[Speaker 2] (1:37 - 3:18)
Okay. Good? All right, thanks.

Welcome everybody to the April 19th Small-Scot Select Board meeting. Before we begin, if you join me in Pledge of Allegiance. Excellent.

All right, before we begin, as usual, we're going to start with public comment. There are no members of the public in the room with us tonight, so if there are members of the public who have public comment who are joining us on Teams, please raise your hand and you can also submit public comment through email at nduffy.ma.gov. So not seeing any. Looks like there's no public comment, so we're going to move on to our first agenda item.

So why don't we why don't we move to the appointment of Barbara Yozell to the Andrews Chapel Oversight Committee. I don't know if Ms. Yozell is with us on Teams or not.

[Speaker 1] (3:24 - 3:38)
I'd make a motion to appoint Barbara Yozell to a three-year term. This is going to be filling a vacancy which actually expires in 2024, so this is not a three-year term. I'll second that.

It will only be through June 30th, 2024.

[Speaker 2] (3:40 - 5:40)
Okay, so we can make that change. So it's basically a one-year. You know, you got that Diane?

All right, and David seconded it. Is there any further comment on this appointment? All those in favor?

Aye. Okay, moving on, why don't we, I think it'd be great, why don't we move to, this should hopefully be quick, the discussion and vote on fees. We're only talking about the mooring fees.

I think there may be a larger discussion to happen about all the other fees in town, but we're talking about mooring fees because those, I think, need to go out relatively soon. So we all have in our packet a request from the Harbormaster to raise the rate for the fees from $3.50 per foot to $5.50 per foot and $6 per foot to $8 per foot on non-residential moorings. According to the Harbormaster, this is the first increase in fees since he began in 2016 and having reviewed rates from other communities, our rates would still be competitive in less than neighboring towns.

Sounds like also in that memo, he informed us that he's been able to acquire four transient moorings that we'd like to, that we're placing in the harbor to allow guests to visit and those would be charged $50 per night or $35 for stays up to four hours. Are there any questions about mooring fees?

[Speaker 6] (5:41 - 5:49)
Yeah, I have some questions. If, because I did a little bit of research, the average mooring fee in our area is $8 to $10 a square foot.

[Speaker 4] (5:50 - 6:01)
So I'm just wondering why we're at just that $5.50. I think this is the first year and there are other communities that have more established transient mooring.

[Speaker 6] (6:02 - 6:05)
I'm not talking about transient mooring, I'm talking about a regular mooring fee.

[Speaker 4] (6:06 - 6:28)
You know, we looked at a regional cost for different moorings. We looked at different fees. I went over them with the Harbormaster.

He felt as though this would be a first step and we discussed increasing these incrementally over the next few years to get them in line with, you know, regional or peer communities.

[Speaker 6] (6:30 - 6:46)
So this just came to us yesterday and there's no data behind it and I'm going to support this but I just, when I see that we haven't had any fees, fee increases, we're at $3.50 right now. We haven't had an increase since 2016.

[Speaker 1] (6:47 - 6:55)
Before that, Mary Ellen, before that, I've never, I can go to 2015 because I've never voted on a single mooring fee ever.

[Speaker 6] (6:56 - 7:16)
Right, so I understand you're saying, well, maybe we don't want to overwhelm anybody with pricing but if there's been, if we've been underpriced for so long, are we taking, is the town taking a loss? Are we really charging fair market price here? So that's my question.

[Speaker 1] (7:17 - 7:21)
So I'm just gonna follow up. I'm a no vote on this so I'm not going to support this.

[Speaker 6] (7:22 - 7:23)
You don't want to increase?

[Speaker 1] (7:23 - 9:44)
No, I'm not ready to set the fees. I would actually make a motion to not take action on this because we have literally not one piece, we have one piece of paper in front of us tonight to help us establish this and I made two calls, so I don't have probably as good market knowledge as Mary Ellen has, but I made two calls to communities to ask them and this is not even close. What we're moving to is not even close to those communities and so I just, you know, this is, I love that we're a boating community and that we're a seaside community and I think it's great but there are multiple things that have come up in the last, you know, FinCom last night was asking about capital for the boathouse and for the fish house, right, and we're reminded that we get twenty something thousand dollars a year only for rent and the last town administrator on his way out signed a 25-year lease for that and you in an update indicated that there are a large number of boat trailers parked on public property that aren't paid for storage and so we've now blockaded them in to get them to pay and it just seems like we have several, we have a bit of a maritime theme going on here of a financial burden for specific users in this and I just feel as though it's time, I appreciate you want to slowly ratchet up but they've had the benefit of at least my guess is a decade if not more without fee increases on the moorings and God knows what we charge for storage and whether we collect it or not, who knows, but I just, candidly I don't think we should provide storage, but that's not, okay but that's, you understand that's my point tonight in raising it wasn't to debate storage it was more to be able to say I think as though this is, this seems to keep coming up here and I think we need, we're owed regional information about fee structure and to not get it, to get it one day in advance and then not get that information, I do not feel as though I want to set tonight, I'm happy to quickly take it up Monday if it's so urgent and I know we're trying to not have a long agenda Monday because we have a lot of town meeting stuff here but and I'm so glad that Harbormaster is focused on it so I do want to applaud the effort, like I think it's great and so many good things have happened with this Harbormaster, it's just I don't think as a board we have enough information to feel as though we're, that I am anyways being a financial steward on this point, so I would suggest tabling this, would be my suggestion.

[Speaker 6] (9:44 - 10:24)
Until we have, tabling it until we have sufficient data and I'd just like to see this, I'd like to see this finished on Monday because the Harbormaster, I'm sure if it's being presented tonight, mooring applications haven't even gone out and people need to get, I agree, I agree with you, yes. I'll get this closed on Monday. I could say I'd like to see comparisons, comparisons of local moorings, I'm sure that some people, some communities charge more for moorings because they have more amenities, so some type of a comparison so that there's a reason why, where we should be.

[Speaker 1] (10:24 - 10:27)
Yeah well I think it's public, public, private, North Shore.

[Speaker 4] (10:27 - 10:30)
We have the data and then we pulled it together, we'll get it to you.

[Speaker 1] (10:30 - 10:52)
No I'm glad you do, I just, she asked us what we're wanting so I just wanted to make sure we answered and you know if there's services that are some, some have gas, some have other services that you know differentiate them from, from us. Look at that, you speak, you speak about the Harbormaster and he just magically shows up. Look at that, isn't that amazing how that happens.

Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (10:59 - 11:01)
Would you like to know?

[Speaker 1] (11:04 - 11:26)
So I think that we were just, Lieutenant, we were just talking about tabling the vote until Monday just so we could get the regional information of private and public mooring fees just so we can have a better sense of that and just look at it. We'll do it on Monday so we're being quick for you. I just, Mary Allen pointed out that she had made some inquiries to other places.

[Speaker 8] (11:27 - 12:49)
Yeah, I have some written down myself. Bobblehead is nine to ten dollars a foot, Salem seven dollars a foot, Winthrop has a flat fee of 225 dollars per vessel, Gloucester's four to six dollars per foot, Blackport 150 to 225 on average vessel. So for Swampscott the, the average size boat's about 21 feet so under, under the proposal the average boat would be about 115 dollars for the average boat which is still probably less than other communities.

Now the reason why I haven't asked for some of the increases as some of the other harbors is we don't have some of, we don't have some of the amenities as the bigger harbor. We don't have gas docks and, and watering stations and electricity and floats so I don't, you know, feel that we, we offer that same service but under, under what I'm proposing at 550 a foot we haven't had an increase since I've been the harbormaster about seven years. I don't know when the last one was but the projected revenue would, along with excise taxes for the boats, would, would pretty much fund our budget.

We pretty much fund our own budget. That's, that's kind of where I get the numbers from. You know, it's your privy to, you know, you know, decide what you want to do.

That's where I'm coming from.

[Speaker 7] (12:49 - 12:55)
Can you speak to the transient mooring rates? Do you have any of those comparable rates?

[Speaker 8] (12:57 - 13:24)
Sandwich is like, situate in sandwich about $70 a night. Kind of getting in that $60, $70, $75 range. Again, Swampscot isn't really a protected harbor.

You spend an hour on the boat up there, you may be rocking and rolling a little bit. It doesn't offer the same amenities. We're just, we're just kind of starting out with the transients.

So, like, you know, I wanted to come in at a fair price.

[Speaker 7] (13:24 - 13:28)
And $35 for a stay up to four hours is relatively comparable?

[Speaker 8] (13:29 - 13:29)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (13:30 - 13:33)
How does one pay those?

[Speaker 8] (13:34 - 13:37)
They go on, we have a, we're partnering with a company called Darkwa.

[Speaker 7] (13:37 - 13:38)
Okay.

[Speaker 8] (13:38 - 14:17)
And most boaters are aware now of these apps, so you can literally go on Darkwa and look for any neighboring community with, that has transient moorings. And Swampscot will now pop up, if, you know, with, with transient moorings. And people are able to book, like a hotel online, credit card, the fees come right to the town.

What's the cost of that program? $3,000. This is the initial year.

Darkwa projects will, will make revenue on that. Time will tell. You know, we have to, we'd have to have a trial year this year to see how much we actually make on that.

If we break even, I'll make money.

[Speaker 1] (14:22 - 14:50)
So, if you're in transit, you might miss the part where I think people were saying that we're so glad you're paying attention to this. And that you are, you're literally the only harbormaster I've ever seen come before us. And I really, seriously, you're, you're doing stuff, which is awesome.

So, I think that it would be great, though, if we could, maybe Amy or staff can work with you, just to give us the more comprehensive. I appreciate that. No doubt you've done the homework.

Yeah, the other. Help us understand. I know nothing about boating.

So, therefore, I'm starting.

[Speaker 8] (14:50 - 15:18)
And the other, the other thing, too, with the transient moorings, we, we've had what we've called guest moorings in the past, where we've just kind of, you know, people have called me, tried to get a hold of me. And, you know, we, we arranged to get them on a ball out there. Now, we're gonna have dedicated moorings, where people actually gonna, we use Swampkin as a destination, to come in for the night or the afternoon, hit our restaurants, you know, bring, bring in, bring in tourists and guests to our community, which will benefit everybody.

And I think it's a good thing.

[Speaker 2] (15:22 - 15:34)
Is it, is it doing this on Monday rather than tonight? Is that, is that okay, in terms of the schedule and sending out the application?

[Speaker 8] (15:34 - 16:02)
If we can do it, yeah, if we can do it Monday, we do want to get, so mooring renewals are a little bit late right now. We usually get them out on the 1st of April, but because we probably with DARQA, and we had to upload it, we uploaded all of the information. They, they have sent out blast emails to all of our customers, saying that we're waiting for the approval of mooring fees.

So, I don't think it'd be, you know, too bad if we, if we table it for Monday, get it done. As soon as we set the rates, we're gonna send out all the renewals and get it going.

[Speaker 6] (16:03 - 16:07)
By using this company, does it reduce a significant amount of labor on your end?

[Speaker 8] (16:07 - 17:06)
It, it, it's very convenient of mine. It's also very convenient on, on the clerks in the town hall. Okay.

It's much less, you know, laborsome. Everything will, everything will be uploaded on DARQA. People, once they, once, once they renew their, their mooring, we'll get email alerts that they renewed and paid, and we just send out their stickers.

So, you know, and if you're old school, some people will prefer to come and pay by check. That's fine, too, but it's, it's much more convenient for the town workers and myself. I'm able to see at any time on my, on my iPhone, on the app, of who's on those, who's on those transient moorings, if they're barked, who hasn't paid on any, you know, who's delinquent in fees on a mooring.

I can go, rather than checking with town hall on week, for weekly updates, I can check on, you know, a computer or an app in seconds and find out, you know, if everybody's up to speed on registrations and everything.

[Speaker 10] (17:08 - 17:17)
And do we have an update as to what's going on at the Phillips Park parking lot with the boats and the trailers that are blockaded currently?

[Speaker 8] (17:18 - 17:29)
That's a DPW issue, I believe. I think that's a fair response. I think some folks decided to use it as a parking lot, and I've ever, clever, you know.

[Speaker 1] (17:30 - 18:04)
Yes, so I can just chime in about that. Last Saturday, which was, I think, one of the first Saturdays of lacrosse and soccer and whatnot, people were parking on Humphrey Street, all the way down Humphrey Street, because we decided to block half of the parking lot off, because trailers didn't pay. And I mean, I just, it seemed like not the right approach to, you know, to get people to pay, because no one had a place to park down there, and it's still blocked off.

So I just would ask that we think about a creative way to allow people actually to park in a parking lot, because right now half the parking lot's reserved for a dozen trailers.

[Speaker 6] (18:05 - 18:11)
So it's blocked off because there are boats in there that never paid, and so we're holding them. No, they're boats.

[Speaker 1] (18:11 - 18:14)
There's some boats too, yeah. They're blocked off with Jersey Ubers.

[Speaker 4] (18:14 - 18:17)
I'll work with Gino to address that.

[Speaker 6] (18:18 - 18:22)
But just, I just want to, so those are people who decided to park their boat, not pay any fees.

[Speaker 1] (18:23 - 18:25)
Yeah, as we understand it.

[Speaker 8] (18:26 - 18:30)
It's kind of like putting a boot on a tire for unpaid traffic.

[Speaker 1] (18:30 - 18:38)
We do it with a Jersey barrier though. The bigger we go home, the more elegant. The swans got touched.

But it's painted. They're beautiful painted Jersey barriers.

[Speaker 6] (18:39 - 18:41)
Maybe put the Jersey barrier in front of each one of the boats.

[Speaker 1] (18:42 - 18:43)
Maybe, maybe.

[Speaker 2] (18:44 - 18:53)
All right, so it sounds like, I mean, it sounds like you have all the data we want, but it'd be great for everyone to just, you know, to spend some time with it and not too concerned about...

[Speaker 6] (18:53 - 18:58)
If you could send the data prior to the weekend, that would be great.

[Speaker 2] (18:59 - 19:08)
We are meeting later on Monday. All right. Thank you, Billy.

Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (19:08 - 19:08)
Thanks. Thanks, Lieutenant.

[Speaker 2] (19:09 - 21:21)
All right, moving on. We have some very special guests with us tonight. We have Senator Brennan Crichton and Representative Jenny Armini.

Welcome. Thank you for joining us. I think it's great that you're here.

Thanks to Mary Ellen Fletcher for suggesting the invitation. We've certainly, as you know, we've, you know, we're in budget season as you are, and in town meeting season. So we thought it would make sense to have a conversation with you on what resources there are out there for us, as well as what the process is, what's going on in your world in the budgeting process, and just to express some of our...

the challenges that we're experiencing. I think you, you know, I mean, you certainly know big picture the challenges that everybody's experiencing as far as, you know, special education costs, health care costs, the usual constraints. I think you may know that we know we've had a financial guidelines in place...

in place since 2020, formally, but informally before that, where our budget... we try not to increase our budget by more than 2% plus 425,000 for new growth every... every year, and that's really served us well.

We certainly are putting that... those guidelines and that policy to the test with our building the elementary school, with the land acquisitions that we made, but though that policy is actually what gave us the ability to to do those amazing things, so I think we are... we are, you know, constrained as anyone else, and we would just love to hear what's...

what's going on on the state level and where we may have some... some assistance. I would also...

I mean, talking to Sean right before the meeting, I think the other place to think about this is in our capital plan. I think our capital plan is larger than it's been in a number of years currently.

[Speaker 3] (21:23 - 23:36)
I'll just jump in first. Thank You, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the entire Board of Select... Select Board, excuse me, and thank you to Mary Ellen for facilitating.

I had the opportunity to serve in local government for six years on Linn City Council, and I have a tremendous amount of respect. One of the hardest jobs I've ever had, will have, was being on the council and being so close to the pain, but also a ton of opportunities, and you guys have done a tremendous job. Appreciate the opportunity to just communicate and to have these conversations.

I hope the first of many as we move forward. I think we can only be effective if we're listening to the people on the ground level. This is my 18th year at the Statehouse.

Not all has elected. I served a few different capacities in my predecessor's office, so I've been through this budget process many times, 18 times, and I think whether I was a rep, a senator, or a staffer, you know, the first thing we do when we go in to meet with the chairs of Ways and Means or people in the folks in leadership is to try to help out our cities and towns, and that's true this year, and obviously some unique challenges have come up. You've referenced, you know, the special education piece, but also just the rising costs, you know, inflationary issues that we're seeing across the board, and just being mindful that we're living in a post-pandemic world.

There are new challenges we didn't even anticipate in previous budgets, so I'm grateful to be here. That being said, the House is taking up their budget now. The Senate, we're not quite there in the process or while we're meeting, and I'm certainly going to take back everything I learned here tonight.

To our leadership, we do all kind of have eyes on the House and on Representative Armini, so I'm gonna turn it over to Jenny, and she could dive into it. I'm certainly happy to build off of what she has to add. I just don't want to get my, you know, over my skis at this point because we don't, we haven't put out our budget yet, but we're a team.

In these few short months, we've been working together, have a ton of shared priorities, and certainly have the budget being one of them. So with that, Jenny, Representative.

[Speaker 5] (23:36 - 23:39)
This is my first budget. It's got 18. I've got one.

[Speaker 1] (23:40 - 23:41)
No, you actually have zero.

[Speaker 5] (23:43 - 23:53)
Just to help you with the numbers there, Jenny. I mean, so, I don't want to cut you on numbers. It is your first budget.

That's totally fine. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (23:54 - 23:54)
Jenny's wonderful, too.

[Speaker 5] (23:55 - 24:19)
So what I want to say, first and foremost, is that sitting before you is Team Swampscot. It's so important that you understand that every single day, we are both very focused on the needs of our communities, and for me, obviously, Swampscot plays a big role. The Senator has a few more communities than I do, but I know.

[Speaker 3] (24:19 - 24:19)
All my favorites.

[Speaker 5] (24:21 - 33:05)
Malarkey. But we are very focused on what you need, and everything that comes across our desks is with looking at it with a lens of how our communities can be helped. I recently passed my 100-day mark, and so I've been looking back and thinking about some of the things we've already accomplished.

I know we want to talk about the budget, but we have actually done quite a bit in the last 100 days. First, we signed a supplemental budget. The Governor signed a supplemental budget.

We passed it for this year. That included money for universal school meals, emergency assistance for homeless families, grants for early education, capital bonding for the MassWorks grant program, which Swampscot is certainly eligible to apply for, $8 million for the 40-hour program, which Swampscot obviously participates in, and the General Glover property, and a whole lot more. So there's a lot to celebrate.

We also extended the outdoor dining and the to-go alcohol policy, as well as the remote hybrid meetings, like the one we're having right now. And I know that the extended outdoor dining is very important to our restaurants, especially along Humphrey Street. Jersey Barriers are going to be coming out soon.

Tables are going to be coming out, and they're going to be able to serve more people, which is great for all of us. We also passed the FY24 Chapter 90 legislation, which, as you probably know, is infrastructure, roads, bridges. That was signed into law.

That translates into $297,000 for Swampscot. That's a funding formula, so that's not something we can noodle with. We can just advocate for as much of the bottom line as we possibly can, which we did.

And that goes, as you probably know, to programs like Complete Streets. It's also going to fund electric vehicle infrastructure, charging infrastructure, so that will be very helpful. The House also passed some pretty significant tax relief just recently.

The Senate will be taking it up soon, I hope. There are things in there I know you care about. The senior circuit breaker was doubled, so for our seniors, for whom their property taxes and their sewer and water bills are more than 10%, they will have the opportunity for a $2,400 credit.

You probably also read about the estate tax threshold, which is also very important to Swampscot because of the housing prices around here. Currently, the estate tax threshold is $1 million. As you probably know, you can get there real quick in Swampscot, especially if you have any savings that you want to pass along to your children.

The House passed a new threshold of $2 million and eliminated the cliff effect, which is very important. Another thing that will be great for our families, the Child and Dependent Care Credit was increased from $180 to $600 per dependent over the next few years, and the cap was also lifted. It used to be that you were limited to two dependents, children or elders, and the cap has been lifted on that, which is fantastic.

Housing being so important for us, the rental deduction cap is going to jump from $3,000 to $4,000. That's going to impact about 881,000 people in Massachusetts, so that's a lot of people. We also boosted the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30% to 40% at the federal level, which is how we benchmark the EITC.

That's going to impact about 400,000 people. Again, this is all really, really good stuff, and we haven't even started on the budget yet. As far as the budget goes, as the Senator alluded to, we unveiled our budget.

It's $56.2 billion. It's an investment across every area of the state. I have put in an amendment for Swamscott and am advocating for it aggressively.

It's money I did with Administrator Fitzgerald's help. I filed an amendment to provide state funding for the design of the streets around the new Hadley School, but there's more. For instance, Swamscott's a minimum aid community, as far as Chapter 70 goes.

The House budget boosts the minimum aid from $30 to $60 per student, so that will provide more money. Unrestricted aid for Swamscott is also up. It's $1,523,431 roughly, and Chapter 70 is roughly $5,114,454.

Of course, these are all rough numbers at the moment. You can find all of this information, as I'm sure you know, on the DESE website. There was a $53 million increase in the House budget for special education, but I actually had a conversation with Dave the other day about special ed being this ridiculous burden on communities, and it's only getting worse.

Chapter 70, my understanding, is not something that the legislature is really willing to open up in terms of the funding formula, but I'm hopeful that in the near future we could take a harder look at special education, because it is crippling our communities. We've talked about the surprise 14% increase in out-of-district placement costs. There will be an amendment to provide some funding, $75 million, which the governor actually proposed in our second supplemental budget, but that has not been considered.

There is an amendment for the House budget that we'll be considering to add money back into whole communities with this 14% increase. Who knows what's going to happen to that? We don't.

I'm hopeful, by the way, that the Senate will pick up and advocate strongly for that money. There's a lot more in the budget having to do with housing and Head Start and rafts. I'm happy at any time to have more detailed conversations with you.

These are all moving targets, as you know, because you have the governor's budget, now the House budget, and the Senate will take up theirs. It's all a negotiation, and then, of course, we have to negotiate with the governor again when it comes time to her line-item veto pen. I'm always happy to have these conversations.

Peter, I know you're interested in METCO. It got a $500,000 increase, and Dave Veterans Programs also got some increases, which is great. I visited with the Swampscot librarians.

They're amazing. They came to the Statehouse, and the State Library account will get a small increase of $800,000. Again, this is the House budget.

It's all a moving target.

[Speaker 3] (33:07 - 33:50)
Please go. I think one thing to keep in mind, too, is you have 200 legislators competing for a pot of money, right? It's not infinite.

I think the good thing about the North Shore delegation is we work pretty well together to make sure that we're not stepping on each other's toes, certainly that we're all rowing in the same direction, but also that we're not overlapping and wasting resources in that way. While it's the House budget now, we're talking every day about this, and their success is our success, and vice versa. I should just mention, too, I know we're specifically focused-I think we're on the agenda just for the budget tonight, but should there be other questions that you want to dive into on transportation, Kings Beach, any of these things, we're working on them every day.

We're happy to expand, but I'm sure you have a busy agenda as well.

[Speaker 10] (33:50 - 33:58)
While you did bring that up, Senator Creighton, electrification of the commuter rail, what's the latest and greatest there?

[Speaker 3] (33:58 - 36:29)
Thank you for asking. I should come here with an ask to all of you for support on it. Just for purposes of background, the last four or five years we've been pushing for electrification of our commuter rail line, which would obviously decarbonize commuter rail, but also lead towards more frequent, more affordable service, more reliable service, 25% more reliable than the diesel locomotives we currently have.

We hit a rut during COVID. We got this big vote, control board said, let's go full steam ahead, we're going to get this done. The commuter rail along Newburyport, Rockport, from Boston up until Beverly was going to be part of phase one, also Fairmont and the Providence line.

So we're all in phase one, we're celebrating, it was great. COVID came, a little delay there, and then just could not get the support of the previous administration. It would be on their website, but as far as actual progress made, other than a few PowerPoint presentations, we did not see any progress made.

With the new administration coming in, we're hopeful that we can turn that page. That said, the CIP, which is all the capital projects under the MBTA in this matter, included funding, which is the first time we've been funded specifically for electrification. $10 million, great, gets everything up and running, and we can really hire the people we need to to get this thing fast-tracked.

That being said, it was not a concrete plan. There wasn't a schedule, there wasn't, we're going to start procurement by this date, we need this much money by this date, here's the different pots of funds. There wasn't a level of detail that I would expect.

So we have delegations come together, a number of municipalities have come together to weigh in the CIP process. The public process is going on right now until the 24th, and I know it's short notice for all of you here, but if there is an ability to weigh in through written testimony as individuals or as a board, I politely ask you to do so. I do think there is time that they can make amendments and change this to fully, not only just staff it up, but fully plan for this.

It's long overdue. Obviously, we've been talking about rapid or near rapid transit to the North Shore for over 100 years. This achieves that, but also achieves decarbonization, which if we want to reach our mission's goals by 2050, we need to decarbonize our fleet, and not just buses, which is a big step, and I applaud Governor Baker for doing that, but the diesel locomotives are just as important.

Long answer for a simple question, but we're making progress, but it's not going nearly as fast as we need to.

[Speaker 10] (36:30 - 36:31)
Got it. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (36:31 - 36:31)
Thank you.

[Speaker 10] (36:33 - 36:50)
And then another question of mine. I've been talking to a lot of residents. A lot of folks are really, really concerned and want an update on the efforts of the Kings Beach remediation.

So is there an update there from a funding perspective or a timing perspective?

[Speaker 3] (36:51 - 37:50)
So not really on the funding, and I know there are folks here that have been just as active in this space as well. We've requested a meeting with Secretary Tepper. We've engaged in conversations with the administration to get that to happen quickly.

Representative Armini has identified a number of areas of funding from the federal government, which trickles down through the state government. Right now, we're kind of back with our chair leader. We're back trying to do the same thing we've done with previous administrations, which is get them to focus and prioritize this problem.

But I could not, unfortunately at this point, say we have this much secured. And I do think the $5 million we were able to get for ARPA, really kind of a one-time thing. As far as our ability as legislators to produce that kind of money again, it's probably unrealistic.

So it really is looking at that federal money trickling through. And I know, Representative Armini, you've worked very hard to identify funds. And I don't know if you want to correct me.

[Speaker 5] (37:50 - 38:58)
No, it's frustrating because the federal government, through the Inflation Reduction Act, created an Office of Environmental Justice. Through that office, there will be grants, $3 billion in grants for environmental justice communities. And I think SwampScot partnering with Lynn is actually a really good thing because it allows everyone to access funding that maybe SwampScot wouldn't normally be able to access because Lynn is an environmental justice community.

And so much of the federal money coming down is based on that. But it won't surprise you, the federal government is slow in releasing the funds. And it's really a treasure hunt trying to find out which funding is going directly to communities and which funding is going through the state, and oh, which state agency is getting the funding.

So it's really about continuing to have these conversations and hounding people, which I'm more than happy to do.

[Speaker 3] (39:00 - 39:32)
We've never seen the public rally behind this as much as they have over the past few years. And certainly the board and the town and all the officials coming together, teaming up with Lynn and two communities crossing over to work on it, as well as the federal government with Congressman Moulton's office. So really all levels working together.

I'm confident, but just frustrated by the pace. But that's, unfortunately, state government. So we're going to keep after it, and maybe we can shoot you guys an email or come back with updates as they come along.

[Speaker 2] (39:33 - 40:10)
Yeah, I mean, speaking of the treasure hunt, you know, I agree. I mean, it's been hard to – it's a hard world to navigate, the federal grant landscape. I mean, the good news is that there's a lot of opportunity there, but it's really hard to understand.

And I wonder if – can Swampscott look to your offices as resources for information on that? Or are you trying to connect what the state is doing with those resources and can we then look to you? Or is it more like you're – are we all trying to navigate this same maze the same way?

[Speaker 5] (40:11 - 41:51)
Well, the good thing is, as far as Kings Beach goes, is we've got the task force. The task force has been working together for a long time. And I think it's through the individual members of the task force, whether it's Congressman Moulton's office, my office, the senator's office, in identifying opportunities and coming together at the right moment to leverage them and apply.

And this is actually another – just something I want to underscore. I know when we look at programs like Chapter 90, Chapter 70, all of these things, and you think, why aren't we getting more money? It's a formula – these are formula-based programs.

And so it's those – and those formulas are set in stone. There isn't movement in there. There's no movement for us in those formulas.

Where there's movement is in grant programs. And so Swampscott has done a great job with Marzi and applying for things. And I really encourage you to continue doing that.

And I certainly, whenever I see grant programs, I send them along. But also, we're here to support your applications. So if you see something, get in touch with us, and we will make the calls and write the letters to support the applications.

Now, King's Beach is a different story. That's a much bigger fish. I'm talking more about the smaller programs.

But there are a lot of education programs through DESE that are grant-based. Yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (41:51 - 42:10)
I think you can always rely on us as researchers. We may say we don't know all these other folks, but we'll connect you. So, I mean, I think that's – I mean, constituent services and then being a liaison of sort for state government, I mean, that's kind of the two top priorities right there.

So, please, I mean, we would welcome it. It certainly would help us do our jobs better as well.

[Speaker 1] (42:11 - 42:33)
So, if I can, I just have a – I want to talk about revenue for a second. But first, I want to say that the two of you are as approachable as any two elected officials I've ever met. You really are.

And every time I've reached out, you guys are terrific. And being approachable is so important so that everybody feels like they can reach out to you. And I'm grateful for that, so thank you for that.

[Speaker 13] (42:33 - 42:33)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (42:36 - 48:57)
On the revenue side, my frustration, I'm sure the frustration – in my spare time I sit on the MMA board and the MSA board, and we all sit and commiserate with our experiences in our communities. But they're all remarkably similar, right? So there are some unique things in different parts of the state.

But on the revenue side, the chokehold that the state continues and historically has always kept on a town's ability to fix their revenue problem is befuddling and, frankly, frustrating that the state holds all the levers. As a home rule state and just how we're structured here, a town's ability to decide that they need to solve their revenue problem differently instead of just having their hand out to the legislature for more money to deal with special education and more money to deal with roadways, there are communities who have clamored to be able to say, give us some tools, let us have some more local options that we can implement. But the legislature has historically been very reticent to let municipalities decide their fate and has done it only by exception, if you will. So that's a global comment, but it shows up in many different ways.

And I'm going to now use not revenue, direct revenue ways, but indirect revenues. The amount of consternation and debate that goes into outdoor dining. I'm just going to give you an example, right?

Something that it took a pandemic to do, but yet there's even a thought of taking it back. There's even a thought of it. The fact that it had to be extended, but it's only been extended for a year or two, is mind-boggling to me.

So the muscle memory is to take back control. It doesn't actually matter what topic it is, I think, but the muscle memory, I think, historically with the state is to take back control and to take those tools away. Outdoor dining has saved, point blank, Swamp's Guts restaurants.

And even outside of a pandemic now, if outdoor dining and the ease of outdoor dining was to go away, even outside of a pandemic, I'm confident there would be restaurants that would not be here and be able to stay here because their business model relies on it. Same with drinks to go. We are pured in underpinnings when it comes to alcohol or clear, but we've created a flexibility, which has been a lifeline for these restaurants.

And for us, it's a quality of life issue as well. It's not just a business issue. They are our downtown.

They are our neighbors. And so the instinct for the state to take back is the muscle control to take back. And then the last example I'm going to give you has to do with cannabis.

In my view, the biggest lobbying body is almost 7 million residents of Massachusetts, but yet the residents feel as though they're not the largest lobbying body. Instead, you can have a cannabis industry who came to the state, and they made a deal, and ultimately recreational cannabis was put out as an option to communities with an offer to those communities. First of all, depending on if you're a yes vote or a no vote, you have to put a certain number in your community.

But if you do this, this is what you're going to get, communities. And they threw out a carrot, and they threw out financial incentives to communities to say, we understand that, and we want to partner with you. And while the state's going to get a disgusting amount of tax revenue, we think you can get some as well, and we think you can do some other things.

And so all these communities, including Swampscot, went out there and said, okay, we hear you. This is the mandate. There's a minimum required in Swampscot.

We have to have, under the law, we have to have two sites. We have two sites. We've said we're not going to have more sites, but we have the two sites.

And so we did exactly what the legislature was. But fast forward five years after the legislation goes through, there's new legislation that takes it back and says, hmm, actually, just kidding. Retrospectively, we're looking at your community host agreements, and we're going to take out economic provisions that you negotiated as a precursor to allowing these institutions to open in your cities.

And so in Swampscot, that basically cuts revenue expectations in half. All right. So this is ‑‑ I'm closing with this example only because this, to me, is the worst example.

It's the best worst example, which is the legislature and the state gave us tools and encouraged us to do things with tools, and there isn't a community out there that can actually explain why it was taken away. Just the power of the cannabis industry appears to be the answer. And single-handedly, it's gone now.

So you have treasurers and financial directors who are asking town council, what do we do? We have an agreement that lasts for ten years. Do we all of a sudden just have to ignore that provision?

And we have applicants. We have cannabis companies who are saying, we're not paying because the legislature went through and not doing these things. So it puts us in this position of deciding are we going to strong arm and say, yep, you're going to pay until someone tells us you're not going to pay.

You know, we approve things on an expectation of revenue. Right? And so I'm saying these as examples just to really just as you go through things to ask, and I understand the workings of the legislature quite well, and I understand that, you know, you aren't charged with some of these decisions.

But when you're in the room with those people, it's, again, the cannabis is just one example, but it is mind-boggling to me how it got to there. But as you're talking about outdoor dining, as you're talking about drinks to go, it just was amazing how long it took just to get a year extension to, like, outdoor dining. It's not a good use of your time, and I hope that you guys think it's not a good use of your time.

But just whenever you can, think about how to give the town tools on revenue and flexibility to help themselves because you have creative boards that will say, we have an idea. Let's do something. But so often we just hit against a wall, and the town administrator says, yeah, we need a home rule petition.

Or, no, the ABCC won't let us do that. And it's such a theme that anything you can do to help break that muscle memory and to begin to trust the communities to be able to say, hey, let's give you more tools. We can't give you more money directly because it is formulaic.

We have 351 cities and towns. We have limited tax revenue. But let us give you tools in your community that can help you create revenue, direct and indirect revenue, and help quality of life because we don't have a lot of those tools.

[Speaker 3] (48:58 - 49:00)
Let me take a couple of the easy ones first.

[Speaker 1] (49:00 - 49:02)
Yeah, I wouldn't touch the cannabis one at all.

[Speaker 3] (49:02 - 51:24)
I'm going to touch it, and then I'm going to get yelled at, not by you. So I think on outdoor dining, drinks to go, I mean, no brainers in my eyes. I mean, we had some folks that stood up and were opposed to it.

I mean, a lot of these things that we put in during the pandemic were like, oh, yeah, why? We actually have to do this? Like, how is this not already allowed, right?

So I think from our perspective, yes, it's a no-brainer. I should also say, and I don't think I'm unique in this as a legislator, I love local auctions. It empowers communities, takes the heat off us.

So if we can't make a decision for all 351 cities and towns, let's let them do it. So I'm supportive there. I know we pass laws, and my one opinion is not going to pass something that's going to necessarily benefit you, but I will continue to use that as kind of an out when we don't have the political will to do something.

All right, well, let's empower communities to do it on their own. So that's just philosophically generally where I stand. I think on zoning, you know, I do take issue with, you know, certain communities in the Commonwealth that, you know, have zoning laws in place that completely discourage multifamily.

And so that every now and then I think we may have to step in and enforce the right thing. On the cannabis end, I mean, I voted for it. I don't think you were there yet, so you didn't vote.

Obviously you voted for the first one, and then for the most recent adjustments. I understand completely where you're coming from. My vote was not for the cannabis industry, which, you know, I was not lobbied about this.

I was not contacted about this. It was because of the minority-owned and smaller businesses that could not break in, and it seemed to be only the big-time players, you know, the billion-dollar national corporations and those companies could break into certain communities. I'm not saying Swampscot, not saying any of the communities I represent, certainly.

In general, we saw a lot of folks who were being excluded because of some of the local agreements. I completely agree. You know, philosophically and as someone that sat in a similar seat to you now, if someone came back and said, we're taking back this revenue that you negotiated, I mean, it's absurd.

And I understand that. I'm more or less just defending my vote that was certainly not in line with the cannabis industry, which, again, never came knocking. It was folks that were fighting for, you know, let's say social justice, but a lot of people that had been excluded saying we can't get in this way.

And part of the reason we adjusted the law was to try to create more equity. I don't want to get too big.

[Speaker 1] (51:25 - 51:28)
No, no, I appreciate that. I mean, look, there's numerous examples where good ideas wrap with bad law.

[Speaker 3] (51:29 - 51:29)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (51:29 - 52:41)
Right? And so what happens with these things is all of a sudden the legislature says, oh, we need to fix this, and then we're going to bring the cannabis industry in here and have a conversation. They're like, well, while we're fixing this, why don't we fix some other things?

And so I agree with you. And, again, I'm sure there's a lot of nuances and whatnot. And my guess is the room wasn't very big where this legislature, truly legislation, was crafted.

But SWAMSCOT, one of the two licenses in SWAMSCOT, is a social justice applicant. And so we, to the T, did all the things the state wanted us to do. But 351 cities and towns, regardless of their performance on doing these things, had, after the fact, revenue stripped, which was the basis of a decision to say, hey, I don't really want two cannabis shops in our town.

That's not what I want. But I'm also not going to sit and, you know, and we literally had the conversation here. Lewis Street, Lynn, was going to be one which was only two blocks from where one of ours is.

Right? And so are we really going to sit back in principle and say we're not going to do it, and then two blocks over the revenue stream is there? So there are those that made the decision based on revenue.

Town meeting made the decision on revenue. Town voters, when they went to the polls, made the decision in part on revenue. And then after the fact.

Point was taken.

[Speaker 3] (52:41 - 52:42)
I need to put it back on that.

[Speaker 1] (52:42 - 53:29)
No, no, no, no. But just to share the experience because it is an incredibly frustrating experience because I will tell you from the MMA perspective as well, no one was listening. The MMA wasn't, you know.

And so I think as though it's just one of those things that it feels like it was a very insider. Right? But I'm less concerned about that because that's happened now.

But more about like outdoor dining, things like that. Even those small tools. Right?

I know the city of Boston is asking for big tools. I'm not even asking for big tools at the moment. I'm just saying even the small tools about outdoor dining is a lifeline for us because we can't help our restaurants in that regard.

The pandemic gave us the power to do that, and if you take that away, then we're all going to just be sitting here watching them die. And that's just not okay because they are our neighbors and they're a quality of life for our residents.

[Speaker 3] (53:29 - 53:38)
I would have been heartbroken if my Mai Tai to go homemade garden was taken from me, which I come over across the border from Lynn for that one particular purpose.

[Speaker 1] (53:38 - 53:50)
All right. Now, I mean, game on. If that's what it takes, I want you to know, I want you on the record, if that's what it takes, we will guarantee you the Creighton Mai Tai any time you want it.

This isn't recorded, is it? Not at all. Just you and I talking.

[Speaker 3] (53:50 - 54:11)
No, and I think as new tools come to mind, I mean, I'm all, again, local options, let's do it. I mean, I've been a strong supporter of regional ballot initiatives. That's slightly different, but, like, empower communities.

If they want to raise revenue for certain purposes, why are we hamstringing you guys? Like, get to work. I mean, if you have the political will, you're held accountable by the voters as we are.

Let's work together.

[Speaker 1] (54:11 - 54:11)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (54:12 - 55:02)
So I have a quick question about the budget. Historically, we have really taken a hit on Chapter 70. Swampscot has not received as much, I would say, equal funding, just the way we fall into the formula.

And I haven't really researched the formula in probably seven years, but it's just consistent. And we really take a back seat. We're not equal to a lot of other communities.

So I want to know, what can we do as far as a town to try to help you get us more money? Or what can we do to try to make sure that we do have as much access to grants to help relieve different parts of our budget as possible? Like, do you have any recommendations, what you want us to step in and do?

[Speaker 5] (55:03 - 58:00)
I'm going to just be very honest, and I think I've told you this. The Chapter 70 formula is not going to be opened. It's not.

But I will tell you, because I had a conversation with Desi today about this, school census is a big part of the formula. And Swampscot lost students last year. Marblehead lost students.

So the communities that actually got more students, even those you would consider to be wealthy, like Lexington, they had a huge boost in students. That changes the amount of money we get. And so school census is super important in the foundation formula.

That's just the way it is. So loss of students is where it's at. Loss of students hurts significantly in the formula.

I'm just now learning. There are, I think, 14 different aspects to the formula. But they're weighted differently.

ESL is actually another big part of the formula. Swampscot doesn't have a huge amount of ESL. So as far as grants go, I am more than happy to help in any way access whatever grants are out there.

My understanding is that there are a decent number of Desi grants. And they, I don't know whether it's working with Superintendent Angelakis' office. She is fabulous.

We've had amazing conversations. I think, I don't know if she has a grant person. I know obviously the town does.

But it might be worth investing in a grant person just on the education side at least part time to work on this. Given that we know the formula isn't going to change. It may be worth making that investment.

And then, you know, we're happy to support any grant application. I will go knock on Secretary Tutwiler's door. More than happy to do that.

I really am. But we, you know, we need you to help us figure out where the grants are too. I mean, we don't have that.

I know we don't have that capacity. We get them, we will often get emails announcing grants. And I forward them to town hall.

But I am sure we're not getting emails on all the education grants out there. So I think it might be worth tasking somebody in the superintendent's office. That's my two cents.

[Speaker 3] (58:00 - 58:36)
If we could get some, you know, just some numbers. If you don't mind sending over some of the statistics and the shortcomings and issues like that. That we could certainly elevate it.

I mean, in the past we did this pretty regularly for our Swamp Squad. I'm looking more back to when I was a staffer. This was an annual fight every year for the budget.

You know, since Student Opportunity Act, I'll be honest, it's kind of fallen off. But given your loss of enrollment or decreased enrollment, like you're still not benefiting from the reforms you made for Chapter 70. So if, you know, if you could help us make the argument with the data, that would be very helpful to us.

[Speaker 1] (58:37 - 59:05)
But I think I appreciate, Jenny, what you're saying. But I just, part of what caused the reformulation just 18 months ago or two years ago, which, again, tinkered, right, not universal, tinkered, was a drumbeat that got louder and louder and louder and made people more and more uncomfortable with the truth. And the truth is every community probably has their own argument for why they need more money.

We don't even get to the minimum funding level. We don't even get there. I mean, there's a state-mandated minimum funding level, and we don't even get it.

[Speaker 3] (59:05 - 59:07)
So that was always the fight.

[Speaker 1] (59:07 - 59:38)
No, no, right. So I'm just saying our community is a little bit different. Wellesley and Weston, someone should look at their demographics and their enrollment figures to really understand what's going on.

But we don't even get to the minimum number here. And so we will, and I think your advice about grants is really sage and good. But at the same time, we need to, like, we want you guys to have cowbells that you ring in the halls of the Statehouse to continue, even though it was just recently revisited in the last two years.

But we've got to start that discomfort again because it still isn't fixed.

[Speaker 3] (59:38 - 59:39)
I'll show you from the minimum.

[Speaker 1] (59:40 - 59:42)
We'll get you the information.

[Speaker 3] (59:42 - 59:44)
You can go to the numbers, and we can do it.

[Speaker 1] (59:44 - 1:00:54)
Yeah, I mean, so it's meaningful. And as you know, we're in every budget season. There's tension over $100,000 is the delta between, you know, significant changes in the school department, right?

And, you know, this town administrator is bent over backwards to advocate and do, but at the same time, he's taking away from other programs. It's not like the dollars are just sitting there, right? And so I would just make sure, and I know you're going to, but I would ask you to metaphorical cowbells.

Don't make anybody feel good about what they did 18 months ago. Okay, it's done. It's banked.

That's a victory. We're moving on. It's still broken, right?

And the students are the ones that are suffering. Right, the town, yeah, we have financial issues, and we're doing it, but the students are the ones that are suffering at the end of the day. So I just would ask you to, when you have opportunities with the audiences, whether it's on the administrative level or the legislature, to let them know.

Like, okay, good, we did a little bit. It was incremental, but we got to do more. And just that cowbell just needs to be rung really loud.

And so it just – and we'll – We need to help put more pressure on it. We will come with our cowbells as well, but we need you to help navigate that for us as well.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:54 - 1:01:25)
Because it's not fair. It's not fair how much money that we have lost, you know, for years and years and years. We had a wonderful citizen, Dave Whalen, and he really pushed very hard and just, you know, put a big light on this and how we were taking a hit, including Mike McClellan when he was on the finance committee.

But this just continues, and we need to – they might not want to change the formula, but we do need to add some pressure in there just so that there is a level of fairness.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:26 - 1:01:29)
I mean, a minimum. It's pretty straightforward, right?

[Speaker 6] (1:01:29 - 1:01:29)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:30 - 1:01:42)
But yet it's not. Yet it's not. No, and Dave and Mike were very strong leaders in that for many years back in my staffer days.

So they certainly got the ball moving, but we need to pick it back up.

[Speaker 6] (1:01:43 - 1:01:55)
Great. And I do want to echo what Peter said. You two are very approachable, and you're real team players, and we appreciate it.

Thank you. And we are going to get you a realtor to help you move.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:59 - 1:04:50)
Don't say that too loud to my wife. She might take you seriously. No, but I don't know what you have to tell me.

I just wanted to give an update on the transportation. Please. So I don't know how many folks actually realize how soon we have the Sumner Tunnel closing for reconstruction and repairs.

Originally it was supposed to be in May. It's gotten pushed back into July. So for the month of July and August, it is closed, not just weekend closures.

This is a full week. And anyone that's traveled to Boston any day of the week knows that pre-pandemic traffic congestion is back. Yet, to this point, we have not, despite pushing for it for well over a year, received meaningful mitigation to help offset the increased traffic we're going to see throughout all of our neighborhoods.

And, you know, going north of here, but also, you know, south. I mean, certainly trying to partner with legislators regionally in thinking about this. One thing we were able to do, I mean, increased bus service or using the roads.

I mean, it's off, right? More cars on the roads. It's just going to be jam-packed.

Our rails are stretched. We lost our commuter rail station in Linn. Rail can only do so much to help offset that.

We looked back to water transportation as a potential solution. And in last year's budget, we were able to secure an earmark for a million dollars, which would help create service again during the Sumner closing, knowing that not everybody, that's not going to be their choice of transportation, but it's an option. It's an additional option to get cars off the road.

And I have a feeling if you can get into Boston with a 30-minute trip rather than an hour and 30 minutes, you're probably going to take it even if you, you know, get seasick, whatever, right? So we've been trying desperately to find a boat. That has been kind of, like, got the million dollars celebrated, great.

We haven't been able to find a boat. Looking all up and down the East Coast, all over the United States, we have a few leads, but obviously the clock is ticking. We intended to get this up and running by May, which is a couple weeks from now.

That said, you know, I want people to be aware that the next two Summers, July and August, we're losing one of our major routes into the city, but that we are trying to either get increased frequency on commuter rail or blue line, but at the same end, we have this potential, you know, regional commuter rail, I mean, sorry, commuter ferry that could really help make an impact as well. And hopefully for the future, too, right? Like there's no way, we had a few seasons of it that had strong ridership numbers.

There's no way that that shouldn't be an option here. The state spent close to $13 million on a commuter ferry station there. It's fully operational, free parking, again, 30-minute trip.

It should be an option for folks on the Oshora, and hopefully this will help demonstrate that and we can build off it.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:52 - 1:04:57)
What's the timeline on Linn Station again? Oh, yeah, this ought to be good. Good question.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:57 - 1:04:58)
I like this topic.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:59 - 1:06:07)
I, despite being the chair of transportation, I do not have, we do not have a timeline. I think one of our concerns was this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a state-of-the-art station. At the same time, we were deconstructing our garage there as well.

The T's record on real estate transactions in this type of project is not stellar. So we've, you know, as the administration's kind of turned over, we asked them to pump the brakes so that we could come up with a real game plan that could really transform downtown there, also prepare for the future electrification. We didn't want, you know, just, I mean, they're deconstructing it now.

It's going to take a while to do that, but in the meantime, we're trying to look at it as a much bigger opportunity to plan for the future rather than just, we will have a temporary platform. Unfortunately, again, despite talking to them years in advance, September 2024 is the timeline we've been given for the temporary platform. The station, I mean, I'm going to get that theory.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:07 - 1:06:34)
Yeah, so you started talking about environmental justice and social justice. And, I mean, I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure everybody here would echo it. Like, we will support you a thousand percent.

There's not very many communities in Massachusetts that would have had this done to them. Which is ready, shoot, aim. Right?

And so I think it's great that you're saying, hey, let's do it right now that you've done this to us. But there's no other community. Quincy didn't lose their train stops.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:34 - 1:06:36)
Well, we're off mics. Peter, I'll give you the full.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:37 - 1:06:41)
Yeah, no, I just think it truly is environmental injustice and social injustice.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:41 - 1:06:43)
I mean, they came to us in the summer and said we're going to close the station.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:43 - 1:06:44)
Yeah, no.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:45 - 1:06:46)
We almost had to protest.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:47 - 1:06:59)
No, and frankly, I'll join you when you're ready to do that. I actually do think it's just wrongheaded in every possible way to do this to a city like Lynn and their residents.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:00 - 1:07:22)
I will say no one has worked harder for remediation than Senator Creighton. Nobody has worked harder. I agree.

I feel like it's like whack-a-mole. Every time you think you've figured out a solution, another problem pops up with the MBTA. And a lot of the time they're just not really listening.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:23 - 1:07:25)
Have you put me today and now it's blue line, you know?

[Speaker 5] (1:07:25 - 1:07:26)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:26 - 1:07:53)
Every day you open the paper or you get a phone call or text late at night, hey, we have another slow zone. So safety obviously is before expansion. Top priority, a reliable, safe network.

That being said, if I'm a rider right now, I'm really, you know, we're not building the trust back that we need. Hopefully with the new general manager, new secretary, new administration and renewed effort, we can do that. What was the – sorry, Kate.

[Speaker 7] (1:07:53 - 1:08:33)
I'm sorry. I just want to go back to the ferry for a moment. Many moons ago when I commuted into the city, my husband and I would take the ferry from Lynn and they redid the dock.

It was beautiful. We used to take it all the time. When we had kids, we would always research taking the ferry to take the kids in.

It just became cost prohibitive because it was so expensive. So if there's anything that could be – I'd love to see the ferry back and I'd love to utilize it. Even to take the ferry from Salem, I think last year we looked into it and we could drive in and park for less than it would cost to take the ferry.

So I just think it's a well-intentioned idea, but if the cost doesn't work, you're not going to utilize it.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:34 - 1:08:53)
It was a cost. It was frequency, which for a lot of folks, they were unwilling to – you know, you get into Boston and you have no return trip until later on. So we have to structure it in a way.

I think the cost point, $7 for a commuter rail ticket in, it was trying to get it around that point. But I agree, it's too much.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:55 - 1:08:58)
Well, we might have some boats in our parking lot.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:59 - 1:09:00)
Yeah, actually. Or at least trailers.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:01 - 1:09:11)
At least we have a trailer we can pick up a boat. I appreciate that. We're working together.

Yeah, we're looking for creative solutions here. I don't know. Are there any other questions or comments?

[Speaker 3] (1:09:12 - 1:09:16)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for visiting us.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:16 - 1:09:16)
We know you're busy.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:17 - 1:09:17)
No, no.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:17 - 1:09:18)
No, this is great.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:19 - 1:09:29)
I rambled too much. I'm probably informal. So I'm a little rusty on rules of engagement procedure.

So I apologize. Don't worry about it.

[Speaker 12] (1:09:29 - 1:09:31)
We're grateful. Thanks a lot.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:31 - 1:09:33)
Thanks for coming. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (1:09:34 - 1:09:37)
This is great. We'll come back again anytime. Anytime.

Great.

[Speaker 10] (1:09:38 - 1:09:38)
See you soon.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:43 - 1:10:05)
All right. Moving on. We, I think, you know, we've got on our agenda.

We've got three other items. One is the warrant. And then there's having school reuse.

And then capital improvement projects. So they're all, they're all under the umbrella of the warrant. So I think we just should dive into the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:06 - 1:10:29)
Yeah. Can I just suggest that we quite literally page turn? It's not going to be as draconian as it sounds to page turn this to do it.

Just because I think there's comments on probably most pages. That way we can just make sure that we're not scurrying to do typo correction and other technical corrections on Monday night when we next meet.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:30 - 1:10:36)
Right. And that's our last chance. So, I mean, you're saying let's dive in and make comments that we have.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:36 - 1:10:53)
Yeah. I mean, I would just quite literally page turn it. And I'm happy to lead it.

I'm happy to follow it. Whatever. But just page turn it and say these are comments on page one.

Anybody else have any other comments? Page two. Because I do think that level of detail is necessary given how late we are in terms of this and closing it out on Monday.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:54 - 1:11:10)
Yeah. I agree. Is everyone okay with that?

Sure. I think Pete is on. Do we want to, I guess.

He can unmute himself probably, I think.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:11 - 1:11:12)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:14 - 1:11:30)
So, let's start. There he is. There he is.

Starting with the articles unless somebody has something on the notice that they've noticed. Let's start with the article.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:31 - 1:11:34)
Well, it's missing rooms which may not be put in before the printing.

[Speaker 9] (1:11:35 - 1:11:36)
I just mentioned that to.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:37 - 1:11:40)
Okay. So, on page one, the rooms for the precincts are listed.

[Speaker 10] (1:11:43 - 1:11:48)
Are we starting the caucuses at 645 or typically at 630?

[Speaker 2] (1:11:49 - 1:12:06)
I thought it was usually 645. Yes. That's what it's been.

All right. Article one. Any comments?

Nope.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:08 - 1:12:16)
Do we have a list of the boards and committees who will be. The moderator makes those decisions and he welcomes, he organizes that.

[Speaker 10] (1:12:16 - 1:12:26)
Okay, because I know the housing authority would like to present and present an update as to the status and state of.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:26 - 1:12:27)
Yeah, so just have them reach out to the moderator.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:28 - 1:12:36)
So, as we do this page turn, just to be clear too, we're not talking about favorable action or anything at this point?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:36 - 1:12:43)
Well, I actually, where we can, I would suggest we should. Okay. So, for example, article number two is something that I would make a motion for favorable action.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:44 - 1:12:44)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:45 - 1:12:46)
Consistent with FinCom.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:48 - 1:13:09)
Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion?

I would say, I don't, well, I guess we do this on all the budget items. Do we always have the Oregon object in the budget? Okay.

[Speaker 9] (1:13:09 - 1:13:10)
For this article we do.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:11 - 1:13:22)
Okay. Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Is there anything else, there's nothing else on that?

No. Article three.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:25 - 1:13:31)
My only question on article three is, did the finance committee take a vote and they close the budget with a favorable recommendation?

[Speaker 6] (1:13:31 - 1:13:36)
Yes, they did. The budget? Yes.

Yes. Just the final capital work.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:36 - 1:14:00)
So, So, personally, I would like to not make a recommendation right now, because I think we asked the Town Administrator at the last meeting to look at some things, one regarding the DEI position and some others, and tonight's not the night to hear back on them, but I think we, hearing back on them, they may have implication on the budget, so I would just prefer not making a recommendation on the budget, personally.

[Speaker 7] (1:14:02 - 1:14:03)
I would like to hear back on them, too.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:06 - 1:14:07)
Katie, I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

[Speaker 7] (1:14:07 - 1:14:10)
Oh, I said I would like to hear back on, especially the DEI position.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:11 - 1:14:23)
Everyone's okay with that? And nobody has any other comments in terms of wording, or? Sorry.

Alright. Article 4.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:25 - 1:14:27)
I think we need to understand who's sponsoring this.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:28 - 1:14:33)
It would be the Town Administrator.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:33 - 1:15:24)
Okay. So, Town Administrator will be sponsoring, assuming everybody's fine with it. And then, I just had a question.

I'm not ready to make a recommendation. You sent the memo out that you and the Superintendent discussed. I just haven't had a chance to sit with it personally.

But, I just want to understand the methodology of how funds get done here. So, this is not a reserve fund in a way that we have stabilization accounts, because this doesn't require subsequent Town Meeting approval. It's actually the way this is drafted.

And I just want to make sure that's consistent with what the statute allows, is this will only be a majority vote of the school committee and the select board to fund that. So, is that consistent with the statute, as opposed to going back and asking Town Meeting?

[Speaker 4] (1:15:25 - 1:15:30)
It is. Our Director of Finance Administration has worked it out with Town Council.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:31 - 1:16:05)
Yeah. So, adopting under Section 13E is specifically stated that it is the majority vote of school committee and select board to appropriate out of this fund. You do still need Town Meeting authority to appropriate into it, which is what we will have to do with Medicaid receipts or any other funding that are going into it.

We also looked at Section 5A, which would have had Town Meeting vote to appropriate out of it. And we determined that that was not the best method, because we didn't want to highlight any specific students on that broad of a stage.

[Speaker 12] (1:16:05 - 1:16:06)
Yep.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:07 - 1:16:22)
What is the, as far as the Medicaid reimbursement, the first anticipated reimbursement is not going to be in 2024. It won't be until 2025? Mm-hmm.

Because the schools are not applying for it in 2023?

[Speaker 9] (1:16:22 - 1:16:38)
Yeah, they are not anticipating applying for it in 2023. And once we do have the receipts in 2024, we can either do a budget amendment to add a line to transfer into this fund, or we can allow it to follow the free cash and then appropriate into the reserve fund from there.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:39 - 1:17:03)
Okay. And what about, now as far as, how do you, how are we getting to the point where, if there has to be a conversation of using this money, what are the ground rules? Is there an agreement on how to tax this money?

[Speaker 4] (1:17:03 - 1:17:30)
Yes, the Superintendent and the Town Administrator will meet regularly, and we'll talk about the fund balance and the circuit breaker for special education. And when we get to a threshold that is identified, then we will both make a recommendation to our respective boards that we approve an allocation of funding to address the needs for the school department.

[Speaker 6] (1:17:30 - 1:17:33)
Has that threshold been agreed upon?

[Speaker 4] (1:17:33 - 1:17:38)
Yes, we've established a number. Of what can that be shared?

[Speaker 9] (1:17:38 - 1:17:41)
There is a draft agreement.

[Speaker 10] (1:17:41 - 1:17:42)
Yeah, there's a draft agreement.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:42 - 1:17:46)
So is it in there, in here? But what's the number? Is it 425?

[Speaker 9] (1:17:47 - 1:17:47)
450,000.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:50 - 1:17:52)
What's the circuit breaker at currently, Guy?

[Speaker 9] (1:17:54 - 1:17:58)
It's a little over a million. It's usually around 1.2. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:03 - 1:18:17)
So again, I'm suggesting tabling any recommendations tonight on it, just because we did get that memo from the Superintendent and the Town Administrator. I've done a cursory read, but I haven't spent a second on it.

[Speaker 13] (1:18:18 - 1:18:19)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:20 - 1:18:32)
I just had a question on the language, and I'm sure it's right, Amy, but it says we're authorizing the school department to establish a reserve fund, and can the school department establish a reserve fund?

[Speaker 9] (1:18:32 - 1:18:38)
Section 13E is under DESE on municipal law, so the language is specific.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:38 - 1:18:40)
That's where the language comes from. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:42 - 1:18:51)
And then the only other comment I have on this article is we don't typically have school committee recommendations printed in the warrant. They certainly can get up and speak to it.

[Speaker 9] (1:18:51 - 1:18:53)
We put that there just as a placeholder.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:53 - 1:18:58)
Yeah, so I think I would just strike it, and they certainly can speak to it at town meeting.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:08 - 1:19:23)
And the Finance Committee did recommend favorable action. Are the Finance Committee, are these all up to date? The Finance Committee, we can take it one by one, I guess, but in terms of their recommendations?

[Speaker 9] (1:19:23 - 1:19:30)
Yes. I think the only thing that may not be up to date in your draft is, I don't know if the draft you have has the up-to-date capital votes in it.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:31 - 1:19:34)
Okay. It doesn't. We don't have the exhibit.

[Speaker 9] (1:19:34 - 1:19:34)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:35 - 1:19:35)
So, no.

[Speaker 11] (1:19:36 - 1:19:39)
And also, Chapter 90. Whoa.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:40 - 1:19:47)
God, that was like, listen, God. Chapter 90? Okay.

I was like, God, God, is that you? It is.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:49 - 1:19:50)
Yes, son.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:51 - 1:19:52)
All right. Notice what I'm thinking.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:53 - 1:20:04)
I see. Your microphone's working. All right.

Article 5, special purpose stabilization fund opioid settlement payments.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:05 - 1:20:18)
Same thing sponsored by town administrator? Yes. And then my only question on this is what the approval process is to expend the dollars?

[Speaker 9] (1:20:18 - 1:20:21)
We would have to go to town meeting vote to appropriate out of this.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:21 - 1:20:27)
All right. So, if you wouldn't mind then having that be in the comment. I assume that's statutorily required.

[Speaker 13] (1:20:27 - 1:20:27)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:27 - 1:20:50)
But if you can put it in the comment, that just, that appropriations from it based on the recommendations of those entities, go to town meeting, I think would just be helpful to add that to the comment section. And then with that, I would be open, I would make a recommendation for favorable action. Second.

Subject to other conversation, comments. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:51 - 1:21:17)
Any further discussion on this one? My one comment was on the comment where, and I'm just rereading the article language itself to see if this is unnecessary, but where we say fund related to settlement payments received from the opioid settlement. What is the opioid settlement?

[Speaker 9] (1:21:18 - 1:21:22)
That's specifically what it's called with the state opioid settlement.

[Speaker 7] (1:21:24 - 1:21:25)
I think you described it wrong. Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:21:25 - 1:21:28)
That was the one that I spoke to last week.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:28 - 1:21:34)
Yeah. I think my point is, is there any short description that can be included in the comments so people understand what it is?

[Speaker 9] (1:21:34 - 1:21:41)
Like between- We can add more to the comment to flesh it out to include where it's coming from.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:41 - 1:21:44)
That's what I mean. It's a nitpicky comment on the comment.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:46 - 1:22:02)
Hey, Pete, will you do us a favor though, and the best you can, either highlight or redline changes. It's probably going to be easier for you to just use highlight as opposed to redline, so that when we're getting the next book, we're not reading word for word for word again. It's going to make it easier for everybody on Monday night.

[Speaker 11] (1:22:04 - 1:22:10)
Changes like when you voted on the favorable action or- Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:10 - 1:22:25)
Even those, because then we're only looking at what's changed since Monday night, because truthfully, we're all going to be moving fast. Even if you just did yellow highlight that you can then delete before you print, I think would just be really helpful so we don't have to review the word for word again.

[Speaker 13] (1:22:26 - 1:22:26)
Yeah. Agreed.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:32 - 1:22:40)
Okay. Sorry, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor of favorable action for Article V?

Aye.

[Speaker 13] (1:22:40 - 1:22:40)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:41 - 1:22:43)
Okay, great. Article VI?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:45 - 1:22:48)
I would make a motion for favorable action. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:53 - 1:22:55)
Any further discussion on Article VI?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:58 - 1:23:01)
Maybe we should read the titles for people that don't- Sorry, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:01 - 1:23:18)
It's Approved Transfer of Water Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings. It's a transfer of $28,000, which is we essentially set the water and sewer rates for next year, and this is the transfer needed from retained earnings.

[Speaker 6] (1:23:18 - 1:23:25)
I do have a question. Should this be on the screen for people to read at home? If you want it to be.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:25 - 1:23:30)
Yes. Well, I think it's a yes. Please.

Do you have the warrant that you can put on the screen?

[Speaker 9] (1:23:30 - 1:23:31)
I think I do.

[Speaker 7] (1:23:31 - 1:23:34)
Keith, do you have it? Can you share?

[Speaker 1] (1:23:35 - 1:23:35)
I do.

[Speaker 11] (1:23:35 - 1:23:38)
I do. I'm editing it live. Is that okay?

[Speaker 1] (1:23:38 - 1:23:39)
You can share.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:41 - 1:23:43)
It would be fine if you edited it live.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:43 - 1:23:53)
I think that's all right. Keith- We've done that before. I do have one little thing on- Sorry.

[Speaker 11] (1:23:53 - 1:23:57)
I don't have share access. I'm only an attendee right now.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:58 - 1:24:13)
I'm coming. AP, while we're waiting for this, on Article 4 in the comment, the last sentence says, by statute, any interest or income that accrues will be, remain in the fund. Yeah, it does remove that.

Just that? All right. Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:24:19 - 1:24:20)
Keith, it should be okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:33 - 1:24:39)
Yeah, so Article 6, did we just vote on this? Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:39 - 1:24:41)
No, you didn't call the vote yet.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:41 - 1:24:44)
All right. All those in favor of favorable action? Aye.

[Speaker 13] (1:24:44 - 1:24:44)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:45 - 1:24:54)
Okay. Article 7, same article, approve transfer of sewer enterprise fund retained earnings for the sewer rates.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:54 - 1:24:55)
I'd make a motion for favorable action.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:56 - 1:24:57)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:57 - 1:25:20)
Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye.

Article 8. Okay. Article 8, appropriation from transportation infrastructure fund.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:20 - 1:25:24)
I would make a motion to recommend favorable action. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:25 - 1:25:44)
Any further discussion on this one? This is the Uber and Lyft fees. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Article 9, acquisition of land 12 to 24 Pine Street. This is the acquisition of the land next to the VFW.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:45 - 1:26:42)
Yeah, so this is an article where I believe, I just want to raise, I think it's been amended to just include acquisition language and delete funding mechanism, but I think what we want to do, and I'm raising this for the board to discuss, is actually put back the funding language and just say a certain sum. And we're doing that just because the board, between now and town meeting, the board needs to finalize details about using ARPA funds and conversations with the Affordable Housing Trust. And if for some reason we get to town meeting and there's any appropriation beyond ARPA and Affordable Housing Trust funds that are needed, this will, by having the funding language for a certain amount back in there, just again, say a certain amount because we don't know what the dollar amount is, will give us the flexibility to do a floor motion at that time if that, in the unlikely event that that's necessary. Does that work, everyone?

[Speaker 2] (1:26:42 - 1:26:47)
Yeah. Yep. So instead of the sum of, be a certain sum of money.

[Speaker 9] (1:26:48 - 1:26:50)
We usually just say a sum of money.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:50 - 1:26:57)
A sum of money. So no action on that tonight until we see that language on Monday.

[Speaker 13] (1:26:57 - 1:26:59)
Correct. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:02 - 1:27:08)
Article 10, also related to 12 to 24 Pine Street, disposition of land.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:10 - 1:28:58)
So I would ask in the fourth line, right after the deed reference, it says for affordable housing. After the word housing, I would suggest that it reads, with a preference for veterans and inclusion of a new VFW post. Is it 1240?

Yep. Post 1240. Pete, did you get that one?

Got it. Okay. And then in the comment, I would also ask at the end of the comment, after the word housing, similarly say with a preference for veterans and a new VFW post 1240.

My bigger comment on Article 10 is I believe Article 10, because the plan would be, the disposition would include, if this all went through 12 to 24 Pine Street, and it would include the portion of the existing town-owned property in which the VFW sits, this language needs to include that portion as well. Yep. And so the language needs to be broadened beyond 12 and 24 Pine Street so that we have the ability to do an RFP for that portion of the existing town-owned land.

And my suggestion would be to include the portion of the town-owned land that's not already subject to a lease. And so you can, if you will, use the reverse lease exhibit that the Calix lease uses, because Calix has rights to certain portions of the property, and now we're talking about the remainders. What would be, assuming we went forward with this veterans affordable housing, would be part of the RFP.

Does that sound okay to everyone?

[Speaker 2] (1:28:59 - 1:29:01)
Yeah. Concept? Yeah, that makes sense.

All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:01 - 1:29:04)
Pete, do you understand? Pete, any questions on that?

[Speaker 4] (1:29:05 - 1:29:36)
No, I get that. Okay. I was just going to suggest that we include language of the veterans crossing group as well that has...

I don't, what language are you talking about? Just as we, just in the comment for a new post to the VFW and the veterans crossing organizations. These are a list of veterans organizations that actually call the VFW their home.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:36 - 1:29:47)
Yeah, so I'm not sure what the, I mean, the town's agreements with the VFW post 1240, but I don't, I'm agnostic. However, David, you're closest to it, perhaps.

[Speaker 10] (1:29:47 - 1:30:00)
I mean, the agreement is with the VFW post 1240 for the veterans crossing. So I think to be inclusionary, we should mention the veterans crossing in the warning.

[Speaker 4] (1:30:00 - 1:30:17)
I was thinking, you know, we add the veterans crossing in the comment. I do think legally the VFW is the organization that we have a lease with. And, you know, I just wanted to make sure that it's with the intent that the veterans crossing organizations are part of that.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:17 - 1:30:22)
Understood. Yep. I'm supportive.

Pete, do you got that?

[Speaker 2] (1:30:24 - 1:30:36)
Okay. So we'll be talking about that on Monday. Yep.

Article 11 is disposition of land for the Hadley Elementary School.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:37 - 1:31:53)
So this, this article relates to the possibility that this board will have a recommendation before town meeting relative to the disposition of the Hadley Elementary School, specifically with hospitality hotel use, which is the current exploration. So I think Article 11 should indicate hotel use, which it doesn't right now. It just talks about the disposition without a stated purpose.

And so I think as though it should say, after the deed reference in the fourth line, comma, for such, and where it says for such purposes as select board shall determine, I think instead it should actually say for hospitality and associated accessory uses, or hotel use and associated accessory uses, comma, and on such terms and conditions, which is already in there. Again, I don't believe we're in a position. We are still in the process of examining this.

And the meeting, the town meeting warrant will close before we are likely to make a decision. So therefore, I wouldn't recommend that we make a recommendation on this. Right.

And instead, most likely we're going to be making a recommendation at town meeting on this.

[Speaker 13] (1:31:53 - 1:31:53)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:53 - 1:31:58)
Depending on the outcome of the analysis that were in the discussion that this board has about it.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:59 - 1:32:07)
Right. So it's pretty safe to say it will be the select board will report on this at town meeting. Correct.

But we can confirm that on Monday.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:08 - 1:32:20)
So I have a question on this article. Because the last iteration of it was authorize the select board to sell, lease, or gift. And I had a question on why we cover all sins there.

But now it says convey.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:20 - 1:32:26)
I think it's, yeah. Sorry. The convey language is the right language.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:26 - 1:32:35)
So convey as in either sell, lease, or gift. Convey allows us to do all of those things. It doesn't mean just one of those things, correct?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:36 - 1:32:39)
Correct. I chime in if anybody feels differently. I believe that's the case.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:46 - 1:32:47)
It seems to me.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:47 - 1:32:50)
So town council, let me go this way. Did town council review this? Yes.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:50 - 1:32:57)
Okay. Because it seems to me a conveyance of a parcel means the assumption would be sale. But it actually is covering sale, lease, or gift.

Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:59 - 1:33:11)
Something occurred to me. So my understanding is the schools control the school buildings. Yeah.

So can town meeting authorize us to do this if we don't technically have control?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:11 - 1:33:15)
Once they turn it over to the town, they can. So we couldn't before they turn it over to the town.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:15 - 1:33:20)
So we would have to wait for that. But they can still authorize us to do it. We just can't do it.

Is that what you're saying?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:20 - 1:33:27)
Yeah, that's correct. We will seek their permission to do an RFP. We won't be able to transact the actual closing until it's in our jurisdiction.

[Speaker 10] (1:33:28 - 1:33:31)
And the schools do have to transfer the building to us?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:31 - 1:33:47)
Yeah, it's a vote by them. It's nothing in the registry of deeds, if you will. It's not like a deed to us.

All right. Just like they did temporarily so we could put the restriction on market rate housing. Correct.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:47 - 1:33:48)
Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:48 - 1:34:33)
The other comment I would have here is I've noticed, Pete, for all of them where the select board is the sponsor, you have not included affirmatively select board recommends favorably or the select board will report a town meeting. I think as though I would ask you to put that back in because, for example, here we want to affirmatively say the select board will make a recommendation at town meeting just because we don't want them to be mistaken to think because we sponsored it that we are already recommending it. We're sponsoring it in that we're putting it in the warrant as a placeholder in the event that we can complete our analysis in time for town meeting to make the recommendation at town meeting.

I've actually, yeah, you're right. I've been adding those back in. Okay.

Does that make sense to everybody?

[Speaker 13] (1:34:33 - 1:34:34)
Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:34:34 - 1:34:40)
Pete, the language typically says the select board will report on this article at town meeting. Okay. All right.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:42 - 1:34:45)
So did it get added back in for Article 10 then?

[Speaker 11] (1:34:46 - 1:34:51)
Yep. It's a placeholder if you vote, but, yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:54 - 1:34:57)
If we sponsor it, we still vote? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:58 - 1:35:06)
Yeah, because in this case we're putting something on the warrant not knowing whether or not we're actually going to say let's go forward with it. There's a chance that we may say we're not ready to go forward with it.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:06 - 1:35:07)
Oh, in Article 11.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:07 - 1:35:16)
I just don't, I didn't want town meeting members to get it, read it, see it sponsored by us, and assume that it was done, that the select board had already made its decision. Because we haven't had that discussion yet.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:20 - 1:35:27)
All right. Article 12 is an extension of the right to lease Hawthorne by the sea.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:27 - 1:35:28)
So we had made it.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:30 - 1:35:30)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:31 - 1:35:32)
Oh, there it is.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:33 - 1:35:33)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 12] (1:35:33 - 1:35:33)
Say it.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:33 - 1:35:41)
I was going to say, we had made a recommendation last meeting to change lease to use, but it looks like you just did that, Pete, and it's not in ours.

[Speaker 9] (1:35:41 - 1:35:46)
I just got the updated language from town council, maybe an hour before the meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:46 - 1:35:48)
Yeah, so just give us a second to read what's on the screen.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:48 - 1:35:55)
Would you make it a little bigger, Diane or Pete, whoever's sharing? Thank you. Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:08 - 1:36:28)
So can I just ask a question? This doesn't actually provide the date to which we would extend it to. Is that something that the motion on town meeting floor?

Again, we haven't had that conversation as a board either, to be honest with you. So is that just something we would, it just says to extend the use, but doesn't create a new date on that.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:28 - 1:36:32)
Do we have to have a new date? An ending date?

[Speaker 1] (1:36:32 - 1:37:00)
We don't, but I think the premise of the, I think in the spirit of town meetings approval, when we acquired it was that at some point there would be a sunset with the idea that we wouldn't allow, we didn't buy it to continue to allow a restaurant to lease it from us, and to keep the pressure on us. So I think the spirit is that there would be a date there because town meeting, then ultimately we would have to go back, or the future board would have to go back to town meeting and say, what are we doing? How are we doing?

[Speaker 10] (1:37:00 - 1:37:13)
As opposed to not having to do that. So keeping with the spirit, wouldn't kicking that date out by 12 months make sense? So kicking it out from December 31, 23 to December 31, 24.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:13 - 1:38:16)
Yeah, so I'm going to suggest to 25, December 31 of 25, for the following reason, which is, I think what's clear from the initial HDR feedback, the advisor here in the process here is that it's going to take some time to go through finalizing decisions, design, and funding for this. And I think it's in our interest, especially with the current user, the current user in the town can strike a deal that makes financial sense to the town and ensures that this building isn't vacant, but it requires a little bit more of a runway than just 12 months. It just gives the town administrator the ability to have that flexibility.

Particularly I'm focused on things like, I don't, if we're going to have the restaurant for the next two years, I would love to share some of the capital obligation with the user. And if it's only a year, they may say it's not worth it for us to do that, but two years might make it worth it for them to share some of the capital obligations on the building. So it just gives greater flexibility to the town administrator to hopefully find a way to make sure that this building doesn't become vacant on October of this year.

[Speaker 10] (1:38:17 - 1:38:26)
So does this, does this have to go through an RFP process? If, if, if the, if the current, if the current occupant wants to extend beyond. Yeah.

We'll look into that.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:28 - 1:38:41)
I don't know the answer on that. We have the authority to do that anyways, the RFP because it's a short-term lease, but we'd have to look into that. I don't know the answer to that question.

Yeah. It's a great question.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:42 - 1:38:59)
Yeah. I mean, I think I would err on the side of a little bit more flexibility and would be in favor of the 25 date, but having a date. I'm supportive of everyone.

Okay. With that, that change. Yep.

So you got that Pete. Yeah, you do typing it.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:01 - 1:39:13)
So do we want to just make sure the comment also gets updated? Cause the comments still, the old comment that says it limited the ability to select board to leasing the property until December. It wasn't leasing.

It was to using the property for its existing purposes.

[Speaker 11] (1:39:15 - 1:39:19)
Yeah. The use period. We changed it earlier.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:20 - 1:40:02)
Yeah. But look in the sentence before it said limited to leasing the property until yeah, it didn't, it didn't technically limit our leasing. It limited the use of the property, not our ability to lease it.

So if you can just highlight the change so we can look at it Monday, but I would, yeah, we'll do it then. Yeah. Well substantively I'd recommend favorable action tonight.

We're just proofing it Monday.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:02 - 1:40:11)
Hopefully you, are you making a motion for favorable action?

[Speaker 1] (1:40:11 - 1:40:16)
Yeah, I'm sorry. I did not say that right. I'm making a motion.

Substantively. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 12] (1:40:16 - 1:40:21)
I hereby move. Favorable action. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:22 - 1:40:40)
All right. Any further discussion on that one? All those in favor.

Okay. Article 13. And then general bylaws for the revolving funds.

This is to increase the limit for the council on aging revolving fund.

[Speaker 12] (1:40:42 - 1:40:46)
I would make a motion for a favorable, recommend favorable action. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:47 - 1:41:11)
Any other comments on this one? Questions? Fixes?

All those in favor. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Okay. You got that Pete?

Yep. Yep. Okay.

Article 14 chapter 90 appropriation.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:15 - 1:41:19)
I'd make a motion for favorable action on article 14.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:20 - 1:41:23)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:23 - 1:41:25)
Is there, are there any comments on that or any questions?

[Speaker 1] (1:41:25 - 1:41:38)
I just want to make sure in the comment, it refers to project number six. I'm assuming project number six is our paving project in the comment. And we just don't have the list of projects in front of us.

So just make sure you have, you're referencing the correct project.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:54 - 1:42:00)
Okay. All those in favor, we vote. All those in favor.

[Speaker 13] (1:42:01 - 1:42:01)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:01 - 1:42:16)
Aye. Aye. Article 15 is appropriation for capital projects.

Aside from our opinion on the capital projects. Oh yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:17 - 1:42:40)
So I'm going to state my suggestion again, which is tonight. We sent CIC and the fincom finish the recommendations that they will. I think they're intending to do tomorrow night, tomorrow night.

They're trying to since they will have finished, just put what they finalize and we'll just hold our recommendation until town meeting because we're not going to finish our review before Monday. I'm guessing.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:40 - 1:42:57)
So, So does anyone have any comments about any of the language in this article or the comment? We don't, we can say the select board will report. Everyone's good with that.

[Speaker 7] (1:42:59 - 1:42:59)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (1:43:00 - 1:43:06)
Article 16 adoption of section for the town clerk ministerial changes.

[Speaker 12] (1:43:07 - 1:43:11)
I would make a recommendation. They will action. Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:43:12 - 1:43:16)
Any further comment or changes on this language?

[Speaker 7] (1:43:17 - 1:43:20)
Is this paginated correctly?

[Speaker 1] (1:43:23 - 1:43:26)
I think it's changed. It's changed since we've seen it. You started the table.

[Speaker 7] (1:43:28 - 1:43:34)
See, it says comma or take any action. I don't think it's fingers. There's a typo.

[Speaker 12] (1:43:37 - 1:43:38)
Sorry, what's that?

[Speaker 7] (1:43:38 - 1:43:43)
That comma or take any action relative there too. I think that might be a.

[Speaker 11] (1:43:44 - 1:43:45)
That's intentional.

[Speaker 7] (1:43:46 - 1:43:47)
Is it now? Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (1:43:48 - 1:43:52)
The section seven language is a block quote within the overall.

[Speaker 7] (1:43:52 - 1:43:57)
Oh, so it is paginated correctly. Okay. That was my question.

Is it paginated correctly? And the answer is yes. Thank you.

[Speaker 12] (1:43:58 - 1:43:59)
Okay. Let's review.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:01 - 1:44:11)
This looks strange. Yeah. All right.

Article 17 is the earth removal bylaw.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:11 - 1:44:13)
Did we end the article 16?

[Speaker 2] (1:44:14 - 1:44:20)
We all I'm sorry. Thank you. There was a motion.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:20 - 1:44:21)
We made a motion.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:21 - 1:44:23)
All those in favor. Aye.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:23 - 1:44:23)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:23 - 1:44:30)
Thank you. 17 amending the earth removal bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:32 - 1:45:23)
So my only comment in this one is I don't in the comment. It says the last line says and enabling the ability to limit the number of blasting events for non quarry permits. I looked in the red line of exhibit B and didn't see the language that actually limits that.

Now I'm not saying that it's not there. I'm just letting you know that when I read it, I didn't see it. So I just want to make sure Pete that that actually that might have been a carryover from prior versions and maybe that language isn't in here now.

If it is in here. Great. I just wanted to make sure because I didn't see it when I reviewed the appendix B.

Okay. Given, given that I would recommend we hold off on recommendation because I don't know what that limitation on blasting is.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:26 - 1:45:46)
Any other comments or questions on this one? We'll have to take that up on Monday. Thank you.

Article 18. I've been feeding wild animals. Sponsored by the team.

Sponsored by the town administrator. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:47 - 1:45:51)
Make a motion to recommend favorable action on article 18.

[Speaker 7] (1:45:52 - 1:45:52)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:54 - 1:45:55)
Any comments questions on this one.

[Speaker 10] (1:45:55 - 1:45:57)
Are there fees associated?

[Speaker 2] (1:45:57 - 1:45:58)
Yeah. Is there a stick?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:59 - 1:46:07)
Yeah. Fifty hundred. I think it's fifty, a hundred, three hundred.

And that's just, and that's just state. I think that's a statutory warning.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:08 - 1:46:10)
Is it warning warning?

[Speaker 1] (1:46:10 - 1:46:15)
Fifty hundred. Yeah. And you can't have bird feeders.

[Speaker 7] (1:46:16 - 1:46:16)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:17 - 1:46:18)
That was my one comment.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:18 - 1:46:28)
I will. Hey, there it is. I answered it for you.

There it is. Unless your bird feeder proves to be a nuisance. And then which case.

We can have it. We'll have a hearing. We'll have a 12 hour select board hearing about your bird.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:30 - 1:46:31)
That's a nuisance.

[Speaker 9] (1:46:31 - 1:46:35)
Needs to be an appropriately sized bird feeder. Not too low to the ground where you're feeding grounded.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:35 - 1:46:49)
Okay. Thanks. Enough.

Enough from the gallery on that one. We don't want to talk anymore. Needs definition of appropriately sized.

Appropriately sized bird feeder. Your Robins. Your Robins are too fat.

Let's just be honest. You're feeding. You're overfeeding the Robins.

[Speaker 13] (1:46:49 - 1:46:50)
How dare you.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:50 - 1:46:59)
All right. All those in favor. I just shamed the Robins.

I'm sorry. I owe an apology. All right.

All those in favor for article 17. Aye.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:00 - 1:47:00)
All right.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:01 - 1:47:01)
You can use it.

[Speaker 2] (1:47:02 - 1:47:18)
Or 18. Sorry. That was 18.

Article 19 is amend general bylaws. Gas powered leaf blowers. To see if the town will vote to amend the bylaws.

To prohibit the use of gas powered leaf blowers. Essentially during the summer.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:19 - 1:47:20)
So it's here at certain times.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:21 - 1:47:35)
Yeah. So when you turn it over. And you actually look at the.

Language here actually is from Memorial Day to Labor Day. So this language is exactly the same. As the language that marble had passed.

In its last year town meeting.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:36 - 1:47:41)
It's prettier. On the screen. Together.

Rather than. Broken apart.

[Speaker 10] (1:47:43 - 1:47:48)
So this. This still would allow gas powered leaf blowers. To operate.

In the fall.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:48 - 1:48:05)
In the swing seasons. In the spring and. Yep.

And again. This is just modeled. Exactly on what level.

I did. So I would ask. My colleagues to consider being the sponsor of this.

And. Make a favorable. Recommendation of favorable action.

[Speaker 6] (1:48:07 - 1:48:14)
How come we're only doing it. In the. In the summer months.

More for noise. Or is this for.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:15 - 1:49:14)
Yes. In essence. So.

So kind of turning back the time. A decade ago. Maybe it was at this point where.

It came to town meeting. It was. No other community had it at the time.

And there was a. Stated concern that the. Landscapers don't have the technology.

The landscapers. Work in. Other communities like Marblehead.

And. And Marblehead wouldn't have a similar thing. And.

I think the accommodation. And at the time. Going back a decade ago.

Similarly allowed for. Leaf blowers. For the.

Cleanup season. If you will. In the spring.

In the cleanup season. In the fall. But not in the summer.

And so. My suggestion was. And.

Ask the town administrator. To seek out. Marblehead's language.

So that we would be. Consistent with Marblehead. In principle.

I would be fine with. Every month. Having them banned.

So. To be clear. I was just.

Trying to make it consistent. With Marblehead. So that we could.

Negate. The conversation generally about. The fact that there's different rules.

But. I am. A hundred percent.

Fine with. Getting rid of. Gas.

Leaf blowers.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:15 - 1:49:17)
How about. Weed whackers as well.

[Speaker 7] (1:49:22 - 1:49:57)
Well. With regards to the leaf blowers. I feel like.

The bulk time. That they. That the.

That it is necessary for them. Is during those. Seasons outside of the summer month.

Spring cleanup. The fall cleanup. That's the only time.

Every other time. They're. Blowing your.

Dust and debris around. They're not blowing leaves. Which.

Their name. Intends their purpose. Is a leaf blower.

So to me. This does make sense. To say.

When do the leaves. Mostly on the ground. In the spring.

In the fall. So go ahead and use your leaf blowers. During those seasons.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:02 - 1:50:19)
Yeah. I mean. I think.

Leaf blowers. Hit. No.

It's not. It's. It's noise pollution.

It's emissions. And it's. Air quality.

So. I mean. I'm.

Happy to have us. Sponsor it. And.

[Speaker 6] (1:50:21 - 1:50:24)
Are we sponsoring. Or the town. The town administrator.

Is sponsoring. I've asked.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:24 - 1:50:26)
I've asked us to. Sponsor this one.

[Speaker 7] (1:50:27 - 1:50:56)
Also. In addition. That's when you have your windows open.

Like. In the summer. Your windows are open.

So. On top of the noise pollution. As.

Neil just said. The amount of. Debris that comes in through your windows.

My. Neighbors. Landscapers.

Are lit. I could. Open my window.

They're right there. We're on top of each other. Especially in our neighborhood.

So. I. You're looking at.

My. Landscaper. Right now.

So. I would.

[Speaker 13] (1:50:56 - 1:50:57)
Love.

[Speaker 7] (1:50:57 - 1:51:04)
To get rid of the gas. So I agree.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:04 - 1:51:06)
It's true. I am. Her landscaper.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:06 - 1:51:07)
No. Oh.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:07 - 1:51:09)
I'm sorry. I thought. Sorry.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:14 - 1:51:16)
I agree. I agree to support. Same.

[Speaker 10] (1:51:16 - 1:51:19)
The question. So I'm. In support.

Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:20 - 1:51:22)
So. There's a motion. For favorable action.

Is there a second.

[Speaker 10] (1:51:23 - 1:51:23)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:24 - 1:51:40)
Motion. Any further discussion on this. All those in favor.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

20. Is to amend general bylaw. Chair.

Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (1:51:41 - 1:51:45)
On article 19. Are we changing the sponsor?

[Speaker 7] (1:51:47 - 1:51:48)
So the harbor.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:48 - 1:51:57)
We're adding it to be the select board. In our version. It just it doesn't have one.

So yeah, it can be the select board.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:02 - 1:52:09)
I don't think finance committee recommendation, oh you deleted it, never mind, look at that.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:11 - 1:52:21)
Article 20 is to amend the general bylaws to amend the plastic straw and stirrer prohibition to include plastic takeout containers.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:23 - 1:52:29)
I would make a recommendation for favorable action, and I appreciate the town administrator putting this forward.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:29 - 1:52:41)
I would like to just add the styrofoam clam shelf too, I just think, you know, for the consideration, I think that's, that was my comment.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:41 - 1:52:45)
So can you change that language and we can take it up Monday night?

[Speaker 6] (1:52:45 - 1:52:46)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:46 - 1:52:46)
Yep.

[Speaker 6] (1:52:48 - 1:52:50)
So we're going to discuss this on Monday night?

[Speaker 1] (1:52:50 - 1:52:52)
Yeah, we can discuss it now if you wanted to as well. We just can't pass it.

[Speaker 6] (1:52:52 - 1:53:00)
Well, so my only concern is to include plastic takeout containers. We're talking about the recyclable takeout containers?

[Speaker 4] (1:53:05 - 1:53:33)
No, we'll actually put in language to clarify that. There are some plastics that are recyclable, but, you know, certainly, you know, we want to ban the plastic containers that, frankly, are So I just, I'm sorry, I'm just going to interrupt.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:34 - 1:54:07)
There is a definition of plastic in the bylaw that is inconsistent with what you just said, so maybe the answer is I think the bylaw would still, even if it has recyclable materials or is recyclable, still would ban it because it creates the creation of plastic in the first instance. So the way the bylaw is currently drafted would prohibit even recyclable plastic containers or recycled plastic containers. Just answer, I'm just answering based on what, how the article currently, the appendix reads, just to make sure you had the right answer.

[Speaker 6] (1:54:08 - 1:54:30)
Right. So my concern here is the, if we have restaurants using recyclable plastic containers, now we're going to put a burden on them to, I just, I'd like to Yep, we're going to try to force a more renewable resource for these containers.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:30 - 1:54:43)
Some restaurants use paper and cardboard and soy-based utensils, and I think ideally that's the goal that we're trying to push.

[Speaker 6] (1:54:43 - 1:54:53)
So I'm just wondering, why don't we try that first and educate our restaurants instead of just lowering the boom and saying, you're not, you can't use this plastic here.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:53 - 1:55:14)
So this does have, just again, just a point, just so you understand, this doesn't have an effective date until January of 24 to give a period of time for people to use their materials and get rid of the materials that they have in stock. Which we assume, yeah, so that's section 3E, 3, 2E.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:16 - 1:55:20)
Is this language coming from KB?

[Speaker 4] (1:55:22 - 1:55:31)
I did ask them to take a look at Falmouth, they just recently supported a ban of plastic containers for food establishments.

[Speaker 10] (1:55:36 - 1:55:42)
Sean, are there grants that are available for, you know, for helping our businesses transition?

[Speaker 4] (1:55:43 - 1:55:44)
Not sure, but I can look into that.

[Speaker 10] (1:55:44 - 1:55:45)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:49 - 1:56:04)
My other comment on Article 20 is in the third line of the warrant language, not the appendix. It says, a prohibition on single-use plastic take-out containers in food establishments. I think that should say business establishments again, just to be consistent.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:11 - 1:56:33)
I think it would be helpful to have as much, I mean, I think we discussed it on Monday night, I want to spend some time on this one that I haven't, and just understanding, and to understand, like, the options that are out there. Is the January 1 date enough time?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:34 - 1:56:38)
Yeah, hypothetically, are you more concerned that a town like Swampscott might be more forward-thinking than, let's say, a city like Salem?

[Speaker 2] (1:56:39 - 1:56:40)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:40 - 1:56:43)
Oh, I was just wondering if that's what your consideration was.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:43 - 1:56:57)
Like, honestly, I don't, like, it's not a, it's not something I, I don't know, I don't have a lot, I don't know a lot about this. So, I just want to make sure we understand it.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:58 - 1:57:01)
For me, it's a climate action. It's also, it's environmental.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:01 - 1:57:39)
Yeah, no, I know, I, yeah, I understand it, and I support it, as, it's just understanding the timing and what the implications are, and I don't, I don't know the implications. So, understanding those are, is important, I think. Sure.

Because, because, with any change like this, there's always, there's a credibility piece to it, right, and you want to be credible when you're coming up and asking for people to change their behaviors, and, and just knowing that we can make that credible argument is important.

[Speaker 7] (1:57:40 - 1:58:03)
I'm curious, too, to know who we're asking to change behaviors. I know the article defines who we're asking, but from that definition group, who is actually still using plastic containers? Because it would seem to me that, just from my brief knowledge of takeout in Swanstead, some of the smaller businesses are already doing this, and it's mostly the larger businesses, like, like the supermarkets and things like that.

[Speaker 12] (1:58:04 - 1:58:04)
Gourmet Garden.

[Speaker 7] (1:58:05 - 1:58:06)
Gourmet Garden.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:06 - 1:58:08)
I'm just saying Chinese, the Chinese is having, having plastic.

[Speaker 7] (1:58:08 - 1:58:17)
So, it's more of the larger businesses who might not be following the suit that we would be affecting. But I'm curious to know if that assumption is correct.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:18 - 1:58:19)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (1:58:19 - 1:58:20)
We can survey.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:20 - 1:58:40)
Great. I mean, I think maybe you just have the health director just go by the restaurants, and while he's doing it, maybe ask him to take a look at straws, because I think he would be pretty disappointed to see current compliance rates with the existing regulations that are, in fact, in place. And when I say very disappointed, I'm just focusing on the word very disappointed.

[Speaker 7] (1:58:40 - 1:58:56)
And not just restaurants, but supermarkets, and anything that's serving to-go, like ready-made to-go foods. Like, for example, Whole Foods. The entire sushi section is all plastic.

[Speaker 10] (1:58:57 - 1:59:08)
And we're also talking about business establishments here, as well. I mean, I just want to make sure the town is doing its part to not have, to not be purchasing plastic. Lead by example.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:09 - 1:59:09)
Sure.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:09 - 1:59:12)
Okay. And the schools, as well.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:12 - 1:59:20)
I will work with the superintendent and ask her to support these environmental policy changes.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:21 - 1:59:25)
Yeah. I mean, that just may, that just may impact when this would be able to go into effect.

[Speaker 6] (1:59:26 - 1:59:45)
That's my biggest thing, is when it goes into effect. And I'm very concerned about putting additional pressure on businesses without really getting their buy-in. I think we can get their buy-in.

And I just don't, I'd rather walk into it rather than dropping something on somebody.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:45 - 2:00:22)
Understood. I think, you know, ideally, you know, we want to get there sooner than later. But, you know, certainly I appreciate the board's concerns about ensuring that we don't place an additional hardship on some of the small businesses.

But, you know, we're at a point now, environmentally, that we have to be more affirmatively in support of changes, because we've been so behind the eight ball, as I think some of our advocates have mentioned. You know, we've got a lot of work to do. And we probably shouldn't push it off too long.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:22 - 2:00:37)
Yeah. So I just want to be clear. I appreciate that sensitivity.

But I believe the burden of the plastic is greater than the burden that we would be putting on any one business in Swampscot. So the burden that plastic puts on our environment. So I'm glad you're challenging us to think about it, nonetheless.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:41 - 2:00:44)
I don't think this was brought up to the Solid Waste Committee, was it?

[Speaker 4] (2:00:45 - 2:00:45)
It was.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:45 - 2:00:47)
For a recommendation? Yep. It was?

[Speaker 4] (2:00:47 - 2:00:48)
Feedback from them.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:49 - 2:00:50)
It was brought up at a meeting?

[Speaker 4] (2:00:51 - 2:00:54)
I shared it with the chair of the Solid Waste Committee.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:54 - 2:00:57)
Okay. I don't think it was at a meeting, but that's...

[Speaker 2] (2:00:59 - 2:01:01)
Would you like to share any of that feedback?

[Speaker 4] (2:01:02 - 2:01:52)
You know, I think it was a thought that we should take some time and evaluate this and think about, you know, what kind of plastics we should ban and, you know, try to split a hair. I think getting back to the conversation, I don't think it's worth splitting that hair. I think fundamentally we should just shift the conversation from trying to figure out what kind of plastics we should have to, let's just transition over to paper and a more sustainable container model.

There's a market out there that is emerging that can help us, you know, avoid that, you know, challenge with a market with plastics that has been very challenging.

[Speaker 7] (2:01:53 - 2:01:59)
I just want to make sure, too, that our school food service provider is able to follow these guidelines.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:59 - 2:02:03)
I mean, I've got to work with the superintendent. I don't have a lot of control over the superintendent.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:04 - 2:02:06)
No, I understand, but if we're banning it in...

[Speaker 4] (2:02:06 - 2:02:07)
Well, you do if we pass a bylaw.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:08 - 2:02:20)
You do if we pass a bylaw that bans it in town. So it would be advantageous of us to have this conversation before we pass it to make sure that they can understand the ramifications or so we can understand the ramifications we're putting upon them.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:21 - 2:02:29)
I will let the superintendent know tomorrow that we're advancing a conversation about banning plastic food containers.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:30 - 2:02:31)
And styrofoam.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:32 - 2:02:32)
And styrofoam.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:33 - 2:02:35)
Does anybody have any options?

[Speaker 2] (2:02:36 - 2:02:48)
All right. So to be continued on Monday. Article 21 is to amend the zoning bylaw for accessory dwelling units.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:49 - 2:03:25)
I would ask or suggest that Articles 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 all be tabled to Monday. At this time, we can perhaps have the planning board chair join us on Monday. And we can just...

It gives them a little bit more time to finalize things because I think there's been some late additions to this such that we wouldn't... Let me say for me, I couldn't make recommendations tonight because things have just been added. I don't think they're finalized here.

So that would actually give them time to finalize some things as well. Staff and whatnot with the planning board chair. And then we'll just take those up on Monday.

[Speaker 2] (2:03:26 - 2:03:47)
Okay. Does anyone have any small things in any of this language that they want to bring to Pete's attention in the meantime? Not necessarily in the appendix.

But otherwise... Everyone okay with tabling all those zoning articles?

[Speaker 1] (2:03:48 - 2:03:52)
Yeah. I'm sorry. Let me...

Can I just change what I just said? I apologize.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:52 - 2:03:52)
No.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:52 - 2:04:16)
I just... Well, no. I need to for a technical reason.

You won't. But articles 21, 22, 23, and 25 are the ones I'm referring to tabling. Article 24, our prior meeting, I stated this and I'll say it again that I'm going to recuse myself from any action on that matter.

So I can't make a motion or even ask to have it be tabled. So I'm not asking for that one to be tabled.

[Speaker 2] (2:04:16 - 2:04:19)
You're asking us to table all of them but 24.

[Speaker 7] (2:04:20 - 2:04:21)
I think we should include 24.

[Speaker 2] (2:04:23 - 2:04:32)
So... Okay. We don't have to vote on that.

Okay. You should table it. And then just...

Are these all sponsored by the planning board?

[Speaker 7] (2:04:35 - 2:04:36)
Doesn't...

[Speaker 2] (2:04:36 - 2:04:37)
While we're working on this?

[Speaker 1] (2:04:37 - 2:04:47)
Let's talk with the planning board about that between now and then to make sure. For example, the Hadley, I'm not quite sure. Right.

We'll work out the details with them.

[Speaker 13] (2:04:47 - 2:04:47)
Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (2:04:49 - 2:05:02)
And then... I thought some of these zoning articles only required a 50% vote at town meeting. I thought we got rid of the super majority for some of these...

[Speaker 1] (2:05:02 - 2:05:16)
Yes. So again, without speaking on any particular article, I expect town council to review this because law has changed in certain respects as to what the voting requirement is for certain zoning changes. So if we can please make sure town council has reviewed this.

[Speaker 11] (2:05:16 - 2:05:33)
Town council has reviewed these and they noted that they do require two-thirds. And it has to do with a specific special permit requirement language that's in each of the bylaws that that requires two-thirds majority.

[Speaker 12] (2:05:35 - 2:05:36)
There you go.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:39 - 2:05:41)
So Pete, every one of them is two-thirds?

[Speaker 11] (2:05:42 - 2:05:57)
That was their comment to us, yes. Thank you. They commented on them all separately, that they all were...

[Speaker 2] (2:05:57 - 2:06:07)
All right. Article 26 is a grant of easement to National Grid attendant Whitman Road, which is for the new elementary school construction.

[Speaker 12] (2:06:07 - 2:06:09)
I would make a motion for favorable action.

[Speaker 2] (2:06:11 - 2:06:35)
Second. Second. Any comments or questions on this one?

Sponsored by the town administrator. Does that make sense? Yep.

All those in favor of favorable action for Article 26? Aye.

[Speaker 13] (2:06:35 - 2:06:35)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (2:06:38 - 2:06:51)
Article 27. Oh, this is the Saturday as a legal holiday. We had a brief conversation about this on our last meeting.

And this is to, I believe...

[Speaker 9] (2:06:52 - 2:06:59)
I had sent a summary from my discussion with the town clerk on this to the town administrator as well. So I don't know if that was shared with you.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:00 - 2:07:06)
We don't have... The only comment says adoption of the provision will allow polling to be closed on Saturdays. I don't even think the comment's right.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:09 - 2:07:17)
So in the last four years, we've only had one person show up on a Saturday to vote. This would allow us to just... Sure.

[Speaker 9] (2:07:18 - 2:08:06)
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. This has nothing to do with restricting people from when they can vote. It is merely regarding the deadline to register to vote.

So with the Votes Act that went in place in January 1st, 2023, it changed the deadline to register to vote from 21 days before an election to 10 days before an election. So previously, that deadline was on a Tuesday, and now it has moved to a Saturday. So accepting these provisions would allow the last day to register to vote to be in person on Friday, which would also then allow town hall to be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for that purpose. And voters can still register online through the RMV until midnight that night, which is how the majority of voters choose to register to vote.

[Speaker 7] (2:08:07 - 2:08:10)
Until midnight which night? The Friday or the Saturday? The Saturday.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:11 - 2:08:16)
Midnight into Sunday? I'm so confused by midnight. Yeah.

I don't know.

[Speaker 9] (2:08:18 - 2:08:23)
1159 p.m. on the Saturday, 10 days before an election.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:24 - 2:08:31)
So I'm confused. How does this change allow the date to go from Saturday to Friday for you guys for being open?

[Speaker 9] (2:08:31 - 2:08:43)
It's just for the in-person. It's a legal holiday. They don't have to be open.

Yeah. So basically, we're paying staff to come in on a Saturday for no one to come in to register to vote. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:44 - 2:08:45)
You don't know what the future holds.

[Speaker 9] (2:08:46 - 2:08:46)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:46 - 2:09:01)
But I'm just, what I'm confused by is if we're making a legal holiday out of Saturday. Tell me, again, just go through the days thing because it seems like it would push it out to Monday then as the last day and not shorten it by a day.

[Speaker 9] (2:09:01 - 2:09:07)
So we're not allowed to. So the Vote to Act that passed has it be 10 days before an election?

[Speaker 13] (2:09:07 - 2:09:08)
Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (2:09:08 - 2:09:24)
But it does not honor what is voted as legal holidays, which includes Sundays already, any legal holiday, and if we accept the statute for Saturday as a legal holiday, it would then move the last day to be able to register to vote be on a Friday.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:25 - 2:09:29)
Does that mean it starts earlier? Hm? Does that mean it starts earlier because you just get 10 days?

[Speaker 9] (2:09:31 - 2:09:35)
It basically moves your 10th day to the Friday instead of the Saturday. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:36 - 2:09:41)
So it is doing it. It's in reverse. So you are doing exactly what I was doing it the other way.

Yes. I'm good.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:41 - 2:09:44)
So it gives you an extra in the beginning because you're not counting Saturdays.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:44 - 2:09:44)
Yeah. So it's still 10 days.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:45 - 2:09:48)
It's still giving 10 days. Yeah. Yes.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:48 - 2:09:50)
Yep. Really impressed with Mike.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:51 - 2:10:04)
Okay. I think we probably need to clarify what this is. I had to count days backwards.

I don't know what the comment is to explain that, but it needs to be updated. More robust. Not what it is.

[Speaker 13] (2:10:04 - 2:10:05)
I will get back to you.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:05 - 2:10:12)
Yeah. I think it seems like we'll vote on this on Monday when it's clearer language.

[Speaker 12] (2:10:14 - 2:10:18)
Well, that's just a comment. We can vote on favorable action.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:18 - 2:10:20)
People feel comfortable? Is there a second?

[Speaker 6] (2:10:22 - 2:10:22)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:24 - 2:10:27)
Any further questions or discussion on this one?

[Speaker 7] (2:10:27 - 2:10:32)
I just want to ensure that we will still have 10 days prior to the election.

[Speaker 9] (2:10:32 - 2:10:33)
Prior to the election.

[Speaker 7] (2:10:33 - 2:10:36)
It's just that we will no longer allow Saturdays.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:39 - 2:11:17)
All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. And we'll review that on Monday. Okay.

Article 28, Approval of Climate Action Resilience Plan. This is for town meeting to approve or authorize us to adopt the Climate Action Resilience Plan. Actually, the final draft of that plan is ready.

I'll send it out to the board after the meeting so you can review the final plan.

[Speaker 6] (2:11:17 - 2:11:21)
And have you made changes in that plan since the election?

[Speaker 2] (2:11:21 - 2:12:35)
Yeah, nothing incredibly substantive, but we're having some changes. I had some minor comments peed on the comment that it should say not zero carbon energy. It should say zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Net zero greenhouse gas emissions. And then you ready, Pete? On the next part of the comment where it says creating a new guidance plan that and then changing the rest of that sentence to say that provides a framework.

To move towards making the community stronger, healthier, and more resilient while reducing our contribution to climate change.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:02 - 2:13:05)
So we're going to just do nothing tonight.

[Speaker 2] (2:13:05 - 2:13:37)
I think, yeah, I'll send you the final plan. So I don't think we should vote for your action. One other action I would propose and be interested to see what the board thinks.

I mean, I understand the structure of our warrant is what it is. It always frustrates me a little bit that articles like this are at the end. So I would propose this to be the second article that we take up at town meeting and then move on to everything else.

[Speaker 9] (2:13:39 - 2:13:41)
The moderator can take the articles out of order.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:41 - 2:13:47)
Yeah, but he would need permission to do it. So we can do it.

[Speaker 12] (2:13:47 - 2:13:48)
We can do it right now. Let's do it.

[Speaker 6] (2:13:49 - 2:13:51)
So what's the word?

[Speaker 12] (2:13:52 - 2:13:52)
What's the what?

[Speaker 6] (2:13:53 - 2:13:56)
What's the word? Are you taking off?

[Speaker 12] (2:13:56 - 2:13:59)
Is there like a bedtime for you? There's no worry.

[Speaker 2] (2:13:59 - 2:14:01)
I mean, I think I just think it.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:03 - 2:14:06)
I think it merits it emanates the importance of the article.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:06 - 2:14:08)
That's how I feel about it.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:08 - 2:14:14)
I appreciate that. I'd be happy moving that to become article number two. I'll second that.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:15 - 2:14:33)
Okay. I don't think we have to vote on that. But if everyone's okay with that move.

Right. And then we'll vote on that on Monday. So I think and then we've got a citizen's petition.

And we don't make a recommendation.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:34 - 2:14:46)
So you can just remove that. Right. You don't make a recommendation.

Oh, do we? We do make a we do make a recommendation. We do.

But there's no comment.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:46 - 2:14:47)
There's no article.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:47 - 2:14:54)
No, there is an article. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

No, you're right. There's no article or comment here. But there is an appendix.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:54 - 2:14:55)
There's an appendix.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:58 - 2:14:59)
All right.

[Speaker 7] (2:15:02 - 2:15:08)
Also, I think it's appendix L, at least in ours. Not on the screen.

[Speaker 11] (2:15:09 - 2:15:11)
Yeah, it's been changed.

[Speaker 12] (2:15:11 - 2:15:16)
We have another. Okay. So we're going to take up 29.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:16 - 2:15:33)
We'll take this up on Monday. This is. I remember it's to change the state flag.

Right. I know what it is. Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:33 - 2:15:33)
Yes.

[Speaker 11] (2:15:34 - 2:15:34)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:38 - 2:16:13)
Let's go back. I just want to clarify one thing about changing article numbers. These numbers really aren't based on.

I don't want people to imply any degree of importance based on where an article sits here. I think what you're asking for is it to be. You're asking us the chair to put this one early on.

But, you know, again, these just get categorized. And frankly, the way in which they get categorized has just been formulaic over the years. As well.

So we're just traditionally like the numbers traditionally bylaw changes and non-financial articles find their way later in the. Right. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:16:14 - 2:16:27)
Totally understood. It doesn't matter. It's not priority.

All right. I think we're through what we can get through tonight with that.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:30 - 2:16:49)
So I guess the only thing I would say here is that we're really reliant on staff, making sure the appendixes are accurate. Right. Because we would have no.

We can read them and look at them, but we have no way of knowing if they're accurate. Right. So I just ask everyone to please make sure they're accurate.

[Speaker 2] (2:16:51 - 2:16:56)
And I think, you know, it would be great to have this on the weekend.

[Speaker 6] (2:16:58 - 2:17:03)
I just want to ask a quick question. Who is the enforcing agent on wildlife feeding?

[Speaker 12] (2:17:04 - 2:17:05)
Is that the police?

[Speaker 1] (2:17:05 - 2:17:09)
Our full-time animal control officers. It's actually broader than that, I think.

[Speaker 6] (2:17:09 - 2:17:11)
Is that the only person who can write a ticket?

[Speaker 1] (2:17:12 - 2:17:15)
I believe it's broader than that. So bear with me as I circle it.

[Speaker 7] (2:17:19 - 2:17:20)
Citizens arrest, Miriam.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:21 - 2:17:27)
Designated enforcement authorities, the Swampscott Animal Control Officer, police officers, and any agents of the Board of Health.

[Speaker 10] (2:17:33 - 2:17:34)
I think it's your badge, Miriam.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:46 - 2:18:09)
Thanks to staff for all the hard work on this one. Yeah. So I think by having the highlighted changes peaked to us before Monday so that we can look at the highlighted changes, it keeps us from having to go page by page again.

Instead, we can just highlight the things that we think we either need to act on or correct. Okay. And if possible, getting that tomorrow would be awesome.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:10 - 2:18:37)
That would be fantastic. All right. We're moving on to the consent agenda.

We have one, two, three liquor licenses from Café Avellino for events at Reach Arts. I would make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[Speaker 13] (2:18:38 - 2:18:38)
Second.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:39 - 2:18:41)
Sorry, we're removing the approval of the minutes.

[Speaker 13] (2:18:42 - 2:18:42)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:42 - 2:18:43)
Because we don't have them.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:44 - 2:18:48)
I would make a motion to approve the consent agenda, less the minutes from last week's meeting.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:50 - 2:18:51)
Is there a second from Mary Allen?

[Speaker 6] (2:18:52 - 2:18:53)
Yes, there's a second.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:54 - 2:18:56)
Okay. Are there other questions or comments?

[Speaker 6] (2:18:57 - 2:19:08)
Just wanted to make sure that it's a 2-1 day liquor license. Okay. I just want to make sure they're realistic.

[Speaker 13] (2:19:08 - 2:19:09)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:11 - 2:19:25)
All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Sorry, are you good?

Did I call that too? Yeah. Okay.

Opposed?

[Speaker 6] (2:19:26 - 2:19:30)
No. Okay. I just want to know what party they're having over there.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:30 - 2:19:35)
Yeah, all right. All right. I'm administering a report.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:38 - 2:27:59)
You know, as we just kind of went through, we've been busy just finalizing the budget, finalizing the capital improvement plan. I certainly want to thank staff, but also the committees for their hard work. Finance committee is meeting tomorrow night, and we'll be concluding some of their work prior to town meeting.

As we discussed earlier, I've been meeting with the superintendent recently over the last month to go over changes for how we deal with the special education funding programs. Appreciate the teamwork, and certainly we'll be following up the board based on the discussion. As requested last week, I did include some updates on the zoning articles and a brief update on the accessory dwelling units.

The site plan special permit, Hadley Elementary School, Vinton Square, and zoning map amendments, all of these are going to be discussed in greater detail next Monday. Last week, I had a chance to catch up with the mayor of the town of Cuomo in Puerto Rico over a Microsoft Teams meeting. Chief Quesada and Chief Archer joined me for that meeting, so did Swampskip resident Reggie Pagan.

Reggie was born in Cuomo and helped us establish a sister community with the mayor and elected officials from Cuomo. I heard just recently that the police chief from Cuomo will be coming to Boston this summer, and certainly would welcome an opportunity to continue to reach out and establish connections. It will help Swampskip celebrate our sense of community with the broader population around the world.

So if folks are traveling, please reach out. We're happy to make you an ambassador for the town. The building department reported that the new school foundation is being installed this week, and really want to thank the neighbors for their patience and support.

We've had a few complaints. Elm Place should be kicking off in May or June, as we've had a recent inquiry about pulling a permit. We've issued 460 building permits since January 1st, and it's a busy time of year.

The fire department had 130 applicants sign up to take the fire department test, and 85 actually showed up to take the test. Still waiting for the results. We did discuss, I did discuss the size of an exam process for the Swampskip Police Department.

Six officers took the exam, and we're moving forward with four. And we have 65 individuals applied to be a police officer, as reported, and we just had a few that showed up to take the test. Recreation has their second annual Earth Day and Spring Yard Sale, which we have from 8 a.m. to noon. Our Earth Day event is Saturday, April 29th, Student School Vacation Week, ending on Earth Day. We have Boy Scout Subdivision cleanup on Archer Street. There will also be vendors and activities and bike sales to support the rail trail.

Let's see. The next public meeting to discuss possible futures for the Hawthorne is Wednesday, April 26th at 6 p.m. in the high school cafeteria. Our last event had over 400 residents and participants, so we're eager to share some of the ideas that we were able to glean from that event.

So mark your calendars. A robocall will be going out, and we hope that folks will take advantage of this opportunity to really share some thoughts about the future of that site. We do have an ongoing diaper drive, and we have information on our new Narcan distribution program on our health department's website.

I encourage you to check that out. DPW is busy this time of year cleaning up the cemetery and taking care of meters. I want to thank John McLaughlin for all of his spring planting.

We are working on a number of initiatives. We have an award from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for drinking water program. The town achieved a top score in our consecutive system category for public water systems.

Last week, I met with Heidi Weir to discuss dementia training for all town staff. I want to thank staff that have gone through the training. We've been working through a number of departments, including the library, police department, fire department, and town hall.

I also received an update from our library director on a number of library redesign conversations. Currently, we are in the design phase. We anticipate launching the new website for the library in May or early June.

They are planning a memorial for Lou Gallo and planting a lilac dedication on May 8th at 10 a.m. Lots of other busy things happening at the library. I want to thank library staff. I want to thank the community development department for all the work that's going into the zoning changes.

We have met several times to go over the Hawthorne planning meeting and a number of other projects. I did catch up with our veteran's agent, Mike Sweeney, to talk about Memorial Day and some of the events that we coordinate for Memorial Day. We have a Field of Heroes program on Friday, May 26th.

Veterans' graves will be flagged on Wednesday, May 17th, 4 to 7. Our annual Memorial Day ceremony is at 10 a.m. with a coalition of the VFW post at 8 Pine Street. I continue to meet with select board member Dave Grishman and members of the Housing Authority every week.

We are having some eventful conversations about how we can strategize with the Housing Authority on finding ways to build more public housing, more affordable housing, and more inclusionary housing. I just want to remind the board that we're seeing First Amendment audits occurring in Lynn, Peabody, and Swampskip. You may bump into some of these.

It's just important to understand we work in public buildings. We have a lot of folks that believe that it's important for us to keep these buildings public. I certainly want Town Hall to be public, but I also want to protect employees and want the board to be aware that we're seeing these along the North Shore.

There are events where individuals will come in and they will record public employees in a public building. Last time we had that was back in September. We've instituted some policy and some changes.

We've clearly delineated what's public and private at Town Hall, and I just want to make that a matter of public notice. We work in public life. Folks want to just walk around and test us and make sure that they can have access to a public building.

We're aware of that and ready for it.

[Speaker 13] (2:27:59 - 2:28:00)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:02 - 2:28:30)
So I have a couple questions. I've asked a couple times, and I'd really like to get this. What is the timeline for hiring for fire and police?

I'd like to know what is the timeline specifically for police for the sergeant test. If these tests have been done, I know they're in the process of the physical testing and everything else on the new incoming officers, but what is the timeline and when can we do it?

[Speaker 4] (2:28:30 - 2:28:34)
I will get back to you. I'll get an update from the chief.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:34 - 2:28:45)
Great. Thank you. And then my other question is, can you just expand on what the drinking water program is?

Is it that our drinking water is better, or is it just the information that we're getting out there?

[Speaker 4] (2:28:45 - 2:28:59)
It's a standard of care. There's a whole regiment. I can get you a list of the compliance checklist that every community has to follow through with in order to meet that level of distinction, but it's quite rigorous.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:00 - 2:29:02)
And so what is it that we're doing?

[Speaker 4] (2:29:02 - 2:29:15)
We're just testing the water. We're making sure that we're doing all of the DEP, Department of Environmental Protection, standard of care responsibilities for ensuring compliance for the drinking water.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:15 - 2:29:16)
Okay. So this is on the DPW?

[Speaker 4] (2:29:17 - 2:29:17)
It is.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:18 - 2:29:18)
Great.

[Speaker 7] (2:29:20 - 2:30:21)
I have one comment about the Hawthorne. I think one of the things that I've been hearing recently, a lot of positive feedback about the amount of people who attended the first meeting and the way that the second meeting is being publicly advertised and really a push to get out there. With every good, no good deed goes unpunished.

The drawback then is it can be very intimidating to participate in a large-scale conversation like that, and I wondered if there is any idea for a more intimate conversation with smaller groups that occur at the Hawthorne. I think for me attending that first event, I was overwhelmed with stickers and stations and tons of people. It was very loud, and conversations were had, really wonderful conversations were had.

I just wondered if diversifying the way we have those conversations. I'm sure it has been contemplated, but if you could expand on that, that would be great.

[Speaker 4] (2:30:21 - 2:31:25)
Katie, I appreciate that. We talked about having these booths where folks could go into a small booth and share some thoughts. We've had a lot of residents show up to town hall and look at the displays and come up and talk and share a thought or two about what they'd like to see as part of a future.

I would encourage anybody that just wants to have a little one-on-one conversation to reach out to the town administrator's office or the community and economic development director's office and share your feedback. We're all eager to really just have as many people engage with ideas. We could have some smaller events, and so we're not foreclosed to having more events that really would be a little bit more focused on targeted populations.

I'm happy to work with you offline to think about ways that we can just create a few different environments that would help get the most feedback.

[Speaker 7] (2:31:26 - 2:31:45)
I just would like to commend Marzi. I went in and asked for some of those maps that we used at the first event, and I've distributed them to the Hadley Doodle Club and the Design Club so that they can use them to engage the elementary school kids to what they see a vision of happening there.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:46 - 2:32:08)
I love the idea that we have our school children, our young citizens, really invested in this because they're going to be able to enjoy this park the most in terms of their timeline, and it's my hope that they all get a sense that they really had an opportunity to engage and help develop that vision. So thank you for doing that.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:09 - 2:32:41)
I do think having it at the Hawthorne was great, but I think that added to the chaos. And hopefully we get great turnout on the 26th, but even if we had that equivalent turnout here, it would be a little bit more manageable, but it still quite still applies for sure. A big group is a big group.

Any other questions or comments for Sean? It's like poor time. Anyone?

Sure.

[Speaker 10] (2:32:41 - 2:33:30)
Yeah. Quickly, I've been talking to Lars Bethanis about Anchor Food Pantry, and really they're seeing an increased food insecurity. Really the Greater Boston Food Bank is having trouble keeping up with all of the food banks in the region, so really it's going to be up to us to help.

And so this is a call for help from residents and those watching and to really get the word out. Anchor Food Pantry is really in need of canned vegetables, juice, pasta and pasta sauce, cereal, granola bars, canned tuna and chicken, rice, snacks, coffee, period products, and these can all be dropped off on Wednesdays between 5 and 6 at 86 Borough Street.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:32 - 2:33:34)
Thanks, David. Thanks, David.

[Speaker 6] (2:33:36 - 2:35:24)
I'd like to thank Ethan Hunsvall for another great evening of Board of Selectmen, and how much I appreciate all his hard work. I'd also like to point out that this week is Holocaust Remembrance Week. On May 15th and 18th, right here at the Swampscott High School, there will be a replica of a cattle car that was used during World War II to ship Jews to death camps.

I think it would be great for everybody to really get down there and see that. I still would like to see the Coyote Plan. I've requested this over and over and over, and I don't know how many times I've requested, but I would like to see something.

I know that we've had a citizen, Deb Newman, who's done a lot of work with this. I just want to see what is the plan here for really educating the community so that we don't get into a situation like they're experiencing in Nahant. In closing, I'd like to get away from all of these last-minute fire drills.

I attended the Finance Committee meeting last night, and they didn't even have information until minutes before the meeting. We have to get away from last-minute stuff, and I think the onus is on the Board to really work on a calendar and work on expectations and to see what has to be done. I don't think this is a good way to lead, and I don't think it gets us to where we want to be.

It's too taxing on volunteers. The Planning Board is working nonstop. The Finance Committee, capital improvement.

I really want to see us do a better job. That's all I have to say for tonight.

[Speaker 7] (2:35:27 - 2:36:58)
I echo Mary Ellen Sedsmith about the Holocaust Remembrance Month. We, much too recently in this town, had an anti-Semitic act, which we then responded with, Educate, educate, educate. Come together.

This is one of those opportunities that you now have to do that, to bring your family in to come and to educate yourself. All too often, history stays history, and then we repeat it. It needs to become part of the education that we are providing for our students and an important act that the town is consistently pressuring us to remember.

Also, I noticed that, sorry, in another vein, Grace's guide to environmental education is up on the town website, which is amazing. If we could perhaps understand how other citizens can get information on the town website, maybe if there was a small explanation, something as simple as emailing Diane at her email address, maybe across the banner, to get other news. You don't have to be invited to Select Board to get your news on the town website.

If there's some sort of criteria that people have to follow, let's let folks know so that we could be putting more important news, like Grace's guide, right on the town website.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:59 - 2:37:03)
Thanks, Diane, for all your work and getting that done.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:04 - 2:37:15)
I think that's a great idea. I would say, though, there's standards that have to be created. I mean, just rigid standards.

Otherwise, it becomes a public forum.

[Speaker 4] (2:37:15 - 2:37:21)
Right now, I'm responsible as the town administrator for what goes on that website, and if we open it up to everybody...

[Speaker 1] (2:37:22 - 2:37:28)
Well, there still needs to be standards. The point is, there still needs to be standards. I believe the City of Boston learned that the hard way recently.

[Speaker 4] (2:37:32 - 2:37:38)
We can work on a policy that provides an opportunity to have information reviewed.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:40 - 2:43:25)
I have two things. I'm sorry. I guess they're kind of Select Board time and comments to the town administrator.

One being, I appreciate what the Health Department is doing with Narcan and making it available for free, but I would like to see, and I guess hopefully the Board of Health is talking about it, but there really needs to be a robust plan as to where Narcan is going to be maintained and stored. Public buildings, all police cruisers, do DPW workers who are around town have Narcan in their trucks? Do we have it at Town Hall?

If there was an emergency right now, where would I run in this building to go get the Narcan if I didn't have it on me personally? I think it's important that we destigmatize what Narcan is actually all about. Narcan is just about saving lives, and it's the easiest, virtually infallible way to do it that any of us can trip upon, if you will, in any given moment.

So I would ask that we take that good start by the public health nurse and the health director and now take it further, which is if you could come back to us and share with us, either the public health nurse or the health agent or the Board of Health, whomever, just kind of how we can take this now and take it to the next level. It is a great investment for our town to be making to make that readily available and for us to make sure our employees have it as they're out and about all day long to be able to do it, and even here now, in this room, if there was an emergency, to be able to do it. The second thing is just going back to pedestrian safety, and I think I'm just going to make it permanent in my comment, and I'm going to say it at every meeting.

I understand we're very busy with some things right now, but I would appreciate pedestrian safety being back on our agenda and not ceremonially. I would like to have the police department, we talked last meeting, having the police department come in and explain the traffic data and the level of enforcement that's happening. There is something happening.

It's unclear what's happening. I would also like to understand what initiatives are planned, because I don't feel like they're planned. I would like to also understand why all the initiatives that we did last year, all the physical traffic calming improvements that were put out last year, it's almost May, and not one of them is out.

The speed bumps aren't out, the flags in terms of corners aren't out, things of that nature. And then last but not least, I would like you to, prior to town meeting, and I guess we'll have to talk about it on Monday night, I believe, I appreciate some of the initiatives you have in your capital plan, but I think the pedestrian safety initiative you have there, the money there is for this area surrounding the new elementary school, and I think that's vitally important. But that is literally 2% of our entire town.

And I, again, would ask you to look at speed humps, which are not speed bumps. They're bigger, they are calmer, but you can't go fast over them. They cause less racket, and I frankly believe it's cost effective.

I do not agree that there are plowing issues. Go to the state of Maine and go to any community along the shore in the state of Maine. It's not plowing issues.

It is inexcusable. And again, we've been talking about this for years. We have made no progress.

Putting up six flashing crosswalk signs is not progress. That is a path to progress. We are not doing enough.

We have serious pedestrian issues, and we're not doing it, and I believe it's a mistake that the capital plan doesn't include more holistically, and I feel as though we do not have a comprehensive plan to do it, and I feel as though there's muscle memory that just doesn't want to do it. And I think that's really unfortunate, and I think people's lives are at risk, and I'm just speaking really candidly and emotionally. It's demoralizing to see that it's almost May, and not a single initiative that we put out last year has been put back out.

So we're cleaning graves right now. I think that's important, but at the same time, we're not worrying about crosswalks or doing those things, and there just needs to be formal protocols in place that when it comes, you know, whatever date, we're doing these things, and we have a plan, and we recognize that Puritan Road, the crosswalk going to Eisen's Beach, has not gotten safer, right? The bush hasn't gotten smaller.

The fence hasn't gone away. The speed hasn't slowed down, and I'm sorry. I'm harping on it.

I'm passionate about it. Almost two months ago, we passed a speed limit change on Humphrey Street. How many speed limit 25 signs have gone up on Humphrey Street?

I could answer the question for you, but I think you know the answer. We passed one of the few recommendations from the Traffic Study Committee for Pine Street to do signage. How many of those signs are on Pine Street?

I think you know the answer to that. It's just not okay anymore. It's just not.

There's something wrong, in my view, and we've got to change the institutional muscle memory here to the opposite direction, to the opposite direction, because right now we just feel like the status quo is okay, and I don't need a response. I know where you are. I know where your heart and mind is on it, but something is broken on this, and it feels like we are playing lip service to it if all we do is keep saying it.

So I'm going to start saying it louder and more passionately because you graciously priced speed humps today, and let's say they're $5,000 a piece. All right, fine. They're $5,000 a piece.

I think we can come up with 25. The police department could come up with 25 streets in Swampscott that would benefit from those, and that would change and it would take the pressure off of enforcement because the cars wouldn't be going as fast up and down Burpee Road.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:26 - 2:43:26)
Pine Street.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:27 - 2:43:53)
Pine Street. All these secondary roads, they wouldn't be doing it. So right now from where I sit, I don't see us enforcing and I don't see us making investments into safety, and so I think that's a complete failure by the town of Swampscott.

So I would please ask that it quickly come to our agenda and without lip service and just action plans, including you reconsidering some of your capital programming for the next year. Thanks. Thanks, Peter.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:55 - 2:43:57)
I've got nothing.

[Speaker 13] (2:43:59 - 2:44:00)
Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:01 - 2:44:08)
Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Thanks, everyone. Good night.