[Speaker 1] (0:04 - 2:59)
Excuse me, if you wouldn't mind rising for the Pledge of Allegiance. Good evening everyone. Thanks for being here for those that are here in person with us at in the high school and those that are joining us on Zoom or otherwise watching us on Facebook or on cable access.

In a minute we will do public comment. Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Select Board on items that are not on our agenda this evening. We ask that comments be short in duration, refrain from political speech, and to the extent there's any questions or comments regarding town staff to please reach out to any Select Board member or to the town administrator outside of the public meeting.

Following public comment, we have several topics for discussion tonight. We have a presentation from the Hadley Elementary School Reuse Committee, a discussion on the September 13th special town meeting, and ultimately a vote to close the warrant. We have a vote, this will be a second reading on the proposed fiscal year 2022 water and sewer rates.

We had the first reading at our last board meeting. On the agenda is a proposed vote for fiscal 22 board and committee appointments. We are actually going to push that to our first meeting in September, so we will not be doing that tonight.

We will be having a discussion about the September board schedule, and then we also have a consent agenda and there's numerous items on the consent agenda, some of which we may take out of order and we may bring them forward as people join us here tonight for those matters. So with that, public comment. You can join us on public comment one of three ways.

If you're here in person, you're welcome to stand up at the microphone here in the room. We ask that you introduce yourself and your address. If you're joining us on Zoom, you can raise your virtual hand on Zoom and we will call on you and similarly ask that you lead with your name and address.

And if you are neither here or on Zoom, you're welcome to email me at my town email address, which is P as in Peter, last name Spellios, the word spell, I-O-S as in Sam at the end of it, at swamscottma.gov. And I will take a look at my emails and before the night's over, make sure that we read any comments received as part of public comment. So with that, for public comment, I don't see anybody here. I don't see any hands.

I do see a hand raised. I see Mary Ellen Fletcher.

[Speaker 12] (3:10 - 3:12)
Hi, Mary Ellen. Hello, Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 20] (3:13 - 3:20)
Thank you for allowing public comment, but I'm not really sure if I should make my comment now. My comment has to do with...

[Speaker 1] (3:20 - 3:22)
Mary Ellen, hold on one second. Hold on one second.

[Speaker 20] (3:22 - 3:22)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:22 - 3:34)
I need a little help with volume in here. Thank you. All right.

Mary Ellen, I'm sorry. The volume's just very loud in here. So it's...

Oh, there. There we go. That's better.

Thank you. It's not you.

[Speaker 16] (3:34 - 3:56)
It's us. So it's Mary Ellen Fletcher, 35 Puritan Road, Precinct 5, Swarovski. My comment has to do with the possible special town meeting.

I'm not sure if I should make my comment now or wait until it comes up, because I don't think this is a public meeting for comments when that line item comes up. Is it?

[Speaker 1] (3:57 - 4:02)
Well, we're going to have a discussion tonight about special town meeting warrant, and so we're happy to take your comment at that time if you'd like.

[Speaker 16] (4:03 - 4:05)
Okay. So I'll wait until that time.

[Speaker 1] (4:05 - 4:05)
All right. Thanks, Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 16] (4:06 - 4:07)
Thank you, Peter.

[Speaker 1] (4:08 - 4:09)
Hi. Please.

[Speaker 15] (4:18 - 4:28)
Eddie Gallo, Precinct 1, town meeting member. Just to confirm, Peter, you said there will not be a vote tonight on the water rate until September?

[Speaker 1] (4:29 - 4:38)
Nope. There will be. Tonight, we will be taking a vote on water and sewer rates.

We will not be taking a vote on board and committee appointments. That is what we're going to wait until September to do.

[Speaker 15] (4:38 - 6:23)
So I'm here to oppose this worksheet, which tears how people will be charged. I'm a resident of Swanscot, but also a trustee at Summit Estates. And as one of 264 units, I don't think I'm going to be charged fairly.

I'm obviously going to be in either block two or three just because of the logistics of it. It's going to be, I think we have two meters, one or two water meters. So we're going to be charged for water used by 264 units.

It's not fair. The other thing is, as a condo owner, the real estate taxes, the tax rate, we don't get trash pickup and we don't get snow plowing. So I don't see in the real estate tax rates, any tearing there for people that don't get all of the assets of the town.

And I know other people want to speak. And the other thing is, due to the pandemic and what we've been through in the last year and a half, the small businesses plus the residents, we're all trying to recoup, revamp. And I don't think you should be adding one cent to anything until people get a better footing.

[Speaker 22] (6:25 - 6:25)
And that's it.

[Speaker 1] (6:26 - 6:50)
Thanks, Betty. Thank you. If anyone else would like to speak on water and sewer, you can do it in public comment now.

We're not going to take, when we get to water and sewer, we're not, we had public comment during the discussion last meeting, but you're welcome during public comment tonight to share whatever comments you want and the board will hear them, not necessarily engage in public comment, but I want to welcome whoever wants to speak to feel free to speak right now. Did everybody sign? You guys all good?

Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (7:04 - 7:05)
Please go ahead, Bill.

[Speaker 6] (7:05 - 7:51)
Thank you, Peter. Bill DeVento, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, President of the Summit of States. And, uh, I had hoped that you would because, uh, allow discussion because you asked your staff to answer some questions at the last meeting.

And, uh, even though I filed a request for public information, which, uh, was not responded to, I've appealed that to the Secretary of State's office. I requested Mr. Luddy to provide me with information, which he did not. That was for the last meeting, uh, and asked him to provide any information that would inform us of exactly what's going on.

[Speaker 1] (7:51 - 8:06)
Yeah, Bill, do you mind if I just interject here? I want to ask the town administrator because I, I squarely agree that you made a request for information and I think I've emailed and you were on some emails and I'm surprised to hear that you didn't get the information that you requested. So I would like the town administrator to specifically address that.

[Speaker 2] (8:06 - 8:35)
Sure. Uh, Bill, I'm sorry that you did not get that information. Uh, I have talked to Mr. Luddy and asked him to send that to you. Um, and, uh, you know, frankly, going forward, um, this type of information, I would expect that citizens would get that, uh, you know, immediately. It certainly is a fair criticism and we'll take that to heart and we'll do a better job as we, you know, uh, seek to get information on it.

[Speaker 1] (8:35 - 9:14)
So I guess, Sean, what I want to ask is if anybody makes a request, we have to figure out a better system to make sure that this board is aware of those requests because this is not the first time. It's actually not even the first time for Mr. Demento. And I'll just be honest with you, it unnecessarily fuels things that it doesn't need to fuel.

The requests made were very reasonable and he should have the information and regardless of whether he likes it or doesn't like the information or we agree or disagree, it does not matter. He's entitled to the information and we can't be doing this. Okay?

So can you please report back to us on how we're going to be putting a loop so that we know to follow up if needed to make sure things are being responded to. Not responding is never okay. Sorry, Bill.

[Speaker 6] (9:14 - 16:06)
Go ahead. The people who were impacted by this, uh, water, uh, change are primarily the businesses and the condominium. It, uh, whether it, uh, lowers the cost, uh, it doesn't equal the cost in the way it was described at the last meeting on the adjustment.

This is, uh, a system, this base rate system has been used for 23 years and it started out as a dollar per quarter to establish the base and has grown to what it is now. It is beyond me in talking to other towns and other places such as Marblehead, which has a account fee, which basically this is an account fee. It's not a base fee in which they charge.

Everything else is by consumption. One of the things that, that Mr. Slechtman-Duffy has kept saying is other systems are tearing. Other places are tearing.

Yes, they are. They're doing the same thing that government does. It's a way of putting the burden on the commercial end of things.

At the last meeting, Mr. Duffy said that he never said anything about, uh, businesses passing on. So I transcribed what he said. The quote is, at his August 2nd meeting, one way I look at that is that businesses then have the ability to charge their prices accordingly and change their prices, which is the same thing that's applied every time, every November when we talk about the business tax rate.

Now we have thousands of people operating their businesses out of their homes, in which, what will you do in November this year with all the businesses being run out of their homes? Thousands of them. That'll be another conundrum that you face.

But this issue is simply solved, and I've been asked it by several other community water people. Why don't you just eliminate the base rate, care everything, and say if that's what you want to do, whoever uses the water, you pay for it. You all pay the same.

Not just because of the meter. This is just smoke and mirrors when you take and say some of the states, it's automatically into the highest tiers. Of course it does.

There's 261 units there. And that thing was discussed with Gino at the last meeting relative to a possible leak, and there was another issue relative to irrigation. We're going to attack that on our own, which we should do, to find a way around getting into this higher tier, but it is going to affect us severely.

We'd like to know, and as the town doesn't share anything with us about what those last three years figures will show, as you asked at the last meeting, what will it be? And we'd like to have the same deal at some of the states that the Swampskate Yacht Club has. I learned today they get their water for free.

What's with that? What's with the fairness argument? What Betty said relative to the trash removal, another good point.

At the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, you stated that's something they agreed to when the Summit of States was built in 1970. Well, that's something that Bruce Paradise agreed to do on Gracie Lane when he built Gracie Lane four years ago because it didn't meet town regulations, but you waived those and made that a public way. Why aren't you doing the same thing for the thousands of people that live in condominiums?

That fairness argument, we believe strongly. You've got to do what you say you're going to do about fairness. I heard Selectman Duffy go on and on about he's just trying to be fair.

And I understand he's trying to be fair by adjusting for the base rate and the equalizing of the 261 base rate payments versus one. I understand where he's coming from. Just eliminate the base rate.

You don't need it. As Gina has said at the last meeting, there's never been a deficit. Why even have it?

And many, many, maybe a majority of the towns in the Commonwealth don't have a base rate. They have an administrative fee at times, and some do and some don't. Arblehead does.

As for the town buildings, including the one we're in now, not being built, I have reason to believe that's illegal. And you must build the towns. That 15% slippage, I believe from what I have been told, I haven't done the legal research myself, you can't take the reasonable argument that Neil Duffy did by saying we're paying for it one way or another.

We just don't bill for it. You have to bill for it. Otherwise, the enterprise front is not doing their work.

And why an audit hasn't caught it, as one person from the city told me, is beyond me. I checked the last audit. There's no mention of it in last year's audit letter.

But we realize we're realists. We know when you set your mind to do something, you're going to do it. And that's the end of it.

And we have to live with it. We're going to work our best to do what we should have been doing a long time ago. And that's getting out the vote to show that we're alive.

And that's our bad. That's the condo owner's bad by not doing that. Thank you for allowing the time.

And if you've got an application for the Yacht Club, I'd like to join. Maybe we can hook our water system up to theirs.

[Speaker 1] (16:07 - 16:10)
Thanks. Anyone else like to speak? Please.

[Speaker 18] (16:20 - 17:51)
Ken Sorkin. I'm Precinct 1. I'm new to Swamp Scare and Move.

Bought a condo two years ago. And when I found out, basically, that we, at Summit Estates, we had to, in our maintenance fee, we had to pay for not only landscaping, plowing and garbage. I was amazed.

Because you people, selectmen, run for an office. And you make statements how you're going to help Swamp Scare and the people you represent. Correct?

Am I right? Wrong? You know, if you do this, you're not doing the right thing.

First of all, it's going to cost more money for the condo people, which it shouldn't. And I'm just amazed that because of the size of the meter, we're going to pay more. You know, there are a lot of condos, two-family condos and so on, which they get garbage pickup and they get plowing and so on.

Unfair. You know, it's just really unfair. Remember when you campaigned for office, and people here voted for you.

Remember what you said, what your campaign purposes were. Just remember. That's all.

[Speaker 1] (17:51 - 19:58)
Thank you, sir. Welcome to town. Anyone else?

All right. I don't see anybody on Zoom. And again, I will check my email periodically if someone did send an email.

For those that are interested in sticking around, I hope you do stick around and listen to the discussion that the board will be having on the water and sewer rates. I appreciate people's opinions. We won't go into it tonight, but disagree with a great many of the characterizations, but not the frustration.

I hear the frustration, and I bet that frustration is similar to those that feel as though they've been paying for decades disproportionately per gallon than others, and are pleased the fact that the rates are going to be evened out to address that. Next, we're going to move on, and we're going to hear from... Hold on.

Can you go to your opportunities? We're going to actually, with the board's indulgence, I would like to take a consent agenda item off the agenda and put it on the regular, relative to the board's acceptance of a gift from the Friends of the Swampscot Rail Trail. Any objection to doing that?

Go ahead. All right. I think Alexis Runstadler is joining us.

So if you wouldn't mind, Allie, I'm promoting Alexis. That would be great. And then I think Marzi's also here as well somewhere, I think virtually with us as well.

Hi, Alexis. Hello. How are you?

Good, thanks. Good. So the Friends of the Swampscot Rail Trail was formed shortly after 2017, after a town meeting passage of the requisite authority and finances to initiate and to continue with the Swampscot Rail Trail.

The group has been for many years doing some fundraising, and I thought, Alexis, you're instrumental in that, and it would be great if you maybe gave us a little background of the Friends group and your efforts in recent years.

[Speaker 14] (20:00 - 21:48)
Great. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. We're very pleased to be able to present the town with a gift of $150,000 that we have raised from local residents donating to our rail trail fund, as well as local businesses.

And the Friends group is an all-volunteer community organization, as Peter said, was formed to promote the use of the trail, to help construct the trail, and provide maintenance for the trail. So we've been fundraising, had a major fundraising drive for the last year, and we have also done, you know, this summer, a lot of work at the farmer's market getting the information out to people about the two open segments of the Swampscot Rail Trail, from the Marblehead Rail Trail through to Bradley Ave. And the excitement is just amazing at the farmer's market. People, so many people have told us they've been out using the trail, walking the trail, biking the trail, and they can't wait for more segments to be constructed.

And so we're really thrilled to be able to contribute money to that purpose. And I'd also like to thank all the volunteers in our group who have been working so hard on the fundraising, and we look forward to some more events the rest of this summer, and probably another bike sale in September, where we are selling used bikes. And we are still fundraising for additional monies for construction of the trail.

[Speaker 1] (21:50 - 22:03)
That's really great. Marzi, I want to invite you. I know that you have been on a staff level really instrumental in continuing the efforts and the design effort and maybe just give a brief update of kind of what's going on with the trail would be great.

[Speaker 8] (22:04 - 25:18)
Absolutely. So as Alexis has stated, we have today, we have built two segments of the trail and have submitted additional grant funding to continue the construction. Just recently, we received a $200,000 grant from the Shared Streets Program and we will look forward to identify the next segment of construction of the trail.

So that should be forthcoming. We are also working with a design team on the future design of the trail so that we can move forward with our application for the transportation improvement funding. And these funds will really greatly benefit the construction and obviously the design of the trail and we'll further that along.

So we are very thankful to the Friends. It's been an amazing effort to be able to work with Alexis and the Friends on the fundraising and also build in additional community support and share the information about the trail and the work that we have done in the past. We have also worked with our regional partners to really create the sort of the future links and really the improvements that our trail will make to the East Coast Greenways as well as the connections that Alexis mentioned to the Marblehead Trail as well as the Northern Strand Community Trail, also known as the Bike to the Sea.

We're also working with the East Coast Greenways to really create additional support as well as plan events that we will be able to bring more awareness to biking. The most important part that we're really excited about is the opportunity to really link our schools and really provide off-road access to our residents as well as students and faculty. I think it will be amazing to really be able to have off-road access, cross-town access.

You also probably have heard that we're also working with the developer of Elm Place to look at the feasibility of bringing the rail trail all the way to Essex Street. So we're really looking at the designs to really see and at that point I think that will bring in the connection from Essex Street or from the high school connect all the schools together. But again, the most important part is to be safe for pedestrian safety.

We have been working to assure that our residents are safe and I think that is something that will really create additional public or pedestrian safety to be able to have off-road access along our town. I think it's really important. So thank you to the friends of the Swanscud Rail Trail.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you have in regards to the trail or sort of where we are.

[Speaker 1] (25:19 - 25:22)
So let me just open it up to the Board if there's any questions or comments.

[Speaker 12] (25:23 - 25:44)
Just a comment. I think this is terrific work obviously on behalf of a lot of people to bring in grant and private funding for this. They've all done Yeoman's work on this and I think there was a lot of skepticism early on about the pledge to use private funding and grant money and again I think this shows that there's a real commitment to do that.

So kudos to everybody that's been working on this.

[Speaker 5] (25:49 - 25:49)
Agreed.

[Speaker 1] (25:51 - 26:01)
Alright, well you got the ditto from Neil Duffy. You know he likes it. The fewer words he uses, the more he likes it.

He's saving his remarks for water and sewer.

[Speaker 9] (26:02 - 26:11)
Margie, just a quick question. Have we identified the next segment or section of the rail trail that is going to be constructed and do we have a timeline for that?

[Speaker 8] (26:12 - 26:45)
So yes, based on the amount of funding we are looking at the Humphrey Street to the middle segment but that is still work in progress and I will provide you with a better update once we have all of the design completed and addressed any environmental impacts that we needed to do. So we still have a little ways to go but based on the amount of funding we have at this time that would most likely be this segment.

[Speaker 9] (26:45 - 26:55)
Got it. Thank you so much Margie for the update and thank you Alexis for all your extremely hard work and the Friends of the Swamp Scott Rail Trails work. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (26:55 - 26:56)
Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (26:57 - 28:02)
Hey Alexis, the $150,000 gift I think is the single largest gift that this board has been asked to accept for a purpose in my time of being here. So it's really pretty awesome and it really shows an incredible effort. I do want to give a shout out to the Gelfand Family Charitable Trust who was very generous very early on in seeding the fundraising.

Mark Gelfand and the family's charitable trust has continued to be incredibly generous to the community and incredibly supportive to the community and it's really greatly appreciated in addition to I'm sure the dozens if not hundreds of people who have participated, donated in kind in work. There have been residents who quite literally have gone out and planted portions of the trail and tried to beautify things and really add and it really is bringing out the community spirit that we all hoped and expected the trail would but you and the Friends are really the main driver so thank you very much.

[Speaker 20] (28:03 - 28:05)
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (28:08 - 28:26)
So with that, is there a motion to accept the gift of $150,000 from the Friends of the Swampscot Rail Trail for the purpose of supporting the design and construction of the Swampscot Rail Trail? So moved. Is there a second?

Second. Any further conversation? None.

All those in favor?

[Speaker 22] (28:26 - 28:26)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (28:26 - 28:31)
Aye. Thank you again Alexis. Please pass it on to the Friends as well.

[Speaker 14] (28:31 - 28:33)
I will. Thanks very much.

[Speaker 1] (28:34 - 28:44)
Thanks Marz. Alright, thank you for indulging that. Let me just ask Allie.

Allie, you had one appointment that you guys wanted to do. Do you want?

[Speaker 4] (28:44 - 28:48)
For the Cultural Council, yes, but neither of them are here.

[Speaker 1] (28:48 - 28:51)
Okay, so why don't you just let me know and we'll pick it up then.

[Speaker 4] (28:51 - 28:51)
I will.

[Speaker 1] (28:51 - 33:03)
So we're going to move on now to the Hadley Reuse Advisory Committee who has submitted to the Select Board and through the Select Board to the Town their report relative to the future reuse of the Hadley School. In 2020 the Select Board unanimously supported a warrant article asking Town Meeting to create a study committee made up of representatives of various committees and Town residents to explore the potential reuse of the Hadley School in the event the Town elects to proceed with the new elementary school and the Hadley School is no longer being used for educational purposes. The intent in asking Town Meeting was to bring that debate forward early so that the Town had clarity and understanding as to what the potential reuse of the Hadley School property would be.

It is not that long ago when other schools became surplus and sat vacant in the Town for 10 years before they were brought back to life. We were all thrilled this past June with the ribbon cutting for the Michon Senior Residences bringing a significant number of senior affordable units to Swampscott. The Select Board in asking Town Meeting to approve the creation of the committee stipulated two things in particular that the Select Board was unanimous in their support for.

One was to make every effort to propose reuse that would retain the use and the rejuvenation of the existing historic building. And secondly was to propose multiple scenarios, multiple possible uses but exclude from all those scenarios market rate housing. It was the opinion of the Board then and I assume now unless anybody is going to say differently and we're going to have a further conversation about that tonight that this Board did not want to see market rate housing be proposed for this property.

We're really excited that the report before us tonight made up 140 I think pages 19 member committee worked really hard and have three proposed possible reuses that meet the mandates that the Select Board unanimously supported last year and Town Meeting ultimately supported. So we're excited to have this report. We have Molly O'Connell with us who's Swanscott Senior Planner and I see in our attendees a large number of people who took part in the committee including Mr. Demento who's here and then I see numerous people online via Zoom as well who took part in this. So I want to turn it over to Molly. Before I do I just feel Molly you don't need to say anything for us to realize and to appreciate that this is one of the most comprehensive reports that I've seen in my time here submitted embodying the work product, the thought process, the process, the ideas, the critical analysis and consensus points of a committee that I have ever seen and as the staff leader I know that there's a whole army supporting you as well but I would be remiss not to tell you how impressed I am with this report and I know how much work had to have gone into it and I think members of the town will really appreciate reading it and understanding the thought process and the ability for them to read basically the process that you all went through and the things that you all considered and the things that you examined to come to your recommendations. So thank you very much. Let me turn it over to you Molly and I want to, Ally, anybody that's on the committee please promote them if you recognize them.

I do want members of the committee, I want every member to know that you'll have a chance to chime in if you'd like to and share your thoughts. We're really grateful for all your hard work on this. Molly.

[Speaker 4] (33:04 - 39:11)
Thanks Peter, that was a great introduction and we're really excited to be presenting these ideas to you tonight. For those of you who don't know, I'm Molly, I'm the Senior Planner at the Town of Swampscott here. I work in community development with Marzi who you just saw and I'd like to introduce Steve Perdue who's the chair of the committee and we are going to be presenting to you tonight and there are other members who I will introduce later when we get to some more public comment but I will say that everyone worked very hard on this report that we have submitted to you.

It's a culmination of about eight months of hard work and a lot of just thoughtful discussion that really went into this and gave us our final product here so we're going to be presenting some of that to you tonight. Obviously there's more in the report but these are the potential reuse options for the Hadley Elementary School. This is the items that we're going to go through.

I'm going to take you all the way through existing conditions and then I'm going to turn it over to Steve to go through the use evaluation and development scenarios, kind of get into that content and then we'll talk a little bit about kind of where we are now, next steps and then obviously hear from you all where you think we should go, what we should be doing and just responses to the work that we've done so far.

So as Peter said, we were specifically charged to look at certain types of uses that charge excluded market rate housing. We looked at municipal, public or civic, downtown, local commercial or non-market rate housing purposes and as you'll see our subgroups kind of broke down those categories even further to really get into the weeds. We also were charged to look at how the town could potentially retain ownership of the site, how we could maybe preserve as much of the site as possible, what that preservation might look like, exploring what types of partnerships are needed in terms of reuse.

So we've looked at all of that and the charge is really important because it's really our guideposts for everything that we would be doing and we think we've responded to everything that was laid out for us by town meeting. This is an overview of the process that the committee went through from formation to now. I'll say we had 22 committee meetings in that time.

That includes subgroups. That does not include the open house or the site visits which we did outside of our meetings so we definitely really buckled down and worked really hard. These images below are from the open house that we held in July outside in Loon Scott Park.

We really tried to follow a pretty standard planning process but maybe more consolidated within the time frame that we had and really worked hard to get as much as possible to you now. One of the first things that we did at the very first meeting was had a visioning session. Every good plan starts with a vision and out of this visioning session we developed these themes that you see here.

These themes also act as guideposts throughout the process and as we move forward we kept referring back to how does this maybe fulfill one of these themes in our vision. How does a certain use or scenario help meet these goals that we have. I'm just going to go in briefly a little about the site.

Most of you know it. There's two buildings on the Hadley site. The main building which was built circa 1911 and the annex built circa 1925 and they're connected by a walkway on the first floor and that's going to be important to the design discussion that you'll see later on.

The site is kind of surrounded by concrete pad. The buildings are right now with green space above it and the playground founded by Lynn Scott Park, Reddington Street and Humphrey Street. It's a really very important site in terms of its location in town.

It's very visible. It has this relationship or could have an even stronger relationship to Lynn Scott Park to Humphrey Street. Just from its location standpoint it really has this opportunity to transform kind of the gateway of Humphrey Street there and that's how we really started to look at it.

The group did do a site visit with Facilities Director Max Casper. He offered tours to us and specifically took us through both buildings to look at the building systems, the classrooms, the interior so we could all have a better understanding of what was going on and what opportunities we might have. The committee members were asked to fill out a SWOT analysis and a summary of that is to the right for you.

That was really informative and really helpful for us to start to understand how the building can be reused and what kind of opportunities and constraints we had within that framework. I just want to briefly touch on some planning goals. These goals are all from the town's 2025 master plan which is basically a guiding document in everything we do or at least my office does as the town planner.

These plan elements and these specific goals were also things that were explored throughout the process and I pulled out where the committee discussed them and how goals were met throughout that discussion. As you'll see with the scenarios, we really tried to be responsive to some of the priorities that the town already has and try to fulfill those goals. Now I'm going to turn it over to Steve to talk us through the subgroup work and then into the development scenarios.

[Speaker 3] (39:13 - 52:17)
Thanks, Molly. Hi, Molly. My name is Steve Perdue.

I live on Berkshire Street in Tom Scott. I work for a company called Redgate. We're an investment development advisory firm for real estate here in Boston.

It's been an incredible privilege to be a part of this process with Molly and the rest of our committee. I just feel very privileged to be working on something with such an intelligent and thoughtful group and I think the product here is pretty exciting. We started this process with a lot of people and I think very early on we realized that we really need to break down this group into smaller subgroups so we could get into a greater depth of discussion.

As we started to look at different use types, we really needed to dive a little deeper and so we broke into four different groups. Arts and culture, civic and non-profit, affordable housing and commercial. Each one of these subgroups which had plus or minus five people in them, each one of these groups really dove into design considerations for the uses that they were investigating.

They looked at financing options, they looked at revenue and costs and they also looked at schedule considerations as well. With that kind of guiding framework, each group dove in and met a number of times outside of the larger group and these groups ultimately came to a couple of conclusions but I'll walk you through some of the thought process here in the next few slides for each group. The first group, arts and culture, was really looking at existing needs and existing supply of this type of space here in Swamp Scout.

They identified a true need for a community performance theater space. This is something that is not here in Swamp Scout and goes far above and beyond what reach arts and other resources like that in a town can provide. Another major highlight of their discussion was this notion that arts and culture uses were not necessarily high enough demand for them that it would justify taking the entire building or the building and the annex together which is a significant amount of square footage.

They started to explore this idea that maybe arts and culture could pair up with another one of the groups and take over some space in the building but not all. They thought that arts and culture uses would seamlessly blend with civic and non-profit uses. In the civic and non-profit group, civic and non-profit group was really focused on finding space for artists, work space, instructional space, places for expanded exercise and community classes, potentially the option of expanding the rec department's reach and program offerings.

A teen center, children's play area, community theater, really a whole host of uses that would engage the community and bring people to this place which was a very important concept to the committee. They also interviewed the Nahant Preservation Trust which I think is a phenomenal example of how the community structured something very creative financially and was able to pull off a truly civic project in Nahant. This group recommended partnering with other uses to really maximize use of the building and ensure financial stability.

These uses, as Peter said very early on in one of our committee meetings, there are financial engines and there are financial cabooses. Both arts and culture and civic and non-profit really function more like a caboose and we're looking for commercial revenue driving engines to pull them along. We also had a group, the Affordable Housing Group, focus on in particular senior housing in Swampscott.

This group recognized very early on that not only is there a need for affordable housing but there's a great need for senior housing particularly in the coming years. This group had a great depth of knowledge about the financing mechanisms that allow affordable housing to move forward. We also toured the Michon School which is a great example of how housing can work in an old school.

This group ultimately recommended two scenarios. The first scenario was 100% affordable housing for seniors. The second scenario was 100% affordable housing for seniors but incorporating a community space in the building.

Obviously with a sensitivity towards the feasibility of doing that. We need to study that a little bit further. The final group was the Commercial Group.

This group was focused on really increasing commercial activity on Humphrey Street and liked the idea that potentially restaurants and cafes, maybe a food hall, co-working spaces, boutique retail and public parking which a lot of businesses along Humphrey Street District have identified as a major need. This group also came up with the thought about a boutique hotel once this group realized how great of a location this is, how central it's located, access to the water, access to local businesses and some of the town's existing goals for increasing tourism in the area. That seemed like it could be a good fit.

This group was proposing essentially a fully mixed-use option that would incorporate arts and civic and non-profit uses along with commercial uses in one scenario and in a second scenario to do a boutique hotel. The committee also needed to understand a little bit more about the existing buildings. As Molly mentioned earlier, we were able to tour the building.

We had some existing drawings from a study that LBA Architects had done back in the process for the new school. We also needed to really look at the plan and just try to get a sense for how we're going to solve some of the ADA accessibility issues in this building. Can we solve those inside the building with an elevator?

Do we need to solve them outside the building? Is there another more creative way to do it? We employed some of our own internal talent on the committee and we basically came to the conclusion that there are a couple places to put the elevator that make a lot of sense.

One of the major challenges of this building is that the location of the stairs does not really provide good access into the corners of the building. Those corners were classrooms previously and that made a lot of sense for the school use. In this proposed new renovation of the building, we need to think about how to access those spaces or make them more contiguous with the rest of the building.

In this interior study that one of our committee members performed and presented, it became evident that either a stair needs to be pushed outside the footprint of the building with an elevator inside the old footprint of the stair or potentially a new addition altogether could provide elevator and stair combination outside of the footprint of the building and allow better access. We also asked the question of our committee members, how do we solve maybe these problems on the outside? Is there an opportunity to combine landscape and site design with our accessibility challenges?

Another committee member put together some incredible designs and some visualizations of these concepts using a ramped plaza and landscape that could potentially help reconnect Linscott Park to the building. Right now, Linscott is on the back side of the building and the building really turns its back on Linscott Park. Our committee talked about really wanting to flip that around and reengage the park, make the park feel and the building feel more central, a little bit more like a hinge between the park and the commercial area on Humphrey Street.

The exterior was also a way to solve potentially ADA accessibility but also create an interesting landscape. Now, the four subgroups, as I mentioned earlier, affordable housing and hospitality really kind of became hospitality came out of the commercial group and this mixed use concept also came out of the commercial group. Those split off into really two scenarios, scenario one and scenario three here and affordable housing really had a clear trajectory from the very beginning and continued on into scenario two.

We spent a little bit more time digging into revenue and cost feasibility, a little bit more into design and some of the stats but in all four cases or in all scenarios that came out of the four groups, we were really focused on ideal sizing for funding and or revenue generation while also maximizing parking and open space on the site. I think you'll see as we move through the three scenarios here that those priorities stand out to me as being really drivers for how much developable built space can you really accommodate on the site. Practically speaking while still providing open space and providing parking for the uses that are in the building.

So in the first scenario, which is our mixed use commercial scenario, this is a truly mixed use building. This building would accommodate arts and culture potentially on the lowest levels, the basement and the partial first level of the building as well as civic and non-profit. And then potentially have the old auditorium be converted into a new performance and event space.

Potentially co-working spaces or other leasable area for commercial users on the upper floors. And then I think in this particular scenario, we realized that the annex, I think you'll see this in the other scenarios as well, that the annex was really inefficient in its layout. Inefficient in the sense that from an elevation standpoint, every floor is at a different elevation from the existing building, making it very difficult to solve ADA challenges.

And also its position on the site closer to Reddington Street really made parking and open space layout very difficult. So one of the consensus items just later was that the annex should probably be demolished, which would free up area for parking and open space and potentially this new entry addition on the right side of the plan here. Then we have a couple of visualizations here of the three-dimensional.

We had LDA architects work on this and provide some graphics that just give you a sense at this point in time, a very rough sense of what these scenarios might look in three dimensions. This is the main building and a new entry addition on the right side of the building here with a new patio facing Reddington Street and more landscape and engagement through this community gathering space, really trying to connect Reddington Street to the building. In this scenario, they were able to lay out 50 parking spaces, which would be potentially used to accommodate the uses in the building and could potentially be used for public parking.

I think I've got some glare from the sun here. There we go. All right.

We can go to the next slide here.

[Speaker 4] (52:25 - 52:27)
Do you want to move on to scenario two?

[Speaker 3] (52:27 - 58:17)
Let me just touch on some of the financing and ownership issues here. In this scenario, a public-private partnership with a long-term lease agreement, we think that that structure would be necessary in order to attract potentially a single user who could lease the building and multi-tenant it or a series of different tenants in the building. I'll have a few more notes about that later in the presentation, but we can move on to the next scenario.

Scenario number two is affordable housing, specifically for seniors. I think that the unique aspect of this actually looks a lot like the Michon School with an addition onto the main building. The annex has been taken down.

The addition has been added to help get this project to the ideal 40 apartment unit count that is ideal for financing. The public and civic space would be located on the ground floor of the addition. Really, the new entry and the elevator and accessibility would be solved in this new addition building.

There are a lot of school buildings that have been successfully converted to apartments around the country, and Michon is a great example. This is envisioned by the affordable housing subgroup as being 55 plus. The development financing would really consist primarily of low-income housing tax credit funding, potentially tax increment financing, and the local affordable housing trust funds, in addition to other sources of debt and construction financing.

I think in this particular scenario, there was a focus on making sure that an RFP is drafted that would really, and I think in the other scenarios as well, an RFP that would really spell out what those conditions are that the town wants, whether it's this particular configuration of open space, a certain minimum requirement of parking, but that there would specifically be a requirement to have community space in the first floor of the building here. Just some visualizations here of the preview.

We can move on to the next scenario. The scenario three is hospitality. Scenario three would be a boutique hotel.

Hotel rooms would be located throughout the main building on floors one through three, and on floors two and three of a new addition. Existing auditorium could be repurposed as an interior courtyard, a patron eating area, and event space. The new addition would have a lobby, potentially a coffee bar, some type of food and beverage space, and a connection to an exterior community plaza as well.

I think it's boutique hotels have really become more popular in the last decade. The focus on authenticity in a historic building like this would make it eligible potentially for historic tax credit, federal historic tax credits. It also lends the building to a unique historical character which is attractive to hotel developers.

We were able to interview a local hotel operator that operates hotels in Salem and who expressed a tremendous amount of interest in this building and thought that the location and the asset itself could potentially be very valuable to a boutique hotel developer and then ultimately to operate it. Again, long-term lease here, 99 year lease would be necessary I think to attract capital and equity and debt. Traditional financing potentially a TIF or a DIF could be very beneficial here.

Ultimately, this would be a commercial real estate deal where the hospitality and value revenue would support the development entirely. Here are the three scenarios. I think it's important to note that when we had the architect lay these out, we were really focused on showing just a number of scenarios with open space and parking.

With parking, we tried to hold the 50 unit, the 50 parking space count, but move the playground space around, the community plaza, the connections of these particular uses would make with Reddington and or Linscott. We tried to move those around to different positions that created some variety to see, really give people a sense of the scale and the possibilities of where these things could go while also accommodating a service area or service entrance into the building on the left side of the plan. There was also that possible patio concept which is illustrated beautifully in the report.

This combination of ramp and landscape that could potentially engage Linscott Park a little bit better, although there are some potential legal complications there with the agreements between the agreements associated with Linscott Park, but something to definitely be explored in the future.

[Speaker 4] (58:18 - 58:25)
Just a note, I'm noticing now that two and three are switched. If you're looking at these site plans, they're switched on this slide. My apologies.

[Speaker 3] (58:38 - 58:41)
Molly, I think that's it. I think we can move to the consensus item slide.

[Speaker 4] (58:43 - 58:44)
Is it not showing yet?

[Speaker 12] (58:45 - 58:46)
It is.

[Speaker 3] (58:47 - 1:00:57)
There we go. There were essentially four major consensus items that the committee was able to come to at the end. Number one, and these consensus items are really functioning as a guide, an affirmative guide on certain concepts and ideas that really were strongly felt or strongly believed throughout the process and unanimously, almost unanimously, agreed upon.

Number one, that the town could feasibly continue as the property owner in certain scenarios, but not as the developer. The committee really felt that the town should not take on the risk of developing the property, but should structure the agreement with the potential developer such that town retains ownership either through a long-term ground lease or some other mechanism that really hands over risk to a developer. Number two, open space and parking are really important and something that deserves a lot of further study should this project move forward.

Number three, the existing annex can go. It's extremely inefficient in its size, layout, and location and really should be considered something that should be demolished and either replaced by parking and open space or replaced by a potential addition to the building, the main building. And number four, that the committee advises that the select board move the Hadley process forward while the building is still in operation.

I think there is a feeling that no one wanted to see a vacant building or that folks wanted to minimize the vacancy period of the building as much as feasibly possible. So with that, I think I'll turn it back over to Molly.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:58 - 1:01:49)
Thank you. Before I get into maybe some next steps and where the report is now, which is on the website, I wanted just to acknowledge all the committee members that put in so much hard work over this past eight months and also Allie Fisk who was also staff on this committee with me and then of course we worked with LBA architects to create all these renderings here, which was a huge help, especially in our community outreach. So really this committee did a lot of work to put together this report, and I'm really grateful for that and really excited to have been a part of it. So before I talk next steps, Peter, do you want me to stop and ask for questions or No, I think it'd be great.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:49 - 1:01:55)
Why don't you go ahead and do next steps. Then I want to offer committee members a chance to share their thoughts as well if they'd like to.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:56 - 1:03:28)
Sure. My mouse keeps going backwards. The report that we submitted at SelectBoard is also posted online.

It's on the committee website page, and if you have any questions or comments about this, please shoot me an email or give me a call. Planning documents are generally pretty iterative and we definitely still want to hear from the community about your thoughts about the work that we've done, especially for those who weren't able to make it for open house. And I wanted to present to the SelectBoard a staff recommendation on what the next step might be.

My recommendation is to issue an RFI, a request for interest. One of the things that we acknowledge as a committee is that we didn't necessarily have all of the market information that we would want in order to narrow down from three to one, say, and that was actually a potential consensus item that we didn't come to consensus on, and I think possibly the issuance of an RFI helps let the market respond to us and respond to the ideas that we have here. And my recommendation is to use the scenarios as guidance in the development of this RFI to make sure that we're following pretty specifically the original charge from the SelectBoard and the ideas that have come out of this, but I think the next step is to see how the market responds and to see what interest is out there for some of the ideas that we brought to the table.

And that is our presentation.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:31 - 1:03:36)
Awesome. Is that Joe Dulek playing an instrument on the plaza in this picture here?

[Speaker 4] (1:03:36 - 1:03:45)
Oh, it should be. I can label him. This is a visualization of potentially what that back patio could look like.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:46 - 1:04:32)
All right. That's pretty awesome. All right, so I want to, if you don't mind, maybe stopping screen share, and I want to invite committee members, if you don't mind raising your hand, if you would like to share some thoughts, I want to welcome you and welcome your thoughts.

Neil and I had a chance to join a number of your meetings, not all your meetings, and as quiet passive participants, and the amount of thoughtful discussion, dialogue, debate, research that went on thanks to you all was really impressive, so I want to invite and welcome you to share some comments. Joan, how are you?

[Speaker 7] (1:04:33 - 1:04:33)
I'm great, how are you?

[Speaker 1] (1:04:34 - 1:04:34)
Doing great.

[Speaker 7] (1:04:35 - 1:09:00)
I want to express my complete awesome thanks to the staff, Molly and Allie, and to Steve Purdue for producing this amazing production. I mean, I was in it for the long run, but I never expected it to evolve to something so professional and profound. It's just awesome, even for a participant.

And I was excited because there was so much energy in this whole committee process. There were a lot of screening matches, but I think they were productive, and we all came to understand each other's points of view and the strengths and weaknesses of each issue. There's probably no perfect solution, but I've been a strong advocate right along for affordable housing, and everyone knows that I beat that drum to death.

And I still think it's a good solution because it has a public purpose, and it preserves the community aspect, and the point that I've drummed home a lot is that it is the most financially responsible and secure way of funding this project. The committee's numbers say that it could cost $20 million, which even exceeded my expectations, but no matter what the actual price is, I think we can be comfortable that a substantial portion of it, if it was done as an affordable housing, would be covered by low-income housing tax credits, and I know I've said this over and over again, but for the people who haven't heard it, low-income housing tax credits and a variety of other state, federal, and local kinds of funding in addition that substantially reduce the amount of money that the developer has to use as debt to a very small number.

What that means is that this is not a risky idea, that if the town goes along with the idea of finding an affordable housing developer, analogous to what was done at Michon, that they can be pretty much ... I mean, there are no guarantees in life, but they can be pretty much assured that they will get a really good product that doesn't cost the town really anything, but the developer will pay the town a nominal amount for the lease, and they will pay real estate taxes on the property, and they will accomplish a social purpose to keep our elderly people in the town where they'd like to be near the relatives and the things that they're comfortable with. And that's one of the missions in the town's long-term planning, and I think that this ...

and it also, of course, moves us forward on the affordable housing inventory. Swanscott is woefully below what they should be doing in terms of affordable housing. This moves it forward in a stylish, attractive place that will welcome the community into the building.

And I have to thank Steve Perdue for introducing the idea that it didn't have to be all or nothing. I mean, I was not easy to convince, but I think that it's possible, and I hope it is because I think it would be a good solution, to add a community ... I'm not going to call it community use because that term means something else, but a public use to this property where other people can come and join with either the residents or other public people to have the benefit of this space, both inside and out.

And I'm just thrilled that Steve was able to pull this all together. I think that was, for me, the defining moment in this committee because I would have just gone on this straight train track. But he found a fork in the road that was a good way to go, and I'm very grateful.

And I'm hoping that other people will see the merits of this wonderful opportunity for the town. You know, I'm not going to degrade the other proposals because each of them has very interesting advantages, but I really think affordable housing will accomplish so much for this town at minimal risk, minimal cost, and beautifying this area and allowing everyone to enjoy it. So thank you for allowing me to talk.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:01 - 1:10:43)
Thanks, Joan. Thanks for your enthusiasm and bringing all your expertise to this project. I want to welcome other committee members to chime in and share some thoughts.

I will, while people are building up the nerve to raise their hand, I do want to note that I really appreciate the mix of new faces and names and those who have been active for many years on many different committees. It's really great to see a variety of backgrounds and people, some. Steve Perdue, you're forever now hooked into committees, just so you know that.

So the reward for doing really well is that your name's going to keep coming up, but every name that I'm seeing here, everybody on the list, from different parts of town, different backgrounds, different years of experience. It's really great, and I think the report reflects that refreshed and renewed energy and outlook and ideas. And I do appreciate the fact that you did have some vigorous discussions, and Joan, your passion for your subject matter is a cornerstone of that dialogue, and that's really important.

And it wasn't long ago that we were having the conversation about Michonne and senior housing, and I couldn't agree more, and I'm sure no one disagrees that we've got to do a lot more on senior housing in particular, but affordable housing generally. All right, I'm not seeing anyone raise their hand. Bill Demento is here.

Bill, I'm going to, sorry, ask you to get up just because of the microphone as well. Janelle, I'm looking at your name constantly, and I cannot believe your name, your hand's not being raised yet.

[Speaker 19] (1:10:45 - 1:10:47)
I was trying to be a good girl for a change.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:48 - 1:10:53)
All right, we're going to let Bill speak, and then we're probably going to need a little bit of positivity.

[Speaker 6] (1:10:54 - 1:10:55)
Does that mean I have to be good, Janelle?

[Speaker 1] (1:10:57 - 1:10:59)
All right, Bill. Thanks for taking part in this.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:01 - 1:11:46)
I've been on a lot of committees in the last 50 years in this town, and I have to tell you this is an outstanding group, and Steve did a great job, but to me the one who brought all of us together was the planner, Molly. She did an outstanding job of melting all of the various thoughts and ideas, and bringing them all together and bringing people always back to home base all the time. She really deserves a tremendous amount of credit for this end result, and it was a great group to work with, and I really enjoyed it.

Thank you. Thanks, Bill.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:47 - 1:11:47)
Thank you, Bill.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:50 - 1:11:57)
All right, Janelle, do you want to say anything? Because Bill took it. I don't know what you can add to it, but I want to welcome you since I've egged you on already.

[Speaker 19] (1:11:58 - 1:12:14)
I think Bill did a fine job, and I agree that Molly and Steve have been unbelievable. They've gone above and beyond. I've been on a lot of committees in town, and this is a very interesting, hard-working committee, and we appreciate that you take the time to listen to us.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:15 - 1:12:19)
Thanks, Janelle, for stepping in and being involved, because you have been so involved in so many fronts.

[Speaker 19] (1:12:20 - 1:12:21)
My pleasure.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:22 - 1:13:15)
All right. I just want to again thank the committee members here. I want to open it up to the board to ask questions of Molly and the committee.

Let me just start with a first question just to frame it. Molly, I assume two things. Your four consensus items left out something which I assume is an inherent consensus, which is these are the three scenarios that the committee has supported putting forward and seeking an RF, and your staff recommendation to do an RFI would be an RFI that presumably would be consistent with the general themes of those scenarios that you're putting forward.

Is that a fair assumption? Yes. Yeah.

Great. And so that RFI, that would be something that wouldn't until after, obviously, the town makes its decision about the future of the Hadley School, but that's something that presumably later this fall, come winter, would seem like the time frame. Is that a correct assumption?

[Speaker 4] (1:13:17 - 1:13:28)
I would say yes. I think that goes back to what the committee really pushed, which was minimizing vacant time of building. So I think we would definitely want to continue this process.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:29 - 1:14:10)
Yeah. The RFI process was really instrumental for the Michon property when we were, I think, as a community, at an impasse after years and years and years of probably not even actively dialoguing about it. The RFI processed, and it actually resulted in some really interesting ideas, I think brought to a head the realistic choices for the community to make and the decision to ultimately proceed with affordable housing.

So I appreciate your recommendation to use that process again to help take this dialogue to another level and to hone our thinking as a community with some specific market feedback. So I really appreciate your recommendation in that regard.

[Speaker 12] (1:14:13 - 1:15:33)
Questions and comments by the Board? Just a couple things. So you addressed my comment about the RFI.

I want to also echo what Bill and the Chair said, is that having been on boards now for almost 20 years and seen countless presentations, this is clearly the most comprehensive, well-thought-out work product I've ever seen. And I think a lot of times people in town that aren't involved in some of these projects are critical of the solution because perhaps they thought it was a predetermined solution or we were rushing to something, but this is, whatever ends up happening with this, it's going to be one of the most well-vetted, well-thought-out, creatively, objectively, factual project that we have. So this type of product, I think, is so important.

And I'm grateful we've had such great talent on this committee to help us get to this point. And I do think we're going to, if in fact we move forward with this surplus property, the fact that we're going to be able to move forward in a relatively quick time frame and not have a vacant, stagnant property sit for years is also very important as well. So again, I can't thank you folks enough.

This is great. Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:35 - 1:16:15)
Yeah, just to echo some of those sentiments, thank you for the hard work for the entire committee. Certainly had a couple questions about the RFI process and the timeline of such, how that would work. Molly, Steve, how you would see that process playing out.

And then also just had a question about the use of the roof. Because I didn't see any, in any of the scenarios, we're fortunate to have three incredible scenarios, but I didn't see the roof utilized in any of these scenarios. And I just wanted to see if there was any discussion within the committee about the use of the roof.

[Speaker 4] (1:16:16 - 1:16:59)
So I'll go with your second question first. There was some discussion on whether or not to use the roof. I think for us, we didn't have enough information to build that into the visualizations that we did, but I don't think that precludes using the roof at all.

Obviously, a rooftop bar was discussed in the commercial group. For a mixed-use concept, you could have, even like a rooftop patio, very easy to incorporate these things. We just didn't have enough information about the roof itself to maybe make that decision.

And we decided to keep things standardized as much as we can so we could make those comparisons, if that makes sense.

[Speaker 12] (1:17:00 - 1:17:07)
By the way, I do think that seniors would also enjoy a rooftop bar. So it's just not as ripe for use.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:07 - 1:17:52)
Absolutely. And to the RFI, I just want to clarify, that's a staff recommendation coming from me based on my discussion with the committee, but in terms of process, I think it'd be very similar to RFI processes the town has done in the past, where the select board ultimately approves the language that is in the RFI and issues that. Normally, I think a good time frame is two to three months to have it out there.

For something like this, you'd want to do a site visit with potential respondents so they could get to know things better, so that might take some time. Peter, I don't know if there's any additional timing considerations that I would have for that.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:53 - 1:18:20)
No, but I would encourage you to look at, the City of Salem has actually done a number of interesting RFIs in the last 24 months. And I think the way in which they structured them are really interesting. And not that we're Salem, and not that we're going to draw the interest or the ideas necessarily, but I do think there's some structures that will be different than what we did at Michon and different than what we did at the former police station that I think are worthy of us just looking at.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:21 - 1:18:21)
Sure.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:25 - 1:18:26)
Other questions? Comments?

[Speaker 5] (1:18:28 - 1:20:41)
So, a simple ditto won't do. I just want to thank everyone on this committee for everything that you've done. And especially Molly, just unbelievable work.

And Steve, for all the work that you've put into this. This was a challenging task that you were faced with, with an inordinately large group of people to work with, having served on many committees and mostly on Zoom. So, I just it's unbelievable.

This report is amazing, and I'm just so pleased with all the information that you've put together. I also want to just point out that so much of what's in this report came from all the work from folks in the committee. I mean, I know LBA did some work, but a lot of these design elements here are coming from professionals that live in our town, amazingly talented people who put their passion towards this project and allow the rest of us, less creative folks, to have something to work with and think about when we start thinking about this space.

So, it's just amazingly helpful and a real push forward on this process. On the RFI, I guess I was wondering about the time frame too, but I guess my only other question is, and I don't know if this is typical for our town or other towns, but are there technical assistance opportunities to help create that RFI? I mean, Peter mentioned different structures of RFIs.

I think maybe between now and the fall, if we're issuing an RFI, it may be worth exploring. Molly, maybe you can speak to this. I just don't know if there are opportunities through math development or regional planning agencies to get assistance there to help us structure an RFI that will be most effective.

[Speaker 4] (1:20:45 - 1:21:08)
So, in terms of established programming, I'm not sure, but I would absolutely be able to reach out to my contacts at MAPC for guidance, just the way I do on other planning-related issues, and I know that we also have some contacts at math development who could be of assistance, so we could definitely work with those folks as well.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:10 - 1:21:11)
Thanks.

[Speaker 10] (1:21:14 - 1:22:50)
I'll just add my two cents. So, ditto, which I never say. It probably is appreciated to everyone's comments and support.

In particular, I think, Don, your comments about how some processes in the past have been criticized for a seeming lack of transparency or whatever, and I just think that this process with the large group and the number of meetings you've held in the amount of time and all public is just the way that it's a model for how this should be done, and then on top of that, the process that you formulated within yourselves to get it done, and the efficiency and comprehensiveness is truly impressive.

So, thanks everyone for that, and I just, this is the consensus items I think are my favorite part of this entire report because it's easy to, it's just so natural and intuitive to put whatever categories of ideas people have, but then to kind of take off the table the ideas that everybody agrees, well, to kind of narrow down the contested issues, I guess, I think is just always really good to lay out, and it also shows the cooperativeness of the group and how you were able to get the most from all perspectives, so I think it's great, and definitely want to also echo Peter's comments about recruiting. Some of you not being left off the hook, so thanks.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:51 - 1:22:59)
Thank you. I did want to acknowledge, I saw Lori Levin had her hand up for a minute. Lori, did you want to speak?

She's a committee member.

[Speaker 13] (1:23:00 - 1:24:23)
Yes, thank you, Molly. First of all, thank you very much to the select board for choosing me to be on this committee. It really was an honor, and I enjoyed it so much, and loved being able to use my creative juices to come up with some ideas.

I wanted to add a little bit what Molly said about the exterior space, the rooftop. We actually did look at some plans as to how we would access that space. It is feasible.

It depends on the type. For instance, we looked at, in the mixed-use scenario, if you have public uses on one and two, and say private offices on three and four, the private office wouldn't necessarily want a roof deck. We talked about an observatory, things like that, that the public would have access to during the day, because that would disturb their operations.

That's just something to think about. One thing that is in the study that we didn't really touch on tonight too much is the public outreach that we went through. There was strong support for the civic and arts uses and the mixed use for this building, and I would say less so on the affordable housing uses.

I just want to make sure that's given equal weight in our discussions tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Molly and Steve.

We could not have chosen a better chair, I don't believe, so thank you very much for all your hard work.

[Speaker 10] (1:24:24 - 1:24:48)
Actually, can I ask, does anybody have an idea if with the second option of affordable housing units, what percentage impact that might have on where Swampscott is at in that state suggested minimum of 10% affordable housing?

[Speaker 4] (1:24:49 - 1:25:15)
We're at 3.6 right now, I believe. I could do that calculation and let you know tomorrow. I can't do that in my head, unfortunately.

It would add exactly 40 units, so a little bit of movement, but not what we need to get to 10%. We'd obviously need a significant number of units, but definitely a start in the right direction.

[Speaker 10] (1:25:17 - 1:25:34)
Not to put you on the spot, I guess I would love an exact calculation if you can give it, but I'm just more thinking, would it bump us up a percentage point or just like a 0.2? I just think that would be relevant to at least my thinking, anyway.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:36 - 1:25:42)
I don't want to do math off the top of my head, but I can definitely provide that and even update the report with that.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:53 - 1:26:33)
We are at 3.65% now, and if we were to add 5 units, we would be at 4.3. 40 units would take us to 4.3% from 3.65. I also believe that the 38 units from Michonne are not in that calculation. I think we're north of 4%. I think when I asked for it, the units from Michonne were I think, because the information I asked from my very reliable source was post-Michonne.

My reliable sources who will not be named never steer me wrong. Is Margie still with us? I'm just joking.

[Speaker 8] (1:26:35 - 1:26:37)
I am looking that up right now.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:37 - 1:31:07)
No, don't. Margie, just go with your right right now. Come on.

Great. Thanks, everyone. I want to ask you guys to stick around for a minute.

We're going to turn our attention to the Special Town Meeting Warrant for September 13th and likely vote tonight to close that Special Town Meeting Warrant, but the Select Board has a draft of the Special Town Meeting Warrant in front of them. There are two articles in that Special Town Meeting Warrant. One relates to debt exclusion for the new elementary school, but there's an additional warrant article this Board has briefly discussed that I've raised previously to my colleagues on the Board, and this draft warrant now includes language prepared by Town Council that I want to engage in a conversation with the Board, but also invite you all to engage in the conversation, which goes back to one of the, if you will, mandates from when the committee was created, which is this Board's unanimous preference that market rate housing not be included as part of the future of the Hadley property in the event that the Hadley School is no longer used for educational purposes. I really appreciate, as I said earlier, that your report respected that mandate, and it sounds like you agreed with it as well.

I had raised to my colleagues previously the possibility of taking it one step farther to make sure that we are not only expressing our preference, but we're actually doing it with conviction, and that is to propose that Town Meeting, a warrant article to Town Meeting that allows the Select Board to place a deed restriction on the Hadley School property that prevents it from being used for market rate residential purposes.

By having such a deed restriction, that would do two things. Number one, it would require Town Meeting's permission to undo that deed restriction, so it wouldn't be up to this current Select Board or a future Select Board to change the mind. It would have to go back to Town Meeting, and Town Meeting would have to make the decision to take the deed restriction off.

Number two, once the deed restriction's in place, it removes any potential discussion regarding a 40B. Whether it's an adversarial 40B or a friendly 40B process, the deed restriction would prevent a 40B project from ever being proposed at the Hadley School unless Town Meeting decided they wanted to do it, and therefore Town Meeting would be the ones to vote to remove the deed restriction. 40B gets you around local zoning restrictions.

40B does not get you around deed restrictions. And so by putting before Town Meeting this opportunity, it I think takes the discussion about and the commitment and the unanimous feeling of this Board that we do not want to see market rate housing go here. We take it one step further, and we put it actually as a deed restriction.

The draft article before us has a couple of technical things to it. Number one is in order to do it, the language does require a what we'll call a moment in time transfer of the Hadley School from the jurisdiction of the school committee to the jurisdiction of the town, just for the purposes of the town. Assuming Town Meeting approves the warrant article for the select board, then to vote the deed restriction, record the deed restriction, and then immediately it goes back to the school department, and they retain full jurisdiction over the school.

Number two is this Town Meeting warrant article would authorize us to do the deed restriction, but the deed restriction would only go into place assuming the debt exclusion passes at a town-wide vote. If the debt exclusion doesn't pass at a town-wide vote, that means the Hadley School is, for the foreseeable probably decade-plus future, going to retain educational use, and the thought process there is that that will then be for a future board and future Town Meeting five, ten plus years down the road for them to make a decision as to what they see as the future of the Hadley site, as opposed to this board or this Town Meeting decide something a decade or so ahead of time.

So I wanted to present that and open it up for conversation with my colleagues, but I also want to invite members of the Hadley Reuse Committee, if you have opinions or thoughts that you would like to share on this, it's great to have you here and have the benefit of your thought process on this. You don't even need to raise your hand, you can just blurt it out. Same for my colleagues.

[Speaker 13] (1:31:11 - 1:31:16)
Peter, I'm going to agree with you on the housing issue.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:16 - 1:31:19)
You do have to tell us who's talking.

[Speaker 13] (1:31:20 - 1:31:45)
I agree with you on the housing issue. This is a very important site to the town and personally I believe it should serve to knit together the residential community with the downtown, really revitalize the downtown and serve as a benefit to the entire community, not just a small percentage of the residents.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:46 - 1:32:38)
Hey, Lori, thank you. I'd be remiss also to point out that you, I think, are of the committee members, you live the closest. I believe you quite literally could throw a stone only a few feet and you would hit the Hadley School from your house.

But I appreciate not only your participation but your receptivity to all these uses and the ideas. For those that don't know, Lori has a really great background and was involved with the Adams Courthouse downtown Boston and the interiors and historic restoration and is extremely talented. She's just one of several committee members who brought those talents to bear here and she happens to also her partner is also an incredible architect as well.

We've just been so lucky to have all you folks give your talents and time to this. Thanks, Lori.

[Speaker 13] (1:32:39 - 1:32:40)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:43 - 1:32:44)
Other feedback from committee members?

[Speaker 17] (1:32:44 - 1:32:49)
I'd like to say something about that, Peter. It's Angela Ippolito.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:49 - 1:32:49)
Hi, Angela.

[Speaker 17] (1:32:50 - 1:34:08)
Hi. My comment about that would be that in terms of this article, Article No. 1, it seems a bit premature, actually.

It seems that it could be confusing to have it on the same warrant as the vote for the school because there could be I just don't think it's really clear. They seem too connected to me and I think that one way or the other they should be two separate issues and one should not influence the other. It also occurs to me that the school article should be on there by itself and that would give us the adequate time to discuss the school article but it would also give us the opportunity to vote on this in the spring so it seems there's really not a need to do it now.

We can definitely do it at the Springtown meeting even if, assuming that the school article passes, it's going to be a couple of years anyway before this before the school committee even deems this property surplus so it just seems to me to be a bit premature and to be kind of an awkward inclusion in this warrant.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:10 - 1:36:04)
Thanks Angela. A number of residents have opined their concern not knowing what the future of Hadley would be specifically about market rate housing as they go into it so I appreciate your perspective and if this goes forward I think we've got to make sure that we're clearly explaining it and then town meeting. I am confident that town meeting will be able to understand it and make a decision if town meeting decides it's premature that's fine as well.

We can't do it on our own so we need town meeting approval to do it but I appreciate your feedback on that. Did I see another hand? Board members, colleagues, comments, questions, thoughts.

The only change that I'm recommending to the warrant article is two things. The table of contents just doesn't adequately describe it. It says authorization to transfer parcel.

That's not really the meat of it. The transferring of the parcel is the technical thing. It's really authorization to record deed restriction on Hadley property.

So that would just be in the table of contents. And then in article one I would suggest that we, if the board feels as though it can because this is going to print that we vote our recommendation tonight if people feel as though they're ready to vote the recommendation as opposed to wait until town meeting to share our recommendation. I don't know if FinCom is going to feel this has a financial implication because it's putting a restriction on a town asset so they may also post their meeting on Thursday.

My hope is that we don't need to print before town meeting. I'm looking at Patrick Luddy and staff. I hope that we can wait for finance committee on Thursday to meet so that we can have their recommendations printed in the warrant as opposed to placeholder.

So I would just have the recommendation, assuming we recommend tonight, it would change the fact that this currently says the select board will report on the article at town meeting. Instead change it to whatever our recommendation is if we're ready to do that.

[Speaker 12] (1:36:05 - 1:36:39)
I think it's important that we do this. I think it's something that at least the current will of the community is that this does not become market rate housing. And again, I think we just need to be very clear in articulating that this is not a foregone conclusion that we're assuming the school bill is going forward and this is going to happen.

But I don't think there's a I don't think there's a downside to us doing it now and in fact I'd prefer to do it now and not wait until spring. Particularly if we're going to put an RFI out. If in fact it moves forward, if we're putting an RFI out at the end of the year, I'd rather have this already known that this is not going to be market rate housing.

It's a deed restriction.

[Speaker 9] (1:36:41 - 1:37:47)
Peter? Go ahead, David. I agree.

I agree completely. It's been the will of the board since I've been on it to discuss the Hadley reuse. There's a lot of questions and concerns as to what happens with the building in the future and this eliminates the rumor that it's a land grab or nefarious things are happening.

I think we're being transparent and I think we're ensuring that the will of this town meeting and the will of this board is enacted and if later boards and later town meetings want to come forward and change that, that's certainly their right to do so. I think it's incredibly important for the future of this building to ensure that there is no market rate housing that will be even part of the discussion. I think we should do this now.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:48 - 1:37:58)
Peter? Joan, hold on one second. I'll get to you in one second.

I see your hand. Thanks. I got it.

Go ahead. All right. Joan, please go ahead.

[Speaker 7] (1:37:58 - 1:38:39)
I'd like a clarification. I have no problem with the idea of prohibiting market rate housing, but I don't clearly understand your statement that you would also make it impossible to have a 40B. I'm not clear on this, but let's say a potential developer of the affordable housing wanted to use a 40B instead of looking for a zoning amendment.

Angela would know more about this than I. I'm not clear on the exact zoning issue. Would we get an opinion that that would not impede any affordable housing developer from going low?

[Speaker 1] (1:38:39 - 1:39:15)
Great question, Joan. When I was making reference to a 40B, I was speaking to a traditional 40B where there's only a minority of the units as affordable, the majority still market rate units. If someone proposed a similar to what was done at the Michon, which was a friendly 40B but 100% affordable, that type of 40B could still happen because it wouldn't run afoul of the deed restriction.

So you're asking a really good question, but that type of 40B would absolutely be allowed because it wouldn't run afoul. But a traditional 40B for which only 20 or 25% of the units are proposed as being affordable, that wouldn't be allowed because that also comes with market rate units.

[Speaker 7] (1:39:16 - 1:39:19)
Okay, but that would be clear in the warrant article.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:19 - 1:40:00)
Well, the warrant article doesn't speak to 40B. Oh, okay. In fairness, you don't see it, but it doesn't speak to 40B.

I'm going a step further to explain that I know there are a lot of community members that are concerned about 40Bs and the threats of 40Bs and the ability for 40B to get around zoning. So I was just illustrating that if a 40B was being proposed that included market rate housing, with the deed restriction, it wouldn't be allowed. But if it was a friendly 40B like the Michon project, which proposed 100% affordable, that wouldn't run afoul of the deed restriction, and that would be a proper vehicle for us to use as a town for the then select board to use that vehicle to implement a 100% affordable project.

[Speaker 22] (1:40:01 - 1:40:02)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:03 - 1:40:07)
That's a really good question. I'm glad you asked it. I didn't mean to cause confusion with that.

[Speaker 10] (1:40:08 - 1:40:26)
That's a great question, John. I appreciate it. And along those lines, then, it would be 100% or excluded.

I understand that 40B is triggered at like 25%, but you're saying that it would only be triggered in this scenario at 100% affordable.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:27 - 1:40:32)
I'm sorry. So 40B is just a vehicle that a developer would use to get around zoning?

[Speaker 10] (1:40:32 - 1:40:33)
Yes, right.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:33 - 1:40:40)
So here they couldn't use it unless they were using 40B for the purposes of opposing 100% assuming we went down the path and we wanted to do it for them.

[Speaker 10] (1:40:40 - 1:40:42)
100% or excluded under this.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:42 - 1:40:44)
Or they can't use 40B.

[Speaker 10] (1:40:44 - 1:40:45)
Yes. Okay. Thanks.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:48 - 1:41:19)
Neil, anything you want to add on this topic? I agree with Don and David. I think it's important to address this now and to provide town meeting with the authority to change this if needed in the future and take it away from the select board and future select boards as the case may be and I agree with your edits.

Pauline, anything you want to add?

[Speaker 10] (1:41:19 - 1:41:21)
No. I support the article.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:21 - 1:42:36)
What I would also suggest is that I would ask staff to include the Hadley Reuse Committee report in the package that's being mailed to town meeting with the warrant. I believe this is just really helpful information. Not the indices just the main body of it.

I think as part of the presentation we'll probably have something. So it's effectively the 41 pages through the consensus items. I think including that maybe with a cover letter, Molly, maybe from you just explaining what we're forwarding to town meeting members.

I just think given this warrant article looking like it will be in the warrant it would make sense to also share your report so that people have a chance to be brought up to speed on the efforts of your committee. Okay. All right.

With that, is there a we're kind of switching right to article one here. I just want to knock them out as we can. Is there a recommendation to include article one with the revisions that I had mentioned and a favorable recommendation from the select board?

So moved. Is there a second? Second.

Is there any further conversation or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor?

[Speaker 9] (1:42:36 - 1:42:37)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:37 - 1:42:55)
Okay. That takes us onto article two and the last article on this which is the debt exclusion article. It is, this language has been reviewed by town council, by bond council and the MSBA.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:56 - 1:42:58)
Do you want to Hadley reuse folks? to you.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:59 - 1:43:18)
Oh, Hadley Reuse folks, you can stay and you can chime in on the debt exclusion if you'd like to as well. Steve Perdue, you've been made chair of pretty much every committee in town, so you've got to stay and chime in on every single thing we're going to talk about. Perfect.

All right. Hey, I know you're just back from vacation as well, so thanks for just jumping right into the saddle and being here tonight.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:20 - 1:43:20)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:21 - 1:45:26)
Happy to. Thanks. Thanks, everyone, for being here tonight and everything you've done.

So Article 2 is the appropriation for the new elementary school. The final amount of the appropriation is $97,461,523. That will be less a grant from the MSBA in the amount of $34,350,000, if I have that memorized correctly, $34,350,000.

The language here makes clear that the approval here is contingent upon a town-wide vote on the debt exclusion. So this is step one of a two-step process for there to be approval of the financing for the school. Step one being town meeting, and step two being a town-wide vote to approve the debt exclusion.

The warrant article also includes language to allow this board to acquire the necessary easements, construction and permanent easements, on the adjacent UU property. The funds needed for that easement are included in the total project cost that I previously have stated. I think I already mentioned that it's been approved by bond council, town council, and the MSBA.

And at this point, we believe the motion on the floor will be identical to the language that you're seeing in front of you here tonight. The finance committee has had many conversations about this, but they have not voted their recommendation. They were actually supposed to meet tonight simultaneously with us, but couldn't meet tonight, so they're meeting on Thursday night.

Whereas normally, we've typically waited for finance committee's recommendation. This is one that I think, given the timing of things and where I sense the board is, and where I sense finance committee based on the fact this is not the first time finance committee's talked about it. We've been talking collectively in joint committee meetings and in separate meetings now going on over a year.

I suggest that tonight we make a recommendation so that it can be printed in the warrant that goes in the mail to town meeting members. So with that, are there questions or comments on article two?

[Speaker 10] (1:45:29 - 1:45:30)
I support the article.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:30 - 1:45:40)
Yep. Good. Fully support.

As do I. All right. Is there a vote to recommend favorable action on article two and include article two in the warrant?

[Speaker 10] (1:45:41 - 1:45:42)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:42 - 1:46:19)
Is there a second? Second. Any questions or comments?

All those in favor? Aye. All right.

Thank you. The last thing for us to talk about on the warrant then, and I believe the moderator is with us tonight, is it's my understanding the moderator has made a determination about the venue and the form for town meeting, and so I want to give him an opportunity to share it with us. The draft warrant that we have in front of us will need to be updated to reflect this conversation.

I deem that to be administrative that staff can handle to finalize the warrant, but Mr. Moderator, welcome.

[Speaker 11] (1:46:20 - 1:48:37)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Mr. Town Administrator, town staff. It is with a certain amount of reluctance that I am going to issue a determination that I cannot recommend safely gathering town meeting members in person for September 13th. I say this after weeks of work, and I want to thank members of the Town Meeting Procedure Study Committee, members of the Board of Health for their advice on policy and procedures.

I want to thank professional staff in Town Hall, Jeff Fon, Amy Ellingworth, Allie Fisk, Joe Gillette from the PEG TV team for their help in thinking these things through over the past few weeks, but frankly, given the alarming spread of the Delta variant with its much higher communicability, as well as I am given to understand breakthrough cases with fully vaccinated individuals here in Swampscot, I just can't recommend bringing people together in person.

There is no sufficient space in our largest venue, Swampscot High School Auditorium plus adjacent spaces to accommodate the activities that town meeting requires, and I'm not going to be party to holding a super spreader event. We did look briefly at the potential for holding an outside town meeting at Bloxidge Field, the largest outside venue at our availability, and the logistics, the accessibility, and frankly, a significant amount of expense to hold the event there, and the need to provide additional online access for elected members and members of the public just make this too difficult to accomplish in the time allotted, and I am deeply frustrated by that, but that is my recommendation, and we will continue to work. If there are additional special town meetings that this board calls, we will continue to work to find a way to hold those in person if it is safe to do so. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:38 - 1:48:45)
So will you be, you will be issuing a similar determination you did in April pursuant to Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2020 with your general?

[Speaker 11] (1:48:45 - 1:48:53)
As amended by, yes, in 2021. I do have that language from town council. That will be in your inbox tomorrow morning.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:54 - 1:49:22)
Appreciate it. I believe that, I want to, I think, I see a hand raised, and I'm guessing it might be Mary Ellen Fletcher who raised her hand earlier, so I want to just welcome Mary Ellen to, Allie, I can't see who it is, there we go, thanks. Welcome Mary Ellen to share her comments.

Mary Ellen, you with us?

[Speaker 16] (1:49:26 - 1:49:30)
Yes, but I am having a problem with connection, I'm not sure if you, can you hear me okay?

[Speaker 1] (1:49:30 - 1:49:37)
I've had a problem connecting all my life. I'm not going to comment on that.

[Speaker 16] (1:49:39 - 1:50:42)
So my only concern is, I'm just wondering if we could rethink this, I too do not want to see anything spread, but I'm just concerned because we saw just a few weeks ago a beer party with over a thousand people, according to the media, a thousand people on the beach, were advertising for another beer party the first weekend of September, along with fireworks, and I think, I'm just concerned that a meeting of such importance, that we are not able to pull this off in an out on blockage field, out on blockage field, under a tent, you know, with N95 masks, I'm just asking if we could rethink this one more time before you close the book on this.

[Speaker 11] (1:50:42 - 1:51:21)
No, I appreciate that. I've had consultation from our director of health, our town nurse, our board of health, and I am not comfortable recommending that. Whatever the board decides to do with public events, and again, we are four weeks removed with an alarming spread of Delta variant from the beach event that certainly I was personally part of, and I'm not sure I would go to today, given the facts that I know in the ensuing four weeks.

Should this board decide to do something else with other events, that is fine. My recommendation is that we cannot hold this in person, and it disappoints me deeply.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:23 - 1:52:11)
All right, other questions or comments on this? All right, so Michael, you're going to get that letter over to us so that it can be printed in the warrant, which I think is the requirement. Yep.

That it be printed in the warrant. Okay, thank you for your feedback on that. To staff, I guess there's a couple of things that I would appreciate that before you send this to print that you share this with, is there another board member that is willing to join me just to be a set of eyes on it before it goes off, just for ministerial stuff?

Sure, yep, I'm happy to do that. Give me, who's David? There you go, great.

He raised his hand, but he exerted the most effort. Good job. Don nodded.

I nodded. I would have been falling asleep. I did not nod off.

[Speaker 12] (1:52:12 - 1:52:12)
Almost.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:14 - 1:54:12)
Fair enough. I think it would be great if you can, with enough time to give us a chance to put our eyes on it, please. Just once this is finalized, just let us do a once over to make sure that we don't see anything that's missing here.

The things that I do understand need to be included that aren't yet included are, again, the revisions to the table of contents, consistent with what we talked about earlier for article one. It should read authorization to record deed restriction on Hadley property. It will have the updated, obviously make sure the clerk is comfortable with page V and page VI.

Page VII would be the moderator's letter about his determination about venue. Article one would be revised to include the select board's, the select board recommends favorable action on this article. I would ask you to ask the finance committee if they want to make a recommendation, and if so, they can similarly put and make a recommendation if they want here.

Article two, the only change is to fill in the select board recommends favorable action on this article, and then when you meet with the finance committee on Thursday night, to the extent they are prepared to make a vote, make that recommendation. And then include that recommendation. And then on page three, I think we should, I don't know that it matters, but we have to just pick a date that we are dating this, and assuming the board's comfortable with this, and David's in my ministerial review, after staff has reviewed it, we would authorize staff to use our electronic signatures on the warrant to finalize it.

Does it matter what date we are using for this? Should we be using Thursday's date, just because that would be the date for which the change, or Friday's, because that would be the date by which all changes will be done, because Finn comes meeting Thursday night, and we will have looked at it?

[Speaker 2] (1:54:12 - 1:54:14)
I believe that would make sense.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:15 - 1:54:17)
Patrick, does that present a logistics issue for you?

[Speaker 2] (1:54:17 - 1:54:18)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:18 - 1:54:29)
Okay. All right, so let's date it then the 25th. That's not true.

That's awful. The 25th is tomorrow. 26th.

So it would be the 27th.

[Speaker 22] (1:54:29 - 1:54:29)
27th.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:29 - 1:54:46)
Oh, sorry. It's Tuesday night. I forgot that all day today.

So Tuesday night, so it would be the 27th. Okay. Any other questions, or comments, or thoughts about the warrant?

[Speaker 22] (1:54:51 - 1:54:51)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:51 - 1:55:08)
All right. I think we voted on the things we needed to vote on. David and I will just do a ministerial review of staff's changes, just to make sure nothing's missed as another set of eyes on it, and then any objection to, once that's done, the inclusion of your electronic signature on the warrant?

None.

[Speaker 22] (1:55:08 - 1:55:09)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:10 - 1:55:38)
All right. Thank you. We're now going to move on to the next warrant article.

I'm sorry, warrant article. Geez. We're going to move on to the next new and old agenda.

Allie's actually asking me a good question. Do we need to vote to close the warrant? So I guess I would entertain a motion to close the September 13th special time meeting warrant.

So moved. Second. Any further questions or comments?

I'm hearing none. All those in favor?

[Speaker 12] (1:55:38 - 1:55:38)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:39 - 2:00:37)
Aye. All right. Allie, nice catch on that.

I feel compelled to announce that the earlier provided affordable housing percentages were spot on, and I'm pleased to announce that Marzi Golaska was the unnamed heretofore expert on this, and she provided accurate information, and Marzi, David will be issuing a public apology tomorrow for doubting you. All right. We're going to move on to water and sewer rates.

At our last board meeting, actually at our last two board meetings, we've had updates on the water and sewer rates. Last meeting, we had a more extensive discussion on water and sewer, including an opportunity for public comment on it. Tonight we are just going to hear a summary of additional findings and information from town staff on the recommendation, and then tonight we will be asking the board for a motion and a vote.

So with that, let me say this. There has been a lot of work put into this recommendation. I appreciate members of the public who spoke during public comment.

We don't typically respond in public comment, but I will say that there was a fair number of inaccurate statements and inaccurate characterizations. We aren't here tonight to decide about the merits of individuals deciding to live in condominiums or single family homes, and the agreements that those that live in condominiums make relative to living on private land that is not dedicated to public use and so therefore doesn't get certain rights that street houses that are adjacent to public land do get. We understand that there are choices and there are financial challenges that come with those decisions.

That is not relevant to our function. That's a decision that those that have decided to live in that. Not to be insensitive to it, but that's not something that we are in a position or prepared tonight to address.

As to the Yacht Club, the Yacht Club pays for water. I say that not because it just is accurate. I say that also because when people get up and make statements and they assert them as fact, I would just ask that they please don't use conjecture.

Please talk to people and see if they can know for a fact before they do it. Because I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just asking. I'm just asking.

Well, the Department of Public Works is the one that has confirmed to me that water is being paid by the Yacht Club. So all I'm asking for is, all I'm asking, all I'm asking for, all I'm asking for is that when we have productive private dialogue or public dialogue like we had last meeting to two weeks later, come back and recharacterize things. And I understand, and I understand the frustration.

You are correct. And I've conceded it last two weeks ago. There are certain places that are going to pay more and significantly more than the average increase this year.

But I am personally convinced it's because, frankly, those same places have been paying less inequitably on a per gallon basis. And there's no reasonable explanation that has been ever provided to me by anyone, despite how compelling the arguments are made, I don't find them to be something that deters the fact that the reality is certain residents in our town pay per gallon less for water than other residents. And there is no explicable reason as to why we have a system where on a per gallon basis users are spending different money on water.

A gallon of water is a gallon of water is a gallon of water. I get that that does present some hardships because we are now truing up and getting to a place of equity. And that means some who have been paying less are now going to pay more.

And conversely, there are others who have been paying more because some have been paying less that are going to get corresponding release. I get relief. I get there's frustration with that.

And I appreciate the diligence and the seriousness that people approach it. Notwithstanding the at times ridiculous characterizations, the comments to select board members, et cetera, I appreciate staff's really hard work to try and figure this out and figure out a better system, a more equitable system. I appreciate my colleague Neil Duffy's efforts.

He has worked as hard on this as I've seen any of us work on anything to understand it, to challenge it, to turn it upside down, to turn it inside out. And so I appreciate it. So with that, tonight, we're going to hear the final presentation from staff.

Neil, you might have some interjections, and then we're going to move right to a vote tonight. So I don't know who's in charge.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:38 - 2:00:38)
Sean, I'll take it.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:39 - 2:00:39)
Thank you, Sean.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:40 - 2:00:55)
No worries. So as Peter has mentioned, you know, this has been really months and months of analysis. We'll just step quickly through a summary.

Next slide, Ali.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:55 - 2:00:57)
You want me to give you the mouse and you can control it?

[Speaker 2] (2:00:57 - 2:01:00)
Yeah, that would be great. Let me grab it.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:16 - 2:01:42)
Hey, why are we doing this here? Just let me interject something. The chair of the Finance Committee sent me a note just to remind us that their letter to town meeting will be prepared as well by Thursday night for inclusion in the warrant, like it typically is.

So just I'm sorry. I appreciate the chair emailing me here just to remind me of that, but that is something that's standard and appropriately included as the Finance Committee's letter to town meeting. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:43 - 2:07:02)
All right. So as we discussed, you know, the committee has really met over the last six months to really look at how we balance our water and sewer costs with our revenue. We've seen some dramatic changes in costs associated with water and sewer fees based on not only swamp systems, but the in-water and sewer system.

So this really brought a focus into how we look at the rates. We wanted to assess the water and sewer rate structure, really get a sense of, you know, if this really was a best practice rate system. We looked at a number of communities, and we had a committee that really made some recommendations.

So when we looked at balancing the budget, you know, there was some conversation about, you know, somehow the town was looking to generate more revenue. We're really not looking to generate more revenue with the recommendations that we're presenting with this tiered structure. We really just want to balance the budget.

These enterprise funds need to be balanced annually. We're not looking to generate additional, you know, revenue. It's just a question of appropriately balancing the costs.

Our enterprise funds really include our water and sewer revenues that are budgeted exactly to the expense, and the committee was charged with evaluating the rate structure, particularly with those significant increases from MWRA and Lynn Water and Sewer. So this is really a quick summary of really the goals, fairness. We wanted to have an incentive in there for water conservation, balancing the rate structure, and stability.

We wanted to put in place a best practice system that we see in many communities and provide swamps with that baseline. When we look at our existing rate structure, you know, we had a flat rate for consumption. This consumption and base rate were the same for every user.

We heard some conversation about, hey, why don't we just keep it that way? And as we looked at water consumption and we did some analysis, we saw that there were different prices that were being paid in total, and it just didn't seem like that system incentivized conservation. And so what was clear about that was no matter how much water you used, you didn't pay any more than anybody else.

It was just a system where folks that wanted to use a lot of water and folks that really used water that put a big demand on our system were going to pay the same as folks that used a little amount of water. So this tiered rate system really that is being recommended allows for a fair distribution of fees and provides incentives for water conservation. As we, you know, look at the Massachusetts general laws, and this is something that really needs to be understood.

You know, I think we didn't stress this strong enough during that last presentation. Massachusetts general law 165 section 2B specifically states that communities that are part of MWRA shall have a base rate that shall be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume water users. It also goes on to stipulate that MWRA purchase agreements with towns specific to the town's user charge rate structure and accounting systems must meet their requirements for conservation based rates.

We did check this with town council, and it was their opinion that a tiered rate is obligatory, not discretionary, and a deliberate policy choice of our Mass State Legislature to conserve water and decrease sewage. Again, we've had Mass Department of Environmental Protection and our Superior Court both have stated that 165 2B is mandatory. So this isn't something that we just sat around and said, hey, let's do a tiered report.

This is something by law we have to do, and I just want to make that perfectly clear. You know, as we look at the rate structure, this is the block rate we talked about that we have really tried to carefully model to ensure that we build equity into the rate structure. We have about 81% of our residential rate payers in Block 1.

We have about 18% of rate payers in Block 2, and we have about 1% in Block 3. And so this corresponds with the different type of consumption based on the rate. So what was the issue?

[Speaker 5] (2:07:03 - 2:07:58)
Sean, can you go back to that slide for just a minute? Sure. Sorry.

I just want to address something on the rate structure slide that just there were some comments about the base. People seemed concerned about the base fees, and just that those two blocks were the Block 2 and Block 3 that have the same base fee. That's a 3% increase from last year's base fee.

Block 1 is remaining the same as last year's. Block 1 represents users that used significantly less than most. And I just want to also point out that in our July meeting, Patrick provided us a business as usual model.

So if we didn't change the rate structure, those base fees would be $14 for water and $22.50 for sewer. So if we did not change our rate structure, those base fees would be higher than what is being proposed right now. Okay?

[Speaker 2] (2:07:58 - 2:07:59)
That's a great point.

[Speaker 5] (2:07:59 - 2:08:00)
That's all I wanted to point out. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:08:00 - 2:08:47)
So, again, we were looking at ways to try to help strike a balance with some of the escalating costs. All right. So here's a chart that really looks at the fairness issue.

This chart really looks at how much, you know, folks were paying per gallon. And so it really is a fraction of a penny difference, but that adds up over time. So when we look at our average user, they were paying about two cents a gallon.

You know, when we look at folks that are in the higher tiers, they were paying about three-tenths of a cent less per gallon.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:47 - 2:08:51)
Can I just ask, is there a way to get the screen share ribbon off the screen?

[Speaker 4] (2:08:51 - 2:08:52)
I couldn't figure it out.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:52 - 2:08:52)
It's okay.

[Speaker 4] (2:08:53 - 2:08:56)
Sean, why don't you let me share mine and then it won't appear?

[Speaker 1] (2:08:56 - 2:09:07)
And then she'll flip for you. It's just covering stuff that I think people might want to see. You stay there.

You just stop your share and she will. I'm not sharing my screen.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:08 - 2:09:11)
You are through this thing. So just press stop there.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:11 - 2:09:11)
See the stop share?

[Speaker 2] (2:09:12 - 2:09:12)
I got you.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:13 - 2:09:14)
It's just going to take me one second to get there.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:14 - 2:09:18)
Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure people could see the information at home.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:18 - 2:09:19)
I'm trying to figure it out.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:20 - 2:09:37)
Thanks. Thank you. You can actually keep talking.

It's okay.

[Speaker 22] (2:09:37 - 2:09:38)
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:38 - 2:10:17)
So the fairness issue really, it makes a lot of sense to kind of get down to that irreducible essence of how much are we paying per gallon? And so when we drill down to that per gallon cost, folks that were in the higher consumption tiers were paying a little bit less. And so what we're trying to do is really kind of a surgical adjustment.

How do we get everybody to that same price per gallon? So, again, this chart just reflects graphically that slight change in the price per gallon. You're not in charge of the mouse anymore.

[Speaker 5] (2:10:17 - 2:10:21)
All right. Sorry. You have to give it back.

It's so difficult to lose that power.

[Speaker 12] (2:10:22 - 2:10:22)
She's taking her mouse.

[Speaker 5] (2:10:22 - 2:11:04)
I'll just, on this slide, I'll just, so the four, it's the average consumption in block one of that rate structure. And the ASFH, that's average single family home. So that's the second bar that you see.

And then it's the average consumption in block two of our new rate structure. And then the average in block three. So this is what people were paying who consumed that amount with our old structure.

So there's that .3 of a cent difference, which, as Sean said, that adds up because that's per gallon and people use a lot of gallons of water.

[Speaker 22] (2:11:04 - 2:11:04)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (2:11:05 - 2:17:25)
So next slide, Allie. So this is the math. And so when we look at the subsidy here, and I know that that word might, you know, be uncomfortable for some folks, but essentially what happens is with the higher volume water users or accounts, they pay less per gallon and it shifts the cost to everybody else.

The 81% are residential users that are using the same water. And what we're trying to do is figure out how do we balance this out? How do we actually bring some parity?

When you add that up, it's about $66,000 a year over 10 years, $660,000. So this is not insignificant, and it creates an inequity that we were really trying to resolve. So next slide.

So this is really a way that we've looked to try to address the fairness issue. You know, we're proposing, if you look in the average bill on the far left-hand column, it's two cents a gallon. For this year, you know, we're proposing that, you know, the average user see a slight one-tenth of one cent per gallon increase.

So we're not looking simply to not balance the cost across all users, but for, you know, again, you know, the average single-family household, they're going to see a one-tenth of a cent increase in their cost of water. But for the higher tiers, they're going to see a two-tenths of a percent increase and a three-tenths of a percent increase to help really balance that price per gallon. As you see, you know, that two cents a gallon really is the same, right about the same as, you know, the average single-family household at two cents a gallon.

This is where we're trying to strike that equity. So next slide. So as we look at our rate, we want to look at our rate in the universe of other municipalities.

You know, we wanted to look at Marblehead. We wanted to look at Medford and Revere, Stoneham, Melrose, communities that really are peer communities where we can benchmark. How does Swampskate rate payers fit with this proposed tier structure?

And so when we look at the purple, the light blue is where we currently sit, you know, our base rate of $33.25 a quarter. You know, when we look at, you know, for Tier 1, going up to $33.25, staying the same, that puts us really in the lower quarter of this peer group. You know, proposed Tier 3 at a base rate of $34.25, you know, stays right about the lower middle pack of this peer group. And even folks that are in the higher tier are still really squarely in the middle of our peer group. And so what this slide really helps to reflect is even with this proposed tier structure, we're really in the middle of the pack with a number of communities that are seeing additional costs and additional fees associated with their utility systems. Next slide.

Next slide. So at this point, it is our recommendation that the town adopt a three-tiered rate structure. We're recommending that we use $90,000 from retained earnings from water and $190,000 of retained earnings from sewer.

You know, this will bolster some of our efforts to really continue to model best practice, you know, management for these assets. We did get a $150,000 grant this year to really look at an asset management report. It will only help us get more information and really help support, you know, a better understanding of this system and really the sustainability and the durability that residents count on.

These systems are old, and they constantly need investments and maintenance, and we're doing our best to get state grants to help support that status of good repair. Can you share what should we expect that report is going to provide us? That report will provide us with detailed, you know, estimates of repair needs for the system.

They'll go through. We'll likely get camera footage of some of the pipes and drainage systems throughout Swampstead. We talk a lot about some areas that are under the town's consent decree, but, you know, there's an entire system out there that we have to become really familiar with, and it will give us that total picture of our underground capital assets.

You know, it's one of the most important things that I think cities or towns could do, and it really takes away the unknown of how, you know, your underground systems are faring in terms of their status of good repair. There's sample reports if folks are curious, but my hope is that we'll see one within the next six months.

[Speaker 22] (2:17:26 - 2:17:26)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (2:17:26 - 2:17:49)
So with that, next slide. So at this point, you know, I am recommending that we adopt a tiered rate structure for water and sewer consumption, base rates as outlined as follows, block one consumption rate at $7.33. You don't need to read it.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:50 - 2:18:00)
All right. So let me ask for questions from the board or comments.

[Speaker 10] (2:18:01 - 2:18:04)
If Neil has anything to add, just no pressure.

[Speaker 5] (2:18:07 - 2:19:49)
No, thanks. Sean, thanks for providing the presentation. I mean, I'll just reiterate what Sean said.

I mean, I think that that slide and the per gallon cost sort of tells the story of what we're trying to do, is that people were paying, people who were, people, accounts that were using more were paying less per gallon, and so we've corrected for that. And as Peter said at the beginning of this discussion, you know, it means that there will be a steeper increase for those accounts this year because we're correcting for something that was unfair previously. And that's really the point of all of this change.

And I'll just say that this tiered structure is not surgical in that there is a little bit of difference between, you know, it's two cents a gallon, but it could be 2.1 cents per gallon or 1.9 cents per gallon. But that's better than a difference of 0.3 cents a gallon, and that adds up over time. And so that's, you know, I'm really happy with the results that we have.

I'm not happy that people's rates are going up. I'm not happy that my rates are going up. So, you know, but I think that we've come to a much better structure going forward, and it's much more fair than what we had previously.

Polly, do you have anything to say?

[Speaker 10] (2:19:50 - 2:20:18)
No. I just, I mean, are you going to continue to meet, like, if you pass this, and, you know, is this going to be ‑‑ We can't hear you. I'm sorry.

We can't hear you. Sorry. Thanks.

Is this going to be still something that the committee or subcommittee tracks, or is it just going to be tracked by the town and reported to us if this passes? Because I think just making sure that we're keeping an eye on it and that it is kind of panning out.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:18 - 2:20:28)
Yeah, there were conversations about that with the committee, and I'm certainly open to that and think it's important. So I would recommend that we continue to do that.

[Speaker 10] (2:20:29 - 2:20:29)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:29 - 2:21:14)
So can I ask, these rates are conditioned upon the recommendation of retained earnings of 90,000 from water and 190 from sewer, correct? And the use of retained earnings in those amounts, which are reserves, so we are using reserves to pay down the increases, but those reserves still keep us within our financial guidelines. So FinCom certainly is going to want to have a conversation about that, and FinCom, you know, we obviously can make the article and move it, but obviously we want to make sure FinCom's on board, and I think as long as we're within the guidelines for retained earnings, I think that's the critical component here on that.

Okay.

[Speaker 9] (2:21:16 - 2:21:50)
Sorry, David, go for it. I have two questions for Sean or for Neil. One is, you know, what is the ‑‑ just remind me, what's the increase in costs, you know, from Lynn Sewer and Water and from MWRA from year to year?

And then, you know, say we did nothing, what's the, you know, how much of a deficit would we run? Or, in other words, how much of retained earnings would have to be used to plug in that gap? Do you have that information at your fingertips?

[Speaker 2] (2:21:53 - 2:22:48)
So we saw a 12 to 14% increase with Lynn Water and Sewer. I don't have the exact number, but it was significant this past year. We were initially estimating that it could be as high as 20 to 25% given the, you know, contract year.

But certainly, you know, it was a real significant increase for all communities that participate in that system. This is, you know, every 20 years the contract gets reset and it goes out to bid, and all of the major systems have to, you know, go through a capital, you know, review, and capital investments need to be made to help address those.

[Speaker 9] (2:22:48 - 2:22:57)
Understood. So the increase was a little less than what we had initially thought was a worst case scenario? Okay.

And then what about MWRA?

[Speaker 2] (2:23:00 - 2:23:03)
I don't have the ‑‑ Patrick, can you answer that?

[Speaker 21] (2:23:04 - 2:23:13)
The MWRA percentage wise increased less than Lynn Water and Sewer, but it still was, I'd want to say approximately 5%.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:13 - 2:23:16)
8.4. Yeah, it was closer to 9%.

[Speaker 9] (2:23:18 - 2:23:21)
8.4. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:23 - 2:26:15)
So I think the important consideration here is to refute this idea that the vast majority of the budgets of Water and Sewer are dictated by third party vendors that we are obliged to. There is no alternative to those vendors. We can choose not to increase Water and Sewer rates, but that just means that we're out of budget, out of balance, which we can't be.

Someone has to pay the increases. It is not an option. We don't get the choice as to whether or not to pay the MWRA and Lynn Sewer Commission what they charge us.

That is not how the system works here. So the idea that we just don't charge someone a penny more because rates go up or because third party charges go up is just not even in the realm of possibility. And it is something that I hope with this DEP study that you're getting, and we look forward to a Lynn Sewer contract discussion, something that we haven't had at all, that we can increase our confidence that we are going to have price control going forward and predictability, that we can get predictability in our capital plan, because staff does yeoman's work, but it's quite literally blind.

And so we don't know what we don't know. And so this will help us know now. And I'm guessing we're going to see what we know, meaning we know that we have very aged infrastructure, and we know that we have to pay the piper on it.

And so now we need to come up with a cost effective, financially responsible rate payer sensitive plan to do those things. And information is going to be the key to doing those things. So there's a lot of work to be done on the water and sewer side.

Rates, I really appreciate the yeoman's work that went into just digging through this and coming up with this. But this is just the beginning of, frankly, our challenges on water and sewer. Not unlike so many other communities, but this is our community.

So this is the only one we're going to take on here. But we've really there's a lot of work to be done here. And we should really I appreciate, Neil, your receptivity to kind of stay involved and do it.

Like Steve Perdue, you are forever the water and sewer person. Yeah. So unless you want Steve Perdue to do it, because we volunteered him for everything.

But I do appreciate it, Neil, because you brought a seriousness to it and a focus, which together with staff's focus was helpful. So with that, if there's no more questions or comments, can you actually put it on, Ali, can you put that back up, please?

[Speaker 9] (2:26:17 - 2:26:34)
Well, Peter, the second part of my question that I asked was never answered. Which was, you know, how much of a deficit would we run in the event that we did nothing? We kept our rates the same.

How much or how much of retained earnings would we need to draw down?

[Speaker 5] (2:26:35 - 2:27:21)
So, I mean, just looking at what Patrick gave us in July, in terms of like business as usual. The model that he presented, like I said before, it would have been an increase in base rates, would have been 14 on the water and sewer would have been 2250. And you would have seen a overall like a four and a half percent increase on the rates for water and sewer.

And in terms of retained earnings, we would have combined in using about a little over 700,000 in retained earnings. And it would have brought us down to below, you know, well below the guidelines. It would have been 15% in water and 14% in sewer.

So our threshold is 20.

[Speaker 9] (2:27:21 - 2:27:25)
Not to mention. Not to mention future year, right?

[Speaker 5] (2:27:25 - 2:27:30)
Correct, yeah. So we're taking away from the retained earnings there. So that was the model that was presented.

[Speaker 9] (2:27:31 - 2:27:33)
Yeah. So we basically don't have a choice.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:34 - 2:27:38)
Yeah. I mean, doing nothing. You can't do that.

You know, we have to pay it. So.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:40 - 2:27:57)
All right. So, Ali, we put that back on the screen, please. The school.

Thank you. All right. I think board members have it in front of them.

Neil, you want to make the motion while you're there?

[Speaker 5] (2:27:57 - 2:27:57)
Yeah, sure.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:57 - 2:27:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:59 - 2:28:48)
I move to accept the recommendation of town administrator to adopt a tiered rate structure for water, sewer consumption. And base rates as outlined as follows. Block one consumption rate for water, $7.33 consumption rate for sewer, $5.75 base rate for water, $13.25 base rate for sewer, $20 block to consumption rate for water, $7.60. And consumption rate for sewer, $6.50 base rate for water, $13.65 base rate for sewer, $20.60 block three consumption rate for water, $7.80 consumption rate for sewer, $7.20. And the base rate for water, $13.65 and the base rate for sewer, $20.60.

[Speaker 10] (2:28:50 - 2:28:51)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:51 - 2:29:07)
Are there any questions? All right. So I just want to also make clear the corresponding just to include in the motion, the corresponding block numbers, right?

For consumption and base that go along with these rates, right? There's gallonage.

[Speaker 5] (2:29:08 - 2:29:51)
Sure. Yeah. So block block one for consumption is zero to twenty five.

It's actually twenty five hundred cubic feet. And then it's block two is over twenty five hundred cubic feet to two hundred and fifty hundred cubic feet. And block three is anything over two hundred and fifty cubic hundred cubic feet to the maximum.

For base block one is zero to ten hundred cubic feet. Block two is anything over ten hundred cubic feet to two hundred and fifty hundred cubic feet. And then block three is anything over two hundred and fifty hundred cubic feet.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:52 - 2:30:05)
It was seconded. Are there any questions or comments? All right.

All those in favor. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed. Patrick, what's the timing on when water bills now go up?

I know we're late because of this.

[Speaker 6] (2:30:05 - 2:30:07)
Yeah. We probably got late.

[Speaker 22] (2:30:08 - 2:30:09)
It's probably going to be a couple of minutes.

[Speaker 6] (2:30:10 - 2:30:13)
We already read the news, so it's just a matter of getting off the bills.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:14 - 2:30:20)
Okay. All right. Great.

Does that provide less time to pay them, or do we extend the time to pay them?

[Speaker 22] (2:30:21 - 2:30:21)
We extend the time.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:21 - 2:31:05)
Okay. Appreciate that. Okay.

Thanks again. Thanks, Natalie and Gino and Patrick, for your help on this as well. I know it's been a lot of work for you as well.

I want to entertain a discussion of September meeting schedule. We are looking at two meetings in September, plus likely a meeting right before a town meeting, just to reserve it. So we have a meeting on September – bear with me.

First? Is that what we decided? Next Wednesday.

That's next Wednesday, September 1st.

[Speaker 12] (2:31:07 - 2:31:08)
Next Wednesday.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:08 - 2:31:30)
We're not doing it on the 8th because that falls on Jewish holidays and the extra long weekend of school because of the holidays and because of Labor Day. We'll also do a meeting – we're just going to hold a meeting for 6 o'clock. Actually, I think what I'm going to do is suggest it's 5.30 on the 13th. Precinct caucuses are at 6, so we would do a meeting at 5.30 on the 13th.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:31 - 2:31:32)
And that's on Zoom?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:33 - 2:31:33)
Huh?

[Speaker 18] (2:31:33 - 2:31:34)
Zoom?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:34 - 2:31:47)
That would be Zoom, yes. And then we'll be doing – my next suggested meeting is the 22nd of September. Does that work for everybody?

[Speaker 5] (2:31:48 - 2:31:49)
The town meeting one is at 5.30, right?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:50 - 2:31:51)
5.30 on the 13th.

[Speaker 5] (2:31:53 - 2:31:55)
And then what was the last one?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:55 - 2:32:58)
The last one's on the 22nd at 6 p.m. here, unless something changes. You all good with that? Yep.

Yep. All right. I want to move on now to the consent agenda, which is designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the board.

The select board may adopt the entire consent agenda in one vote or at the request of any board member. Any item on the consent agenda can be removed from the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda for discussion. On the consent agenda tonight, we have a vote to approve minutes from August 3rd and August 11th of this year.

Vote to approve a one-day liquor license for Latitude Beverage 90-plus sellers to sell at Swamp Clubber Fest on Saturday, September 4th, from 4 to 9, with a rain date of Sunday, September 5th, from 4 to 9. Vote to approve a one-day liquor license for the Swamp Scout Yacht Club to sell at Swamp Clubber Fest on Saturday, September 4th, from 4 to 9, with a rain date of Sunday, September 5th, from 4 to 9. We also have a vote to approve appointments to the Swamp Scout Cultural Council.

Did we ever have any of those members join us?

[Speaker 4] (2:32:58 - 2:33:06)
They were not able to attend. Their names are on here on the consent agenda for three-year terms to expire in 2024.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:07 - 2:33:21)
Great. All right. Terrific.

So those are the items. Any questions, comments on those? Otherwise, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Motion to approve the consent agenda.

[Speaker 9] (2:33:21 - 2:33:22)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:22 - 2:33:27)
Any questions or comments? All those in favor? Aye.

All right. The town administrator's report.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:29 - 2:39:20)
Thank you, Peter. You know, we continue to see some cases, as the town moderator had mentioned, of the Delta variant. We encourage folks to really use masks where they make sense, and we're certainly looking to mitigate transmission as much as possible.

I am pleased that we have an ever-increasing number of Swamp Scout residents that are getting vaccinated. We also have a number of our young citizens, 12- to 15-year-olds, who have received their first shot. So 72% of our young citizens have really, you know, been vaccinated, and that's a great sign.

You know, we're one of the leading communities in terms of percentage of our residents vaccinated, and I think that speaks well for Swamp Scout. You know, I've been busy over the last few weeks meeting with department heads. Our community development department is busy with a number of projects.

We heard tonight about a few of them, but certainly one of the more interesting ones is really identifying the arboretum that was established around Town Hall. We have a number of trees that were planted in 1945 and 46 as a veterans memorial, and we've engaged a consultant to help us identify those and really, you know, continue to manage those trees. We had a tabletop exercise today to discuss COVID-19-related scenarios with our school department.

We also received a regional community public health excellence grant for the North Shore Health Departments to continue our work with contact tracing infrastructure. Our trash and recycling efforts continue with our mattress recycling program. We did get a grant to move forward with that from DEP, and we hope to roll out the program in October.

North Shore mattresses are heavy, and when it rains out, they're even heavier, and we want to get any kind of material that drives tonnage costs out of our solid waste stream, and this is another great program to reduce one of the largest contract costs we have in our town budget. You know, we have done an audit on recycling contamination. We had a member of our Solid Waste Committee, Johnny Gold, pull apart a trash bag or a recycling container and identify a great deal of material that cannot be recycled.

We do have a lot of work to do to try to get information out to Flomford residents about what can be properly recycled and what cannot, and we hope to launch a campaign along those lines. Today, there was a great article in the Lynn Item on our dementia-friendly committee that is working in Swampstead. We have a lot of really impacted families that are dealing with loved ones with dementia.

Council on Aging and our senior center really are taking this initiative seriously, and I really want to recognize our all-ages director for her leadership. As a reminder, we are having a cookout tomorrow, so if any board members have hairnets, we could use you. Hot dogs and hamburgers outside under the tent at 1130.

Town staff continue to meet and look at pedestrian safety issues. We have advanced some of the work we discussed a few weeks ago about thermal crosswalks, and we've invested over $50,000 in infrastructure improvements around the middle school. There's much work to do, and I continue to meet with town staff weekly to go over some of the ways that we can make intersections safer and continue to invest in pedestrian safety strategies.

Last week, I did meet with our legislative delegation to go over the report from MIT regarding the flight paths. I also met with Congresswoman Moulton's district director on Friday, August 13th, to go over the town's concerns about the proposed flight path. There's a public hearing on September 15th to review the plans with Massport, and we continue to seek a meeting to, you know, address some of the concerns that we've outlined in the letter that we sent to Massport.

I'm very pleased to report that Chief Archer and members of our fire department have worked successfully to receive a $332,000 grant as part of the 2020 Firefighter Assistance Grant. These funds were put in for a fire sprinkler system and a firefighter training program, and this reflects a really tremendous amount of hard work and leadership from Chief Archer and members of our fire department. We have a couple of events that we're planning.

We have a Swamptoberfest, you know, on September 4th from 4 to 9 p.m., and we have a September 11th commemoration that will be on Saturday morning on September 11th. We are looking to have a day of giving on the following day where residents can donate food or other items of support to local food banks and some of our nonprofits. There will be more information to follow as we kind of put the plans together.

That's my report.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:21 - 2:39:22)
Questions for Sean?

[Speaker 9] (2:39:25 - 2:39:35)
Sean, any updates on blighted properties? Particularly, there's one on Humphrey Street, 465 Humphrey Street, corner of Marshall and Humphrey.

[Speaker 2] (2:39:37 - 2:39:43)
I don't have an update offhand. I can look into that and report back at our next meeting. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (2:39:45 - 2:40:04)
On the updates, I think we had talked about an update, as anxious as I am to continue to talk about water and sewer. An update on the I&I fee progress there, if that is something that can be updated on maybe at our next meeting.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:06 - 2:40:23)
Sure. We have reached out to Town Council. We've got a couple of best practice examples, and I've met with Gino to review a model that would work for Slomskip.

So, I'm happy to provide the Board with an update on that.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:24 - 2:42:28)
Ali, can you just please put I&I discussion on the agenda, please, for next week? Thank you very much. Other questions, comments?

All right, select board time. I just want to quickly just acknowledge there's a lot of activity going on at the Veterans Center. There's a lot of renewed energy and focus and commitment.

And they're going to be holding a Veterans and Military Community Service Day on September 25th from noon to 4 at the Veterans Center. They will have a series of services to support veterans and military. The Veterans Administration Mobile Vet Center will be there.

Lane Community Health Center Mobile Clinic will be there. Veterans Administration Benefit Specialists will be there. General Electric Veterans Council and more will also be there.

They are really spending a lot of time coming together as a group of organizations to really bring renewed focus in life. They are doing an auxiliary at the VFW to increase membership and to bring families into the fold more. And I'm really excited.

Malcolm Maloof, Patrick Burke, and others are really putting a lot of effort into our veterans and military. And we've had some really good conversations with them in ways in which we can support them. And I would suspect in the very near future you will see an opportunity for us to have a lease extension for the Veterans Center on our upcoming agenda for this board to discuss and to vote on.

With that, if there's nothing more this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Good night, everyone.

Thanks very much for joining us.

[Speaker 22] (2:42:28 - 2:42:29)
Thank you.