under the D definitions. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Dwelling unit. Yeah.
John. >> Uh, John Klein, thank you so much. Um, I'm I'm just curious about a couple of questions. I don't know whether you have the answers at your fingertips. I I I mean, I hear the the the point that uh the attorney general determined
that the the version that was adopted in Brooklyn um contained elements that were uninforcable. uh have people applied um under that version and and are they in any kind of a sort of a gray area at this point?
>> I I think I I could speak to that. Um thank you for your question, John. We do get a lot of queries at our proverbial front counter from people who are interested in applying and they want to understand the status of the zone of
Brookline zoning and we tell them that we're we twixed in between that town meeting did adopt something and the attorney general um disapproved a great deal of it and that we are in the process of reconciling this the town's
bylaw with the state regulations and that there is a process there's town meeting. We give them the time frame and and usually what people do is is they're hesitant to to really act on it. They certainly could exercise their rights under do, but most people don't want to
go through what could be that process. They'd go to the building department. The building department would have to consult with town council. I'm not speaking for town council who's present, but it's it's possible that it would end up very likely at the board of appeals
to weigh in and most people are looking for a buy right process. So they they sort of self- select and don't go through. There might have been one or two internal um which is maybe a conversion of a basement because we most in the planning department we deal with
the Bo board of appeals. we wouldn't necessarily know uh of those cases. Um but I understand from speaking with the building department. Um if there was anything permitted, it was few and in and something very simple like a basement conversion.
>> Okay, >> Michael, >> thanks. >> Well, before you go, let's see if there's anyone in the audience that uh would like to speak. Charlie, has anyone raised their hand? >> Thanks for checking, Bernard. No one has raised their hand and indicated their desire to speak. We only have a couple
of members of the public online. So, >> Okay. Okay. Michael. >> Um I noticed uh in section two that deals with maximum heights and minimum setbacks um that there's language around the front yard setback and there's
language uh in section uh 2C for the required sideyard setbacks and there's was various discussion about most permissive requirement applicable for etc etc and I noticed that language wasn't in 2B for the front yard setback.
back and I'm just wondering what's why. >> The difference is uh in the zoning the most permissive um setbacks would be around say an accessory structure um or and and the accessory structures are not
allowed in the front yard. So ostensively what that means is that the front yard setback for either the the accessory structure or the principal structure would be identical to the principal structure since you cannot have an accessory structure in the front
yard. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. Yeah. John >> uh John uh or Maria um >> is there any way of uh summing up uh for you know the average person listening
tonight and the average me? Um what what differences do we face um having had the version that we originally adopted uh be deemed uh uninforceable by the attorney general's office. um that that version
was put together uh in the hopes of, you know, exercising certain amounts of local control uh over ADUs that that will inevitably pop up um you know, under this state uh law. uh did we
essentially lose uh the whatever set of controls we had hoped to exercise and are we sort of back to square one where everything is pretty much dictated u by the terms of the state statute. >> Um I'm not sure if you want to answer
that Jonathan I'm I'm >> let me let me take a quick try. I mean, we we still have our local bylaw and our local bylaw, you know, has, you know, provisions regarding principal structures, accessory structures, you know, where they can be, how they can be
located, what this the setbacks are. Um, ADUs are, um, I think as a result of the state law and regulation, um, we are being required to make our laws more persive than they would have been in
order to encourage ADUs. That's the state's you know purpose is to encourage ADUs and they are uh making us conform in certain respects and that means with respect to height limitations and setback limitations they are going to be more permissive than we had before this
change. Um it also means that we can't enforce as I said earlier that five-year look back requirement that we had before. So for example, now an ADU could be built as part of a brand new structure, right? Someone could build a structure and put an ADU in the basement. That was not possible under
our prior law. So we have lost some control. We are uh being required to allow ADUs as right as of right in more areas than we would have before. And that's to meet the the the state policy, you know, ambition to create more ADUs and more housing. So, I think we've been
able to um work with it reasonably and I think we had a very good process of, you know, uh adhering to our prior bylaws intent and requirements to protect abuing land owners to the maximum extent we could. That's kind of a fudge answer,
but that's the best I've got. Maybe Maria can add to it. >> I I just want Thank you, Jonathan. Um John, does that answer your question? Uh do you need further clarification? Well, um, I I just had a couple of follow-up questions which I I confess are naive. I
think I know the answer, but I'm just thinking there might be some people listening who will wonder about, for example, and here are the two examples. Um, un under the provisions uh, as required by the state, could an ADU be
of greater height than the building it is accessory to? >> That's an excellent question. Um, so let's say that you had um a a 22 in a foot tall cape and
someone wanted to put an accessory dwelling unit. This would be accessory to the principal structure. The use would be subordinate to the principal structure, but the height doesn't necessarily have to be, you know, there doesn't have to be a
hierarchy in terms of the physical height. And that's because of the way the statute is written. It's it's the the maximum height allowed in that zoning district. So if you are in an S district where the maximum height allowed is 35 ft, but you have this a
cape um house, a principal structure that's only 22 feet, it's the 35 foot height, maximum height that it's allowed. and and would the uh provisions of the Brooklyn bylaw as revised, you know, to conform with the determination of the
attorney general that there were um uninforcable provisions, w would the revised um thing that bylaw that's in front of us um uh uh depart from depart from the you know allowable excess
height of an accessory dwelling unit over the height of the building it's accessory to? Are I mean are you saying that um we're we're identical to what the state allows. We we cannot be more restrictive. We tried to be and what was
it and maybe this is more helpful but in the the last version of the ADU bylaw that was adopted by town meeting the maximum height was 22 feet and one one and a half stories and that was a huge
clincher. We wanted to have some sort of a you know have that the accessory structure be subordinate um to the principal structure and that was struck. >> That was struck. Okay. And >> by the attorney general. >> Yeah. My second question was um would an
ADU be allowable at an excess over the square footage of the uh unit the house that it's accessory. >> So that's another excellent question. So there are two two po important points in this in the um in the regulations in the
it can the ADU the protected use ADU may be up to 900 square ft um but no more than 50% of the gross floor area of the principal structure. >> Okay. Uh David
>> just have a question about the regulatory details around the selfcertification about maintaining uh separate sanitary, separate cooking, separate sleeping quarters. How is that to be enforced? I mean obviously
the homeowner I suppose will provide that certification but will this ever be checked upon or it's only one time at the beginning? Does this mirror state legislation? So in there isn't um like a routine in inspection I and if the building
commissioner were here most in most inspections are really complaint driven so there isn't a schedule um for um checking to make sure I will say though that if someone wanted to say
let's say that they got their ADU they added 900 square ft and they had all of the separation So the building code is very strict about the separation between the two aside from a common foyer or a common entrance area. There has to be a
separation between the two units and so forth. Let's say someone got a permit and they constructed that. And then let's say that they wanted to remove all of those features and really extend say their their family room. chances are
they would need to apply for a permit. Um, and while they could, you know, do that and apply for a permit, if they're over F or if they're over something else that is not being regulated for the ADU, they wouldn't get the permit for the new
thing. Um, do sometimes people do these do things like, you know, rip out entire um demolish parts of their house without getting a permit? I I guess that's conceivable for them, but for the most part, if people were going to go to those lengths, they would need a permit,
and that's when they would get caught. They certainly don't have to use that space. We can't make them use that space. Um, but the permitting process is really the first step. And if they wanted to do something else and needed a permit for that, that would be another uh gate. And another question I have
regarding uh basement and attic ADUs to what qualifies for the square footage. Is it only finished space or is it the totality of contiguous space? >> That's another um excellent question. And so article two has the definition of
um excuse me I should I should say here that the definition of gross floor area the state also has a distinct definition from what Brookline uses and um there are sections in in that definition I don't know that it's repeated here um
but it does deviate for instance you wouldn't be in um including um an atticss and basement, you wouldn't be including porches. Uh, and there are other other features as well. What I
could do is I can I can look that up. Um, because I don't think we repeated the definition. We just cross referenced. >> We did. >> Oh, we did. I'm sorry, Emily. Yep. >> So, it's in D and definitions. Gross floor. >> Thank you for that. Yes, that's um so you can see there
um under D you you would be able to see what the state defines and what the state would would use to calculate gross floor area. >> Thank you, >> Michael. Um, I'm looking at uh section
four um that talks about exterior alterations that are permitted and I'm I'm assuming that this is to to sort of maintain some sort of aesthetic consistency within within a particular
lot. Um, but what I'm wondering is are those exterior alterations referencing the principal dwelling unit or could they be referencing a detached ADU or are they referencing you know the
extension on a principal dwelling unit that that refers to an ADU or all three? >> Yep. So the assumption and I and I will say this is not the strongest section. This is a you know a vestage of you know the earlier bylaw um I think it was in
two bylaws ago and because it wasn't um new for the last iteration uh when the state regulations were adopted the attorney general didn't didn't really flag it and um but the
assumption here is that since this is a use that would be accessory to the principal use that it it would really be compatibility with that principal structure. >> So, for example, if you had a detached garage that you were going to convert
into an ADU, you couldn't change the aesthetic of that garage so that it was wildly different than the principal unit. Is that >> Well, I would say um this is not if you look at the verbs here, we're not we're not really using words like shall. This
is more like guidelines and you know if this were you know more I if we had I guess the better thing would be to have guidelines that could accompany so that we could give people some tips. This was the best we we could do at the time to
provide some asurances to town meeting. So the these are really guidelines >> right? >> Yeah. I I just want to point out that this is this is the existing bylaw. What you're looking at in section 4 is the exact existing bylaw. and we did have some suggestions to tinker with it and
then decided to leave well enough alone if you will. So, >> got it. Okay, understood. Thank you. >> Okay, Charlie, anyone in the audience raising their hands? >> No one online has indicated their desire to speak.
>> Okay, I'll close the hearing and um we'll take this up at our next meeting. I mean, it's fairly straightforward to me, but uh I think that's more appropriate to um give us some time to to um absorb and and digest. So, thank
you, Jonathan. >> Thank you. Select board, >> right? And and Maria >> and Maria and Emily and Jonathan Simpson. >> Right. >> Okay. Uh let's go back to the first item which is article five a budget amendment
to the fifth fiscal year 2026 budget. Um are you going to present that or Melissa? >> Good evening. Melissa Goff, deputy child administrator. Uh you should have in your packet a memo from me explaining what we are looking to do with the budget amendment. So, article 5 is
looking to amend the fiscal 26 budget and we have a couple of adjustments that we are looking to make. The first is um to amend the golf enterprise budget in order to allow for them to access retained earnings uh as a way of potentially addressing uh projected
currently projected shortfall um due to some of the work that they had done at the course and uh around their master plan. um they actually received um you know good bids and the um ground conditions were such that they were able
to escalate some of the work that they were contemplating. So although it ties up the course uh more than they had anticipated for fiscal 26, they'll be able to get the work done a lot sooner than what they originally were contemplating. Um, so, uh, the first part is just, uh, amending the golf
enterprise budget in order to allow for them to, uh, add $200,000 to their reserve. If they do not need to access the the money, the that would just replenish itself and and fall back to the retained earnings for the golf course at the end of the year. Um, the
second piece of the adjustments are um to address some budget shortfalls that we are anticipating. We've had a pretty heavy snow and ice season. Uh and we've been talking throughout the course of the budget uh about the uh projected overtime deficit in the fire department
budget. Uh we have also um identified that at the end of fiscal 26 we had set aside $970,000 um when we were looking to close the fiscal 26 budget um in May last year.
this time last year um that trying to identify how the school department was going to close the remainder of their gap that they had been working towards closing through the course of the year. We had put that money into a contingency fund thinking that we might need to access it um potentially in uh November.
We did not need to access it in November. Um the school committee ended up balancing their budget accessing circuit breaker funds. Um and that money is now available for us to address these two deficits. I I will say that originally the that source of funds was
um originally contemplated to support the uh new Lincoln school grounds the design work with that project that is fully funded in the fiscal year 27 CIP. So um there's no need to allocate it to support the project. That project is
fully covered in next year's budget. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions from the select board? Okay. So, let's open up the hearing and see if anyone in the audience would like to speak. >> Okay, folks online can use the hand
raise feature to let us know that they'd like to speak and folks in the audience can approach the podium and they'll have three minutes. Um, Bernard, there's 10 participants online and only two of those are members of the public. Um, and neither is raising their hand at this time.
>> Okay. Uh, any discussion from the select board? Michael, >> I just have a a quick question about the the use of the contingency fund. So, in normal years, Melissa, are you saying that the contingency fund is usually around $10,000? >> Yes.
>> Got it. Okay. >> I I should also note that um last week the advisory committee voted favorable action on this article. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay. Um Charlie, still no hands raised.
No hands raised at this time. >> Okay. So, I'd like to close the meeting. I'm sorry, close the hearing. Uh, and um, unless there are any further questions from the select board, we can move on to the next article. >> Anything you want to say, Jess? >> No, I just wanted to flag that um,
article 10, I believe, um, Ian Rothman from uh, the CTNos was going to present, but he may still be on the COS meeting. So, um, maybe we want to go on to 15. >> Okay, let's do that. And I think Mr. Leovitz is on the line. Um,
>> okay. With respect to, um, inclusionary zoning, um, Alec Leovitz, are you there? >> Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Excellent. Um, >> okay. Thank you so much, Chair Green, and good evening, everyone. Um, Alec Leovitz, town meeting member, precinct
8, here speaking on behalf of the petitioners of War Article 15. And I'll try to be as brief as possible. I I know you have a busy agenda. Um, article 15 is a very simple adjustment to the inclusionary zoning bylaw. Um it simply replaces the the number 10 with the
number 19 in the portion where we set the uh unit threshold number for um developments that are subject to the inclusionary zoning policy below which the developer has the option to make a cash contribution to the affordable
housing trust fund in lie of providing on-site affordable units to satisfy the IZ policy. Um there's really three main reasons why we are petitioning this article. Um one is one of the key Oh,
and I should mention in 2023, um the unit threshold was actually changed. It previously had been 19. Um that was lowered to 10 units by a 2023 warn article. So article 15 seeks simply to reverse that change and go back to what
had previously been the status quo. Um and as I mentioned the three primary reasons. First uh the 2023 article that um we are seeking to essentially undo cited uh as one of its main rationale the fact that the community preservation
act was coming online um as a reason why they felt it made more sense at the time to take a more aggressive tack towards encouraging developers to add on-site affordable units instead of making cash contributions. Um they reasoned this
based on the fact that the CPA would spend um significant portion of its money on housing and there was an assumption um from the HAB at that point that um CPA funds could effectively back stop um any lost revenue by moving to
this more aggressive unit threshold. Um, I think since that time we've seen that demands on the CPA are varied and and there are many competing and worthy causes that are funded by the CPA every year. Uh, and there is excitingly enough
um uh some collaboration there that's recommended in the CPA award article this year, which is great to see. But um it's become clear that uh the magnitude of funding through the CPA just isn't there in the way that the petitioners in 2023 originally envisioned. Um, the
second main reason we're petitioning this article is uh because in evaluating the data of how affordable units get created in Brooklyn, what quickly becomes clear is that the affordable housing trust fund is just simply the most effective and efficient tool we have to create new affordable units. Um
studying the data for projects funded through the the fund since 2008 um we find that the average return on investment for every dollar dispersed from the trust fund over that period is 15 to1. Um and in that same period the fund has supported the creation of
nearly 600 permanently affordable housing units in Brooklyn. Um, additionally, one concern that actually was raised by staff in the hearing process on this article is that um, there's a higher administrative burden placed on the planning department to
manage small numbers, one or two units uh, of affordable deed restricted affordable housing in otherwise commercial developments or mixeduse developments uh, that are added as a result of the on-site unit option under the policy. um it's much more uh we're
told efficient and reasonable to manage for larger developments with a um larger share of affordable units as opposed to kind of these buckshot individual units. Um and article 15 would um shift that preference for some of the smaller and mid-size units to cash instead, which we
think would also fund, you know, more efficient investments from the trust, but would also simplify the town's administrative burden uh in managing these units going forward. Um, and finally, uh, our final rationale for the article is just the fact that midsize developments in Brooklyn are just not
currently happening. Um, at the planning board hearing, we heard from staff that since 2003, um, there have not been a single 10 to 19 unit development that has been permitted or even an application received. Um, so I think that speaks to the fact that there is
kind of a missing middle in new housing being developed in Brooklyn. those kind of 10 to 20 unit developments um that address a lot of our missing housing needs. Um and allowing developers more flexibility who wish to bring those projects forward by exercising the cash
option um just makes something that's often logistically complex very simple while also giving us revenue for our most effective housing creation tool. Um so I'll conclude there and just note that um the article has been supported thus far by a unanimous planning board,
a unanimous AC land use subcommittee uh and the HAB will be taking this up tomorrow evening as well. Uh and we expect favorable action there. We've had support um from Roger Blood, Steve Hiken, Jonathan Klein and a few other members at previous hearings. So um we feel there's a lot of support out there and we ask you to consider favorable
action. Thank you. >> Great. Okay, this is a public hearing. Why don't we open the public hearing? um and see if anyone wants to speak about this. >> Okay, this is a public hearing. Um folks who wish to speak can use the hand raise
feature online or can approach the the podium in person. Um and they'll have three minutes to speak. Um we have 10 participants now online and just one of those is a member of the public and they are not raising their hand.
>> You're setting a new low here. Uh David, >> so I understand the logic that cash uh as an alternative option will probably lead to more affordable housing units overall. But what do we do about the
issue of uh economic segregation, which can sometimes be racial segregation? I'm a little worried that if we continue in the direction of loosening up requirements for having on-site affordable units that we may end up in
situations where we're having a large concentration of affordable units in one single lo in in single locations rather than having everyone economically integrated throughout. So are there parallel efforts that are being made to
address that issue? Yeah, it's a great question, David, and it's certainly one um it's a concern that I share with uh you know, setting I think too extreme um of an I policy in one direction or the other. Um I think fortunately article 15
doesn't enter into the realm of that extreme. And I think there's a couple reasons why. Um, one is the current status quo is that the majority of the on-site units that are provided to the town under the IZ policy come from larger scale developments. Um, certainly
over 20 units, but in many cases, you know, well over 30 or 40. Um, so we're not touching, you know, changing any of the requirements around those projects. Um, which as I mentioned are where the kind of majority stream of on-site units are coming from right now. Um, and that
still I think preserves a lot of the economic diversity advantage of the IS policy, particularly given the fact, as I mentioned, those larger developments are what's currently being built. Um, so we haven't actually seen these kind of middle units or these middlesized developments going forward under the
current I policy. Um, which we worry may be a barrier, you know, to those. Um, and I'd also just point out that um, the investments through the affordable housing trust can also be used to create uh, or to drive economic integration.
Um, there's a couple projects on their roster that have been completed since 2008 um, that I'd point to there. You know, one of them being um, St. Aiden's which had 36 affordable units of a total 59. Um the two life development was
majority affordable but they also had some market rate um units in there. Um so you know there there are investment opportunities on the trust side of this as well where we can I think drive that kind of um progress that we want to see.
>> Thank you >> John. >> Yeah. Did you have your hand up? No. >> No. I I it looked like you had your hand up but you didn't and then you raised your hand. It wasn't a real It wasn't a real clear gesture. Um, uh, Alec, I I I I thank you very much for bringing this.
It sounds like something that, um, is, uh, going to be a benefit, uh, overall. And, uh, you know, now that I've had a chance to think about it, certainly sounds like something I would favor. The only thing about that it just kind of uh
puzzles me or intrigues me uh because it speaks to the way things reach town meeting under our form of government. Um I would assume that uh if the affordable excuse me the housing advisory board had brought the original uh change in
limitation to town meeting and not too long ago. I think you said 2023, right? Mhm. >> Um and then they found that there was some, you know, problem with it. Um that they would then take the burden of
figuring out, okay, how do we undo this and go back to a limit that we think is more reasonable. Um and with all due appreciation for the fact that you came along and did it, um would this have been done
if if you hadn't come along and done it? And I I'm kind of mystified as to um uh I hear everyone's going to agree that this is a necessary fix, but it feels to me like it should have come to town meeting from the originators of the
change in 2023 so that we have some reassurance that what was done in 2023 is now being corrected um in uh in 2026. uh you know with all the eyes dotted and
the tees crossed as they say. >> Uh yeah, I'm happy to speak a little bit to to process if that's helpful. Um >> um because I it's it's a point well taken. I I don't disagree um with your premise. Um and I will just note that in bringing in preparing to bring this
article um we consulted uh extensively with members of the HAB in particular Roger Blood um who had kind of shephered the original article through in 23 on at the behest of the HAB. Um and they were I think very helpful in us compiling the
data that we use to inform bringing this forward. Um they've been immensely helpful throughout the hearing process. Roger has been at essentially all of these meetings uh and has actively you know been very actively participating in them. Um so you know while maybe it's
not the perfectly true to form uh I think you know we've been we've made a very conscious effort to make sure HAB is looped in. Um I don't think we would have proceeded had they said no we don't think there's a strong case made by the data here. Um but I'd also just note they're incredibly busy. Um, you know,
one of the reasons the affordable housing trust fund, as as this group well knows, is so effective is we have an extremely qualified uh and wellex experienced and seasoned group of housing professionals at the HAB um who
actively manage this fund who, you know, are writing the ADU article that we just heard about. They do a tremendous amount of work. So um my sense from them uh certainly in the background conversations we had is that this was something on their radar um but I think
just given the you know nature of limited bandwidth for the individuals on the committee it's not something that they um had the bandwidth to proceed with for this town meeting given competing demands on their time and uh myself and my co-etitioners of course
with their um support and and mentorship uh decided to to go ahead and and we've been pleased that reaction has been very positive thus far. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you again. Um and just to um maybe explain a little bit um
clearly my my con the reason that I would ask such a question is you know I can conceive a scen of of a scenario excuse me um where there whereby there is someone who has been knocking at the door to do a project um but the problem
is they don't really like the u the threshold that's on the books and would like to see that raised and then you know next thing you know there's a proposal brought to town meeting you know to so raise the um the threshold
and then the next thing you know you know the doors open and that person comes in which might be great. I mean, I would love to see, you know, a project result from this, but you know, if that were the case, then I kind of feel like it should come to town meeting, you
know, on that understanding, you know, that there's there's a project that is waiting in the wings to be developed so that people have a better idea of sort of what they're opening the door to. Um, are are you aware of any projects that this would open the door to that are
just kind of standing by for us to make this change? I I I am not. Um and and I think, you know, as to my knowledge, none of the petitioners are aware of any um pending projects. As I mentioned, we we've not received any applications um for any projects since 2023. Um and
we're certainly not aware of any that are pending in the pipeline at this point. Um so, no. >> Okay. >> Michael, >> uh thank you, John. you you you actually bring up an interesting point that I I just want to take the opportunity to
comment on. Um and that is there are a number of circumstances and this is one of them where we're balancing the trade-off uh between leverage and incentive. Um and this is a this I think
is a case where the the tradeoff um uh was such that we had very we had stronger leverage to get affordable housing built um but insufficient incentive to actually get anybody to
take advantage of it. Um, and I imagine that that lens um will apply to other situations around um zoning changes in particular um that could come forward either, you know, through the Chestnut
Hill commercial area or as a result of comprehensive planning. Um and it's a balance that I think um the town would do well to uh lift up and consider. Thank you. Um Charlie, anyone else in
the audience uh wishing to speak? >> We have the same 10 participants and no one online is raising their hand to speak. >> Okay, I'd like to close the hearing then and um uh we'll take this matter up at a
future select board meeting. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, I see one of the petitioners of war article 10 is in the audience. Is that that right? >> Okay. So, let's go back to warrant article 10. >> Good evening. Tell us about this.
>> Thank you. I'm uh Ian Rothman from the uh committee on town organization and structure. Thank you for re re uh organizing your agenda. Um we were just finishing up our CTO and S meeting actually just this moment. Sure.
Um so um I'm speaking uh on behalf the CTNS is the petitioner on article 10. Um article 10 is the product of a report and and now recommendation that comes out of articles 11 and 12 from the
November town meeting um which relates to the issue of dual service by members of the advisory committee on other town boards and committees. Um, as uh as you may remember last November, there were
two warrant articles that came before a town meeting um that came up as a result of an interpretation of the bylaws by town council um about advisory committee membership. So, as written currently,
section 2.2.1 2.1 of the town bylaws um prohibits um uh any member of any standing board or committee having charge of the expenditure of money from also serving on the advisory committee.
Um and that um uh that provision uh was interpreted to call into question the advisory committee membership of at least two um thenst standing uh member members of the advisory committee. Um
two warrant articles were brought before town meeting in November. Um both of them were referred to uh CTO and S uh for resolution and article 10 is CTO and S's proposal to address this uh what we
call the dual service prohibition. Um so the proposed revision to the town bylaws um would provide that no member of the advisory committee um um shall hold elective office of town government other than town meeting
member or constable. Um so the effect of that revision would be to remove the dual service prohibition which prohibited um someone from serving on any standing border committee having charge of the expenditure of money.
That's the existing prohib prohibition. removing that and replacing it with a much more narrow prohibition that prohibits any elective office of town government uh person who holds elective office of town government other than town meeting member or constable from
also serving on the advisory committee. Um let me tell you there were three principles at play here um that will explain the existing prohibition and and CTOS's um proposal. Um those three uh
principles are first um a very basic separation of powers separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches of government. Um the second is um separation of financial responsibilities within the town and the
third is um eliminating the ambiguity that existed in the existing bylaw prohibition. Um with respect to the first principle which is um separation of the legislative and executive branches. Um advisory committee is a
member of the legislative branch of our town government. Um the advisory committee uh the word advisory is meant to um apply to advising town meeting. It is an advisory body to town meeting and and as such is part of the legislative
uh branch of government. Um by and large most of the standing boards and committees um are members of the executive branch of government which this board the select board is the head of. Um it was uh there's an important
principle in preserving the independence of the advice that advisory committee gives to town meeting um from the executive decisions that are made by the boards and uh committees of the town. Um we thought that the existing prohibition
was too broad that um the boards and committees of the town do not in practice have sufficient power or authority um to really infringe on that separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch. But um
elected members of town government um members of the select board and the other boards and committees that are elected by the electorate have an independent um mandate that comes from the electorate. Uh and COS felt it was important to preserve that separation
between the independent electoral mandate on those boards and committees from the advisory function to the legislative branch that the advisory committee um fulfills. Secondly, separation of financial um
responsibilities is a general rule in both public and private finance that um the person who makes a uh budgeting recommendation should not be the same as the person who approves that recommendation or the person who approves a recommendation should not be
the same person that spends the money. there's a simple uh and important separation of financial functions that was achieved through this uh bylaw prohibition. Um in practice however we felt that there are sufficient safeguards that are already in place
that may not have been in place at the time that the bylaw was originally adopted um that mitigate against the risk of any financial impropriy. Those include conflict of interest laws. They include separation of financial functions that exist within the town
already and um the separation of the financial functions while an important principle was being preserved by many of the other principles and practices that are in place. Um finally um legislative clarity. Um there was considerable
debate at the last town meeting about what a standing board or committee meant and there was also considerable debate about what the phrase having charge for the expenditure of money meant. Um there are reasonable interpretations of those
phrases that could result in different rules about who is prohibited from serving on advisory committee and who is not. Um, by replacing that language with the language that CTO and S is recommending, we're replacing what we think is ambiguous language with
language that is very clear and easy to execute. Um, if you are someone who is elected to a town office other than town meeting or constable, you are prohibited from serving on the advisory committee. Full stop. Um, that's CTO and's recommendation. I'd
be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. >> Thank you. Uh any discussion from the select board or should we open up the hearing? Uh Charlie, open up the hearing.
>> Okay, folks online, this is a public hearing. If you'd like to speak, please use the hand raised feature to indicate your desire to say a few words. If you are in the room, please go ahead and approach the podium and you'll have three minutes to speak. Uh, Bernard, there are 11 participants online, a few
members of the public, and nobody is raising their hand at this time. >> Okay, any uh questions from the select board? >> John, Ian, thanks for the report. Uh I'm sure I must have missed it but I un with this change will there there be any
limit on the number of positions that might be taken by one individual? >> Well the original yes the answer is yes. um it would prohibit someone who is serving as an elective in an elective office of town government from serving
on the advisory committee. But this provision never had a limit a general limit in terms of the number of positions a person could hold. So you so in a in a in a sense that that's not the
issue that I think this prohibition was trying to address in the first place. Um, so there there's no prohibition in this bylaw about serving on multiple boards um other than advisory committee. Um, I don't think that exists anywhere
else in the bylaws. Um, but that certainly wasn't what this provision was designed to address. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I I'm sorry if my question was a little bit off sort of the the um off off track in terms of the the whole purpose of what you just
reviewed, but it got me thinking um and probably got members of CTO and thinking um should there be such a limit um you know and what would be the basis for it? Because the more positions any one
individual can serve in, you know, under our town, under our form of government, the greater the chances that they'll run into some kind of a conflict, you know, between their service on, let's say, the building commission and their service on, I don't know, the advisory committee
or something. Um, I don't know whether that's something the COS wants to consider. I know that we as a select board are sometimes in an awkward position when a person who is already on a board or committee or commission um
applies to be on a second board or committee or commission. And I guess we we don't have anything to steer by really. I mean, we can we can say, "Oh, well, we think that's too many positions for one person, but it's not actually limited by anything in our bylaws." It
never came up as a problem. I mean, people serve on multiple boards. Yeah. >> Not in in such a way that they can't handle the work of each board. >> We tend to like to spread the appointments around. >> Yeah. >> Jennifer
directly um CTO and S did not discuss that question. We did I think discuss a related point which is that there are you know these positions are voluntary.
Um there are a limited number of people who are willing and able and capable of devoting their time and energy and brain power and resources to service of the town. Um and so you know we did feel and
this was a topic that came up when when articles 11 and 12 in November arose. We did feel that the restriction was overly restrictive and prevented you know hardworking good
well-intentioned Brooklyn citizens from um volunteering their services for the town. >> Great. Michael >> um just a couple of points of clarification. The first is CTS
itself um is is it a um a uh public body in the legislative branch or the executive branch? >> So we are in the bylaws under the legislative branch. We are um appointed by the moderator. >> Okay. Um you made a comment earlier
about um the purpose of the advisory. One of the roles of the advisory is to advise town meeting. Um and did that did that statement come up within the context of this discussion or is it just
considered background information? >> Um so I guess I would say the latter. um uh advisory committee is a part of the legislative branch under under the um under the bylaws. It's it's created
under um a statute um under state law that towns of a certain size are required to have advisory committees. They they um have different names in sometimes called advisory committee, sometimes called finance committee um in different towns. Um but they are set up
to provide advice to uh town meeting. Um and the specific um obligations of um of the advisory committee are made up through a combination of the bylaws um which get it their authority from
statute. >> Right. So I'm looking at section 2.2.5 of the bylaws of general duties. Mhm. >> Um and it references um uh proposed action. Uh the committee shall consider any and all municipal
questions including appropriation requests and proposed action under all articles in the warrant for a town meeting for the purpose of making reports and recommendations to the town. And I note there that it says to the
town and not to town meeting. So I'm I'm just interested in the in the sort of history of that of that particular assumption. >> Yeah. So that's an interesting question. I I hadn't I personally have not focused on the use of the word town rather than
town meeting at the end of that sentence. So I without spending more time looking into it, I don't know the answer to that specific question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay, let's close the hearing and
um we will take this up at a future meeting. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Next, we uh have a number of warrant articles or a couple warrant articles that we've already held hearings for and we're ready to pres
presumably vote. Uh article nine, annual community preservation act fund. Any discussion of that? Okay, I'd like to move favorable action. Anyone object? All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak,
>> I. >> David Pearlman, >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein, >> I. >> And chair votes I. Uh, next, uh, article 12. Oh, by the way, uh, article 16, if anyone's interested, uh, was taken off and is, it looks like it's being withdrawn for later action, I guess, at
a future town meeting. >> This the petitioner said they intend to return in the fall. Yes. So, it's not being moved currently. >> May I May I ask, are we supposed to nonetheless recommend no action in case somebody else decides to bring it up? >> You can theoretically. Um, it depends on
what you want to do. I It's been your practice rec I Melissa, correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's recent. >> So, I wouldn't I would not recommend making a motion under this article because it's zoning related. And so, if it if there was a no action motion, there's more um steps to refile. you
would need the planning board to vote favorably if the petitioners wanted to refile. So t traditionally we just say the select board is not making a motion on this article because the petitioner is not intending on making a motion either. >> Thank you. >> Good. >> Yep. >> Okay. So uh next uh article 12 with
respect to um uh public records requests and responses. >> I think Alec is still online. Um there's been some changes. Um maybe A if you want to go through those. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thanks Chaz. Excuse
me. Um the main change that was made is one that was suggested by um Michael Rubenstein, which the petitioners are happy to accept as a friendly amendment. Um which simply specifies that um rather than the town being charged with this
responsibility, um it's that the town clerk is being charged with this responsibility. um we don't think that changes any of the uh you know implications of implementation rather just offers I think more clarity in the actual language of the proposed bylaw.
Um, other than that, this is still the um same version that you had previously considered. Um, which I I just briefly remind folks is um amended from the petitioner's original motion under the article. Um, and now calls simply for
the production um on a monthly basis of uh essentially the index of what public records requests the town has received and responded to. um with not additionally not calling for the um proactive posting of all public records
produced in response to those requests uh in order to not run a foul of significant new costs associated with the um online materials ADA policy that will be taking effect soon. Um so I I'll leave it there and happy to answer any
questions or clarify any points if there are any points that need to be clarified. Thank you. Yeah, I guess uh with the changes you uh mentioned uh this is a much much better um and more um efficient article than uh previously
was. But I I guess my question is what is the problem we're trying to fix here? >> Yeah, absolutely. Happy to to speak to that. Um uh a couple things I think. one is we're we're trying to bring Brooklyn into alignment with what um we view as
an emerging best practice that's already done by um a number of peer communities including Newton Framingham and many others. Um I think as I mentioned at a previous meeting when it comes to public records um and compliance with state law
I think there are many structural issues with the way um the state law currently functions. It's essentially uninforced. Um, and what that then leaves to municipalities like Brooklyn is um taking more local responsibility and
proactive action to maintain trust with the with the community uh and maintain trust that our government is transparent and accessible to the people it represents. Um, you know, in preparing this article, we put a call out to the town meeting list serve and and to other
um various town forums and said, "Have you uh gone through the town's public records process? What was that like for you? What did you get back? How was your impression, you know, walking away from it? And what we found is at the very minimum we have a big perception
problem. Um we heard many many accounts of people who walked away from this process um very um unsatisfied and in some cases angry with how it played out. Um what I think having this index will do is it will show that the town is
responsive to these requests. Um it will show that we um do have dedicated staff both in town clerk's office, town council's office, um our various department heads who participate in this work that are already doing a lot to um really go beyond the mandates of state
law uh and work to make Brooklyn an affordable and accessible government. Um so I think uh one it will help us address this perception problem. too. Um if there are issues with non-responsiveness or if individual complaints somehow are falling through the cracks, this will tell us that and
it'll also tell the public that. So um you know, as I mentioned, we and to your point, Bernard, we have, you know, gone to great lengths working with the town clerk and his office and town council to try and streamline this to try to really minimize any implementation costs here.
Um but we still feel this is a really meaningful step uh forward for transparency and for you know really um creating a product that that I think builds trust and maintains trust between the government and the residents of the town.
>> Michael >> um I'm wondering if the town clerk is uh is online. Uh we don't have Ben uh we don't have Ben Kaufman in the Zoom call. No. >> Okay. Um
then I guess the my question is um do you know um what the anticipated uh financial cost or time cost or staff cost will be for implementing this revision of the article?
>> Um yes we do Michael. Um, and the reason we know with, I think, pretty good specificity is we have now modeled the um, product we are requesting through this bylaw that the town clerk actually sits down and creates each month um,
based on a request that he has already fulfilled, his office has already fulfilled that was submitted by Brookline News. They had submitted a request for a full year's worth um of um uh PRS that the town had received as well as what had been sent in response.
Um based on that, uh we were able to calculate that this work over the course of a year would cost Ben's office about $2,400. Um and and as I mentioned, that's over the course of the full year with monthly compliance. Um and that is based on
actual cost. um actual costs that were provided to us by Ben based on uh his office's fulfillment of that Brookline News request. >> So when you're saying actual costs, are you referring to the costs that they charge Brookline News to provide this information?
>> Um it's it more referring to costs of what the actual um staff time costs to the town were. um because a portion of the uh staff time that goes towards fulfillment of public records requests um is not reflected in the amount that
is charged to a requesttor. I believe it's the first 12 hours are actually free of charge to a requester. So we wanted to be more inclusive of that and so we went for the full staff time calculation. >> Okay. Um, the reason I ask is I had a
separate conversation with the town clerk who seemed to indicate that the n that the cost was significantly higher than that and I'm trying to reconcile the differences. >> Um, well, that would be news to us. The, you know, our cost estimates are based um on figures that Ben gave us and in
fact that we actually workshopped with him um on a recorded meeting of an AC subcommittee. So, um, if he has new cost estimates, that's not been made aware or we've not been made aware of that. >> Um, I will note that the original model proposed by the petitioners, Ben did
provide us a cost estimate for that, which was substantially higher. Um, and that was one of the reasons that we amended this model to ask for um, something we were confident of. We knew what it would cost because it's already been produced once. >> That satisfy you, Michael? Um well
no given that given that we are in expressing a lot of financial concerns it would be helpful to get that detail um reconciled I think before we before we took this vote
>> because I think we're voting on incurring an expense and I just would like a better understanding of what it is. >> Okay. How would you get that understanding? >> Um, >> and we we can put this off to our next meeting. >> Um, I >> I think we would need to get to know
from the town clerk if he agrees with that analysis and if he doesn't agree what the differences are. Okay. So, uh J, how can we um just send that message to the >> Yes, I will. I will make sure the clerk knows that he is invited and
>> or you can just send an email to us explaining, >> you know, either his agreement or other information with respect to cost. >> I think it would be good to have him here um just so he can speak you can answer questions as opposed to giving you a statement. I think that's fair to
the petitioners as well so that they that that can be, you know, hashed out. >> Okay. So, um I'm sorry, John. >> Yes, if I may. Um yeah, and uh I I definitely think we need to hear from Ben and and I think there's, you know, for at least in my mind, there's a
question that goes even beyond questions he might answer in terms of the practical application of this. And I've mentioned these before, but I'll mention them again. Uh, I had the unique experience of uh, doing my best to help
Mel Kleener um, reach an objective that had been on his mind for a long time. And that was to bring the town clerk um, under the oversight of the town administrator's office. So that, you know, town clerk's office um, town clerk
would be hired through the town administrator's office. um the town clerk would be answerable to the town administrator's office and because there are so many things that the town clerk's office does that if when they're done well um everything functions smoothly
when they're not done well um and and there can be reasons why they might not get done and I'm not going to go into the history of this but there was a period during which a lot was getting sort of put put off or or not not completely done on schedule etc um And
it was it was really getting in the way of the smooth functioning of local government. So, you know, Mel does comes up with the idea that as in most um communities in Massachusetts, um that the town clerk's office gravitates towards being an appointed position. I I
agreed to champion that effort. Um it looked like we were making a lot of headway and then um as it would happen uh I have zero complaint at all with how this turned out because um one thing led to another and it was realized that the
alternative to this measure that Mel Kleener and I were trying to get um adopted in Brooklyn was to find someone who could really really fully fulfill the duties of the town clerk's office and you know provide
um the kind of energy and skills that are required and Ben came along. Thank God he's been reelected since. Uh so h who really blows the whistle on on on the town
clerk if if there is an 11 I think there was a 10day requirement, you know, and it turns out that they don't get the report out till 11 days. I mean, who who has the authority to say, "Hey, Ben, you're supposed to have that out in 10
days and and you went 11 days before you got that report out." I don't think we do. I don't think the town administrator does. >> Yeah. The only people who do are the voters. >> Well, I mean, >> you know, if we're late at coming to our meetings or something, >> right? Right. And that was kind of the
main argument for keeping it elected is that every um you know, what was it? three years three years. I think you know the town clerk is answerable to the voters for the town clerk's performance in office. By the way, I don't think the town clerk is answerable to town meeting. Um he better do a good job or
he'll get a lot of complaints from town meeting. But uh I'm just mystified by what will happen next once we adopt this if you know Ben's response rather than hiring additional help which he might not have the money in his budget for is
to basically say I'm doing the best I can and that's that is so true in so many departments and that we have to allow departments a certain amount of uh wiggle room and not expect that we can
dictate to them every single aspect of their performance of their job via a bylaw. Um, and that's what worries me about this. >> Yeah, I think that's the legitimate concern. Any other discussion?
Okay. Well, we'll take this up uh at a future meeting uh with uh the clerk uh in in attendance and um we'll see where it goes. >> Question. Did you take a vote on article 9? >> I thought we did.
>> I thought you did, too. Yeah, I thought you did, too. I just wanted to double check. Thank you. >> I mean, I may be totally confused. >> Yes, we're just this one. I think I'm >> right. The the team the team is is is trying we're trying to make the minutes happen here. So, yes, in real time. I thought you did as well. Yes. Okay, good.
>> Okay. Um, next resolution expressing support for the Massachusetts Medicare for all legislation. I think um Isn't there a new name for this um singlepayer legislation or
>> the petitioner? Tell us. >> Well, I I don't know if the petitioner is here. Um I've been communicating with her. Um this is a minor change. You had previously um approved a version that was approved by the advisory committee. Uh but then the um ACPH took hold of it
and they just added a minor minor edit. Um they essentially uh to the statement that the town of Brooklyn urges the Commonwealth to develop and establish a state health care system that provides and they added the word access to universal affordable and accessible
health care for all residents and reduces costs for municipalities and will communicate it support of such to our state representatives and state senator. So the only tweak is the the adding the words access to to what you had originally voted. >> Okay. So, uh, let me ask you this. Is
the, um, the recital that says where such a law would save the town of Brooklyn tens of millions of dollars in the first year alone still in there? Let me just open the, uh, edited version just to make sure that that statement is still there. Yes.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, for whatever it's worth, I'm not willing to vote on it or vote favorable action with that language in there. I mean, it's it's purely um speculative and um I think it detracts from the
seriousness of the uh proposal, but you know, if you can convey that to the petitioners for whatever whatever it's worth, um you know, we'll bring this up or deal. So your your current stance is a favorable action on the
article as amended by the advisory committee. So I think if you would want to take a new position, you would need to um vote to reconsider and then take a motion on take a vote on the new motion that's in front of you. >> Right. Okay. We may do that. >> I think you
>> you abstained on the last one on the last Bernard. So you have if people are going to reopen it, someone else has to move it. Um, someone in the majority has to remove has to move for article 21. >> Okay. We'll see if anyone's willing to do
that. >> I think yeah, regardless, you probably if you want to be in alignment with ACP, you have to you kind of have to reopen it. Um, >> so what I'm I'm sorry, I missed what was added. It's just the phrase um
in in the resolve clause. >> Yeah. >> Instead of saying that the town of Brooklyn urges the Commonwealth to develop and establish a state health care system that provides universal, affordable, and accessible health care that provides access to universal, affordable
>> and accessible healthcare. >> Great. I'd like that change. >> Yeah. So I I'm happy to move that we reopen consideration on war in article >> 9 21 >> 21 is
>> should we do it now or when we we also have Paul >> oh no that's not what I'm thinking um >> Paul and Bernard both abstain to this article so >> you and you you and both what I'm asking is do we need to have the petitioners
here to >> or should we have a petition before we open. >> Yeah. My question is should we uh take that action when the petitioners are here to respond? >> So, I thought that this was a minor edit
that didn't require the petitioner, but if you want the petitioner to kind of reopen the arguments for and against this article, then I would recommend that we get invite her to next week's meeting. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or, you know, it's it's right. It's up to you. you know, I I would like to reopen it to address the issue of the uh
language in the in the uh last recital, but you know, that's just me. What do other people want to do? >> Can you can you say more? >> Well, I I think that to say that a law would save the town of Brooklyn tens of
millions of dollars in the first year alone. How do we know that? I mean I mean that that's sort of like saying um you know if we pass this resolution we'll have world peace. I mean, it's it's it's kind of
um I mean, I I I just I'm uncomfortable saying something like that. Uh that that becomes part of the public record and we're before u you know, we're telling our legislators that we expect this from from a proposal.
>> Yeah, John. >> Um I I gather that I was a yes on the original vote on this. I'm not sure, you know, what what my thinking was at the time. I seem to recall um it went along the lines of this is one of those
resolutions. You know, I mean, it's it's a well-meaning resolution that has a lot of um laudable goals. Um who who wouldn't want to make healthc care more affordable for all of us? Um, of course it raises tons and tons of questions um,
in terms of, you know, what does it mean to have a Medicare for all system? What would that do? You know, kinds of uh, echo effects would that have all throughout, you know, our health care system, etc., etc., etc., etc. I think
the reason most people feel comfortable voting for it is that it's likely symbolic. I mean, it isn't going to reach the legislature and overnight we're going to read that the Massachusetts legislature has, you know, declared that Massachusetts is a
Medicare for all state. It's it's really a congressional level decision that has to be made. Um, and so people tend to, including myself, um, we don't want to have to get into all of the arguments for and against a Medicare for all
system. And we certainly haven't in this particular round of discussion. I don't recall, you know, a single representative of the insur private insurance industry, you know, coming to Brooklyn to talk about why this might be a bad idea and and I don't think anybody
wants to hear arguments against it and so we tend to just approve them routinely. But you raised an excellent point. Um there's no explanation of the math. The math sounds kind of improbable. Um it's kind of like major wave a magic wand over the health care
system and all of a sudden all of us will save gazillions of dollars. Um so what do we do with it? Um I you know I'll stand by my original vote but only on the understanding that I'm not sure there's there's any uh downside to our
making a symbolic gesture in Brooklyn that we would like to see healthcare be affordable for all. My my concern is you know when we make these symbolic gestures you we don't want to make them in such a way that is easily attacked as not just symbolic but also
counterproductive and and when we put in uh uh statements that you know are based on sort of hypothetical math or whatever um we leave ourselves open to that type of attack. >> You're right. You're I can't argue that you're right, Michael. Um I'm just
noting there is another whereas clause whereas there is an alternative means of providing health care for all that also provides better coverage without co-pays and deductibles and includes medical, dental, long-term and preventive care.
You know, that is also a speculative statement in in making sure that we all have a common understanding of what better coverage means because I think there there could be some legitimate debate on that point. And the fact that
this makes the claim that there is an alternative means, you know, is also sort of for uh subject to It's it's a question subject appropriately subject to debate.
>> Yeah. And so, so >> I mean it's perhaps I'm bolstering your point to saying that there that there are spec speculative um statements within the resolution, but I think I I think I sort of tend to
agree with John that as I mean what we are resolved is is that the commonwealth sort of look at this problem. >> Yeah. No, I mean I I agree and I think that you know the what you read is a
little um speculative if you want to use a word, >> but you know it's it's within the I mean it's within reason. I mean anything any resolution has some of that in it but when you say we're going to save millions of dollars, I mean that's just going overboard in my opinion. We don't
know that. Um and and and it's it's uh um well, we don't know that and there's no reason to to put it in um a piece of legis article like this. That's
>> uh No, I take your point. I it sounds like the thing that we should do is hold this and get the petitioners and see what their response to this, you know, what their justification is for this putting in this whereas clause um and how they arrive to it and make a
judgment based on how they did that. >> That's what I'd like to do is what other people think. >> Fine with me. I'm fine with you. Okay. So, we'll take it up again uh next uh maybe next meeting or some future meeting.
Okay. And with that, we have nothing else on the agenda unless someone would like to Well, we didn't have public comment, so we don't have to. >> Special meeting. >> Oh, this is a special meeting. That was a regular meeting. An unscheduled meeting. >> It was a Right. It's a
>> It's a special regular meeting. >> Special regular meeting. It was originally it wasn't on your agenda. So, it's a late late breaking regular. >> Yeah. Okay. So, uh with that, we can end the meeting. >> May I just say one thing before we do?
Congratulations to all who ran for team Brooklyn in the in the Boston Marathon yesterday. >> Uh fantastic day um all around. And uh I haven't heard the final report yet, but I'm looking forward to the report. Uh because if if the dinner prior to um the
event was any indication, we'll learn that every single charity runner for Team Brooklyn made it to the finish line, which is a remarkable achievement. >> Good. They're a good group. >> And made it to the finish line during the day. There there's a couple runners
apparently who came in around 8 o'clock. >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. >> I think you're allowed six hours to complete the marathon. But >> to to Well, apparently they are also given the medallions even though they came in really late.
>> Get to the finish line. You get that. >> Well, maybe that that's the rule here. I mean in Tennessee it was you needed to do it in six hours >> and a lot of aching feet today. >> Yes. In a lot of places. But >> yes, thank you. We're we're working with
Big on the whole sound system in here. So, we will do our best. >> No, we're still I mean, so yes, we we know why we know why it stopped working this time and we're we're working to fix it. So, hopefully we will get it fixed as soon as we can. Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you everyone. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hey,