[Speaker 6] (0:11 - 1:06)
Good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, June 7th, 2023 Select Board Meeting. If you would like to rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right, before we jump into public comment, there had been, I wanted to turn it over to the town administrator for an update on King's Beach and the work that's being done there.

[Speaker 2] (1:06 - 8:08)
Sure, thank you, David. You know, over the last year, we really have advanced some of the most significant collaboration with key stakeholders, most importantly and most critically with Lynn Water and Sewer and the city of Lynn. As the board knows, last January, I hosted Congressman Seth Moulton at town hall, along with newly elected Mayor Jared Nicholson and the town's entire legislative delegation and all of the city of Lynn's legislative delegation.

We've started to really pull together a broader conversation around why King's Beach has been at a race to the bottom. I have spent all of my tenure in Swampskip focused on looking at ways that we can come up with strategies that would help us identify the technical feasibility of addressing the bacteria in the water. This board has had numerous meetings over the last year publicly to talk about all of the environmental impacts of our failed drainage and sewer systems, both in Swampskip and in Lynn.

We live in an ancient area of the country. We are one of the first areas in the country that was sewered. We have worked in Swampskip, and we have spent millions and millions of dollars, most recently over $6 million under an EPA consent degree, to start to sleeve our clay pipes.

We have miles and miles of clay pipes. Our drainage system leads out to the Atlantic Ocean, and we are going to spend decades doing this. We have many, many obligations, just like any city or town.

We're addressing mental health issues. We're addressing educational issues. We're addressing quality of life issues, open space issues.

And we need our federal partners and our state partners to protect the waters of the United States and to help us fund projects that we've identified through some of the best scientific engineering that we could pay for. This past year, we've hired Kleinfelder, one of the best engineering companies in the world, and certainly in the United States, to look at the most reasonable and practical way to address bacteria that leaches out of our sewage pipes into our drainage pipes that winds up on Kings Beach after, in fact, I'm not even going to say after, all the time. After major storm events, you'll have so much bacteria that it is one of the worst beaches in the Commonwealth, and that's not good enough.

We've looked at Tinian Beach. We've looked at other beaches that have received millions and millions of dollars' worth of state and federal investment, and we demand that we receive the same. The region deserves this.

It's not just about swamps. It's about environmental justice. It's about population.

Swampskate has an environmental justice community. We have individuals that need to use that resource during hot and humid and difficult weather days, and we have been advocating for an investment in a technology that will irradiate the bacteria before it gets to the beach. I'm concerned, as I've shared with the board, that there are all sorts of other contaminants that hit the near shore.

I've shared publicly that I think a pipe that goes out would be better. I don't want my children or your children or any children putting their feet in water that may have forever chemicals or other things that continue to create concern. You know, we've got to start incrementally, and what I've shared with our stakeholders and at a meeting last week with Secretary Tepper, our new Secretary of the Department of Environmental Affairs, who oversees all of the environmental agencies in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is that we just need a partner in the executive branch of our state government.

I'm very pleased with the work of Congressman Moulton and the advocacy that he has brought. I do expect that if there are Water Resources Act in Congress or other federal legislation, that the town and the city and this region, that includes the Department of Conservation, Recreation, and Regional Resource area that is one of the most extraordinary linear parks that we have in the Commonwealth, all receive priority when it comes to funding in federal legislative agendas. This is a state delegation that we should have a priority voice for.

Mayor Nicholson has done an extraordinary job pulling us all together. He is the mayor of the largest city on the North Shore, and he has really followed Mayor McGee's leadership to really bring his voice and advocacy to help us find a solution for the bacteria. It's my hope that after the meeting last week, we sent Secretary Tepper all of the design reports that we've put together.

We have a 120-page feasibility study that shows that an ultraviolet radiation treatment of this drainage water will kill the bacteria and will help at least from a water quality level ensure that the bacteria will not pose a public health threat to our citizens. This proposed feasibility needs about a $20 to $25 million investment. When we look at the city of Lynn and the town of Swansket and all the additional work that we have to do, we need the state and federal government to help us fund this.

They've given us $5 million last year just through the extraordinary work of Senator Creighton and then State Rep. Lori Ehrlich, and now Rep. Armini.

They are absolutely an all-star team, and they are working every day to try to help us address these issues.

[Speaker 1] (8:08 - 8:25)
Can I ask, can we just kind of jump, so when's the next critical check in place for us? Because I think that it's, you have taken the bull by the horn, which I'm grateful for, and with the others you've mentioned, but kind of help us understand kind of the next critical dates.

[Speaker 2] (8:25 - 9:46)
So I think the next critical check-in date for the Select Board from a policy perspective is sometime probably mid-July or early August, where after Secretary Tepper has a chance to really look at our feasibility report and we get a sense of where the state is really going to help partner with us in terms of the financial footings, we have to move from a feasibility to a preliminary design for a treatment plant. We have to look at site location and site selection, so there's a public process for both of these design levels, and so I think we could come back and really outline a scope of work and a timeline for both of those critical design developments and also have a conversation about funding. It's our hope that after the meeting last week with Secretary Tepper that we'd have a follow-up meeting sometime over the next few weeks, and then we can sit back down with the group of stakeholders and really outline that next level of effort or next scope of work.

[Speaker 1] (9:46 - 10:13)
One thing I would say is I'm encouraged to see DCR in its – I don't want to say media, but in some of their publications is actually acknowledging their role in solving this problem as well. I've seen some publications recently where DCR is talking about working with Lynn, with Swampscott, together with the state to solve it, so I felt like there was a bit of a change of dialogue there, which I think is a good sign and healthy for us.

[Speaker 2] (10:13 - 10:43)
I'd be remiss just not to mention Save the Harbor, Save the Bay. We have had some extraordinary advocacy from nonprofit groups. We certainly want to recognize a number of our citizens in Swampscott, but also the citizens in Lynn and folks that have been for decades expecting that their resource area is as well-supported as any other in the Commonwealth.

[Speaker 4] (10:43 - 11:14)
So I have two questions. One question is, so are you saying in July we would be having an updated meeting and there would be a public meeting? My concern is people have the opportunity – because this is resident comment, so we don't have the opportunity to answer resident comment the way it's set up.

So I'd just like to see a public meeting so that people do have questions or they do want an update or express their opinions that there is a resident comment. So would that be July? Is that what we're talking about?

[Speaker 2] (11:14 - 11:20)
I don't think we have to wait until July. I mean, I've been invited to speak to the Lynn City Council. I would show up.

[Speaker 1] (11:21 - 11:33)
I know, but I'm sorry. It's more about – I think she's asking literally – Just let me ask you a question. Just say yes.

You've done plenty up to now. The question is can we have a community meeting? Absolutely.

Absolutely. When do you think we can do it?

[Speaker 4] (11:33 - 11:50)
July? Yeah, July would be – So my next question is I'd like to get some type of an update on source elimination because that's a call that I've received a few times, and I really can't answer it. I'm not sure if – So if we can just update it.

[Speaker 1] (11:51 - 12:01)
So Kleinfelder's presentation updated to say they were at the end of phase B. I'm making up because I don't know what it is. C.

This is what they did now. They're in C. This is what they're doing to give us that update.

[Speaker 4] (12:01 - 12:14)
You mean – I want that update, but I also – I know our finances, and I don't see anything in our budgets addressing source elimination. So unless I missed it, which I doubt, I just want to know where we're at and what our plan is.

[Speaker 2] (12:14 - 13:02)
Sure. I'm happy to give a brief update, but we can come back in July, and we can get into a much more granular level. I'm good with July.

I mentioned we've completed the first phase of the EPA administrative consent order. We are under the Clean Water Act. We're an MS-4 regulated community, so we always have to stay up on source eliminations.

It's just an ongoing regulatory requirement of the EPA administrative order that we have to comply with. We've spent $6 million. We have had a great deal of efficacy with how we have been able to protect a small area of Swampskip, but there's going to be a lot more work that needs to happen, and, yes, there will be additional capital plans and additional work that we'll need to do.

[Speaker 1] (13:03 - 13:09)
So we authorized the last $2 million two years ago. We've been doing it in two-year cycles. So if you can just maybe come back in time.

[Speaker 4] (13:09 - 13:10)
Was it two or three years ago?

[Speaker 1] (13:11 - 13:36)
I think it was two, Mary Ellen, but it may be three. If you can just come back to say what's been expended, what's still remaining outstanding to be expended, and when you believe the next tranche, because it wasn't in this year, so when the next tranche is coming and what the future tranches for the aggregate amount are, which we had projections. I just think as though we're not off schedule.

We just haven't been talking about that, so we're just not as up-to-date, if you will, on that.

[Speaker 6] (13:36 - 13:44)
I'm happy to schedule an update for the board. And can our consultant also be here as well? Okay.

Thank you. Anything else from the board?

[Speaker 1] (13:45 - 13:55)
Do you mind if we do the pride proclamation before public comment as well? Sure. No objection from others?

No. Happy to. Happy to.

[Speaker 7] (13:55 - 13:59)
So, I don't know. What's that? I volunteered to read it.

[Speaker 6] (13:59 - 14:08)
Okay. Maybe you might be reading it. Katie, if you, yeah, if you would like to read the pride proclamation.

Go right ahead.

[Speaker 7] (14:12 - 17:13)
Whereas our nation and our community were founded on the principles of equal rights for all Americans, and whereas Swamp Scott is committed to being an inclusive community and welcoming of all people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity and recognizes that we are a diverse community enriched by this diversity, including those that are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning. And whereas the town of Swamp Scott supports the rights of every citizen to experience equality and freedom from discrimination.

And whereas the movement towards equal rights from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBT people took a historic turning point on June 28, 1969 in New York City with the onset of the Stonewall Riots. And whereas we will never forget that 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, a college freshman at the University of Wyoming, was brutally attacked in an act of homophobic violence in 1998 where he was abducted, bound, robbed, and pistol-whipped by two local men before being left for dead after being tied to a fence in a field outside of town in freezing weather for 18 hours. And whereas violence against the LGBTQ plus community continues to be a critical issue in the United States with violence towards transgender and gender nonconforming people facing intensely concerning trends.

And whereas while there has been remarkable progress towards acceptance and equality in recent years, members of the LGBTQ plus community in the United States and around the world still face an unacceptable level of discrimination and violence. This includes LGBTQ plus people who are not safe at home and those who do not have a home in which to stay. And whereas we must push back against those who threaten the safety of LGBTQ plus residents and challenge our progress, we must continue to make the case that all human beings share something fundamental in common.

All of us want to be loved and all of us want to love. And whereas Swampscot celebrates its diverse LGBTQ plus community and its commitment to ensuring equality for all our residents, employees, and visitors. And whereas the people of Swampscot's LGBTQ plus community are a vital part of all fields and professions and contribute to a strong and welcoming Swampscot.

And whereas we have improved attitudes of society by encouraging inclusiveness throughout our community and celebrating Pride Month. And now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in the town administrator and each of the below select board members in the town of Swampscot, we hereby proclaim the month of June as Pride Month in the town of Swampscot, Massachusetts, and encourage all faith-based and nonprofit organizations, residents, businesses, and public institutions to acknowledge, honor, and it's cut off at the top, and value and celebrate LGBTQ plus people and encourage everyone to treat others with mutual respect and understanding. And witness thereof, signed by the entire select board.

[Speaker 6] (17:16 - 17:50)
Thank you, Katie. Yeah, there was an incredible event last Saturday. There were hundreds of people that stood out in the rain, joined in a road race from town hall lawn through town and back, had speakers, raised a flag, and really just brought the community together.

So I thought that was an incredible event, and I'm looking forward to future events that are bigger and with maybe slightly better weather next time, fingers crossed.

[Speaker 1] (17:51 - 23:10)
If I can say a couple things, I appreciate that. I think it is, Saturday's weather couldn't have been windier, wetter, grayer, miserable-er, but the people that showed up, like, really made it sunny. And I think it's really, the things that happened that day are things that I think I want to share for those that the weather didn't allow video to retain the memory forever, despite the incredible efforts by our videographers.

So I think it's important to share some of the things that happened there, because especially in the context of today's reality, yes, we have collectively as a community made strides to make things better, but the reality is things are going backwards. And I think what happened on Town Hall Lawn was evidence of humanity that seems to be lost in so many other places. We had a neighbor, a neighbor to you, you, you, you, you, me, a trans male.

His kids are in our elementary schools, his wife works in the community, come and share his story, their story with us, and started by saying, I'm here because I feel safe in Swampscott. And to have an individual so openly share their experience, an experience which I'm thinking beyond maybe immediate neighbors, people in the classroom didn't know, people down the street didn't know, this experience, this background, and to have the willingness and the bravery to do that and to share it, to me is incredibly notable. It's notable because thanks to the town, thanks to the residents, to our town administrator in particular, and staff, you have laid the groundwork in recent years to make this a place which is safe and feels safe and is outwardly safe and is communicating we're safe.

We're wearing buttons. We've asked or required public safety officials and whatnot to wear things that say, you are safe with me. And that is a really important thing.

We had a drag queen, queer drag queen, dancing on town hall lawn, something that in other states is a felony. We had a town administrator sit there and have a discussion, open conversation with a drag queen, a queer drag queen, about the deplorable state of discussions regarding gender, sexuality, and frankly just human rights. And not just having it privately, loudly on town hall lawn to have this conversation and to share their disgust, their concern, their outrage, their fears about it.

And to have these events happen and have a town administrator that's so comfortable in having these conversations, I'm grateful for you, Sean. It's not just words. You've demonstrated it.

Your kids were there. I love the fact that one of your kids literally said, Dad, can I get a picture with Madam Zapple? The drag queen's name is Madam Zapple and his son comes up and says, Dad, can I get a picture with Madam Zapple?

And he couldn't have been happier. And Madam Zapple couldn't have been happier. It was just, it was glorious.

I mean, it was, despite the rain and despite being cold and all those things, you just didn't notice it. And it was actually glorious to just see that on our town hall lawn. And, you know, their humanity is not debatable.

Their rights are not debatable. And the fact that there are parts in our country that think they're debatable is just wretched to me. And I'm grateful that we're in a community here.

I would challenge all of us to not sit in the comfort, though, of living in a safe community, in a community that's embraced this, but say, how do we leave our comfort to advance the dialogue in a more productive way beyond our borders? Because it may not be needed as much in our borders right now, but it is needed. I'm at a loss to understand why busloads, we hear about busloads of migrants being shipped places.

Why aren't busloads of us going to Florida or going to Tennessee or doing things to the cause? Because there is no human rights for one if there's not human rights for all. And so I'm just eternally grateful, Sean, for you and the staff.

The staff does such a great job. The rec department, Pete Kane, Marzi, Danielle, just do a great job. But Diane, but led by you.

And it's unmistakable. It's unmistakable how... It's unmistakable about your role in this.

And so I wanted to share those events for those that weren't able to be there. I'm proud of that event. And I'm proud of you.

And I'm proud of SwampScope for being safe. And I hope that we all can think about what we can do to help others in other places feel the safety that they feel here in SwampScope.

[Speaker 2] (23:12 - 25:11)
I appreciate that, Peter. You know, it was wonderful. And Madam Zappel, you know, it was such a bright light.

I talked to my boys after the event, and they were so thrilled to just know that, you know, there was such an all-star celebrity that would grace our community. And for us to see that humanity, I think what's most important is that, you know, we recognize that, you know, for generations, decades in our lives, but for millennia, you know, we've been taught something different. And we've been taught to be inhumane and to be biased and mean-spirited.

And we're seeing more vitriol, more hate right now than, frankly, we've seen in quite a few decades. And we've got to face that with love and care and concern. And we've got to face it.

Even if we're uncomfortable about it, we've got to continue to have these conversations. These pins, they simply say, you're safe with me. I'd love to get...

We're going to order more, and we're going to get them out. And we want everybody in town to really just recognize we all have a responsibility to be better. So I'm proud of SwampScope.

I will tell you, I could look around, and I couldn't find a better community because I think these are our values. It's not a town administrator. It's not a town governor.

This is a town that really is wonderful. And, you know, we're just going to keep doing what we do and ensuring that everybody can feel like this is the best place to call home that we can find.

[Speaker 6] (25:13 - 25:24)
Thank you, Sean. Yeah, everyone had a smile on their face, and it was a great event, and I look forward to more in the future. That sounds great.

[Speaker 19] (25:24 - 25:25)
Thank you for making that happen.

[Speaker 6] (25:27 - 25:56)
All right, we'll move on to public comment. Yes? Oh, sorry.

Sorry, Andrea. Yeah, yep, right there. Just please give us your name, your address, and your voting precinct, if known.

Can you guys hear me? Sure. Joe?

My name is Andrea. All right, one second. Joe, is the microphone on?

Yeah, it just doesn't amplify. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (25:59 - 26:04)
Maybe it's off. Maybe it's actually on. Lies.

That's a no. Lies. Lies.

[Speaker 22] (26:11 - 26:12)
Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2] (26:21 - 26:33)
It has to pipe out to local origination, so people at home need to be able to hear you. Okay, I'll wait. So I should talk to you, and then I'll talk back?

Once the mic gets on, you can...

[Speaker 1] (26:33 - 26:34)
It'll be fine.

[Speaker 14] (26:53 - 30:25)
Thank you. Yep. All right, how about now?

Good? Okay, cool. My name is Andrea.

I live at 15 Sheridan Road in Swampscott Precinct 4, and this is obviously my first time doing this and being at this, so I appreciate you guys being here, and I sincerely, sincerely appreciate you acknowledging that. I'm sure there was a bug put in your ear. I run a 632-person Facebook group called Save King's Beach, and we are very concerned with making sure that people's feet stay on the gas pedal in terms of this issue, and I really appreciate you starting with that.

I'll keep things really brief. I just wanted to sort of speak on behalf of the group because every couple of months we get together and we try to pool the information and figure out what's going on, and I think that that's a problem because we can't figure out, like, all of the bits and pieces, and we totally acknowledge that it's a very complex problem that involves a lot of stakeholders and a significant amount of money, but I think if I were to boil it down to, like, a couple of key concerns that I think we have, the first is that there is not enough transparency about this problem to the public.

I did not know until I moved here after going to King's Beach many times, having my son play in the beach, eat the sand, that there was a problem at Stacy's Brook, and that is a problem. It has been solved, you know, air quotes, by one sign at one of the locations, but it's not enough, and there needs to be more public awareness, not just with signs that a lot of people are just generally going to overlook, but I think more of a public acknowledgement that there is a problem beyond, you know, people who are reading things like the patch because I think that people don't understand the severity of the issue, and it's taken a group of us many, many, many hours to dig into exactly how severe it is, including the, you know, sewage, which I have some stats on here, but basically, and these are old, but 92% of days are unsafe at Stacy's Brook, and that's a big problem because that's where I see kids play, and that's, the fact that that's happening and no one is stopping them is a problem, and it's one that I really, really, really want everybody, all the stakeholders to take more seriously.

I know it's not just you guys. I think also, like, you know, to all of y'all's point tonight, like, transparency about the progress. We really want to know what's happening.

We're getting so close to actually having this decades problem, decades-old problem, have a real solution, and we're here to help you guys get there. There's a lot of us who are happy to step up to the plate, but we can't unless we know what's happening and what you guys need, and then I think also, I think we're a little bit, getting a little bit fatigued at hearing that, like, you know, we don't have $20 million, right? I mean, the town would have that money over time.

Obviously, it's also the financial responsibility is shared with Lynn, so I think rather than hearing, like, we don't have that and we need to look elsewhere, I think I would rather have a sense of responsibility of, here's what we can contribute and what we need to ask for the state, and then again, we, I can help you work on whatever that is. I'm meeting with Jenny Armini tomorrow. Like, we are buckled in.

We're ready to get this done and collaborate to see this through once and for all, so thank you. I appreciate it.

[Speaker 6] (30:25 - 30:50)
Thanks, Andrea. Any additional public comment? Mayor of Detroit.

Does he? Yeah. He's back.

All right. Do we have?

[Speaker 9] (30:50 - 30:51)
There's one more.

[Speaker 6] (30:51 - 30:52)
Oh. Oh. Hello.

[Speaker 9] (30:53 - 36:42)
Hi. Mara Lau, Outlook Road, Precinct 3, town meeting member. So a few things.

I am probably going to exceed my three minutes, but I guess I just want to start out by saying it was interesting, the way the meeting began in terms of being able to speak up. So this is me speaking up. The, it's, I'm coming to express my concerns for town meeting, how difficult I found it to be recognized when I wanted to speak on Article 12 and 19, and, yes, I did not use the proper term in terms of saying point of personal privilege, so I've certainly learned that.

It was, it never dawned on me that it would be so difficult to actually be heard. So with my bright orange jacket on and everything. So it was pretty disappointing.

So by the time I did get to speak, frankly, I was quite rattled. So I was going to just blow this off and say, doesn't matter, what's done is done. But that just didn't feel right.

So about a year ago when my now 22-year-old, then 21-year-old was, I picked him up from the end of the year college and driving home, his head was on fire about the leak from the Supreme Court and how are these old people making decisions for young people and I'm not going to ever vote again and all of these things. So as a parent of four children, I have been very vocal with all of them about how important it is to speak up. So that brings me here tonight.

So yes, I am going to go back and say some of the things that I felt were important that needed to have been said on the night of town meeting. And I do have some points at the end that I will say need to be revisited in terms of people being heard. So I will say I'm a parent of Hadley and I was there for 17 years.

I have two graduates and I have a high schooler and a middle schooler. And to say that I have a special affinity for Hadley is probably an understatement. I am an early ed person and I'm an elementary ed person and I think families send their kids to school and kindergarten is a special place.

So the spirit of that building, the location of that building is all just incredibly important and I think for the community. And I think it's really unfortunate that the process that happened during COVID, I think it happened in terms of the meetings for the reuse committee as well as it could possibly have happened. But I think that the post work was not complete.

We got too quickly to the decision that was made here at the Slack Board about using it as a boutique hotel. I can't exactly say that a boutique hotel, you know, holds the spirit of a community location of which it is and I find that quite disappointing. I think also too to keep in mind that we are using our buildings as tremendous as public space.

You know, we come to, our kids come to know our municipal government before anything else and I think that the way that it was, there wasn't enough public conversations about it and I think that that's unfortunate. I think that it needed to have been paused more. Excuse me, my mouth is getting dry.

It needed to have been paused more so that it could be vetted a little bit more thoroughly and that just didn't happen and that's regretful. So what I would recommend or hope moving forward is that there's some consistency in how we, you as a community, disseminate information about public events and also about how these boards are chosen, how people, how it's communicated to town meeting members, how it's communicated to citizens. Other boards have been created and frankly they've all come together in different ways and that's certainly not equity and it certainly doesn't send a very good message about making sure that everybody's opinion is heard.

So I think that's kind of the crux of it and I think it's very disappointing that Article 12 passed because it should go back to town meeting members. We had, we spent $7 million across the street which I was firmly in the yes category for and the thinking is that there should have been, at the first meeting for Hawthorne, there was much more conversation about how Hadley would pull in and then that just didn't happen at the second one because the deal had been sealed. I just think it's far too important of a decision to be made by just this board and it's disheartening and I'm going to continue to speak out about it.

Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (36:43 - 37:15)
Thank you, Ms. Lau. Seeing no additional public comment, we will be moving on. We will be moving on to our 6.30 joint meeting with the Earth Removal Advisory Committee and the public hearing regarding the Aggregate Industries Northeast Region Annual Earth Removal Permit. So, Mr. Markarian, will you call your meeting to order?

[Speaker 4] (37:35 - 37:36)
It's historic, isn't it?

[Speaker 22] (37:36 - 37:37)
Oh.

[Speaker 4] (37:37 - 37:43)
The problem is we have a 6.30, but we have a 6.30 public, it's a public hearing, so we have to do a public hearing.

[Speaker 22] (37:43 - 37:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (37:44 - 37:51)
We've got to wait. Yeah. We've got to wait.

One second.

[Speaker 8] (37:59 - 38:00)
Sure. Go ahead.

[Speaker 22] (38:01 - 38:01)
Go.

[Speaker 8] (38:26 - 38:46)
Good to go. Bonjour. My name is Joe Markarian.

I am chair of the Earth Removal Advisory Committee. Here with me tonight are our members, John Piccarelli, Piccarello, sorry, John. There's an O there.

Tony Banderwitz, Gary Barden, and Ted Dooley might be listening and I don't know.

[Speaker 7] (38:46 - 38:47)
No, he's on.

[Speaker 8] (38:48 - 39:08)
Oh, he is. Okay. He's here.

And, you know, I regard Margie Golaska as really part of our team as well. She provides a valuable service to us. I'd like to say just a couple of things about the committee.

The permit that you have before you is not one that we just rubber stamp.

[Speaker 6] (39:09 - 39:12)
Wait, time out. We didn't enter. We didn't open the public hearing.

[Speaker 2] (39:12 - 39:14)
We haven't, so we should take a vote to open it.

[Speaker 6] (39:14 - 39:16)
Yep. Yep. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

[Speaker 22] (39:17 - 39:17)
Second.

[Speaker 6] (39:17 - 39:18)
All right.

[Speaker 22] (39:18 - 39:18)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 8] (39:19 - 40:00)
Thanks. Continue. The permit you have before you is not one that we roll over from year to year.

It's something that we give thoughtful consideration to. And, in fact, the permit strikes me as something that's an evolving document, one that is going to grow and change as circumstances change as well. And a lot of thoughtful consideration, discussion, goes into the issues that are not only that originate with the committee, but are brought to us by the aggregate people.

I'm going to continue saying aggregate because it's easy, but the owner is now wholesome, N-E-R, as of I don't know when, but at some point we'll make the language change.

[Speaker 22] (40:05 - 40:05)
Okay.

[Speaker 8] (40:06 - 43:22)
And so we've gone through that process. I'm also going to say that every E-REC committee meeting that I've attended has included representatives from aggregate sitting in with us. And I have found these folks to be very knowledgeable.

I found them to be receptive to our comments and our complaints. I think that they have been candid in their responses to the degree that their attorney, Rosenberg, allows them to respond. And we have a good working relationship with them, which I think from the committee's point of view is important to maintain because the quarry and the town are going to be dancing with each other for an awfully long time, and we want to have a good relationship with them.

That being said, as I mentioned, you have in front of you or was in your package a permit in full that this committee has recommended. You had also received a memorandum that highlighted and summarized the changes that exist in the new permit recommendation compared to the current permit that aggregate is operating under. There's nothing ñ I don't think there's anything major there, but I'm willing to go through it to the degree you'd like.

I will say that there are provisions of the permit that include topics that overlap with the litigation that's currently pending between aggregate and the town. We have made no changes to those provisions. We've carried over those provisions from the prior permit.

That is even though we believe that the settlement recommendation that aggregate put forward and their recommendations for changes to those lasting parameters are changes that we are receptive to discussing. But we felt that that was more appropriately done. If changes occur, it's more appropriately done in a settlement meeting situation than through the permit process.

So we've made no changes there. As far as the process goes, they did present a settlement recommendation. David and I have spoken, and I agree with him that internal meetings should take place to determine the town's position on that document and that a written response be generated to aggregate and whatever actions take place after that can be determined at that point.

This permit, the new permit, takes effect on July 1st. It would be practical to get as much done as we could before that time. So you have the permit.

You have the summary. I'm happy to answer questions. If I can't answer a question, rather than make something up, I'm going to ask one of our members to respond to it.

And also, if any of our members have a comment, if they raise their hand for a comment, I hope they'll be recognized.

[Speaker 4] (43:22 - 43:22)
Sure.

[Speaker 8] (43:23 - 43:23)
So.

[Speaker 4] (43:25 - 43:39)
I have a question to your reference to settlement negotiations or settlement. You're referring to the settlement that we have pending. We have a lawsuit that we're pending.

Is that the settlement you're referring to?

[Speaker 8] (43:39 - 43:40)
I'm sorry, say that again.

[Speaker 4] (43:40 - 43:45)
Could you just say what the settlement is in reference to? It's in reference to the lawsuit, correct? In that?

[Speaker 8] (43:46 - 44:04)
Yes, in reference to the lawsuit. And there's a handful of issues that, as I mentioned, crossover from the permit into the litigation. Okay.

And they relate primarily to blasting parameters, blasting restrictions that are currently in place.

[Speaker 4] (44:04 - 44:07)
I just wanted to be clear on what you meant by settlement.

[Speaker 1] (44:07 - 44:31)
Can I ask a follow-up to that, though? I want to be perfectly clear for the people that are listening here. There is no settlement to that litigation.

That litigation is ongoing. I just want to be clear that if someone's now hearing the word settlement, they don't think that we have settled litigation or we've solved litigation. That litigation is outgoing, and there is no settlement on the table.

I mean, I'm not aware of it, so I just want to make sure that that's. He's saying recommendation. Yeah, I just want to make sure that neighbors hear that as well.

[Speaker 2] (44:32 - 45:03)
I also want to be clear. Look, this is a permit. Every paragraph in this permit is up for discussion by the board and for the community whether or not we have federal litigation.

This is a regulatory permit about the quality of life for the town, and we should take that as diligently as we take the other responsibility, irrespective of the federal lawsuit that has been filed against the town.

[Speaker 6] (45:05 - 45:09)
Any questions from the board on any of the language within the permit?

[Speaker 1] (45:13 - 45:18)
Well, I have plenty of questions, but I don't believe our consultant is in the room as well.

[Speaker 8] (45:18 - 45:19)
Jay Perkins, no.

[Speaker 1] (45:19 - 46:17)
Yeah, so I have questions, frankly, I'd want to ask Jay. And I also guess I, just from my standpoint, I appreciate the memo and all the information, and it seems like a lot of good things have happened, but I also want to understand the interplay, and frankly I just would want the advice of counsel as to the interplay of the permit to the litigation. Just because I stand, for the sake of public conversation, I stand squarely with the permit that was appealed.

It's not to say I'm not willing to deal with reasonable accommodations and reasonable changes, but certainly it's, just like you mentioned, aggregates counsel doesn't let them respond to a lot of questions here. I'm not comfortable without having reviewed this with counsel before, so that we understand the implications of this. But that doesn't take away from the value of your work.

Like your work and everyone's work is great. I'm just saying I can't, without talking to our counsel, no.

[Speaker 8] (46:17 - 46:49)
No, I understand. My expectation wasn't that we would get into a deep discussion here tonight, because you've only had it a few days, and I expect that you're going to have another meeting where you do discuss it and will be available at that meeting. I have spoken to Jay Perkins of Brierley about the litigation issues and the recommendations, but I don't feel comfortable expressing his point of view.

I would rather he expressed his point of view about those things.

[Speaker 1] (46:50 - 47:09)
I think the only other thing I would like to add for now is that I believe we received an email from aggregates counsel earlier today that I would like ERAC to review and come back and comment on the email that we got today. You, I believe, copied on it as well. I will tell you I haven't read it.

I've read the first sentence, but it came sometime today.

[Speaker 2] (47:09 - 47:10)
I didn't see anything.

[Speaker 1] (47:10 - 47:12)
I just want to make sure. It's in your email.

[Speaker 2] (47:12 - 47:16)
Mr. Perkins gets a copy too. He probably has a few thoughts about that.

[Speaker 1] (47:16 - 47:19)
I just want to have ERAC's feedback on that. Yes.

[Speaker 8] (47:19 - 47:29)
I think that makes sense. He's your consultant. That's all I got.

All right. Thanks, Joe.

[Speaker 6] (47:29 - 47:31)
Thank you. Thanks, Joe.

[Speaker 21] (47:41 - 47:43)
We wait for them to set up. Go ahead.

[Speaker 13] (47:44 - 47:49)
We wait for them to set up. I'm Aaron Rosenberg. I think all of you.

[Speaker 1] (47:49 - 47:53)
Do you mind just taking the mic? I'm putting it right in front of you. Thanks.

I'm litigation counsel to aggregates.

[Speaker 12] (47:53 - 49:19)
This is Chris Drukis, who I know you all know. Sarah Temple and Tanya Taylor from aggregate. Some folks made reference to what we can and can't talk about.

If you have questions for the aggregate people, there are topics that they can answer questions about here. If you have them. I don't know if you do.

If that's at another meeting relating to the permit, we're happy to answer those. As to issues that relate to the litigation, the new permit that you're considering. I guess it's mostly section 10 on blasting.

We're not saying we won't answer those questions. If you have questions for us, as we've said to Iraq for a long time now, we can consider those in writing and respond to you. But like Mr. Spellio said, you know, there are things that they can't answer right now off the bat. That's only if you have questions. I think the only thing affirmatively that I would like to point out is this mention of settlement. I think the reason that comes up is we've had conversations both with Iraq and with the town and the town's council and litigation about having a conversation and trying to settle the case.

We had a meeting in February of 2022. We submitted a written settlement proposal, which is what Mr. Markarian was referring to, I think. We've been trying to get a response to that, frankly, and I've raised this with this board before.

Mr. Chairman, can I just chime in here?

[Speaker 1] (49:19 - 49:27)
I just think it's inappropriate that without our litigation council, we're sitting here listening to aggregates litigation council. Can I respond?

[Speaker 4] (49:27 - 49:28)
Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 1] (49:28 - 49:38)
Opining as to what they're doing when with regard to settlement offers, and this is not a settlement discussion. This is not a settlement conference, and that would be held in executive session. It is not an appropriate thing in this permit.

[Speaker 6] (49:38 - 49:41)
This is just a conversation about this 23-24 permit.

[Speaker 1] (49:41 - 49:43)
If we want to talk about the permit, we can talk about the permit.

[Speaker 12] (49:43 - 50:39)
Yeah, but this does relate to the permit respectfully. Because the question is, how can we have a conversation with ERAC and the select board about terms in this permit that are identical to the terms that are being challenged in the lawsuit? And the way that that can happen, and the conversation that we've had both with this board and with ERAC, was in a settlement communication.

And we've made a settlement proposal and asked for a response and been told there would be a response. That was almost a year and a half ago now. We are interested in having a settlement conversation with the town.

If the town is not interested, that is fine. We would just like to know that. Because as things stand now, the lawsuit is about to move forward.

We're about to enter a period of discovery that will make it more difficult to have that communication. So the only point I'm making is that if the town is interested in having a conversation with us, the time to do that is now. And as of right now, we would like to do so.

[Speaker 2] (50:39 - 51:38)
Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. I have a few questions, if the board doesn't. I'm curious.

What were your growth sales last year in 2022? How much did you earn from the rocks that you crushed and sold last year, the year before, and the year before? I want to know just how profitable have you been?

You asked if we had questions about the operation. I just thought I'd ask. Maybe you could get that information and get it back to us.

I'm also curious, how many tons of rock have you crushed over the last three years?

[Speaker 15] (51:39 - 51:41)
Again, I don't have that information.

[Speaker 2] (51:41 - 51:43)
Okay. Maybe you could get that information to us.

[Speaker 15] (51:44 - 51:46)
Those are questions.

[Speaker 2] (51:46 - 51:53)
But you would have that, right? You would weigh the stone, and you would crush it, and you would sell it at a value. Great.

[Speaker 12] (51:55 - 52:02)
Again, those are questions that if you want to put in writing to us, we will consider answering, and we would have done so prior to this meeting.

[Speaker 2] (52:02 - 52:09)
Okay. You just asked us to ask you questions. I have no problem with you asking.

I will put questions in.

[Speaker 1] (52:09 - 52:51)
I think that would be great. I think maybe we can all, through you and council, again, I don't know. I will concede it's an awkward dynamic, but this isn't intended to be a PR campaign either, to say, look at us.

We've put an offer out there. If you've heard silence, I guess sometimes silence does speak. That's what you've heard for a year.

So if you want to have a PR campaign, I'll just let you know. If you've heard silence, then maybe after a year, you can infer something from silence. That's the problem with that.

I understand that, but can I please? So let me just finish, and then the chair wants you to. But I actually want to ask a couple of questions.

How long has Aggregate owned this court? Is that proprietary, or is that okay to know?

[Speaker 15] (52:52 - 53:34)
There's an evolution here, which I thought we have to understand. Since I've been representing the quarry, the quarry was first, when I first came on board, when the bylaw first came into effect, which was 1994, the quarry itself was owned by, the quarry was owned by Barden. Barden then became Barden-Fremont.

Then it became Barden, just Barden, which was an English company. Then it became a Swiss company. What was the name of the Swiss company before it was Holcim?

It was?

[Speaker 21] (53:36 - 53:37)
Lafarge.

[Speaker 15] (53:37 - 54:00)
Lafarge. And then after Lafarge, it became Lafarge-Holcim, and now it's just Holcim. So it's difficult to answer the question, but I think that designating it as Aggregate Industries Northeast Division, it's probably been that since about 2008, 2008, somewhere in there.

[Speaker 1] (54:00 - 54:15)
All right. So since 2008 and 2006, have you represented Aggregate or the affiliates since that time? I've represented everybody all the way since 1994.

Can you tell us how many claims has Aggregate paid out for property damage or other damages that were submitted by Swampscot residents during that time period?

[Speaker 15] (54:17 - 54:19)
Aggregate itself would not have paid any out.

[Speaker 1] (54:19 - 54:37)
They would have been paid out by the Blasters Insurance Company. Okay, so let me rephrase the question then. How many claims have been paid out by Aggregate or its subcontractors relative to property damage to Swampscot residents in that time period from 2006, 2008 to present?

I do not have that information, but hang on. Can you follow up? That's fine.

Can you follow up?

[Speaker 15] (54:37 - 54:45)
I can follow up, but I would be surprised if it's more than almost none.

[Speaker 1] (54:46 - 54:46)
Almost none.

[Speaker 15] (54:46 - 54:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (54:48 - 55:16)
So is it fair for us to infer that means that no damage has been from Aggregate or Aggregate subcontractors, or from your position, that no damage has ever been caused by Aggregate to a Swampscot resident because of the 50 blasts a year times the last since 2008? We're talking 15 years. So, you know, in the 750 blasts that have happened in town, is it fair then for me to surmise that Aggregate hasn't been the cause of any home destruction or home damage?

[Speaker 12] (55:16 - 55:37)
I can't answer that. I don't have that information. I just need to interject one thing I should have said at the beginning.

I apologize. Obviously, there's ongoing litigation here. We all know that anything that Aggregate or any of its representatives say today is intended without waiver of and with reserving all of our rights to make any claims, defenses, or legal arguments in the ongoing litigation.

[Speaker 1] (55:37 - 55:45)
So good for you because you guys have said nothing, so nothing can be used against you. So you guys have preserved that pretty well for us. So let's work on that list of questions.

[Speaker 12] (55:45 - 56:19)
Can I briefly address one very pointed comment? Sure. Thank you.

You say you should take silence to mean something. The problem with that, Mr. Spellios, is that we haven't gotten silence. We've gotten communications from the town explicitly telling us that they intended to respond to us and that they wanted to sit down and see if we could try and resolve the lawsuit.

Now, there's no guarantee that that would happen, but we sat in these meetings, and Sean and I had conversations in these meetings, that there would be a response, and then that response never came. So that's what I was referring to.

[Speaker 1] (56:19 - 56:38)
There has not been silence. There just hasn't been follow-up. There hasn't been a response.

There hasn't been a substantive response. So, again, I would just ask you, I appreciate you here tonight trying to air this, but, again, we have counsel on these things, and so if you want to talk about settlement, I would ask, and the board can disagree with me, you should be talking to our counsel, not to us in a public forum right now. That's posturing.

[Speaker 12] (56:38 - 57:08)
Well, I've had many conversations with your counsel, and my client, as a landowner in Swampscott, has the right to have a representative here addressing the select board, and that's what I'm doing. So I'm happy to have as many conversations with your counsel as possible and as he would like to have, but I'm also responding to comments I've heard from your counsel as well as individuals at these prior meetings about the desire to have a conversation.

[Speaker 1] (57:09 - 57:48)
That's all I'm raising. So these prior meetings, though, being meetings that I'm sure you also qualified in the beginning of the meeting because they weren't public meetings, that these meetings are for settlement purposes only. Everything that's discussed in these meetings is confidential and not to be discussed.

And so my only point is we can't settle this tonight because our counsel is not here because we didn't know litigation counsel was going to be the main person talking tonight. So I would just ask you to please communicate with our counsel because it's giving an unfair one-sided perspective. And look, if there's resolution, there will be resolution.

I just want to be explicitly clear tonight because I think it gives a conception here. We represent the citizens, all the landowners of Swampscott. You represent one.

I'm very aware of that.

[Speaker 12] (57:48 - 57:57)
Just to be clear, though, I'm not referring to settlement meetings when I say prior meetings. I'm speaking about prior public meetings of the select board. So please just follow up with counsel.

[Speaker 1] (57:58 - 58:43)
I'm happy to, and I will continue to. So to Joe and to, again, I think you guys have given us a lot of good stuff here for us to work on in terms of the permit. I think we just need to get ñ I know we have a smaller working group.

We need to just understand the play of that with the litigation just to make sure. Again, I trust ñ I have great faith in your judgment. I want to hear from our consultant as well, but I also then just want to just understand the implications and make sure we're not doing anything that's inconsistent with because we also don't want to inadvertently waive rights, defenses, et cetera, relative to the ongoing appeal.

That's outstanding. And that's why we got it to when we did as opposed to later. Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

[Speaker 4] (58:44 - 58:47)
The current permit expires June 30th?

[Speaker 8] (58:48 - 58:54)
June 30th, yeah. I don't think we want to extend again.

[Speaker 10] (58:57 - 59:36)
No, I just wanted to clarify that what you have makes clear that we did not discuss the key issues on litigation, which relates to the provision on blasting. All the other changes, we worked out to strengthen this permit in a lot of respects, so we're hoping you take a look at that. The other issues clearly, the ones that directly touch litigation, will have to be discussed in a settlement meeting, and I think that's all that aggregate is trying to say.

[Speaker 1] (59:38 - 1:00:05)
No, no, I appreciate it, and this memo makes that clear, so it's not you at all. It's more about us than just going back to counsel and saying, are we good? Have you reviewed?

Do you have comments to us? And we haven't had that conversation, which is an unfortunate step that we've got to do, and we can't wait to get rid of that step, too, because it's more work for us as well. You guys gave us really good, probably the best I've seen in a while, so I'm really grateful for that.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:06 - 1:00:09)
So if it's the 8th, what's the scenario here as far as?

[Speaker 6] (1:00:11 - 1:00:12)
It's the 7th.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:12 - 1:00:16)
7th, okay. I gained a day. So 7th.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:16 - 1:00:31)
We do have a meeting in two weeks, so we could come back and be able to have counsel present and have conversations with counsel to review what we have in promise.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:31 - 1:01:06)
So I kind of would like to entertain the idea of doing a short-term extension, further short-term extension, because I don't think it's given everything that we know is coming up next meeting, or just things on our agenda plus having to talk to counsel plus scheduling an executive session on top of other things. I just want to entertain the idea that we're not going to be ready in two weeks, and so instead of having everybody brought back in here just to not be ready again, they'll have to bring them all back in. I want to be efficient with their time and their resources as well, most particularly the volunteers in town, and I just don't know that in two weeks.

I mean, if others think we can find.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:06 - 1:01:06)
Ninety days.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:07 - 1:01:36)
I'm just saying I don't know what the right time period is. I just don't know that in two weeks we would get all this stuff ordered as opposed to. So what would your recommendation, suggestion be?

I don't know. I think I would maybe open it up through you, Mr. Chairman, to the applicant and to EREC to see if maybe they have a suggestion of what to do there, but I just don't personally feel in two weeks we are going to. I just want to give time to do it correctly, that's all.

We haven't had the conversations. Is your last meeting of the month in two weeks?

[Speaker 8] (1:01:43 - 1:02:00)
Well, your only alternative is to extend again the current permit for another whatever amount of time you think is appropriate. Can't operate. If they don't, if aggregate doesn't have a permit on July 1st, for all practical purposes, they don't have authority to operate.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:01 - 1:02:07)
What's the drawback if we would extend it today for another 90 days so that we can?

[Speaker 8] (1:02:07 - 1:02:37)
I wouldn't want to push it out that far. I mean, to me, we had hoped that this would get done by the end of the month. I think there's a certain urgency at this point to get it done.

I would encourage pressing town council to get it done and just say we want to get this done, period. I mean, it's going to expire, and extending again is not a really good alternative. I think we should be more decisive than that.

[Speaker 13] (1:02:39 - 1:02:45)
Let me just make sure I understand. The changes that you proposed here, worked it out amongst the parties? No.

[Speaker 8] (1:02:46 - 1:02:47)
Were they worked out among the parties?

[Speaker 13] (1:02:48 - 1:02:48)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:02:48 - 1:03:09)
These changes, some were initiated by ERAC. Others were part of conversations with the aggregate folks to bring clarity to the document, to bring compliance issues more into focus. And just to make responsibilities under the permit more clear.

[Speaker 13] (1:03:10 - 1:03:25)
Okay. So you're saying that aggregate isn't necessarily on board with what you're proposing here. And furthermore, is that correct?

I'm sorry. That's what I understood from Joan. I'm trying to understand exactly where we're at.

[Speaker 10] (1:03:25 - 1:04:06)
Yes. There's two parts to what you have. One part is what we have discussed with aggregate, which I believe we are in agreement on.

The part that there is no agreement on, which we were unable to discuss at ERAC meetings, are primarily Section 10, which deals with blasting. But the rest of the permit, I mean, ERAC has only gotten the final draft after our last meeting recently, so they'll have to go through it and make sure it's correct based on our discussions. But, yes, we have worked with them on those sections.

[Speaker 8] (1:04:06 - 1:04:08)
But this is a full permit.

[Speaker 10] (1:04:09 - 1:04:09)
Sure.

[Speaker 8] (1:04:09 - 1:04:20)
There's no missing parts to it. Even though there are issues that we're at odds on, those issues are addressed in this permit recommendation. So there's no gaps.

[Speaker 13] (1:04:21 - 1:04:23)
Right. And our council has reviewed?

[Speaker 8] (1:04:23 - 1:04:43)
No, I think that's part of the problem. Our council has not reviewed our recommendation yet. But, as I say, the permit doesn't change a whole lot from year to year, and we've isolated those instances where we have made changes and tried to make it clear.

I would hope it would be a pretty quick review.

[Speaker 10] (1:04:44 - 1:05:10)
So, you know, council has been present at some of our meetings, ERAC meetings, and is aware and been reviewing the provisions that we were discussing with AI. So, yes, they have. Attorney Sims.

Attorney Sims. And we have also sent drafts, I believe, Margie, right, to KP Law.

[Speaker 13] (1:05:10 - 1:05:16)
So is this not working? So both councils need to have it and both have what the draft product is?

[Speaker 10] (1:05:16 - 1:05:38)
They've reviewed. They haven't seen this final draft. So that, you know, but they have been present at meetings, especially Attorney Sims, for a while, and partook in the discussions that we had.

So they haven't seen the final draft? This draft, which, you know, they've seen.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:40 - 1:05:44)
I just hate looking at a draft before. I'd rather hear what the council has to say.

[Speaker 10] (1:05:44 - 1:05:56)
Yes, no, I just wanted to make it clear that they have been involved to some extent, that it isn't this is coming out of the blue to them. They have seen this. Okay.

So, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:05:56 - 1:06:31)
And the other thing I'd say is we have not gone sideways on any of these provisions. I mean, whatever changes we've made are really within the context of an existing provision and just tweaking it a little bit. For instance, time frames on air monitoring.

You know, we just came to a better conclusion about that. It doesn't alter the responsibility at all. It just says, okay, we're going to do it this way rather than that way because we think it's better to do it this way.

It's those kind of changes that take place. There's nothing new in there at all.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:32 - 1:07:41)
Joe, I appreciate that, and I do think, you know, the committee has done a very good job. I think what we're trying to do is just find a timeline here that helps us really work with Jay Perkins, our consultant. You know, have them really look at this.

You know, have maybe a meeting or two with ERAC and the board and maybe our litigation council and our general council. We have a number of parties here, and we have to kind of work this out. And maybe there is a hope here that we can find a settlement.

Well, we all have to be in good faith, right? We all have to really want to resolve issues that are ultimately in the public's and the company's best interest. And again, I don't think this is a bridge too far.

We've worked together for over 100 years. But, you know, we've got to really sit down and study this. This is the most impactful operation that we have in town.

We have one industrial property, and we have to, you know, be careful. Like, this is important. And I do think maybe 60 to 90 days would give us the time and the space to do that with everybody in the most constructive way possible.

I don't think we're in a race, you know.

[Speaker 10] (1:07:42 - 1:08:15)
May I make a suggestion, though, if there is an extension, that there be a game plan laid out on meeting dates and deadlines because I foresee what will happen, like happen for the past year and a half, which is nothing happens until the end. And as we all know in litigation, it's usually deadlines that bring about, you know, some sort of compromise. We just have to look at what happened at the federal level recently.

So I would make that recommendation.

[Speaker 13] (1:08:16 - 1:08:30)
Is there anything dramatically, any major downside to delaying it, whatever it is, 30, 60, 90 days? Is there any major improvement in this draft that we're going to lose out on for 30 or 60 days?

[Speaker 8] (1:08:33 - 1:09:11)
Nothing really occurs to me off the top of my head. I'm thinking about the inspect, the testing for noise and air. But I don't think that would be affected.

There's no major compliance that's due in the first month of the permit that I can recall. So no, but I agree with Tony, though, that if an extension is considered, it ought to be as short as possible, not as long as possible because we've already had long extensions.

[Speaker 21] (1:09:13 - 1:09:57)
Yeah, I have to agree. 60 days, in my opinion, would be appropriate. 90 days is now going to affect the next dust study, which will hopefully be in August, because that's when their new equipment will be online, and that's when we would like to take and see the after effect of what results are compared to the tests that have already been done before and after.

So if you go beyond 90 days, then now we're talking it may affect that. We'd like to get it done as soon as they can get the equipment up and operating so we can get a final dust evaluation.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:57 - 1:10:01)
What does 45 days get us, Katie? 45 days.

[Speaker 6] (1:10:02 - 1:10:04)
Does it get us 45 days?

[Speaker 4] (1:10:04 - 1:10:05)
Where does that get us?

[Speaker 6] (1:10:06 - 1:10:06)
Early August.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:07 - 1:10:19)
Yeah. All right. So can we get this wrapped up before the end of July?

It would be the end of July, right?

[Speaker 7] (1:10:20 - 1:10:24)
Oh, 30 from June 30th, sorry.

[Speaker 21] (1:10:25 - 1:10:51)
Just for information, they are shutting down. We've been told that they're going to shut down the month of July to bring up all the new equipment online. Once that equipment's online, sometime mid-August, I'm assuming, they'll be running tests, and after that point we want them to do a dust study to see how effective that new equipment is going to be compared to the dust studies we've had done in the past.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:52 - 1:11:02)
So what about if there's an extension until the end of July, so it's really only a 30-day extension, and we just do everything we can to even possibly get it done before the end of June?

[Speaker 21] (1:11:03 - 1:11:04)
That's your choice.

[Speaker 22] (1:11:05 - 1:11:08)
Is that feasible? I think that's feasible, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:08 - 1:11:51)
I think we can pull those meetings together. I mean, we have vacations. We have all sorts of complexities.

But, you know, I think ideally I think 60 days sounds better to me, but, you know, we can certainly make it happen in two weeks. The question is what makes most sense in terms of all the different stakeholders that we want at the table? We're working with attorneys, schedules.

You know, we have general counsel. We have, you know, litigation counsel. There may be an opportunity for us to actually, you know, have a settlement conference in between here.

To me, I'm like, why don't we, you know, take 60 days or 90 days? I don't as much as I hear. I think you just said the question was 30 days.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:51 - 1:11:53)
I know, I know. I don't think that's what we're talking about.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:55 - 1:12:07)
Look, 60 days sounds reasonable to me. That sounds like it gives us enough time to, you know, coordinate some careful and incredibly important meetings.

[Speaker 10] (1:12:07 - 1:12:10)
Yeah, that'll put it past September 1st, right?

[Speaker 6] (1:12:10 - 1:12:17)
That would be August 31st. August 31st, yeah. So that, I would do that.

You would do that?

[Speaker 22] (1:12:17 - 1:12:17)
That would be?

[Speaker 10] (1:12:17 - 1:12:18)
September 1st.

[Speaker 7] (1:12:18 - 1:12:24)
So then there's no issue with the death studies? Because that's, I'm concerned about that. That's my concern.

[Speaker 21] (1:12:24 - 1:12:26)
It's something we could work out with aggregate.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:26 - 1:12:33)
But there might be an opportunity for us to actually meet and do it earlier. So let's not just, you know, if we can get it done earlier, we will.

[Speaker 8] (1:12:33 - 1:12:45)
You're saying a 60-day extension to what, August? To August, you're really talking closer to 90 days, because you've got the whole month of June here. Was June 7th today?

Yep.

[Speaker 7] (1:12:46 - 1:12:46)
Right.

[Speaker 8] (1:12:46 - 1:12:50)
So why not the end of July?

[Speaker 7] (1:12:55 - 1:13:05)
Okay, so. Yeah, I mean, you guys were viewing it from the end of the permit. I'm viewing it from today's date.

60 days from today's date is the beginning of August.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:05 - 1:13:33)
So we're going to need more than one meeting to finish this. Yep. Because we're going to have an intervening meeting where we'll have had to have had the time to do our homework.

Yep. To then have further discussion with the RAC, with the permit holder, with the public, and then go back and hopefully come back and be able to do a final permit. So we're in early August.

So I'm just saying that it's not. We're in early August. Whatever date you guys agree to is fine.

[Speaker 8] (1:13:33 - 1:14:19)
I think the last comment I would make, and I will be quiet, is that there's really two parallel routes going here. The approval of this permit is one route, and you're looking for time to allow council to look it over and do due diligence on that. There's also the path regarding the litigation and any potential settlement talks.

They don't have to be on the same schedule. And if we can resolve the settlement question one way or the other sooner, then that works out to everybody's advantage, and it doesn't really affect the due diligence you want to do on the permit. So I'm arguing for progress.

[Speaker 10] (1:14:20 - 1:15:31)
One other comment, if I may. As I pointed out, there's two parts to this. One is the non-litigation provisions.

I would suggest that maybe you take a look, the select board, take a look at those first. If there's any questions, maybe you could send those questions to ERAC so we could be able to answer those quickly so that that at least is out of the way, leaving just basically Section 10. And I believe the last section regarding violations had one issue that needs to be resolved as part of the litigation.

So that leaves those for setting up some sort of process for settlement negotiations of some kind to see if there can be a meeting of the minds. If there cannot, then just prepare for litigation. But two steps.

I think you could maybe by the next meeting take a look at the other sections.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:32 - 1:15:42)
Well, so by the next meeting, our law firm would look at everything. We would turn around and send any type of additional questions, and at that point we should have a good idea.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:42 - 1:15:49)
And we could schedule it. That would give us time to schedule a non-public. Are you talking about between now and our next meeting?

No, between no.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:50 - 1:16:08)
No. So, well, we don't need to have a public hearing. If we give an extension tonight, give the extension, and then if – Yeah, that takes the pressure off.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:08 - 1:16:13)
So are we extending through the end of August? Are we extending through August 31st?

[Speaker 2] (1:16:14 - 1:16:28)
I think that sounds reasonable. I think it gives us enough time, and I think if we can meet sooner and approve the permit and advance that timeline.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:28 - 1:16:33)
I just don't want to be back here having the same conversation in the middle of August. Agreed. Agreed.

Agreed.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:33 - 1:18:05)
Yeah, so I think a couple of thoughts here. No matter what tonight, we should be extending tonight's hearing to a specific date. So before we end this, we've got to come up with a specific date.

Otherwise, the administrative hassles of re-noticing a hearing and the advertisements and whatnot is a pain. So I'm just going to recommend that we make sure we know what our July or August date is that we're going to continue this meeting, this public hearing to, just number one. And then number two, and that's just a procedural thing, but an important procedural thing, and then number two is I think, I mean, if you want to, frankly, if we want to, we can just continue it now to the 21st and not extend the permit.

I actually, I think I prefer that tonight because I also would want town council to chime in and make sure that we did the procedural things necessary to notice the fact that we were seeking to extend this year's permit. We've noticed the next year's permit process here tonight. I don't know that we've actually noticed anything that would allow us to extend this year's permit, even a short-term duration tonight.

So by just continuing tonight's meeting to 21st, we will be able to get that answered, make sure that we notice it correctly if that's the path we're going down. We'll be smarter about how long it's going to take us after talking with council, a subgroup talking to council, and we're just going to be, it seems like, exponentially smarter. And maybe then we'll be more optimistic on the 21st based on what we've gotten.

We don't even need an extension. Who knows, right? I mean, I'm just, that's why I'm just sitting here.

You guys are all making really good points and asking really good questions, and that's what I think.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:05 - 1:18:07)
That's because I'm feeling safe.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:08 - 1:18:14)
And personally, I have a conflict on the 21st, so I would need to extend. So you would need to talk about another date.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:14 - 1:18:21)
Why don't we just talk about moving our meeting before? Well, right now we should talk about moving our meeting. You wouldn't be here at all for the meeting.

I wouldn't, no. Which one?

[Speaker 6] (1:18:22 - 1:18:24)
22nd. 22nd, since it's a federal holiday.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:24 - 1:18:25)
22nd is Thursday?

[Speaker 22] (1:18:26 - 1:18:26)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:27 - 1:18:28)
Also, it's my birthday, so.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:28 - 1:18:29)
The 22nd?

[Speaker 7] (1:18:29 - 1:18:30)
No, the 19th.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:30 - 1:18:31)
Sounds like a proclamation.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:32 - 1:18:32)
Happy birthday.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:33 - 1:18:34)
Birthday buddies.

[Speaker 7] (1:18:34 - 1:18:37)
I'm 24. And Juneteenth. Isn't that cute?

Okay. We've digressed.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:39 - 1:18:45)
Transcended. Sugar is dropping. I knew there was something that was going on.

Seminar. The 20th?

[Speaker 1] (1:18:45 - 1:18:46)
Totally on that.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:46 - 1:18:49)
Are we looking at the 20th here? 22nd. 20th or 22nd.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:50 - 1:18:52)
22nd work? There's that. So the 22nd.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:52 - 1:18:54)
Is the school community in here?

[Speaker 6] (1:18:57 - 1:19:03)
Teams? Well, don't they meet, like, in the afternoon or something? They only meet a few minutes.

They work hard. They need hard times.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:07 - 1:19:17)
Let's think about that for a second. Is there a reason, then, we can't just meet the following Monday? I'm just being serious about that.

Is there anything that presses us?

[Speaker 7] (1:19:17 - 1:19:18)
On the 26th?

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

[Speaker 10] (1:19:20 - 1:19:23)
28th? No. 28th would be the following Wednesday.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:23 - 1:19:25)
26th is Monday. 26th is Monday.

[Speaker 10] (1:19:25 - 1:19:25)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:27 - 1:19:37)
Is there anything in the agenda that can't wait that extra week? No. Because that actually gives us a lot of time.

A little bit more time. Joe, is this room available? Do you know?

[Speaker 7] (1:19:38 - 1:19:39)
The 26th.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:40 - 1:19:42)
Okay. Well, we're just going to assume that means available.

[Speaker 7] (1:19:42 - 1:19:44)
Can it be at 6.15?

[Speaker 1] (1:19:44 - 1:19:50)
So I think I would... Yeah, yeah. We can make it whatever time.

But make the public hearing, like, continue at, like, 7 o'clock.

[Speaker 22] (1:19:50 - 1:19:51)
7 o'clock. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:51 - 1:19:54)
There's a chance to start the meeting and do our stuff. Yep.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:57 - 1:19:57)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:57 - 1:20:17)
So we'll continue the public hearing until June 26th at 7 p.m. Can I just ask you to, just since we're here, to see if Agriot has anything more they want to add, and then also open it up for public. Sure. Since it's a public hearing, the public has a chance to give testimony.

Just open it up if anybody's here tonight that wanted to give testimony. Drukas? Yeah.

[Speaker 15] (1:20:18 - 1:22:07)
I guess basically just two things at this point. Issue number one is I would like you to know that the Earth Removal Advisory Committee and working with us, I think they should be commended. We have had many, many meetings and worked through an awful lot of fairly complicated issues that now have been modified in the permit in the areas in which we could have discussions.

So I think they should be commended. Additionally, my last comment is that we have new selectmen on board and what we always offer when there's new selectmen that come on board. I think it would be very important for you, for us, to set up a time when you can go through the quarry and see what is there and what the activity is that's ongoing.

So we offer that. I know that the last time that we did it, David, you took, the chairman took up the benefit of that. I know Sean has taken the benefit of that.

And I believe Peter, you have as well. But we offer that and would be more than happy, probably sooner rather than later, so you really know what's there. And we can send a notice to the board and you can give us a few dates as to when you might be available.

Obviously, if there's more than two, you'd have to post a meeting for that day. But that doesn't mean that just you, anybody else...

[Speaker 2] (1:22:08 - 1:22:12)
Like one of those town days where we can all go up and everybody in town can visit?

[Speaker 7] (1:22:12 - 1:22:14)
That feels like a safety problem.

[Speaker 15] (1:22:16 - 1:22:34)
That's a really expensive and complicated endeavor. I'm sure there'll be another one in the not-too-distant future because I know that we've done it a couple of times over the last 20 years. So we make that offer.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I look forward to that.

[Speaker 6] (1:22:36 - 1:22:54)
I hope you take advantage of it. I think it's worthwhile. Any comments from members of the public?

Seeing none in the room and seeing none on Teams. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? No, we're not closing it.

Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:55 - 1:22:56)
We're suspending.

[Speaker 6] (1:22:57 - 1:22:57)
We're going to continue.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:58 - 1:30:26)
Can we just hold on for a second? I get concerned that for the first time in decades, this topic is getting its substantive airing at the select board, in my opinion, that it deserves. Not this time, but a year ago.

Two years ago now, maybe it was. And this board, I think, past board, some members of the current board, took pretty important action in the permit. And I think I don't...

And tonight we're talking about a lot of things and I don't want people to conflate those things because I also don't want the absence of them here at the hearing tonight to also be... Just speak up, Peter. I can't hear.

I don't want the absence of them at the board tonight being misinterpreted as well, right? The concerns, and this is... You are a closer neighbor.

You live with this more than I live with this, but I don't believe the concerns... Whoa. I don't believe the concerns have gone away.

And I think the sentiment is still very clear that of all the businesses in our town, we regulate more severely... virtually every other business in town than we do this one. We have businesses, and I believe the neighbors feel this way as well, and I think I don't want them to misconstrue any of this conversation.

We have to... We're a permit-issuing authority. We've got to do a permit here, but this is different than a settlement, right?

That's just a permit. The permit's not a negotiated permit. The permit is what the select board ultimately decides based on feedback and otherwise from ERAC, but I just think it's really important to...

I just want to make sure that the neighbors and the community are hearing that this is a process we are going to go through every year, we have to go through, but I feel strongly others can speak for themselves. I'm not meaning to posture here at all, but it is unmistakable to me that if there is any other business in town that I said your business has caused harm for 10, 20, 30 years, and I say, how many times have you rectified that harm? And they said none or almost none or not very many or very little, some.

We have shut down businesses for less. We have fined businesses for less, and so I just want the residents to know that I believe the board two years ago recognized the severity and recognized the need to take some action. I understand there may be disagreements about what those actions are.

I encourage them to come if they want to come and ask questions and share their questions with us because they have lived experiences that are going to be different than mine because I'm not there. I'm going to try and best I can channel that. But they do have rights as a property owner, and I think we should meet those rights as property owners, but so does every other property owner here, so I just hope that they still feel heard even though they may not be here tonight or they may not be raising their hand tonight.

I want them to come if they want to. I want them to reach out to us separately to share questions or comments to give us the experiences, but to me, I continue to struggle, whether it's the permit or the settlement, that when you have a process that is designed to compensate for injury and over decades it doesn't compensate for injuries, that tells me the system is working exactly as it was intended to or it's completely broken, and here I think that could be one and the same thing, and I continue to be troubled by the fact that we have only one business in town that regularly uses TNT and does explosions that we've got to worry about, dust, vibrations, and noise.

Literally. Only one in town. And we don't see any accountability over decades.

Decades. And I just feel like that's something that I continue to struggle with. I'll struggle with it as permanent as well because we have the systems we have here, and I get that we're doing the best we can, but I just struggle with it because it seems broken, and I, if I lived in that neighborhood, would feel the exact same way of what I hear, and I'm sorry I've said this before, I'm sorry it took me a couple years on this board to get to this point to realize this, but David, you, and Polly, Titcom, and others kept on talking to me about it, but I can see why they believe the system is not working for them or, worse yet, it's working for somebody else. And I just, it's unbelievable to me that in decades this redress isn't happening here.

And we haven't, it's our responsibility to find a better mousetrap, I guess, to figure this out because we haven't yet. And I don't believe the landowner is malicious or I think they're making a fair business and earning a fair wage and doing what they're doing and I wish them every prosper in the world, but I don't, it's still our responsibility to help mitigate and give redress and I've come to really understand why they feel someone is not listening because to have no redress over things and not to say that ERAC hasn't helped get dust mitigation and things to make it better.

I'm using one metric, I'm using one example. John Piccarello in particular, through the years, has been able to work with local council and ERAC to do, I'm sorry, I agree to do a lot of great things, appreciate those things, but I still come back to that one thing, which is never an acknowledgement of harm and I just, it's not credible and I challenge us, it's not sitting in here tonight, but I challenge us to think about what that system is to get to the point where it's credible.

It doesn't mean just paying out claims, it means create a credible system. I don't think we've found it yet, so I hope that we all, I wanted to share that tonight so that, especially the board members that haven't been sitting at these meetings before, that has actually been a significant part of our conversation. How do we create a system that is real and when nothing is paid and people stop making claims, just like they stop showing up to these meetings, that's a reflection.

When people, to earlier comments about town meeting proposals and things like that, when 12% of our electorate votes, we all bear responsibility for that. It's not just the 88% that didn't vote, but it's us too. We need to make sure they feel as though their government is gonna hear them, their government's gonna be responsive to them, their government's gonna communicate with them and I think here, the fact this is the first meeting that I haven't seen a resident sitting here with their arm like this for most of the night wanting to be heard, concerns me because I don't want them to feel like they've lost and they're not being heard because I think that we are trying to do something that's really complicated. Well, Tonya's not a resident next to the quarry, but she has her hand up, but I just wanted to share that for, especially my new colleagues here, that's been to me one of the greatest challenges, which is how do we know that there is a...

[Speaker 10] (1:30:26 - 1:31:39)
I just wanted to point out that in the sections that we have discussed with AI that there is this process. You're talking about one issue here, which is you feel that there hasn't been claims that have been paid out for damage, so there is the pre-surveys that were done. We've added provisions on that and on complaints, so there is something in this to address that.

I mean, the issues that, you know, IRAC has been very concerned and always concerned about the effect on the residents, but we also want to look at the factual basis of what the numbers are in blasting to make sure that they make sense. So that, I think, is the issue that is one that needs to be discussed through settlement because we were unable, IRAC unable, to discuss that with AI because of the litigation. So, you know, there's two issues.

The one you raised, which I think we have put stuff in the permit to address that, and then there's this other issue.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:39 - 1:32:17)
Yeah, no, I really appreciate that, and you have, but just to clarify, I see those as there's a correlation, an inverse correlation with those for me, which is what will, we, again, not getting into detail, but we changed the blasting standards to a more stringent standard, and that's being contested, and that's subject to the litigation. But part of a settlement also, without disclosing any surprises to people, is they don't want to stay in those numbers, and they want us to go back to some old stuff or closer to where we were. For me, to even entertain that, I need to feel much more comfortable, and I appreciate this, so I'm not diminishing this.

I need to feel much more comfortable than that there's true accountability.

[Speaker 8] (1:32:18 - 1:32:21)
Right? So I'm just, it's inverse, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:21 - 1:33:25)
We've got to get into a room and talk about it. No, no, no, I'm not, but I'm talking about the thing I can talk about tonight, which is that process of accountability, and that's, to me, until I feel there's a real process of accountability, it's very hard for me to, we'll have conversations, do it. I just want you all, but more importantly, I want my colleagues to hear it, especially the ones that haven't heard it in the past, because I think that's actually a huge shortcoming here.

If for years there was an acknowledgement of damage, or damage was acknowledged, or there was a legitimacy, believed legitimacy to the process, we might not have gotten to a point. But I think part of it is there was complete disbelief in the process. Complete disbelief.

I don't think I'm going to find a neighbor, it would be a rare breed to find a neighbor, I just thought of a neighbor, that might disagree with me, but that, you know, the grudgility of it all, right? And I'm just saying that we can figure it out, we haven't yet, we tried, let's try again, but I welcome new ideas for sure, I'm glad we have new members to bring new ideas to the table and stuff, so thank you for hearing me on that.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:26 - 1:33:41)
I just have one question. Go ahead. Can we have an executive session as soon as possible with ERAC so that we can discuss things that we can't discuss out in public?

Sure. So how quickly, can we discuss that, can we arrange that for...

[Speaker 8] (1:33:41 - 1:33:42)
You're around tomorrow morning? Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:43 - 1:33:44)
Tomorrow morning? Okay.

[Speaker 10] (1:33:44 - 1:33:44)
I can't...

[Speaker 4] (1:33:44 - 1:33:45)
Oh, we have to post it.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:45 - 1:33:49)
Yeah, we got to get town council, and we have to get... We got to engage...

[Speaker 6] (1:33:49 - 1:33:53)
Jay Perkins... On the fly, but yes, let's work with...

[Speaker 4] (1:33:54 - 1:33:54)
Key...

[Speaker 6] (1:33:54 - 1:33:59)
Yeah, let's work with Sean to get... So we'll call you tomorrow. Okay.

Can I try my motion again?

[Speaker 13] (1:34:01 - 1:34:09)
We suspend, postpone, continue this meeting, this public hearing to June 26th at 7 o'clock. In the same location.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:09 - 1:34:11)
Yep, in the same location in B129.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:12 - 1:34:16)
Actually, just say Swampstown. Just say Swampstown. As amended.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:17 - 1:34:17)
As amended.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:17 - 1:34:18)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:18 - 1:34:19)
All in favor.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:19 - 1:34:19)
Aye.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:19 - 1:34:21)
Aye. Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:21 - 1:34:22)
Oh, they have to post it.

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

[Speaker 6] (1:34:26 - 1:34:33)
All right, moving on, we'll next address the historic commission update and discussion regarding the Pittman House and the General Glover House.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:50 - 1:34:57)
Testing, one, two, three. Is this working? It should be working.

Okay.

[Speaker 22] (1:34:58 - 1:35:00)
If it doesn't work, you can use this.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:02 - 1:35:04)
We've been in town long enough to know, Doug.

[Speaker 22] (1:35:05 - 1:35:06)
It's free wine.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:06 - 1:35:06)
It's free.

[Speaker 22] (1:35:06 - 1:35:11)
It's free. Wait a minute.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:11 - 1:35:12)
What is my pin said?

[Speaker 22] (1:35:15 - 1:35:16)
Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:16 - 1:35:17)
Excuse me.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:18 - 1:35:19)
That's great. It's my favorite part of the meeting.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:19 - 1:37:21)
All right. Well, thank you very much for inviting me to present. I'm Nancy Schultz, chair of the Swampscott Historical Commission.

So, slide two. Okay, so I'm going to be updating you on two historic preservation opportunities, 35 Pittman and the Glover site. So we'll begin with 35 Pittman Road.

And as you can see from the slide, there's an image of the house from 1912. And from the beginning, this has been our guiding principle with this project. Rehabilitating historic properties to provide affordable housing is a sound historic preservation strategy.

And that is what we're trying to do with 35 Pittman Road, which is scheduled for demolition to make way for the housing development through the Wynn properties. Next slide, Diane. Okay, so the reason the Historical Commission found this site significant had to do with it being owned by our town founder, Samuel Clune Pittman.

And I have several dates on the screen with information about him. But he was largely, he wrote the bylaws for the separation of Swampscott from Lynn in 1852, he was the first town moderator, he served as a select man, he served as a representative, so he has an important history in the town. And if you look at the picture, you can see the house on the site.

And that house dates to 1800. Next slide, please.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:21 - 1:37:22)
Where were the pear trees?

[Speaker 3] (1:37:23 - 1:37:45)
Where were the pear trees? They were, he had a farm and he won prizes for the New England Horticultural Society for his prize winning, they're a type of Anjou pear, and he's written up in the annals of that society.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:45 - 1:37:48)
You should plant one of those trees in the cabaret of that town hall.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:49 - 1:43:07)
Okay, I think that's great. There's the pear trees, and they've bloomed. So this slide shows the desired parcel for relocation.

We have been working with Habitat for Humanity from the beginning, when we first imposed the demolition delay in 2021, October 2021. And Habitat for Humanity has been a partner with us. And so we have been looking to move this house for affordable housing to that parcel that's shown on the right, 7 Hillside.

And on the left is a drawing for what the property would look like. The front of the house is the original 1800s house. We would not be trying to move the L, and then they would be building in the back.

So let's go to the history of the project in slide five, next slide. All right, so the part of the house with the big X over it is a later addition. So from the beginning, we've been interested in only preserving the original part.

And you have some history on the screen there with the demolition delay. And we have been working with Habitat for Humanity from the very beginning. So after a lengthy process, Habitat for Humanity now has an option to purchase 7 Hillside, pending a successful permitting of the project.

And we've run into, I think, our key obstacle at this point is time. Site control, Wynn did not take over site control until April. We had tenants living in the house through the end of March.

And now that the site control has passed to Wynn, we could be starting to apply for a friendly 40B, which would allow four units on that parcel. But according to Habitat for Humanity, that process can take 15 to 18 months. So demolition has been postponed a little, but it is scheduled to begin August 1st.

So I guess unless we have a brilliant 11th hour solution, time is our enemy here. Habitat for Humanity is concerned that we don't have enough time to apply for and obtain the requisite friendly 40B. So I would certainly welcome your ideas or suggestions on how to, if there's any way we can move this forward.

Because the concept of preserving an important historical house connected to a local leader, and combining that with solving another problem we have, which is affordable housing. I think it's a win-win, and the circumstances have just been very difficult to work under the time frame that we had. Okay, so we can move on to the Glover, and then I'm happy to take questions.

So update number two, the General Glover House. So as you can see on the screen, we have submitted to Legge McCall a proposal urging them to preserve the original 1750s era house and L in place. The house could be saved by altering the design of building one by 70 feet.

So with the submission of this proposal to preserve in place, we actually believe that we are presenting Legge McCall with an opportunity that they didn't even realize they were missing. Next slide please. All right, so on the screen you have what this proposal would entail.

The slide, the picture on the far left, shows the small size of the section that we wish to reserve in relation to the planned building. And if you look at building one, and there's a tiny yellow house right in the, it's in the right-hand corner of the first building, it's even hard for me to see from here. Yes.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:07 - 1:43:08)
Right there, yep.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:09 - 1:47:41)
It actually only touches the corner of the planned building. It's very small and that's the only section we're looking to preserve. At the center, do you have a pointer?

Would you point it at the little white house? That's how the house would look, where it is currently. If somehow building one could be adjusted back by 70 feet, or another option that we have also suggested could be a possible redesign of the northernmost 70 feet on that building, would also preserve the house.

And in the lower corner, you see a diagram of the added charm that such a preserved building would add to the proposed development, especially given that it's going to be called the Glover Residences at Vennon Square. Sorry, I just walked away from the mic. So, again, these are diagrams that show the small amount of adjustment that would be needed.

And we really think that these, preserving this building in place would be a launch to the town's ambitious plans to revitalize Vennon Square. What better way to revitalize Vennon Square than to start with a building that has been there for over 250 years? Next slide, please.

This slide shows some of the partnerships that we've already cultivated, and there are many, many more in the works. But we are working with the Swampscott Historical Society, the Glover Regiment of Marblehead, the Town of Swampscott, REV 250 for Essex County, the Essex National Heritage Corporation, the American Battlefield Trust, the Marblehead Historical Commission, and Patrick O'Donnell, historian and author of the book about the Marblehead Regiment, The Indispensables. So these are just some partners that we've been able to attract in the six weeks since the demolition delay has been imposed.

And final slide. All right, so this summary shows where we are with the various projects. So in the corner you see a picture of a house in Peabody on Park Street that Habitat for Humanity successfully renovated into affordable housing.

They were able to preserve a historic building. So we would really like to relocate 35 Pittman and do the same thing, and that would be our first partnership with Habitat for Humanity and really launch us on a great path for affordable housing to address the challenges we have. So that is an important project that we're hoping to get some assistance with.

And then, of course, preserving the General John Glover House in place would add authenticity and history and allure and interest to a property that's already being planned there. And I just would remind everybody that we are entering a period where we are gearing up for Revolution 250 in 2026. A lot of activities are going to be planned in the coming years commemorating the crucial battles of the American Revolution.

And I think there's going to be grant money. I think we would really easily be able to, you know, pull our weight with any expenses that the developer may incur should they agree to help us and make these changes. Last slide.

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:47 - 1:47:48)
Questions from the board.

[Speaker 13] (1:47:49 - 1:48:24)
Well, Nancy, we've talked before. I think this is, you know, I really love your enthusiasm and all the effort that you've put into all of these things. I think it's fantastic we should do whatever we can to try to move these forward.

Can you just really, it seems like Pittman House, timing-wise, is really the most troublesome issue. So the real issue is we need to move the house. We have a place to move it to, but it can't, spell that out again for me.

Do we need an interim place for it to sit? What's the issue?

[Speaker 3] (1:48:26 - 1:49:34)
I mean, that is a solution if we can't work out a solution to move it directly there. I mean, it's 2,000 feet it has to go. I mean, the issue really is timing.

And for a house like this to go on the lot, should it be sold, should that transaction go through, we would need a friendly 40B, which would allow four units on what's basically a non-conforming lot. And what we're envisioning is that the building would be preserved. The smaller building would be preserved.

We would have the exterior preserved in kind of authentic 1800s style, but inside would be all renovated and new by Habitat for Humanity so families and individuals could have affordable living there. So the challenge is really time at this point. We are kind of running up against the clock.

It is currently the most endangered historic building in Swampscott because in two months the wrecking ball is going to go.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:34 - 1:49:46)
I have a question. Peter, can the zoning board give a permit for a non-conforming lot? Can they give a permit?

[Speaker 1] (1:49:48 - 1:49:59)
I know nothing about this lot, so it's really hard for me to answer that question. The answer is there is a—I can't answer the question because I don't know anything about the lot, candidly.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:02 - 1:50:05)
Forget the—this is considered a non-conforming lot.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:06 - 1:50:10)
I believe it is because it was— I'm just trying to find out, do we really have to have this 40B?

[Speaker 4] (1:50:11 - 1:50:12)
What happens if we don't have a 40B?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:14 - 1:50:53)
Again, I can't speak about the lot. If the lot is buildable, meaning under zoning it's capable of having a structure, whether it needs some relief or not, that's one thing. But what the 40B does, in addition to that, is the use because the zoning in that neighborhood, I'm assuming, again, based on the four-unit issue, is that a four-unit building isn't allowed as a use in that zoning district.

So the 40B—there may be other waivers. 40B gives you waivers to local requirements. There may be other waivers besides the four units, dimensional lot, et cetera.

I'm not familiar with that, but the 40B is the tool that gives you the uniform waiver. Sorry, Marcy.

[Speaker 19] (1:50:54 - 1:51:27)
No, you said requirements and use requirements and things like that. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I apologize for that.

So basically what Peter was saying is true, and that's what the issue is. We looked at the lot, and we looked at the potential, the height, and then just the use, and just maybe some of the setbacks that are requirements that the way that the buildings will be sited on the lot would not meet our zoning requirements.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:27 - 1:52:09)
So saying it differently, I think just to say, could we— is there a local process short of a 40B that would allow the house to get relocated but not be used for four units? Maybe, but then— Until we get the 40B. Yeah, right.

But maybe, but then my point is—and we didn't get into that conversation. The cost to move it 2,000 feet is a six-digit cost, and someone or whatever it is, it's expensive, and so someone, whoever was funding it, whether it was a grant or whatnot, would want to know that whatever happens is going to materialize, right? And so I think it's—so then my guess is then it's not a zoning issue.

Then it's another issue, which is how do you confidently move and fund and locate.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:10 - 1:52:16)
How much is it to move it? We've had estimates between $65,000 and $100,000.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:17 - 1:52:28)
$100,000, and then you have the property. Even if it was only a one-family house, it would still— Yeah, but again, I'm speaking pure conjecture.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:28 - 1:53:03)
It sounds like they have a purchase and sale agreement that's contingent upon permitting, and so therefore they don't even own the property. So the property owner would need to be either willing to allow this house to sit on their property or something else. I mean, so I'm just—I'm not trying to complicate it.

I'm trying to just break it down to its smaller parts because I think your question is a really good question, and it might solve a part of it, but then there is this author of non-zoning, non-legal, I'm guessing, questions, and I don't even know the relationship with Habitat, for example, and how that all works.

[Speaker 7] (1:53:05 - 1:53:15)
My question was similar, asked and answered, but Habitat doesn't own the site yet, so even if we wanted to move it there, you'd need permission from the current landowner because Habitat doesn't own it yet.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:17 - 1:53:41)
Okay, let's just say if we could get permission, let's just— if we could get permission and it gets moved over, it looks like dollar-wise it still comes in under market rate, even if it was just one family living in there. It sounds like the question, a super question there would be whether or not you can even put a house— can you even put a house there?

[Speaker 1] (1:53:43 - 1:53:46)
Yeah, so I guess, too, again, I'm— No.

[Speaker 13] (1:53:46 - 1:53:48)
Yeah, I'm not saying this makes sense for us.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:48 - 1:55:11)
No, no, no. Look, I appreciate what— Mary Ellen's inquisitiveness is about problems. I don't want to lose this house.

No, no, no, I appreciate it. So I'm answering in hypotheticals because I don't know the thing. There are two things that are implied.

So the answer is if the zoning board— again, I know nothing about this lot— but if there was a relief the zoning board could to allow this house to sit there, even temporarily, then perhaps, right? But let's assume that's the case, right? And again, Nancy, you chime in more than me because now I'm getting off of zoning.

I'm going to chime in and just say the cost to move it is not the cost to build the unit. It's fundamentally the house will be gutted, new foundations, new— so that is just a portion of the cost to create it, and my guess is the reason a four-unit building is what we're talking about is because to spread the overall cost, getting four units and maximizing is the extent. So I'm just saying that I'm guessing there's a lot of financial questions as well.

But procedurally, if you're just asking a procedural question— I'm asking procedurally. —then maybe there is a way to do it. It would seem extraordinary, and if you had neighbors that— just candidly, I know nothing about this neighborhood at all.

I know no one in the neighborhood. But I'm just saying that there are—it's worth exploring, but I don't want to create false optimism that it's an actual path. That's all.

[Speaker 13] (1:55:13 - 1:55:22)
But is there a reason that you all—you mentioned Friendly 40B. Have you thought through all these options?

[Speaker 3] (1:55:25 - 1:55:27)
Do you want to take that? I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:28 - 1:55:29)
Have you had this conversation?

[Speaker 13] (1:55:29 - 1:55:39)
Yeah, exactly. We're kind of, like, doing it real time here, but I imagine you're suggesting kind of a Friendly 40B. Is there a reason for that?

Have you thought through all these different permutations already?

[Speaker 19] (1:55:39 - 1:55:53)
We just thought that because of the sort of nonconformity and then just the waivers that would be required, right, that the zoning board would not grant a— They can't.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:53 - 1:56:10)
Right. They can't under our bylaws grant a year's variance. That's right.

Right. 40B is the only way to get four—assuming the building otherwise conformed. I don't know that.

40B is the only way for you to get four units. The zoning board doesn't have the authority to grant that use under our bylaw.

[Speaker 6] (1:56:11 - 1:56:15)
Well, a 40B or a LIP, which is a— Well, it's a version of a 40B. Got it.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:16 - 1:57:33)
So just to follow up on Doug's question, I did meet with the chair of the historic commission on Monday, and we did go over, you know, a little bit of a strategy with the director of community economic development. We did think that it would be important for the select board as the policy leaders to get a sense of whether or not we should actually explore this and really work with Habitat and perhaps come back and provide you with an update on whether or not we could create a few affordable units and preserve a historic building. We just need some direction from the board, and we'd be happy to kind of work with a few stakeholders and see if, you know, at our next meeting we can find a path here.

We don't have a lot of time. It is fraught with complexities. I've been very candid.

This is going to be challenging, but, you know, it's worth, in my opinion, exploring, and I think we ought to share these responsibilities. And certainly, yeah, the neighborhood's going to have some concerns, and we're going to have to think about, you know, reaching out and having a few meetings and getting public input, but we have to understand feasibility first. I don't even think we're at feasibility.

[Speaker 19] (1:57:34 - 1:57:41)
And the Affordable Housing Trust Fund also has had discussions about this project, and they're willing to support it.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:41 - 1:57:51)
And what is the relationship with Habitat for Humanity? Is it pretty—are they, like, super on board, or are they— I think they're definitely supportive of the project.

[Speaker 19] (1:57:51 - 1:57:59)
They would want to understand the pro forma to find out what the costs are that are associated with the project, and then just to see what the gap is.

[Speaker 6] (1:57:59 - 1:58:11)
Margie, do we have a— I don't know. Do we have a pro forma, and do we have a commitment or anything from the Affordable Housing Trust as to the funding mechanisms for this particular project?

[Speaker 19] (1:58:11 - 1:58:33)
Habitat did submit a very draft proposal to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The trust is meeting next week. I'm sorry, the trust is meeting on the 13th, on Tuesday the 13th.

So that's something else that maybe we can talk about, and we can ask to maybe provide a better pro forma to understand and maybe have a discussion.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:34 - 2:00:43)
So without giving up on the location of where it's going, maybe breaking it down—I'm just making a suggestion— maybe breaking it down into smaller parts and solving one thing, which is can we move it somewhere to live another day without knowing where it's going to live the other day. So is there a town parcel, and can we secure funding for the $100,000 or whatever that it can go to for a period of time until we can solve it? There has to be some understanding as to what's the time and stuff like that.

But to me, that seems like for what we can do is maybe— and where you want direction from us is that to me seems like zoning is zoning. Town Council will advise you all as to zoning and what we can do and say let's be creative, but we've got to still comply with the bylaws, we've still got to comply with law, and there's the clock. And Town Council can't fix the clock.

So I'm just wondering if we just focus on—and it may not be ideal, but it may be the most ideal way to try and save it for another day, which is can we work on funding sources, help Nancy and her team on the funding sources, and at the same time we work with the town resources to say is there a close enough, a local enough place that we can put it for a period of time to see if it can get sorted out, understanding that hopefully it works out forever. But that's where I think I would suggest where our effort may be best, again, just because we can work towards those things. The zoning stuff and the third-party purchase and sale agreement and Habitat all seem to be maybes and kindas and ifs type of thing, and I just would suggest we—that would be where I would— but again, I looked at Nancy.

Nancy's taking the lead on this, and it's so awesome that she, you know, and her Uber driver, Jackson, are here tonight. But I like—it's really awesome. It's just awesome that we're having these conversations because I've never had them in my nine years here.

So it's because of you and your team that we're having this conversation. So that's where I would suggest we put the effort.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:43 - 2:00:53)
Sean, is there property between Town Hall and the post office that could potentially be used as a temporary—is that town-owned?

[Speaker 1] (2:00:55 - 2:01:06)
The piece of open space between— I would not openly speculate about this question right now. I think I'd go to— I appreciate that, Theo.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:06 - 2:02:01)
So, yes, there's always an answer, but I think I would— we'll have to have a public hearing about every nook and cranny. I think Plan B is saving that building and trying to figure out if we can get to the Plan A. The time constraints are real, and so we're going to have to be incrementalists, and we need partners, we need some stakeholders that are really going to truly materialize.

Habitat is a busy, wonderful organization doing a lot of great work, and we have to figure out if they have the bandwidth, our affordable housing trust, if they are going to be partners, we need their assistance. And we've got to figure out the roles of all of the stakeholders. But all we need is a little hope, and we can figure out if we can save this building.

[Speaker 6] (2:02:03 - 2:02:05)
I'd like to recognize Mr. Cello.

[Speaker 19] (2:02:11 - 2:02:12)
That's okay.

[Speaker 20] (2:02:14 - 2:03:45)
Mary DiGiulio, Precinct 4, town meeting member. I think this is a wonderful idea, and I'm wondering, in terms of partners and mitigation— I don't know the answer to this, so maybe you can enlighten me— is, in terms of both of these projects, engaging as partners the developers, and in terms of figuring out and help getting some sort of funding, goodwill funding, partnership kind of funding, where it doesn't sound like a tremendous amount of money that is needed here, but given what both of these developers are going to be recouping, wind construction, Paradise Construction, I don't know the other group, it would be probably a very good way to start out both of those projects, where they make a commitment to the town, and the town approaches them, Historic Commission, and with the support of the Select Board, going forward on this, the other technical things with the ZBA and all of that, but I think if it's a question of funding, I believe that this happens in many communities where there's some goodwill money that gets exchanged here.

So, thank you.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:46 - 2:03:46)
Thank you, Mary.

[Speaker 7] (2:03:46 - 2:05:08)
My comment is not far off of what Mr. Schiller was just talking about, but I fear as though this is amazing and awesome, and I would love to see these historical properties preserved in place or preserved in town, but I know that I brought up to Nancy one of the things I would like to see occur in the near future is a database or record of properties in town that we, if they should become available, would like to see preserved.

That way we wouldn't have lost our leverage in talking with developers before we've approved their projects to say, hey, yes, but there's a historical something on here, and it has value to us, and therefore it needs to have value to you. And the leverage is really in the beginning of the conversations, and we're a little bit behind the eight ball for these two properties, which is unfortunate. It doesn't mean we can't do something.

It just would be best if we created a list of ideally salvageable and even prioritize them so if they become available, we could really buckle down and say, yeah, we knew that we wanted this, and so it's available now, and we have a plan in place to how we're going to preserve it and keep it as part of the history of Swampscott.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:08 - 2:06:16)
Katie, that's a great idea. It's proactive, and this morning, David sent me some information about the city of Salem. They're using some of their ARPA funds to buy the right of first refusal for a few properties in a very proactive way to help support affordable housing, but certainly looking at that through the lens of historic preservation as well I think would be an excellent legacy and tool.

The town has a right of first refusal on Blythwood. For the life of me, I don't know how we're going to actually exercise that right if we don't put funding in place or we don't put it into a strategy for how we preserve that building, so certainly would be eager to put a prioritization list together and then think about how do we act on it, how do we secure today some future preservation or some future affordable housing for tomorrow.

[Speaker 6] (2:06:20 - 2:06:22)
Thanks. Thanks, Sean.

[Speaker 4] (2:06:22 - 2:06:23)
Thank you, Nancy.

[Speaker 6] (2:06:23 - 2:06:24)
Thank you, Nancy.

[Speaker 4] (2:06:28 - 2:06:38)
I do have one question on the Glover. Who's involved in the... Are you involved in the conversations with Leggett McCall?

I am involved, yes. So every meeting with Leggett McCall, you're there negotiating?

[Speaker 2] (2:06:39 - 2:06:56)
I can't say that I'm in every meeting. I know I've worked with Nancy. I've helped her with some things.

I do believe there'll be a meeting scheduled soon, and I hope to be in that meeting. I've worked with Nancy to try to help facilitate that.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:56 - 2:07:10)
Several of us have offered to attend the meeting, so I'm guessing if Sean can't be or whatnot, I think David has similarly offered, and I have offered to make myself available to support Nancy in that meeting, so we'll make sure that there's a presence.

[Speaker 6] (2:07:11 - 2:07:32)
Yeah, and I just had one question. With the property being the on-site Option A, would that move any of the existing structures into Marblehead from Swampskid or into Salem? Was there any sense of that, Nancy?

Sorry, I should have...

[Speaker 3] (2:07:32 - 2:08:17)
No, it looks like if Option Building 1, which was the one sort of along Paradise Road, if that building were to move back 70 feet, the house could stay where it is. Moving it back 70 feet could complicate the zoning with the one that goes horizontal, so it might... I know, and I'm not trying to minimize 70 feet.

I know that it sounds like a small amount, but it's a complicated number, so there might be a way to angle or redesign a part of it. So does that answer your question?

[Speaker 6] (2:08:17 - 2:08:27)
Yeah, I was mostly just asking the question of whether or not the building configurations would push more units into Marblehead or more units into Swampskid.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:28 - 2:09:05)
No, but we did discuss at length the idea of moving the Glover House 70 feet forward would put it into Salem. Got it. If we move the Glover House 70 feet, I guess it would have to be to the right unless we want it in the middle of the intersection of Route 1A, it would put it into Marblehead.

We are sitting on the exact line of Swampscott, Marblehead, and Salem, and so even a 70-foot forward move, which is something we did propose for the open space in the park, but that puts the house into Salem.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:06 - 2:09:07)
Got it.

[Speaker 3] (2:09:07 - 2:09:08)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:08 - 2:09:12)
Thank you. Anything else from the board?

[Speaker 22] (2:09:12 - 2:09:13)
No.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:13 - 2:09:24)
All right. Thank you, Nancy. All right.

We will move on with our joint meeting with the Swampscott Retirement Board. Thank you for your patience. Mr. Driscoll.

[Speaker 5] (2:09:36 - 2:15:48)
Mr. Chairperson, I'm moving to just for the record call to order a meeting with the Swampscott Retirement Board on the 7th of April, 2015. President Driscoll, Paul Powell, and Nancy Ward, our administrator. I didn't know you guys were all coming up here to sit next to me.

Okay. I knew you were. We'll take the microphone away from you.

Members of the Select Board, thank you very much for having us. I know I presented, we provided you a package, I think, last week. I'd like to just make an opening statement, if you don't mind.

To the Select Board, under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 32, the retirement board members, whether elected, appointed, or serving as a statutory member, has a fiduciary duty specifically to fund the employees, to the fund the employees and the retirees. Although some, including me on occasion, like to extend that fiduciary obligation, the law is the law. The board honoring those fiduciary duties, as well as our many years of experience managing and understanding public employee retirement systems, voted in favor of this 2.5% additional COLA increase, above the 3% given. Although we are here to represent the, to present the information that we hope will lead to the passage of this one-time additional 2% COLA, the Swampscot retirees, this process has taken an unusual path, resulting in your board, and your board only, to make the decision regarding the retirees of the town of Swampscot. As I touched on the package that was previously distributed, to you an important aspect that we hope you will consider is not just Swampscot retirees, but the universal retirees within our community. Every retired teacher and state retiree living in Swampscot have been granted this additional 2% COLA increase.

In those cases, the legislature and the governor signed off on them. Both the House and Senate passed this provision unanimously. Our good friend Governor Baker added on a feature that enables us to come before you, rather than town meeting.

In making that change, he relied on the recommendation of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. I personally can't begin to estimate how many Swampscot residents rely heavily on Social Security, but those individuals have also received 5.7% and 8.9% COLA increases in the past two years, more than double the COLAs granted by the Swampscot retirement system. All of us here tonight go about our everyday lives astonished with the inflation that we see virtually every day with everything we buy.

This is also true for the retirees, whether on Social Security or public pension. Again, as I touch on the cover letter, your package, it's important to understand that the retired public employees do not receive Social Security benefits for their time spent while publicly employed. Even more importantly, any they do receive is a very small amount of Social Security for contributions made working in the public sector.

And I use myself as an example. I will receive about one-eighth of the Social Security that I paid in over 14 years of working in the private sector. That's called WEP, which is an adjustment that's made.

We certainly can discuss the impact on unfunded liability at the end of the funding schedule, but as you'll see, the figures show that in the near future, impact is really nothing in terms of that until 2031. Even with that number, we'll likely be able to smooth out that system since our system is now working with a more acceptable industry standard of 7% projected rate of return on investments, as well as the fact that the Retirement Board and the SwampScot system has performed in the top 25% during the life of the fund being in existence. There are probably other matters that we do know that we would be able to help smooth out if that number became too ominous at the end of the funding schedule.

Not that it isn't ominous enough now, but there are tools that we will probably be considering. On a personal note, I believe it is important to you people when you request that. I know that hiring new employees in SwampScot departments is something that's very important to this board, but one of the things that I think never needs to be forgotten is that retirement is the benefit that really manages many people's decisions to come here or to come into any community.

I think hearing how we treat, as a town, the retirees is an important part of their process when someone is examining coming to SwampScot. We hope that you will consider the vote to support this one-time 2% additional COLA, not only based on our experience and evaluation of its impact, but also on the compassion for the retirees adversely affected by this incredible economic environment. And then finally, just having taken note of this meeting that's preceded us, you know that here we are as a town talking about our pride, our acceptance, how we treat and welcome the LGBTQ community, as you said, taking care of our properties that mean something to us historically, and to quote Sean, best place to call home, I would hope this one-time 2% raise in the COLA, it wouldn't be every year, would really help out and send a message to our retirees that we understand what's going on in this economy, and this would hopefully help a little. Thank you very much. Bob Powell, which I thought was going to be right next to me, but is our real numbers guy to go over a lot of the different figures and charts we gave you, not that I can't, but I always find that Bob's expertise is well appreciated.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll.

[Speaker 11] (2:15:48 - 2:16:31)
So I'll just make some brief remarks. You have in your packet all the information that I'll be referring to. I'll first call your attention to the number of communities that have approved the 2% COLA.

Presently, there are over 60 communities that have approved the COLAs, and what's interesting about this chart is that there's a range of communities, some of which have funded liabilities over and above ours, and some of them, about 20, have unfunded liabilities that are below ours. So we're looking at communities that are in much worse financial shape than we are that have approved this COLA. The second thing that I'll bring to your attention is...

[Speaker 5] (2:16:31 - 2:16:57)
If I might just interrupt, though. I was at the retirement conference the last two days down the Cape, and I believe that number is probably up closer to 80 as of this conference. There's a couple of regional committees, boards, that are just waiting to tally the votes from the individual communities, which is a little different.

And then several other communities, I just can't remember off the top of my head, stood up and said that they were doing it.

[Speaker 11] (2:16:58 - 2:19:47)
And then also in your packet, we have information about some of the communities that have approved the 2% COLA and the effect on the budget. In Marblehead, they've pegged it as $16,000 per year additional in terms of what the cost would be to the town. In Salem, it was $2.9 million. In Gloucester, it was $2.8 million. Amesbury was $556,000. Our actuary has put the effect of the COLA going from 3% to 5%.

The effect on the unfunded liability would be $535,000, going from $36.7 million to $37.3 million, and that the effect in terms of the actual contribution would not take place until 2031 in the amount of $860,000. That's the gross number. Also in your packet is a look at the actual numbers.

There are, at the moment, 248 retirees, 64 of which have retirement benefits under $14,000 per year, and the average retiree is at 24,679. In your packet, you see there's a chart that looks at all 64 employees and what their current monthly pension is and what the net effect of the extra 2% would be. In the case of row number 1, the amount of the annual retirement allowance would go from $1,183 to $1,100.

At the far end in row 64, we have a person who would be going from $13,584 to $13,857, and that extra 2% would amount to $21 in terms of the increase. There's also a graph where I've looked at what the actual difference would be in terms of monthly dollars to the pensioners, regardless of where they stand. So at the lowest level, for instance, someone who had a pension of $5,000 would receive an additional $100 by going from 3% to 5%, which would be a monthly difference of about $8.33 just for one year and a daily difference of $0.27 for that pensioner. At the other extreme, looking at the average retiree at, say, $25,000, the annual difference would be $280, a monthly difference of $23.33, and a daily difference of $0.77 for one year. And that would be the effect on the retirees who are above the $14,000 COLA base. And I think that represents the highlights, and happy to either turn it over to Kevin or whoever else wants to add some commentary or take questions.

[Speaker 7] (2:19:48 - 2:20:03)
I have a quick question. On this blue chart that you provided where it says of the 248 retirees, 26 are not eligible for COLA because they have not been retired for one full year. Will they become eligible once they fulfill their year?

[Speaker 5] (2:20:04 - 2:20:05)
Can you just repeat that?

[Speaker 7] (2:20:05 - 2:20:17)
It says of the 248 retirees, 26 are not eligible for COLA because they have not been retired for one full year as of 7-1. So once they reach the year mark, will they then...

[Speaker 5] (2:20:17 - 2:20:17)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (2:20:17 - 2:20:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:18 - 2:20:20)
But the COLA, not the one-time COLA.

[Speaker 22] (2:20:22 - 2:20:22)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:23 - 2:20:33)
The yearly COLA discussion we have, you may negotiate cost of livings in a contract with the retirement system. It's a COLA hearing, and we vote for COLA.

[Speaker 7] (2:20:34 - 2:20:34)
Okay.

[Speaker 11] (2:20:35 - 2:20:36)
So it would only be active retirees.

[Speaker 7] (2:20:37 - 2:20:37)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (2:20:42 - 2:21:00)
I had a question. Just for the Director of Finance, Amy Sara. You're a member of this board.

How does this impact town finance? So I... Can you get a microphone?

[Speaker 19] (2:21:01 - 2:21:07)
Here. Thanks, Jeff.

[Speaker 18] (2:21:09 - 2:22:23)
So I will say I was the dissent vote on this when you see the 4-1. For the impact on the operating fund, so I will say this does have no impact on FY24 that was just voted at annual town meeting. But for FY25, it impacts about $80,000.

What was that number? $80,000. 80?

Yeah, 80. And it's incremental. So our actuary said that it was $500,000 in today money, $860,000 because it gets added to the last end of the funding schedule.

So for me, it was just, you know, something the general fund couldn't handle, not only within our financial policy, but within the Prop 2 1⁄2. So even if we went for a full, you know, going to Prop 2 1⁄2, going to the average three-year new growth tax to the max type of community that Swampstrip once was, it was just, you know, not gonna fit within that guideline.

[Speaker 6] (2:22:25 - 2:22:29)
Thank you, Amy. Questions from the board?

[Speaker 13] (2:22:30 - 2:22:32)
I don't have any questions. I'm in support of it.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:35 - 2:22:53)
Amy, I have a question. I didn't bring any of my notes and I was just wondering. So we're looking at $80,000 in 2025 and we're looking at over $800,000 at the end, at 2030.

That's what you're saying? I believe it's in 2031.

[Speaker 22] (2:22:54 - 2:22:54)
2031.

[Speaker 16] (2:22:54 - 2:22:55)
Yeah. 2031.

[Speaker 5] (2:22:57 - 2:22:57)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:57 - 2:23:01)
So, you know, I'm just, I'm talking about dollars that the town has to pay.

[Speaker 5] (2:23:01 - 2:23:30)
Can you also tell me on- But there is no increase. I'm just concerned. We provided you seagulls with the COLA, without the COLA.

Yeah. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. And then in 31, you see the jump.

The others stay the same in what the schedule is. You know, ultimately it's- Well, Mary Ellen, I didn't mean to do that. I'm sorry.

Continue. I kind of interrupted you. I apologize.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:30 - 2:24:21)
Yeah, you did. But it's okay. All right.

So I'll go back to my question on- Because, you know, I have to look at the budget globally and I'm trying to understand what the actual impact is on the entire budget. And the other thing I always look at is what are the increases on health insurance for this population or just in the town alone? Is health insurance just increasing by 2%, 2.5%?

Because I just remember looking at numbers and being on the finance committee, and we're looking at between 4% and 7% increases year after year after year, which is a really serious hit on our finances overall.

[Speaker 18] (2:24:21 - 2:24:51)
Yeah, so since 2019, we've had increases in health insurance between 4.6% and upwards of almost 8%. I do want to clarify that the COLA has zero impact. Like, as the budget as a whole, as Mary Ellen said, but this vote tonight would not change anyone's health insurance rates.

Right. But, yes, we have seen anywhere from 4.6% upwards to 8% increase on those rates.

[Speaker 13] (2:24:54 - 2:25:02)
But the people that this impacts have health insurance obligations as well that are increasing because it's part of inflation. Sure.

[Speaker 5] (2:25:02 - 2:25:17)
Which is why they- And also, because once you retire, Kevin knows this better than I do, you immediately go into- Well, if you're eligible, you go into Medicare and then- So, look, I- Can we just go do some questions first before?

[Speaker 1] (2:25:17 - 2:25:30)
I mean, I just- Amy, can you go back and talk, just restate what you said earlier when David asked you the question, because I want to make sure I'm understanding it. Specifically, your 80,000 number. I don't understand it.

[Speaker 18] (2:25:30 - 2:25:30)
Hmm?

[Speaker 1] (2:25:30 - 2:25:34)
You gave us an 80,000 number. Can you tell us what that 80,000 number is again?

[Speaker 18] (2:25:34 - 2:25:48)
Yeah, I apologize. I was looking at a different sheet that I had on the different funding schedules. So, Mr. Driscoll's correct, that all of the financial impact of this COLA is only in 2031.

[Speaker 11] (2:25:49 - 2:25:53)
Right. So, period. It's the letter- No, no, I- Yeah, no, I got it.

I was asking to clarify.

[Speaker 19] (2:25:54 - 2:25:54)
Just to confirm that.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:54 - 2:25:56)
You have it in your- Just letting her clarify.

[Speaker 5] (2:25:56 - 2:27:51)
But I do think that one of the things that is always- You know, when I- It's interesting, though. I did say at the conference, I said, boy, this could open up a nice door for us because this legislation has now moved the responsibility here, which, as I always tell people when I go to a town meeting and it's a retirement issue, as they open their warrants, I begin to speak French. The thing that's really kind of very unusual about us is, first of all, being thoroughly, completely kind of operating outside of the town government and managing what our responsibilities are is the famous world of actuarials.

So, we've been really structuring and making a lot of changes so that by working with- We were kind of out of industry standards on how to do those, and luckily with Siegel and some other advisors and legal, we've kind of got that under control. So, for example, by lowering it to 7%, okay, so that gives us a real number. When we used to be, like, at 9%, you know, if you made 5%, you had a big gap.

And so what they've done is created- that our actuarials come down, which gives us an easier chance because 9% was somewhat unattainable. We do very well on a return, so I think that even these numbers on the current actuarial, my firm belief, based on my experience, are probably going to not be as big. I also think that, you know, again, we've been very aggressive, and I remember the Finance Committee talking about that, that we've kept a pretty good safety net for emergency situations that break glass and, you know, Marblehead doesn't have it.

A lot of these communities don't have it. We've held a tight rein on our funding schedule for the year to complete. I believe we have- how many years could we go further?

[Speaker 16] (2:27:52 - 2:27:56)
We can go to 2040, and we're currently at 2030.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:56 - 2:29:17)
And that's not to say most people will look at that and say, okay, extending it out a lot further now doesn't really help the impact right now as much. What it does is, when you get towards that big number at the end, where Marblehead, for example, is looking at that big number, and it's not changing. They have no way to smooth it out.

So they're looking at a time bomb, where we're looking at, okay, big number, big number coming. I do think at that point, you know, then you deal with your actuarial saying, okay, how do we smooth it, okay? So that, you know, I think that Lynn, some other communities, I think have put themselves in a really-a bind.

So that when you see that number that's always out there, yeah, I understand it's there, but when you look at actuarials and how it's done, to have us have that ability to make some changes going forward. Other communities, and I keep talking about Marblehead, I have never figured out what they were doing. By extending it out that far, they have hampered themselves, and if we ever did hit a recession or two, I don't know what they're going to do.

Their last payment will be, you know, bring the town to its knees, quite frankly. So I don't know what they're doing, but it's not something we would ever suggest doing at this point.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:18 - 2:29:58)
So I guess my... Relating to town money, this is the biggest decision that the Select Board's ever been asked to vote on, using town money. Put ARPA aside, because that's a fiction, right?

ARPA's just a one-time ghost that comes to town and gives us money. But for whatever reason, the legislature decided to put it to the Select Board, I frankly think as though you were very honest in how you assessed it, and that makes me fundamentally uncomfortable, because they did it just to get this done and say, hey, the big, bad legislature is not going to force it on you towns, but we're going to make it easier for you all just to do it. And to be honest with you, the Finance Committee would always chime in at something like this, but here it's not.

[Speaker 5] (2:29:59 - 2:30:03)
We've talked to them about this. Oh, that's great. But actually, just to...

I hate to correct you.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:03 - 2:30:06)
I know, but you like to interrupt. We've learned that with Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:06 - 2:30:21)
It's just the opposite. The legislature wanted it to go to town meeting, just like everything else. Massachusetts Municipal Association, in concert with the governor, said, no, no, no, no, we want the Select Boards.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:22 - 2:30:23)
No, no, I understand that.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:23 - 2:30:28)
It's an interesting concept, because you'd think the legislature would have wanted to have it made it easier, but they didn't.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:28 - 2:30:48)
But whoever made it want to make it easier was to be able to get it done quicker and with a fix. And I'm just saying, we actually had a resident who just walked out, talked to us about town meetings rolling, stuff like that, and it strikes me that this is the biggest single vote that I would take to spend town money as a Select Board member. There's never been a question that's even been close to this dollar amount that I can unilaterally just say yes to.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:49 - 2:31:22)
But the money comes out of the investment income. It doesn't come out of the town budget. But...

It doesn't. There's no... You're not going to get a bill for the money owed for an additional 3%.

Yes, down the road, when we look at the actuarial tables, yes, in 2031. And I believe this board, along with hearing people from town meeting, have always talked about moves that we make as a retirement board and as a retirement system to kind of shift some of the burden back.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:22 - 2:32:56)
You've never heard this board during my tenure say that you should be shifting burdens back. You've never heard this board since I've been on it, that 2031 should be moved to 2040 or 2033. I've never sat on the board, and I've never heard FinCom, just in all my years of sitting with FinCom, thinking that they actually...

There's great pride and great financial responsibility, I think, that's been actually exclaimed by some members here as well about the fact, isn't it good that we're on a 2031 funding schedule, that we are equipped to do these things? So I'm just letting you know, I don't get solace in this idea that we have a relief valve because I think as though that's a relief valve to save us from a catastrophe. It's not a relief valve to save us from, hey, we've just decided to spend a little bit more now or do things.

So I hear you, and I'm sensitive to all the points here. Let me just cut to the chase. I would actually like us to ask FinCom their opinion and have them join the conversation because we're making a decision that we would never, outside this legislation, we would never make a $500,000 decision.

And while earlier someone talked about the select board making decisions, we have a great authority in our charter. This is the first time I've ever had authority to be able to just sign off on something like this. And so I personally would just want FinCom.

I haven't heard their conversation, so I appreciate that you have engaged with them, but I haven't heard those conversations. And so I think I would be more comfortable tabling this and ask FinCom to meet and come back and give us their feedback on it. I just want to make one comment, Peter.

[Speaker 11] (2:32:57 - 2:33:06)
Just so you know that we're on deadlines because it has to be done before the end of the fiscal year. I know, that's just the point.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:06 - 2:33:07)
I appreciate that.

[Speaker 11] (2:33:07 - 2:33:20)
And then secondly, when I look at this number, it's a number that's set in time, but it's not a permanent number. So in two years' time, we'll have a new actual report that may reduce that number or may increase that number.

[Speaker 4] (2:33:20 - 2:33:20)
Or increase it.

[Speaker 11] (2:33:23 - 2:33:29)
We're making the best judgment we can with the figures in front of us, but this number's going to change based on market returns.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:29 - 2:33:52)
Yeah, but I see that as not a boogeyman. We use that to rationalize behavior. The unknown of that saying in the past, well, the discount rate can go down, it can go up, and we can do these things.

No, no, I appreciate you saying that. We have no disagreement about that, except to recognize to me that highlights not a safety valve, it highlights a vulnerability.

[Speaker 11] (2:33:53 - 2:33:54)
It highlights a vulnerability.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:55 - 2:34:38)
And I think that's where, and it took me a while listening to you. You've actually, outside of our thing, helped me understand it a lot better than I understood it beforehand. And I don't think the residents get that, and I don't think they understand the number in the budget, and I don't think they really understand the vulnerability of that, and that there is a board, there is a board, you all, that get to make a significant financial decision that does have significant impacts on our budget, that nobody else, including them, have anything to do with.

And that's the way the system is. It is what it is. Whether we like it or not, it doesn't matter.

But I think that whole context to me, just, so I hear you. I'm just saying that it's one of these things that... No, and I get that.

[Speaker 11] (2:34:38 - 2:35:26)
And I just wanted to say one last comment, and I don't want to speak for the board, I'm speaking for myself in this regard, as a member of the board, but when I look at our number that we present to the town meeting in terms of what you have to pay us, is, I've always wanted to be within that sort of normal range of whatever it might be, 8 to 9 percent or so, give or take. So, to me, that would be the goal, is to keep that number consistent, even through 2031, when that number, you know, when this number of 860,000 hits. So we would have levers besides discount rates.

Perhaps, you know, worst case, you extend the funding schedule. Worst case, maybe you increase the discount rate, etc. So there are levers to sort of keep that payment within what I would view as best case.

[Speaker 22] (2:35:27 - 2:35:28)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (2:35:28 - 2:37:03)
I have a couple of observations. I'd like to make one. I, too, like Peter, would like to hear from Fincom on this.

I have not sat with these things as long as you all have. You live this all the time, I don't. So, I understand that you all came to us with a recommendation, but it worries me that the one no vote was Amy, and she's looking at the global budget of what we have in town and our fiscal responsibility to everyone in town.

She sort of wears a different hat in that regard, so to have her be the no vote makes me think maybe we have to dig a little bit deeper with Fincom involved to understand how it interplays with the same sort of similar hats we wear. All of the taxpayers, the financial responsibilities of the town in general. Also, I sort of don't want to sound disrespectful, but I don't really care what other towns are doing.

I care in the sense that they provide a barometer for maybe where we think we should be sitting, but we do take much pride in our financial wherewithal, and it has allowed us to do things that other towns, quite frankly, could not even contemplate. And so in that vein, I just feel like it would be irresponsible if we made this decision without Fincom chiming in and without hearing what they have to say wearing a different hat than you all wear.

[Speaker 5] (2:37:03 - 2:37:47)
But I would just like to say one thing. That hat that we wear is something that we wear with pride, and for 30 years I haven't misled this town. I haven't done anything but my best.

Amy's duty when she walks into our meetings isn't the town. I'm sorry, that's not what the statute says. She opposed it.

I understand. We had this discussion, but the majority of the board has really done great things. I'm talking about retirees, guys that I worked with when I was a young man who were limping around town.

You talk to them. I got a call the other day. He doesn't have a house.

Tom, can you help me get into public housing? I'm just saying that this is not a big ask.

[Speaker 7] (2:37:47 - 2:37:50)
Because it was not intended to show any disrespect whatsoever.

[Speaker 5] (2:37:50 - 2:38:02)
No, but it's not a plus. To me, personally, it's not a big ask for people who have given their time to the town. That beautiful accepting, wonderful town that we have.

That beautiful downtown we have.

[Speaker 7] (2:38:03 - 2:38:07)
Are these worth it? We're just asking for FinCom to be part of the conversation.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:07 - 2:38:12)
And she's just asking that we do our job, just like you're taking the pride and you're doing your job.

[Speaker 4] (2:38:12 - 2:38:12)
Correct.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:12 - 2:38:46)
We all have different jobs and different responsibilities. And again, I appreciate that there's a large number of people that you know and family members and legacy things and people that you want to do well by. We want to do well by them, too.

But we have a job, too. And we're just saying, let's do it. And we're relying on, frankly, I don't want to be the one going back to town meeting to say, oh, by the way, this thing that we have a problem with now, we did that one night in June with six people in the meeting.

And we didn't talk to you. We didn't talk to our finance committee because the finance committee is going to give us hell next year if they don't like it. And all of a sudden, we have an issue.

[Speaker 7] (2:38:46 - 2:38:53)
Also, I've not given a position on this whatsoever. I'm just asking for more information. So, like, that's all I'm asking.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:53 - 2:38:57)
We're glad you're proud of what you do. And we are, too. And we're trying to just do the right thing by asking the right questions.

[Speaker 2] (2:38:58 - 2:40:28)
So, look, I just want to share a few perspectives because, you know, look, I appreciate the work of the retirement board. I'm in the system. So is Ms. Sarrell. And her job as a director of finance and administration is to represent the financial interests of the community and including the retirees. We're not on different sides of a team here. We're on the same team.

I've worked with the retirement board. I came and I pleaded with you. I pleaded with every member of that board last year when my superintendent needed $200,000 to meet her educational needs.

In this budget, we spend $6.3 million for our retirees. I don't begrudge a nickel of that. It's a lot of money, though.

And let me tell you, every one of the needs, whether it's our assisted daycare program for the senior citizens in our town, we have more seniors in this town that desperately need every nickel that I can find. Every nickel I can negotiate out of every contract that I can add to a budget that is so underfunded. And I came to you and I asked you to extend that schedule.

Go to your toolbox. Bob, I looked at you and I said, hey, our actuaries, are they looking at our cohorts of survivability? Are they looking at, are they pushing it to a reasonable level?

You're at nine. You dropped it to seven. You increased the number in a town budget that is so tight.

[Speaker 5] (2:40:28 - 2:40:31)
You do know the finance community told us not to extend it.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:31 - 2:42:00)
I expect our finance committee, please, give me a second. I'm the town administrator. I hear from everybody.

I hear from seniors that can't afford to live in this town. I hear from individuals that really are struggling in not getting the services that we are going to provide. And you're here to represent all of our colleagues that served in public life.

And that's a small cohort of the individuals that we serve in a big town like Swampstead. We can probably figure this out. But I need some help.

And I need this board to kind of think about how we move some things around to help take pressure off of this line. Because next year, it's $300,000 more. And that's $300,000 more that's going to put pressure on every other department.

$6.6 million. And I still haven't figured out how we're going to balance it all out. Neither has Ms. Sorrow. And so when you show up with a pretty reasonable request to increase a cola from three to five because we all know the price of milk's going up tremendously and the price of gas. And every member of this board cares about those concerns. But you've got to help us.

You've got to help us with some other things. And you've got to be in good faith so that we can actually see it universally. You may not care about any of those issues.

You may not care about the budget or the financial policy that the town has to comport with. But they all impact our collective welfare. And I need help with it.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:02 - 2:42:07)
They do care. I am the liaison to this board. And they do care.

[Speaker 22] (2:42:07 - 2:42:09)
I'm talking about the meetings I had with them.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:09 - 2:42:33)
And they wouldn't take any action. I hear you. And I wouldn't have taken action either.

I wouldn't have taken action either. So that's a whole separate discussion. But these individuals work very, very hard for retirement and for the town.

And we've got to lower the temperature in this room right now. Okay? So it's just getting a little uncomfortable.

And it has to go to the Finance Committee. There has to be a conversation.

[Speaker 16] (2:42:34 - 2:44:07)
Can I ask a question? The only thing I wanted to say is two things. You know, the rule of large numbers.

So everyone is getting scared of the $535,000. I think we're closer to 800 and something. 800 and 2031.

And, you know, that's a realistic factor of what happens from the compounding factor of year in and year out of the 2% added on to all the retirees. What we're talking about is $280 because it's 2% of 14,000. 26 of the 248 retirees aren't eligible because they haven't been retired a year.

And 64 of the 248 retirees make under 14,000. So the 2% will be on a lower number than the 14,000. So, you know, for each individual, it has a lot of impact.

But it's a small number. Now, granted, through the compounding effect of what it does over the course of time and through the years, yes, it is a big number. And, you know, yes, your determined contribution is accelerating and going up.

And then in 2031, it falls off the table. It goes from $5 million down to $1 million. $1.3 million.

[Speaker 4] (2:44:07 - 2:44:16)
Well, let's not forget we have unfunded OPEB right after this. So, yes, it does fall off the table. However, we've got to talk about the elephant in the room.

[Speaker 16] (2:44:16 - 2:45:04)
All I'm saying is that we, and you have correctly pointed out, the board is very, very concerned about managing and being a good fiduciary for the town. You've sat in, and I appreciate you sat in for our discussions. All I would ask is that if you can accelerate this discussion with the FinCom, because come June 30th, it's a moot point.

You can't do it. So I don't know what the mechanics are involved for you to be able to discuss this over with the FinCom. I think we can expedite that, too, because Eric has sat in our last three or four meetings that we've had, so he's very aware of what we're doing.

[Speaker 5] (2:45:05 - 2:45:15)
But, you know, just my only final comment is I've got two messages here. One is to extend the funding schedule to smooth things out and to not do it. So, I mean, we try to do what we can.

[Speaker 4] (2:45:15 - 2:45:26)
The only message we have right here on the table, Tom, is get finance committee, get a meeting with finance committee, and let's get a recommendation from finance, and then we go from there.

[Speaker 6] (2:45:27 - 2:45:34)
That's not a universal request. Amy, what's the next meeting of FinCom?

[Speaker 18] (2:45:35 - 2:45:38)
FinCom doesn't have one booked, but I'll reach out to our department in the morning.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:38 - 2:45:39)
Yeah, they're going to love us for this one.

[Speaker 13] (2:45:39 - 2:46:25)
Can I ask a clarifying question? I mean, there's no impact on this. I think we all agree now, and I'm not sure what basis in which you voted against it, Amy, if you thought there was an impact next year or not.

But I think we all agree there's no impact on the budget as long as they can see from this. We're talking about this issue right here. Is that clear?

We all agree it's 2031 that there's an issue? Correct. So we need to go back to FinCom to ask them whether or not we can make a 2% increase for very low marginally paid folks.

Because we need an opinion for eight years from now.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:26 - 2:47:49)
Yeah. I think that's the relationship we built with FinCom, and I think as though Sean can... 64 people listed on this list.

Sean can pull out 64 town employees, which presents 10% of our entire workforce currently that are low-paid employees. So I mean, I appreciate the part about big numbers, scary numbers. We can all make numbers look the way we want to look at it.

But this is still an $800-and-some-odd-thousand-dollar number, and I'm telling you as a select board member, I never made a decision that's $800-and-some-odd-thousand-dollars, whether it's for today or in the future. I've advocated for town meeting. I've advocated for FinCom to recommend a town meeting and do those things, so I stand by that.

But I think this is consistent with the faith that we've actually built with FinCom to be able to say, if we're doing it, we're doing it. Because the truth is, it's 64 individuals that are currently in our schedule, or 60-something individuals here, and that literally represents about one-tenth of the head count combined school and town, just to give you order of magnitude. And we're talking about $800,000.

Those same, whether it's 62 current town employees or more, are all going to be at the table looking to negotiate a contract. And, you know, the money comes from somewhere. So I hear you.

You would like to do it tonight. You know, I believe FinCom's, just given the faith, the good faith and relationship we've built with them over the years, it's prudent for us to talk to them. So with that, I would make a motion to...

Peter, can I just make one... Yeah, sorry.

[Speaker 11] (2:47:49 - 2:48:07)
That's okay. I just wanted to just clarify something. I know Kate may not care what other towns do with respect to retirement, but when we proposed the last COLA base, we created a three-point metric by which we would agree to increase the COLA base again.

And two of those measures were measured against other towns, just for the record.

[Speaker 1] (2:48:07 - 2:48:59)
Because that's what the FinCom had asked us to do. Yeah, but we didn't. I mean, just to kind of put that out there, I think there's other retention...

I hear you about Katie's point. I think she's spot on this, which is there are other... When we talk about employee retention and being able to attract them, you're right.

Retirement is one thing, but there's so many other things that are relevant to that consideration. You can't... I understand you're advocating and we're looking at one thing.

You are right. That is a consideration, but it has to sit in context of the greater thing. So just like smaller numbers may sway us more than bigger numbers, I hear you.

You're not wrong. You are absolutely right in everything you're all saying. All of you are not wrong in anything you're saying, but it's all about which perspective you're coming from and what you feel like you need to answer here.

And I think right now, we're not... Only one member has articulated an opinion, and it was a good opinion for you. And the rest of us have said, let's have FinCom come back and we're going to feel better about it.

[Speaker 5] (2:48:59 - 2:49:03)
Would it help, too, if we get involved to try to expedite with finance?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:03 - 2:49:10)
No, I think we're pretty good at getting FinCom to meet, but you're certain it's a public meeting. You're going to be welcome to be there for it. There's no secrets in it.

[Speaker 5] (2:49:10 - 2:49:19)
It's about having a conversation about... I think we also did supply this to them already, right? I think...

Yeah. Eric had it.

[Speaker 16] (2:49:19 - 2:49:33)
And I just wanted to for something that Bob said, 26 out of the 70 communities have funding schedules that are worse than us. So that just...

[Speaker 7] (2:49:33 - 2:49:41)
I think that's the sort of rhetoric that I was saying I don't really prefer to hear, because I am not...

[Speaker 16] (2:49:41 - 2:49:42)
I understand.

[Speaker 7] (2:49:42 - 2:49:55)
I am not judging our financial responsibilities based on the lack of responsibilities of other towns. That's sort of the point I was trying to make that I ineloquently made earlier. Not that I don't care about what other towns are doing.

[Speaker 11] (2:49:55 - 2:49:58)
I'm mostly trying to suggest that we're not an outlier in this request.

[Speaker 7] (2:49:58 - 2:49:58)
Sure.

[Speaker 11] (2:49:58 - 2:50:00)
I think that's my point. Sure.

[Speaker 7] (2:50:00 - 2:50:08)
I just want to make the best financial decision for us regardless of what other towns are doing based on our financial protocols. That is what I mean to say.

[Speaker 16] (2:50:09 - 2:50:40)
But of course, you know, we have to compare ourselves against our universe as to how we're doing. As to what our funding percentage is, what our discount rate is. We look at all the other communities.

You know, we do appreciate our uniqueness in a lot of respects, but when we go to FinCom, they do ask us, well, where do we stand in the universe? That's something that they want to know. John?

And some things are in our control.

[Speaker 11] (2:50:40 - 2:50:43)
Sorry. David, go ahead.

[Speaker 17] (2:50:50 - 2:53:11)
My name is John Bandy. Normally they don't give me the mic. These numbers are overwhelming.

I get it. But I wanted to give you a little bit of comfort because I think that the level has come down. Now we're actually talking, so I appreciate that.

I just want to let you know I'm a former chief here. I think we have the best retirement board around. Myself, I'm an employee of almost 40 years at the police department.

I've volunteered my time here for 28 years. Tom has 30 years. We've done about 14 to 15 actuaries.

Maybe we get used to it all the time. We grew this portfolio from 34 million up to almost 78 million as of this past March. We give you this data because what I always say to Mary Ellen is math is truth.

We wanted to disclose it. So we just wanted to come here today to give it to you, make sure that you had everything there. We are very highly regulated and we just wanted to give you as much data.

So if it's overwhelming, Mary Ellen, Tom, Chief, Bob, he is the man when it comes to math. He can answer any questions you want. We just want to let you know that this is something that has to be addressed.

It does have what I call a sunset date. I also just my last sentence, Tom, which is history. You got to understand where funding schedules came from.

The reason if you study pensions and so forth, the employee from day one has always paid his amount. They pay almost 9 plus 2 now. They're paying almost 1.3 million dollars. The town is paying for past times that weren't paid. So you have your normal cost. That normal cost is important.

If you notice in 2030, the reason why we put it there, it gives us time. We sit and I think we have the best retirement board around. We're asking for your support and we'll work with you.

So I just thank you for the mic.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:15 - 2:53:32)
Okay, I would make a motion to continue this to our June 26th meeting at 7 a.m. It's a Monday. As long as you guys bring birthday cake.

[Speaker 7] (2:53:33 - 2:53:34)
Is it your birthday?

[Speaker 5] (2:53:35 - 2:53:35)
Yeah, I'll make it.

[Speaker 6] (2:53:36 - 2:53:43)
Cookie cake? Do I have a second?

[Speaker 22] (2:53:43 - 2:53:43)
Second.

[Speaker 6] (2:53:44 - 2:53:45)
All in favor?

[Speaker 22] (2:53:45 - 2:53:45)
Aye.

[Speaker 6] (2:53:46 - 2:53:47)
Opposed?

[Speaker 16] (2:53:49 - 2:53:51)
Thank you. We'll see you back here.

[Speaker 5] (2:53:51 - 2:53:58)
Yeah, we'll be back. But make sure that you let Eric know. I'll let him know too.

Bob and I will be there.

[Speaker 7] (2:53:59 - 2:54:00)
I think he already knows to be fair.

[Speaker 5] (2:54:00 - 2:54:01)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (2:54:07 - 2:54:25)
All right. We'll move on to a discussion and an update on the Hadley School, Hawthorne by the Sea, and 12 to 24 Pine Street RFP. I can kick it over to you.

All right, so I'm going to go pretty quickly.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:25 - 2:55:02)
And please stop me. I don't mean to exclude any information. But frankly, the updates at this point aren't that many.

Starting with 1224 Pine Street, due diligence on the property continues. The environmental and geotechnical engineers have finished with their on-site testing. And now we're just expecting to get lab results and analysis back to us in the next 10 days or so.

So, nothing to report about that, except that that is ongoing to do it. We have a draft RFP that's being reviewed by town council. I think the expectation or the...

[Speaker 22] (2:55:03 - 2:55:09)
I'm sure I can do it today. Sure.

[Speaker 1] (2:55:24 - 2:55:49)
So there's a draft RFP that's being reviewed by town council and I think we anticipate that that draft RFP will be on our next meeting to begin the conversation for the first of two readings of that draft RFP. So that will be made publicly available before our meeting for members of the public to review and for us to review so we can have a public discussion about that RFP on the 26th. 26th.

[Speaker 6] (2:55:49 - 2:55:52)
Will that also be posted on the town website?

[Speaker 1] (2:55:53 - 2:56:03)
I'm sure it can be. So Marcia, if you can just make sure about that to get that draft RFP posted. So that's...

Our closing date is still June 17th?

[Speaker 6] (2:56:03 - 2:56:03)
July.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:04 - 2:56:19)
God, I'm having a J problem tonight. January, June, July. July 17th?

July 17th is our closing date. That's also the end of our due diligence period so they coincide with each other at the time.

[Speaker 4] (2:56:19 - 2:56:21)
Is there an RFP on the 26th?

[Speaker 1] (2:56:21 - 2:58:53)
Correct. We'll be on the agenda. It's a draft so people can read it ahead of our public discussion about it.

With regard to the Hadley School, we are in the process of engaging a consultant, as we mentioned that we were going to do previously. The town's in the process of engaging and soliciting proposals of a consultant to assist us with the drafting of an RFP. That would be consistent with town meetings, vote, and the underlying zoning.

We are still in the proposal stage to get that going so I suspect that the RFP drafting process will commence before the end of the month, but it hasn't commenced as of this date. The schedule that we previously articulated I think we're still trying to hold, which is to have an RFP out in the market before the end of the summer so we can start giving tours even though it would extend into the school year, have a period of time in August at least where tours could be given without interference of the school day. Once we get into the school year, we're going to need to find early morning and late afternoon tour hours to not interfere with the school.

We're trying to do everything we can to facilitate getting as many of those tours if you will into the buildings in August. So that's the Hadley School update. And then Hawthorne, last but not least, and I'm going to just go through it.

We're going to post online Doug Thompson and myself had worked on the questionnaire which ultimately was submitted to town meeting relative to getting a sentiment of town meeting specifically about the future use of the Hawthorne. And I will say we have been criticized by both those wanting open space and those not wanting open space so I think our thinking is the questionnaire was pro-open space or the questionnaire was anti-open space so since we've been roundly criticized by both I think we probably got the questionnaire right. So we're going to post online the results of that or ask the community development director to post that online so that people can see where town meeting's responses were and then we can also have a conversation here as well.

[Speaker 6] (2:58:53 - 2:58:55)
And were all the respondents town meeting members?

[Speaker 1] (2:58:56 - 2:59:18)
Yes, so there was a system put in place that when you responded you need to respond with an email address that the town moderator recognized as your official town meeting email address so that he helped us discern whether or not there was redundant or duplicative responses or responses from an email address that he couldn't recognize from a town meeting member. And I think we were up to 205 responses.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:18 - 2:59:23)
Wait, if the town meeting member used a different email address the moderator didn't?

[Speaker 1] (2:59:25 - 3:00:28)
They weren't no. How you ask your question matters because you just made it sound like it's being manipulated. It's not.

The town moderator when he sent out instructions informed people that in order to do that they would need to put an email address that is consistent with the email address that we had for them as town meeting members. So may I suggest in the future we just say, so how was that done so town meeting members knew to do that as opposed to make it seem like I know but again I think there's enough I believe your question was not the positive outlook. I think there's enough cynicism out there about government.

It is my opinion that there's enough cynicism about the government and I'm proud frankly of how Doug and I work together. I'm proud of how the moderator helped bring it to a reality because neither Doug nor I were going to use the technology to bring it to town meeting members and I'm proud of the fact that the town moderator by himself is the one that kept following up and got 205 responses out of 300 I think we only have 300 town meeting members at the moment.

[Speaker 13] (3:00:30 - 3:00:34)
I would like to take some credit for being a thorn in the side of the town moderator to continue to follow up with me.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:35 - 3:00:44)
I'm proud of Doug taking credit for being a thorn in the side of the town moderator. I'm proud of all those things. Those are my updates.

[Speaker 6] (3:00:45 - 3:01:06)
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board on any of those updates? We will move on to election of officers and have a discussion of officers for this board for chair and vice chair.

[Speaker 1] (3:01:06 - 3:02:27)
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. I really appreciate how you stepped in with Neil retiring and not running again and you have done it really seamlessly and I really appreciate that because the timing of how we have town elections and how we have town meeting is absolutely backwards. It's totally backwards to elect someone and then two weeks later ask them to sit at town meeting and to advocate or not for things that have been in the works for the last year if not more.

I hope that soon we revisit that to be consistent with other communities, not that we care about other communities but they might have it right here which is Marblehead for example does it the other way around. You stepped in at a really busy time with a lot of stuff going on and frankly I don't know how you did it because you did it you didn't ask for a heck of a lot of help and so I really appreciate the fact that you just owned it and you did it. With that being said, I would make a motion and secondly let me just say this, I also appreciate the import of having a vice chair that can complement your skill sets and knowledge and I benefited from several vice chairs when I was chair that complemented and had different skill sets so with that I would make a motion to have you serve as chair for the upcoming fiscal year and Katie Phelan as vice chair.

[Speaker 6] (3:02:28 - 3:02:31)
I second that motion. All in favor?

[Speaker 1] (3:02:32 - 3:02:32)
Discussion.

[Speaker 6] (3:02:37 - 3:02:39)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 1] (3:02:41 - 3:02:43)
Thank you guys for taking it on.

[Speaker 6] (3:02:47 - 3:03:08)
Next we will move on to the approval of the consent agenda designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business. The select board may adopt the entire consent agenda with one motion at the request of any board member. Any item may be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda for discussion.

[Speaker 4] (3:03:11 - 3:03:13)
I want to take out the liquor licenses.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:17 - 3:03:21)
Liquor license for We have two liquor licenses, don't we?

[Speaker 4] (3:03:21 - 3:03:26)
No, it's entertainment. Oh, I'm sorry. Take out the liquor license and the entertainment license.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:30 - 3:03:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (3:03:32 - 3:03:37)
But the minutes are fine. So can I make a motion to approve the consent agenda?

[Speaker 6] (3:03:37 - 3:03:41)
Should we have a discussion on the entertainment license?

[Speaker 1] (3:03:41 - 3:03:45)
No, I think that we take a vote on the consent agenda minus those two and then we take up the other two.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:46 - 3:03:48)
You see, good thing I'm complimenting you.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:49 - 3:03:55)
Your first official act as a chair and you're like, what the heck? If I had known you were screwing that up, I would have re-overwhelmed.

[Speaker 7] (3:03:55 - 3:03:58)
So I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:59 - 3:04:01)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 7] (3:04:01 - 3:04:02)
Aye.

[Speaker 6] (3:04:03 - 3:04:03)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (3:04:04 - 3:04:05)
And now we can talk about the entertainment license.

[Speaker 6] (3:04:07 - 3:04:11)
Yes. So let's talk about it.

[Speaker 4] (3:04:12 - 3:04:13)
So which is the first one?

[Speaker 6] (3:04:13 - 3:04:14)
The entertainment license.

[Speaker 4] (3:04:15 - 3:04:27)
I just wanted to Is this a renewal of an entertainment license? Or is this a new entertainment license? Does anybody know?

[Speaker 2] (3:04:27 - 3:04:35)
I don't know if it's a renewal. I assume that it was a new license.

[Speaker 4] (3:04:39 - 3:05:23)
The concerns that I have are and I just want to recap. The Yacht Club is a private club, right? The private not-for-profit club.

My understanding is it's about 70% swamscot, 30% non-swamscot. Is there anybody here for this? And on the application I have actually a couple applications here.

There's under part four that I have on this application, it doesn't list out the TV, monitors, It does.

[Speaker 6] (3:05:23 - 3:05:26)
It does on the second page. It looks like there's like an echo.

[Speaker 4] (3:05:26 - 3:05:32)
There's more. Let's go to the next page. I have two.

[Speaker 10] (3:05:33 - 3:05:34)
I don't know how I got two.

[Speaker 4] (3:05:37 - 3:05:38)
Mine says entertainment.

[Speaker 13] (3:05:41 - 3:05:42)
Right?

[Speaker 4] (3:05:44 - 3:05:52)
So I was given, I have two and one is I We have two copies of page two.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:54 - 3:06:26)
And they're not the same document. And there's an alarming checkmark on one of them. So can we just table this as opposed to go through the because I think there's some things checked that maybe we shouldn't be publicly discussing.

So if we can Was there a specific date when this wanted to take effect? Do we have any issue with that? It took effect like ten years ago.

Just so you know. They may be asking for the permit now. They didn't wait for the permit.

[Speaker 4] (3:06:27 - 3:06:30)
No, they don't have This is for live entertainment.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:31 - 3:06:54)
Yeah, no, I'm just going to stick with what I said. Again, I love the I love the language. I am such a tyrant to view any portion of the areola of the female breasts.

Or any portion of I can't even finish. It's unbelievable. It's a bit antiquated.

[Speaker 4] (3:06:56 - 3:07:00)
That probably is It's probably illegal.

[Speaker 6] (3:07:00 - 3:07:11)
It's unbelievable. But anyway, so if we table that and go to liquor license now, that would be awesome. Can we just confirm the contents because they don't they don't match.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:16 - 3:07:32)
So I just want to, again, the other thing I would just say is for liquor licenses, we have a sign off process. So this means someone had to look at this entertainment license if it made it to us without comment. We can't tell from this who reviews them.

Yeah, we'll come up with another form. Or just get this one to work.

[Speaker 22] (3:07:33 - 3:07:33)
I got you.

[Speaker 4] (3:07:34 - 3:07:39)
Alright, so we're coming back on this. You should have a signed one.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:39 - 3:07:40)
We do.

[Speaker 4] (3:07:40 - 3:07:44)
By the applicant, we have a signed one. So we're done with the entertainment.

[Speaker 2] (3:07:46 - 3:07:47)
Just fix that.

[Speaker 4] (3:07:47 - 3:07:59)
Then we're coming to liquor license. So the question I have on the liquor license liability insurance the insurance company is forwarding. Who do they forward it to and has that been already forwarded?

[Speaker 7] (3:08:00 - 3:08:03)
They forward it to Angelica and yes.

[Speaker 4] (3:08:04 - 3:08:06)
She has it. So it can be yes now?

[Speaker 14] (3:08:06 - 3:08:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (3:08:08 - 3:08:17)
The big question I have here. So this is a party at Linscott Park in the gazebo. Does that mean that this public park gets closed?

[Speaker 22] (3:08:20 - 3:08:20)
No.

[Speaker 4] (3:08:21 - 3:08:40)
So the park stays open. How do they does it even matter how do they monitor people consuming alcohol? What happens if you have little kids coming in?

[Speaker 2] (3:08:40 - 3:08:44)
If we find that minors are drinking alcohol?

[Speaker 6] (3:08:45 - 3:08:47)
Do they fence it?

[Speaker 4] (3:08:47 - 3:08:49)
Is it like a beer garden where it's fenced off?

[Speaker 2] (3:08:50 - 3:09:04)
I would expect that there's some type of control over the distribution of alcohol. We can get an update and we can provide you with some additional information on that.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:04 - 3:09:15)
In fairness, the question is actually a pretty obvious and fair question. She asked some really good questions. This is an obvious one, but the event is on June 23rd.

[Speaker 4] (3:09:16 - 3:09:18)
I don't want to slow them down.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:18 - 3:09:27)
It's a very fair, reasonable question. We're not closing the park, so there's not fences. Or maybe there is fences.

Is it wristbands?

[Speaker 6] (3:09:29 - 3:09:30)
What is it?

[Speaker 4] (3:09:30 - 3:09:34)
Can we just put that in there? There will be wristbands?

[Speaker 6] (3:09:35 - 3:09:45)
There's got to be some risk management that's in place. They shouldn't be held to a lower standard than any of our other events.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:46 - 3:09:56)
I'm just going to be honest with you. This is unusual in the sense that there's no perimeter, there's no premises plan, which for every liquor license holder, and even one-day liquor license holders, we know the premises.

[Speaker 4] (3:09:57 - 3:09:58)
What's the date on this one?

[Speaker 7] (3:10:00 - 3:10:01)
Or June 30th.

[Speaker 6] (3:10:02 - 3:10:05)
So they're going to get married a week later?

[Speaker 4] (3:10:07 - 3:10:27)
Yeah, if it's raining. No, this is a celebration of the wedding. They say a wet knot ties tightly.

What do we do? Can we make a change to this? We can make a change to it if we want.

Can we just insist on risk management by saying that they have to have armbands?

[Speaker 2] (3:10:28 - 3:10:53)
I would say you can say to have alcohol shall only be served by individuals that are wearing a wristband or some Paradiso restaurant is their liquor license is at risk.

[Speaker 6] (3:10:53 - 3:10:55)
Everyone's going to be TIP certified.

[Speaker 7] (3:10:55 - 3:11:03)
David, you're intimately involved with how the beer gardens are run. What is the normal expectation?

[Speaker 1] (3:11:03 - 3:11:28)
They're seeking a one-day license. Their license for their restaurant has anything to do with this. It just happens that they have another license.

This is a one-day license. I'm just saying that I don't want to conflate the fact that they have another license. They are TIP certified so there's that issue for the bartender.

I'm just saying that I don't believe if they violate a one-day license, I don't think that gives us recourse against another license in another place held by them.

[Speaker 7] (3:11:30 - 3:11:34)
I just want to understand what the standard is. We typically hold people to serving.

[Speaker 2] (3:11:34 - 3:11:40)
We quarter off the area only individuals that have a wristband served by TIP certified.

[Speaker 4] (3:11:41 - 3:11:47)
What we're going to do is we're going to block out an area so we're going to limit an open space. I don't want to block out an area.

[Speaker 6] (3:11:49 - 3:12:05)
We can put something in here for a wristband and ID somebody. Let's do the wristband's IDs and get an idea from Chief Quesada as to how this can be, how this risk management is supposed to be handled.

[Speaker 4] (3:12:07 - 3:12:15)
Are we exposed to any liability here? If it's not coordinated off, I can...

[Speaker 6] (3:12:15 - 3:12:18)
They have their liability insurance. We're still against...

[Speaker 1] (3:12:19 - 3:12:30)
It's on public property and the answer is yes. The answer is yes. The insurance is just we would point to our insurer.

They would point to their insurer.

[Speaker 4] (3:12:31 - 3:12:32)
Is this a good idea?

[Speaker 13] (3:12:34 - 3:12:41)
Are we assuming you guys know that there are 12 other one-day permits that have been approved here today. Is that for this area? No.

[Speaker 7] (3:12:43 - 3:12:51)
The only issue I have with this is that it's on Linscott Park in the open. Not that we give them a one-day liquor license. We have done that.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:54 - 3:12:56)
We haven't done it in the park.

[Speaker 7] (3:12:56 - 3:12:59)
That is what causes me problems.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:02 - 3:13:12)
The municipality sponsored events have. That's where we're controlling it. They are going to have a police detail.

I'm just throwing that out there. It says it right here.

[Speaker 7] (3:13:14 - 3:13:19)
I'm just... To make sure we just have every mechanism we can in place to limit our liability.

[Speaker 6] (3:13:20 - 3:13:29)
We have liability if someone... We do. We have municipal caps too, but that doesn't...

[Speaker 1] (3:13:30 - 3:13:31)
Yeah. I know.

[Speaker 4] (3:13:33 - 3:13:55)
I have to be honest. I'm really uncomfortable with it, and I don't want to be. I want to say it absolutely here.

Without fencing it in, which I don't want to do because it's a public park. What do you think, Doug?

[Speaker 13] (3:13:57 - 3:14:14)
I think the wristband is fine. We're sending the message that they need to be accountable for their guests. We're allowing them to use the public space to do that.

We trust that they're going to do that responsibly. It's a wedding for the people. Police detail.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:15 - 3:14:25)
I do think that we need a policy for third parties to use public spaces to do this. We need a policy. We can't be in a position...

[Speaker 22] (3:14:25 - 3:14:26)
We'll come up with one.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:28 - 3:15:02)
There is a fundamental difference between the town for a town-sponsored sanctioned event happening in public space versus a private party or non-town parties trying to use it. I think we've got to establish that. Even for the town events, we are careful about premises fencing, unless there's huge rainstorms and winds.

We're careful about premises fencing. We do the things, and the beer garden is a perfect example. They have abided by the things that we're all talking about here, which is it's a controlled area.

Anybody in the controlled area is ID'd or braceleted if under 21 are allowed in the controlled area.

[Speaker 6] (3:15:03 - 3:15:07)
So what do other towns do?

[Speaker 2] (3:15:08 - 3:15:09)
They quarter off...

[Speaker 7] (3:15:09 - 3:15:10)
No, Sean.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:10 - 3:15:12)
Sean. Sean. Read the crowd on that one.

[Speaker 7] (3:15:13 - 3:15:15)
Let's just say Mazel Tov and move on.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:15 - 3:15:27)
I would make a motion to approve the one-day liquor license with the condition that all provisions be made for braceleting all participants.

[Speaker 4] (3:15:28 - 3:15:35)
All provisions are made for risk management. We just have to make sure the wording is right, right? Risk management, that there are risk bans.

[Speaker 6] (3:15:36 - 3:15:38)
Yeah, and that the police chief is...

[Speaker 1] (3:15:38 - 3:15:42)
There has to be a detail. They applied for a detail, but there has to be a detail.

[Speaker 6] (3:15:42 - 3:15:48)
Right. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

[Speaker 14] (3:15:49 - 3:15:49)
Thanks.

[Speaker 6] (3:15:57 - 3:15:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:15:59 - 3:24:13)
We have some information on our town website regarding mental health services. Anybody in need of any support or resources, you can get them at swampsgetma.gov and reach out to Interface. We have a number of an outpatient mental health referral system and information about a number of mental health resources through Mass Helpline.

This past week, we have been working with Mission on the Bay. We've had dozens of trucks bring rubble to stabilize the wall at Mission on the Bay. Town staff are working with them to help ensure that they can safely reopen.

They anticipate opening up this weekend. We have not issued an occupancy permit. Tomorrow, we will go out and make some inspections.

They were using flowable fill to fill up void underneath the building over the last couple of days. As we discussed earlier, I've been working with the chair of the Historic Commission on both the Glover and the Pittman House. I did have a staff meeting last week and discussed a lot of the work that went into town meeting.

We talked about a number of ways that we can continue to improve. There are a lot of projects, initiatives, and activities that follow up from town meeting, but certainly appreciate the work of town department heads and staff. The FY23 budget is wrapping up.

We have frozen a number of budgets. We likely will lock up a few more next week. We are looking at unexpended funds and opportunities to transfer funds to address a number of outstanding issues.

We did discuss capital planning and the need to really get busy putting together the FY25 capital plan. I'd like to reach out to the chair of the Capital Improvement Committee and really go over a busy schedule of meetings this summer to really help address that 30 year vision. We can't just be looking at the next 5 or 10 years.

We really have to see life cycles of capital replacements. As I mentioned, I plan on providing the board with a more detailed update later this month on water and sewer and drainage repairs that are going to be needed. Some of those numbers are going to be significant.

We have talked about broadening the Hawthorne visioning effort with some of the community programs that we have over the next few months. A lot of the recreation events and programs are going to have opportunities for citizens to really share some of their ideas about what we can do with the Hawthorne property. This week I met with officers from ReCharts and I went over some concerns and challenges that they are having with the facility.

I plan to meet with them over the next few weeks. Marcie Velasco, Max Tasker, and Steve Cummings joined me in this meeting and it's my hope that we can help them with a number of challenges that they are facing. Zoning articles have been sent to the CAG's office.

I did meet with Max to go over a number of town projects. We are busy working on the town hall garage. This is the floor that fell out last summer after one of our events.

We are going to be filling the basement of the former carriage house or the garage. We had a steel dropping ceremony for the new school and there is a neighborhood meeting to discuss roadway improvements next week for the new school. We did hire an assistant town clerk.

We have Swampstreet resident Michael Brisson joining our staff. He will be starting on June 12th. We have posted for the new administrative assistant position for the fire department that was approved at this year's town meeting.

Currently, I'm working with staff to go over their annual evaluations. I have met with our Council on Aging director to discuss some staffing challenges and some of the pressure that she has with expanding services and a number of needs that we have. Heidi and staff are doing a terrific job with evolving that adult care program and certainly we are seeing additional demands for that service.

Recreation is busy. We have a lot of events over the next month. We have a Harborfest this weekend from noon to 5 at Fisherman's Beach.

A mechanical shark will be new this year. We do have liability insurance for that, but it would be great if a few select board members jumped up on that thing. We have our Juneteenth celebration on June 15th.

Strawberry Festival is June 25th and we are lining the ball courts. DPW is busy with a number of priorities and working on capital plans. A number of trees have been planted 37 last week.

A lot of geraniums before Memorial Day. As I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the meeting, I did have a very eventful meeting with the Secretary of Environmental Affairs Tepper to discuss the Kings Beach cleanup. I do want to thank Mike Sweeney and town staff and residents for the work to coordinate for Memorial Day.

It is a special day and it's important for us to take time and remember how many sacrifices are made for us. Thank you, David, for your remarks and certainly I want to congratulate General Andrea Gail Bennett for her appointment as the Undersecretary of Veterans Affairs. It's a real feather in Swanscot and the city of Linscap to have somebody elevated to that important position.

I do think she will be extraordinarily helpful in helping veterans but also helping Swanscot and our region serve our veterans. That's my report. I'm sorry.

I do want to give an update on the police hiring before somebody asked me. We had 65 total applicants and we had 38 individuals pass the test. Only 20 took the PAT test and initially we had 6 candidates that came through the first round.

We had a number of individuals take a second PAT test because we had a conflict so the Chief has gone through a first round of interviews. He's going through that second round of interviews with the remaining 7 candidates that took that second round of PAT tests. I expect to hear from the Chief the week of June 12th, next week with some recommendations.

Thanks, Sean.

[Speaker 4] (3:24:13 - 3:24:18)
And what about the sergeants and lieutenants and whatever?

[Speaker 2] (3:24:18 - 3:24:32)
I have a recommendation from the Chief and we'll be meeting on Monday to go over a number of recommendations that he has presented. We'll schedule some interviews and I'll go through that process.

[Speaker 4] (3:24:33 - 3:24:53)
This has been going on a long time and do we have a date when we're going to out of all these candidates here, the new candidates, do we have a date when we're going to choose a candidate and get them into the academy? I mean, we had a test, I think it was February.

[Speaker 1] (3:24:54 - 3:24:59)
Can you go through the dates to help us understand because I think there was a reason.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:00 - 3:25:01)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (3:25:01 - 3:25:29)
Please go through the dates or at least months. Again, I just want to talk about the premise of the question because I don't want the question to be stated as fact if it's not fact. You want a minute?

We'll go on and come back.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:30 - 3:25:51)
Just one second. The hiring process started in December of 2022 included in March. We had 65 total applications, 38 passed, 20 took the PAT.

[Speaker 1] (3:25:51 - 3:25:52)
Can you just please go slower?

[Speaker 2] (3:25:54 - 3:27:50)
I'm sorry. 20 took the PAT, 13 passed the physical aptitude test or the PAT. On March 19th and April 15th, oral boards were conducted on March 30th of the week of May 15th, 2023.

Background check were assigned on April 10th. Completion date was May 10th. The chief's interview was the week of May 22nd and the candidates from round two were anticipated to be the week of June 5th but they were not scheduled due to conflicts with the screening committee.

I just want to be clear, I have nothing to do with the process up until it sits with the town administrator so these delays are as frustrating to me as they would be to anybody. I actually have talked to the chief about a different type of process because it can't possibly take us this long to hire a police officer. I do think that we need to sit down and have a conversation with the union about making some changes.

Every community in the country is struggling with hiring. We cannot be successful if it's going to take us this long to roll through a program. When we left civil service, we didn't want to create another civil service system that jammed us up and created delays in the hiring process.

I do think we've learned some things but I do think we have to sit down and figure out how we fill these important positions. I share these concerns, Mary Ellen. I don't want you to think that this is exactly the way I want to see it roll up but I will work with the chief and a few of the other stakeholders to come up with a better strategy for how we address these vacancies.

[Speaker 4] (3:27:51 - 3:28:00)
I think that would be great because I think that if you have candidates taking tests and physical tests the worry is losing good candidates.

[Speaker 2] (3:28:00 - 3:28:16)
Agreed. We've got to be nimble too if we know that the state police are having an exam Monday we reschedule ours. We should be good about that.

I'll take responsibility for some of this stuff.

[Speaker 4] (3:28:16 - 3:28:20)
Was there an issue with weather? No, it wasn't weather.

[Speaker 1] (3:28:20 - 3:29:27)
It was civil service after the town announced its, the police department announced its physical aptitude test. The civil service then did a test on the same day which caused a lot of the applicants to choose doing the statewide civil service test over that. Then we, if you call, we had a conversation because less than a third of the people that passed the test showed up.

We're going to do the physical fitness test and we're like, that doesn't sound right. Why would you pay for a test, take a test, pass a test and then when it comes to the physical aptitude test only a third of you sign up to take it because of this. So they went ahead and rescheduled it and had a second physical aptitude test.

So I think that's I agree with you. I mean, I guess I want to, I share a concern, I share a different concern. I'm not concerned about losing good candidates.

I'm concerned about us not finding good candidates. Because losing them is the premise upon finding them. And I just, I'm going to say this again.

I don't I believe out of this whole thing, 65 applicants, they have currently rolled up one recommendation to you. And I'm just going to tell you that from a hiring perspective, when we're talking about a job that Out of this round?

[Speaker 4] (3:29:27 - 3:29:28)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (3:29:28 - 3:30:30)
Out of 65 applicants, one name has been rolled up. And others haven't been rolled up I hope there will be a few more. Well, the others haven't been rolled up because they took the later physical aptitude test, but they rolled up the one before the other ones finished their process, which was necessitated because the process had a scheduling snafu.

So from my perspective when we're talking about hiring, I mean I've talked about this before, I've rarely on a recommendation from you or anybody have never supported it, right? But the one time was when the town administrator, before you wanted a building inspector and he wouldn't answer the question of how many applicants he had. And he wouldn't answer the question about just, you know, you tell me the names and whatnot, but I want to know that your search was a legitimate search and it yields those results, right?

When we're talking about a position like this, that is a 20, 25, 30 year position with respectfully the greatest power anybody employed by the town of Swampscott is going to get which is a gun, a badge, and the ability to affect civil liberties and civil rights of people I'm not saying you're not, I think you're absolutely on the same page with me.

[Speaker 4] (3:30:31 - 3:30:32)
I'm not taking it that way.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:32 - 3:31:53)
Yeah, I worry that we're not finding the best candidates and so I would rather lose a couple if it means that we're finding them. But I don't want to lose them either. But I'm concerned that these numbers don't make me feel good.

It feels like if 65 apply and 38 pass, okay, that's fine, but then why did only 20 out of 38 people that passed ultimately take the physical aptitude test? Why didn't more take that test? What would cause people, and maybe I would just suggest maybe we can do some after cause kind of investigation just to understand what was it that would cause roughly 50% of people who passed to take the next step.

They've already applied, they've already paid money for the test and we have them pay money to make sure they're serious. They took the test, they passed the test and the next stage they don't show up to. I'm interested so that we get to the end and we have more people and that we're not rolling up one person as opposed to doing it.

I'm glad that you're waiting for them to roll up the rest of the recommendations because I think everybody needs to be viewed in the context of the whole class that's being rolled up. It doesn't mean that we have any good applicants, it just means that we have greater confidence because we at least see the choices of being there. So I agree it would be great to do it faster.

I hope you work on a process that allows you to do it faster.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:53 - 3:33:16)
There are other communities that have left civil service that post their positions on NMA and they seem to have the ability to post individual positions and they can fill them much more expeditiously. I think it would be helpful if we tried a few different methods because filling these positions is a critical responsibility and it's a critical public safety responsibility and I think we all share that desire. I don't think there's anybody that doesn't want to really find the most effective way to fill these positions with qualified candidates and it's my hope that we can find a better way.

This is just not working. I don't think anybody intended or thought that we'd struggle with these challenges and I do think it's a challenge nationally. There's not a department around that is finding it easy to hire police officers.

These jobs are more and more complex and they are challenging and we have a lot of folks that are really struggling in that field and so we have to think differently about how we approach recruiting and perhaps even retaining some of these individuals.

[Speaker 4] (3:33:17 - 3:33:33)
There's a second. One candidate was moved forward or advanced, whatever you want to call it, and then there's another pool that has to get interviewed and there's no schedule for that when those people are being interviewed?

[Speaker 2] (3:33:33 - 3:34:02)
Chief originally gave me a schedule for that but that slid and so he originally was hoping to have the second round of candidates to meet by next week. The screening committee is comprised of three members of the police department and two citizens of which you were part of the last round. They have not been able to schedule and so that is pushing that date.

[Speaker 4] (3:34:02 - 3:34:07)
I've got to be honest with you, I'm really disappointed listening to this.

[Speaker 13] (3:34:10 - 3:34:19)
Have you had a conversation with the chief about how he feels about the process? Is he frustrated or does he think that moving forward is best?

[Speaker 2] (3:34:19 - 3:34:33)
I do think the chief is frustrated and I think he's, you know, I talked to him today about it and we talked about some of these similar options and I think he's eager to employ a few different strategies.

[Speaker 6] (3:34:35 - 3:34:56)
Sean, what are other communities doing in terms of... It's getting old, David. No, no, no.

What are other non-civil service communities doing to enhance the hiring opportunities? Are they having one test a year and hoping for the best? Are they having rolling testing?

[Speaker 2] (3:34:56 - 3:36:02)
Concord's posting for a position on the MMA website. You can go look at it. They're hiring police officers like you would hire an employee and they're going through that.

They may get five, ten candidates. Some are going out and they're trying to recruit officers and seek a lateral transfer and so there's incentives. Some departments are offering bonuses.

There's a lot of ideas out there in terms of how to go out and attract and recruit individuals. We've talked about some of those and we may have to employ some of those but we have a union. We've worked with the union to try to come up with a hiring policy that really makes sense but we certainly it's not working and we have to go back and we have to just understand we have to fill these positions.

We're going to have to take some steps to address some of these challenges.

[Speaker 1] (3:36:03 - 3:37:03)
Can I just suggest then you recognize I don't know the accuracy of it. You seem to be recognizing where the work needs to be done so if that's renegotiating something or doing something then do it. Do it.

Come back to us and tell us what you need. I'm saying it to empower you. Do it.

It sounds like we know that we had to negotiate in the context of leaving civil service and there's a rather complicated public document as to what the union negotiated with the town relative to the hiring practice of leaving civil service. It's extremely more complicated than the one that the fire department negotiated so we know that it's complicated. I don't pretend to understand it and I can't speak to the needs.

I know nothing about it but if that needs to be simplified because we need to find a better path then let's do it. Let's figure out what that means because I think we all agree and you agree as well that quicker is better as long as we're getting better.

[Speaker 4] (3:37:03 - 3:37:10)
How does the section with sergeants are we also hiring lieutenants or is it just sergeants?

[Speaker 2] (3:37:11 - 3:37:12)
We're promoting.

[Speaker 4] (3:37:14 - 3:37:17)
Promoting sergeants and how long has that process been going on?

[Speaker 2] (3:37:18 - 3:37:25)
That's been going on for several months as well. That has a timeline.

[Speaker 4] (3:37:28 - 3:37:39)
Was that renegotiated? Is that part of it too? If we're promoting people I'm guessing we're promoting people within and why does that take so long?

[Speaker 2] (3:37:40 - 3:37:44)
Because they involve assessment centers and schedules and all.

[Speaker 1] (3:37:45 - 3:37:53)
Maybe explain is the promotion process similar in many respects because there's a test, there's an assessment center, there's interviews but maybe just help us understand that.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:53 - 3:38:01)
There's an exam and then there's an assessment center and then chief's interview and then a recommendation.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:02 - 3:38:03)
Who ultimately makes the decision?

[Speaker 13] (3:38:03 - 3:38:17)
I do. Would it be fair for you to come back next time just with the plan, the timeline, any improvements, short term, long term? Not the whole plan but at least give us some visibility about what we're talking about here.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:17 - 3:38:24)
I think I would just ask you to think about that before doing it because if it's going to be a negotiation that may not be.

[Speaker 13] (3:38:24 - 3:38:43)
Not the negotiation part. Given the constraints you have, whatever you can do right now, the pool we have, what's just setting expectations? Are we talking about potentially in one month or two months we might hire one or two people or is it going to be six months?

I have to have those interviews. They have to get to me.

[Speaker 6] (3:38:44 - 3:38:45)
I understand that.

[Speaker 13] (3:38:45 - 3:38:49)
Assuming the pool yields qualified candidates, that would be the assumption.

[Speaker 6] (3:38:52 - 3:38:57)
Do we have timing as to when the next academy would be starting because obviously that's a factor.

[Speaker 21] (3:38:58 - 3:38:59)
I do have those dates.

[Speaker 2] (3:39:04 - 3:39:21)
Again, I'm concerned about those dates but the most important concern is finding a qualified person. If we don't hit that date, I'm not going to just try to put somebody in so they can hit that date.

[Speaker 4] (3:39:25 - 3:40:06)
I know you're saying there's one here. If you even said there was just two here and they're qualified and they're good candidates, I would hate to say, well, I need a bigger pool. This is very, very frustrating.

I've been sitting here now for over a year and I can't believe that this is so hard. I just hope that you and the chief can sit down and get this figured out very quickly. If it means putting things on MMA or running PT tests on every Saturday, whatever.

[Speaker 2] (3:40:08 - 3:40:20)
I agree. I think we should do things differently and I'm going to work to try to address that. I think we're at a point now where we have to get things done.

[Speaker 1] (3:40:20 - 3:40:36)
Is there something about the current process specifically? In the actual process that you think you would suggest that we do? Never mind the efficiency of the process.

The process is public. It's a public document. We all know what the process was.

Is there something specifically you're finding concerning?

[Speaker 4] (3:40:38 - 3:41:13)
I haven't sat down and really looked at it. Up until now, I didn't even know what's going on here. Just to hear that there's one candidate that's been forwarded, what troubles me is the length of time it's taken here.

There's another group of candidates who tested on the second time and that other group of candidates hasn't even been processed or interviewed. This is mind-boggling to me. The job's not getting done.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:14 - 3:41:17)
I know. Frustrating to me, too.

[Speaker 4] (3:41:17 - 3:41:46)
Well, I'm glad to hear that it's frustrating to you. I'm also frustrated that if we're doing promotions, that it's taking so long to do promotions. I'm just not sure if this length of time needs to be as long as it is.

I don't know. Maybe bring the chief in here and maybe he can explain. Maybe you and the chief can sit down and come up with a better timeline.

I don't know. I just want to see people hired.

[Speaker 1] (3:41:46 - 3:43:14)
It's safe to know there are things that we're not talking about or we're not saying right now. I'm going to say it because Sean's not going to say it. Sean's very careful about what he says and doesn't say.

I guess I'm less careful about this. There's a negotiated agreement that has a process. I'm going to say from what we're hearing, we're not in the hiring process.

We just want results. You're the hiring process. Most importantly, the hiring process, results aren't filling seats.

We know a bad hire is worth much more damage. It's not filling seats. It's filling seats with the right people.

I hear you, but I'm just saying that there's a process that's not working that's somewhat a byproduct of negotiation. It also may be just because of personalities. It may just be because of things.

Whatever it is, it doesn't all fall on your shoulders, except when we talk to you, it does fall on your shoulders because you're the one accountable to us. We understand that there's complexities to it. I really appreciate it.

I don't think you get enough credit. You're sitting here just saying, I hear you, and not saying this. I'm going to say it.

There's more people involved. In the private sector, there wouldn't be more people involved, but this is different. Public unions have negotiated certain rights that give them certain things at the table that in the private sector, we may not find understandable or logical, but that's okay.

We're not in that sector. You are in that sector. If we need to renegotiate, renegotiate and tell us what that means and what we can do to support to do that because at the end of the day, we want to...

[Speaker 4] (3:43:14 - 3:43:29)
Is it really an issue of the negotiation or is it just that because this is the first time around, we don't have really clear deadlines or maybe HR should be involved in how to facilitate...

[Speaker 1] (3:43:29 - 3:44:48)
I don't want to vilify the union or the negotiation. I'm with you. This is not even on the agenda, so we can't get into 15 more minutes.

Look it. It's not on the agenda. The reality is this.

I share the concern about the speed, so I have looked at it and I think it's the byproduct of multiple things. Again, not to compare police and fire. Recruiting police officers is a lot harder.

I'll concede that point, but I have also seen the efforts. I've seen the background because I've asked for it of what each are doing and without criticizing any of them, I think there's more we can be doing on that, so that's doing it, but I think the biggest impediment is, and I'm going to say this, I'm guessing there's not satisfaction that we are getting the quality and type of candidates that make the town administrator want to act quickly. I'm going to say it because that is the logical extension.

We've got to go figure that out and improve the quality and if that's recruitment, if that's bonuses, and whatever tools are, you haven't come yet to ask us for anything, but the HR director is only somewhat tangentially the interview process. The PAT is, again, a combination of the police department and the union and the chief in doing things, so we just need you to come back and tell us what you need from us, Sean, to fix this. I will do that.

[Speaker 2] (3:44:49 - 3:45:41)
I do want to just mention, Dave, you asked about the police academy. We have a police academy scheduled for June 17th at Linfield. We have an academy for September 13th at Northern Essex.

These slots do fill up. Again, that's not driving the bus, but we do keep those in mind because we do want to have candidates that can be put into these academies. These academies do take time and it takes a lot of time to get them through that process and get them into the positions.

That said, I will circle back around with the chief and we will come back and we will have a few conversations. We talk regularly about this, and I shared before you got into the room, chief, it's a joint priority for us to get these positions filled.

[Speaker 1] (3:45:41 - 3:46:43)
I'm just reluctant. I'm just going to say this for my own purposes. This is a personnel process that you just need to get right.

I do not believe us continuing to err and be in the nitty-gritty of what you're doing to create this process is appropriate. It is always hyper-political and it's counterproductive. You just need to show results and if you need something from us, then I expect that, I'm just speaking me to you, I expect that you would come and say, we need this, I need this, I need, whether it's funding, I need contract approved, something like that.

I don't believe this should be a lingering public conversation because I just feel it's just inherently a political conversation and I know that again, unions are reaching out and people are hearing stuff and that happens as much as I find it distasteful but we can't contribute by making it public so I would just ask you to come back please and solve it so we don't have to have the conversation. Again, that's just me to you. Anything else?

Yeah, we're on select board time. We didn't get there yet.

[Speaker 7] (3:46:43 - 3:48:18)
I have something. I'll make it brief. In the discussions that we've been having about all the wonderful things that happened in the last two weekends including Memorial Day and our Pride festivities, I don't know if we mentioned the rainbow crosswalks that have been painted around town and one of the reasons I feel it's really important for me to mention it is because kids, adults, visitors are using these sidewalks every single day and they're a welcome mat, right?

That says we're here, we're inclusive, we're diverse and we are recognizing that we're not all the same but we're all in this community together and we love and appreciate each other and they're a wonderful talking point for parents to kids, they're a wonderful talking point. I mean, I can't tell you how many conversations I heard walking the kids home from school look at these sidewalks, parents telling kids what they mean and they mean something different to everyone but, you know, neighbors and friends who have parents who are both male or both female and the amount of pride they feel to see those things it's innumerable so I just want to scream it from the rooftops how proud I am that we did it and how amazing it is and I always get so emotional when I talk about these things but it's just so important because it is the fabric of what makes our community what it is and it is just a physical representation that people are everyday reminded that it's important to be thinking about these things in everything you do, in everything you say in the way you act, in the way you treat people in the way you are treated and they should be here all year

[Speaker 2] (3:48:18 - 3:49:55)
Katie, I want to thank the DPW department, I'm so glad you brought that up because I the idea was presented to me by a Swampskid teacher and I wasn't sure we could mobilize fast enough and I worked with Gino Cresta and they had to go out and get a bunch of different paints and it was more complicated than you want to hear about but they were able to go out and we had to get some spray paint for some colors and some different things and the hope was that it would just be a surprise and people would wake up and just see it and wonder what, why and ask those questions and I know I certainly don't want to surprise the board but I wanted to kind of just have it be a question in the town and I wanted people to look at it and say why is the crosswalk rainbow why is that because I think the answer to that question opens up our humanity and whether it's a good answer or a bad answer it's something that we can all really start to understand and we've got to get into that mindfulness and thought process so wouldn't have happened without our Department of Public Works and the individuals that were out there making it happen it was raining that week so we had to schedule around that but I'm so

[Speaker 22] (3:49:55 - 3:49:56)
glad it happened

[Speaker 2] (3:49:57 - 3:49:59)
Thank you Thank you

[Speaker 1] (3:49:59 - 3:53:27)
I have one thing on mission so I appreciate that you have been overseeing and helping kind of the reopening but I really would like to understand two things in particular one which was I understand they had a structural assessment of their wall do we have a copy of a report from a certified engineer that confirms that the remaining portions of their wall are sound and the reason this is particularly important is that if you drive by the ramp which is where the trucks have been going down you can see a bunch of legal postings and one of the postings is a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection notifying the owner's mission on the bay that they failed to obtain necessary permits to build this building in the first instance and the permit in particular is the chapter 91 permit and what the chapter 91 permit amongst many things that they would look at was the soundness of the wall and the fact that the applicant built the construction and the foundation using their words if I'm reading it correctly in the paper which is they cantilevered the foundation so they didn't get near the wall shows you that it makes me concerned that they went to great lengths to not touch the wall which means not repair the wall which means there's still a very significant portion of that wall that sits there and I find it hard to believe that just one portion is vulnerable and not the entirety and so I look to that PE stamp on a plan that says that and I would expect that they aren't opening without that we are very fortunate no one was walking on that beach but we're now going to reopen it and we should because it's public space and the vast majority of that wall sits untouched and now we have a temporary solution for the portion that was touched and so the second thing in addition to the PE stamp on a letter certifying to the town that it's sound the second thing I and again we don't have control over this I'm just giving you my suggestions the second thing is the permanent plan how long can this temporary plan it sounds like they're going to need to go through the state and the chapter 91 license and that does take time but what assurances do we have that the permanent plan will ultimately get done and we're not sitting here with a just again exploding liability and no recourse on it and so I just you don't need to answer what you know tonight but you don't need to answer I'm just it doesn't it feels now having the benefit of seeing DEP's letter saying that they didn't get the necessary environmental permits and which would have included the seawall tells us that this wasn't done right not by the town I'm not putting it again many towns don't as a building permit application know chapter 91 or trigger that so I'm not being critical of the town in this but I am now now that we do know this what are we doing again I want them to be successful I want all the people to be I'm not about that at all but it has to be done safely and I'm just very concerned that we see a problem fix a problem but we're not seeing the rest of the potential problem and we don't have to me certification to the town stamped by a professional engineer that that wall is sound to me is the minimum necessary for that restaurant to reopen because we need to reopen our beach and it's just no one should ever have to worry about it and you know someone's going to start climbing on the rocks now that we have a rock wall as opposed to a sheer wall kids and people in low tide are going to go over there and start climbing the rocks which we haven't even begun to deal with the issues surrounding that right and so this temporary solution can't has to be temporary

[Speaker 2] (3:53:28 - 3:54:22)
Peter I appreciate all those points I've been clear I've been clear and you know local papers about having a engineer stamp a design that ensures that that wall system that temporary wall system will be safe I've talked to our building commissioner about this and I've talked to the owner of mission on the bay and I've told them that you know this is a temporary design we are not going to have rip rap on public space the public deserves that beach and you know we need a timeline that wall will be inspected monthly we will certainly you know establish some timelines they've already hired and engaged an engineering firm to design the permanent repair and they are working with the chapter 91 program and the state regulatory agencies so

[Speaker 1] (3:54:22 - 3:54:44)
they're saying they're publicly opening in two days have they provided you that's great about the future wall I'm asking and the temporary wall I'm asking predominantly about the majority of the remaining wall which sits there untouched today do we have a letter certifying to the town stamped by a professional engineer that speaks to the stability of that wall that's there today

[Speaker 2] (3:54:44 - 3:54:52)
I do not have a letter yet from their structural engineer I expect to have it tomorrow

[Speaker 1] (3:54:52 - 3:55:32)
okay well I'm just going to fine great they feel as though they're opening on the 9th which means that they've talked to the town enough to feel as though they're opening on the 9th to proclaim it from the rooftop like they quite literally have right but that shouldn't be the inertia which gets them to open the inertia to get them to open is doing the right thing and making sure that we're sure the walls are where they are because again I'm less concerned an empty building can fall into the ocean if no one is sitting in the ocean at the time but a filled building people on the beach we were just lucky and lucky is a really bad strategy so I just I hear you can they open up

[Speaker 4] (3:55:32 - 3:55:34)
if the state is posting that they can't open up

[Speaker 1] (3:55:34 - 3:55:35)
if you read this

[Speaker 2] (3:55:37 - 3:55:38)
we issued

[Speaker 1] (3:55:38 - 3:57:09)
the occupancy now but the state so the answer is the state hasn't done a cease and desist from reading the letter it's a letter that just says look at now there's now you're on the clock you have to get us a filing you have to go through the process after the fact a remedial filing to do this but this is the exact type of thing and again I'm not even sure of the jurisdiction of DEP but DEP's letter said they have jurisdiction so I'm going on DEP's letter on that but it's the type of thing that just speaks to how confident are we about the condition of the wall and that's honestly all I care about and then secondarily I hope they're wildly successful but it's the wall to me and I don't I don't sit here and I don't know everything the public doesn't know everything but I want us to be able to exude confidence because we have reason to be confident not because we think it's smart to be confident that they're going to reopen existing not just the repaired stuff but the stuff that hasn't been touched is safe and I just don't know a professional engineer that's going to say that that was bad but all this is perfectly fine because they haven't touched anything except what fell and I'm just going to be honest with you I don't know a professional engineer that without getting in there and actually testing moisture content and getting behind the wall and doing those things would put a stamp on it because they just fixed literally what fell down nothing else and there's no way that just what fell down again my novice opinion here but I can't get professional engineers to do a lot of things on my jobs because of things like this and it's just hard to believe that we're getting it if we get it that's awesome I'm not looking to second guess their expertise I just want to make sure we did the right things thank you

[Speaker 6] (3:57:14 - 3:57:17)
so as far as select board time anything else

[Speaker 4] (3:57:19 - 3:57:36)
yeah so I just want to go over with just a couple things number one which is very very important tomorrow at DPW from 4 to 6 we have the rabies clinic I wish I had a dog to bring me bring your dog your cat bearded dragon

[Speaker 1] (3:57:36 - 3:57:39)
thank you for helping organize that you're welcome

[Speaker 4] (3:57:41 - 3:58:20)
and I'd like to see an executive session next week concerning as quickly as we can do this and as far as I just wanted I went at the assessor's office I told them I would the board of assessors I told them I would report back that all of the abatements are completed they have new software coming in they've signed an agreement with Patriot Properties and they're beginning to do some of the work that they had outlined mainly reviewing the neighborhoods by reviewing neighborhoods you can tweak a few things

[Speaker 6] (3:58:20 - 4:00:13)
good thank you I just had I had two things so I really think that we need to look at we need to look at a few different things in town that are big projects and I just want to talk about them really briefly here at 10.03 at night so I think we need to look at our charter I think we need to look at and have a charter review committee the last time we looked at it might have been when Samuel Pittman wrote the initial charter no I'm kidding it was 2016 but a lot of other towns municipalities they're looking at their charter every five years so I think the time is now and today you know we heard from Nancy Schultz with the historic commission you know to talk about historic preservation to talk about affordable housing in previous iterations of this board we've invested in open space I think the time is now to have a conversation about community preservation and the CPA in Swampskate so I think we should we should be getting those on future agendas and starting to assemble those committees and really thinking broadly about charter review within town and having funding mechanisms recurring revenue sources for our affordable housing trust so we can continue to invest in affordable housing historic preservation and open space and that's all I have so to be continued so with that I will entertain a motion to adjourn second all in favor night everybody thanks Joe