[Speaker 2] (0:32 - 0:35)
Good evening, everyone, welcome to the.

[Speaker 1] (1:30 - 1:32)
Sean is yours off.

[Speaker 3] (1:38 - 1:39)
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 13] (1:40 - 1:43)
It was a chance. Oh, yes.

[Speaker 3] (1:43 - 1:48)
I apologize. Sorry. We've been going.

[Speaker 2] (1:48 - 1:50)
I'll take responsibility for that.

[Speaker 7] (1:50 - 1:51)
We're live.

[Speaker 2] (1:51 - 1:59)
Okay. It's also a lot of focus. I don't know if that's just this one.

You look better blurry. Yeah, I prefer to be blurry.

[Speaker 3] (2:00 - 2:03)
We are blurry. Okay. That's appropriate.

[Speaker 1] (2:07 - 2:16)
That's fine. I think he just called one of us a low quality presentation. Low quality.

That's what I heard.

[Speaker 2] (2:17 - 2:28)
So we are live and set. Right. All right.

Thank you. Sorry, everyone. Welcome to the April 25th 2022 board meeting.

We're going to start as we always do with the pledge of allegiance.

[Speaker 13] (2:31 - 2:44)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 2] (2:48 - 3:19)
Thank you. So we're good to go into the public hearing, right? Right now?

Yes. Okay. So is there, we are having a public hearing tonight for all parties interested in an application for a section 12 on-premises retail wines and malt beverage liquor license from 128 Humphrey Street Food Services, Inc.

doing business as Pomona located at 128 Humphrey Street in Swanstock. Is there a motion to enter the public hearing?

[Speaker 13] (3:21 - 3:21)
So moved.

[Speaker 2] (3:21 - 3:22)
Second.

[Speaker 13] (3:22 - 3:22)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (3:23 - 3:23)
All in favor?

[Speaker 13] (3:24 - 3:24)
Aye.

[Speaker 15] (3:24 - 3:24)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (3:25 - 3:35)
All right. Great. Thank you.

Is there anyone who has questions, an overview, is somebody giving a summary?

[Speaker 3] (3:36 - 3:47)
Yes. We have Angela Noble here that can talk a little bit about the licenses. I do think Oscar Pomona is here as well.

[Speaker 2] (3:47 - 3:54)
Oh, great. Okay. Sorry.

I'm sorry. I didn't see you there. Hi.

[Speaker 6] (3:57 - 3:58)
Can you hear me?

[Speaker 2] (3:58 - 3:59)
Yes. I can.

[Speaker 6] (3:59 - 4:00)
Hi.

[Speaker 2] (4:00 - 4:10)
Hi. Thanks, Angela, for joining us. Can whoever is in charge of Zoom promote Oscar as well?

She's already a panelist.

[Speaker 5] (4:11 - 4:13)
Just promoted Calder to Angela.

[Speaker 2] (4:13 - 4:28)
Oh, I'm sorry. Angelica. I'm sorry that I was distracted.

Thank you. Thanks so much. Okay.

All right. Angelica and Mr. Pomona, welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker 10] (4:29 - 4:29)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (4:30 - 4:34)
All right. Angelica, you are welcome to take it away.

[Speaker 6] (4:34 - 6:04)
All right. So, I'm sorry. I don't really know.

This is like my first one alone, so I don't know exactly what the board is looking for, but Oscar and his business partner, I don't think he's here tonight. They are interested in a Section 12 on-premises license to sell wine and malt beverages at 128 Humphrey Street. They did go to the zoning board, and they got all approval from the zoning board.

There was a question about the proximity to the school behind it, but everything has been approved by the ZBA. I'm not exactly sure when they plan to open, but I know that it was kind of contingent on getting this license as far as their start date that they wanted to choose. In the hours, I believe he wanted to be open from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., and it's mostly—I don't know if Oscar wants to give an overview of the business, but to my understanding, it will be a—sorry, my phone just cut out for a second. It will be located, obviously, at 128 Humphrey Street. There will be like a bar seating area, but kind of abutting the window, so not technically a bar, a dining room area, a kitchen, bathroom, and he also wants to offer outdoor seating, which would be in the front of the building and also to the side of the building.

[Speaker 2] (6:06 - 6:07)
Okay, great.

[Speaker 6] (6:09 - 6:14)
Oscar, do you want to kind of talk a little bit more about the business to let the board know exactly what it would be like?

[Speaker 10] (6:16 - 7:07)
Thank you so much, Ms. Noble, and good afternoon, everyone. Good evening. We have Juan Pomona already well-established in Puento and he's doing very well for us, so this is a new concept.

We are from the antique table family, so the antique table is already in Linn, so this is a new concept about serving healthy foods. It's more to-go and sandwiches, and we wanted to be able to serve cappuccinos with portageos. So, the concept is just going to be more to-go, obviously, with just some coffees and dailies that will be served in-house, but it's going to be a small location, so it's more going to be a cafe style for the community response.

[Speaker 2] (7:09 - 7:16)
Great. Does anyone from the board have questions on the licensing?

[Speaker 1] (7:16 - 7:17)
Any public comment?

[Speaker 2] (7:17 - 7:24)
On this particular? Okay, sure. Is there any public comment?

Since we have not started with public comment, as we usually do.

[Speaker 1] (7:25 - 7:29)
Yeah, but the public hearing has to have its own public comment, I'm sorry. This is a public hearing.

[Speaker 2] (7:29 - 7:30)
Oh, yeah, okay, sorry.

[Speaker 1] (7:30 - 7:30)
Sorry.

[Speaker 2] (7:30 - 7:38)
Any public comment? Do you mind just checking the attendees also, Diane?

[Speaker 7] (7:42 - 7:50)
So, Oscar, while we're waiting, is this going to be identical to, you said, the Pomona in Winthrop, or is it different in any way?

[Speaker 10] (8:01 - 8:27)
Thank you. That's a great question. It's going to be very identical, just like the one in Pomona, the same menu.

We just recently got our liquor license there a month ago, and we're doing very well. So, definitely the same menu, and we're looking for breakfast in the morning, 8 in the morning, and serve dinner until 9 p.m. Great.

[Speaker 2] (8:29 - 8:30)
I think this is exciting.

[Speaker 1] (8:31 - 8:39)
So, the Article 12 is malt, liquors, wine, and cordials? I believe that's correct. Angelica, is that right?

[Speaker 6] (8:41 - 8:51)
It's listed as wines and malts. I think that that kind of falls into the same category, but I can double-check, but the actual terminology just says wines and malts.

[Speaker 1] (8:51 - 9:19)
So, I'm looking at the application from the ABCC, and it looks like there's a category drop-down menu that says wines and malt beverages with cordials slash liquors permit, and my understanding from the Zoning Board is that they approved, was it, again, I don't think we have the zoning decision here, but they approved, I don't think they approved all alcohol, if I remember correctly.

[Speaker 6] (9:20 - 9:34)
No, I don't think that they did either. I think Marcie, she's on the Zoom as well, she might know a little bit more information about that, but I believe it was just for exactly what we had applied for, not the all alcohol.

[Speaker 2] (9:38 - 9:40)
Marcie, do you want us to reiterate that? Sorry, I know.

[Speaker 11] (9:41 - 9:48)
Sorry, yes, but I do believe that the ZBA was waiting to hear back from if a liquor license was approved.

[Speaker 1] (9:49 - 9:58)
No, that's not how this works. The Zoning Board acts first. We don't, I mean...

Oscar, was a zoning decision issued for your application?

[Speaker 10] (10:01 - 10:06)
Yes, it was. Great, thank you. And I have reported that with the registry of sale.

[Speaker 1] (10:07 - 10:33)
Great. Can you remind us, did that zoning decision allow you to do just wine and beer, wine, beer, and cordials, or wine, beer, cordials, and any alcohol? Because I know that there was a discussion at town meeting, there is a provision in our bylaw about sale of alcohol within proximity to a school, and I believe the Zoning Board was saying that they were treating alcohol as hard spirits, not beer.

[Speaker 10] (10:33 - 10:42)
That is correct. That is correct. So the decision was to include cordials.

It was defined that that did not fall as hard liquor.

[Speaker 1] (10:43 - 10:55)
And so does a section, Oscar, you know, does a section six special, section six, sorry, a section 12, a section 12 on-premises license, does that include beer, wine, and cordials?

[Speaker 10] (10:58 - 11:01)
I'm not a hundred percent. I would have to look it up.

[Speaker 15] (11:02 - 11:02)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (11:10 - 11:12)
Peter, are you looking that up?

[Speaker 15] (11:12 - 11:12)
I am.

[Speaker 2] (11:13 - 11:40)
Okay. Because I think, well, I just want to wait and see what your response is. It's going to be up to you, I think, Mr. Pomona, ultimately. Do you have any, are you clear, Mr. Pomona, on what the issue is that we're trying to resolve?

[Speaker 10] (11:44 - 11:45)
I am very clear, yes.

[Speaker 2] (11:46 - 11:49)
Okay. So just hang in there.

[Speaker 1] (12:22 - 13:00)
So I just don't know which one 12 is. There's five types of non-alcoholic beverages, restaurants, clubs, hotels, taverns. In addition, retail alcoholic beverages fall into five categories.

That is all alcoholic beverage, wine and beverage, wine and malt beverage licenses, wine and beverage license, sorry, wine beverage license, malt beverage license, and wine and malt with cordials and liqueurs beverages. I just have to figure out which one's which. Besides that.

All right. Do you mind if we, let's maybe table this?

[Speaker 15] (13:00 - 13:00)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (13:00 - 13:03)
And we'll come back and I'm happy to keep searching for.

[Speaker 2] (13:04 - 13:04)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (13:04 - 13:09)
We'll do it tonight. Okay. So we're just going to table it for now so we can.

[Speaker 2] (13:09 - 13:13)
Yeah. So we're just going to postpone the public hearing.

[Speaker 1] (13:13 - 13:16)
I think I would just make a motion to continue the public. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (13:16 - 13:16)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (13:16 - 13:19)
Recess the public hearing. Second.

[Speaker 2] (13:23 - 13:24)
All in favor?

[Speaker 1] (13:24 - 13:25)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 2] (13:25 - 13:36)
I'm sorry, Mr. Pomona, we'll be back to address this in just a few minutes or in a little So we're just recessing the public hearing so we can. Yeah, no, I know. Okay, great.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (13:37 - 13:38)
I just wanted to make sure we didn't stop everything.

[Speaker 2] (13:42 - 13:59)
So, all right, then we're just going to go to public comment because I see at least. A president here waiting patiently. Hi, Aaron.

How are you? Great. Yes.

So we're going to take public comment and just state your name and address if you would for the record before you share your thoughts. Thanks.

[Speaker 8] (14:05 - 14:42)
Hello. My name is Aaron. I am speaking tonight on agenda item that has not yet occurred.

So I will try to put the features a little bit. But that is on the new multi-family multi-family zone requirement that will be upcoming. The one thing I want to impart.

I'm not going to go into details of it. Is the why. Why we are doing this.

[Speaker 2] (14:46 - 14:48)
There's that one right there.

[Speaker 1] (14:52 - 14:55)
You don't need to push a button or anything.

[Speaker 8] (14:55 - 14:55)
Is that good?

[Speaker 1] (14:56 - 14:56)
Yeah, that's good.

[Speaker 8] (14:57 - 18:37)
Good. All right. So the one reason I want to comment on here is to make sure we maintain the focus of why.

Why this law is coming and why we need it. And why do we need to work with it instead of against it as some other communities are doing. Nahant, for example.

We are in the middle of a housing crisis. We're in the middle of a climate crisis. And this law is attempting to solve both of those.

Not by itself but just be part of the solution. And I think that's important for the select board as well as the rest of the town government to communicate with the rest of the town. We haven't done a very good job historically of communicating zoning changes say before town meeting actually happens.

And I think it's going to be important to have a campaign in this regards. Perhaps as large as the Swampscott Say Yes campaign for the new school. With regards to getting people on board to understand why these changes are coming.

Why the state is requiring them. Making them by law. And why we're making multifamily by right in Swampscott.

Which is something we currently don't have. So that's the big thing. The other little things I need to ask of the board besides doing a campaign for the town advertising.

A little PR work if you will. Is also at minimum creating a task force to handle this. Because this isn't something with all due respect to the planning board who I know is here.

This isn't something that needs to be just with the planning board. This needs involvement from all boards and committees in town. Because we're going to have issues like open space that will come up.

We want to both create multifamily housing zoning districts and create more open space in town as well. Because I know that's an important part for me. That's an important part for everybody in town essentially.

We also have the ability to create new commercial opportunities in town. Through this law. So just think about revitalizing the area around the commuter rail station.

And making sure that's a new vibrant area. So housing. We can get more commercial opportunities.

We can get new open space. And all of that is an effort to again combat climate crisis and also our housing crisis. In which housing prices are going up.

So at minimum, again, create a task force to coordinate that collaboration that needs to happen between all the various committees. You know, your open space committee, your conservation committee, your historical committee. Because reviews need to happen before houses get torn down.

The zoning board. Because they know the process and the idea is to eliminate as much red tape as possible with this new law. The all ages committee.

Commission for disability. Think about all of the players that need to come to the table in order to have a say in this. As well as residents.

Because I know town government gets accused of not being transparent every now and then. And perhaps this is a way to open up the process a little bit to make sure everything is transparent as we move forward. And again, task force at a minimum to collaborate.

But ideally it would be nice to have, as has been talked about often, a land summit. Where we actually bring all of the players together at the same time and have a large discussion at the same time. Again, I know that's a new concept for local governments in general.

But doing that is an efficient way to communicate and also be transparent at the same time. So anyway, hope you will consider those. I know the actual details of the regulation are going to come shortly.

So thank you for your time. And best of luck to Polly and Don as they step off the board soon.

[Speaker 2] (18:37 - 19:06)
Thank you. Thank you so much for your comments. Is there any other public comment?

Because it's on the agenda in part tonight, if everyone is okay, I would like to offer a quick response. But is there any other public comment? I don't want to keep anyone else waiting.

No one online. It doesn't look. Okay.

All right, thanks. So does anyone mind if I just go back?

[Speaker 15] (19:06 - 19:06)
No.

[Speaker 2] (19:06 - 20:19)
So I appreciate your comments. And I think I'm excited to hear what the presentation and ask questions and such tonight about the new zoning. But I agree that a task force is necessary.

My original thought before I had officially decided not to run again was that we needed a task force even for the land use summit. And with this just kind of tying up with that timing really well, I think I agree that at a minimum incorporating that and having a task force for the land use summit. And, of course, to any potential future chairs sitting here, I think that would be my suggestion.

So I just appreciate the comments. And I think it is going to take a lot of concentrated focus. And we do need various players at the table, even in the planning and stage to have the discussion afterwards.

So that's all I wanted to say on that. So all right. Without further public comment, Peter, I assume you need a little more time.

[Speaker 13] (20:19 - 20:20)
No, you can go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (20:22 - 20:25)
We can end the recess. All right.

[Speaker 13] (20:26 - 20:27)
I'd move to take it.

[Speaker 2] (20:28 - 20:35)
Motion to re-enter the public hearing. So moved. All right.

Second. All in favor. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (20:37 - 20:38)
So, Angelica, are you still with us?

[Speaker 6] (20:43 - 20:44)
Yes, I am. Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (20:44 - 21:40)
In your December presentation that you gave us, which was really great, if you recall, there was a slide with license quotas. And I think you were going to update that because I think that there were some concerns that it may not have been just completely up to date. So if you wouldn't mind updating that and distributing it to Sean Fitzgerald so the board can have it.

In particular, I think there's just a lot of confusion about the Home Rule petition, which gave extra licenses to the town of Swampscott. How many do we have? How many do we have outstanding?

Et cetera. So in reading the one that you gave us in December, again, we say Section 12. We don't distinguish wines and malts with wines, malts, and cordials.

Thank you. So I don't know if there's a difference. So to the extent we actually have one available, it looks like it is a Section 12 for wines and malts and cordials.

[Speaker 6] (21:41 - 22:01)
Yes. So it would be a Section 12 on-premises license under the wines and malts. I had asked and got clarification about the additional license for special legislation.

So if you want me to try and explain it quickly, I can do so. So we talked.

[Speaker 1] (22:02 - 22:17)
Hold on, Angelica. The answer is I would love it, but I don't think we need it tonight. I think what would be great is if you can just update it because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to us what was special legislation versus not special legislation.

We just want to know how many we have issued, how many we have outstanding.

[Speaker 15] (22:18 - 22:18)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (22:18 - 22:32)
Again, it's about to be reset anyways because the 2020 Census came out, and I believe we're going to get another anyways just by population increase. Yeah. So if you can just update that and send it to Sean, I think that's just going to be a helpful thing that with every application, we have that updated.

[Speaker 6] (22:33 - 22:33)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (22:33 - 22:39)
Just so we have a picture. I appreciate the fact that I do remember that you said that you did do that homework, and you can just submit it in writing. That would be really great.

[Speaker 6] (22:40 - 22:40)
Okay.

[Speaker 10] (22:46 - 22:48)
So anyway, I may say something.

[Speaker 2] (22:48 - 22:49)
Yes, please.

[Speaker 10] (22:49 - 23:12)
Oh, I just wanted... So I sent over to Angelica the Town of Swanscot, the zoning board appeals, the approval notice, which describes what we are permitted. And under 48, Section 11...

Sorry, Chapter 48, Section 11. I don't know if you see that. I do.

[Speaker 6] (23:13 - 23:32)
I have it, but I'm on my phone because I didn't... I'm home tonight, so I don't have everything right in front of me, and I found it. But I know, Marcie, I think that you might know a little bit more about that.

I'm not familiar with all the zoning board information. Could he email it to you, Marcie?

[Speaker 11] (23:33 - 23:37)
Yes. I'm going to... Oscar, I'll send you my email if you can just email that to me.

[Speaker 10] (23:44 - 23:45)
Yes. Well, certainly, Marcie.

[Speaker 2] (23:46 - 23:48)
I don't think we want to table this event.

[Speaker 1] (23:50 - 23:54)
No, but we've got to refine this process a little bit. We do. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (23:57 - 24:13)
We've got to just make sure that, you know, we've got a connection between, you know, our Community Development Department and our Police Department when we get these applications and it comes up through Community Development Department.

[Speaker 1] (24:13 - 24:39)
Again, I think that routing slips, as 1970s they feel, they are really effective, and a lot of it's computerized these days, right? But routing slips just so that Angelica knows that she can't process something until the zoning one has been checked off by Community Development, for example, and just... Those just help, just reminders in the fast pace of every day, reminders of kind of how to do things.

And again, I think our permitting software actually may allow that already, frankly.

[Speaker 6] (24:41 - 24:54)
I was, I mean, I was sent the information by Marissa and Oscar, and I was under the understanding that everything was all set and that I just kind of had to give a verbal, assuming that, like the zoning board, that everything in their office was okay.

[Speaker 1] (24:55 - 25:30)
No, it doesn't. Yeah, don't read anything. You could be absolutely right and fine.

It's not about you specifically by any means, Angelica. It's more about just knowing that when it comes to us, not that they're perfunctory, but we want to know that everybody's eyes that needed to look at it looked at it, and they did the background and whatever research they needed to do. So when it comes to us, we don't need to speculate how many licenses do we have outstanding.

We know with certainty. We don't need to speculate, you know, did something go through a process. It's just a really simple way for us just to have the information in front of us.

So these are really a lot easier to resolve. That's all.

[Speaker 3] (25:31 - 25:38)
Yeah, I think we can come up with a simple checklist and a form that just... Yeah, that's the state...

[Speaker 1] (25:38 - 25:40)
That's the one I said, headquarters.

[Speaker 15] (25:41 - 25:41)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (25:42 - 25:45)
Right, but we don't keep track of the licenses that way, so I don't know how many of those we have.

[Speaker 6] (25:48 - 26:06)
We definitely have those available. That falls under wines and malts. We have five of them through the quota, and then we have only one that was issued to Chipotle, and they did not renew, and so we have five available.

That's the same category under the ABCC. I didn't understand what your question was before.

[Speaker 1] (26:06 - 26:10)
And I guess my other question is having to do with the premises. Is this all inside?

[Speaker 6] (26:11 - 26:35)
So he does want to offer outdoor seating under, like right in front, that would fall under the same temporary outdoor seating through the COVID-19 extension, but then passed that. Margie had said that the town would possibly be voting to keep that permanent throughout the town, so he does want to offer that in the front and the side of the building.

[Speaker 1] (26:37 - 27:35)
So let's treat the front and the side separately. The side of the building is problematic for me because that's a direct line site to an elementary school, and so that to me is different than the front of a building. And again, not to be prudish in this, but the reality is I think there is a zoning bylaw provision that talks about...

Maybe the language may not have been good, but it said basically restricted the sale of alcohol within 200 or 300 feet. And I don't think... Alcohol was not a defined term, so it's allowed beer and wine to somehow slip through, and that's fine.

But I still think the premise of having alcohol being consumed literally within 100 feet of a school building and a school playground isn't consistent with, I think, what the bylaw wanted, and frankly probably what we want. This is my suggestion to the board. I'm fine in front of the building.

I'm fine, I think, at some point, Hadley may not be a school in the very near future. And then on the side, I think, is different. And I'm fine with the hours, and besides that, I'm fine voting on this.

[Speaker 7] (27:36 - 27:52)
I agree. I think we had the same conversation about the side when the wine store was there. So I agree with you.

The front is fine and rather avoid seating where beverages are served on the side.

[Speaker 2] (27:54 - 27:57)
Mr. Pipana, did you want to add something?

[Speaker 10] (28:04 - 28:14)
I just wanted to ask, would that bridge then also fall for the off-school season, like September month, for the outside serving?

[Speaker 2] (28:16 - 28:16)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (28:17 - 28:25)
Yeah, I think so, because the schools are still used potentially, and I just don't feel comfortable making the distinction right here.

[Speaker 2] (28:27 - 28:31)
So I have a question about that, though. I would have assumed that was a question for the zoning.

[Speaker 1] (28:32 - 28:54)
So there is a provision that actually restricts the ability to allow alcohol consumption within 200 or 300 feet, and it uses the word alcohol. And I can tell you, as the person that drafted it in 2009, I wish I didn't use the word alcohol. I wish I used a broader word, because the intention was alcoholic beverages.

Big picture, not more distinguishing bourbon versus beer and wine.

[Speaker 2] (28:54 - 28:58)
Right. But I thought that they had already addressed that at the zoning board.

[Speaker 1] (28:58 - 29:25)
They did. Again, we don't have the zoning decision, which is supposed to be in our packet for these things, and we don't know whether or not they okayed an outside premises. But even so, we're still, at the end of the day, their review doesn't take over.

So I just – Does anyone have – That's the thing that's going to Margie right now, I think, hopefully. And then maybe to us.

[Speaker 6] (29:25 - 30:16)
I have what he had sent me, but it just says that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Swampscott certifies that the requirement pertaining to the notice decision to the owner and applicant is set forth in Chapter 40A, Section 11, and it just says that copies of the decision and all plans referred to in the decision have been filed with the town clerk. And that is that a special permit variance has been granted in compliance with the requirements as set forth in 40A as amended, approval of the definitive subdivision plan that has been granted. So I don't know that I have the second page of it, but I thought I had sent that over in an email with the packet, but I apologize if it didn't make it to you.

But I was – Marissa had said that everything went through and that he was all set to do what he had asked to do, but we can definitely verify that.

[Speaker 2] (30:17 - 30:20)
I think there's a lot of moving parts here. I don't know how others feel.

[Speaker 1] (30:22 - 30:26)
I would like to suggest continuing this into our – I think we have a meeting next Wednesday.

[Speaker 15] (30:27 - 30:27)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (30:27 - 30:59)
And we can take it up at 6 o'clock next Wednesday and hopefully quickly resolve it. I don't think anybody has a problem – unless people say it differently, it's not a question about – if we had all the information in front of us and the information said what we think it's going to say, I don't think people have a problem approving basically the license, maybe the outdoor space is an issue. But we don't even have the background information in which to rest or comfort.

So with that, I guess I would move to continue this until Wednesday, May 4th at 6 p.m. Is there a second? Second.

[Speaker 2] (31:01 - 31:04)
Okay. Before – yeah, I know.

[Speaker 1] (31:05 - 31:05)
I thought you were moving on.

[Speaker 2] (31:06 - 31:07)
Peter, you can sit here.

[Speaker 1] (31:08 - 31:09)
I'm so excited.

[Speaker 2] (31:09 - 31:33)
I'm not. I'm excited. I'm alive.

So I just want to say that for myself, I think as long as – and I'm gone, so just telling you anyway. I think if school's not in session, just let them sit outside and have a drink. So I don't think it's the only place near a public – I'm sorry?

[Speaker 7] (31:34 - 31:35)
The kids sit outside and have a drink?

[Speaker 2] (31:35 - 32:05)
No. People at the cafe on the side. I know that we're not necessarily – the zoning might not have distinguished between it, but if we're allowed to go around that with discretion, I think if – I know no one ever drinks alcohol at fire pits or on the beach or anything, so I just – I'm just thinking of public spaces and the people where – places, limited places you can be to enjoy something outside in the sun.

So that would be my two cents. With that said, we can vote, take a vote on postponing. All in favor?

[Speaker 7] (32:05 - 32:06)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 2] (32:06 - 32:14)
Aye. Sorry, Mr. Pomona, but next week at 6 – 15? Whatever.

You guys figure it out.

[Speaker 10] (32:14 - 32:15)
6 o'clock, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (32:15 - 32:16)
6, 6, 15. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (32:17 - 32:18)
Thank you so much, everyone.

[Speaker 2] (32:18 - 32:35)
Thank you. I apologize for the confusion. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So – hi, how are you?

You're not for public comment, right? You're just here to watch, okay. I just wanted to make sure.

So let's move on to the Town Administrator Report.

[Speaker 3] (32:36 - 38:00)
Thank you, Polly. So it's been a busy week. Last week I attended the Finance Committee meeting.

The Finance Committee met today at 4 o'clock to finalize the proposed budget that's in your warrant. I want to thank the Finance Committee members for their diligence as we finalized the budget. A lot of important conversations.

I want to thank Director of Finance Administration Amy Saro and Patrick Luddy as well for their attendance tonight but also for the work on the budget. We've been busy negotiating contracts. I just want to thank the Board for their support and ratification of a number of town contracts.

I'm very pleased to announce that we have two new firefighters, Brittany Coppinger and Dennis Barry, started today. They will be sworn in next Wednesday, formally before the Select Board, but they reflect three new hires that we've had in the Swampstead Fire Department over the last few weeks that really bring the department up to full complement. With this, I want to recognize Chief Archer and members of the Swampstead Firefighter that were involved in the selection process.

Both of these individuals no doubt will continue with the legacy of public service that is an indelible part of that department. I also continue to work with our Retirement Board over the last few months. I have expressed the concern that every year the Retirement Board payment and budget continues to increase.

This year it had gone up significantly due to some adjustments that the Retirement Board made. I had asked the Retirement Board to consider extending out by a year the payment schedule. We're currently scheduled to pay off the unfunded liability for the pension by 2031.

We have until 2040 under state law, and this would significantly reduce the financial pressure on the town budget. In fact, this would avoid a $91,000 increase to the FY23 budget and certainly help us address a number of priorities. They will be meeting again tomorrow, and I hope that they will again consider taking a vote that will reduce some financial pressure on the town budget.

Last week I met with the president of JRM to discuss the transition of our solid waste company to Republic. Republic is one of the nation's largest solid waste companies. JRM is a regional company that the town has recently negotiated a contract with.

Mr. Monson assured me that Republic has every intention to honor the terms of the contract, and I've asked for a letter to that effect but also a meeting with representatives of JRM and Republic as they seek to transition ownership of the company. The town does have some contractual language in our contract with JRM that requires the town to approve such changes, and certainly the terms, I think, that we've negotiated are very favorable, and it would be my intention to ensure that we see the terms honored in that contract. I'm pleased to report that we are finalizing on candidates for our new library director.

The Board of Trustees has been coordinating the screening of individuals, and I hope that in the near future I will have a recommendation for the select board. This Saturday, April 30th, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., we have an Earth Fest celebration that includes a town-wide cleanup. We need folks to help us travel around Swampskip and identify areas that have some trash and debris.

We've got the van from the Senior Center, so if you're looking to get some exercise and enjoy a little cleaner and greener Swampskip, we want this to be a weekend where we really travel around and beautify Swampskip. But there's a lot of activities, a lot of really great conservationist and naturalist activities planned for Saturday, April 30th, so I would encourage you to head down to Town Hall and bring some gloves and get ready to have some great activities. That's my report.

[Speaker 2] (38:00 - 38:04)
Great. Questions for Sean about his report?

[Speaker 1] (38:06 - 39:12)
I have one. So just as you're talking with JRM and Republic, my recollection is Republic was our trash provider before we went to JRM, and I don't recall, nor do I really want to talk about it here, but I believe that there were some reasons aside from just price that we had made some changes, level of service and customer relations, et cetera, and now by adoption, if you will, back with Republic, I just want to make sure that we're addressing those and we are comfortable because it's not just about the dollars.

The dollars are really important. It's about the level of service and the treatment of residents and communication and the interaction with our community. I think as best I understand it, I think the complaints, frankly, under JRM have been significantly less than some of the predecessors, and that's a byproduct of human contact and human interaction and how we deal with people in our town.

So if you can just communicate that because it's probably going to be different people at Republic from our prior experience and make sure that people are well aware of that and how that ended so that we can avoid that this time around.

[Speaker 3] (39:12 - 39:51)
I understand. I'm happy to kind of convey those things. I do think that we've had some terrific connectivity to JRM's staff and issues, while they always come up with wind and pickup, they seem to be very responsive.

So I would expect that same level of support. My hope is, frankly, that I'll be able to invite representatives of Republic to a select board meeting in the near future.

[Speaker 2] (39:53 - 40:35)
I had a question about that as well. So with respect to two things, I think in our contract, if I remember correctly, we had said that if there was any change in cost of service on their end that we could, I mean, we don't have the promise from them to enforce our contract yet, but assuming that's coming because they kind of said it was, I wonder since it's just even a bigger corporation now if there's any, I mean, I guess there's less room for negotiation because there's more of a monopoly, I'm assuming, but I don't know if there's, I just don't know.

[Speaker 3] (40:35 - 42:44)
No, the commodities for recyclables have gone up significantly over the last 12 months. In fact, when I sat with Mr. Moskin, I said to him that, you know, geez, plastics and paper are up significantly, metals. You know, was there any thought about some type of cost sharing and were there opportunities for us to think more carefully about how we can improve our contamination?

And he asked me, sure, as long as we're willing to share in the increase in cost for diesel fuel because diesel fuel went from $2 a gallon to $5 a gallon, and, you know, there's always a, you know, typical quid pro quo when we get into, you know, the cost of these services. And frankly, my biggest concern has always been budget certainty. And while I realize the market is kind of an attractive commodity, you know, we're a town with fixed costs, and my focus has always been on just making sure that we don't have to pay more if the market changes.

Okay, that makes sense. That said, you know, there may be innovative ways for us to remove glass from the recycling that's costing JRM thousands of dollars and not winding up in a future market that environmentally would be more sustainable. Actually, all the wine bottles, all the glass goes to a landfill, even though we put it in our recycling stream, and that's wrong.

There's no good way to say it, but that's a failure from a marketplace and a failure from an environmental sustainability standard. So we're constantly eager to try to figure that out.

[Speaker 2] (42:45 - 42:56)
Thanks. All right, thanks, everyone. So the next item on the agenda is an update or summary from presentation from Marcy.

[Speaker 1] (42:56 - 42:57)
Can I ask you a question before we do that?

[Speaker 2] (42:57 - 42:58)
Yes, you can.

[Speaker 1] (42:58 - 43:48)
Can I actually just – I know Marcy and the chair of the planning board is here, and they have to be here for other stuff as well. Would you mind if we entertain taking some things out of order, because I think they're important enough to do them at a 7 o'clock hour as opposed to a 9 o'clock hour? And the two things in particular I would like to suggest us do is that we – I think they're both going to be relatively quick – is do 7 and 6 on the agenda.

The handbooks for the board is 7, and then the warrant is 6, and then do the multifamily after that if you're okay with it. I just think that those are topics that the MBTA thing we're going to be talking about for the next year, 7 and 6 are things that are, I think, more topical today. And I just think sometimes these topics happen at 9 o'clock at night when people aren't paying attention, and I think these are both things that are worth talking about at a point in time when people are really paying attention.

[Speaker 2] (43:49 - 43:49)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (43:49 - 43:52)
So it's your discretion by all means.

[Speaker 2] (43:52 - 44:13)
It's not – I don't want to make that decision. There's a lot of people here who are going to be waiting. That's all.

So if others are comfortable with that, I totally agree that they require concentration. I just don't want to make the call alone. How do others feel about taking – well, do you want to propose a certain one first?

[Speaker 1] (44:14 - 44:14)
Seven.

[Speaker 2] (44:14 - 44:25)
Okay. Do others support the proposal to review the handbooks first while we're – Yes.

[Speaker 5] (44:26 - 44:26)
I'm okay with that.

[Speaker 2] (44:27 - 44:29)
Okay. All right. Thanks.

Thanks for suggesting that.

[Speaker 1] (44:32 - 44:34)
Do you mind if I lead in on it?

[Speaker 2] (44:35 - 44:38)
I do not. Let me just – knowing you, let me just get them up.

[Speaker 1] (44:38 - 51:10)
No, I don't think you need to worry about it too much. Okay. So you have provided us in recent weeks drafts of three handbooks, one being the select board handbook, the second being a board and committee handbook, and the third being a code of conduct handbook.

And these are handbooks that – I would like to say many, not as many as should, but many communities have handbooks like this, and most of them are modeled off of the MMA or other association model handbooks, revised to reflect individual charters or bylaws or just practices of different towns. We had a first reading a couple weeks ago on these, and tonight you have presented us revised, updated drafts that incorporate some revisions, some comments from town council, and some additional work that you have done on these. I think it's – I think all three are ready for a vote tonight in my suggestion.

And I just wanted to really quickly – the select board handbook I think is a really important tool that you, from the second you joined this board, said it would really be helpful as a new member of the board to have something that I can refer to. And while colleagues are great and staff is great, it's just nice to be able to read and do some background reading so you can show up at your first meeting and have a sense of decorum and sense of protocols and sense of rules. And so that one is a pretty extensive handbook dealing with a lot of things from interaction amongst the board members themselves, compliance with applicable conflict of interest and open meeting laws, to interactions with the town administrator, to interactions with town staff.

And in particular, as we've been talking about demands and whatnot on town staff's time and just the difficulty it is for staff to be in so many places at any given time, I think it's really important as a tool to remind the select board about the chain of command and our role so that we reaffirm our obligations to work through the town administrator when it comes to dealing with staff. Except if the town administrator knows that we're working with staff on a project, everything should be going through the town administrator and requests should be going through the town administrator and we shouldn't be, for example, asking staff to do work that the town administrator hasn't said is okay because he's the one charged with knowing who has the availability and to otherwise perform. So I think there's some really important elements of that.

The only thing in the select board handbook that I would like to see changed that I don't think is in there is something that is in the Boarding Committee handbook and in the Code of Conduct, which is a page that requires select board members to sign it and have a copy of it submitted to the clerk's office, saying it's signed. Do you have a provision like that in the other two handbooks? I think that's completely appropriate.

The second one is the Boarding Committee handbook, which is very much like the select board handbook, a little bit more general in nature because it's dealing with all the different boards and committees, those that are advisory committees and those that are created by virtue of town meeting, bylaw, or charter. And it's similarly a book to help them navigate the process, probably more so for the chair than the rest of the members, but even the rest of the members to understand what the chair's responsibilities are and how communication and actions are. And I think this handbook in particular, I think you did a really nice job on because I think it's going to make it easier for committee and board members to know how to be effective committee board members, so that they know what the cycle of government is, so that they know how to work the chain of communication to make sure that their ideas can come to fruition, that they can present feedback on things and they can be heard.

So I think that is a really good committee and board handbook. And I would suggest, again, you do have it as a signature, but I would have it be a requirement of all appointees that this gets signed and submitted within 30 days of appointment. So it evidences that they reviewed it.

And then the last one is the Code of Conduct, which in many ways people may say is the most common sense one, but you've said it, Polly, and I think you're right. It's probably the most important one because it obviously reaffirms the statutory obligations of meeting laws, conflict of interest, and other requirements, but it also contains a reminder about decorum, a reminder about disagreeing without being disagreeable, something that we've all and myself most especially at times have struggled with. And to encourage, especially in this time where everything feels hyperpolitical, that we are residents all looking to contribute to our community and to hold each other and hold ourselves to a standard of conduct and to formulate a process by which if there are concerns, whether it's discriminatory concerns or if there is abusive language, if there's harassment that's reported, there's a process for which that's going to be investigated, then that ultimately is the town administrator oversees that and then makes a recommendation to the appointing authority ultimately as to what the remedy should be in a timely fashion.

I would just ask to just make sure that there is a little bit of redundancy, but I think to make sure it really is the town administrator, not an outside third party. It should be the town administrator, and if the town administrator is involved, it should be the HR director, obviously, because the town administrator can't investigate himself. But then that recommendation is made by the town administrator to the appointing authority to handle.

I've never in my years here heard of such a situation where something needed to be happened, but that doesn't mean that there weren't situations where something needed to happen. It means that maybe they just went unreported or people didn't know what to do with it or feel comfortable doing it because there was no path given to them to do it. So I think this handbook is really important because it's going to be a tool, a reference tool for people on that.

And so those are my comments for those things, and with that, subject to, you know, I would make a motion and then have maybe further conversation, but I would make a motion to approve the current drafts of the select board handbook, the select board board and committee handbook, and the town of Swampscott code of conduct.

[Speaker 2] (51:11 - 51:19)
I can't tell you how much I appreciate all of that. And before we, well, it's your second.

[Speaker 1] (51:19 - 51:22)
Let me see if there's a second. There you go. I'll second.

Don't appreciate it yet.

[Speaker 2] (51:22 - 52:10)
I just don't want, because I knew then you were going to prompt me on, you know, I'm like where do I, I just, I, with respect to, and also why I kind of wanted to get it before the second. The only thing, my only concern with not, with, well, first I want to clarify removing the independent investigation piece. So I think we haven't seen a lot of it, thankfully, in our town.

I don't think we've seen none of it. But sexual harassment, harassment generally, I don't think that necessarily a town administrator or HR director should be handling really, really sensitive stuff like that. Just any way.

[Speaker 3] (52:10 - 52:33)
We handle it all the time. And frankly, I've had to deal with it. Typically what we would do is hire an outside firm to address an issue that, you know, would pose a significant risk to the town.

Every employee has the right to be free from any type of.

[Speaker 2] (52:33 - 52:46)
No, and I don't mean it, so certainly I don't mean it personal to you. I'm just, like, these are going to be in effect, right? Let's say they never get changed and they just sit in a drawer somewhere.

And you've moved on to great things.

[Speaker 3] (52:46 - 52:52)
But these will also be in the town's personnel plan. They'll also be part of training that, you know, we have every year that.

[Speaker 2] (52:52 - 53:35)
But this is only for volunteers. So my only thing is, I just think, I guess I'm not being very articulate here. I think that we need a mechanism.

I think there are certain circumstances where an issue is discriminatory or harassing. And there shall be, like the investigation becomes mandatory. I don't know for that person's sake whether the town administrator's investigation and or an HR director's investigation would feel sufficient, be sufficient.

I don't know. I'm just trying to imagine maybe they don't have the training. And, I mean, hopefully an HR director does.

But, like, I just don't know.

[Speaker 1] (53:35 - 53:45)
Well, but to Sean's point, I hear you on that. But to Sean's point, Sean currently is the first. The HR director and Sean are currently the town administrator, not Sean.

The town administrator are the first lines of response for any complaint that's filed.

[Speaker 15] (53:46 - 53:46)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (53:46 - 53:53)
And they, using their judgment, decide if third-party independence is needed or if it's something that can be handled internally based on his theory.

[Speaker 6] (53:53 - 53:54)
In all circumstances, though?

[Speaker 1] (53:54 - 54:26)
Well, I don't think there's any mandatory thing that automatically makes Sean have to go out the door and retain someone. I think he has the discretion to decide how to do it. And so all I'm saying, let me just finish this up, I'm sorry.

All I'm saying is I'm fine with if the town administrator and or HR director feel as though it merits to do it. But to have a provision that automatically requires if someone files a claim that automatically the town has to retain an independent third-party to do some investigation is something that's actually more extraordinary than what employees have here, or frankly, most anywhere.

[Speaker 15] (54:27 - 54:27)
Okay, that would be fair.

[Speaker 1] (54:27 - 54:33)
So to me, it's about I'm totally fine with you having that, but I think it needs to be an incremental process where the town administrator can.

[Speaker 2] (54:34 - 54:38)
But I'm just saying, what if we have, like, I'm trying to think of...

[Speaker 3] (54:38 - 54:41)
A state commission on discrimination that anybody can go to?

[Speaker 2] (54:42 - 54:43)
Well, we're not employees.

[Speaker 3] (54:43 - 54:58)
Understood, but if there were a complaint, again, that an elected official had, for instance, they could go to a state commission that deals with discrimination, and they can help address some issue that...

[Speaker 2] (54:58 - 55:52)
To me, that discourages reporting. If I were harassed sexually, for example, I wouldn't, if my choice was go to some state agency or talk to an HR director and say, I'd like an independent investigation, kind of like an anonymous... Because anyone can report it.

I just think we want to encourage the subtlety and sensitivity of these topics and also the feeling... Let's say, what's the guy who was in jail and then just... It's a terrible example, but what if there are two terrible people?

And I'm just thinking, like, maybe this is just my legal mind, but, like, a terrible person as a town administrator and then his, like, number two as the HR director. I mean, in some scenario, there could be a situation where there's no one good to report to, and if they have discretion, nothing's happening.

[Speaker 1] (55:52 - 55:58)
But that wouldn't exist for an employee either, then the employee would have the same problem, and nothing we're doing tonight is correcting that for an employee.

[Speaker 2] (55:59 - 56:02)
I don't know what to say about employees. I'm just doing it for boards of directors.

[Speaker 1] (56:02 - 56:14)
No, no, but I understand, but what we do is we have a line of reporting. It goes to the TA and the HR. You're right, if they're horrendous people, and they're still in a position of authority, and they're totally incompetent, then someone should really be doing an investigation of the select board.

[Speaker 2] (56:15 - 56:19)
Which I know feels ridiculous, Sean, because I have full trust in you.

[Speaker 1] (56:19 - 56:37)
Yeah, but my point's not about Sean either. My point's about the fact that I just think just because someone walks on the door and says, I have a concern, it automatically triggers Sean going out to the market and expending funds on a third party to do a full investigation just because of the filing of a complaint, no matter what degree, and I don't take any of it lightly.

[Speaker 2] (56:38 - 56:40)
Only for harassment and discrimination.

[Speaker 1] (56:40 - 56:53)
I understand, but that's non-discretionary the way it's currently drafted. What I was saying is I'm fine with the town administrator and HR director going to do that like they would do for employees. I'm just making it required to me is too stark of a standard, that's all.

[Speaker 3] (56:54 - 57:09)
I also think it's important that the board appreciates that managers, we are liable personally if we let somebody be harassed in a workplace and we don't take affirmative action.

[Speaker 2] (57:09 - 57:34)
I think that's the only distinction. I think the reason why I'm being more careful is because there are very clear laws for employees and very clear lines of communication and authority where people can report for that, but there's kind of like a gap, if you will, for volunteers. Like you don't have the same, I don't know, if you otherwise have a legal obligation.

[Speaker 3] (57:36 - 57:40)
Because you're appointing authority, you're part of the...

[Speaker 1] (57:40 - 57:43)
I actually think that we're constituted as special employees.

[Speaker 3] (57:43 - 57:43)
That's right.

[Speaker 1] (57:43 - 57:57)
Not just us, but people that are appointed to committees are also constituted as special employees under state law. So I think there are protections that apply to them for both ethics and other purposes. But still, I hear you, and you're making really valid points.

All I'm saying is to have...

[Speaker 2] (57:57 - 58:00)
But the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination, for example, I know won't invest in that.

[Speaker 1] (58:00 - 58:16)
I agree with you about state commissions and going to that. My only point was I just think as though letting our top two HR professionals do an initial review and say this is serious, not serious. And again, it's all serious, but you understand what I'm saying, degrees.

[Speaker 15] (58:16 - 58:16)
I do.

[Speaker 1] (58:16 - 58:20)
And then referring it out as needed is something I think is a discretion that needs to be retained.

[Speaker 2] (58:21 - 58:23)
Yeah. So I can appreciate that, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (58:24 - 58:26)
I agree with what Peter's saying.

[Speaker 2] (58:27 - 58:32)
Okay. All right, then. So...

Do you?

[Speaker 7] (58:32 - 58:33)
I do, and I seconded.

[Speaker 2] (58:34 - 58:36)
Oh, you did. Well, you seconded before you...

[Speaker 7] (58:36 - 58:36)
I know.

[Speaker 2] (58:37 - 58:55)
That's why I didn't want to second it, because I didn't know. But anyway, so we've seconded it. And...

So this is all in favor as amended. For the board handbook, adding the acknowledgement. For the board and committee handbook, sign and submitted within 30 days of appointment, which I think is in there...

[Speaker 1] (58:55 - 58:56)
Same thing for the select board.

[Speaker 2] (58:56 - 58:57)
And I'll make it clear.

[Speaker 1] (58:57 - 59:00)
Yeah. I think everybody needs to... We need to have the same rules as the board and committee.

[Speaker 2] (59:00 - 59:04)
Yeah. Well, because we have to sign the board and committee handbook.

[Speaker 1] (59:04 - 59:05)
Both.

[Speaker 2] (59:06 - 59:35)
Yeah. But, yeah, that's fine. And then code of conduct, report to the appointing authority, make it clear, cut out the redundancies or confusions, and with the amendment that the TA and HR have discretion for further independent investigation.

All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Okay. My life is not complete, but tonight's complete. Thank you for doing it.

Of course. Thank you. All right.

[Speaker 1] (59:35 - 59:37)
Now if you wouldn't mind, I would take number six.

[Speaker 2] (59:37 - 59:39)
Yeah. All right.

[Speaker 1] (59:40 - 59:42)
And that's the warrant. And I think we're going to be...

[Speaker 2] (59:42 - 59:49)
I'm officially obsolete now. Okay. So the warrant.

Just right off the top...

[Speaker 1] (59:49 - 59:52)
No. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (59:52 - 59:56)
Do you want to walk through one at a time? Do you want to just propose? Do others have ideas?

[Speaker 1] (59:57 - 1:00:02)
So I thought what would be helpful is to... This is a page turn, but I don't think it's going to be a painful page turn.

[Speaker 15] (1:00:02 - 1:00:02)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:02 - 1:00:03)
We have the draft one in front of us.

[Speaker 15] (1:00:03 - 1:00:04)
We have the page turn.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:05 - 1:00:10)
But just go through it and make sure that we capture... You guys did some recommendations when I was at a FinCom meeting one night.

[Speaker 15] (1:00:10 - 1:00:10)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:10 - 1:00:18)
So I don't know which ones those are, but let's make sure we've captured them correctly and which ones we have it if we're ready tonight to make recommendations to do it.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:18 - 1:00:19)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:19 - 1:00:22)
So I'm just going to rip out my table of contents. So...

[Speaker 2] (1:00:22 - 1:00:28)
So article one, we're not reporting... We're not approving or disapproving. We did approve article two.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:29 - 1:00:33)
Well, article two has been revised, so I think you're going to need to... Oh, sorry. Article two hasn't been revised.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:34 - 1:00:36)
This is going to print tomorrow morning, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:00:36 - 1:00:36)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:37 - 1:00:39)
Okay. So...

[Speaker 9] (1:00:39 - 1:00:40)
Article 11...

[Speaker 5] (1:00:40 - 1:00:44)
We're going to go through it. When we start making changes right now...

[Speaker 2] (1:00:45 - 1:00:46)
I will be up...

[Speaker 5] (1:00:46 - 1:00:53)
You're doing it right now on the... Okay. Well, yeah.

Okay. I just want to make sure... Yes.

We're...

[Speaker 2] (1:00:53 - 1:00:55)
Will there be...

[Speaker 5] (1:00:55 - 1:00:55)
Capture.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:55 - 1:01:15)
I don't have implicit trust in you, Amy. Are there a second set of eyes on... Okay.

Based on our... Okay. Okay.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay.

Article number two, we approve. And I do not, I confess, have the prior...

[Speaker 13] (1:01:16 - 1:01:19)
We did... Yeah, so that's...

[Speaker 2] (1:01:19 - 1:01:22)
No, no, we approved it, but I'm assuming the numbers are the same. Yep. Okay.

[Speaker 13] (1:01:23 - 1:01:29)
So it says select board report... It says the report. We did...

Did you pick... We did recommend approval.

[Speaker 15] (1:01:29 - 1:01:29)
Favorable action.

[Speaker 13] (1:01:29 - 1:01:30)
Voted favorable action.

[Speaker 15] (1:01:30 - 1:01:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:36 - 1:01:38)
Okay. Article three...

[Speaker 1] (1:01:38 - 1:01:49)
So three, I think the town finance director has an update on, because that actually has been updated based on the FinCon meeting at 4 o'clock today. Yes? Am I right?

[Speaker 9] (1:01:49 - 1:03:03)
But you should... Yes, you are correct. If you put CC14 in the one, there has been a...

13 first. The 961 for the... You need to put that in green.

Okay. Wait, can you say that again? The 961 for the public schools was increased by the ways and means, increased on state needs.

[Speaker 15] (1:03:04 - 1:03:04)
Yep.

[Speaker 9] (1:03:04 - 1:03:28)
$96,247, which was previously not in this budget. Plus an additional $6,826 to restore it back to the superintendent's recommended budget. The health insurance was reduced by $6,826 in order to restore those funds.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:28 - 1:03:31)
And that health insurance lines under line item 59.

[Speaker 9] (1:03:32 - 1:03:32)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:32 - 1:03:33)
Got it.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:33 - 1:05:08)
And that was based on a meeting that I had today with the superintendent where we went over the school budget, we went over some of the concerns about school funding challenges. I certainly wanted her to know that while the state budget isn't finalized, that the house ways and means budget did include some additional funding for chapter 70. It did include some additional assessments for charter school.

And so when we reconciled the additional changes in the state budget, we had the ability to increase the school town administrator funding up to what the superintendent had requested with a variance of about $6,800. I asked the finance director to make some adjustments to bring that up to her recommendation and the superintendent's recommendation. Given the fact that we've had some significant challenges with the pandemic and certainly wanna be mindful of the complexity with the school budget.

We also pledged to have more frequent meetings and conversations about town finances and really think carefully about how we share these fiduciary responsibilities.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:11 - 1:05:15)
So I assume we need to report on this one. I assume you guys didn't make a recommendation.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:16 - 1:05:16)
We did not.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:17 - 1:05:28)
So if okay with you, I'd make a motion to recommend favorable action on article three as amended. Fincom also did favorable action.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:28 - 1:05:34)
Yep, I see that. Any further discussion?

[Speaker 1] (1:05:34 - 1:05:35)
No, it's not written in your book.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:35 - 1:05:37)
No, I know, but I knew that.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:37 - 1:05:38)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:38 - 1:05:42)
Thank you. From four o'clock today, right?

[Speaker 9] (1:05:42 - 1:05:44)
Like this is a warrant for this case.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:44 - 1:05:44)
No, right.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:44 - 1:05:46)
No, I was just letting you know since I went to the meeting, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:47 - 1:05:47)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:47 - 1:05:48)
That's all.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:49 - 1:05:52)
Any further discussion? All those in favor?

[Speaker 15] (1:05:52 - 1:05:52)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:53 - 1:06:01)
Aye. Peter, you're an aye. I know you moved it, but I didn't.

Okay. All right, so that's done. Article four.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:03 - 1:06:11)
Hang on. So on article four, in my discussions with the superintendent today, I did. Nope, that's article five.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:11 - 1:06:15)
I'm like, why? So article four, there's a language change that we just would like to suggest.

[Speaker 15] (1:06:16 - 1:06:16)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:18 - 1:06:50)
Which is the insertion after the word free cash or other identified funds. Insert the phrase or other identified funds. And this is for the paying of collective bargaining agreements.

Our understanding is that it's not free cash that will actually pay these agreements, but funds that will actually flow to the general fund to do it. I'm looking at the finance direction to make sure that we're good with that. So article four would be amended after the words free cash with the phrase or other identified funds.

[Speaker 14] (1:06:50 - 1:06:51)
Yeah, we definitely need that.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:55 - 1:07:01)
Both the title of the article and within the body of the approved transfer free cash or other identified funds.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:01 - 1:07:17)
Yeah, I mean, I still get thrown off by why it says approved transfer free cash generally for funding the first year of a contract. That's not how we fund the first years of contracts, but I think it's collective bargaining agreements. It's the way I just do it.

I just think this free cash thing is.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:18 - 1:07:20)
Well, it especially doesn't make sense now.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:21 - 1:07:27)
Yeah. All right. And I don't think we, did you guys report on this?

[Speaker 2] (1:07:29 - 1:07:29)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:31 - 1:07:43)
Sorry to make a motion to recommend favorable action on article four. It will be amended on the floor or the floor motion will have the detailed numbers. Actually, maybe we should wait.

Sorry. Yeah. We don't have the numbers, so we're going to take no action.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:44 - 1:07:50)
Yeah. But well, we want to take action on the, I don't know if we have to vote on that though. Changing the language.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:51 - 1:07:55)
Yeah. No, I don't think we need to. I think we're going to vote to close it later with this.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:55 - 1:07:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:55 - 1:07:56)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:56 - 1:07:59)
So article five.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:59 - 1:08:04)
All right. So this is- And I think the same thing applies, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:08:04 - 1:08:05)
We're striking the first act.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:05 - 1:08:08)
Well, yes, if we're doing this article.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:09 - 1:09:18)
Yes. I wouldn't recommend that we just leave free cash. I would put a free cash or some of the money.

And in my discussions with the superintendent and the finance team today, the superintendent did share with me that she was hopeful that the select board would include a warrant article for the school's collective bargaining contract with the teachers. I shared with her that I would recommend tonight that we include this article as part of the annual warrant. This is- I did ask her for some additional information.

At this point, we typically would want to see a MOU, memorandum of understanding, that outlined the terms of the collective bargaining contract. The finances understand where we're paying it from and get a sense of the agreement. She did not have any information to share at this time, and she was hopeful that between now and town meeting that perhaps there will be some additional information.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:22 - 1:09:38)
Is that- That's a big unknown, I think. Do we have any- Does that capture all of the details that you know?

[Speaker 3] (1:09:39 - 1:09:49)
That does. In fact, there was no information. Our finance- Director of finance administration was in the meeting as well.

[Speaker 9] (1:09:50 - 1:10:17)
Was there additional information, Amy, that you heard that you could share with the board on- No, as of right now, they said they are not at a point where they've discussed what that gives debt would be for these one-time changes, just that they wanted the placeholder there. As they negotiate, so they are able to do this with the understanding that if they don't have this finalized in time for adequate discussion before annual town meeting, that this would be postponed.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:19 - 1:10:23)
Was adequate discussion, do we know? Enough for the finance committee.

[Speaker 9] (1:10:24 - 1:10:30)
Typically, we've had- Enough for the finance committee and the board to feel comfortable recommending this article.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:30 - 1:10:32)
And town financial team?

[Speaker 9] (1:10:32 - 1:10:33)
Yes, and them.

[Speaker 3] (1:10:33 - 1:10:42)
Yes. We'd need to know. This would have some significant financial impact on the town's financial position.

[Speaker 9] (1:10:43 - 1:10:52)
And the superintendent did say that they would be sharing all the information with us as it comes through. It's just at this time, they haven't hit that point in negotiations yet.

[Speaker 7] (1:10:52 - 1:11:05)
I would suggest that given we're going from no information to needing a lot of information in a short period of time, that this is not appropriate to keep on as a Warren article. I mean, we literally have nothing.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:07 - 1:11:09)
Well, there was no maximum.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:13 - 1:11:19)
Has the school department asked you what you believe to be available funds that they can even contemplate?

[Speaker 2] (1:11:20 - 1:11:21)
Yeah, do they have a sense of the ceiling?

[Speaker 1] (1:11:22 - 1:11:24)
Don't respond in dollars. It's a yes-no question.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:24 - 1:11:24)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:25 - 1:11:35)
Did they indicate that they were going to come to you before they had the negotiation to say, hey, this is what we want to do. Does it meet the financial guidelines or your financial plan?

[Speaker 3] (1:11:36 - 1:11:36)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:37 - 1:12:17)
Okay. So I agree with Don completely. I think this is just premature.

We wouldn't allow you to put a Warren article for your collective bargain agreements if you didn't share this information by the time we did the Warren. And the reason ours is happening is because you've signed for collective bargain agreements. We know exactly the amounts, and we actually know where the funds are coming from.

They're not coming from free cash. They're coming from other source. And so that's why we're comfortable, I think, with Article IV, because we have the information.

Article V, we have absolutely nothing. You haven't even been asked. You're not included in the negotiation, I sense.

I'm not. Okay. And so I just don't know why we would...

[Speaker 2] (1:12:17 - 1:12:52)
Well, I guess was there... My only last question, because I have the same inclination, is was there an analysis provided, at least, even though there wasn't a ceiling provided because it wasn't requested, apparently, or a ceiling given based on an estimate that they might have had, an analysis, hang on, sorry, a financial analysis from their budget in terms of what funds are available other than from free cash? Like, I don't know, ARCA funds or other funds that are part of the school, whatever is part of the school budget.

[Speaker 9] (1:12:52 - 1:13:13)
Yeah, so the director of finance at the schools did inquire about what was available in free cash, what we had left to stay within our financial policies, because it was discussed with the school committee and the superintendent that they would be hoping for this warrant article. So I did share with them what was available in free cash.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:14 - 1:13:22)
But they didn't provide an analysis to you from their financial end of why, that there's nowhere for this and here's why?

[Speaker 3] (1:13:23 - 1:15:10)
No. We did have a conversation, and I was pretty clear. We would need to do quite a bit of a deep dive into the financial implications, and that wouldn't simply be with town staff.

We would have to have, typically, a non-public with the select board, with the finance committee, and we would need to really roll up our sleeves and understand the give and get and how we would use one-time revenues to try to buy structural costs within the contract. Now, I do think the school finance team, the superintendent, intend to have that type of detailed conversation with the select board and finance committee, and so I don't want to, you know, not kind of share that, you know, update. It's just, like, every contract, you know, especially every difficult contract, it likely will take right up to the, as they say, the courthouse steps or the day of town meeting to get parties to try to get to an agreement.

We, you know, frankly, have had some of those difficult bargaining sessions, and I certainly, you know, assured the superintendent that I would lend my voice to advocate that we include this because it does help drive schedule for ultimate negotiations. That said, typically, we would require, you know, a lot more information, and it was clear the superintendent understood this was, you know, kind of a significant ask.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:13 - 1:16:56)
So I just, again, the fact that they asked you what our excess of free cash above the minimum of our guidelines doesn't actually, it's not actually the pertinent question. So how much is in our bank account? It doesn't actually say how much can we really spend.

How much have you already allocated? Other things in the next fiscal year, and to understand the 360 there, and, again, let me say this. I think the school finance director is terrific.

I mean, I think she's very thoughtful. She asks questions and stuff. I'm confused why the town administrator, who is statutorily part of the bargaining team for the school contracts, even if not in the room, in the act of negotiation, is not even privy to the cost-benefit analysis of what they're talking about that knows what this money would potentially be used for and had a robust conversation with the school financial team and the school department and the school committee about what really is realistically the available funds here. We hold the town administrator to that standard when we sit in, frankly, an executive session.

He comes back and says, this is what I think is the best deal, but this is what it's going to cost. We say, great, give us the analysis. Give us the financial analysis.

What's the return? Even if there isn't a return, now tell us what your financial needs are of free cash for the next year. And as a matter of fact, for these four collective bargaining agreements here, you are not using free cash because we are so close to that limit.

Although it's still robust, it's intended to be robust for a reason, to protect us. You aren't using free cash, right? It's because in conversations, we asked you to identify other things and you've identified other things and it's that type of conversation.

If any of that had been happening, then I think that makes sense to leave out hope, but all that has to happen in three weeks.

[Speaker 2] (1:16:57 - 1:17:41)
Well, that's my concern. Not only the dollars, which seem likely, but the pressure it would put all the way on every committee and then at worst case scenario on town meeting to have to work out the implications. It just seems like there's not enough time.

I do appreciate the attempt to, you know, get this on the warrant in advance and recognition of past practices and recommendations from you. I just feel like I don't know how it would ever get done, but hey, I'm not, this is gonna be, that's my feeling.

[Speaker 5] (1:17:41 - 1:17:52)
Can you explain, like what happens if we remove this article and what does that mean for their ability to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement and what are the steps for them?

[Speaker 3] (1:17:52 - 1:18:25)
I think it removes a lever that forces conversations. If they are thinking that town meeting can appropriate funds, then that gets pushed to a subsequent town meeting. And so it does take a little bit of the opportunity to fund an agreement that wouldn't solely rely on a school operating budget appropriation.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:26 - 1:19:27)
So, you know, take the lever off. I think you're being very generous with that. I'll just be honest with you, I think your response is generous.

I believe, look at it, to be my concern is I don't want the inclusion of this article to be mistaken as they can agree to write a check without including the town financial team on the analysis of what that is and to get in a situation where they come to you and say, well, we have an agreement. And you then have to be the skunk at the party to say that's fine, but we don't have a way to pay it. It is a backwards order.

They should be including you in the conversation and if you've had zero conversations about it, like truly about what they're really talking about, then that to me just actually just sets us up for a dispute and the dispute is, well, we need this to keep our teachers happy and do the best thing for our kids, which of course we know they want to do and of course that's what we want to do as well, but on town meeting floor it then becomes about, well, but they're asking us to do something that financially we're not prepared to do because we haven't even analyzed it, like we don't know.

And I just think it's setting up, even for the, so your leverage point, I think, is not really accurate here just because we're so far from even that point.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:27 - 1:20:37)
I understand. You know, Peter, obviously it does, you know, affirmatively I should know and we should know. We should actually, when we get contracts of this magnitude, this is the biggest financial obligation, the biggest contract, cost contract that we'll pay for any of our operating budgets.

This is where most of the taxes go and so having a really strong financial acumen for these contracts are the baseline of every successful municipal government. You know, we've talked a lot about the cost of contract and I've talked a lot about the cost of contract and so with all of that I did agree and did have a long conversation with the superintendent today and, you know, I certainly appreciate the board's concerns about making sure that we're ready to have this conversation with town meeting because I do think that absent that type of preparation this could go sideways.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:38 - 1:20:59)
So, I mean, based on the unknowns and the concerns that I think we've all raised, are we just, I don't know that it makes sense, we're not really helping to solve the problem of our concerns by recommending a definite postponement. We would have to be removing this entirely.

[Speaker 7] (1:20:59 - 1:21:03)
If we're ready, Madam Chair, I'd make a motion to remove Article 5.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:03 - 1:21:04)
Okay, well.

[Speaker 7] (1:21:04 - 1:21:05)
In its entirety.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:06 - 1:21:11)
No, no, I was just getting there but you were there in my mind. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:12 - 1:21:12)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:13 - 1:21:20)
All right, any further discussion? All right. All those in favor?

[Speaker 13] (1:21:20 - 1:21:20)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:22 - 1:21:36)
All right. Let's just remove Amy then, right? Obviously you got that.

Check. All right, Article 6 we, help me out, did we?

[Speaker 1] (1:21:36 - 1:21:39)
I think FinCom reported favorably, yes? And so did you guys previously?

[Speaker 2] (1:21:40 - 1:21:46)
We did, I thought. We were initially going to wait but then I think it didn't really matter, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:21:46 - 1:21:57)
On the 6 and 7? I don't know, let's vote on it again because I think you ultimately. I would make a motion to recommend favorable actions for Article 6 and 7.

And I'm just going to go with 8 to the extent you didn't at the transportation.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:58 - 1:21:58)
We already approved that.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:58 - 1:21:59)
Okay, 6 and 7.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:59 - 1:22:02)
Yeah. Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:02 - 1:22:02)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:03 - 1:22:06)
All in favor? Further discussion? Neal, you look concerned.

[Speaker 5] (1:22:07 - 1:22:11)
Well, I mean, I think I mentioned this at the meeting.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:11 - 1:22:11)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:22:11 - 1:23:10)
We can recommend favorable action, but I would just like to know the implications on the rates. If you've modeled, I think you mentioned that you've modeled the rates based on this transfer of retained earnings. So if we can see that, that would be helpful.

Because I think, I thought I heard mentioned, maybe it was at our meeting or at a FinCom meeting where this was assuming like a 2% or 3% increase. But I didn't know if that was in my two experiences with this. I didn't know in the first experience with this if that was overall 3% increase or if that was 3% to the consumption rate, but there was something else happening with the base rate.

So it would be good to know that, especially because these numbers seem conservative, and I don't want a 3% increase.

[Speaker 3] (1:23:10 - 1:23:24)
So we had to use some assumptions that were based on some static information of our prior year. So based on certain assumptions, you know, this is what the model had indicated.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:24 - 1:23:30)
We thought for what, but to answer a specific question, indicated to not have a rate increase greater than what percent?

[Speaker 16] (1:23:31 - 1:23:34)
3% for water, 2.75% for sewer.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:35 - 1:23:47)
All in. Consumption and base. Does that answer?

Yeah. Now, I likewise find these low amounts surprising to get to these things.

[Speaker 9] (1:23:47 - 1:23:48)
We were also surprised.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:48 - 1:24:01)
So I'm a little confused because the apocalypse was upon us last July, and we were like, oh my God, we don't have enough retained earnings to take care of this. So I don't know. It would be helpful to come back and give us a little backup on that, I think.

[Speaker 3] (1:24:01 - 1:24:05)
Patrick, would you like to come back and give that presentation? All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:06 - 1:24:10)
Does that answer your question, like the 3 and the 2.75?

[Speaker 5] (1:24:11 - 1:24:16)
Yeah. I mean, I think having gone through this.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:17 - 1:24:19)
Would you like to then not make a recommendation?

[Speaker 5] (1:24:19 - 1:24:23)
I think I'd rather just report on it at a meeting personally.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:23 - 1:24:26)
I would make a motion to undo our recommendation. Did we already vote on this?

[Speaker 2] (1:24:26 - 1:24:29)
No, no, we didn't. That's why, because I knew he was concerned.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:29 - 1:24:31)
She knew you were concerned. She just felt it. She felt you.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:32 - 1:24:32)
What's that?

[Speaker 1] (1:24:33 - 1:24:37)
You just felt it. You said you just felt it. Or a concern.

I saw it. No, you did.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:37 - 1:24:40)
If there was a gavel, I'd be handing it over. Geez.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:40 - 1:24:43)
All right. You think you felt it. I'm in the middle.

I really felt it.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:43 - 1:24:45)
Yeah. That's right. And then you channeled it.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:45 - 1:24:48)
I channeled it. Hopefully you don't hold it.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:48 - 1:24:57)
Anyway, we're not doing any. So there was a second, but we're not taking action. Correct.

We're postponing that. We'll report at town meeting.

[Speaker 5] (1:24:57 - 1:24:57)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:58 - 1:25:05)
Eight was already voted favorable action last time. Nine, we voted favorable action last time.

[Speaker 15] (1:25:05 - 1:25:05)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:08 - 1:25:16)
You got that one? Mm-hmm. Thank you.

Revolving funds, we voted favorable action last time.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:16 - 1:25:31)
Can I just ask on the revolving fund? Why? I understand that there has to be a cap on the expenditure, but what's the real motivation?

If the money's not there, the person can't spend it. How does the $300,000 tie with the revenue that's affected in the account? What's the thesis behind why the cap is?

[Speaker 3] (1:25:31 - 1:25:49)
It's a budget that rolls up. I asked for a budget that shows where that $300,000 will help program recreation. So over the last few years, we've increased recreational programs and initiatives, and this will help us do more.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:49 - 1:26:05)
But if the rec department said, I have a budget that says I'm going to literally if three months ago came to you and said, I have a budget for $500,000 worth of programming and expenditures, would you raise the cap for $500,000? I would. Okay.

That's all I want to make sure. There's some correlation as to where this number comes from.

[Speaker 3] (1:26:06 - 1:26:08)
I'd come back to town meeting. But town meeting has to authorize.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:08 - 1:26:13)
I got that. Okay. That's good.

It just seems arbitrary, but it's not.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:15 - 1:26:23)
Okay. So we had already voted favorable action on 10. Article 11, we are removing, correct?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:24 - 1:26:28)
Correct. Correct. You want to make a motion to remove Article 11?

[Speaker 2] (1:26:29 - 1:26:29)
I can't.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:30 - 1:26:31)
I just did.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:31 - 1:26:35)
I couldn't hear. All right. Any further discussion?

[Speaker 15] (1:26:36 - 1:26:37)
No.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:37 - 1:26:38)
All those in favor?

[Speaker 15] (1:26:38 - 1:26:39)
Aye. Aye. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:44 - 1:26:47)
Article 12. I think you.

[Speaker 9] (1:26:47 - 1:26:48)
This will be remembered.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:48 - 1:26:49)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:50 - 1:26:54)
The current Article 12. Do you guys recommend?

[Speaker 2] (1:26:54 - 1:26:59)
I don't. I think, Neil, did you want to get closer to the number or do we not care?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:00 - 1:27:01)
No, for 12, no.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:01 - 1:27:02)
Let's just be safe if we can.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:02 - 1:27:05)
I do a motion to recommend favorable action on Article 12.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:05 - 1:27:06)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:06 - 1:27:08)
The current Article, the appropriation for Chapter 90. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:09 - 1:27:19)
All those in favor? Aye. All right.

We definitely did not vote on Article 13 capital projects.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:22 - 1:27:29)
So can I just ask that we again highlight in green, just like you did the budget, where the CIC and FinCom numbers are different, if that's helpful to committee members.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:32 - 1:27:34)
I need time. I personally would need time to.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:35 - 1:27:36)
That's fine. Let's not take action on it.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:36 - 1:27:38)
Does anyone else, though? Because I'm just one person.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:38 - 1:27:39)
No, no.

[Speaker 13] (1:27:39 - 1:27:41)
That's fine. We'll talk about it later.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:41 - 1:27:55)
All right. So we're going to record a town meeting on Article 13. Article 14, we went, oh, we are going, can we just incorporate presentations?

Or do you want to get through the rest of the warrant? Let's come back to those.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:56 - 1:27:57)
Why do we have someone here?

[Speaker 2] (1:27:57 - 1:28:01)
Sorry. Yes. On the agenda, we have presentations from our citizen petitioners.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:02 - 1:28:03)
Are they here?

[Speaker 2] (1:28:03 - 1:28:10)
I don't know, but my point is that I think we should, it's not, we're not at that agenda. item. Should we just?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:10 - 1:28:17)
Well, we are at the agenda. I'd recommend we put these at the end. Can we just, so, can we just, so, I just am saying I'm.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:17 - 1:28:22)
Yes, I feel, I agree if they're not here. But we are still going through the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:23 - 1:28:23)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:24 - 1:28:25)
Great. Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:26 - 1:28:27)
Sixteen.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:30 - 1:28:34)
Okay. Article 16.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:36 - 1:28:37)
I would like to move.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:38 - 1:28:40)
Is there anyone that's going to?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:40 - 1:29:17)
Not here, I don't believe. I would like to move that we, I think it's great, I'm not a fan of partial edits to bylaws over multiple town meetings. There has been conversation about a bigger rewrite of the whole earth meeting bylaw.

And so I think that while some of these are really good intentions, I just don't want to keep going back to town meetings with incremental changes to bylaws. It's just very consistent with what we talked about with the planning board stuff last time. And so same with earth removal.

So I would suggest that we take this out of the warrant.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:24 - 1:29:26)
We can do that if the planning board also has to?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:26 - 1:29:33)
No. No, I was analogizing with the planning board. The planning board has no role in the earth removal.

It's us only.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:33 - 1:29:36)
Oh, I'm just wondering why is it here then? What's that?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:36 - 1:29:39)
I misread it. It says the planning board. That's a typo.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:40 - 1:29:40)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (1:29:41 - 1:29:43)
So we do have sole authority to remove it?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:43 - 1:29:44)
Well, we have it anyways.

[Speaker 9] (1:29:45 - 1:29:46)
The warrant is solely the select board.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:47 - 1:29:52)
It doesn't matter who sponsors the article. We're the ones that. This is the select board's warrant.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:53 - 1:30:12)
Thank you. I know. But I usually, if you put things on here, I'm sorry, I'm looking at Angela, the chair of the planning board, and you have favorable action, I wouldn't want to not hear from you or consider that.

That's all I'm saying. But we don't because that's here accidentally, right?

[Speaker 15] (1:30:12 - 1:30:12)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:13 - 1:30:20)
Which makes sense since it's an advisory committee. But anyway. So did Peter just make a motion to remove Article 16?

[Speaker 7] (1:30:21 - 1:30:22)
I did. I will second.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:23 - 1:30:52)
All right. Any further discussion? I support removal.

I feel bad. I know Tony is here and I'm Zoomed here. And I appreciate the efforts and they're very careful in their reviews.

I just, I do think that there is a larger amendment, amendments happening, kind of in the works of happening. And I think doing it at once makes more sense.

[Speaker 5] (1:30:54 - 1:30:55)
Makes sense to me.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:56 - 1:31:13)
All right. I will move to approve Article 16 as written in this warrant. Aye.

Okay. Article 17. Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (1:31:13 - 1:31:16)
Long, strong hand. I'm not sure if we're going to acknowledge that.

[Speaker 15] (1:31:19 - 1:31:20)
Yeah. Yes, we should.

[Speaker 11] (1:31:20 - 1:31:20)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:21 - 1:31:23)
Sorry. Do I just click on it?

[Speaker 15] (1:31:23 - 1:31:25)
Yes. See if you can promote her.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:25 - 1:31:27)
I think put her as a panelist and then unmute her.

[Speaker 15] (1:31:40 - 1:31:40)
Hi, good afternoon.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:40 - 1:31:43)
Can you hear me? Hi, Tony. Thanks so much.

Yes. Hi.

[Speaker 12] (1:31:43 - 1:32:33)
No, I just wanted to mention that we had had these non-Quarry-related amendments come up for a few years now. And some of them dealing with the makeup of the advisory committee, it seemed important to just get those through. And it seemed a logical division that we were focusing on the non-Quarry edits to the bylaw and leaving a larger rewrite of the bylaw that would deal with the Quarry for another day, because it sounds like it might be a little while before that gets done.

And these modest changes, as I said, have been something we've been trying to get on the warrant for a number of years.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:36 - 1:33:17)
OK, thank you, Tony. I appreciate that. Does anyone have other thoughts going back to our recent decision based on Tony's feedback?

I do understand. I'm just going to wait. Sorry, I'm waiting.

I think they're reviewing. I know you said no, but I just don't. I'd rather get an affirmative no than others.

[Speaker 7] (1:33:19 - 1:33:28)
I appreciate Tony's comments, but I'd rather get a comprehensive review.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:31 - 1:33:31)
OK.

[Speaker 5] (1:33:32 - 1:33:33)
Yeah, I think we try to do it all at once.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:34 - 1:33:48)
OK. All right. All right, thanks for sharing, Tony.

All right, so Article 17. Angela, are you good?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:48 - 1:33:49)
No, I think this is the one we went through last week.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:50 - 1:34:14)
Yeah, but don't we need to talk about, didn't we make changes? We're supposed to be talking about the use table. We didn't approve it yet.

Right. You asked that we make changes. We did.

We got town council review and approvals, and now I'm presenting the final draft. Right. Thank you.

That's Article 15 now, as far as I'm concerned.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:14 - 1:34:16)
Yeah, we're still calling it 17, just because that's what we're looking at.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:16 - 1:34:24)
Yeah, just for ease of review. I had 15, but that's probably just working that out. At one point, it was 15.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:24 - 1:34:25)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:34 - 1:34:37)
Actually, it should be in your packet. Yep, it is.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:38 - 1:34:39)
But is it Article 16?

[Speaker 5] (1:34:39 - 1:34:41)
Appendix B, Article 16.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:41 - 1:34:43)
It's Article 16, so it's, what is it?

[Speaker 5] (1:34:43 - 1:34:45)
In the packet. No, wait, it's all going to change.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:45 - 1:34:56)
It's all going to change. No, I know. I'm just saying.

It's wrong even when we're referring to it. Would you like me to review it for you?

[Speaker 1] (1:34:56 - 1:35:02)
No, I don't need you to, but if others want to do it, I'm OK with presentation. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:02 - 1:35:45)
Essentially, you had asked for a couple of changes, just some clarification of language in the chart itself. And then you had asked me to put together some criteria language to be added to the criteria page for the select board to use when granting new special permits, which we did. And all of this has been reviewed by town council.

I was also asked to put together a comment for the warrant page for the article itself, not just the appendix, but the article itself, which I submitted this morning. I think you got it, Sean. And so the comment is prepared as well.

[Speaker 2] (1:36:00 - 1:36:23)
Peter, you had mentioned something in passing about one of the lines that was inserted, something about the second floor. And I just wanted to make sure that that's OK from your land use view, that you don't have concerns about that. Otherwise, I'm good.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:25 - 1:36:40)
So I guess I'll get to that point in a second. Polly, thank you for that reminder. In the criteria language that you added for the use special permits for commercial establishments, commercial establishments isn't a defined term.

I'm wondering what you mean by commercial establishments, anything that's not residential?

[Speaker 4] (1:36:41 - 1:36:43)
No, anything that exists in the commercial district.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:44 - 1:37:05)
So OK, so I think we have to be more refined. But let me say it this way. And I think this is inadvertently broad.

For example, a retail use, a soft goods retail use, if three stores, I don't think there's anything offensive about having a Marshall's, a Gap, and a TJ Maxx wanting to come in.

[Speaker 15] (1:37:05 - 1:37:06)
That's correct.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:06 - 1:37:23)
So I don't think you're trying to get to that type of commercial use. You're trying to get to a specific commercial use for the use special permit limitation on proximity to each other. I think you're trying to get to financial institutions and maybe some personal service establishments.

And so I think you just need to narrow it down further.

[Speaker 4] (1:37:24 - 1:37:54)
We were advised not to do that, but to rather narrow it down by means of a number of similar businesses in categories within similar businesses. In other words, we could have five restaurants in a row is great. Five Mexican restaurants in a row, I love Mexican food, so it has nothing to do with that, would not be something that we might want.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:55 - 1:38:01)
But that's not what the provision was ever. Well, that wasn't the conversation we were having. We weren't worried about five Mexican restaurants.

We were worried about 22 banks.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:02 - 1:38:17)
That's right. That's correct. And what we did was it just happened to be that the banks were, for some reason, singled out as a use that was allowed by right.

Whereas no other use was allowed by right. Every other use was allowed by special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:17 - 1:38:20)
That's not true. It's depending on the size of the use.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:20 - 1:38:21)
Depending on the size of the business.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:21 - 1:38:26)
Right. That's right. Anything in a bin square, anything 5,000 square feet and less, I think, is as of right.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:26 - 1:38:33)
Right, which was precisely the reason why the bank was able to go in and- No, no, no, I understand.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:34 - 1:38:50)
OK, so I think my point here is I'm fine including this. I believe this combined with the fact that the use table inadvertently now has left out things like a financial establishment above 5,000 square feet that's not on the first floor. Is that allowed or not allowed?

[Speaker 4] (1:38:51 - 1:38:53)
It does say, excuse me.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:54 - 1:38:56)
There's a rhetorical question there, but it's OK.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:56 - 1:38:58)
I think it's in the use table.

[Speaker 15] (1:38:58 - 1:38:58)
It's not.

[Speaker 4] (1:39:01 - 1:39:12)
So bank or financial institution containing less than 2,000 square feet of gross floor area on the ground floor. So in other words, mortgage, credit union.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:12 - 1:39:13)
And the next one says a bank.

[Speaker 4] (1:39:13 - 1:39:19)
On the second floor, bank or financial institution containing less than, that's not in.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:19 - 1:39:58)
So it says number 32 is bank containing more than 5,000 square feet on the ground floor. Right. Where is a bank on the second floor containing more than 5,000 square feet?

That doesn't exist now. Right. And so I'm just, for example, I'm not doing it because it's inclusive.

I just think it's what we should do is I'm fine including, I personally think it's great. This is really good stuff. That's including the Warren article.

But I suggest why don't we work on the language such that the motion on the floor will include an addendum that will be handed out at town meeting that will have some modified language just to make sure that these little things are taken care of and we don't have discrepancies.

[Speaker 4] (1:39:58 - 1:40:03)
Agreed. So we would insert a line after number 32.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:05 - 1:40:06)
Yeah, for example. I mean, let's.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:06 - 1:40:07)
I understand what you're saying.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:07 - 1:40:11)
Yeah, we'll take a break and then we'll come back and we'll all look at it. And you and I can sit down with town council or whoever.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:12 - 1:40:13)
And we'll just put something in.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:13 - 1:40:17)
Yeah, just come up with it. That way when you're doing the floor motion, it includes everything that everybody thinks should be in.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:17 - 1:40:24)
That would be great. And additionally, if you have any suggestions for the criteria paragraph.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:25 - 1:40:29)
No, it'll be interesting to hear town council explain what they were trying to protect against.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:29 - 1:40:33)
OK. But we can certainly, I think, amend that on the floor, too, if necessary.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:33 - 1:40:33)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:34 - 1:40:40)
Thank you. And so I'm just going to let you go ahead and make whatever motion you're thinking about.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:40 - 1:40:49)
I would just make a motion for favorable action on article whatever. It was zoning article. 17 as it appears.

17 as it currently appears in our thing.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:50 - 1:40:53)
And with the understanding that you'll be working.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:53 - 1:40:54)
Or do you want to just.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:54 - 1:40:55)
I know it's not contingent.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:55 - 1:40:56)
Let me just report on that.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:56 - 1:40:57)
OK, never mind.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:57 - 1:40:58)
We'll report it to town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:58 - 1:41:00)
I don't care. No, no, no. No, Neil's right.

We're going to report it to town meeting.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:02 - 1:41:05)
That's not unusual for. No, it's not. Yep.

[Speaker 15] (1:41:05 - 1:41:06)
No. OK.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:06 - 1:41:07)
Well, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:08 - 1:41:15)
Thank you. It's a great last meeting. I really feel like I'm nasty.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:15 - 1:41:17)
Look at all the work you're getting done. Look at all the work you're getting done tonight.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:18 - 1:41:18)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:19 - 1:41:24)
You set a new standard. Next meeting is going to be totally unproductive. Oh, my gosh.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:24 - 1:41:27)
OK. All right. So article 18.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:29 - 1:41:38)
I just have some change in the language on article 18 that I'd like to suggest.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:39 - 1:41:40)
The appendix or in the article?

[Speaker 5] (1:41:40 - 1:41:41)
No, in the article itself.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:41 - 1:41:42)
OK.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:42 - 1:42:12)
The appendix. Amy, I sent you a final draft. I don't know if that's what's in here now.

OK. I mean, they were tiny. So it doesn't really matter, actually.

But the language in the article itself, I'd like to change. So it just says, to see if the town will vote to adopt the Climate Action Plan Resolution included in Appendix D, which was developed by the Swampscot Climate Action and Resilience Coalition, a citizen-led group of volunteers, period. And that's all it says.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:16 - 1:42:19)
So you're taking out the word authorize.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:19 - 1:42:25)
Authorize. For a sentence. Yeah.

So vote to adopt. And then forget about all the other language.

[Speaker 9] (1:42:27 - 1:42:30)
Did anyone get the article comment?

[Speaker 5] (1:42:31 - 1:42:33)
No. Well, do you have a comment?

[Speaker 3] (1:42:33 - 1:42:37)
I actually sent you a comment yesterday for this.

[Speaker 13] (1:42:40 - 1:42:42)
Well, it'd be great if we saw it.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:43 - 1:42:43)
OK.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:44 - 1:42:45)
Well, do we want to hear it?

[Speaker 1] (1:42:45 - 1:42:49)
Is there something that you can send to us so we can look at it? Sure. We're closing the warrants.

So I just want to.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:49 - 1:42:55)
Yeah. Maybe Amy.

[Speaker 7] (1:42:55 - 1:42:56)
Amy, if you.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:57 - 1:42:58)
Has it in her junk mail?

[Speaker 7] (1:42:58 - 1:43:01)
Could you forward that off to her? Oh, that is so cool.

[Speaker 2] (1:43:03 - 1:43:06)
It wouldn't be her putting it there, you guys. This is a joke.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:06 - 1:43:19)
Did you also provide one for indigenous persons? I did. OK.

I'm going to need that as well. While she's looking for those, do you mind if we go back and talk about the citizen petitions and scenarios here?

[Speaker 3] (1:43:19 - 1:43:21)
I may have sent it to you, too.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:21 - 1:43:24)
Well, you don't get away with that at all.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:25 - 1:43:25)
Understood.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:25 - 1:43:30)
Not a chance. I think I have it in one of your warrants.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:30 - 1:43:39)
It was the one that I sent you yesterday afternoon.

[Speaker 2] (1:43:48 - 1:44:11)
OK. So while that's happening, Articles 18 and 19, then why don't we, the comment, looking for the comments for Articles 18 and 19 as currently listed in this warrant, let's go back to the current articles. What was it?

13 and 14?

[Speaker 5] (1:44:12 - 1:44:13)
14 and 15.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:13 - 1:44:31)
14 and 15. And we just have to, is Tessia Vasiliou present? Could you switch to attendees just so we can see?

Oh, OK.

[Speaker 12] (1:44:31 - 1:44:35)
On her and Taylor Millman, she's the second one. She's not on her.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:35 - 1:44:37)
OK. OK.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:38 - 1:45:00)
All right. So in the past, how we've handled citizen petitions is that, being as they are and having no ability, legal ability, to influence or correct or amend the language, it has to be as written by the petitioner. We have not taken action on it.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:01 - 1:45:12)
I heard you guys talking about it the night that I was sitting back there listening to a FinCom meeting, and that's actually not accurate. We have, on citizen petitions, taken positions. And FinCom, as a matter of fact, took positions today on both citizen petitions.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:13 - 1:45:46)
So I'm not actually kidding. I was going to say, but, because there's financial implications, I don't know what, oh, no. Well, I just feel like I need to justify that we just got this, so I didn't see what FinCom had recommended.

On this particular one, I knew about the budget stuff. But yeah. So they recommend, FinCom recommends indefinite postponement.

And anyway, so that's my position that we would weigh in on it.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:46 - 1:45:47)
That we wouldn't?

[Speaker 2] (1:45:48 - 1:45:48)
Would.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:48 - 1:45:56)
Would. So on both of these, I would make a recommendation for indefinite postponement on both the citizen petitions.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:56 - 1:45:58)
OK, so you want to take them together?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:59 - 1:45:59)
Yeah, I was just making that.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:59 - 1:46:11)
Because I would recommend indefinite postponement. I would recommend us voting on it for different reasons, obviously, based on number 15. But it implies a change for us, so.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:13 - 1:46:26)
In change meaning giving us something like appointing authority, you mean, that change? Yeah, I just think it's wrong to give the select board appointing authority to FinCom members. I agree with you.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:26 - 1:46:29)
So you just made a motion indefinite postponement for both, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:46:29 - 1:46:32)
I just wanted to make clear for me the reasons. OK.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:32 - 1:46:33)
If you want to do them separately, that's fine.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:33 - 1:46:34)
No, no.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:35 - 1:46:38)
Indefinite postponement of both citizen petitions.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:39 - 1:46:40)
I'll second that.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:42 - 1:46:46)
All right, any further discussion? All right. All those in favor?

[Speaker 15] (1:46:47 - 1:46:47)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:52 - 1:46:59)
All right, so any progress on 18 and 19?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:00 - 1:47:05)
Can I, while they're still searching, can we just talk about order of warrant articles, if you don't mind?

[Speaker 6] (1:47:05 - 1:47:05)
Sure, go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:06 - 1:47:19)
I don't know how I feel, but I tend to want the two last warrant articles. Are we comfortable with, let me just put this, are we comfortable with the order of where they are now, or does anybody want to suggest a change to the order?

[Speaker 2] (1:47:21 - 1:47:23)
You mean citizen petitions for the last?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:23 - 1:47:30)
No, just any of them generally, but no, no. I think, having thought about it more, I think I'm probably comfortable with the order.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:31 - 1:47:32)
I'm fine with the order myself.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:32 - 1:47:34)
Where it is, so I think it's.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:34 - 1:47:35)
Can we just move the order from the last one?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:38 - 1:47:52)
Yeah, we're, oh, so, yeah, no, no, I'm looking at the, I'm looking at the version, yeah, just. OK, all right. You can do the changes we've made tonight.

So do you find comments? I did, I just, yeah, I just emailed them. Great, thank you.

[Speaker 13] (1:47:56 - 1:47:58)
No more. OK. Sure, no more.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:59 - 1:48:03)
So do you want me to just read the comments for 15 allowed, the climate change resolution?

[Speaker 10] (1:48:03 - 1:48:04)
Great.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:05 - 1:48:32)
Comment, we're seeking town meetings support, I mean, I already need to edit this, OK, for creating a comprehensive climate plan as we seek to join other Massachusetts communities that are taking a leadership position on building a more sustainable future. This is a non-binding resolution that will help encourage the creation of a comprehensive climate action plan for adoption by town meeting next year. The select board recommends favorable action on this article at town meeting.

That's not part of the comment, but.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:32 - 1:48:43)
I think that comment's, that comment's fine. I would just say we are seeking town meeting support, not, or, you know, but.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:43 - 1:48:45)
Yeah, OK, maybe that's OK.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:45 - 1:48:48)
That comment works. OK, I'm good with those as well.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:48 - 1:48:51)
OK, and then just in hyphen between, yeah, non-binding.

[Speaker 9] (1:48:51 - 1:48:53)
So we're seeking town meeting support.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:54 - 1:49:04)
Yeah, and a hyphen between, yeah. All right, so with our comment approved as amended, what?

[Speaker 13] (1:49:05 - 1:49:06)
I'm sorry, were you going to go to article 16?

[Speaker 5] (1:49:06 - 1:49:09)
No, we have the Indigenous Peoples Day comment also.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:09 - 1:49:12)
Well, the motion is for everything together. Didn't we move these together? No, we didn't.

[Speaker 15] (1:49:12 - 1:49:13)
We didn't.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:13 - 1:49:22)
Sorry, my fault. The citizen petitions were moved out of the way. He's just trying to, no, he's just.

It's a coup. I will make a motion.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:22 - 1:49:23)
We're going to walk out in shame. I will make a motion.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:24 - 1:49:34)
I'm going to get us out of here. That's what we're going to do tonight. I would make a motion to approve the climate resiliency article, climate change resolution article with the comment just read.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:35 - 1:49:38)
As amended. Is there a second?

[Speaker 7] (1:49:38 - 1:49:38)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:39 - 1:49:42)
OK, any further discussion? All those in favor?

[Speaker 7] (1:49:42 - 1:49:43)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:43 - 1:49:58)
Aye. OK, article 16. Wait a minute.

Oh, wait, it's article, why do we have two?

[Speaker 13] (1:49:59 - 1:50:04)
We do, we have two, we have multiple. Article 19 as it appears in the warrant.

[Speaker 9] (1:50:04 - 1:50:06)
Yeah. OK, we'll go through and read them anyway.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:06 - 1:50:08)
That's article 16, 17, 16, 16.

[Speaker 9] (1:50:09 - 1:50:11)
Oh, I printed it before. Mine doesn't even look like it.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:11 - 1:50:14)
Oh, well, I'm glad it's good. OK.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:16 - 1:50:45)
All right, I'm just, the Indigenous Peoples Day proclamation. The comment that is proposed is, Columbus Day is an annual federal holiday that occurs on the second Monday in October each year. Therefore, since it is a federal holiday, the town does not have the ability to officially change the name of the holiday.

With this, there is no reason why the town could not vote to adopt a different name locally that honors our Native American history and the Indigenous peoples as we seek to commemorate their histories and cultures.

[Speaker 5] (1:50:48 - 1:50:59)
I don't have a policy. I think that's fine.

[Speaker 14] (1:51:06 - 1:51:21)
I just want to look at that whole thing, if I may, before we move on.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:38 - 1:51:39)
Are we at a point to take a motion?

[Speaker 2] (1:51:42 - 1:51:44)
Yeah, I was looking at a potential edit, but.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:48 - 1:51:58)
Can I suggest in the second sentence, third sentence, where it says, with this, there is no reason, instead start it by saying, however, comma, there is no reason.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:59 - 1:52:06)
Or there is no reason. Yeah, yeah, all right. And then maybe.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:06 - 1:52:15)
So however, comma, there is no reason. My favorite town administrator likes the phrase, with this. He loves that phrase.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:15 - 1:52:21)
It's amazing. What do other people think about and the Indigenous peoples after Native American history?

[Speaker 3] (1:52:21 - 1:52:23)
I also like, lo and behold. What's the question?

[Speaker 7] (1:52:24 - 1:52:24)
What vis-a-vis?

[Speaker 2] (1:52:26 - 1:52:27)
Like, honestly.

[Speaker 5] (1:52:27 - 1:52:28)
What's the question?

[Speaker 2] (1:52:29 - 1:52:34)
Well, it's not you. And the Indigenous peoples after Native American history.

[Speaker 5] (1:52:36 - 1:52:38)
What are you saying? I just think it's. Are you striking it?

[Speaker 2] (1:52:38 - 1:52:50)
Yeah, it's kind of just like. Just that part and the Indigenous peoples. I just feel like we don't need.

It makes it sound like we aren't actually referencing. We're just, I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:51 - 1:52:59)
Well, it's Indigenous Peoples Day, so it kind of feels like we need to be celebrating the Indigenous peoples. No, I'm serious.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:59 - 1:53:02)
I know, but there's Native American history right before that.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:02 - 1:53:06)
Yeah, actually, if you were to strike one, I would be striking Native American history and keeping it.

[Speaker 2] (1:53:06 - 1:53:07)
OK, that honors.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:07 - 1:53:12)
That honors the Indigenous peoples as we seek to commemorate their histories and cultures.

[Speaker 2] (1:53:12 - 1:53:15)
Not the, but yeah. That honors Indigenous people.

[Speaker 9] (1:53:16 - 1:53:19)
Do you want to keep our or just honor Indigenous?

[Speaker 2] (1:53:19 - 1:53:32)
No, it's not ours. That's the entire opposite point of where you're going. Our Indigenous people, oh my god.

OK, and then I don't know why there's peoples. Can we just do people?

[Speaker 1] (1:53:35 - 1:53:38)
I don't know. I think it's peoples.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:38 - 1:54:13)
Different tribes, different groups. I just think it reflects on just the different cultures and the different histories. This was a very unique land.

And as we kind of think more critically about that history that has been almost completely ripped out of our academic textbooks, it's going to take us some time to really understand it.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:13 - 1:54:19)
I'm just going to save you on this one, Sean. Peoples should be reserved for instances where you are referring to more than one distinct ethnic group.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:19 - 1:54:23)
I think we are. I think we're ready to make a motion to.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:23 - 1:54:40)
But I just want to say, I just didn't want to casually throw in. It just makes it, we want to actually honor this by being careful with our language. So I appreciate that we took the time.

Do you need to be clear on what we're doing? Nope, that was the only one.

[Speaker 9] (1:54:40 - 1:54:50)
Not our. And however, not while there is an out. Columbus Day is an annual federal holiday that occurs on the second Monday in October each year.

Therefore, since it is a federal holiday, the town does not have the ability to.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:50 - 1:54:52)
Oh, actually, strike therefore, too.

[Speaker 9] (1:54:53 - 1:55:08)
Since it is a federal holiday, the town does not have the ability to officially change the name of the holiday. However, comma, there is no reason why the town could not vote to adopt a different name locally to honor its indigenous peoples as we seek to commemorate their histories and cultures.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:09 - 1:55:12)
Thank you. I move favorable action with that comment.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:12 - 1:55:15)
As amended, right? OK. Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:55:16 - 1:55:16)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:16 - 1:55:17)
All those in favor?

[Speaker 13] (1:55:18 - 1:55:22)
Aye. Great. All right.

[Speaker 14] (1:55:24 - 1:55:28)
All right. We did it, right? We're through.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:28 - 1:55:31)
We did something. We did a lot.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:33 - 1:55:36)
So now are we really doing the closing?

[Speaker 1] (1:55:36 - 1:55:40)
Well, I think we got to close. We got to make a motion to vote to close the town.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:40 - 1:55:40)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:40 - 1:55:44)
So I would move to close the annual town meeting warrant with consistent.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:44 - 1:55:56)
Wait a second. Sorry. Just as a separate agenda item, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to be clear. Angela, it has you presenting on the zoning changes. I just want to make sure we've captured everything you had to say about that.

[Speaker 4] (1:55:56 - 1:56:04)
Yes. I mean, there wasn't much to say. It was just some of the changes I had made from the request that you made at the last meeting.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:04 - 1:56:13)
Yep. I just see it was as a separate agenda item, so I just wanted to make sure before we moved on. Yes, you're welcome.

Thanks so much. All right. Sorry, Peter.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:13 - 1:56:19)
I'd make a motion to close the annual town meeting warrant consistent with the votes of the board tonight.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:21 - 1:56:23)
Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion?

[Speaker 5] (1:56:24 - 1:56:25)
No.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:25 - 1:56:26)
OK. All those in favor?

[Speaker 9] (1:56:26 - 1:56:35)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

Can the board also either decide they're signing wet ink or vote to allow digital signatures?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:35 - 1:56:39)
I make a motion to allow the attachment of our electronic signatures on the final warrant.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:39 - 1:56:40)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:40 - 1:56:40)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:41 - 1:56:45)
Wait a minute. How does this work when two people are going to be voting on?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:45 - 1:56:47)
It's going to be here in a second right now.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:47 - 1:56:48)
It's based off who is here.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:48 - 1:56:52)
Yeah. Today. You're still.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:52 - 1:56:53)
And then add something to it.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:53 - 1:57:01)
You're still until, you know. No. The town book swears somebody in tomorrow.

You're a citizen.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:01 - 1:57:08)
Yes, no, I know. But we just, I'm, forget it. I just forget it.

Forget it. I just, I'm not making sense apparently.

[Speaker 7] (1:57:08 - 1:57:10)
In my eyes, you're always a select citizen.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:11 - 1:57:20)
That's because you're leaving too, John. You want everyone to say that about you. I'm just joking.

That's fine. Yeah, electronic. Is there a second for the electronic signatures?

[Speaker 7] (1:57:21 - 1:57:21)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:21 - 1:57:22)
All right. All those in favor?

[Speaker 7] (1:57:23 - 1:57:23)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:24 - 1:57:32)
All right. We're plowing through here. Margie, thank you for your patience.

We appreciate it.

[Speaker 11] (1:57:32 - 1:57:39)
Well, so it's actually Angela who will be doing the quick presentation. And we just have a, just a couple of slides. So we're going to.

Sorry, Angela. I didn't mean to.

[Speaker 6] (1:57:41 - 1:57:43)
I just had Margie on the agenda. That's okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:48 - 1:59:30)
Okay, so I can begin. So the purpose of our being here tonight is to make a formal presentation to the select board. As required by the new zoning regulation adopted by the state.

These are multifamily zoning requirements for MBTA communities. Section 18 of chapter 358 of the acts of 2020 added section 3A to chapter 40A of the general laws, the zoning act, applicable to MBTA communities, which is referred to as section 3A. And it requires cities and towns, 51 cities and towns, which are considered MBTA communities, to adopt some zoning changes.

So, what are MBTA communities? So as I just mentioned, there are 51 MBTA communities in the state of Massachusetts. They are communities, which you can see on this map, highlighted in blue, dark blue.

And I think there's light green in there. And they're communities that have subway or light rail. They have bus access or a bus station.

They have commuter rail or they are MBTA adjacent. For the purpose of this discussion, Swampscott is considered a bus community. So one of the major, what is the- Why do you think that is, Angela?

[Speaker 3] (1:59:30 - 1:59:31)
We have a community.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:31 - 2:00:43)
I don't, I- Is that an error? I don't think it's an error. I think there's a, specifically a formula that the, actually it would be preferable for us to be considered, I mean, in terms of density, to be considered an MBTA community because the, only 15% of our existing housing stock would need to be used in the calculation of how many units we needed to add.

As it being a bus community, 20% of our identified housing units, which is a little over 6,000 units, have to be available through the zoning. In other words, we are, we'd be required to zone for an additional, I think it's about an additional 1,257 units. And to say exactly why we were targeted as bus instead of MBTA when we don't have a bus station, but we do have quite vital- Ever-increasing.

Pardon me?

[Speaker 3] (2:00:43 - 2:00:45)
Ever-increasing commuter rail.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:47 - 2:00:49)
I can't answer that question for you at this time.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:51 - 2:00:51)
Sure.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:51 - 2:11:43)
I don't know the exact, I don't know the exact reason. Margie and I were fortunate to have a gentleman by the name of Josh McCabe from Harbor Light Community Partners, who has, I know he's, he is a housing advocate working for the Harbor Light Community Partners. He presented to the planning board a couple of weeks ago to brief us on this new MBTA zoning bylaw.

And he put together a presentation for us, which I've modified somewhat, and which we're going to review with you tonight. The reason we are reviewing this with you tonight is because there are certain compliance factors that every city and town is, who are identified as MBTA community towns, are obligated to complete by certain dates. So on this compliance schedule, May 2nd is the first date that we need to address.

And on, before May 2nd, we are required to hold a briefing on the draft guidelines for our select board, and attest to that on the MBTA community information form, which we are also required to submit by May 2nd. Margie will be completing and submitting the community information form after this meeting tonight, and after we've been able to attest to the fact that we have indeed presented this outline of the draft guidelines to the select board. So just to be clear, there is no action required on your part tonight.

We certainly will need to spend a lot of time going over this in the future. And as it is, it will be a complicated amendment to adopt. However, so just to outline what the MBTA zoning law is all about.

So there's a major aspect of the MBTA zoning bylaw, or Section 3A. So it establishes a new requirement that all MBTA communities should have a zoning district of reasonable size that allows for the construction of multifamily housing by right. Multifamily housing in Massachusetts is defined as three units or more.

We don't, the town currently does not have a zoning district. Where three families are allowed by right. We have two families by right, three to eight special permit, and then we have various other types of zoning.

So we would have to create that kind of a zoning district. And the district needs to meet four requirements in particular. There has to be a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre.

It can't be more than a half a mile from a commuter rail station, a subway station, a ferry terminal, or a bus station, if applicable. There can be no age restrictions. And it must be, the housing must be suitable for families and children.

Interestingly, there is no affordability guideline in here. Our inclusionary bylaw would apply, or could apply. Certainly if we, when we construct the zoning, so we can choose to develop zoning that has an affordability component.

So as part of a stakeholder engagement process that public had until March 31st to submit comments to the DHCD, but the DHCD is currently working on final draft guidelines, they're actually not available yet. They're supposed to be available to cities and towns this summer. This bylaw doesn't, it doesn't require us to bulldoze and build.

Okay, it's not a mandate. Creating the zoning is a requirement. But, you know, bulldozing and building is not a requirement.

It also doesn't require what, require us to develop one size fits all zoning. We can think about our town and where we think this zoning would work best. We can think about our needs in terms of the types of housing we have been trying to provide, our, the rest of our environment in terms of could we actually improve other sections of town by developing housing around it?

And I think if we look at this creatively enough, we can we can work with it to create other improvements in town as well. Again, the law does not mandate any affordability component, but it does allow them, if they, as long as they don't unduly impede any kind of development, so we wouldn't want to say, you know, our, our inclusion and zoning bylaw is going to apply, except now it's going to be 50% of your development instead of 10%, which would, you know, discourage someone from wanting to build in, in the zone, so we, we can't make it prohibitive. So, the district size and location is an interesting part about this. You know, the, the initial concept is that it can't be it should be sort of a half mile, you know, radius around the MBTA station.

But we are a bus community, and because we have bus access and, and very and very substantial bus access in different parts of town, for example, Benning Square, we can locate this we can locate our district wherever we would want to. At 15 units per acre, for us to develop the 12, over 1,200 units that the, this zoning would require us to develop, we would need something like 85 acres, which we don't have. So, the minimum amount of land we can use for our zone is 50 acres.

At 50 acres, we're looking at more like 26 units per acre. Our, if we needed to break it down, for example, we could break it the, the smallest way we can break it down, those 50 acres, we can have one of 25 acres, and then the other, you can have five more at five acres apiece, or, you know, broken down to make up the 50. And we can link them together or separately as long as we meet certain guidelines.

Let's see. As I had mentioned to you before, in very, very preliminary discussions with the Community Development Department, we've been talking about, thinking about some opportunities for including housing at any kind of redevelopment that may or may not happen in the Benning Square, Swampscott Mall area. And our initial thoughts are that this would be the, an area that would make the most sense and creates the most opportunity for the town to create some robust housing.

Let's see. I think I covered that. It also, the land, the 50 acres has to be developable land.

So obviously, a lot of our land here is underwater. It's wetlands. It's town-owned land.

There are schools, there are parks. Those don't count. You can't just overlay it on anything.

It has to be developable land. Whether or not there's a, there are buildings there or not, there has to be the opportunity for it to be developed. And the plan should, let's see, account for height and coverage limitations, any restrictions and limitations set forth in other municipal bylaws.

In other words, there can't be any other, any other limitations imposed upon that land by other zoning restrictions. It has to be free and clear. And if we were going to bulldoze a building, we could develop something on it.

So it has to be developable land. The compliance schedule for us to begin working on this is, begins this summer. So the DHCD has committed to having final guidelines released by summer of 2022.

And this would be the time where we would hope to understand exactly, you know, where we need to head with this and start our community engagement process. I know Aaron had made some recommendations earlier on in this meeting. And I certainly hope you'll be the first to volunteer because I'll be calling on you to participate.

We'll need all your expertise and help as well as many others in the community to put together the kind of robust community engagement we'll need to create an excellent zoning, zoning bylaw. Thoughts are also that we would look at doing an overlay district. There are a lot of different options of making this work.

And hopefully by the time the summer is through, we'll have, we'll be able to put together a plan, submit it by the spring to the DHCD. And then over the summer of 2023, we have to, we'll be able, we'll have to reach a series of milestones required by DHCD with the zoning adopted by December 31st of 2023, which would mean most likely a fall town meeting adoption since the 2023 schedule does not work with our really town meeting schedule. And that's all we know right now.

We'll certainly be coming back to you as soon as we have more guidance from the state. Again, no action required on your part except for this presentation. I did also email you several other documents that we have received that you can review over time.

And this is just a very touching, scratching the surface of this information and engagement process, so more to come. And thank you for listening.

[Speaker 11] (2:11:44 - 2:12:19)
If I could just maybe just add two things. So obviously it's important to create housing and housing for all residents of all income levels and abilities. But probably the most important requirement of the legislation is the fact that it really ties into a lot of grant programs.

So if a community does not comply with the requirements of the regulations or of the legislature, therefore we would not be eligible for a significant number of state funded programs. So that's another incentive for us to assure compliance. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:21 - 2:14:15)
Angela, thank you. I've shared a few comments with GHCD and I hope the MBTA. Just so that as we think about stakeholders who share responsibilities to really address the housing crisis, that we do it mindfully.

It seems unfair to have a one size fits all when we think about the obligations of a commonwealth and where we see both the opportunities, the peril and the promise of development. We are a burdened community in many ways. Our infrastructure is incredibly burdened.

When I think about how we're going to address the challenge of repairing all these clay pipes that seem to leach out into our environmental resource areas. And we think about adding to the complexity of infrastructure without the mindfulness of the major transportation MBTA not really being spelled out in legislation to have an affirmative seat at the table where we can think about their campus, their properties, their obligation not just to move people but to share the responsibility for housing people. It seems like we're missing, you know, a real stakeholder from the legislation.

That said, you know, Swampskid has not just an idea or two about housing. We need to build some affordable housing. We will build affordable housing but we should do it thoughtfully, mindfully.

And we should use our master plan as a cornerstone for how that gets done. We should use smart growth and all the other tools that we have at our availability because we don't want to cause more harm while we meet these affirmative responsibilities.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:15 - 2:14:49)
And I couldn't agree more. And again, this is not an affordable housing mandate. It's a housing mandate and it's a mandate to create zoning, not to build.

I mean, the idea behind it is that you allow and hopefully by allowing we can somehow encourage the types of uses in the right locations where we hope can do more good than simply building more housing.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:51 - 2:14:52)
Does anyone else have questions?

[Speaker 1] (2:14:53 - 2:14:55)
I do but go ahead first.

[Speaker 14] (2:14:55 - 2:14:55)
No, go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:57 - 2:18:43)
No, I just, I guess I want to kind of balance John's remarks. I actually think as though 100 years ago people wouldn't imagine Swamp's got to be what it is today but yet it is what it is today and that's the reason we have 100-year-old clay pipes that were never touched because we didn't plan for it. We didn't anticipate the inevitability of density growth and population growth and said it still came.

We're talking about a harbor plan and people keep talking about how beautiful our pier is. Well, we're all going to agree our pier is beautiful. It just doesn't look good underwater, right?

So we have to plan for it which means we have to recognize that, okay, it is something, we all love it. I mean, there isn't a single person here that hasn't taken a picture of it and shared it with somebody or done something. But there's an inevitability and if the last 100 years in Swamp's got shown us anything is density's inevitability and that's because of our proximity to a power center and transit and business resources and that's not going to change.

And it's so, so I think that we have a choice to, I appreciate that this isn't a requisite to build anything but we should be doing this with the spirit of if we zone this and we get this right, we're actually okay with being built. We want this being built and that's the spirit we should do it with and not a defensive posture which is let's do it the least way to do it because I actually think this is very egalitarian. I think not totally for sure but very much so because we're in the same boat as other communities.

And the problems that we're going to have, even though we're unique because we have our own problems, but we're going to have very similar problems as the other communities that are going to be complying with this and that's going to require the state to help us and for us all to say, you put us upon this, we've got to again revisit Chapter 70 funding mechanisms. We again need to focus on more infrastructure loans or incentives to help us deal with those hundred-year-old clay pipes that we just pretended to not care about or to know about while we just kept on growing and growing and growing. And so I think that there's a bit of, you know, I just think we should embrace this opportunity and just appreciate the fact that what we have been doing as a commonwealth for affordable housing hasn't worked, period, like hard stop.

And as someone who spends a good part of my professional life building both market rate and affordable housing, I will tell you that the industry has failed. The systems are imbalanced and this is a tool and yes, it forces us to do something but I think it really forces us to do something that really can be beneficial for our community. And if only if we embrace it though as a tool that is when we zone it, we want it built because we want the people to be here.

We want that environment. We want to invest in the infrastructure. We don't have the answers today.

We don't know how we're going to invest in the infrastructure. But I think that still presents us far better off than, you know, again, if it was only Swampscott the state was making do this, I'd feel differently, right? But it's not.

It's a whole very similarly situated communities and I just think as though again, there's a reason we're sitting here with 100-year-old schools and 100-year-old clay pipes. It's because we just didn't plan and we didn't do that and it's why in 10 years we're going to have to visit our peer underwater if we don't do anything. And so this falls in the category to me of potentially really exciting if we embrace it as a community.

The communities that are not embracing it, I don't support them for not embracing it. I really think we need to embrace it and I understand it's going to be hard. It's a hard conversation to rezone and to do this.

And God knows I don't know the answer but I hope that we embrace it as a community and see its opportunity to provide the housing type that frankly 80 percent of this population needs.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:45 - 2:18:45)
Go ahead, Bob.

[Speaker 7] (2:18:45 - 2:19:49)
I was just going to say, I look at this, I agree with Peter. I look at this as kind of our school vote where it became a, it wasn't a yes and no question, it was a where and when question. And one of the things that, you know, a community doesn't want to see which is happening today is in some communities an over building of inappropriate housing because it's driven by economics and you're reactive to the real estate development community.

And what this says is we embrace housing and we embrace change but we're going to do it, you know, on a planned basis so it has the appropriate effect on the community socioeconomically, environmentally and, you know, forces us to do some things with our infrastructure on a planned basis. And when, you know, as we've seen time and time again in every community when you're simply reactionary, you know, to the development community or you're looking at things in a vacuum, they tend to fail. So I hope we do as a community embrace this.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:50 - 2:20:40)
I'd like to add that the timeline that I mentioned, so the, we're not even going to get final guidance until this summer. Creating zoning within, you know, essentially less than a year is of this magnitude is such a heavy lift. I mean, look how, we can spend two years on something that we can't even get to town meeting.

So it's very challenging to create zoning that is actually something we can bring to town meeting. We will need a really robust engagement process and we will need a timeline to get us there and the right people involved to get us there. We'll need support from the state.

We'll need support from other professionals.

[Speaker 14] (2:20:43 - 2:20:49)
Sorry, no, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought it was Diane, sorry. I'm sorry.

Sorry, Margie, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[Speaker 4] (2:20:51 - 2:21:18)
So I can't emphasize that enough and I'm hoping that we can start working on that. You know, town meeting's coming up. We have a lot going on.

So, you know, by beginning of June, I'd like to, I propose that we start having some joint sessions and meetings and really talking strategy and how we look at breaking this down and what the process should look like in town.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:19 - 2:22:04)
Yeah. I could agree more with Peter's comments in terms of embracing it and being proactive. I mean, we tend to be like allergic to housing.

But I just, I guess my concern, and maybe I should know this, but I don't, I'm actually concerned that they're not requiring affordable housing in this, and I don't know whether there's something in the language that essentially forces it to be affordable housing. Because why would we want, frankly, I'm not going for just more housing. I'm going for more actually affordable housing and I don't think we need another 100.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:04 - 2:23:09)
Right. So I think the reason is twofold, Polly. And I think it's a really good question and I think the reason is twofold.

I think it's because the sense is that there will be fewer developers who will want to throw their hat into the ring to develop housing when they have their, you know, constriction of having to create affordable units. That's number one. And number two is the notion that if we create enough housing that kind of modifies or reduces demand, then prices will supposedly level out a bit.

Now, I don't know whether, I'm not, I'm not someone who theorizes about those things, so I don't know if that's true or not. But that's the, that's the thought process behind it. Again, we do have an inclusionary zoning bylaw and it, you know, certainly would apply.

And we can choose, when we develop the zoning, we can choose to, we can choose to build in affordability, you know, mechanisms.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:09 - 2:23:15)
Well, that was my second half of that question or second follow-up question. Is, can we add, because that would be.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:15 - 2:23:28)
We can, as long as it doesn't discourage. If the state sees it as somehow inhibiting our ability to attract builders, then they won't allow us.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:28 - 2:23:34)
Well, then that, I am, I think, well, that to me is where the discussion really needs to be had.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:34 - 2:23:35)
Yeah, it's tricky.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:36 - 2:24:35)
To Sean's point about the density, like, I, I just think if this can't add to our affordable housing stock, we'd have to meet 10% on top of these. I just think that's a terrible thing. But I don't know, I don't know the details.

I haven't, you know, I'm just hearing it from you basically. I was listening in on something, but my kids were around and I couldn't get all the details. So I don't know as much detail as I want to know.

But anyway, if there is a way that we can include it without discouraging, or if there are exceptions that can be worked out for towns like ours, where in a normal community it would be discouraging as a, as a way to just avoid development altogether. In our case, I think it would actually be really helpful, because we just don't have the amount of developable land.

[Speaker 4] (2:24:36 - 2:25:10)
I agree. And the state, from what I've read so far, what's available, the state is certainly interested. In terms of, you know, there is indeed the mandate to get done with, you know, as prescribed.

However, they do want cities and towns to, you know, think creatively. And there is a lot of flexibility in the kinds of zoning mechanisms you can use. So I think, you know, it will take quite a bit of collaboration and a lot of expertise that we'll need to bring in to help us to do it.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:10 - 2:25:15)
And then in terms of safe harbor provisions, that this doesn't apply to us.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:16 - 2:25:18)
Oh, not for this. No.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:18 - 2:25:22)
But everyone has to do it despite any.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:22 - 2:25:29)
Everyone has to do it. Every, each and every one of the 51 MBTA communities. Yeah.

That's right.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:30 - 2:25:37)
Yeah. Okay. And my last thing is just I'm glad it's by a bus, because I'm sorry.

I've said this for a while, but like if you're taking the train.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:38 - 2:25:39)
Well, I think our, you know.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:39 - 2:25:44)
I mean, this is an affordable housing, but I, yeah. It's a lot of money to take the train.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:44 - 2:25:44)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:46 - 2:25:47)
Go ahead, Angela. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:47 - 2:25:48)
No, that was all. That was all.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:49 - 2:25:50)
Thank you. Other comments, Neil?

[Speaker 5] (2:25:51 - 2:26:00)
Yeah, I mean, I'll just. I think Peter said the word opportunity like seven times when he was talking about it. I do think it's.

Which is a compliment.

[Speaker 15] (2:26:00 - 2:26:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:01 - 2:27:09)
I think it's an opportunity, and it is, you know, it is forcing us to do what we've all been talking about. A lot of these things is what we want to do anyways. And so it's pushing us to do the things that we want to do.

I think, you know, it's, as Angela said, we're just scratching the surface on this. And I do think we have, oddly, in many ways, we usually don't have a lot of flexibility with these things. But I think there is some flexibility for us to do some creative things and think about what works well for us.

So it doesn't feel like we're sort of boxed in a corner necessarily. But I think that also means to Angela's points and also to what Aaron was talking about in the beginning, you know, it requires a lot of engagement and it requires a lot of people working on this sort of from the beginning. That's right.

I think that it makes, you know, I think we need a planner.

[Speaker 4] (2:27:11 - 2:27:15)
Yeah, we can't look at it like we're, you know, like we've got lots of time. We don't.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:15 - 2:27:17)
This is the beginning of the process.

[Speaker 4] (2:27:18 - 2:27:31)
We don't have lots of time. This is going to happen really fast. December 2023 is nothing.

It's like, it's nothing. It's a blink away in terms of getting zoning together.

[Speaker 2] (2:27:34 - 2:27:57)
So as long time, but yeah, thanks for the presentation and thanks for waiting. Yeah, I know. Angela, thanks a lot.

And Margie, as always. But hopefully the new handbook will help. We'll help you.

He needs a little bit more.

[Speaker 3] (2:27:58 - 2:28:04)
The two hour meeting, there was no such provision, but no.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:04 - 2:29:38)
Yeah. So, all right. Any further discussion on that?

Votes of the board. The consent agenda is designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the board. You may adopt the entire consent agenda with one motion or at the request of any board member.

Any item may be removed and placed on the regular agenda for discussion. And I am going to read the consent agenda items now. Vote to approve one day liquor license for Bentwater Brewing Company event on July 16, 2022.

Rain date July 17, 2022 from 2 to 10 p.m. at Fisherman's Beach. A vote to approve one day liquor license for Swampscott Senior Center event on June 1, 2022, located at 200 Essex Street. A vote to approve one day liquor license for East Regiment Beer Company for the Strawberry Festival, June 26, 2022, from 4 to 8 p.m. at Swampscott Town Hall. A vote to approve application for hocking and peddling and door-to-door solicitation for employee of Power Home Remodeling, located at 201 Jones Road, Waltham Mass, 02451. Vote to approve application for hocking and peddling and door-to-door solicitation for employee of Sunrun Solar Panels, located at 248 Cherry Street, Shrewsbury Mass, 01545. Vote to approve minutes of, and we're just looking at regular meetings.

Sorry, I didn't catch the dates. They were all the same, right? March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022, and April 12, 2022.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:40 - 2:29:41)
I move to approve the consent agenda.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:42 - 2:29:48)
Okay. Okay. Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

[Speaker 7] (2:29:49 - 2:29:49)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:50 - 2:30:06)
All right. Select board time. I'm just going to be really quick since we're everyone staring at each other.

Did you want to say something?

[Speaker 15] (2:30:06 - 2:30:07)
No, please go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:08 - 2:32:53)
Anyway, I'm going to make it quick because otherwise I'll become emotional. My last board meeting, and I'll be really quick. I want to thank you all for everything, how much I've learned and grown, and the collegiality of the town administrator, your forward thinking, your progressiveness, your open-mindedness, your enthusiasm, and lots more, and of the town staff that is with us and stays with us and you've hired and had.

It's been an amazing experience, and I really do wish it could have been a bit longer, but I'm doing the right thing right now. But especially to thank the residents who supported my candidacy and those who continued or grew to have faith in my good faith that I did everything I could with the time I had, and I wish forever and ever that I had more time, and forever and ever that I was better. It's hard to grow publicly, I think, in public eye and so visibly, and I just, for myself, I'm not apologizing for anything in particular, but just the recognition that I know if I could continue to do what I was doing, I'd be doing it better than I did three years ago, and I'd be doing it better in a month than I did today.

So that's unfortunate. It's hard, I think, for anybody who cares about the quality of their service to accept that reality, and I struggle with that. But I did what I could, and I appreciate everyone's support, and for other people coming in, just remembering that I'm sure that anyone giving their time is doing the best they can at the moment.

Forget the board, just committees and boards generally. It's tough, and it's a great honor. It's not tough in a bad way, it's just, it asks a lot of you.

And so, anyway, I gave what I had, and I wish I could have been more, but I'm thankful for what I did do and was able to do, and that's it. Thank you. No one has to respond to that.

Sorry, Don, set you up.

[Speaker 7] (2:32:56 - 2:34:53)
I'll be brief as well, but it's been, it really has been an honor and a privilege to serve the town and the residents. I'd first like to thank my family, because as people know, when you're an elected official, you're usually not receiving kudos, but criticisms, and your family is part of that, whether they like it or not, and they make a great sacrifice in supporting you and in supporting, you know, de facto supporting the town. So I would like to thank them.

Next week will be the first week, I think, in 18 years that I won't be at a board meeting, which my family has said they've been wishing for, but I think they may regret that I'll be around more often. I've been really proud of the work that the boards I've been involved in have done. I'm not going to say I, I'm going to say we, the boards.

I've been privileged to work with a lot of great people. Sean, you know, you've been one of the best. I think people don't realize the yeoman's work that town staff does to support us and the other boards and the towns.

I, you know, I've learned a lot. I've learned from my mistakes. It's been a terrific experience.

I would encourage anybody that feels they have a, something to add, criticism of the town to volunteer, to run. Running for elected office is a, and when you get elected, it's a very humbling experience because you realize that many people that you didn't even know support you, and it's also, there's a big mantle of responsibility to make sure that you're, you know, you're the voice of the people that elected you. So I'd like to think I might be back in public office.

I might at some point, but it's been terrific and bittersweet, and I would say to, no disrespect to my other colleagues, but to Peter Spellios, Scarecrow, I think I'll miss you most of all.

[Speaker 15] (2:34:54 - 2:34:55)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (2:35:00 - 2:36:13)
Are you leaving the door open there, Don? I'll just, I'll be really brief. I just, I mean, I just want to thank you, Don and Polly, for being incredible members of the board.

You know, I'm, I've only been on the slide board for two years, so it'll be strange for me to adjust to new people, and certainly when I came on, we were not in a room together for quite some time. But, you know, I think, I appreciate, you know, working with you both. It's definitely an experience that only the people who are part of that group can really understand what it's like to do, and so there's just an immediate bond there, I think, right away.

I think, you know, and I think most of all, I'm just really appreciative of the friendships that we've created and just becoming friends with you, and that's amazing, and, you know, that you're not members of the slide board anymore. We're all still friends, and that's fantastic and sort of, I think, more important than anything else. So thank you for everything you've done.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:16 - 2:36:17)
Oh, I'm good. I got nothing to say.

[Speaker 5] (2:36:17 - 2:36:17)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:18 - 2:36:20)
You want a motion to adjourn?

[Speaker 1] (2:36:25 - 2:38:32)
So I think that we're going to have an opportunity to say more to you in the near future, whether you like it or not. So tonight really isn't so long or a farewell, to be honest with you, but both of you. Don, in those 18 years, I believe I might have been the one buying you a Coors Light for each of those 18 years of weekly board meetings, and I appreciate that because you and I didn't know each other the first board meeting and the first zoning board that we were on, and we actually met two weeks before at a pool party and before our first meeting, and coincidentally, another individual who was getting appointed to the zoning board was there as well. So three of us got to meet each other that night, and to this day, I can't remember a night where I laughed more than that night, and that really is like the embodiment of Don, which is you have – it is tough what this is, right, but it's nothing compared to the things that you've gone through while you've been doing this, and you do it with a humility and a calmness and a humor that I could only hope I have inside of me, and it is, you know, you like to say, well, Peter and I don't agree on a lot of things, but – and so I'm going to say it tonight – you and I haven't agreed on some things, but what allowed us to figure out how to do it together was at our core, we agreed on what was mostly important, and you demonstrated that the way you lived your life during the hardest times for you and your family and showed up at every board meeting and did what you did, and I think it's just an incredible example, and I will miss you, and you've got to tell me where you're going to next so I can hook up with you and join you again for Coors Light. All right.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:34 - 2:38:38)
He's going to be heckling us. He'll be here for every public comment.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:48 - 2:41:31)
Paul, you know, we didn't really get to know each other until you were on the board, and I remember the conversation after a financial summit that we had where we talked about you running for the board, and you were on the FinCom, and you just – to be here with a young family moving to a town and decide that you want to be on the finance committee and you want to be involved, like, that DNA doesn't exist. You really are the example in our community of someone who from day one just stepped in and you didn't say, hey, I want to volunteer in a small way.

You volunteered in a really big way, and you represented a voice, you know, that frankly in our – especially at that time in this community was totally, totally underrepresented demographically in every way. A young family, a young woman, a successful professional, like, we just – you filled something that this town desperately needs, and you're now making the move to try and fill something else this town desperately needs, and I think that's really, really, really admirable. I personally believe as though there can't be enough incredibly bright women at Beacon Hill, so I want you to succeed in every possible way.

You have challenged me, and publicly and privately, and we've sparred on things, but I love the fact that you actually don't back down from me, and I love the fact that there aren't a lot of people in my life that feel comfortable just saying we're kind of – we're in it, we have the gloves on, we're going to figure it out, and okay having the discussion and knowing at the end we may have to lick a few wounds or take a few minutes, but then we're like, okay, we're good, and you always made that effort to come back afterwards, especially when you got the better of the arguments, but at all times, notwithstanding, and that really meant something, because you and doing that for me made me better, right, and we all have plenty of room to grow like you talked about, and I have no doubt you're going to be, whether here, Beacon Hill, wherever you're going to be doing much bigger and brighter things.

You've laid the groundwork for us on so many things that we have to now carry on and do it, but you're just beginning, and I really truly believe that, and I think you're – we're lucky for that, so thank you for that, but we'll have more time to talk with you guys soon.

[Speaker 3] (2:41:34 - 2:45:41)
Look, as Peter mentioned, there's a line in the budget for civic recognition, so there will be some opportunities to celebrate public service. I hope in some ways over the next week or two you can reflect on the type of changes you've been able to bring as elected officials. In no small way, the last two years have been impossible and yet remarkable.

The leadership and the support and the care that you both have exemplified have really set a standard. You're absolutely wonderful people, and it's amazing to me. We hear so much about vitriol.

We hear so much about the criticisms and how we could do so much better, but what I have been able to see across almost every line is an esprit de corps where you do work with each other. You do the hardest work to work together, and Swanscot has succeeded in so many ways because of that. Your work to try to build a more inclusive community, to find a path forward for a town to really think more critically about your place in this common law has been awesome.

Our work on environmental stewardship, whether it's thinking about plastics or our waste, has been difficult but awesome. Building a new elementary school and putting the financial pieces together. This weekend I was at town hall and I had to pick up a pre-COVID warrant to look at language, and I grabbed the 2014 town meeting warrant and I saw your name in it, Polly, and I thought to myself, I can't believe the years that you have put into trying to help a community succeed.

Don, your position on so many issues was so helpful because, as Peter mentioned, you can relate to just about anybody, and you have the ability to be so, not just self-effacing, but connectable. It has been awe-inspiring to see you set a standard for how to deal with so many complexities and keep one foot in front of the other and continue to meet a standard for public service during these incredibly difficult times. I can only hope, in some ways, that you give your family a little peace, but also, when it's time, continue to use your talents and encourage others to use their talents and lead.

Polly, your leadership, not only on a board that had three women on it, where you led the town for the first time as women leading a community, three members of a select board. To me, it's not historic. It should be normal, and we've got to make sure that we have more women playing a role in leadership responsibilities.

Lots of really wonderful things, and it's been a real privilege of mine to have worked with you both. I hope, in many ways, we can continue the friendship, but also the teamwork. You've planted seeds.

Both of you have planted seeds. They're in the capital projects. They're in budgets.

It's my hope that the work that you've started will continue to be nurtured as citizens, but certainly as folks that will always be endeared by this town.

[Speaker 5] (2:45:47 - 2:45:48)
Donald, would you like to make a motion?

[Speaker 7] (2:45:50 - 2:45:51)
May I, Madam Chair?

[Speaker 2] (2:45:51 - 2:45:52)
Yes, you may.

[Speaker 7] (2:45:52 - 2:45:53)
Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:53 - 2:45:54)
Is there a second?

[Speaker 5] (2:45:56 - 2:45:56)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:57 - 2:45:57)
All in favor?

[Speaker 13] (2:45:58 - 2:46:01)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Congratulations.

[Speaker 14] (2:46:01 - 2:46:01)
Thank you.