[Speaker 20] (0:22 - 1:52)
. .

[Speaker 5] (2:29 - 8:05)
. . .

. All right, welcome to the December 6th, 2023 Select Board Meeting. This meeting is being recorded.

Please rise and join me in the pledge. Just before we get going, the town issued a press release condemning the hate that happened, an event that happened in the front yard of a Swampscott resident's home. I'm going to read the press release for the official record.

December 5th, 2023, this morning Swampscott police received a call from a Swampscott resident about a We Stand With Israel sign placed in the front yard, which was defaced with anti-Semitic rhetoric and a swastika used by the Nazi party in Germany that murdered six million Jewish men, women, and children. According to a recent report by CNN, there has been a dramatic spike in hate incidents against Jewish and Muslim individuals across the country amid the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas. The Anti-Defamation League said that since the Hamas attack on October 7th, anti-Semitic incidents in the United States increased by 388%.

The ADL cited some 312 anti-Semitic incidents between October 7th and 23rd by comparison. There were 64 incidents over the same time frame in 2022. The Swampscott Select Board and Town Administrator issued the following statements unanimously condemning hate and this recent anti-Semitic incident in Swampscott and expressing solidarity with Jewish families in Swampscott and around the world.

It is intolerable to see these types of hate crimes in Swampscott, said Swampscott Select Board Chair David Grishman. The town of Swampscott is shocked by this incident and stands with all those who fight against hate in our community. Swampscott stands against all those who espouse hate in the strongest possible terms, said Katie Phelan, Vice Chair of the Swampscott Select Board.

We all have an obligation to speak out against this ugly sign of hate and share our love for all. I have said this before, as citizens of Swampscott we all share a responsibility to confront hate and this starts right here at home in Swampscott, said Swampscott Select Board Member Peter Spellios. Unfortunately these are dark days and there is too much hate in our community and throughout the world.

We must call out this hate and what this Nazi symbol represents. It is heartbreaking to see so much hate, both innocent Israeli and Palestinian families have been targets of violence and hate and have been victimized. We need more care, we need more love, we need more understanding and we need peace between Israel and Palestine, said Swampscott Select Board Member Doug Thompson.

The actions of this coward do not speak for the good people of Swampscott. With anti-Semitism on the rise, we all need to lead with our actions and do everything possible to recognize this hate and push against it. It's fine to talk about loving our neighbors, but only our actions can make a difference.

It starts with each one of us, said Swampscott Select Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher. Swampscott's Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald shared that Swampscott needs to stand together during a rapid rise of anti-Semitic rhetoric and hate symbolism. We must not ignore this incident and the hate that has been scrawled on this sign as is is pure evil.

We all must discuss this incident at home with our families and our children. Now is the time to stand up and support our Jewish neighbors and families. They need our help, he said.

Swampscott Police Criminal Investigations Division is currently investigating this as a hate incident with bias. The Town is currently in contact with the ADL and other Jewish partners along with the Essex County's DA's office. Anyone with information about this incident should call the Swampscott Police Department at 781-595-1111.

[Speaker 1] (8:08 - 8:28)
Mr. Chairman, can I ask, I appreciate the press release included a graphic of the sign. Can I ask, I believe the Town Administrator has that tonight and I think frankly we should be talking about it while looking at it because I think people need to see the pure evil, the pure hate. Is that a?

Scroll down, Diane.

[Speaker 5] (8:30 - 8:39)
Please. There's also a reverse image too.

[Speaker 1] (8:45 - 9:22)
This is a Swampscott sign. Swampscott family, this is, it doesn't matter if it's Swampscott, anyone's family, an 18-year-old who volunteers tremendously for this Town that goes to Swampscott Public Schools walks out to see this sign that advocates eliminating his family and millions of people from the face of the earth. We should just sit with that and just be horrified and not be afraid to sit and be horrified and I hope that we all find our words to express that and to speak to the person next to you and behind you about this pure evil.

[Speaker 2] (9:31 - 10:47)
I think the most difficult part of this is that we know this exists. We know that it's here. We know that our children are facing more and more of this rhetoric.

It's happening online, it's happening in video game forums, and it's on a rise both nationally and here in Swampscott. So what are we going to do? Like what are we going to do?

We can't just sit here and say this is wrong. We have to talk about it. We have to talk about it with our families, we have to talk about it with our friends, we have to talk about it when we have breakfast and when we have dinner and we have lunch.

There's too much hate in this country. There's too much hate in this town and we've got to figure out how to bring a different narrative. We need more programs with our sports programs, we need more programs with our arts programs, we need more and we've got to figure out how to change this narrative.

We've got a community full of people that love each other. We have wonderful neighbors, we have a wonderful town. We've got to figure out how to get more of that into the narrative.

[Speaker 3] (10:49 - 12:11)
Thanks, Sean. I assume there's still an investigation going on and there's a lot we don't know about exactly the genesis of this, whether or not this is a young citizen here in Swampscott or not, or someone from Swampscott or not that did this. I don't know the facts, but I would be curious.

I don't think this is the forum necessarily that we're going to brainstorm solutions, but I'm curious about one thing we do have control over is what education happens here in schools and whether or not there's any part of the curriculum that actually addresses this. There are other programs certainly that exist in other communities. I was reading about one in the paper this weekend because obviously this topic is very germane everywhere right now and there are ways in which communities are brought together to talk about this in a constructive and structured way so that it's not just this is important, but to your point, what are we going to do?

Every time this happens, getting outraged is a good first step, but what is our next step?

[Speaker 5] (12:19 - 12:21)
Additional comments, questions?

[Speaker 6] (12:23 - 13:42)
I just think it's just reflecting on something I just said, which is every time this happens, which since I've sat on the board, every defamatory incident that has happened in this town has been anti-Semitic and just sitting in that uncomfortableness, like Peter was saying, as we talk about DE&I consultants and folks who are meant to be brought into this community to educate us, inform us, help us navigate these disgusting and graphic and uncomfortable waters, I think we need a renewed mission to understand how they affect our community and just how this consultant can help us move forward. In a way that is thoughtful, actionable, tangible, so that if we cannot stop these things from occurring, we could help folks feel the embrace of the community when they do occur.

[Speaker 5] (13:48 - 13:55)
All right, we're going to move on. We're going to talk about the Town Administrator's report.

[Speaker 7] (13:55 - 13:55)
Sean.

[Speaker 2] (13:57 - 21:33)
Thank you, David. Tonight we'll go over a review of our classification with our assessor's agent and town staff. There's been a significant drop-off of new growth.

Certainly, this will present a financial challenge to the town. We've identified that both Salem and surrounding communities are also struggling with new growth. This is a sign of the economic impact of both COVID but also higher interest rates.

We do have a special town meeting this Monday. Certainly, we'll be going over a number of warrants. One of those warrants will be to look at reductions in the town levy.

This past week, I met with the Historic Commission Chair and Select Board Member Doug Thompson to go over elements of how we can look to preserve and salvage pieces of the historic lumber farm. Our new school continues to move forward on time and on budget. It's hard to believe that just a year ago we signed a contract with the school and we are moving forward with a brisk clip to see that project completed this summer on time and on budget.

Over the last two weeks, I've met with Mayor Nicholson and regional officials to go over the work on Kings Beach. We have a meeting tomorrow at the town hall with the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to go over some of the work that we've done to explore additional strategies to help support the remediation of impairments to Kings Beach. Mayor Nicholson is eager to move forward with a number of studies and alternatives as I am.

We agreed that we are going to be sharing the costs for some of this additional work. We are going to be meeting over the next few weeks and really looking at getting much more information out on a town landing page, including updated flyers and project emails, and really looking to help people understand the environmental impact of our storm water runoff in our resource areas. This is an important public health and public safety responsibility.

Continue to meet with our Tri-Chair. We've had a number of meetings over the last month to work through town and school finances. These are complicated responsibilities, certainly appreciate the work of the town finance teams.

We certainly have a few responsibilities to support some ministerial transfers to the school department that include Chapter 70 monies for our next special town meeting, along with some reimbursements for McKinney-Vento transportation. Two weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Municipal Managers Association. First time I've been there in a couple of years, but certainly a lot of conversations around civil service as well as town finances.

The town continues to work with interested parties that are seeking to take tours of the Hadley School. We've had over 15 boutique hotel companies visit Swampstate to see if the Hadley School will be a suitable project for them. It's exciting to see these individuals come to town and really think about the possibility of seeing that building brought back to some historic use as a hotel.

Our Senior Center continues to be busy. We've made a few changes with staffing, but really great program on opening minds through art and collaborating with individuals at high school. There's an art show that will be starting on December 15th, and there'll be a TV radio or a Channel 2 radio program on the collaboration between the high school and the Senior Center.

We're applying for a grant regionally for a new van, all electric, and we're collaborating with the town of Nahant to focus on some regional transportation initiatives. Last week I had eight interviews for candidates for the Police Department. I've issued four conditional offers for some of the vacancies.

I get a great opportunity to work with the Police Union and support some of the hate crime awareness and response programs. Lieutenant Waters has been working with the State Police. We have our police patrol stopping by the temples three or four times a day to ensure safety, certainly working with Marblehead and Nahant to combat hate and we're looking at a number of other grant programs that will help focus on our youth and some of the best practices around ensuring our youth are protected from the hate.

We did secure a $28,000 traffic enforcement grant. These are for pedestrian and bike safety, and we've got some great information that our new software system took in $6,000 in transient moorings over the summer, and this has been a real enhancement for our harbormaster function. Also conducted an interview last week for a vacancy in the Fire Department.

We've made a conditional offer. The Department has been working on an archive for building files, and we're moving all of our building files online. DPW has been busy.

This past year we paved 29 roadways and spent over a million dollars. Also planted 60 trees. Library is busy as well.

There's a number of offerings in the Library of Things if you haven't been by to see what you can get with the Library of Things. Everything from tools to technology. They also were awarded a technical assistance grant for $30,000, and they'll be offering gingerbread housing building kits.

Human Resources has been busy filling a number of administrative positions, and as a reminder, we're changing our notification systems from Blackboard to OneSolve. You have to sign up for this new system. You know, we're launching this on December 1st, so if you haven't signed up, I encourage you to just go to swampscottma.gov, subscribe, and there's also a link on our Facebook page. That is my report.

[Speaker 5] (21:33 - 21:35)
Thanks, Sean. Questions from the Board?

[Speaker 11] (21:36 - 21:40)
I have a question on Kings Beach. What's the process going to be for the peer review?

[Speaker 2] (21:42 - 22:23)
So I've reached out to Kleinfelder. They're putting together a scope of work. The thought was we'd look at everything that we've done to date over the last, you know, 10 years, look at the consent order, and kind of get a sense of whether or not our strategy for where we've worked and how we've worked and the priorities we've established, you know, are consistent with the maximum, you know, remediation, and then we'll take a look at the entire alternative analysis and get a sense of whether or not there's anything else there that we could have evaluated or done better. That's the entire scope of our level of effort.

[Speaker 11] (22:25 - 22:29)
Is Kleinfelder doing the peer review? No, that would not be a peer review.

[Speaker 6] (22:29 - 22:30)
That would not be a peer review.

[Speaker 1] (22:31 - 22:36)
No, it didn't sound like it. It sounded like they were helping put together a scope for a peer review.

[Speaker 2] (22:36 - 23:41)
And we'll get it out. We'll have to go to RFP, and we'll get responses in, and they'll do that independently. So we'll get a new independent report that will help us understand could we have evaluated something in a different area or done a different level of effort in some way that would help us better define the efficacy with all of our, you know, IDDE or illicit discharge and detection.

I think that's been really a big conversation. I did have a meeting with the EPA today, and we did talk about the peer review. I want to make sure that state agencies also add input into this because I think they could help us really ensure that, you know, we can answer some of their questions as well.

I don't think any of us are happy with the level of efficacy in terms of how much time we've spent and how little progress we've made with addressing the remediation on King's Beach. It's taking too long, and if this peer review can help us get faster, you know, that would be helpful.

[Speaker 3] (23:42 - 23:45)
I appreciate you getting right on that.

[Speaker 5] (23:47 - 24:03)
Thank you. Sean, just a quick question about the conditional offers that were made from the eight interviews for the police officers. How quickly could these individuals be wearing SBD uniforms?

[Speaker 2] (24:03 - 24:22)
So two of the conditional offers were issued to two individuals that are currently certified as Massachusetts police officers. They could start in literally weeks. Two were issued to individuals that would have to go to an academy, and that would take many months.

Could be as many as six to nine months.

[Speaker 5] (24:22 - 24:25)
So when is the next academy, and how would that process go?

[Speaker 2] (24:25 - 24:44)
They're rolling. Academies have rolling dates. We have a student officer in the Northern Essex Academy up in Haverhill.

Certainly, you know, there's academies down in the South Shore and in Boston. So, you know, as soon as we can get them in, we'll get them in.

[Speaker 3] (24:44 - 24:45)
Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (24:46 - 25:11)
I have one more question on DPW. We did one million on the paving. Did we have, have we used all the money in the capital for paving this year, Patrick?

Yeah. Because I thought we had, did we double that last year? Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 5] (25:15 - 25:47)
And then, I mean, there was a, there was a major accident at the, you know, at Walker and Paradise Road. I know we just received a grant for pedestrian and bike safety. Is there also, is there also going to be additional measures put into place to keep, to keep the speed down?

We are. Visibility high, and is the, you know, is the police department in conjunction with public safety officials going to come back to the select board with additional recommendations and suggestions?

[Speaker 2] (25:47 - 26:36)
Yes, we, you know, I've charged both the police department, fire department to really look at ways to use the capital plan to help make recommendations for significant investments with pedestrian safety. So, I expect that there will be some robust recommendations on how we, you know, continue to make those investments in pedestrian safety. This is a small grant.

It's enforcement based. It's not capital, but the capital plan is intended to, you know, really get the infrastructure programs that would help us, you know, address some of the complete street projects that we have that are defined as priorities and other pedestrian safety initiatives.

[Speaker 5] (26:37 - 26:41)
But are there, are there also additional capital grants?

[Speaker 2] (26:43 - 27:11)
Yeah, the complete streets program is pretty much the main pedestrian safety program, but there are, you know, safe school programs. There's other, you know, mass DOT or, you know, state highway grants that, you know, maybe niche small little programs, but we are, we are looking at some of those grants and we've had a number of conversations about how to really bring teams around targeting some of those programs.

[Speaker 3] (27:11 - 27:13)
David, can I pick up on that just one quick?

[Speaker 13] (27:13 - 27:13)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (27:14 - 28:00)
Because we did put $200,000, I think, in the capital for this year for this, right? And I think this does trigger, I think we said we were actually going to have a plan. I know we've done some of that work, but maybe a couple months ago, I know we haven't really asked about it.

So, I don't know where that's at, but maybe next time you can come back with an update on how far we got. Maybe other priorities came up, but we need to kind of, it's easy for it to fall off, but I really, we need to provide the board with an update at the next meeting on some of the pedestrian safety plans that we have in the works. Because I enjoy some of the speed bumps that we have, but we could have more.

That would be great. Yep.

[Speaker 5] (28:02 - 28:32)
Okay. Anything else from the board? No?

Okay. We'll move on to public comment. Public comment is where members of the public can address the select board.

I would ask that you stand in front of a microphone, tell us your name, address, and voting precinct, if known, and you'll be limited to speak for three minutes. One second. All right.

Hot mic.

[Speaker 8] (28:43 - 28:43)
Hi.

[Speaker 19] (28:45 - 28:45)
Hi.

[Speaker 8] (28:46 - 37:20)
Suzanne Wright, precinct two. Nope, three now. I'm school committee chair, and I'm speaking on school committee stuff right now.

I originally thought I was going to speak to you tonight because I was discouraged on the last meeting after last meeting because I was just surprised at the reaction that this board had with our school financial issues that we're facing this year and into next year, and I sort of like when I heard it's coming out of the blue, I thought, wow, how is that possible? But then I realized that I should take a little bit more responsibility for my part in that, and I know my board has asked me to come here before, too. So in addition to sharing information that we have at the tri-chair with the select board and the finance committee, I think it probably would have been prudent for me to have come here to make you guys aware of our unexpected expenses that are hitting the FY24 budget, and if I had done this, the warrant articles that were suggested at your last board meeting probably would have made a lot more sense. So anyway, so now I'm here just to provide you a quick information update on the FY24 and 25 budgets. The articles requested were to allocate the additional chapter 70 funds and the homeless foster care transportation funds, which the town administrator just spoke to you about.

So this past Monday, the town administrator confirmed that those two articles would be included in the draft warrant for the next town meeting, so I'm just really appreciative of the thoughtful and collaborative relationship that Dave and Eric and I have with the town administrator and the superintendent and the business team, the financial teams, because I think that those meetings brought about this action, and we have a lot more work to do to relieve some of the financial pressures that the school's facing for sure, and I know the town is facing as well. So I look forward to attacking the 25 issues, which brings me to the 25 budget concerns. Through tri-chair discussions, we've come to an understanding that there are some costs that the school is facing that outpace the financial guidelines of two percent plus new growth.

The most variable and unpredictable one that we have is the special ed costs. Currently we have a handful of new outer district placements this year, and they're coupled with another jump in outer district tuitions on top of the 14 percent that we had last year, so we're well over budget per that guideline. The outer district tuitions that was expected in FY24, that was unexpected this year, that we need to cover that deficit with, is rolling into 25.

This coupled with drawing down our circuit breaker of $450,000 as asked of us last year has really left us without a balance to rely on going into FY25. Are you going to let me keep talking? Thank you.

So this cost, this balance going into 25, is going to be about $870,000. And then we also have some staffing increases in 24 due to student needs and mandated by IEPs that will roll over into 25 to the tune of approximately $200,000. And just recently, this past week, we've been recently become aware of a potential special assessment by the collaborative.

That's the school where we send the majority of our students who receive outer district services. The assessments for major repairs that they need to make, and they're not exactly sure if it's going to impact this year or next year, but the original estimate for the assessment just once got to $100,000. They are looking to go back out to bid and try some other strategies to lower the assessment, and so for now, since it's variable and we don't know the timing of it, it won't fall in the 25 budget, but it's just something in the back of our minds that we need to be concerned about.

And then there's the new school. I mean, we're really excited. It looks like on time and on budget, right?

But the operating costs are a concern. We're estimating with the help of Mr. Casper, the operating expenses to be about $190,000. That's 9% more than we currently pay for the elementary schools.

We have heating, cooling, elevators, ventilation systems, all sorts of things that we haven't had in our buildings previously. The building's all electric. We haven't dealt with that previously, and then we also are planning on solar panels, and once in place, we know that that's going to take time for it to function up to capacity, so we anticipate there will be a few years where this expense is really unpredictable.

And secondly, the increased mandated transportation needs for the new school is going to mean funding two additional buses, and this is approximately $200,000. So this is leaving our proposed 25 budget really well over the 2% plus new growth, and I appreciate that a lot of conversations are happening within the school district right now with leadership to look at every avenue and inefficiencies. The budget that's being built by our finance director is truly a zero-based budget.

She's looking everywhere with the leadership team to see if there's any ways we can be more efficient with our financial resources, but still adequately staff and provide our students with the education that makes this such a great school district. Last year, we reduced our staffing by 25 FTEs. Our class sizes for the vast majority are up significantly.

There are fewer efficiencies to pursue, but we're committed to always looking at that stuff, but our deficit is well beyond what some reductions and reassignments and such can cover. But I have a lot of faith in the tri-chair meetings. I think we're having really productive meetings, and there's opportunities for solutions to a lot of our problems, and I think we just need to work towards them.

Having these warrant articles coming up and helping us out with 24 is really great, because then we get to sort of make that hole a little smaller to help us start working on 25. But anyway, most of the figures I'm giving to you, hopefully you have the two memos that our school finance director has sent out to the school committee at our last budget meeting. If you haven't looked at them yet, there is some good news.

In the November memo, there is some good news about money that the new school will be getting, and there's also the COPS grant that will fund the high school PA system instead of putting that on capital. So it's not all doom and gloom, but we have a substantial problem to tackle, and I look forward to jointly working on school solutions and the school budget, but also balancing the town budgets with financial discipline. And I also would love to have, I know I've talked to the chairs of these two committees, but to have a joint meeting where we can share our projected budgets early enough that we can maybe help each other collaborate on solutions as a larger group.

And to just end it, I'm in complete agreement with what the town administrator always says to me, we need to continue sharing critical conversations and keeping lines of communication open. So I'm open to any questions, any time. I mean, I just, I want to strongly advocate for the school and our needs, and I know that, you know, you all care as much as I do about the students and the school system in this town too, but we really are at a juncture where we are really scared for what's coming down the pipe for next year's budget, and we just sort of need to get on the right track and do a little refresh here.

So I'm open to questions any time, and I appreciate the time and the extra time you allotted me. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (37:21 - 37:24)
Ms. O'Connor.

[Speaker 12] (37:36 - 41:29)
I'm Amy O'Connor. I'm also a member of the school committee, and I just want to appreciate our chair for falling on her sword, for not educating me personally. However, I'd like to speak a little bit to some of the consternation and anger that's plaguing some of the members of the school committee and our district leadership.

There should have been two school department articles on this upcoming special town meeting warrant. These two articles have been under discussion since late summer. On Monday, November 20th, our school chair assured us that we did not need to attend your meeting and our agreements would be honored.

She had assurances from Mr. Grishman, and at least one of the articles would have been submitted to on one of the articles that had been submitted to the town administrator well in advance. It wasn't. Because of these promises, no school committee members were there to advocate, and stupidly we trusted.

We feel like we're in the same position again after several years. For several years, despite discussions in tri-chair meetings and written agreements, the town has not followed through on its agreements with the schools. Inconsistently, at the 11th hour, the superintendent and school committee are left shocked by a warrant which intentionally omits financial agreements with the schools.

The town administrator and his staff continue to obfuscate and craft their own narrative, painting the school department as one of dropping the ball. The superintendent, director of school finance, did not, in fact, say that they were okay with an agreement of holding off this until a potential future school special town meeting. As the superintendent's memo said to you last week, she can't base financial decisions on maybes and trust me's from the town administrator.

We are exhausted fighting for funding, and this shouldn't even be a fight. Based on multiple rounds of similar games over several years, the school department tried to get smart and get things in writing. We decided publicly that there'd be no more conversations or agreements between the superintendent and town administrator that aren't both witnessed by others and memorialized on paper.

So earlier this year, we got a signed agreement that any additional Chapter 70 money would first cover rising health costs, but the excess would come directly to the schools. And additionally, there are fees for transportation reimbursements that we paid, the state reimbursed us for, and the town administrator holds. Despite tri-chair agreements and discussions, November 20th, only Ms. Fletcher was interested in including and upholding written agreements. Mr. Spellios discussed that the importance of following process and then based his no vote on it being too last minute, and the rest of you followed along. You all voted no, while the town administrator and the chairman did nothing to set the fact straight that this was not a last minute request. There should have been no debate debate had the town administrator or the chair spoken the truth.

We waste time and energy fighting for what's already been agreed to. This is playing games with our operating budget. Ms. Phelan, you asked last week what's the harm in putting off the vote until a future meeting, and the answer is one of trust. The fact that the town administrator has yet again gone back on his word, both written and spoken, is damaging, time-consuming, and it has to stop. Suddenly, a few days before our next town meeting, we have a draft warrant for another special town meeting. Doesn't have any date on it, but it's uncanny timing.

And with the message that Mr. Fitzgerald said that these are simply ministerial and will receive unanimous support, so I ask why wasn't it done now? The dishonesty and outright lies of omission are doing actual damage to our, not only our working relationship, but to the Swampscott School District.

[Speaker 5] (41:32 - 41:33)
Thank you, Ms. O'Connor.

[Speaker 1] (41:33 - 41:50)
In this moment, I hope that we can appreciate that the select board allows public comment and allows anyone to get up and say anything they want, something the school committee actually doesn't allow. But I do appreciate the select board does allow that to hear it. It's a good reminder that we have public comment every meeting with us.

[Speaker 17] (42:03 - 43:49)
Good evening, Glenn Pastor, Precinct 2, also a school committee member. Thank you to Ms. Wright. Fantastic job talking about what some of our angst is.

Just to correct, we do have public comment that was reinstated a couple months ago. The only thing I'm really going to say is, first, I also appreciate that at least the funds promised are now on the next warrant. I do want to reiterate what Suzanne had said, is we do, from a school committee point of view, we do invite both boards, the select board and the finance committee, to have a joint meeting so we can give a presentation so you folks can actually see the numbers.

It's great that we talk about it. I think it's much more impactful when we see those. That would be fantastic.

I also want to thank the select board for talking about the antisemitic words that were on the sign. I completely agree, as someone who's Jewish, it's just abhorrent. The interesting part is, as Mr. Thompson said, well, is there any school curriculum about it?

New school curriculum costs money, which at this juncture we don't have. We really don't have the money. So I do hope that all three boards will help us try to figure this out.

Because FY25, FY26, as more students come into the district, as more students go out of the district for special education, we do have a tangible problem. But again, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your service as well.

I really appreciate it. Thank you, Glenn.

[Speaker 5] (43:52 - 43:53)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 13] (44:02 - 48:00)
Hi, my name is Neil Pearlstein, 27th place in Swanska, Precinct 5. I'm here after all of that about pickleball. And not in a way you might want to hear.

I've been in town for 23 years. I live down next to the Phillips Park parking lot. So over the years, I've watched a movie get filmed there.

I've spoken to Gino Cresta many times. And I was surprised to hear, reading in the lint item, on the 27th of November, that there's a town warrant for a pickleball court to go in there. And when I decided to call the rec department to say, hey, we didn't know anything about this, I was told that there was another department doing it.

Spoke to a woman there. I don't want to get her name wrong because it's, anyway, Marzi, but not sure how to pronounce the last name. But regardless of that, I was asking questions about it.

And my first question was, did you talk to anybody who lives next door to it? That's a flood zone area. According to Gino, that area can't be paved because there's water buildup.

And living there, we're in a flood zone. We all have flood insurance. It's a wetlands area.

We live in a town called Swamp Scott. And I've got a neighbor who just spent tens of thousands of dollars to put in an eight-foot dry well because of water pooling. I have two dry wells that I put in in my house 15 years ago.

And I haven't heard anything about an environmental impact study of how that would affect it. That area is going to be close to 10,000 square feet that's going to have to be paved. Where's that water going to go?

We live less than 100 feet from where it's potentially going to be. I was told it's going to go along the fence. Well, that can either take out that entire parking lot, which means that there is no parking for sports.

There is no parking for the beach. I don't care about the boat yard that we have there now. The water table is such that my home sits in the water table.

I have pumps that sit in the water on a regular basis. Never mind the noise. I was told that there wouldn't be lights, but we didn't have lights at the football field.

Nobody asked me about that when they put them in. I wake up every Sunday morning 8 a.m. to the National Anthem seven times a day for Pop Warner football. And it's all day.

It's going to be worse with this. I was told only daylight hours. Well, during the summer that's 5 a.m. to 8 30 p.m. Constant. The fact is, and I'll wrap up, the thing that's most disturbing to all of my neighbors is we weren't told. We weren't asked. When they wanted to put a dog park down there, at least they had the decency to let us know.

When they filmed a movie there, they knocked on my door. We've heard nothing. There was nothing on the website for the town.

There was nothing in, there's a Facebook group about pickleball. There wasn't even anything on that. What we're asking is, stop.

Just stop. Let's take a look at this. And I heard somebody talking about communication.

Communicate with us. I pay too much in taxes to feel like I'm getting screwed again. So, I hope that when it goes to town meeting, it's voted down.

So, thank you. Thanks, Neal.

[Speaker 5] (48:09 - 48:10)
Anyone else?

[Speaker 1] (48:15 - 49:36)
David, can I say one more thing? Sorry. I'm glad that I think the entirety of the school committee is here tonight.

So, we kind of have a joint meeting, even though it's not a public meeting with all the school committee here. But I do want to let the school committee know that I do remember back in March, your then-chair came to us. And I'm going to use the word lecture, kind of in the same tone we heard tonight, this board about budgets, and then left right afterwards.

But the next three hours, we spent talking about the budget with the FinCom. Tonight, I want to encourage you not to leave, because tonight we're going to talk about the single largest tax increase we're going to have to vote in the last decade for Swanscot residents. And so, we want to understand your numbers, but we also, we have another thing we've got to deal with, right?

And so, it's great that you're all here. I hope that each one of the five of you stay tonight to listen to the fact that we're going to be told in a few minutes about the single largest tax increase, notwithstanding the school, because we're putting 100% of the reserves that we've used towards our tax rate to offsetting the price of a $100 million school tonight, which is why we have the largest single tax increase. And so, things will get solved.

But I do want you to take full advantage of the fact that all five of you are here. Don't talk to each other, because you can't, because it'll violate open meeting laws, but I'm glad you're here, so that we can share with you this information, because I know last time when the chair was here, we didn't get to share the information, because you weren't able to stay. So, I'm glad you're here.

[Speaker 5] (49:39 - 49:53)
Thanks. All right, we'll move on. We're going to talk about annual permit renewals, liquor licenses, common VIX, entertainment, and class 2 licenses.

So, is that, am I kicking this off to you, Angelica?

[Speaker 19] (49:57 - 50:26)
Yeah, there's a red.

[Speaker 9] (50:26 - 50:29)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it should be. There's a red, so it should be shared.

[Speaker 4] (50:53 - 55:32)
Ready to start? Hi, I'm Angelica. I'm Chief Ruben Quesada's assistant, and I have Marissa Meaney from Community Development, and Lieutenant Jonathan Locke here to talk with me as well.

So, I think only Doug is new on the board, so I'll go through this quickly, but feel free to stop me at any time. So, I'll quickly run through the process. So, liquor license is an all-year ordeal, but the annual renewals begin in October.

So, the ABCC reaches out to us, and they send us a packet explaining everything that we need to do. A list of all the active licensees is sent to the building department, police department, fire gets the list also, and then November is really when we start everything, making sure everything's done. So, all licensees are required to submit a completed packet that includes the annual renewal form, liquor liability insurance, all licensees, all their responsible managers have to be fingerprinted at the police station, and then inspections are completed by building, police, and fire.

The building department will confirm with me that everything is complete on their end, and then we also connect with the town treasurer to confirm that all of their accounts are up to date, and if one of these is not, if they're not in compliance with one of these, they will not be issued their license. So, then that brings us to tonight. So, obviously, this presentation and the select board will vote to approve the annual license, and then the renewal forms will be sent to the ABCC.

We send a report back to the ABCC with all of the end results, and then the liquor license are delivered to the establishments right before the new year. It's important to note that an approved license will not be issued or physically given to the establishment if there are any pending items. Just as a side note, there were a few amendments this year.

We had a transfer of license from Best Friends to Dockside on Humphrey Street, and then we have change of managers at Bertucci's Mission on the Bay, and the C&L liquors did not renew. They were going to, and then they decided not to. So, one thing that we do at the police station is fingerprints.

This is the bylaw if you want to read it. So, each manager has to come in annually, be fingerprinted, and then a lieutenant and the chief sign off on that to ensure that the manager is in compliance. And then, in addition, the police have two types of compliance checks.

So, the minimum age compliance, which I will ask if Lieutenant Locke can explain, but before that, I'll quickly go over the operations. So, obviously, with the police patrolling the town, they drive by the establishments daily, and obviously, if they see something, they go in. If they're on a park and walk on Humphrey Street, they'll walk in, make sure that if anyone has any questions, they can help them.

If there's a disturbance, it's always communicated to the chief and the follow-up is mandatory. We, to my knowledge, did not have anything this year. And then, one last thing is for the minimum age compliance checks, those are usually completed in the beginning of the year.

With Detective Delano retiring, and we have now Detective Doyle and Detective Chandler, both of them attended a training with the ABCC. It was this morning. So, they got all new signage, which has already been distributed to the licensees, and they actually were trained on the minimum age compliance checks.

So, the next step is to have them be recognized by the board as agents so that they can perform those minimum age compliance checks.

[Speaker 15] (55:33 - 56:37)
Again, we've done a lot. As far as the minimum age compliance, we seek out a juvenile that you would not tend to think is younger than they are. That person's vetted through the police department, they're fingerprinted, photographed.

Being that they're a juvenile, we have to have their parents sign off that they're going to do this. And we take them to all establishments that have liquor licenses through the town, the state, and they're given a certain task, exact same thing occurs at every establishment, so there's no deviation. And they're given a breathalyzer prior to going out, and they're given a breathalyzer at the end of the night.

And if there's any violations, they come out, we immediately address that violation that occurred, we walk right back in with the individual, and we take care of it then. Then we further that report up the chain to the board, and that happens just once a year right now.

[Speaker 4] (56:40 - 56:44)
Are there any questions so far? Any questions?

[Speaker 3] (56:45 - 56:53)
I assume there's never a problem with that. I assume there's never a problem with that, with your recovery work?

[Speaker 15] (56:53 - 57:09)
Does this year know? I believe last year, county, yeah, there was one. There was one, I think you addressed, training, retraining.

They came before the board. I don't know if you were on the board at the time. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (57:09 - 1:01:56)
I don't think that you were. We hosted a training through the ABCC. They came into the police station and gave the managers, so it was a lot of managers and owners came in just as a refresh to checking IDs and kind of reiterating what they already know that they obviously didn't do at that point in time.

The ABC gives us the recommendation that these are, these should be learning experiences, so that's why the board year two decided to do a training to fix that. So the fees are listed here. They range from $2,400 to $1,900, and then we have the bring your own bottle, which was the policy that the board put into play last year.

That's $400. So the next is one-day permit and bring your own bottle. So the one-day permit, we're actually finalizing a new policy, which we'll go over today.

There's a $50 application fee, and in 2023, we've had 28 to date with two pending. In 2022, we had eight applications. Bring your own bottle, I don't know if I have to go over it too much.

We just adopted it November 16th, 2022. That would allow a business that doesn't want to hold an annual license to allow patrons to bring their own beverages in, and we have strict rules as to what they can bring in and what they can't. The license quota, this is the most asked question.

So right now, we're allowed 17 section 12, all alcoholic beverages. We've issued 13, so we have four available. For section 12, these are on-premise, so these are restaurants, all restaurants for us.

For wines and malts, we're allowed five. We've issued one, and there are four available. Separate to the quota, which is directly based off of the census, we have license available through special legislation, so we've been allowed eight.

We've issued two, leaving six. So the special legislation is something that allows additional licensing on top of what the census allows. And for package storage, which is section 15 off-premise, ours actually, I think I mentioned this last year, with this census that came in in 2020, the numbers did increase, so we're allowed four all-alcoholic beverages.

We've issued two, two available. Five with wines and malts, we've issued three, and there's two available. And this shows all of the license.

You can see the red is restaurant all-alcohol, clubs are blue, and so on. We do have one veterans club in town, and there are two license right now issued under special legislation. So like I said, those don't go against the quota.

Those are issued under that special legislation. So this is the end of the liquor license. These are all of the license, and this is exactly what's pending.

So we do have a few, I don't want to go through every single one of them, but all of them have turned in their, this might be a new PowerPoint from the one that you have, I sent this to Diane right before the meeting with the updates. So every business has paid their fee. They have all come in for fingerprints.

The inspections are completed with the police, meaning they have all of their signs, and I have examples of the signs if you want to see them. So they have all of their signage, and there's a few businesses that are pending a balance owed to the town. A couple of them have been communicating to ask questions, but those, obviously those license would not be issued or given to them without paying these balances before the end of the year.

And then as far as their building inspections, I spoke with Steve Cummings today who confirmed that the businesses who have re-inspections next to their name, those are minor issues. It could be a light bulb that's out, things like that, but he does want to go in and re-inspect, and the others had to cancel. They had an emergency, so they had to cancel.

So those also will be done within, he said, the next couple of days into early next week. And that concludes the annual liquor license portion. Are there any questions before Marissa discusses the common victuals?

[Speaker 11] (1:01:57 - 1:02:05)
I have a quick question. When the building inspector goes in and they have to re-inspect, does the building inspector send you a notice, an official notice?

[Speaker 4] (1:02:06 - 1:02:18)
He issues the correct permit to the business and then communicates with me via email. He does have all in a folder. He has all of the inspections that are directly related to this.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:21 - 1:02:29)
And are we able to go ahead and make a motion tonight? I know we're not done the whole thing. On the condition that these things are completed.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:32 - 1:02:44)
For the off-premise licenses, there were four allowed and two issued, and that doesn't include C&L, correct? They're not renewing. No, they're not issued last year.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:44 - 1:02:47)
Exactly, that only includes Borough Street Liquors in Vinden Square.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:48 - 1:02:48)
Okay, yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:51 - 1:03:04)
We want to, Mr. Chairman, is it fine if we actually just take a vote on this and go to the next thing? I would just ask that we, I just want to make sure, we have to issue them this month, correct? We're issuing this month for next year.

[Speaker 4] (1:03:04 - 1:03:05)
Exactly, yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:05 - 1:03:12)
I would just ask that we table the club all licenses. I have some questions I'd like to talk with the Town Administrator about.

[Speaker 4] (1:03:14 - 1:03:14)
Which one are they?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:15 - 1:03:49)
According to the sign here at St. John the Baptist, Swampscott Club and Swampscott Yacht Club. Is that a motion? Oh, so I would make a motion to approve the liquor license renewals as set forth in the presentation tabling the three all alcohol club licenses until next meeting.

Approval of licenses to be conditioned upon completion of the remaining items set forth in the presentation for reinspection and payment of balances. Do I have a second?

[Speaker 6] (1:03:49 - 1:03:51)
I'll second, but I have a follow-up question.

[Speaker 19] (1:03:51 - 1:03:52)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:52 - 1:04:05)
If we hold off on the all alcohol licenses until next meeting, there is no, from a timing perspective, there is no issue with these establishments getting their license in time from the ABCC?

[Speaker 4] (1:04:05 - 1:04:11)
As long as the meeting is before the end of the year. So if it's planned on the 20th, there's no issue.

[Speaker 19] (1:04:11 - 1:04:11)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:13 - 1:04:19)
Okay, I have a motion, I have a second. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (1:04:27 - 1:06:35)
Moving on to common victual licenses. So in the Community Development Office, we take care of three annual license renewals, the common victual licenses, the entertainment licenses, and the class two licenses. So common victual licenses are essentially for any establishment that has indoor and or outdoor seating.

Applications are generated by us. I actually, that's for entertainment actually, I generated a new application for the entertainment license that I distributed this year, but the common vic one is still the same as it has been. When the applications are received, I send them off to Jeff, our director of public health, to have them endorsed and then any renewed licenses will be issued to the applicant by the end of the year and they're expected to hang them on the premises and there's an annual renewal fee of 125 dollars.

So here is the list. We have 38 establishments in town that require a common victual license. Currently there are three, four that are pending in that they have not turned in their application to me, so I'm still missing an application from Bertucci's, Five Guys, and Starbucks and Renzo's Pizza on Essex Street.

It's actually, I did get an application from Bertucci's today, but I cannot consider it complete because they have not sent in their check yet. It is in the mail, so I hope to receive it by the end of the week. Five Guys and Starbucks, it's going to be a little bit of a chase because these corporate chains are a little hard to track down.

Their local store really doesn't handle licensing operations. It's usually forwarded to some sort of corporate office and it seems like there's turnover every year, so it's hard a lot of the time for me to get in touch with anybody in those offices, but I will persist. So that is essentially the gist of the common victualer licenses.

Any questions before I move on to entertainment?

[Speaker 6] (1:06:40 - 1:06:41)
Apparently I'm in charge.

[Speaker 19] (1:06:42 - 1:06:43)
Yeah, apparently you're in charge.

[Speaker 6] (1:06:46 - 1:06:53)
Does anybody have any questions? Should we take a vote on this? I see that there's all entertain a motion.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:56 - 1:06:58)
So I'm sorry, so which ones are we not voting for tonight?

[Speaker 9] (1:06:58 - 1:07:05)
We are not going to be voting for Bertucci's, Five Guys, Starbucks, or Renzo's. I hope to have all of them by the 20th.

[Speaker 11] (1:07:06 - 1:07:10)
Was it possible to take a vote pending on their return?

[Speaker 9] (1:07:11 - 1:07:14)
Contingent on? I believe that's been done in the past, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:15 - 1:07:28)
That's what we just did on the last one. So I'll move to approve these common vic licenses, contingent on the four, completing their process.

[Speaker 6] (1:07:29 - 1:07:34)
Any additional questions? All in favor?

[Speaker 9] (1:07:35 - 1:09:13)
So moving on to entertainment, so not all of our establishments having a common victualer license require an entertainment license, but a bulk of them do. I have here 15 or so establishments that have requested an entertainment license or licensed renewal, and this can range in anything from as, I guess, I don't know, low-key as background music playing in a restaurant to, you know, having a DJ or live performances at a venue. The annual renewal fee for an entertainment license is $125, and actually for the next year going forward, I'm actually looking at some comps from other municipalities in the area to see if we can establish a fee scale.

It doesn't necessarily seem fair at times to have somebody who just requires a TV or background music to pay the same fee as somebody who's having games and live music, but that's up to debate with you guys as well. I did change the application format this year. If you guys would like to see a copy of any of the licenses, I have them here, or applications, I have them here, and so these are some of the businesses that have, or these are all of the businesses that have requested an entertainment license.

I do not have any pending applications. They have all been turned in. They have all been paid for, and these are some of the entertainment forms that they are requesting, and anybody have any questions?

[Speaker 11] (1:09:15 - 1:09:31)
I have a question. If it's an outdoor, if they have indoor and outdoors, is the entertainment license cover outdoor? It does, yes.

So, and have you had any complaints from any of, any entertainment complaints from any of these establishments?

[Speaker 9] (1:09:31 - 1:10:35)
I have had some complaints about Dockside Pub. So it opened at the beginning of September, and I did have some complaints from some of the neighbors on Humphrey Street and on Blaney Terrace about the volume of the outdoor music. I did speak with the police department, and it just seemed like there was a, it just seemed like there was a mis, misconnection, we'll put it that way, that the business owner didn't realize that the volume of the indoor music was triggering the volume in the outdoor music.

He should have them on two separate systems, and so the outdoor music should be much softer in decibel level, whereas the indoor music is a little bit higher. So I want to say I received that complaint maybe beginning to mid-October, and I haven't heard anything since. It is, you know, we're in winter season, so outdoor dining isn't really happening right now, so I can't, you know, it's hard to predict whether or not that same complaint is going to arise as the warm weather picks up again next year, but that is, that is a complaint that was received.

So.

[Speaker 11] (1:10:35 - 1:11:02)
So the only issue that I have with all these, well, I'm sure they're also new, and they're gonna, it's probably gonna take a little bit of time for them to work things out. Sure. But the only issue I have is that is at 1 a.m. in the morning, and when we voted on this, I actually asked why that was 1 a.m., and the answer I received was because that's what Zest Friends was, and this week I did a little bit of research, and Zest Friends was not until 1 a.m., but until 10.

[Speaker 9] (1:11:03 - 1:11:07)
Right, I believe they had, I think 1 a.m. is what is on their liquor license, right?

[Speaker 12] (1:11:07 - 1:11:07)
Correct, yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:11:08 - 1:11:34)
So I think they just wanted the entertainment hours to reflect the, the hours on their liquor license. I don't know why they said it was the same as Zest Friends, because I do know Zest Friends finished their entertainment at 10 o'clock as well. I mean, also the nature of the establishments are very different.

Zest Friends was a cafe, this is a bar and grill, so, you know, it would make sense for a bar and grill to want to extend their entertainment to 1 a.m., and again, that's to reflect the hours on their liquor license.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:37 - 1:11:50)
Well, there's no one here saying that there was a problem, so, you know, it is a little, you know, it is a little concerning to me, but it seems like it's working out.

[Speaker 9] (1:11:50 - 1:11:53)
So there's no change.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:53 - 1:11:57)
What you're presenting us is the exact same entertainment licenses that are in place today.

[Speaker 9] (1:11:58 - 1:12:00)
With the exception of Dockside Pub as their new establishment.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:00 - 1:12:11)
No, but we did an entertainment license for Dockside Pub. Oh, right, the initial one that you approved this year, correct. The one we approved is identical to the one that's been before, so we approved live music at Dockside Pub.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:11 - 1:12:11)
You did, yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:13 - 1:12:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:13 - 1:12:29)
Would you give us the highlights of what's different on the application? Sure. So I know how well you can see.

I took out some of those questions about... The application was pretty absurd at one point, so I just want to make sure some of those things are what you removed. That's the bulk of what I took out.

[Speaker 9] (1:12:30 - 1:13:20)
I also, so license information, I asked them to select between annual, one day, or a multi-date license. Applicant information goes here, business information here. I asked them to write down their hours of operation here, signature here, and then I have this handy entertainment table.

So we have standard entertainment, which includes background music or TV, live entertainment, so dancing, DJ, karaoke, trivia, live band, and then accessory items, so arcade games, board games, a jukebox, that kind of thing. So I asked all establishments to check off what is applicable, and then if there is a number associated, like how many pieces in a live band, I asked them to mark that number too, a number of TVs, and that kind of thing. So I think it's a lot more simple.

[Speaker 6] (1:13:20 - 1:13:25)
Thank you. And current, probably. Sorry?

And current, probably.

[Speaker 5] (1:13:27 - 1:13:33)
Marissa, just a quick question. Are we actually charging the Swampsky Senior Center $125?

[Speaker 6] (1:13:33 - 1:13:35)
No, they have their fee waived.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:35 - 1:14:09)
Good, thank you. My only other question is, I still don't understand our entertainment license jurisdiction at all, right, but putting that aside, it depends on the jurisdiction, so I'm just going to keep pretending, I guess. Help me understand, so you made a statement that a lot of our common victualers also get entertainment licenses, but you don't need to have a common victualer if you need an entertainment license, correct?

There's no correlation between the two. You could actually serve no food whatsoever, but you could have entertainment as a business and an entertainment license.

[Speaker 9] (1:14:10 - 1:14:35)
I guess in theory, yes, but in our case in town here, there isn't, anybody that has an entertainment license has a common victualer license. Even like the VFW, for example, they have a common victualer license because they have a kitchen, and even though they don't necessarily cook food on the premises, they have catered events, and then they have indoor seating as well, so therefore they have a common victualer license, and then in order to have entertainment at their venue, they have an entertainment license as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:37 - 1:14:57)
So I would just ask you to take a look and try and align liquor licenses with entertainment licenses and see if anybody with a liquor license doesn't have an entertainment licensing, because I think you'll find that we don't correlate on that. All of our liquor licensees don't have victualer licenses.

[Speaker 9] (1:14:59 - 1:15:01)
Right, like some of the convenience stores, I guess, for example.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:02 - 1:15:09)
Nope, I'm going a little differently, but you'll find it. I'll do my research. I think private clubs.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:12 - 1:15:14)
I'm sorry, the private clubs do not have common victualer licenses?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:14 - 1:15:23)
I believe they don't. We have one or more private clubs that doesn't have a common victualer renewal here, but has a liquor license that doesn't have an entertainment license, and I think...

[Speaker 9] (1:15:23 - 1:15:24)
And they should.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:24 - 1:15:31)
Yeah, again, I just want to be consistent. I just want everybody to play by the same rules.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:33 - 1:15:53)
I'd make a motion to approve these entertainment licenses as proposed, and certainly, you know, Dockside seems like it's rocking, which is great, but maybe it doesn't need to continue to be careful that it's not rocking too late, too loud. But motion to approve as is.

[Speaker 19] (1:15:54 - 1:15:55)
Second.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:55 - 1:15:56)
All in favor.

[Speaker 19] (1:15:56 - 1:15:56)
Aye.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:59 - 1:16:51)
And so the last part of this presentation is the Class 2 renewals. These are for our used auto sales in town. Really no change from last year.

Last year, the only auto shop to not renew their Class 2 license was Euroline Motors on Paradise Road across from the Sitco Station, so that narrowed it down to just four seasons on Puritan and Paradise Auto Sales, the Sitco on Paradise Road, and they are the same two establishments that are renewing their licenses this year. They paid their annual fee of $125, and they are requesting the same number of cars as they did last year, six at Four Seasons and four at Paradise Sitco. And if you have any questions about inspections for that, I'm happy to pass it back to Officer Locke.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:52 - 1:16:56)
Wait, does that mean that at any given time, they're only selling four vehicles? Correct.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:58 - 1:17:02)
Oh, not really. Oh, not really.

[Speaker 6] (1:17:02 - 1:17:04)
No, I mean, I know we talked about this in years past.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:04 - 1:17:09)
Four Seasons Auto currently, I think, has 58 vehicles online for sale, if anybody wants one of the 58.

[Speaker 9] (1:17:11 - 1:17:11)
On the premises.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:12 - 1:17:40)
No, no, I understand. I understand the difference premise, but they also bring the car to the premises for servicing and conveyance. The only thing they don't do is show it on the premises, which I believe we've continued to struggle with and has been the continuous issue with neighbors because it creates a higher intensity, which is what this is about.

It's about volume and intensity. We've never gotten to the bottom of it. I'm not seeing we're doing anything differently tonight, but I'm just pointing out that they sell a lot more.

[Speaker 15] (1:17:41 - 1:17:54)
Under Master No Law, there's no regulations for when they sell cars online. That's where I believe that the higher volume of vehicles are coming and going that you're speaking of. I understand what you're saying.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:54 - 1:19:29)
Yeah, they're just transacting, though, at this premises. Historically, I think they acknowledged the last time we had an enforcement action with them that they actually do the closing. They bring the car there, they service the car, they sticker the car, they license the car, and they close on the car on premises.

You're right. The vehicle itself isn't located on premises when someone's clicking on the website and saying, I like it, but everything else about the deal is happening on premises. I'm raising it again.

I believe we're fooling ourselves when we just say we are doing 60 votes. However, I'm just again pointing out the fact that we know there's a set of facts on the ground that cause greater intensity in that use than what the license represents. To me, it actually undermines the license.

I don't even care about the license, frankly. I think this is zoning and zoning. I don't understand why state law has a separate classification process for vehicle sales licenses, but it does.

So I don't have a problem, per se, on the zoning for it. I'm just pointing out here, it's one of these things that we're voting for a license that on its face, it does not feel like it's followed. But again, we're going on many years of that at this point.

I do have another question just on Paradise Auto Sales, which is about inspection there. They have an enormous volume of cars that they're still on site. It's only gotten bigger.

Well, maybe not bigger, now that they've expanded. But I just want to make sure that we're really comfortable with the four vehicles that they're selling. I mean, they put cars everywhere.

[Speaker 15] (1:19:29 - 1:19:51)
And they've been doing service to the vehicles that you're saying, as a kind of protection to the law enforcement that we have. I'm just not in compliance for that purpose. As far as what vehicles they have on service, you might see a couple extra tickets over there because they service the vehicles from the other building.

[Speaker 5] (1:19:58 - 1:20:08)
So as for Euroline Motors, I know they didn't renew their license this year or for next year, but they're not selling automobiles out of that location?

[Speaker 6] (1:20:09 - 1:20:18)
They should not be. They're not authorized to. But there's no inspection to make sure they're not.

It's only an inspection to make sure they're following when they apply, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:20:19 - 1:20:39)
No, Sergeant Doyle went there today. She went there again. She did a triple check today to make sure before this meeting everything was in compliance.

So, I think she said that they were not, to her knowledge, selling. Obviously, they don't have a logbook there, but it didn't occur. It's not to say that they're not, but to her knowledge, they're not.

[Speaker 6] (1:20:40 - 1:20:40)
Okay, great.

[Speaker 5] (1:20:41 - 1:20:48)
Thank you. So with any other questions, comments, thoughts, motions?

[Speaker 3] (1:20:57 - 1:21:01)
I move to approve the Class 2 license renewal procedures.

[Speaker 11] (1:21:02 - 1:21:03)
Second.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:03 - 1:21:04)
All in favor?

[Speaker 19] (1:21:05 - 1:21:07)
Aye. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:11 - 1:21:19)
Sean, we had, so before we get on to our next piece of business, I think we had something that was, that we were going to address during the Town Administrative Report.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:20 - 1:24:43)
We do. Okay. I actually would like to call, well, I'd like to recognize one of our illustrious citizens, John Piccarello, for his extraordinary artwork.

John, we actually had a famous tree in Swampscot, an elm tree outside of Town Hall that, unfortunately, had to come down. And John has, you know, made a lifetime of service, and he has taken some time to recognize two of Swampscot's most dedicated employees, individuals that began their career as young men and dedicated their entire life to public service. Both Chief Madigan and Chief Green are here tonight.

I had an opportunity to work with them over the first, you know, five years of my tenure here, and frankly, I haven't worked with two finer individuals. They have really set a standard for public service. I know John doesn't like the limelight, but John, you know, you too, you know, are in that same standard of service.

You care about this community. You care about the people. You dedicate your lives to keeping them safe and supporting all the things that make this country great.

You grew up in this town. You bleed blue, as they say, and John, would you please come down and present your artwork? The idea was to actually present this to you both at town meetings, so I may have to bring you back for a celebratory round of applause, but frankly, John has fashioned these many months ago, and he has been really, you know, excited to actually present these to you, and if you would come down, and John, if you would just hold those up so folks can see those.

John, you know, you got to get mic'd up. John, just if you don't know, John Piccarello. John, how many years were you chair of the ERAC committee?

You still serve on it, but I'll say greater than two decades, and John's a veteran, but certainly, John, I never knew you were an artist. I mean, this is really a surprise to me. Any other tricks that you have?

All right, a woodworker. I'm sorry. Well, gentlemen, John has given you an opportunity to pick your vase.

I know that Chief Madigan has talked to me about finding vases in second-hand stores, so Chief, this must be a little bit of a surprise to you. You might see it on roadshows. That's great.

John, can you tell us a little bit about the tree and the wood? You need the mic. I'm sorry.

We just want to make sure everybody at home can hear you.

[Speaker 3] (1:24:46 - 1:24:52)
These are from the beech tree that was cut down at the town hall lawn on Elmwood.

[Speaker 15] (1:24:54 - 1:25:20)
I thought it was very appropriate that, as you spent many years going into that town hall for one reason or another, meetings, for any reason, that you should have a piece of that tree to remind you of those days, those meetings, those times through those doors. I hope you use it, and it's meant to be used.

[Speaker 3] (1:25:20 - 1:25:29)
It's meant to be handed down with the reason you have it and where it came from. So, please pick one and enjoy.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:50 - 1:25:56)
I think you both can give us a little speech about what it's like to be retired.

[Speaker 19] (1:26:59 - 1:27:14)
I know you missed these meetings. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:18 - 1:27:41)
Thanks, John. John Piccarello. Glad we were able to get that in.

Thanks, John. Thanks, Chiefs. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:41 - 1:27:53)
You can find John's fine craftsmanship at local craft shows, because I saw him the week before last. It won't be the beech tree from Town Hall, but you too can have a John Piccarello original.

[Speaker 19] (1:27:53 - 1:27:54)
That's great.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:54 - 1:27:55)
One more.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:55 - 1:27:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:55 - 1:27:57)
John, you just got a free plug.

[Speaker 11] (1:27:57 - 1:27:59)
Yeah, that's right. Do you have one?

[Speaker 6] (1:27:59 - 1:28:00)
I do.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:00 - 1:28:06)
I do. John, when's the next craft show for folks that may want to get a bowl of their own?

[Speaker 15] (1:28:08 - 1:28:12)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:15 - 1:28:24)
A consignment job of 60 bowls. Oh, wow. That's great.

[Speaker 6] (1:28:24 - 1:28:24)
Lovely.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:25 - 1:28:26)
All right.

[Speaker 5] (1:28:29 - 1:28:44)
All right. We're going to move on. We're going to have a discussion and possible vote of a new one-day liquor license policy.

I'll turn that over to Angelica, our one-day liquor license professional. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:54 - 1:33:00)
So the town did have, I don't know if everyone is aware, but the town did have a one-day license policy in place, but it just seemed a little bit outdated. So we were asked to put together a new policy, and this is a very first rough draft. So obviously, any questions, comments, please send them my way, because there's a lot more to put in here and to learn.

So very general, we're presenting that the applicant would complete an application, and the application would answer or ask for date, times, obviously all the general information, where the event will be, who the server is. But one thing we do want to add is a floor plan, and this will be discussed later. That's mainly for safety and security.

So we're also going to possibly change the application to be received 14 days prior to the event. That will also have to coincide with select board meetings, so we would just want to make sure that if a person sends us the application, there is an upcoming board meeting within 14 days. The fee right now is $50, and that would remain the same.

It would also require, which we do right now, we require TIP certification. It doesn't say for all servers, but I feel that it's necessary for all of the servers. Just in case someone steps away, you want to make sure the person has their TIP certification.

They also have to provide a certificate of liability, approval from the property owner, and if they are a nonprofit, we do require the 501c3 determination letter, which I believe is actually part of the ABC rules and regulations. So again, you can see the permits issued have increased since 2021. Obviously, during COVID, there wasn't many.

In 2022, we had eight, and then now we have 28 year to date with two pending. So general ABCC rules and regulations. So this all falls under MGL Chapter 138, Section 14.

The ABCC puts out a couple general rules and regulations, but they really leave it up to the LLA, which obviously is the select board in the town of Swampscott. So a few things is that the special permits are issued for one single day. We do allow a rain date.

That's obviously okay. This is the sale of wines and or malt beverages to any person or business. It's not just a restaurant.

Any individual can apply for a one day license. And this would be, so just for wines and malts, unless it is a nonprofit organization, they're allowed to serve all alcoholic beverages. I did ask the ABC.

They said it's under the law, falls under the law, but they don't know the thoughts behind the legislation. That's just what it is. So they couldn't really give me an answer.

And then a couple restrictions is that the LLA cannot issue special permits to any person or business for more than 30 calendar days per year. At that point, they would probably be in their best interest to get an annual license. And you can't have an on premise license pending.

So for example, I want an all alcoholic beverage license for such premise. I can't then apply for a one day license in the meantime. And then any premise that has an alcoholic beverage license.

The business can apply for the license, for the one day license, as long as it's not on their premise. And then one other thing is that the beverages must be purchased from an authorized source and delivered to the event. So for example, if Cafe Avellino is hosting, she can't bring alcohol, bring bottles from Cafe Avellino.

She actually has to make a special order. And that's an ABCC rule and we have been enforcing that because I know the events on Town Hall Lawn, they've delivered alcohol. Are there any questions?

[Speaker 3] (1:33:01 - 1:33:23)
Yeah, actually, I just for your sake, everyone's sake, I mean, I know I've read through the detail policy. I don't want you to have to feel like you have to go through every slide. I mean, I don't know about the rest of the board.

If people had a chance to read the actual policy, if we have questions, ready to move on, or if we need to kind of go through each slide.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:25 - 1:34:08)
I think the only major changes to point out is that the board wanted to put in some more safety and security in our policy. So obviously we want to display the license, check identification, and I think one of the few new things is utilizing wristbands or stamps. So it would be something similar to that for age verification.

And then the beverage sales are limited, and the beverages have to be open, the alcohol has to remain within the designated areas. I know obviously that kind of goes without saying, but that's not listed in our policy. Now it will be.

Obviously, MGL, and I think that's it. Are there any questions or any edits that we want to add?

[Speaker 1] (1:34:09 - 1:34:11)
Can I just ask, where is our current policy posted?

[Speaker 4] (1:34:12 - 1:34:15)
It should be on the website. I have it. I could e-mail it to you.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:15 - 1:34:40)
Like all these things, what happens is I think we do these things and we have them, but we haven't. Again, it's somewhat the fault of the template that we use for our town website. But if we can just find a way to make sure this is one of those things that someone was to just use the search bar on our website and say liquor license and just do liquor license, that policy in addition to anything else, applications for anything having to do with liquor show up, that would be great.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:40 - 1:34:47)
We started that. It's still pending. We haven't finished it, but hopefully this will be the last portion of it.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:48 - 1:34:48)
Great.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:49 - 1:35:00)
I really appreciate it, Angelica, that you've kind of seen this through and pulled this all together. It looks like it's much improved from what we had before. Do I hear a motion?

[Speaker 19] (1:35:01 - 1:35:03)
Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (1:35:04 - 1:35:39)
What does enforcement look like in the policy? As far as, like, for example, I know we say everything has to be open, right? But we've all been to events where, you know, the handy-two-beers and one's not open.

And, you know, everything's supposed to stay in that fenced-in area, but we've all been to events where, you know, there are obviously people either, you know, outside of the fenced-in area and, like, yes, well, maybe no harm has come from that. But, like, there's also a policy for a reason, right, to prevent harm from happening.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:39 - 1:36:36)
So what's the… I think this would probably be the next step with the police and fire chief to talk about things that we can implement. I know that certain events don't necessarily warrant having a police detail there.

But if the officer is there, I think, though, that they're mostly there for security measures, not ensuring. So that's probably something that maybe I could look into and ask other towns what they do. We did add in a section to the policy that says if they do violate, the board has to…so the police and fire have the discretion to stop the event right there if something serious occurs.

And then the select board has the authority to not give them another. So maybe just having that in the policy stating, maybe that will help to not have that.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:36 - 1:36:47)
Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think that's a good idea to just explore how to… I don't think it should slow this down, but I think it should be additive, like make sure the chiefs are comfortable with how they feel like they can enforce or not.

[Speaker 19] (1:36:48 - 1:36:48)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:49 - 1:37:03)
I just feel like if people think there are no consequences, then the policy is great, but they won't really stick to it. And if we sort of reinforce like there are ramifications, if you don't and this is what they could be, then hopefully people will tell the lie.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:09 - 1:37:18)
I'd make a motion to approve the revised one-day liquor license policy. Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (1:37:18 - 1:37:18)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:20 - 1:37:21)
Thanks, Angelica.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:21 - 1:37:31)
And, Angelica, if we could maybe put it on like a two- or three-year cycle to just look at these things more frequently. That way maybe we can revisit it in a couple years.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:32 - 1:37:33)
Mr. Town Administrator.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:33 - 1:37:35)
Mr. Town Administrator.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:35 - 1:37:48)
Yes, we can certainly do that. We can date this, just put a date on the form, and then we'll circle back around every year, but we'll do it every three years because we talk about this every year.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:48 - 1:37:48)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:48 - 1:37:51)
When you started that, Katie, I thought you were going to say it every two or three months.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:52 - 1:37:53)
Oh, no, no, that's not necessary.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:54 - 1:38:16)
I do think there are going to be every year we'll probably learn a little thing or two about how we can improve it, and so I think every year when we talk about it, it will be good to kind of just bring this out and make sure that we're mitigating risk and just ensuring that all these events are safe. Thanks again, Angelica. Thank you.

Thanks, Angelica.

[Speaker 5] (1:38:17 - 1:38:25)
Yeah, we'll move on. Discussion and vote on the fiscal year 24 tax rate classification, and we have members.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:25 - 1:40:19)
Mr. Chair, can I ask a question about this? So my understanding is that we didn't notice a public hearing on this, so this is actually not our classification hearing. Am I correct on that?

That's correct. So we're going to be doing this again informally on the 20th of December, which in light of that, I would just ask that maybe we limit tonight because we have to go through this and do this all again. I would just ask that perhaps we limit this to the very abbreviated version and post this material online so residents can see this in advance of the 20th and see this material here just because this is an hour-long presentation and with questions, and we're going to be doing the exact same thing in two weeks.

I thought that tonight was going to be the night, but I understand that it wasn't noticed, so it's not our public hearing on this. Yeah, the thought is that we're going to be meeting on the 11th before town meetings. Why are we doing it on the 11th?

Why can't we do the classification on the 20th? And we've done this before. We've gone to town meeting and said town meeting.

We need to have enough conversation tonight to get comfortable with what's being recommended at town meeting. If we need to go through an hour and a half of it, that's awesome. Again, we're going to have to do the exact same thing in a public hearing on the 11th.

Peter, we went through this presentation earlier, and we were like, we can get through this. Do you want to give me a time and we can clock it and see? Because I've never seen you hit the times you've offered me.

I'm taking the over 100%. I will say – Amy's taking the over as well. Order.

Amy's doing it, but it's the under if it's Amy. I can get my material done in less than a minute. I'm not trying to shortcut the presentation here, but having sat through this presentation, it is extremely dense, and I don't also want to purposely be fast to go over it.

We're going to have a couple of bites at this apple, so I hear you.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:19 - 1:40:25)
I get a process question. This is a curveball for me. What's the thing about the hearing?

[Speaker 19] (1:40:26 - 1:40:26)
How does that work?

[Speaker 11] (1:40:27 - 1:40:30)
It has to be in public. It has to be a public hearing.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:30 - 1:40:46)
You open up a hearing. Here's my question. But we do have, as you said, we have a special town meeting on Monday, so you seem to have some way around the fact that we have a discussion tonight, town meeting on Monday, and then a hearing after?

[Speaker 1] (1:40:46 - 1:41:20)
So let me tell you what my – I'm going to tell you what my special way is, is that in a past year or years, the Select Board has indicated and supported a recommendation of the use of free cash to offset tax levy. That ultimately allowed the FinCom to talk and have a conversation before the 11th. We don't actually have to vote on our classification hearing.

We can actually vote on our classification hearing after town meeting appropriates it, because it's just subject to us then doing the classification, which uses that amount. So that's why I can go out of sequence. I cannot answer the question as to why we're not having a public hearing tonight.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:20 - 1:41:59)
So I have to turn that over to the – In prior years, we've had several meetings, preliminary review of values before the Board got comfortable in terms of what amount of free cash to allocate to offset the levy, or just get comfortable with the values. So this is a dense presentation, a lot of information, a lot of historical data. And so generally, we're giving this presentation for the public, but also the Board.

And so we want everybody to kind of be aware this is how we set taxes, this is how we budget, this is how we trend in terms of, you know, the county, but also peer communities. So there's a lot of analysis involved.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:01 - 1:42:29)
So, I mean, I'm, you know, I've dug into this. I get this. I imagine all my fantastic fellow Board members have done the same.

So I'm just trying to, to Peter's point, we certainly want this to be educational for the town as well. If we go through it in detail tonight, do we actually need to do it again for the hearing? Can we do one or the other?

[Speaker 2] (1:42:30 - 1:43:01)
We can do whatever the Board likes. I do think it's helpful to kind of go through, you know, just the changes in value, get a sense of, you know, where we stand, you know, in that historical perspective in terms of levy, and then, you know, get a sense of where the budget is and where our reserve funding levels are. We can probably do all that in 30 minutes if we get to it, you know.

And then we can do it, you know, an abbreviated version of that.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:02 - 1:43:06)
Does the presentation need to happen in public meeting?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:07 - 1:43:08)
I'm sorry, hearing.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:08 - 1:43:12)
I'm sorry, public hearing, sorry. Does the presentation have to happen in public hearing?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:12 - 1:43:16)
When the Board votes the values, that has to be a public hearing.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:16 - 1:43:23)
No, no, that's not the question. Does the presentation that's about to occur that's going to be over an hour have to occur in a public hearing?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:24 - 1:43:26)
No, this is an update.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:26 - 1:43:28)
So we don't have to do it twice.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:28 - 1:44:56)
Right, but I think, so look at, I can count on one hand probably the number of people who have come to our classification hearings, but part of the reason they come to is because there's a mass general law that requires public notification for a public hearing, and that's why mass general law requires that, right? It's kind of like the hear ye, hear ye, we're setting your taxes, show up and complain or cheer. So I don't know, have we noticed that?

Is that notice for the 11th? The 11th right before town meeting certainly does not seem like a time that we're really honestly welcoming people 10 minutes before we're going to vote on it to tell us their opinions. So I'm just, there just seems to be a lot of, again, I get it, a lot of moving things going on here, but it just, I want to live to the spirit, even though I can count on one hand the number of people who have come, just because I think it's important.

And because, by the way, this ain't good news. Right, on top of it all, this ain't good news. And so, anyways, let's go, whatever the under is, I'm taking the under if Amy's doing the presentation.

And I don't want it, my comments shouldn't diminish at all the amount of work that our assessing team has to do in this, and I really am grateful for all the work. I understand that there may be, that Board of Assessors may need to do some other things that haven't done, I don't know, but I do appreciate staff's efforts to date on this, so please don't infer my remarks as diminishing the importance of what you all do. It's more about trying to be a little bit more efficient, but we've now used 10 minutes talking about saving 10 minutes, so perhaps I've no longer been efficient.

So, it's whatever the chair thinks, Eugene. Thanks, Peter. Thanks.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:58 - 1:44:58)
Amy.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:01 - 1:45:06)
What is the time? Because I am taking the under. Your time is up.

[Speaker 10] (1:45:09 - 1:45:33)
30? Okay. All right.

No questions. And you can also save them for the public hearing. Thank you.

Jane, you can skip this slide too. No, you guys can, I don't want to pretend like I can do assessing.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:34 - 1:45:38)
I do want to take a moment to thank the chair of the school committee for staying. Thank you.

[Speaker 10] (1:45:44 - 1:46:39)
So, we will be providing an overview of the values changes, yearly trends, and comparisons, as well as an FY 23-24 budget review, as well as reviewing the next steps. The overview of the process was the Board of Assessors determines the assessed values. The board was scheduled to approve values on November 20th.

Both were completed on November 27th. The assessing department is also responsible for determining new growth. New growth in all, in the budget, all plans are determining the levy.

The board, at your discretion, can allocate a portion of the levy to residential properties and on to commercial, industrial, and personal property through the shift. You guys know how to read, so. So, I will defer to Cheryl, our assessor, as well as Dick Simmons, our former assessor, to actually talk about values on the next slide.

[Speaker 16] (1:46:41 - 1:48:28)
So, the first slide is an overview of comparing 23 values to 24 values. Noteworthy here is most residential property is up about 9%. Commercial is less, it's about 6%.

I'll skim over that. If anybody has any questions, you can stop me. Next slide.

Next slide. It is commercial, industrial, and personal property values. Overall, there's a 45% increase since 2019.

This is the market as a whole. It's not unique to Swanscot. Next slide.

Residential values. Again, as mentioned earlier, there's about a 9% increase over last year's values. Comparison here going back to 2019.

Median assessed values for condominiums, the 24 median assessed values was 401,100. For single families, it's 750,700. For multi-families, we're at 740,000.

And commercial-industrial combined is 649,800, and those are median. Next slide. Average assessed values, they show similar increases as median values.

I won't spare you reading those off. Next slide. New growth.

New growth is down a lot from 23. I've talked to some of our other, our peer towns, neighbors, and it seems like new growth is down across the board for many towns.

[Speaker 3] (1:48:30 - 1:48:32)
That reflects half a year, correct, or no?

[Speaker 16] (1:48:33 - 1:48:34)
No, it's a full year.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:35 - 1:48:36)
Okay.

[Speaker 11] (1:48:37 - 1:48:40)
This is all equal time? Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:42 - 1:48:47)
Everything's a full fiscal year. Keep in mind the years, the time period that new growth applies to for fiscal year 24.

[Speaker 16] (1:48:50 - 1:49:31)
From Patriot Properties, one of the biggest contributors to the decline from last year to this year is last year was White Court, which is about $38 million project. So there aren't, you know, during COVID, there was quite a bit of building going on, and those seemed to finish around 22, 23. There wasn't anything that really finished in 23, and there's a few things in the pipeline, but basically it is what it is, and we're not alone in this.

Next slide. Skip this. Next.

Amy.

[Speaker 10] (1:49:33 - 1:50:20)
So this slide is just an overview of the average single-family tax bill from 2014 to 2023, a comparison of Swanscot to Essex County. So in 2014, we were about 38% higher than Essex County, and we are current. As of last year, we're only 13% higher, so we were coming closer to Nexus.

Next slide. This is an overview of the average single-family values from 2014 to 2023. Swanscot is outpacing Essex County.

It was a smaller delta back in 2014, and it is about a 16% delta in 2023. Next slide. Mr. County Administrator, do you still want to talk on this slide?

[Speaker 2] (1:50:20 - 1:53:45)
You know, sure. Over the last 10 years, we've seen a significant reduction in the variance between the average single-family tax bill and the Swanscot. We got as close as $690 higher than the average.

Last year, our taxes went up due to the debt service in the new school, and so we're about a little bit over $1,100 higher than the average of Essex County. Next slide. So we've looked at peer communities.

This is a group of peer communities we've been looking at over the last six years. They have similar real estate characteristics of Swanscot, Rockport, Winthrop, Hamilton, Hull, Newburyport, Scituate, Manchester-by-the-Sea. We could grab any number of them, but we wanted to get a sense, how do we stack up, not just to the county, but communities that have similar demographics?

So next slide. You can see, you know, we've been as high as 10% higher, but over the last six years, we've come down from 8% to 5% higher to 4% higher to 2% higher to literally less than 1% higher. So what does that tell us?

That tells us that we are right within a group of peer communities. So while we may have a high average single-family tax bill, we are within our peer communities. Next slide.

This is the average single-family tax bill against our peer communities. So we're as high as 29% higher. It's come down to about 3% higher.

That gives us another indication that we've moved more towards the middle. This isn't a race to, you know, make Swanscot most affordable or, you know, the least expensive community. We're trying to get to some sense of balance.

A lot of hard work has gone into this. This is revising every single contract we've had in town, really looking carefully at every bottom line and managing expenses as carefully as we possibly can. You know, here's the next slide.

Everybody talks about Marblehead. You know, a few years ago, Marblehead historically had a much lower average single-family tax bill than Swanscot. Over the last few years, Swanscot actually has become a little bit more affordable than Marblehead.

And so a lot of that has to do with how we've really reformatted our budget. We went to a number of years of zero-based budgeting. We really looked at, how do we make Swanscot a little bit more affordable?

We're not that much less expensive than Marblehead, but every little bit helps. Next slide. Conversely, commercial taxes, you know, we see it's a lot more expensive to own a business in Swanscot.

We pay as much as 53% more. Unfortunately, that's just a relationship to the size of our town geographically. We don't have a lot of land, and it's just a lot more expensive to own a business in Swanscot.

We look at the next slide. The average commercial industrial tax bill, significantly higher. It's been as high as 78%.

Right now it's about 64% higher than the average of Essex County. It's a lot more expensive to own a business in Swanscot. I don't know how we change that, but it's just important that we recognize that fact.

Well, Sean, what's the average shift in Essex County?

[Speaker 1] (1:53:45 - 1:53:47)
1.75 is the answer. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:53:49 - 1:54:23)
Well, Peter, like, we thought that we could maybe drop it down to 1.75, 1.65 to give small businesses or give our business community some help. We didn't see that that actually attributed to any additional economic development for the town. I think it's better for us to kind of look at ways that the town can actually support economic development by funding, you know, $100,000 to look at Vinton Square or looking at community and economic development and making investments in, you know, how the streetscape on Humphrey Street looks.

You know, there are other ways to help businesses.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:23 - 1:54:35)
I was just responding to your why is commercial so expensive here is they are taxed at 1.75 times. I'm just saying, and so I'm answering the question because that actually is the reason. It is.

[Speaker 2] (1:54:36 - 1:54:49)
But, yeah, and some communities don't have a split. Marblehead doesn't have a split. But generally, you know, these businesses do place burdens on communities.

And I know there's a philosophy out there that thinks, you know, some people think that there should be a single rate.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:49 - 1:55:31)
I disagree, given the... I hear you, but the only reason I'm answering the question is because, again, in the long version of this discussion, the long version would say, well, let's go back and look at that Marblehead comp, which I hate the comp to begin with, but fine, let's look at it. They don't have a split.

If they had a split, then tell me what Marblehead's average single-family tax bill would be, because then you would see something. If you're going to use true dollars, it's a very different story. I'm just saying that they've made a value choice, we've made a value choice, right?

And every community is going to do it differently here. So I just want to just own that it's been like that for 20-plus years, and we only recently came down to 1.7, but I know your recommendation includes a recommendation to go back up to 1.75. So I'm just saying we're...

[Speaker 3] (1:55:31 - 1:55:39)
Well, there's other things going on in this. I thought we were letting the presentation happen right now and asking questions. No, look, it's...

[Speaker 2] (1:55:40 - 1:56:10)
So we're on the next slide. So this is the average, like you can see over the years, it's been as high as $16,000 more, you know, 10 years ago, and now we're back up to 16. Last year, we were at 17.

It's a little lower this year based on some changes in valuation. So next portion of this presentation is over to our finance team, Amy Sorrow and Patrick Luddy. You have five minutes.

[Speaker 12] (1:56:10 - 1:56:12)
You're taking up more of my time. All right.

[Speaker 10] (1:56:12 - 1:56:33)
The tax policy, we have five major components of the tax policy, setting the budget, estimating our local receipts, any small business exemptions and residential exemptions, the application of any free cash reserves to mitigate the tax increases, which is Monday's town meeting, and the split tax rate, which is the shift that was just being discussed. Next slide. I'm going to turn this over to our session.

[Speaker 14] (1:56:34 - 1:58:09)
So the next few slides are just highlights of how we come up with the tax rates, all that boils down to. First, we tally all the appropriations that town meeting has made since we last set the tax rate. Next slide.

Then we account for our state assessments. It's primarily MBTA assessments and assessments related to charter school tuitions compared to last year. These charges are $90,000 higher.

Next slide. This slide tallies up all of the revenue that needs to be raised in total to cover the appropriations and the charges. Next slide.

Then we have to account for our expenses. So state aid comes right off the top. Excuse me.

I got that backwards. State aid reduces the levy. That's a revenue source.

Primarily, that's going to be our unrestricted government aid and our Chapter 70 aid for education, and this is up $305,000 versus last year. Next slide. Then we compute our local receipts estimates based on what we've seen in the last six months since the fiscal year began, what we've seen over the last three to five fiscal years, and identify what we can count on as a revenue source conservatively beyond our property tax levy.

Next slide. Then we tally all that up, and we compute the net estimated levy. And then I'm going to turn it back over to Amy to talk about our reserves.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:10 - 1:58:30)
I just asked, is there a slide in here that shows us what we budget compared to your reforecasted numbers that we understand? And I apologize, I don't see it. But you've made some reforecasting assumptions Yes.

But I don't see the budget in here, so I don't know what you come off with, so it doesn't tell me the assumptions you've made. Is there a slide? I'm just wondering.

[Speaker 10] (1:58:30 - 1:58:32)
There's not, but I can make one for you before the public hearing.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:32 - 1:58:42)
Yeah, if we can please have one, just to understand. It just helps us understand how aggressive or not, or what's the reason you're making such an assumption. It will just give us a check of that.

[Speaker 10] (1:58:42 - 1:59:54)
Yes, the slide 26 does show the FY23 budget to actual, but yes, I will get you that for our public hearing. Thanks. So our free cash certification, we were certified at 3.7. You see it reflected here as 3,000,000,585 because that's net of the opioid money that is reserved for that appropriation. Our financial policy that was adopted has a maintenance of three to 5% of the operating budget in free cash. This currently has us at 5.11% prior to any uses. On the next slide is an overview of our other financial reserves.

So our general stabilization and capital stabilization were building up since 2016. We utilized a portion of both of those last year. The financial policy indicates nine to 10% for the general stabilization and two to 4% for capital stabilization.

As of right now, both of those are slightly below the low end of the threshold. Just due to last year, they were voted down to the low end. New budget got appropriated.

That's how percentages run. That's girl math.

[Speaker 12] (1:59:55 - 1:59:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:56 - 1:59:57)
Next slide.

[Speaker 14] (2:00:01 - 2:01:44)
So we're going to touch on quickly the new school debt. We made our first payments on the new school in fiscal 23. Going back to the origination of the project before it was approved, we extensively modeled the tax impact that that may have to the residents and the businesses.

So this is just a snapshot of that original model based on those assumptions, and I'm going to walk through what's changed since. Next slide. To recap, the initial bond issued for the school construction project was done in March of 22, and that was done front-loaded to address the interest rate risk the markets have risen since then, and it's much more costly to borrow now.

So that was what the finance committee and the select board urged us to do, and we did that successfully. So that's the position we're in now. We're servicing that debt.

Next slide. And as part of the original conversation about the school, we determined that we were going to strive within our financial means to manage the impact to taxpayers specifically pegged to the median single-family home tax bill as our kind of guideline, and there's a calculation here that we've shared previously last fiscal year and when we originally modeled that shows just that. So essentially the calculation is saying that if we use approximately $980,000 of one-time funds, we would be able to get that impact down, maintain that impact to the $300, which is what came online last year when we began paying the debt because it's level debt.

So that's the summary of that piece. Next slide. And I'm going to turn it back over to Amy.

[Speaker 10] (2:01:47 - 2:02:56)
So as you're aware, last year at the recommendation of the finance committee and select board, the town meeting voted to apply $1 million to general stabilization, $320,000 of capital stabilization, and $1.25 of free cash to reduce the tax rate. This year the town administration and finance team is recommending a 1.75 shift as well as $1 million in free cash to maintain that $300 median single-family tax impact. Next slide.

This is just an overview of everything that's happening and everything we have to do. So we're meeting today. Monday we have town meeting to have the vote to appropriate money from free cash to offset the debt service.

We'll have the classification hearing as well as the board of assessors has another meeting tomorrow to make an amended vote on the evaluations. We will be submitting to DOR. And as of right now, it's taking about three days for them to turn that around to us once it's submitted in anticipation of getting our tax bills issued by January 1st.

[Speaker 11] (2:02:58 - 2:03:07)
With that assumption of using the million and going to 1.75, what does that leave us with our ratios on the stabilization?

[Speaker 10] (2:03:08 - 2:03:29)
The stabilization wouldn't be touched because that's only free cash that would be utilized in the recommendation. So it would still leave our general stabilization at 8.84%, capital stabilization at 1.97, and that would bring the free cash to 3.69%, which is still within the recommendation. And it would leave about 480,000 available to appropriate for whatever other uses.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:30 - 2:03:30)
How much?

[Speaker 10] (2:03:31 - 2:03:32)
480,000.

[Speaker 3] (2:03:34 - 2:03:37)
To get down to the 3% thing.

[Speaker 10] (2:03:37 - 2:03:46)
You would in fact have 2.585 to act left, but 480 to stay within the policy.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:46 - 2:03:57)
Can you just remind me what we spent last year in town meeting for free cash? 1.25. No, no, not for this. For non-tax offset purposes, what did we use in free cash?

[Speaker 10] (2:03:57 - 2:04:16)
We used 300,000 to establish a special education stabilization fund. We used just under 5,000 for prior year bills, and we used... Nope, that was it.

20 minutes.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:18 - 2:04:18)
Not bad.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:21 - 2:04:29)
Yeah, we had a preamble of 10 minutes. And the current shift is 1.7?

[Speaker 10] (2:04:29 - 2:04:30)
1.7 was last year's shift.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:32 - 2:05:04)
And when it shows difference versus 2023 on this last slide, with the recommended line... I'm on this slide. Or this one.

With the yellow stripe in it. And we talk about the difference being $573. That's a combination of the 300 for the school plus normal increase, which is why it's not 300, it's 573.

[Speaker 10] (2:05:04 - 2:05:09)
Correct, the values of the homes went up. That's a benefit to the homeowners.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:15 - 2:05:41)
And can you just give us the numbers, at least for us, maybe for everybody, that brings the free cash ratio down to 3.6? 3.69. 3.69. And the stay within policy, which is 3% at the low end of the range, that still leaves how much, theoretically?

[Speaker 10] (2:05:41 - 2:05:42)
$481,000.

[Speaker 5] (2:05:56 - 2:06:15)
So since we did not notice this as a hearing, perhaps we can take a straw poll, or at least share our thoughts individually so we can provide some input for FinCom leading up to their meeting tomorrow.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:15 - 2:06:21)
Is it possible even that we can vote about the free cash?

[Speaker 1] (2:06:22 - 2:12:11)
Well, I guess we can vote free cash, that's just a yes. Yes, I guess we can vote free cash. But we'd have to, yes.

So let me just say, my only point in saying this is a longer presentation is it's really, this meeting is the one time a year where we soup to nuts, help our huge ratings, all the people that are watching us, but truly that we go through soup to nuts, everything about our finances to be able to explain why we are where we are tax-wise. And Amy, you did a great job doing it quickly, but we gave everybody the 400 level course, not the 100 level course. And every year we sit through the 100 level course because it's not just for us, and I know we're the board and it is for us, but really, frankly, it's the only, this is the only meeting a year, the reclassification meeting, is actually the only meeting where soup to nuts.

I mean, my first meeting is the first year that I started to learn, like that was my building blocks. But so I do, I want us to figure out how to correct that. Tonight's not gonna be the night to correct that, but I think it's really important because there's a lot of, even the slides going by fast, people are gonna say, wait a minute, why is my property going up?

You know, we don't talk about, we have the assessor here, and we have like very knowledgeable people, and we don't spend the time talking about how we assess properties, and why do we have so many residential neighborhoods for classifications or things of that nature when other towns don't have that many classifications. And we get into some nitty gritty that really relates to, frankly, how people's properties are taxed, and explains, and usually explains why, it explains a negative away, or at least gives you information to understand why a negative exists. A lot of times in this community, because of that.

And so I just, I want us to find a time, Mr. Chairman, to go back to be able to do this, because even these exemptions, we should be having an hour and a half conversation just on new growth. Just on new growth. This is the lowest new growth we've had in a decade.

Right, just on new growth. And if you look at our peer communities on new growth, you're gonna see no one close to us in the negative, right? Now that's, I believe the point, it's because we don't have a big project.

But if one big project can affect us to that degree in new growth, it just, it shouldn't, it should scare anybody. It should highlight a vulnerability of our budget that we should not be just doing one slide on. And I'm just using it to be illustrative.

I don't want to talk now for an hour and a half on new growth, but I'm just, that vulnerability should scare people. I mean, I went through this page where you have all the peer communities, and I went on to Gateway, and I wrote what they are. And one community, Rockport, is down 35% on new growth.

But no, we're down 70. I mean, to be clear. We're down, down.

And no one else is close to that. And so, obviously in those communities, we'll learn things. Winthrop's up 200%, right?

I'm guessing we're gonna be able to point to projects, right, about those things. But also, what's our building permit situation? To really understand how we're capturing value.

And again, it's the assessor's role, and the board of assessor's role, to go through and make the valuations. So I'm not questioning what the valuations are. I think we should have light and air on how valuations are done, and how we capture new growth.

So when we have these building permits, right, our commercial building permits, I mean, sorry, our commercial new value is $60,000 a share. That means for all the commercial properties here, first time increase of value based on building permits, let's just say for lack of a better phrase, is only $60,000 of value. We have an equalized value of 100 and something million dollars of what's our residential equalized value?

Sorry, our commercial equalized value for the commercial assessment, do you guys remember? Anyways, the point is, it's in here. It's pittance, right?

$60,000 of new growth on commercial. Now there's been prior years where we've had $100,000, and there's other years where we have $3 million and $5 million. It's not to put into question the numbers.

It's more to explain the numbers, because it is really super complicated. And when we have starts of meetings where we have the school committee, understandably, and the chairwoman come before us and say, hey, lookit, we're going to need help. Like, she's right.

We're five to nothing on helping. Like, it's not a question of that. It's just that it's literally Jenga.

It's literally that. And so I think us spending the time on this process in particular just lays the groundwork. When we've spent it in town meeting, when we've given a financial tutorial, without it being pedantic, to town meeting, I think it's helped.

I think it's helped people understand and have them have confidence saying good times and bad times. They may not understand everything, but they're at least building confidence in our financial team. They're building confidence in our finance committee, our assessors, and just to know the seriousness in which we're having these conversations.

So that's my only point about the length of them, because this is like eight topics in one, and I use new growth as an example, but that is something we should be – we can't fix it tonight. As long as there's no errors in it, we can't fix it tonight. But that should scare the bejesus out of us, because we thought we were being conservative collectively when we created this guideline to say it was safe to assume $425,000.

But now we have a $200,000-plus deficit here. So anyways, I've said enough, but I just ask us to find those times and spaces, because I think we lose an opportunity to really – for us to think critically and debate and challenge each other, but also to share information with the assessor, with the financial team who do so much, and I appreciate the chair of the finance committee is here tonight, and he spends so much time on this as well, to just share that dialogue publicly, because it will explain some of the later conversations on why we can't do everything the school department wants to do or the police department wants to do or the fire department. It does explain that or explains the choices we have to make in order to do that.

[Speaker 6] (2:12:12 - 2:12:17)
I know you said you didn't want to spend an hour and a half on new growth, but I have additional commentary on new growth.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:17 - 2:12:18)
You can say that. Go for it.

[Speaker 6] (2:12:21 - 2:13:02)
So as you said in the beginning, it felt a little dire, right, what we were going to talk about today. And when I looked at new growth, I thought, well, is it an outlier, or is this the expectation going forward? And so there was a very small sentence at the end of slide 32 where you say new growth is expected to exceed budget expectations in two- through five-year time frame, and then you gave us some ideas of where it might come from.

But what do those projections really look like? Because we know what Elm Place is going to offer us, right, and we know what the Glover Residence is meant to look like, maybe not these last other ones. So what is the expectation of new growth going forward?

[Speaker 18] (2:13:02 - 2:14:35)
There is some reason for hope. But as our building inspector said to me when I queried him about new growth and about new permits, he said, look, we're largely built out. We're not going to expand.

God's not making any more swamps good. So we have to live with that reality too. 21 Elm Street is going to be a lifesaver over the next couple of years, but that will be over a couple of years.

It won't be all at once. And then General Glover, that's going to be another possible lifesaver. But once those are gone, we're pretty much built out.

There's not much more that we can do. The unfortunate thing, or the fortunate thing, is that new growth is an automatic override to Proposition 2.5. And that's great as long as you have a lot of new growth. If you don't, it doesn't mean anything.

One interjection I might want to make, just having been an assessor in several communities in the Commonwealth, usually classification hearing or classification discussion is the only item that's covered in the evening. And I think that would give you more time, and us more time, to explain what we're doing, how we've done it, and where we're going. And I would encourage the town to set aside an evening for classification and have that be the only subject.

[Speaker 19] (2:14:35 - 2:14:38)
I agree. Thank you for that.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:39 - 2:16:33)
On the other hand, I actually believe that doing what you just did is much clearer. We can drill down, and there may be a few people out there that really want to understand the depths of the assessing process to understand how their taxes are calculated. But the overarching mathematics here, you told a quick story, which I think is more easily understood.

And one of the central tenets, I think, here that we're trying to address is really keeping faith with the promise that I understand was made about building the new school and what we were going to do for people's property taxes. And that is, it seems to me, kind of the larger story that we're basically telling here. And that is the choice that I think really is in front of us.

And you've made a recommendation about the path. We are fortunate to be in a position to be able to keep faith with that promise, as I understand it. There's other questions, other options, many, many other options, what one could choose to do with the excess free cash.

I'm sure we all could come up with different ideas about that. But I wasn't here, really, when that kind of promise was made. But that's kind of the general frame that I'm operating in right now, is that that is the first kind of order of decision that we need to make.

Because as soon as you make that decision, clearly there's not really much else to talk about. So that's my perspective on it right now. But I'm definitely very interested to hear whether or not there's a much larger picture that other people are seeing for this conversation.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:37 - 2:20:57)
I appreciate you saying that, and it's a good reminder of the clarity that maybe comes through in this presentation, because admittedly some of us may be a little bit more PTSD, if you will, on taxes at the moment here, to be honest with you. I just want to give you an example, though, that I think we are living up to our commitment about offsetting the increase of the school. But in the prior years before we had the school, we were still offsetting taxes by using reserves and free cash.

This year we're not. This year we're using the entire amount functionally just to live up to the bargaining of the school. And so does that really mean that we're living up to the bargaining of the school?

And one may say, well, no, we've just taken money and saying, this money is going to the school, but now we're not giving money to all the other stuff that built up our taxes. And so I actually thought we were going to have, and I think when we were talking about reserve guidelines and things like that, I don't think the assumption was automatically this was all going to be free cash for the school. I think there was probably a school of thought, and not necessarily agreement, but a school of thought that the commitment on the school would actually require us to go into some of our reserves, some of our internal stabilization, because we had such big stabilizations, right?

Not just use free cash, use some of the stabilizations. And actually, if we go back to some of the presentations that the finance team did, we actually talked about how much would we need to use, and it wasn't just free cash, right? And so what's happening this year is that we're making decisions, and again, I'm not critical of the decision at all.

I'm just pointing out the discussion that we're not having, right, which is we are living to the spirit, I think, of it, but I think we're just taking it from one thing and putting it to somewhere else, as opposed to having it be additive. And so I think there's at least a dialogue to be able to say, should it be additive? 1.25 is great, because that's what we needed to offset the school bond payment above 300, you know, for the median single-family home owner. Do we want to apply anything else, and can we apply anything else? And I think, to me, we've benefited in the past, and I'm looking at the chair of the finance committee, but before he was a chair and while he's been chair, we've just benefited by having those roll-up-the-sleeves conversations about saying, should we be doing something more? And I feel as though we're, again, without judgment, I'm short-cutting that here, and we're going to go and we're going to make a decision on Monday night.

And, you know, I think there's, again, just a lot of conversation. I hear you tonight, what we're going to do, but I just want to point out to you that that dynamic, because I think there's a real conversation for us to have about the guidelines in general. It's not holistically, do we follow the guidelines, do we not follow the guidelines?

There's eight different elements in those things. There's certain things we'd be able to say, hey, this is an opportunity now where we should be looking at maybe dropping our general stabilization because X, Y, Z, because we want free cash. And why do we want free cash?

Because we also know that this upcoming town meeting, we have 480,000 before we go over that number, and we want to protect that number more. Why do we want to protect that number more? Because free cash can be used much more, in the spirit of free cash, free cash can be used more generously for almost anything, not operating but non-recurring expenses, whereas the stabilization accounts, the purpose of those were really like rainy day emergency, specifically you woke up one day and said these funds are going to be put aside for this purpose, whereas free cash can be, hey, I have an idea, right, and do that, so to speak. And so I think there's a big policy. I just don't want us to get, and I don't think we are, I just don't want us to get away from those policy conversations and the collaboration with FinCom that came to the guidelines because I think that collaboration was really important.

We're not all like-minded people, but we sat in the room and we saw the same data, and we listened to the numbers, and we listened to the financial team, and we all came to some conclusions, and I'm confident that even with the change of memberships, that spirit, that collaboration still results in the benefits that gets us a $100 million elementary school, something we had to do, right, and gets us a fully funded school budget, which is what we have to do. But that takes a lot of hard work and rolling up the sleeves and conversations like this, and respectfully, not a lot of time at a microphone lecturing people. It's the hard work for us to do here, and I just want to make sure that we're, we just got to find our way back to it, Sean, because it feels like we are moving fast.

But this is, again, we have a time meeting on Monday, but I feel as though we're skipping over some really important conversations, so I just wanted to...

[Speaker 2] (2:20:57 - 2:23:19)
So, Peter, I hear you, and I just want to say, like, we probably spend the most amount of time noodling this classification presentation out of all the other presentations, because over the last five years, we've looked at all the historical data. We have this all baked in, and it's baked into our mindset. We sit down and talk about all of the town's finances.

We look at our categorical place with all the other cities and towns. We try to figure out, you know, are we spending money as wisely and as prudently as possible? There is a lot of data.

That fourth slide in this presentation contains an enormous amount of data about how each category of property changed and why it changed. It should kind of make somebody scratch their head to see commercial property go up by 2% and residential go up by, you know, 10%. Like, this is a big, you know, variance, and we're shifting a tax burden from commercial to residential, and folks should understand, you know, the market does change at times.

Sometimes the market changes the other way, where commercial will grow faster than residential. That's typically when we have an economic downturn, but we're in a different cycle, and there's a really complicated conversation around those changing categorical areas of our real estate. We could spend hours talking about some of this stuff, and I think it would help us make better decisions to Doug's comments about, you know, how do we use our limited financial position, whether it's free cash or stabilization, to try to cede all of the master plan responsibilities.

I think we've done a pretty good job thinking about how to, you know, get into practice, but it is enormously complicated. The one thing that I really appreciate about Swampscot is at this time of year, we always think about our tax levy. We think about the tax burden that Swampscot taxpayers have to pay, and we try to be as careful as we can when it comes to how we set that rate.

A lot of communities blow through this, and, you know, this becomes ministerial, and they don't spend any time talking about it. They just think it's perfunctory. We don't.

We actually roll up our sleeves, and we study this, and we try to have, you know, as many complicated conversations around, you know, the assessing data and the changes in valuation and our financial position as we can.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:22 - 2:23:25)
I have another question or thought.

[Speaker 19] (2:23:26 - 2:23:27)
Go ahead. Here?

[Speaker 3] (2:23:28 - 2:25:13)
Yep. Okay. I feel like we're talking a little bit around it.

Like, we're here right now. I mean, there are theoretical options, right? You know, you put one on the table, right, which is to keep faith with that promise.

What I'm hearing from Peter, theoretically, is that one could tap stabilization and leave free cash at a higher level. Now, we're already below target for stabilization, which is why, in my mind, I kind of excluded that. There certainly, I'm sure, are other approaches here.

One could say we've heard that there's going to be need for the school, not an insignificant one in 2025. We're basically plundering, to be dramatic, you know, our free cash here to keep faith. Is that prudent?

Is it, should we say, Actually, we need to reserve a little bit. Maybe we won't be able to get down to 300 like we thought. We can get down to 350.

I'm just making up a number. Because we know we want to keep some in reserve because there's going to be challenges coming. You know, let's just talk about, like, these are the specific things that we're effectively deciding.

If we decide to go with what you've proposed, we're effectively deciding the other things. So these are the options right now. We don't have to kind of talk around what the possibilities, you know, if there are other options.

[Speaker 11] (2:25:14 - 2:25:43)
I'm going to tell you, I wouldn't support any other option but to fulfilling what was promised to the taxpayers. A lot of people came out, they voted to approve that new school, and they approved it because they felt that my taxes aren't going to go up, you know, more than X amount, and it's a good value. And I think we owe that to the taxpayers.

The school's not even open yet, so I would not want to have this conversation at all.

[Speaker 10] (2:25:44 - 2:26:03)
If I may, just for context for the sake of conversation, while we did talk about the stabilization funds in terms of percentages, the dollars for it, there's $6.2 million in general stabilization and $1.38 in capital stabilization.

[Speaker 3] (2:26:03 - 2:26:06)
Which are both below policy target, right?

[Speaker 10] (2:26:06 - 2:26:17)
Yes, but for the sake of dollars. And those amounts that they're under is about $112,000 on general and $22,000 on capital.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:17 - 2:26:20)
So $6.2 and $1.3, so $7.5?

[Speaker 10] (2:26:21 - 2:26:21)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:21 - 2:26:26)
And how many reserve dollars did we have five years ago?

[Speaker 10] (2:26:27 - 2:26:30)
I don't have that right in front of me, but I can have that. A lot less than that.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:31 - 2:26:31)
I'm just curious.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:31 - 2:26:44)
I think over the last, like, six years, you know, we've gone from, you know, $3 million up to $10 in reserve, and we've taken it back down because over the last couple years.

[Speaker 10] (2:26:45 - 2:26:49)
On slide 29 in your presentation, it will show you. All the way back to 2016.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:49 - 2:26:58)
There you go. So I'm just curious. Mary Ellen, you just made a statement that, did you hear anything tonight that made you think anybody was suggesting not doing that?

Because I think everybody.

[Speaker 19] (2:26:58 - 2:26:58)
You just said.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:58 - 2:27:01)
Well, I was throwing out other options. Well, I mean, but.

[Speaker 11] (2:27:01 - 2:27:03)
He was theoretical.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:03 - 2:27:33)
Theoretical, okay. I just want to make sure that. Okay.

I just wanted to make sure because I think that. That, I think, is the baseline. My comments were actually, is there more that we should be doing, not less?

I wasn't advocating less. I'm not sure I'm advocating more. I'm advocating the importance of that dialogue so that I can critically think about whether or not more is appropriate, and the chair of the finance committee and the finance committee members can think it.

We now have to digest this in five days. And you all can. I was just advocating the time.

Actually, tomorrow. I think you're meeting. Yeah.

So, I mean. Right.

[Speaker 10] (2:27:33 - 2:27:34)
Everyone's meeting again on Monday.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:34 - 2:27:36)
That's what I was just advocating.

[Speaker 10] (2:27:36 - 2:27:36)
Are you advocating more?

[Speaker 1] (2:27:36 - 2:28:32)
We're constantly meeting. I don't know yet because I haven't. Because we haven't had enough.

I just truly don't know where I am because I'm cognizant of where our trend is going in our ability to fund stabilization. We were using free cash to fund stabilizations. Last year, we didn't fund the stabilizations because they were in the numbers.

But we know that there's going to be demands on those stabilizations. But yet, we're drawing down our free cash. I mean, I can get out of breath rather quickly because a lot of things are moving.

Again, just inevitably, we tighten things. And so, now, it's really fine tuning. I just haven't thought that through because that hasn't been the analysis yet that's been presented to us.

But I did want to just express that there is not. I mean, Patrick, you tell me. Amy, you tell me.

How much of the $1.25 million is what's taking the tax rate for the school, the cost of the school down to 300? Is that slide 32? It's $1 million.

It's $1 million. So, it's $1 million.

[Speaker 11] (2:28:32 - 2:28:33)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:34 - 2:29:28)
And so, it's the 980,367. And so, my question is, great, we're doing 250 more if we're to take that recommendation. Is that enough compared to what we've been doing historically?

And all I'm saying is that historically, we've actually, every year, done, last three years, we've done $1 million, $1.25 million, something significant, a seven-digit number, close to a seven-digit number before the school ever hit our books. But now, we're using 80% of that seven-digit number to pay for the school. So, therefore, we're actually using less to pay for the non-school increase.

And that's just the discussion I want to have. And, again, we are in spirit, but not totally, because we're just taking it from money that we would have used to offset the taxes anyways. Or, historically, we have used to offset the taxes to now use 80% of that dollars to actually just pay the portion of the school.

Now, Peter, can I ask you, I actually think we're using 100%.

[Speaker 3] (2:29:28 - 2:29:33)
We're not putting anything purely into ratcheting down.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:33 - 2:29:40)
No, you are. 980 is all that's required to get the delta between what it would actually be and 300. But he's recommending 1.25. No, he's not.

[Speaker 5] (2:29:41 - 2:29:43)
So, you're 2%, $20,000.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:44 - 2:30:13)
So, why is this highlighted here? Sorry, 1.5. You were doing 1 million. So, even worse.

We're spending nothing. Exactly. Sorry.

$20,000. We're spending nothing that we normally would. So, if you will, if the school hadn't been here, we would have still probably done $1 million, and the taxpayer would have had the benefit without the increase for the school.

So, I appreciate that we're sitting here saying that we're living up to the spirit of that. I'm arguing that I actually don't think we are.

[Speaker 3] (2:30:13 - 2:30:29)
But at the same time, with this data, we are within 3% of the peer group. So, you all have done all this ratcheting down year after year after year, which puts us in a position to be able to afford the school.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:30 - 2:31:13)
And, again, totally, that's a really good point. Again, I'm just going back to, and we're kind of having a debate, but I'm just going back to this is, to me, the type of robust discussion that we have. We go home, we come back, and we have the conversation again.

And I think Mary Ellen and I have benefited at times where we listen and say, yeah, okay, and we come back. And, like, I played back in my mind what, you know, you guys were talking about. And, hey, you know, this is a thought, or listen to FinComs if you want things and come back.

I just want to make sure that we've done such a good job getting here, and I want to give credit to what credits do with, really, the finance team and Sean, and, yes, the volunteer boards too. But, really, it wouldn't have happened without you guys changing the rudder here. I just don't want us to lose that deliberateness, because that actually is what brought all the boards together.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:14 - 2:33:08)
Peter, this is the most, this is probably one of the most important conversations this board could have. And I, frankly, want to hear the board talk more about where your positions are with taxes. Like, I want to hear each of you just say, are you happy being, you know, at 3%?

Are you happy being, you know, the 10th highest tax community in Essex County or do you want to be the 15th? Like, where are you, you know, in terms of your policy positions? Because, you know, frankly, I was hired six years ago to try to make the town a little bit more affordable and try to address some of the structural problems that you've had with budgeting and different things, and, yeah, we've made a lot of these tough decisions.

I can't explain to anybody how difficult it has been to try to get this budget into shape and get the town taxes into shape. It's impossible in so many ways, but we've done it. Now that we're here, what's next?

And how do we actually use this financial position to actually continue our work to master plan, planning work and working plans? We have some exciting economic development projects from elsewhere for, frankly, Humphrey Street, for town properties and other things that, you know, it's not all dour, but it's complicated. And we need to kind of figure out, you know, are we still going to, you know, continue to focus on keeping Swampskip in a balanced position when it comes to all of our finances, given the fact that we have the largest percentage of senior citizens on fixed incomes out of any of the 34 cities and towns in Essex County?

Like, how does this all interplay with our collective framework for policy? This is the single biggest policy decision that affects everybody's pocketbooks and wallets that we'll make. And it deserves probably two or three meetings, and it deserves, you know, a whole lot of robust conversations about what's changing every year about valuations and budgets that affect that rate.

[Speaker 5] (2:33:09 - 2:34:30)
Well, I mean, furthermore, I mean, this also requires us to have, you know, a more in-depth conversation about our financial policies, about, you know, what we're looking at for reserves in general stabilization and capital stabilization as well. So, you know, how do we have that conversation? I mean, you know, we're basically out of time before town meeting.

I mean, we're going to have a meeting on the 11th. What, 30 minutes before we convene our special town meeting? That's not enough time.

We're going to have another meeting on the 20th of December. We'll have already voted this at town meeting. You know, so it's one of these things where, yeah, I agree.

I think we do need to have, you know, a greater conversation. We need to talk about how we get from today where we don't have, you know, where growth is down. What did you say, Peter, 70%?

Where growth is down 70% for this, you know, for this year. How do we get to where the new growth is going to emerge where we're going to get to those Benning Square projects that are going to generate X number of dollars in new residential and commercial growth? You know, so how do we get from today to three to five years from now?

[Speaker 11] (2:34:31 - 2:34:46)
Well, I think we need to see some serious assumption tables that go out five years, which we don't have here. So we're kind of like shooting in the dark. So I think once we put those tables together and put assumption tables together on budgets, we can have a better idea of what that looks like.

[Speaker 5] (2:34:46 - 2:34:57)
Yeah, and that would make me much more comfortable in having a conversation where we would potentially deviate from these guidelines that have been put in the policy. But without those assumption tables, you're right.

[Speaker 11] (2:34:57 - 2:35:14)
You also have to think about, as far as our policies, what was the effect on our policies with our rating? You know, we don't want to go – we don't want to lose what we already have. So I think you could drop some of those policy numbers that could affect it.

[Speaker 2] (2:35:15 - 2:36:10)
Yeah, I think the rating agencies called out numbers. And for the first time, they called out the fact that we have a reserved levy capacity that is significant. And it was the first time they actually said, hey, Swampscott, you actually didn't tax up to your 2.5 levy capacity, and you've started to actually look at, you know, how you manage. We got a reference for strong management. And that strong management definition is related to the financial policy, the benchmarks, making sure that we have a focus on all the key metrics. You know, this is not, you know, general practice in every city and town.

And so, you know, this has been part of, you know, a constant, you know, focus for managing every contract and really thinking carefully about, you know, how we're building financial prudence.

[Speaker 5] (2:36:11 - 2:36:17)
Sean, did you share the findings of the ratings agency with the board or Kenya?

[Speaker 19] (2:36:17 - 2:36:18)
Yes, I did.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:19 - 2:39:28)
It seemed – oh, go ahead. I think we're talking about a matter of time here, in a sense of we have a limited amount of time to make this decision about the tax rate, as I understand it. And to your point, David, you know, and yours, Mary Ellen, we're going to need more information to really answer your question, Sean, because, you know, I don't know if you're going to get anyone to, like, jump up and down and say, yeah, I'm for, like, raising taxes or I'm for slashing taxes.

I mean, it all depends, right? So it feels to me like you found the right middle ground with this proposal, I would say, which is, you know, goldilocks in that we're meeting our basic obligation. We're not continuing on our path that we've been on of improving our relative position.

We're going to be kind of holding steady, assuming everyone else kind of continues the way they've been going. So we're going to have a pause in improving our situation. That's a result of this.

But we're making big investment, right? We're making a big investment in the school. And we've made other big investments, right, which have drawn down a little bit from stabilization.

So there have been some bets that the board, the town, has made over the last couple of years. And now we're going to have to start paying the bills, right? And so we may not necessarily be able to continue to improve our relative position.

Maybe not. We'll see. But certainly in an environment where we don't know for sure that there's going to be new growth of an X amount at this moment, next year or the following year, we certainly have some prospects for it, and probably will be.

But until we know really what that is, build those assumptions, we really kind of drill into what's going on with the schools, other major ticket items, what's the overall capital plan. The other big ticket, of course, is the retirement, health insurance. There are all these big items, right, that we really kind of can benefit.

That's not all going to happen in the next few weeks, of course, right? There's a lot of preparation from you all for us to kind of model that out. So in the short run, it seems to me that this is a good plan.

I wouldn't go any deeper in terms of trying to cut the rate any further because there may be some short-term storm clouds that we need to manage through. We can always decide in January or February. If we have our discussion, maybe there's more free cash for stabilization that we want to do something with.

It wouldn't be about tax rate at that point. Or, you know, there's always next year. So to me, that's kind of like take this first step.

We need to do our work so when we get to next year and we're having the same conversation, we're very, very prepared to understand what the ramifications are.

[Speaker 11] (2:39:29 - 2:39:39)
Peter, are you thinking of going higher on this number to reduce the tax rate, to use more free cash to reduce tax rate, like to go to one, two?

[Speaker 1] (2:39:39 - 2:43:54)
Not necessarily free cash. Let's just use dollars because then I don't worry about which pocket it comes out of, like stabilization versus free cash. I think what I'm saying, Mary Ellen, is that ideally we would have that robust discussion because, again, I would love to be able to all of us take credit and say look at it, we did exactly what we said, but I don't think we are because we are – if the school hadn't been a reality, if we weren't doing a school, right, what would our tax position be this year and how much free cash or stabilization would we have used to offset the levy?

And if the last five years is any predictor of the future, it's seven digits. But if not, maybe not. There's other reasons we could not have done it.

So it's a hypothetical. But I think that thought process and that intellectual honesty and that conversation with Finance Committee, with town meeting, has benefited us as opposed to not having that. I really have believed that the bad news has – not bad news is not the right word.

The robust conversations and that we get up there and we don't just toot and say, look, it just licked up the spirit of something when, depending on how you look at it, maybe not. Let's own that and let's leave breadcrumbs to the future, so to speak, to be able to say this is what we're seeing ahead of us and this is why we're doing things a little differently and we're going to revisit some policies, not because we're all of a sudden going to be jacking up taxes, just because we recognize that we're in a different world right now. Interest rates are where they are.

New growth is where it is. We've got to reset a little bit here. But it's that dialogue and that – I'm going to call it intellectual honesty, not that what we're doing is not honest.

Please don't infer that. I'm just saying that let's just have – own it. And I think we have benefited.

I think town meeting, when people say, well, why does town meeting follow the warrant and say yes so much, I think it's because even if – hopefully they understand it and we provide good explanations so that they feel good when they're voting, but sometimes they don't understand all the details of it, but they know that they have honest, serious people who are willing to have the conversations, pros and cons, and put it out there and say this is not perfect, but this is pretty darn good, right?

And these are the downsides, and I think we've benefited from that transparency to town meeting. We've rarely gotten up there and said, hmm, this is it. I mean, this is binary, guys.

This is great. This is awesome. It's a done deal.

Even when the board has been unanimous, we don't do that. We still go up there and say, okay, but this is a choice. We're just making a choice.

And I think all I'm doing is advocating for the continuation of that type of dialogue because I think we run the risk of losing a lot of built-up credibility, and I want to go back to the relationships with the boards. I mean, you were on a different board at the time, and yours and my relationship, why we can disagree on some policy things. I think we both sat and we built relationships and showed up at the boards and had discussions in the school committee.

We brought them in to be able to say, tell us your problems, but we're also going to tell you our problems type of things. And we did that, and that was back in December 6th of 2018 was our financial summit in Salem when we all spent a day together having that conversation, and that was the first time we ever did that. And we got to go do that again because that planted a seed that allowed us to build relationships and trust that even when we didn't like the answer or we didn't necessarily agree with the answer, we understood the answer.

And that is kind of what we have to do here. When we politicize things and we throw kerosene on things, when we show up and lecture at public comment, I'm just telling you that doesn't build the trust. What that does is it breaks down and it does the opposite.

And I'm just saying I feel as though we need to reinvest in that. We're all responsible for it. Not one person, all of us are responsible for it.

I just want us to think about going back to that. And so maybe it is another financial summit when we have a chance to take a breath to do that because it's been five years now, and I just feel as though there's been enough of change of people in positions that it may be time to do it because I believe that is where the success really came from, is that we collaborated. It didn't mean that we always agreed, but we had honest, thoughtful people.

Does that answer your question anyways? So I could be open to more money, to short answer the original question. I could be open to more money, but not knowing more than what I know right now.

So I'm comfortable tonight if this is what we have, this is what we have, then I wouldn't recommend more tonight because I think I wouldn't want to circumvent those conversations.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:55 - 2:45:51)
I think that at this point, in thinking about how the landscape that's been laid out tonight, I have to agree that we might not be being fully honest with ourselves about this $300 and the impact of the school, right? Because if at the time we made the promise, the assumption was that we were spending another million dollars to offset, then that's not what's happening here. And if that's not what's happening here, we should just be honest and showing if that were to happen here, how that would affect our finances going forward.

If we could do it, what it would look like and how it would affect us going forward based on not the one promise made, but the atmosphere when the promise was made. So what we were doing in parallel with the promise so that we can be fully up front with taxpayers when we say, yes, we did everything we could to maintain that. These are the drawbacks based on the circumstances we're in today.

Because I don't just want to keep a promise for a promise's sake. I want to make sure that it's not just the spirit of the promise, it's the actual promise. You know what I mean?

It matches the expectations the taxpayer had when we made the promise. And if it doesn't, then let's just drill down and explain why it can't, why we're unable to. Or if we were to make it, what it would look like so that when, if and when we don't do it, they understand what the outcome would have been if we did.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:52 - 2:48:01)
Katie, I think that's a good point. What happens if we have to dip below the financial guidelines to actually keep pace with that idea that somehow we wanted to keep the payment or the debt service for the elementary school at $300 for every single family taxpayer. We'd have to really, we'd have to get a sense of whether or not, you know, there was a grand bargain that said that was going to be static based on interest rates that we're going to quadruple or quintuple.

Interest rates are so different than the market that we're in. And that impacts our ability to afford a lot of the same economic conditions. And valuations are skyrocketing.

And that's changing the median single family home, and that changes the algorithm for how we thought that $300 was going to be. And so lots of complexity to this conversation. Now, obviously, we could spend two or three hours listening to each other and getting a sense of how we think that should keep pace with, you know, our policy position.

I think what we've tried to do is just set the table. This is ultimately the board's responsibility. I do think it's important for us just to recognize that we have a team here.

We have two members of the Board of Assessors here. There's a lot of work that happens among elected boards and appointed boards and, you know, town staff. We should get under a big tent.

That financial summit a few years ago did help us understand whether or not economic development needed to be a critical part. We've talked about economic development for years. And, frankly, if we want new growth, we better think about how we drive it because it's not going to happen without the town playing an incredibly stronger role in supporting economic development.

Benning Square and Humphrey Street, we need to have a plan.

[Speaker 1] (2:48:01 - 2:49:32)
So I think the last thing, and then to Doug's point, let's find consensus, I think, tonight. Because we need to, don't we? Well, we do because we need to, in fairness to the Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee is kind of responding to us. And so it would be nice if we gave them a response, too. There was, Patrick, I recall, and I remember exactly the meeting, but I only can recall where I was sitting in my house on Zoom, pre-school vote, where we actually did a presentation that we actually showed.

And it's where this began, this shape, this amorphous shape that's embedded in many of our minds. But you had actually done something, I believe, that actually showed kind of how the corresponding, so where are we getting the sources to pay this down? And that's not reflected here.

And that's okay. I'm just saying that we actually were specific. We were granule about it, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Like we went that far to be able to say like how – what of stabilization we would use and what of free cash we would use, given the projection for those things. We actually had that. It's not in this packet here.

And it differs, though, from what we're being recommended to do tonight. But that's okay. I'm okay with everyone's point.

It's okay being different. But I think the honesty requires us at least to look back and say, what's changed that we're not doing this, and to hear from you in particular who crafted it and to do that. So I just ask that that come back into the conversation as well, because I think that's an important thing to not have just been a thing that we talked about before the school vote, but a thing that we are trying to hold ourselves to account to, if only to explain what's changed that things are different after the vote.

[Speaker 11] (2:49:33 - 2:49:50)
Well, I think during that time we had acknowledged we were going to dip in substantially into stabilization for the beginning couple of years. That's where we're most vulnerable. And then we were anticipating we would get out of it.

We could balance ourselves back out. That's what those forecasts were.

[Speaker 14] (2:49:51 - 2:49:52)
Yes. I agree with that.

[Speaker 5] (2:49:52 - 2:49:56)
So the original plan was to go below the guidelines.

[Speaker 11] (2:49:57 - 2:50:09)
The original plan was we were going to hit stabilization. I don't remember the exact numbers. We were going to hit those stabilization funds in the beginning, because in our peaks, that's when we were most vulnerable.

[Speaker 3] (2:50:10 - 2:50:23)
Do you have that? We redid it.

[Speaker 11] (2:50:26 - 2:50:37)
I think we were doing it for a couple of years. So I think we were also thinking that we were going to be replenishing it. We were going to replenish and then take it, replenish and take it.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:43 - 2:50:50)
So as a 1.9, is it 1.93? I can't feel the number. But something .93 million of stabilization applied fiscal year 24-25.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:50 - 2:50:51)
Which slide is that?

[Speaker 1] (2:50:51 - 2:50:55)
This slide here on the very top. I just can't read it. Yes.

[Speaker 14] (2:50:56 - 2:51:01)
So at the time, we did many iterations.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:02 - 2:51:03)
24-35, sorry. Yes.

[Speaker 14] (2:51:03 - 2:51:14)
So there was an assumption of a use of stabilization total over a course of approximately 10 years. And Mary Ellen is correct that we had projected a heavier reliance on one-time funds in the first five years.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:14 - 2:51:53)
And then it dwindled. Yeah, well, that's because we had the roll-off. We took advantage of the roll-off of all the buildings, right?

And so that's where the big cliff in 35 is because the high school is officially gone in 35. But what was that? Well, we also have in 25.

What was that number? 5.93. So the 5.93. Yeah. So over the first 10 years, we were assuming we were going to use.

The point is, check us against that. Check us against those. And obviously, those were your projections as the treasurer looking at interest and et cetera, et cetera here.

So things are going to vary. But I just want to bring it back to the table because that, to me, is what rounds out the conversation on this one aspect of 20 aspects we probably should be talking about. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:51:54 - 2:52:01)
But then that runs parallel to what we had been already doing at the time related to reducing.

[Speaker 19] (2:52:03 - 2:52:03)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (2:52:04 - 2:52:09)
So that was the point that you had made originally, which got me thinking, like, well. It's an and.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:09 - 2:52:11)
It's an and, not an or, right?

[Speaker 6] (2:52:11 - 2:52:15)
Yes. We're doing this and. Yes.

And in this instance, it is not.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:15 - 2:52:16)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:52:16 - 2:52:17)
Correct. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:18 - 2:52:19)
But things have changed.

[Speaker 19] (2:52:20 - 2:52:20)
Sure. But let's talk about.

[Speaker 6] (2:52:20 - 2:52:22)
Interest rates have changed. Yeah. Well, let's talk about that.

[Speaker 19] (2:52:22 - 2:52:24)
Let's understand how that's so.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:24 - 2:53:11)
So anyways, to Marilyn's point, I'm comfortable with the recommendations here, including going back to the 175 and using the 1 million. But I could be convinced to do differently because I believe we had another path. And I don't know that things have changed enough to make me come off our original path.

But I don't know that sitting here where I am today. I believe new growth is a, is a, is, is not. We shouldn't use new growth as the things that things have changed.

Oh my God. New growth is a totally different topic. Important, but totally different topic.

And that's just a couple hundred thousand that we're talking about. The other stuff is many more zeros. We're done.

So anyways, that's my opinion. If you want consensus, I'd throw that as a strong man for consensus to see if we can reach that consensus.

[Speaker 3] (2:53:11 - 2:53:12)
Well, that's what I certainly.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:13 - 2:53:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:53:14 - 2:53:15)
Then I would bring the station.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:17 - 2:53:17)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:53:18 - 2:54:20)
I think I feel similarly, right? Like what's presented to us. It's just fine.

As Doug said, if it's just right, maybe for Goldilocks, but. If there is room to push. Then I'd like to see what that looks like, because I do feel like.

The promise was made in conjunction with things that were happening at the time. The promise was made. And so that we should be looking at that and not just saying, see, the promise still exists, but where's the things that surrounded the promise.

Right. Like. So if we could see the repercussions of that, Then I would be more comfortable to say.

Enough has either enough has occurred. And this is. The very best.

We can do in this situation, given the facts. But we just don't have enough of the variances. I think.

[Speaker 11] (2:54:22 - 2:54:29)
You just have a quick question. So you're saying that the capital stabilization will have how many dollars and what percentage will that be? If we use the million.

[Speaker 10] (2:54:32 - 2:54:38)
A million of the capital stabilization. It would only have 380,000. No, we're not going to use.

[Speaker 11] (2:54:40 - 2:54:44)
We use on the free case. Are these our numbers right here? General stabilization balance would be.

[Speaker 6] (2:54:45 - 2:54:53)
Okay. That's fine. You give the numbers in dollars again.

You gave it twice already, but sorry.

[Speaker 10] (2:54:54 - 2:55:24)
General stabilization is currently at 6,000,002,001,000. $590. Correlates to 8.84%. Yep. The capital stabilization. Is it $1,380,761? I like the 1.97%. Yep. Got it. Present moment. Free cash is a.

3,000,000. 585. 9.3. Which represents 5.11%. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (2:55:24 - 2:55:28)
What's the percentage. What's the percentage that corresponds with free cash?

[Speaker 10] (2:55:28 - 2:55:29)
5.11. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (2:55:36 - 2:56:28)
As for my position, I'm comfortable with the town administrator and the finance team's recommendation for the million dollars. And the shift to 175. I do want to.

I would like to read. I would like to read that, you know, the report from the ratings agency, just to make sure. And have that shared with, you know, with the board to make sure that we're.

That anything that we do above and beyond. Just as we frame these future discussions and conversations. Does not do anything to impact our triple A bond rating.

We have a higher bond rating than the United States of America. And we work so hard. To gain that.

I just want to make sure that. I just want to make sure that we're preserving that and doing everything that we can to ensure that we have that for. Years and decades to come.

I will send that up.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:28 - 2:56:35)
I think the other aspect here that we're not even talking about what we do this year. We can't sustain next year. We're just quick.

We're just dealing with time.

[Speaker 19] (2:56:36 - 2:56:36)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:36 - 2:57:39)
I mean, so we're just dealing with timing here. So part of this is also smoothing this. We're dry.

We talk about with water rates trying to smooth things. So there's no surprises. If we do extraordinary amounts this year, we've got to be willing to do extraordinary amounts next year.

Else that we got to pay the piper. At some point, you got to pay the piper when that free cash number. So when you become reliant on free cash, it's not a good thing.

Except for us, it's been reliant to basically buy down the levy. Whereas other communities are actually using free cash to balance the budget. So we don't.

We're at least, thank God, well beyond that. But, you know, here. So this is a timing thing.

So even if we felt like another 250. Yeah, what the heck. Another 250 this year is great.

We're just saying, okay, we've got to think about next year. What are we going to be able to do next year? If things are not looking rosier, that 250 this year is going to come next year.

On top of the fact that we are hearing budget constraints. So pressures, right? And upward budget pressures.

And we recognize that there is a new school coming online. There's other things that. So just another thing to think about here.

I think we've heard from everyone except for Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 11] (2:57:40 - 2:57:40)
No.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:41 - 2:57:42)
You're good? We have consensus.

[Speaker 11] (2:57:43 - 2:57:44)
I think we have consensus.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:44 - 2:57:56)
Sorry. I apologize for missing that. That's the way we always roll around here.

We're always in consensus. Can we talk about the warrant? Yeah.

Can I just ask what's tomorrow night? No, because we're not really voting.

[Speaker 11] (2:57:58 - 2:58:01)
I mean, a motion for our. I don't think we don't need to.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:01 - 2:59:10)
I don't think we have to. If you have consensus. But I'm not just wondering what comes meeting tomorrow night.

I think we have a meeting already. So you're not going to see any of us because we have a meeting at the same time as you. Tomorrow night.

So I'm saying that out loud. Is there anything that we want to share? The chair of FinCon here because we're not going to be there to share it tomorrow night.

I guess what I would say is just caution. Further increases and just because we're. It's uncertain and the field.

My concern would be to feel good this year. I feel good this year. Next year.

I don't. And smoothness is has to be a high on our list of things to do. Right.

You know, and I just don't want to surprise people and have all of a sudden this spike. And I don't know at this point if we would or wouldn't. So I just, for my own purposes, just expressed to you that just.

Because I don't know. And just wanted to offer to you guys anything else you guys wanted to express because. You know, your recommendations, your recommendation, but it's.

We want to be on the same page with you. Anything else? I just want to pause about this thing about not taking a vote.

[Speaker 3] (2:59:11 - 2:59:30)
You know, I think we've expressed, you know, just want to make sure, you know, and then looking at the warrant. Is it really that place that we're going to kind of more formally. Or is this here that will report on this town meeting?

But I mean, we've kind of already given an indication.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:31 - 3:00:11)
We have financial articles. We typically will wait for our formal vote for once. Then come has at least made a recommendation out of respect just to hear them out before we've finished our deliberation.

So that's traditionally what we've done, even though they're technically their recommendations to town meeting. We're still in the collaborative spirit, as opposed to saying, taking and putting a stake in the ground. We'll wait to hear what they have to say and then reconcile it.

If there's differences, but get to town meeting where we're on the same page. That's the sequence on financial things that we've done. There's nothing that requires it.

It just has been a collaborative way of doing it. And so I think on Monday night, we would be taking a vote before town meeting. And then the moderator would then have it on the screen with the recommendation.

Yep.

[Speaker 11] (3:00:14 - 3:00:15)
Are you good with that?

[Speaker 3] (3:00:17 - 3:00:27)
I guess all I saw was it provides enough, you know, formal direction to whatever degree is appropriate to the finance committee. So we're not sitting there tomorrow kind of wondering.

[Speaker 11] (3:00:28 - 3:00:29)
I think we're clear. You're good?

[Speaker 5] (3:00:30 - 3:00:30)
Income's on.

[Speaker 3] (3:00:31 - 3:00:33)
Yeah, he's good. Okay. Awesome.

[Speaker 5] (3:00:34 - 3:00:49)
All right. Can we, can we move on and discuss, discuss the warrant? It's on, it's on our agenda.

I think we've already addressed article two. Article three. Just wasn't sure.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:50 - 3:00:50)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (3:00:50 - 3:00:50)
Cheryl.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:51 - 3:00:52)
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (3:00:52 - 3:00:53)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 5] (3:01:14 - 3:01:19)
So, so for, as for article two, the FinCom's going to rep. FinCom will present.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:21 - 3:01:28)
Yes, it's my understanding. They will. They have historically made a recommendation.

[Speaker 3] (3:01:30 - 3:01:48)
And here it says the article requires two thirds vote. If stabilization funding is the source. So do I deduce correctly that if we solely use free cash, that it is not a two thirds vote.

Yep. Okay. Just maybe that should be.

[Speaker 1] (3:01:48 - 3:02:01)
I think stabilization is actually nine tenths, isn't it? Not even three fourths. Doesn't stabilization require like this uber, uber, uber majority?

But anyways, neither here nor there tonight. Just so we're clear about that. On Monday.

[Speaker 3] (3:02:01 - 3:02:06)
Simple majority versus a super majority. If that ultimately is our source.

[Speaker 5] (3:02:09 - 3:02:13)
Okay. So more to come on article two. As for article three.

[Speaker 2] (3:02:15 - 3:02:15)
Marietta.

[Speaker 5] (3:02:15 - 3:02:16)
Wayne.

[Speaker 2] (3:02:17 - 3:02:38)
Yes. I would recommend that we have the chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee speak to this. I have been.

I met with the town moderator late this afternoon. And he does want to keep every presentation to five minutes. So he's been clear about that.

Okay. Yeah. Again, I'm just going to.

[Speaker 4] (3:02:38 - 3:02:39)
Wayne, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 10] (3:02:40 - 3:02:42)
Wayne, you just have to add that comment.

[Speaker 1] (3:02:42 - 3:03:32)
You are in good company, Wayne. But yes, five minutes. Can I just go back?

I mean, this is so. Again, I just want to encourage a conversation with the town moderator before Monday. I believe us doing article two in five minutes.

I'm just going to say this and not be prepared with. You have previously, whether it's Sean, whether it's me or somebody or someone. Brevity will get us out of there.

Brevity will not be a long term benefit to us. I mean, we only have three articles to begin with. We have to begin to contextualize.

Yeah. No, we're not going to. My point is, someone has to be prepared to contextualize where we are.

And maybe it's. I'm not trying to throw it in the chair of the finance committee because that's not. I'm saying I couldn't do it.

But you should do it, Eric. But we've got to just hit some points on Monday night so we can talk offline about how.

[Speaker 3] (3:03:32 - 3:03:32)
That sounds great, Peter.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:33 - 3:03:34)
But I think it's critical.

[Speaker 3] (3:03:34 - 3:03:41)
All right. I think this presentation tonight was great. So some version of this is my vote.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:42 - 3:03:50)
Yeah, there may be a modified version. There are more slides. Believe me, we can.

Yes, there are more.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:51 - 3:03:57)
I know it's different slides. All right. So Article three.

All right. Article three.

[Speaker 5] (3:03:59 - 3:04:05)
Yeah. Yeah. We will speak to it.

Maryanne, can you introduce the article?

[Speaker 11] (3:04:06 - 3:04:09)
You want me to introduce Wayne right now too? You can. Sure.

[Speaker 19] (3:04:10 - 3:04:13)
We can have a little variety show.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:16 - 3:04:30)
Again, we haven't made a recommendation yet. So depending on where the recommendation goes, you may not want to introduce the article. Who knows?

I don't know. I'm just saying. Are we going to talk about that now?

Yeah. Do we need to hear from Wayne right now?

[Speaker 7] (3:04:31 - 3:05:32)
He's right here. I understand. Wow, that's really loud.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have. And I have a question myself, actually, a process. To the board.

To the board. Go ahead, Wayne. So one of the questions I had, and I thought it would have come up in discussion when we met a couple of weeks ago, to which I could barely speak at the time.

There's no effective date yet on this bylaw, and I think there should be one. From SWAC's perspective, we didn't feel like that was kind of in our purview to assign an effective date. We kind of wanted to leave it up to the select board.

But, you know, six months, I would imagine, would be probably fair. Certainly want to hear input on that. And if we do need to do that, I don't know whether or not that is an amendment to the article or to an amendment to the appendix that holds the bylaw.

[Speaker 3] (3:05:34 - 3:05:50)
Yes, Wayne, my question back to you would be, you did a lot of the outreach, you and your team, right? Yes. The committee.

I can move over. Is the six months coming out of that, like what you heard from people, is that what they would need in order to make the inventory transition or other issues?

[Speaker 7] (3:05:50 - 3:06:04)
We didn't actually hear any feedback one way or the other, to be honest with you. I would, you know, from a lot of the information that we got, there's a high majority of people that are already kind of complying already.

[Speaker 11] (3:06:04 - 3:06:06)
Yeah, people are changing now.

[Speaker 7] (3:06:06 - 3:06:32)
Yeah. They know that the change is coming. At least, you know, trying to prepare for that.

So I don't have a solid number. I would defer to, you know, other times where you had a prior bylaw with the regulation banning certain items in commerce as to what was the right way to go about that.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:33 - 3:06:35)
Well, the straw bylaw had a period of time that was attached to it.

[Speaker 7] (3:06:36 - 3:06:39)
How long was that time? Do you remember from the time it was voted on?

[Speaker 2] (3:06:40 - 3:06:42)
Look, yeah, it'd be six months or, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:42 - 3:06:50)
So I just want to step back for a second before we even talk about that provision. So look, I appreciate the email that was forwarded this afternoon about something.

[Speaker 19] (3:06:50 - 3:06:51)
Yeah, and I apologize for that. That's all right.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:52 - 3:07:21)
It is what it is. You know, welcome to our world on that. I've come to appreciate the DNA that it's great we have people focus on it, but when we get done with something, we're done with it.

We just are, right? Not once has the Board of Health mentioned the word straw. I'm going to harp on straw because it's our example.

Not once has we heard it. Not once has one person come to us. Not once has someone come here and just pointed out to us the noncompliance.

Sorry, that's not true.

[Speaker 7] (3:07:21 - 3:07:23)
Do you want to back up and kind of explain?

[Speaker 1] (3:07:25 - 3:09:48)
Sorry, Wayne, just give me one minute just to say this. I don't take solace in believing, oh, well, we can always come back and amend further. We can come back and do these things.

We can come back and do these things because the truth is everybody is so busy in the demands and what we have on Solid Waste Committee, on Select Board, on Board of Health, on every committee is so great. We move on, and we just do, and I can't think of any, I rarely can think of an example in my nine years where that hasn't been the case. We move on, right?

We have a presentation showing us how we're going to pay for the school, and then we're setting the tax rate the next time, and we don't see the presentation. We move on. That's not because anybody's trying to hide things.

It's just that we're moving on to the next thing. We're busy, and we're doing the next thing, and it shows up in many places here. Your statement, and I appreciate it, and I believe it to be true because I actually tried to do a little homework between the last meeting now, is that there is high compliance already, which means I'm not comfortable that we're not doing enough because I don't think we're going to revisit it for a while because I just think human nature is we want you to get back on trash and compost and stuff because that's a huge dollar issue for us, right, which was the origination.

So no disrespect to anything you guys are doing. It's actually we want more of you, right? Which is why I was saying can we have this purview of the Board of Health, and I think town council said yes.

I know Wayne may disagree or value that or whatever, which is okay. That's a good, honest debate, but that's where my idea of having Board of Health at least have ongoing purview to be able to say, hey, great, we've outgrown this. We're going to, again, within the four corners of this, do something different, evolve, and I wish we had that with the Strauss because we would be able to show up.

One person could show up to the Board of Health and say, hey, have you seen? This is the Strauss from every business in town, and it says industrial compostable, and that doesn't really meet what we're doing here, but it meets the bylaw, right, and it's the spirit versus the actual thing. So that being said, my thought process is either work on language between now and Monday night that we can get comfortable with that includes the right for the Board of Health to have ongoing purview to decide to change it or just postpone it to February.

As I said earlier, the special time meeting didn't have a date. I believe I saw February 24th as a date, so I believe I saw a date. But anyways, it was a February date.

So, Peter, I'm absolutely happy to get language. I don't think we should wait. I just think let's just – No, no, again, I'm not advocating waiting.

It's a gender war.

[Speaker 7] (3:09:48 - 3:13:24)
So can we frame the discussion from the public standpoint because, yes, there was an email. There was some discussion with counsel. You know, Mr. Spelios, you brought up the fact that you wanted to have – let me back up even further from that. There was – the issue that started the conversation was basically we have a material list that the bylaw would control, and we thought through that pretty hard. And we felt that, you know, of course the fact is that industry changes. You could have a public emergency.

There are other things that could cause a change, a necessity to make a change there. And we felt that the Board of Health, although it doesn't have regulation over commerce generally, unless in times of public emergency, that they are the most familiar with the food establishment business. They had the most contact with them, and it made the most sense for them to have that at least temporary authority to make those changes.

We came out and said we wanted to have a nine-month temporary override if it was so necessary. But we felt strongly that, you know, if we're going to give – in this bylaw, if we're going to give town meeting the authority to approve the list as it was stated, then that's really the purview of town meeting. If town meeting wants to give the Board of Health full compliance and control of any material list, that's okay too.

It wasn't the way we thought about it, but that would be different. I feel very strongly that you can't have either or. You can't make a specific list and then say barely it's up to now another board to be able to make changes in permanence to a bylaw that is under the authority of town meeting.

It just does not make sense to me in any way respect. The law and the exclusion to which town council supplied was really in regulation to – I can read it off here. It was relative to agriculture and sanitary sewer systems.

It was not related to commerce, which is what this bylaw regulates, and what the Board of Health typically has some regulation authority over. It just doesn't make sense. And frankly, if we're – I mean, Mr. Spolios, I agree with you. We can, as a town, as the public, we have other things, we move on. But this is the charge we have. If we're going to regulate specific items within a community, we have the responsibility to review those.

If you feel that a change needs to be made specifically to the straw bylaw, I encourage that. And there's no reason that we can't. I just want to make sure that we're not overriding and providing the authority to a board to override in permanence something that is clearly stated in a bylaw approved by town meeting.

Now, I would support the additional – in other words, if you have a nine-month temporary authority to make a change, I would certainly support maybe making that multiple nine-month periods, or maybe a one-year period, whatever the board may choose to select. So that if necessary, and in permanence, there's a major change that happens within the industry itself, that we have time to prepare an amendment to the bylaw and make it as simple as possible to move forward.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:25 - 3:14:43)
I appreciate that. I appreciate your explanation, and town council has come out differently with you with regard to this section and Board of Health's authority. I appreciate that you may not agree with, but town council has come out with their position on that.

And I just – again, and I do see in this email here a member of the Board of Health articulate his support of adopting 111.31 for this purpose. I spoke to Mr. Shuckman after that, and for what it's worth, he did not understand the issue at hand. Let me just say, and I'm not looking to – I'm just – and then we're just going to – I – look it, I – we had people crawling up our spine on straws.

Let's be perfectly clear. I've gotten absolutely zero phone calls of anybody with any concerns about this bylaw, which is either great public outreach or it validates a concern that I have that we aren't going far enough. And I want – a duly elected Board of Health to me is, if the bylaw says the duly elected Board of Health, your representatives, that if you don't like what they're doing, kick them out of office, have an ongoing right to review and amend, to me is actually a compliment to representative democracy.

That's exactly what it's there for. And it's not like I'm putting – I'm sorry.

[Speaker 7] (3:14:43 - 3:14:44)
That's – I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:44 - 3:15:31)
I'm going to finish. Go ahead. Thanks.

I appreciate that. It's different than if we were making a volunteer board, right? A volunteer board's different because then that's even once more removed, right, as opposed to a volunteer board meaning the select board who are the elected people then create another board to defer, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

Here we're saying one of our town-wide elected boards can make that decision. Anyways, I've taken enough time. I'm in favor of postponing until – based on all these moving parts, I'm in favor of postponing until February.

I think the spirit of this is wonderful. I can't wait for it to happen. But I don't want us to leave feeling good about something if, frankly, we're already in compliance, which I just do – I believe the market's further, and we should be pushing the market with this policy.

So thank you. I appreciate it.

[Speaker 3] (3:15:31 - 3:18:05)
I'd like to propose hopefully a compromise. So taking the enthusiasm from Peter, I do think we should move forward now. I do think that this committee has worked very hard.

We postponed it once. I take Wayne up at his suggestion about maybe extending the nine-month. If you can come up with nine months, maybe you can come up with a year.

So if you've got town meetings or something you have to wait for, that gives you that. Usually there's a special town meeting or whatever, but at least you're covering yourself. Or if you do a temporary change, that takes you to the next town meeting.

I do think over the next couple days – I've not analyzed the email from town council, but the gist certainly seemed like they felt like it was actually okay to continue to have this authority. So we have to rely on them ultimately. With all due respect, Wayne, I'd like to further check that out over the next few days and have some proposed language, specifically what the amendment would be to make that authority in perpetuity.

That would be at the town meeting to assess whether or not they're comfortable with that. But I do think, and I would hope, Peter, that if we could get there – I think that was one of your options – that we could move forward, generally speaking, in that regard. I believe that the committee has pushed it to the appropriate limit at this time of what is acceptable or realistic.

They've done all that research to know what is actually recyclable, what's not in this market right now, etc. So I think that work is good, and I want to build on that. I would still say, even if whatever happens over the next few days and town council comes back and says, whoops, maybe you really don't have the authority to keep going on and on.

Well, then so be it. Then I think we need to move forward. And if the Board of Health comes up with things, then they're going to have to come back to town meeting.

And we have that built-in cycle. This isn't like all of a sudden Solid Waste has to come up with it again, do the work, and then come up with it. The Board of Health is actually now kind of a little bit of an engine running to propose things to come back to town meeting.

So I hope that kind of – Doug, I appreciate that. I think that makes a lot of sense. Wayne, we have to reach out to you tomorrow and set up some time to talk about that.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:06 - 3:18:19)
I just want to say that the response that I wrote – I appreciate you chiming in, but we're trying to figure out where the Board is now. I appreciate that, but I hear Doug's point. Let's hear from Mary Ellen and Katie.

[Speaker 11] (3:18:19 - 3:18:21)
Well, I want to hear what Sean has to say to Wayne.

[Speaker 2] (3:18:23 - 3:19:24)
I was just going to say, look, I'm happy to reach out to town council. I like the idea that the Board of Health can promulgate regulatory compliance. I really do.

I think that makes a lot of sense. But I also think as an advisory committee, SWAC can actually make recommendations to the Board of Health, and you can be that dynamic committee that I think you want to be. But the Board of Health is a town department, and day-to-day that enforcement – like we have a regulatory employee in that department that can help us enforce and really think about how it evolves.

Plastics are a public health threat. Plastics are a health threat to our environment, and it's evolving. And I don't want to get stale when it comes to our ability to work through – town meetings, it happens once, twice, three times a year, maybe four at the most, and it can be a very bureaucratic and regulatory process.

And I think our health department is a little bit easier to work through. And so if we can promulgate, let's promulgate.

[Speaker 11] (3:19:30 - 3:20:08)
No, I really feel town meetings – I don't feel it should be the Board of Health. I think town meetings should make the decisions. I think you can easily have a new bylaw, and as things change and evolve, we just go back to town meeting and make an amendment.

And this has been in the works for some time. We've had public meetings. We've had reach-out.

We've had open discussions. And I don't feel like this is the right time to delay it and to hold things up. I think it's a good bylaw right now.

And we can work on it. We can advance it at a later date.

[Speaker 19] (3:20:09 - 3:20:09)
Katie?

[Speaker 3] (3:20:11 - 3:20:14)
Can I just make sure I'm understanding that? Yeah, but I can do that.

[Speaker 6] (3:20:14 - 3:20:25)
No, no, go ahead. Please, go ahead, Doug. Why don't you Doug deeper because I think you made a nice double entendre earlier.

You said you dug deep, so I'm going to Katie deep right now. Go right ahead.

[Speaker 3] (3:20:28 - 3:20:40)
So you like the idea that there's a temporary authority for board health but not permanent Okay, so I was in the car from the moment this email got sent until the moment I walked in the door.

[Speaker 6] (3:20:40 - 3:21:04)
So I have nothing additive because I have not digested any of this whatsoever. So I apologize, and I'm not trying to be coy or be noncommittal, but I literally just read the email while you all were having that conversation, which means I didn't digest the conversation. So I don't feel like I can add anything to this right now, and I apologize.

[Speaker 7] (3:21:04 - 3:21:47)
Can I make a point of factual just clarification? I'm not trying to opine necessarily. I just wanted to explain that that response back to council was on November 19th.

I only realized today that that was never forwarded on to council for reply, and I'm awaiting council to reply back to my feedback. So there is a bit of feedback cycle that hasn't been complete. I did forward that email over to the chair and to the town administrator, so I apologize on behalf if you have not seen it in advance.

I'm sorry.

[Speaker 6] (3:21:47 - 3:21:51)
You don't have to be sorry. I'm sorry. It took me two hours to get here in one go.

You're good.

[Speaker 5] (3:21:53 - 3:22:06)
Yeah, no, I saw the email come in. I was in meetings this afternoon, so I didn't have an opportunity to fully. No, on the 19th I sent it.

On the 19th? Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 7] (3:22:07 - 3:22:11)
That is what it is. It's okay. Got it.

Well, I must have had a meeting then too.

[Speaker 1] (3:22:13 - 3:22:15)
Well, we didn't get anything on the 19th. No. No.

[Speaker 7] (3:22:15 - 3:22:18)
I did not. I didn't forward the whole select work, no. No, got it.

[Speaker 5] (3:22:19 - 3:22:47)
Look, I think a lot of work's been put into this. I think it would be a good incremental step for us to, I support this. I support the regulation.

I support the implementation of it as we lead into the next fiscal year, and I think that it's something that we can, so that would provide six months to implement. Is anyone in town still using Styrofoam? I know that one of the restaurants.

[Speaker 19] (3:22:48 - 3:22:48)
Plenty.

[Speaker 5] (3:22:48 - 3:22:49)
Plenty?

[Speaker 2] (3:22:49 - 3:22:52)
Yeah. Plastics? Styrofoam?

You bet.

[Speaker 7] (3:22:53 - 3:22:54)
Styrofoam in particular, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (3:22:55 - 3:22:56)
Styrofoam in particular? Okay.

[Speaker 7] (3:22:56 - 3:22:56)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (3:22:57 - 3:23:02)
Because one of the restaurants that I used to frequent has changed. So I did notice.

[Speaker 7] (3:23:02 - 3:23:03)
That, yes.

[Speaker 6] (3:23:03 - 3:23:09)
I have heard that. Is that your word? Yes.

Let's not disparage any restaurants.

[Speaker 5] (3:23:09 - 3:23:09)
Yes, it is.

[Speaker 19] (3:23:09 - 3:23:09)
It's okay.

[Speaker 5] (3:23:10 - 3:23:36)
So look, I'm supportive of this article, of Article 3. I'm supportive of moving this forward, and I think that it would be a great opportunity for us to then work to continue to evolve. And if we have to go through the Board of Health, if we have to go through town meeting, we can have that debate at a later date.

I just need to become more informed and follow up on an email chain.

[Speaker 6] (3:23:36 - 3:24:50)
I just want to be clear because words are super important here. Peter is actually saying he's uber supportive, not saying he is not supportive. And I think I lean in that direction to say, when you approached and said, oh, we're almost in full compliance, I was like, oh, bummer.

Which is not what you should be thinking, right? Because you should be thinking that's the purpose of the bylaw. But to Peter's point, then why have the bylaw if they're doing it?

Not why have the bylaw. But why then are we not pushing them forward further? Yes, you did a lot of outreach.

You did a lot of education. And that's probably what brought them to a certain point to get into compliance. But then can we not go further?

Can we not educate more? Can we not understand further what else we could be doing? What are other towns doing beyond this?

And maybe that, to be fair, given the time constraints, maybe that's next steps. But it is reflective on the bylaw, if they're already in compliance, that maybe the bylaw didn't push the limits enough.

[Speaker 7] (3:24:50 - 3:24:53)
So can I expand on my comments on compliance?

[Speaker 6] (3:24:53 - 3:24:53)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 7] (3:24:53 - 3:27:32)
So, I mean, there's a lot that's actually defined in this bylaw. One of them is signage. One of them is a, you know, moving from getting out of black plastic so that we can actually truly recycle them.

There's a consumer advisory. There's some issues of, you know, what can be served in hot foods in plastics. And I would say, when I said compliance, I'm talking about just the basic overall conformance to the plastic offerings, right?

That was just based upon, you know, kind of a light survey that was done mid-summer over who's doing what. This codifies, you know, what restaurants should be doing, and it sets the tone not just on the materials but on how they use materials. And it also, you know, puts a safety valve on what's actually allowed to be compostable, right?

And it also is asking the food establishments to actually, you know, offer recycling to which they're not doing now. So there's more than just, you know, a moderate discussion, which I appreciate, about, you know, authority of, you know, which plastics. This is very broad in terms of how we're treating containers as a whole.

I appreciate that. Are we going far enough, not far enough? I believe that is a constructive conversation to have.

I really do. We may not agree in terms of effectiveness or in terms of is that the real problem that we're, you know, I should say is the regulation solving the problem or not solving the problem? That is a conversation we can continue to have.

You know what? Frankly, if we want to amend a bylaw, that bylaw, again in the spring or, you know, in April or May, I'm willing to have that conversation for sure. I just think right now there's nothing wrong with approving it as is.

Let's see how it goes. Let's see, you know, in reality, we have a lot to do even before we can get into that enforcement period. We have a lot of literature to make.

We need to work with the business community, with the public as a whole. Let's just move this forward and you feel like it either is not strong enough or it needs some sort of other management modification, by all means. Again, we've got multiple opportunities in February and May and so on.

So I'll leave it at that.

[Speaker 5] (3:27:32 - 3:28:35)
Yeah, and I want to move it forward so we don't slide backward. I want to make sure that we're, you know, that the operational improvements and the investments that our small business owners have made in complying with what is coming or complying with what they think is coming and the outreach, you know, that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, you know, completed is something that is going to continue to be implemented because at the end of the day, you know, money talks, right?

I mean, folks are going to say, well, if I'm paying 15 cents per container for this, that's in compliance and, well, they've delayed this bylaw twice now and maybe they'll delay it again. And the enforcement period is going to happen for another 12 months. You know, people will vote and purchase with their bottom line in mind.

So really, you know, I think this is fine as is. And again, I'm supportive of it. I want to move forward.

And that's just – I'm just one of five.

[Speaker 3] (3:28:36 - 3:28:43)
Oh, two of five. I'm with you. Okay.

Okay. So what do we do?

[Speaker 5] (3:28:43 - 3:29:04)
So we vote. We can vote on what we have. We can motion to amend.

But, I mean, really, you know, what we have is what we have. There can be a motion on the floor of town needing to amend. But I think we see where we are as a board and make a recommendation.

[Speaker 11] (3:29:06 - 3:29:15)
So I'd make a motion to accept Article 3 as is.

[Speaker 7] (3:29:15 - 3:29:15)
Second.

[Speaker 11] (3:29:16 - 3:29:21)
Oh, I think – With a date? With an effective date. Effective date.

[Speaker 7] (3:29:23 - 3:29:24)
July 1st. July 1, 24?

[Speaker 1] (3:29:25 - 3:29:33)
Yes. Can we do that here? Can that be written somewhat?

I mean, that's – I mean, we're approving a motion on the floor that we're not looking at.

[Speaker 7] (3:29:33 - 3:29:34)
You're approving a recommendation.

[Speaker 1] (3:29:35 - 3:29:37)
I'm sorry. Can I just – I apologize. I appreciate what you're saying.

[Speaker 5] (3:29:41 - 3:29:58)
I'm just – again, I just – Sean, can we – can we – Let's take a vote. And if this passes, we can have town council review language that can include a date of – We can. Yeah.

7-1-24. Is that your intent?

[Speaker 6] (3:29:59 - 3:29:59)
7-1-24.

[Speaker 5] (3:30:00 - 3:30:04)
Okay. All right. I have a motion.

I have a second. All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (3:30:05 - 3:30:06)
Can I ask a question?

[Speaker 5] (3:30:06 - 3:30:06)
Sure. Go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (3:30:07 - 3:30:21)
So this conversation that happened via email today, none of this is being amended to this. Cool. Well, in the motion, none of it's – In the motion right now, as it stands.

[Speaker 12] (3:30:21 - 3:30:21)
Correct.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:21 - 3:30:40)
Correct. That doesn't speak to the email. That speaks to their motion.

Yeah. Yeah. The question I would have is, does even the temporary require reference to 111 Section 31?

But I – that's fine. Motion's a motion. I'm not going to seek to do anything.

[Speaker 5] (3:30:42 - 3:30:43)
Okay. All in favor?

[Speaker 1] (3:30:44 - 3:30:44)
Aye.

[Speaker 6] (3:30:44 - 3:30:45)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:45 - 3:30:48)
Aye. Opposed? I'm abstaining.

[Speaker 6] (3:30:48 - 3:30:49)
I'm abstaining.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:50 - 3:31:08)
Okay. I would like to hear more from town council and see what language they wanted and – I hope we – That doesn't mean it doesn't have your bylaw. I hope we – no.

I don't think it goes far enough. Plain and simple for me. And I appreciate what you've done.

But – yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (3:31:09 - 3:31:15)
Article 4. Comments, questions, discussions?

[Speaker 11] (3:31:16 - 3:31:21)
I have a question on it. By passing this, does this mean we're passing the actual location?

[Speaker 1] (3:31:23 - 3:31:41)
Because it doesn't say location, so that means – It authorizes us as the select authority to have a full takeover of Phillips Park. Well, no. In fairness, the town administrator already has that authority.

It's actually – I do, but – Right.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:42 - 3:31:47)
This is what the granting authority is asking us to approve as language.

[Speaker 1] (3:31:48 - 3:31:50)
Wait, wait, wait. Why the hell – why are we doing that?

[Speaker 2] (3:31:51 - 3:31:54)
It's what the grant requires. I understand.

[Speaker 1] (3:31:54 - 3:31:55)
No. Why would we do that?

[Speaker 2] (3:31:55 - 3:32:11)
I asked that same question to town council. He said, if we want to accept the grant, we have to approve that language. And I said, what additional power does that give the town that we don't already have?

And he said – So – No.

[Speaker 1] (3:32:12 - 3:32:55)
So, anyways, I think what this is doing here is it's – Putting it under control of the town. No, no, no. I actually think it's triggering something else.

I think as though it may be that we've never – maybe it's the state's way of protecting, making sure that wherever this money is going, it's on land that's forever protected and dedicated for open space and makes it Article 97 subject for if we want to dispose of it. And I guess my question is, is Phillips Park and Phillips Park already subject to that? If not, we are making that change?

And I'm just – I have no opinion on it whatsoever, but I look to staff to actually tell us that and not me.

[Speaker 2] (3:32:56 - 3:32:56)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (3:32:56 - 3:33:29)
I'll get additional clarification on – I was speaking – do you understand what I'm – I'm sorry, I was speaking somewhat coded. Article 97 would require the act of the legislature to basically convert it from open space to non-open space, and that only applies to certain lands. This language would – and it may be – subject to Article 97.

I'm not saying – it's just that my guess is this language isn't here to make sure. Once the town takes the money and use the money, you're not undoing what you just built with this, or you're not using open space.

[Speaker 5] (3:33:29 - 3:33:34)
Didn't we talk about building – potentially building an elementary school on this site?

[Speaker 1] (3:33:34 - 3:33:55)
Yeah, but that would have been Article – well, that – yeah, again, I'm sure we examined the Article 97 thing. I don't know the answer, though, to what it – all I'm asking is that this has a lot of language in it that I couldn't explain on town meeting floor, and I don't hear anybody yet able to raise their hand and say that they want to explain it on town meeting floor. Nope.

If maybe between now and Monday we could do that. Maybe vote on it Monday evening. That's fine.

[Speaker 10] (3:33:55 - 3:34:07)
I can, however, answer Mary Ellen's question. I have a copy of the draft motion language, and it does specifically say for the purpose of improving, renovating, and equipping Phillips Park with four pickleball courts, including without limitation.

[Speaker 3] (3:34:12 - 3:34:15)
That's about the specific location question? Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (3:34:15 - 3:34:21)
Although that's not – I mean, it doesn't specify exactly where in Phillips Park, but you can't put it in a different park.

[Speaker 3] (3:34:21 - 3:34:32)
I mean, I know I've actually seen the picture of exactly where – I don't know if everyone else understands exactly where it's planned to be. That's not a question. Or is it a question?

[Speaker 1] (3:34:32 - 3:34:53)
I mean, it still needs to go through – I mean, where, but it still needs to go through CONCOM. I mean, it's still – so the issues earlier about where it is subject to flooding and conservation stuff, I mean, just for the record, this project has to go through the Conservation Commission. It's absolutely within a buffer.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. Yes.

[Speaker 10] (3:34:54 - 3:35:00)
When does this grant expire? I mean, like when? We have to accept the grant before December 30th, 2023.

[Speaker 11] (3:35:00 - 3:35:09)
And there's no other place that we looked at in town that would have fit this? I don't – Conservation Commission says it's not going to work.

[Speaker 2] (3:35:09 - 3:35:21)
This is, you know, the best location that we've been able to find. It's right next to a big, huge park, and you've got plenty of parking. You know, this is really the ideal spot.

[Speaker 3] (3:35:26 - 3:35:52)
It's not sold on Earth. It's troubling, and I have to say that, you know, I had a couple questions. I thought I had resolved them.

Assuming the gentleman that spoke tonight is correct, I'm very troubled by the fact that there was absolutely, supposedly, no conversation with the community. Do you have any information to the contrary?

[Speaker 2] (3:35:53 - 3:36:23)
No, you know, I'll look into that. I do think that we can do some outreach and we can actually, you know, get some feedback from the neighbors and really, you know, we'll walk through the neighborhood and make sure that they have a chance to speak to us before we get to construction. You know, I get that, you know, people generally don't like – some people don't like the fact that we invest in, you know, recreational facilities for them.

[Speaker 1] (3:36:23 - 3:36:31)
That's not the – please don't say that because that diminishes the concerns that he's speaking to. He's talking about proximity to something because of that.

[Speaker 2] (3:36:31 - 3:36:49)
Understood. Okay, but I just don't want to – Look, this is going to be noisy. There's going to be some legitimate concern, and I want to figure out are there things that we can do to mitigate the noise?

Are there things that we can do to help make the neighborhood a little bit more, you know, accepting of this type of investment?

[Speaker 3] (3:36:49 - 3:37:13)
And I want to thank you, Peter, and I want to rephrase my question a little bit because who knows, maybe he wasn't home one day. You know, I don't know all the facts of the situation, right? But I do think it's very important that, you know, a community development project that there's kind of interaction with the community around there.

So I appreciate you kind of following up on that thought.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:13 - 3:37:46)
I know – look, we've gone down, we've had neighborhood meetings. I've gone down to the neighborhood meetings for the new school a number of times. I've tried to make it a point to say, hey, look, we actually do want to listen.

We want to ensure that where we can mitigate, where we can actually make small changes, you know, we want the neighborhood to feel like, hey, you know, we want this to be a successful investment. That said, you know, I don't have the update on what activities the community development department has made, and I'll get back to the board on that.

[Speaker 5] (3:37:46 - 3:37:50)
I would be very, very surprised if there was no, absolutely no community outreach.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:50 - 3:37:50)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (3:37:50 - 3:38:02)
Very, very surprised. Right. So if we can – so that on top of the language, if we maybe can just defer further conversation or motion until Monday.

I mean, just – I want to understand this legal language, too, just to make sure we're clear and take this up Monday before town meeting.

[Speaker 19] (3:38:03 - 3:38:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:03 - 3:38:08)
Great. I mean, I'm not trying to start off debate. I just think we're talking on Monday anyways.

[Speaker 3] (3:38:10 - 3:38:44)
Anything additional? This – I suppose while we're adding to your homework assignment, Sean, the flood issue, I think it would be helpful to understand any thinking that's gone into. You know, is it already planned that it's going to be bermed up around it or something like that?

You know, people have raised there's something in our climate action plan that as well as CONCOMM.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:44 - 3:38:52)
Yeah. I mean, the CONCOMM would actually want the exact opposite. Would actually want it – if it's going to flood, they don't want to displace flood water.

So they're going to – but anyways, yes. Good question. I have no idea the answer.

[Speaker 2] (3:38:52 - 3:38:56)
The good news about, you know, some of these wetlands is we've removed a bunch of abandoned trailers.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:57 - 3:38:58)
We've heard. We've heard.

[Speaker 11] (3:38:59 - 3:39:00)
Oh, that's what's different down there.

[Speaker 3] (3:39:04 - 3:39:32)
I mean, but it's not just actually about the Pickleball Court area. I mean, that whole area, there's flood issues, you know, and it's going to kind of get worse. But I would be interested to understand if that is really being thought about or if it's more like, well, we'll deal with that once we go to CONCOMM.

And as I understand it, CONCOMM maybe technically can't literally stop this, but they can put conditions on, right?

[Speaker 1] (3:39:33 - 3:39:54)
No, no, they can deny. There are performance values in the bylaw. So CONCOMM can not issue the order of conditions.

I mean, just to clarify that. But, again, good question to understand what planning we've done to anticipate this type of stuff. Can we move on to the Consent Agenda?

[Speaker 5] (3:39:56 - 3:40:11)
The Consent Agenda is designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the board. 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 11] (3:40:12 - 3:40:16)
You can take out the liquor license for the annual holiday festival.

[Speaker 5] (3:40:18 - 3:40:19)
Okay. All right.

[Speaker 11] (3:40:19 - 3:40:21)
All right.

[Speaker 5] (3:40:21 - 3:40:22)
Is that a motion, Mary Ellen?

[Speaker 11] (3:40:23 - 3:40:23)
That's a motion.

[Speaker 5] (3:40:24 - 3:40:25)
Do I have a second to that motion?

[Speaker 3] (3:40:27 - 3:40:36)
I'm going to have to, I think, recuse myself on the Climate Action. Are you a member? Yeah.

Are you a voting member? Yes.

[Speaker 19] (3:40:37 - 3:40:37)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (3:40:38 - 3:40:38)
All right.

[Speaker 19] (3:40:39 - 3:40:40)
Oh, yeah, we've got to take that out, too.

[Speaker 5] (3:40:42 - 3:40:57)
Okay, so let's just vote these individually, then. We're going to have a discussion and possible vote to reapprove the reappointments for the Climate Action Plan Committee and staggered terms. What are the staggered terms, Sean?

[Speaker 2] (3:41:00 - 3:41:05)
Climate Action Committee, we have, let's see.

[Speaker 11] (3:41:05 - 3:41:10)
So right now, there's just one year given to the agency.

[Speaker 5] (3:41:10 - 3:41:11)
We're probably thinking about staggering.

[Speaker 19] (3:41:12 - 3:41:12)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (3:41:12 - 3:41:24)
Okay, so what would the recommendations be for each individual member? When would their terms expire? Would they go?

Am I missing something?

[Speaker 6] (3:41:24 - 3:41:26)
No, you're on the right track.

[Speaker 3] (3:41:26 - 3:41:28)
But it's not in here. It doesn't say.

[Speaker 11] (3:41:28 - 3:41:39)
There were no recommendations. Okay. So would we want to make a recommendation?

How many is in the total of that?

[Speaker 3] (3:41:39 - 3:41:51)
There are nine being recommended. One is, there's ten members. One, we're still confirming whether or not they're going to be willing and able to continue to participate.

Got it.

[Speaker 6] (3:41:51 - 3:41:52)
When do the terms expire?

[Speaker 3] (3:41:54 - 3:41:55)
End of this month.

[Speaker 1] (3:41:55 - 3:41:56)
Right. Got it.

[Speaker 3] (3:41:57 - 3:42:00)
Okay, so. We could do it next time.

[Speaker 1] (3:42:00 - 3:42:04)
I was going to say. Why is it the end of the month? Because terms end of the calendar year?

[Speaker 6] (3:42:05 - 3:42:07)
The end of the calendar year when they were established.

[Speaker 1] (3:42:08 - 3:42:08)
Fiscal year.

[Speaker 6] (3:42:08 - 3:42:09)
Fiscal year.

[Speaker 1] (3:42:10 - 3:42:22)
Oh, yeah, I assume that our vote was a fiscal. We've never applied on a calendar year. No, fiscal.

We did one-year terms, excuse me. One year to the end of the fiscal year. But anyways, out of our abundance of caution, fine.

But I just.

[Speaker 11] (3:42:22 - 3:42:23)
Want to get something done early?

[Speaker 1] (3:42:24 - 3:42:29)
Yeah. No way. Good for you.

We're doing it early. So we can free up time. It's all Diane.

All right.

[Speaker 2] (3:42:31 - 3:42:43)
So there's a recommendation for staggered terms. You know, do we want to just appoint half to one-year terms and the other half to two-year terms or three-year terms?

[Speaker 11] (3:42:43 - 3:42:48)
We might want to go one-third, one-third, one-third, one-year, two-year. We could do that, too.

[Speaker 3] (3:42:48 - 3:42:56)
It's just, you know. Actually, Diane, unless you think it. Why don't we pump this to the 20th and get that straightened out offline.

[Speaker 1] (3:42:56 - 3:42:57)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (3:42:57 - 3:42:59)
Maybe the next member might be.

[Speaker 1] (3:42:59 - 3:43:01)
I don't want to offend anybody.

[Speaker 2] (3:43:01 - 3:43:01)
Perfect.

[Speaker 1] (3:43:02 - 3:43:09)
Just have this stuff sorted out. You didn't say, hey, I want to take something off the agenda even the night of. So we don't actually talk about things that.

Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:09 - 3:43:23)
Vote to approve the one-day liquor license for Andrew and get me for the annual holiday festival on town hall lawn. On Saturday, September, December 16, 4 to 8. I have a motion.

[Speaker 1] (3:43:26 - 3:43:27)
I'll make a motion to approve.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:28 - 3:43:29)
Thank you. Oh, I have a second.

[Speaker 6] (3:43:30 - 3:43:30)
I'll second that motion.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:31 - 3:43:33)
All in favor. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 6] (3:43:34 - 3:43:34)
No.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:34 - 3:43:45)
Opposed? Motion carries. Vote to approve minutes of the regular meetings of November 15 and November 20.

So moved.

[Speaker 19] (3:43:45 - 3:43:46)
Second.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:47 - 3:43:47)
All in favor?

[Speaker 19] (3:43:48 - 3:43:48)
Aye.

[Speaker 5] (3:43:49 - 3:43:50)
All right select board time.

[Speaker 11] (3:43:59 - 3:44:30)
I just have disability I have Disability Commission is working with the Senior Center on their on the grant. Oh wait I do have one little thing to add also I forgot I went to the retirement board and they're just working on making an evaluation on who they're using for their advisor and that's retirement so those are the two committees.

[Speaker 1] (3:44:39 - 3:44:48)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 2] (3:44:50 - 3:44:57)
Thank you. Thank you Joe. Thanks everyone.

Diane, thank you. Patrick, thank you. Wayne, thank you.

Amy, Sean, Diane.