[Speaker 32] (0:18 - 2:14) . . . [Speaker 19] (2:21 - 4:25) . . . . . [Speaker 9] (4:26 - 4:50) . . [Speaker 33] (4:50 - 4:54) . [Speaker 9] (4:54 - 5:20) . . . All right. Before we get into the Town Administrator report and public comment, we are going to have a reading of the Black History Month proclamation by Swampscott high school students. So joining us this evening are our three students from Swampscott High School, Desiree Bickerstaff Peoples, Angel Hejenam, and Mayna Alves Valera. Thank you! [Speaker 38] (5:42 - 6:44) a struggle that has brought us to this historic moment of trying to live up to the founding principles of our nation, Tom Swanscott, that all people are created equal and have the right to be treated equally throughout their lives. Whereas this observance affords a special opportunity to become more knowledgeable about black heritage and to honor black citizens who have contributed to Swanscott's economic, cultural, spiritual, and political development. Whereas after the Civil War, exodusers migrated from the South and settled in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, they brought with them the desire for economic opportunities, freedom from oppression and harassment, and freedom to create their own lives. These settlers played an important role in settling the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the town of Swanscott, as well as the rest of the United States. Whereas in 1915, Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson noted black scholar and son of former slaves founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life in History, which was later renamed the Association for the Study of African American Life in History. [Speaker 29] (6:46 - 8:03) Whereas Dr. Woodson initiated Black History Week February 12, 1926, and for many years, the second week of February, chosen to coincide with the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln was celebrated by black peoples in the United States. Whereas in 1976, as part of the nation's bicentennial Black History Month, Black History Week was expanded and became established as Black History Month and is now celebrated all over North America, Canada and Europe. Whereas while the observance of Black History Month calls our town's attention to the continued need to battle racism and to build a society that lives up to its democratic ideals, this year's celebration and recognition of Black History Month are especially significant as we reflect on the historic challenges facing our community and our nation at this time. Whereas we acknowledge that black history is American history, stories and facts fully interwoven in the political, economic, cultural, scientific and democratic fabric that makes up our great country. [Speaker 24] (8:10 - 10:19) Whereas this year we are proud to celebrate key elements of the 2023 George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, banning chokehold, restricting no-knock warrants and other efforts supported by the Swanscott Police Department that define the best practices with community policing including the recent hiring of most diverse group of Swanscott police officers and firefighters in the history of our town. These efforts have helped to advance public trust and safety as we build a brighter, more inclusive future for our town, our commonwealth and our nation. Whereas the town of Swanscott is proud to celebrate Black History Month and pledge our continued commitment to build a welcoming community, one that reflects the full talents and diversity of the American people and that celebrates Swanscott's third annual Juneteenth celebration among other efforts by Swanscott and broader community that is committed to build a future that is inclusive and ready to confront deep racial inequities and a system of systemic racism that continues to plague our community and nation. Whereas the town of Swanscott commits to doing everything in our power to demand that we all seek a greater understanding and implement changes to ensure that racism, anti-Semitism and the unjust treatment of any person is not to be tolerated in any way or form within the town of Swanscott. Whereas Swanscott Unites, Respects, Embraces Diversity will host a Black History Month celebration on Tuesday, February 27th, 7 p.m. at Swanscott High School to share important conversations about Swanscott's Black History AML work to build a more inclusive community. Now, therefore, the town of Swanscott hereby establishes February 2024 as Black History Month. Thank you. [Speaker 29] (10:20 - 10:49) Good job. In the town of Swanscott, Massachusetts, encourage all faith-based and non-profit organizations, residents, businesses, civic and public institutions to acknowledge, honor, value and celebrate Black citizens and celebrate our diversity, heritage and culture and continue our efforts to create a world that is more just, peaceful and prosperous for all. [Speaker 38] (10:53 - 11:06) In witness whereof, we have here unto set our hands and cause to be affixed by the great seal of the town of Swanscott, Massachusetts, this 7th day of February, 2024. Thank you. [Speaker 36] (11:12 - 11:48) I'm gonna ask you guys to come back down for a second. So, I just wanted to kinda tell the story behind how this practice created. We wanted to celebrate Black History Month and I had asked one of my officers to put something together to commemorate Black History Month. And lo and behold, Officer Wilson, I'll have you come up here. SRO Officer Wilson. [Speaker 41] (11:55 - 12:00) He likes to be seen and not heard. [Speaker 36] (12:00 - 13:04) So this was a way, you know, we realized that there is so much divisiveness, there's so much hate going on in our society, and we need more hope, unity, and healing. And this is just one of our first steps to commemorate Black History Month and commemorate our black children, our black brothers, our sisters. So this is just the first step. We have much more work to do. But I just want to say thank you to our students tonight. And each one of them, I wanted to present them with the patch. So thank you very much for coming. Brian can give a little bit more of the story, just so you guys have an understand, because it's so special of how it was created. So I'll have Brian just give just a quick blurb of the story of how this came to be. [Speaker 40] (13:06 - 14:02) Yeah, so the chief had asked me to kind of come up with an idea behind this. I won't lie, I was sweating thinking about it, because it was a challenge. Usually my partner does all the work for me, the dog, as you all know. But so I tried, honestly, googling first Black History Month police patches, and to surprise or not surprise, they really didn't exist. So that presented another challenge for me. But working in the schools, I had the advantage. So I figured the Mecca Room was the next best option. So Mr. Bailey was up there, who I work a lot with, with the kids. And we kind of asked a question of each other. And he happened to have a kid in his room, who's an amazing artist, AJ. The pictures on the wall, I was blown away by. So I kind of asked if he'd like to help me, and didn't even hesitate. So we worked through a couple of different designs, and here we are. It came out amazing. I mean, I'm just blown away with, it took the kid 20 minutes to do it. It would have taken me 20 weeks, and I still couldn't have come up with something this good. So just proud of him, and it's amazing, and I'm proud to be part of this. [Speaker 3] (14:18 - 14:28) Thank you, Chief. I'm just going to hand the mic over to Ralph Edwards from Shore, and he's going to tell us a little bit about an event that's planned later this month. [Speaker 18] (14:28 - 17:32) Thanks, Ralph. Thank you. Thank you, Chief and officers for, you know, this is all part of making Swampscott a welcoming community, and I can't tell you, I've been here about 20 years, how this makes me feel a much greater part of this great town. So thank you, thank you, thank you, and my fellow citizens, thank you all for this. The next way in which you can, we can all celebrate Black History Month is to attend an event at the high school here on February 27th. It's going to be at 6 p.m., and Mary DiGiulio and I are here representing Shore, the organization that's sponsoring it. It's the diversity group here in Swampscott. It's going to be a fantastic evening. Some of the things that will happen, there's a string quartet that's been brought together by a Swampscott resident that will be playing the music of Joseph Ballone, Javier de St. Joyce. He was a, born into slavery in Guadalupe in the 1700s. His father, who was the owner, his owner, took him to France, and he became a great composer, and in his day he was known as the Black Mozart. That music will be played. Any of you who were at last year's event saw the high school chorus, and they just turned the place up with their music. This year, it's the middle school chorus. In addition to that, I'd say that our town historian, Dr. Nancy Schultz, will be sharing research done about black life in Swampscott, beginning in colonial times. That's going to be fascinating. One of our town poets, Enzo Surin, again, he's done this, this will be his third year, will be sharing his poetry and his insights about black life in the 21st century. It's going to be a fantastic evening of poetry, history, music, and a great way for all of us to come together and get to know better the experiences of blacks in Swampscott. We owe it to the board and the administrator in helping us bring this all together. Hope to see you all there. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (17:41 - 17:55) Mr. Chairman, do you want a motion to approve the proclamation? What's that? Do you want a motion to approve the proclamation? Yes. I would make a motion to approve the Black History Month proclamation. All in favor? [Speaker 9] (17:55 - 17:56) Aye. [Speaker 1] (17:56 - 17:59) Aye. All right. [Speaker 9] (17:59 - 18:03) We're going to jump into the town administrator's report. Sean. [Speaker 3] (18:03 - 20:14) All right. Well, I am going to keep it brief. We have a packed room and a busy agenda, but really pleased that we'll be discussing the proposals on the hotel a little later tonight. We are busy with our FY25 budget development. We did attend a meeting last Friday with Mayor Nicholson and the Undersecretary of Environmental Affairs and a number of state agencies to talk about King's Beach. We are reviewing proposals for our diversity, equity, and inclusion consultant. Today we had a meeting with the selection team to shortlist recommendations for a public presentation with the select board. I want to thank everybody who came out to a Holocaust Memorial event held at Town Hall on January 25th. Very pleased that we had a number of rabbis and members of the community to think about the Holocaust. Our senior center is very busy. We're putting in a new kitchen and we have a meal scheduled, you know, as soon as we can get that ready to go and lots of other busy activities. Our assessing department is busy with dealing with abatement requests and a number of spike in abatement requests this year. Let's see, health department is busy with opioid surveys online and we have moved forward with the hiring of a new HR director, Mary Ann McCasters, and rec programs are up and running. You can go to swampsgoodmyrec.com to see all of our rec programs and our summer rec programs. And lastly, our town clerk has been very busy with gearing up for a presidential primary last week of February. We have early voting on Saturday, February 24th. Town Hall will be open from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. And that's my report. [Speaker 9] (20:14 - 20:47) Thanks, Sean. Questions, comments from the board? All right. Hearing none, we'll move on to public comment. If you are here to make comment about the Hadley Hotel presentation, that is a separate agenda item, so please hold those comments until we get there. Anything else, please be addressed. Come to the microphone. You'll have two minutes to make public comment. State your name, address, and voting precinct, if known. [Speaker 42] (22:46 - 22:48) Thank you, Mr. Iannacone. [Speaker 14] (23:02 - 25:28) Hi. Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3. I'd like to address our dysfunctional local election turnout. Can you believe we have 12,000 registered voters in town yet and certain election cycles 85 to 90 percent fail to vote? We offer early voting, longer voting periods, voting by mail, but when only 10 percent turn out, it's not because they didn't have the opportunity or transportation. Are we really asking the right questions? Is it because of apathy and disengagement about the importance of town issues, feeling that one's vote doesn't matter? Considering we have 25-plus town committees, our involvement at the community level is high, yet too many elected seats remain unfilled. It is a thankless job, as I'm sure many of us in town leadership know, but what are the solutions? How do we get people reenfranchised with local government? It takes effort and recruiting. It takes town journalism, maybe a bit of marketing, and it takes a complete town effort to remind people the importance of a democratic representation. It's a problem as old as time, but let's talk about what's not okay. Stuffing the ballot box with 300 unqualified underage voters in substitution for apathetic voters, it's actually anti-democratic. And why? Well, considering this new class of voters is under the direct control of other voters, how can the public expect impartiality given the extensive influence and control in their lives? It's in the home, it's in the freedom of travel, their financial dependence, the ideas that they are taught in school and their grades, which are controlled by other adults who have direct interest in how the town votes. They still haven't taken civics. They can't legally have their own bank account without a guardian. They're not allowed to freely operate a vehicle. They literally need permission to miss school, but hey, let's give them a town credit card to vote on a $100 million school. Or vote in a teacher union issue at the school committee. How will this new class be informed on an issue? Who will be allowed to call them, speak to them, contact them, all without parental permission or interference? What role will the schools have in electioneering during school hours? Or something that the school staff can directly influence while students are forced to attend educational and educational experience? I mean, even military recruiters need parental permission to contact minors. So in the school environment, would this new voter class be influenced at an age where popularity is a strong motive and cognitive, rationalized reasoning is still developing? I really hate to say this, but this is a cop-out to avoid the hard work of voter engagement. [Speaker 9] (25:28 - 25:29) Thank you, Mr. Spritz. [Speaker 14] (25:30 - 25:47) Can I ask for one more sentence? I would urge that the board drop this article, consult with the Board of Registers, and hold public hearings on voter engagement like we do with every other important topic in the town. So as not to be a hypocrite myself, let me know how I can help. Thank you. [Speaker 9] (25:47 - 26:05) Thank you, Mr. Spritz. Mr. Hale. Yeah, there's no habit. Everything else. Fair game. [Speaker 23] (26:06 - 28:33) Hey, folks. I'm Ryan Hale. I'm Chair of the Capital Improvement Committee, Town Meeting Member, and Renewable Energy Committee Member. I'm addressing the Select Board today and the members of the community to express my concern about the current trajectory of the FEER project. I tried to use my position as the Chair of the Capital Improvement Committee to vote with my feet in that committee and was outvoted. So I wanted to raise my views here in a more public forum to give our Town Meeting Members more information and a chance to prepare for the vote on the warrant that's coming up. My main concern is that the trajectory of the project has drifted drastically from what was recommended by the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2016 Coastal Resiliency Study, and the 2020 Harbor Plan, all of which indicate the number one priority should be installing infrastructure to mitigate storm damage, wave action, flooding, and wind damage to property along the entire coastline of Swampscott. And the current focus of our spending is on the pier. And the motivations for the current pier project are to maximize the mooring area for the fleet. And those do not align with the priorities that were laid out in those previous reports. I think that we have a chance to stop the Town from throwing good money after bad and revisit the original priorities, which are to protect the entire coastline of the Town, not just the pier. I do believe we need to replace the pier. And if this had requested come through like every other capital project we see of, we have this knackered building, let's build a new one, this would have been something I would have approved easily without this much discussion. However, the current scope of the project has grown drastically from a simple replacement in kind. Regulators have said it's dead in the water, and I think we should stop spending money on it. So my recommendation is that we change course. We take the capital project as it's currently written out of the plan, and we redirect our funding towards engineering studies for infrastructure that will protect our entire coastline from flooding and storm damage, and tackle the replacement of the pier next. If we don't fix the coastal flooding, the pier will not last long enough for us to replace it. Thanks for taking my comments, and if you have any questions, I'll be here. [Speaker 16] (28:33 - 28:34) Thank you, Mr. Hill. [Speaker 37] (28:49 - 30:10) Good evening. Chris Schwartz, District 5. I first want to start by thanking all of you for the hard work you do. And I agree with just about everything you said. I'm a 23-year naval officer, a lifelong sailor. I think that as a seaside town, while we need to do everything we can, we are inextricably connected to the ocean. Tidal rise is a fact. Storms are more intense. In fact, I even heard just the other day that meteorologists are looking at making a hurricane Category 6 because of that fact. So it's important that we continue to do all we can to have infrastructure built so we have sewage-free harbor, that we do everything we can for shoreline resiliency. I understand that the pier project has been a 10-year project. We are in year four of this project. If you look at the pier, the pier is the artery to the ocean. It's how we get out to our boats. It's how we have access to the ocean. And if we can't figure out how to do both things simultaneously through proper grants, through proper research, then we're doing it wrong. So thanks for your time. [Speaker 9] (30:11 - 30:17) Thanks, Mr. Schwartz. We have someone online on Teams. Diane, I can't see the name. [Speaker 8] (30:18 - 30:21) Ms. Garcia. [Speaker 9] (30:24 - 30:25) Ms. Garcia. [Speaker 39] (30:44 - 30:45) There we go. [Speaker 41] (30:45 - 30:46) I'm sorry. [Speaker 39] (30:48 - 30:51) And by the looks of Katie Phelan, it sounds like I'm very loud. [Speaker 9] (30:51 - 30:52) Go ahead. [Speaker 39] (30:53 - 31:57) My name is Charlotte Daher de Garcia, Precinct 3, 11 Banks Terrace. Just two doors down from Ms. Phelan. I just want to echo what Chris mentioned about the pier. I'm in full support of the pier project. As a boat owner, I really find the pier to be invaluable. And given the recent storms, I think it's important to keep proceeding and pursuing new piers. We really don't have time to wait on it. But before becoming a boat owner and even a resident, the pier has always stood out to me as a landmark for all to enjoy. When we were house hunting, one of the spots in town that always stood out to us was Fisherman's Beach and the pier. And ultimately, it drove us to buy in town. We've been residents for 11 years now. The community also uses the pier daily, whether it's artists painting our beautiful oceanfront, families making memories and capturing photos. I have countless photos of my family on the pier. Beachgoers, fishermen, the pier is a real focal point for our town. It's a landmark. If you look at any painting or any swanscot swag, our pier is on it. It's a landmark. And I really think it needs to be maintained, not only for safety, but just to preserve it. You know, we preserve all of the landmarks in town. And the pier is something that, you know, should be enjoyed for years to come. Thank you. [Speaker 26] (32:20 - 34:13) There we go. Okay. Hello, everybody. I'd like to thank everybody for attending and for the select board for taking this time. I just want to reiterate what everybody said about the pier project and about climate control with the building of the wall and fixing that structure to protect us. But one of the biggest things that I wanted to hop on with the pier project is that this town is seeming to make a turn, a great turn. And with the thoughts of what's going to be going into for the hotel and for the thoughts of everything moving down the line of the coast and possibly bringing more tourists to us. The pier project is a focal point there because it's going to attract more boaters. It's going to attract more people to come to us, not only by land, but also by sea. So I really think that this is a great opportunity right now for two things. One, to protect us because of everything that's going on with storms and to make sure that a piece of us does not get destroyed. And also, two, because it's going to help us build Swampscott into a focal point of Massachusetts with bringing people by land and sea. So I would encourage the select board to keep striving forward with the pier project, keep striving forward with building up for climate control and protecting the wall and building up. Looking into ways to protect us so that we don't sink with the sea. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Shujuan. [Speaker 17] (34:27 - 37:43) Hi, good evening. My name is Hillary Fouts. I live in Precinct 6 and I'm here tonight to speak about the pickleball courts. And first I want to thank whoever authored and obtained the grant. I would be lying if I told you I don't know who was responsible for that. So thank you for whoever is trying to provide another amenity in our town. I've been a real estate agent here for two decades now. I grew up here. I've lived in this town for 45 years. I had graduated from here. My husband did. My kids did. So we're very vested in this town to say the least. And of recent when I am showing properties or people are thinking of moving here, they very much want to know what kind of amenities we have. And I am specifically also asked about pickleball courts. And I don't know if everybody is aware of this or not. And I did a few notes before coming here tonight. So you'll have to just bear with me because I didn't know this was happening tonight. In Massachusetts alone, there are 373 towns with courts. We are the 15th highest, Massachusetts the 15th highest state in the U.S. for having pickleball courts. Boston, Newton, and Westfield are the top three cities. It's a great low-impact sport for all ages. It's fun. You don't even have to be in great shape. I've done it myself, so I am living proof. But the reason I'm here tonight is because apparently people who live what they feel in earshot of Phillips Park on Sutton Place and some of the other streets were complaining that there would be noise. And I left my visual at home. A pickleball, for those that you don't know, is literally looks like a yellow wiffle ball. We are used to listening to football games and whistles blowing and someone officiating and doing the colors on microphones. And we are a town of sports and fun. So I can't even believe this has to be discussed to protect $56,000 that's going to pay for about two-thirds of the courts to go up. So I'm just surprised I have to be here. But I do have to say that, you know, we all live near something. We live near things we like. We live near things we don't like. I live near Tedesco Country Club. The sirens go off for the safety of the majority of the people who golf. They have to get people off when there's lightning. I don't complain. The people who live on Stanley Road, their houses may get hit by golf balls. They live there. I lived on Plymouth Ave before my current house. I could hear the train from my house. I could hear planes overhead. It's just how it goes. People who live near the schools have traffic twice a day, just how it goes. So in closing, what I would like to say is that I would like to ask the select board to support and enthusiastically vote for accepting the grant for pickleball courts in Swampscott to keep the pickleball article alive and let town meeting decide. A vote for anything less than what's best for the majority of this town than being held hostage by a few minority people who are angry about pickleball noise. We just can't do that. So thank you. [Speaker 9] (37:43 - 37:48) Thank you. Mr. Dooley. [Speaker 31] (37:51 - 39:35) Thank you. Thank you, Ted Dooley, Magnolia Road. I'm also a member of the Harbor Committee, and I'm sure you'll hear from my colleagues later tonight. But I just wanted to comment as a resident. I lived on Puritan Road for the first five years I lived in Swampscott and looked out at that pier every day. And for those who haven't followed the pier project, we're in year number three or four, and we're not even 50 percent of the way designed for this pier. And in those four years, we've seen that pier literally lose planks, have people fall through those planks when they're not there. That pier is not going to be there forever, and this project takes years. It could very well take a decade to get built. So the project is more of do we want a pier in this town or do we not? Because it takes a long time in order to get something permitted, to get a feasibility report, to get a right design that matches what the permit-granting agencies want, what the ecological resources inform us, and to get the town to support it. These things take a long time. In order for us to get it right, the ball has to start rolling. The longer we wait, the longer that pier is going to get damaged, continue to get damaged because it's happening every month it seems like. So do we want a pier? If yes, let's proceed. If we don't want a pier, then let's just stop and not worry about it. That pier is not going to stand Mother Nature and what it's doing to it. So we need to make a decision now. Do we want to work together and figure out how we can preserve being a coastal seaside community with working harbor or not? And it's a very simple question because it's a long time to get one of these things built, and I think that's a serious question that we all need to look at. In closing, thank you for your time. [Speaker 9] (39:35 - 39:35) Thanks, Ted. [Speaker 35] (39:45 - 40:37) Good evening. I'm Dr. Stephanie Nauman, and I'm from Precinct 5. I am going to speak about the pickleball courts. Pickleball is a fabulous sport, and the location where we place those courts should take into consideration how the courts will impact the community around them and as a whole. Now, the concern that was brought up earlier is the noise. Yes, the noise is very disturbing. In fact, noise is frequently used as torture in certain countries. But the problem extends beyond the noise. There are issues with flooding. There's a floodplain area where the pickleballs were originally suggested to be placed. I have photos of them on my phone. I don't know how they can be projected on the screen. I can show it to the board right now. [Speaker 9] (40:48 - 40:51) Ms. Nauman, why don't you finish your two minutes? [Speaker 35] (40:57 - 41:34) So my point is let's do pickleball courts, but let's not do them at Phillips Park. There was already a vote at town meeting, and it was defeated. So it's being brought up again at town meeting for the same location. We have had temporary pickleball courts at the middle school. Why not make them permanent? There's an area near the cemetery where the dog park area is. Why not put them there? I'm not against pickleball courts. I just think the town should take into consideration the hundreds of people who live in the area of Phillips Park who will be impacted in a variety of ways by having pickleball courts there. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (41:34 - 41:34) Thank you. [Speaker 21] (41:46 - 43:16) I'm Colleen Sproul. I live on the corner of Pumphrey and Ocean Avenue. I wanted to say I'm in favor of the pickleball courts, and I also voted in favor of the bike path, even though that was right next to my house. On the issue of the mitigation of flooding in the town, I just hope that the town uses some information that we already have. In the 60s, most of our coastline was removed to build a runway at Logan, and that has changed our coastline. Building a wall, I don't know how helpful that's going to be when they've dredged everything that protected Swampscott and all of our property decades ago. I'm in favor of the pier, but not if... We've had this government flood analysis that we got in 2016 or 2017, so we know where the five flood zones are. We already put part of the police station in one of them. I think that the pickleball courts could be where we intend them to be because they could be slightly elevated. And there could be other mitigation on site, but I think that's the proper place for them because we already have a lot of activities take place there from our kids' soccer games to the football games, and I think that's an appropriate place that would encourage... Everyone knows about it, and we all get together there already where the basketball courts are. Thank you. [Speaker 37] (43:16 - 43:17) Thank you. [Speaker 27] (43:28 - 45:18) Hello. Maria Williams, Precinct 5. I live on Puritan Lane, and my family owns property on Sutton Place, and this is about the pickleball courts. Because there has been so much being built in this area in the past few years between the Bertram House and the police station and other things, the water table is not able to take the water that's going to come in for these pickleball courts. The flooding that goes on in Sutton Place right now is up to a doorway coming in, two feet deep, and a lot of this is no drainage if we have more hot tub going down here. It's also a situation where our kids play sports on these fields. People want to use the beach. You can't have the parking there anymore if you put in pickleball courts. All the parents that want to take their kids to the playground that use the parking lot there, a lot of that's going to go. A lot of the parking for the football games and all the other sports that are being played there will not be there if the pickleball courts go in. The noise, I know that's a personal thing, but you've got a nursing home there for people, that that noise is very loud, and there must be other places, maybe where the dog park is or other land areas, to put a pickleball court. But it's really, there's wetlands there, and the land is not used for enough things that it's, I just think it's not going to work well for the watershed that they're so opposed to it, as are most of the neighbors, because they see the water there all the time, and the pickleball courts will also get flooded. [Speaker 9] (45:19 - 45:20) Thank you, Ms. Williams. [Speaker 25] (45:27 - 47:28) Neil Pearlstein, Precinct 5. I'm the one who gave you the pictures. Yep. What you're looking at in those pictures is from the 13th, where you've got the paved parking lot, which is underwater, and the area that was originally proposed for the pickleball courts also being underwater. I have other photos of the neighbors along Sutton Place. I'm not a fan of the noise, but that's not my big concern. My secondary concern is the lack of parking. That area, just sporting events that go on. A gentleman just stopped me. He coached, I coached soccer years ago on that field, and there is no parking when everybody's there. In the end, there are other areas that I went out and looked at. Behind the middle school, down by the tennis courts that are there, there are 100 or more parking spaces there. Those kids aren't driving to school, so why not use some of that? It abuts up against a wooded area from Tedesco. Why not use some of that? Another area is up by the dog park, which at one time they tried to put in that same area in Phillips Park. By the way, now there's a coyote who's set up house there, but there's also areas with lobster traps, and there's plenty of room just reconfiguring that. Then also acres of land behind that where the DPW has a yard, but there's a whole stretch that goes down towards the cemetery that's acres and acres of land. There will be a perfect spot for a pickleball because you don't have to worry about the flooding. You don't have to worry about the neighbors. That's what I wanted to make you aware of, and thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Perlowski. Mr. Riley. [Speaker 30] (47:34 - 49:29) Hi, Steve Riley, Precinct 5, Willow Terrace. I, too, weigh in highly on the pickleball issue. I just heard about it this morning or yesterday morning. I actually don't like pickleball. My father-in-law beats me every time, so if anyone wants to try to beat him, good luck. But it seems to me that the issue here really is location. Noise is a real thing. There are lawsuits all over the country about it, people complaining about it. It's heavily monitored in Marblehead, where they've squeezed those really nice courts in. The neighbors have come to some kind of agreement about that. It's been a huge issue there, as it is almost in every community where you put one. So that's a real thing. But it seems like the real issue, for me, is the use of that location. That is, it's a wetland. Anything that heavy is going to sink. That ground is always settling. I lived down there after the most recent storm. This gets to what Ryan Hale was saying. There were waves coming over the Eisman Wall, onto the grass, over the wall, and thousands of gallons per dump. We've had two of those in the last five years. There's going to be more of those. So it seems like a better location should be found, I think, for that. Also, there's a lot of boat storage there, a huge place for people parking. They park all the way up and go all the way back to the paved side, where the nice new paved parking lot. So in the summer, it's a heavily, heavily used public space. It's not just empty space for a court. There are other empty spaces that people have already identified, which are suitable. There's parking, there's privacy, and there's flat space that drains well. So I'm just, that's it. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Riley. [Speaker 34] (49:39 - 51:13) Good evening. Thank you for everything you guys do and everybody being here expressing your thoughts. It's important. I'm a new member to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. My name is Lisa Boehmer. I don't know my spree sink. I've only lived here five years. The waterfront is our joy. The work that the committee has been doing is unbelievable. If you're not sure, take a look at their minutes. From the eelgrass to taking a look at what's happening, the rising water everyone's talking about. It's important for the community to recognize when people move here, as you're saying, I own a gift shop, first thing they want to say is where do I take my family? Where can I take my friends? That's where we experience life is down along the waterfront there. We run errands up in the other part of town. And so it's very important, I feel, to create, and you are doing it with the work that that committee is doing. Thank you for having me be a part of it. I feel very much a listener and a learner. But they're doing a phenomenal job. There are deadlines to get grant money. And if they don't borrow by a certain date, they don't get that money and you start all over again. And I don't know if you guys were all here for the last storm, where each end of Humphrey Street flooded, couldn't get in or out of it, and apparently two planks came off the pier. And that's a lot of force to take that water over that wall and push up those planks. So that pier's not going to sit there very long. And we did vote to move it. We want to make it more accessible so people know it's handicapped accessible, you can get up and down that, and that it is an iconic symbol of our town. Thanks. [Speaker 4] (51:14 - 51:14) Thank you, Lisa. [Speaker 9] (51:15 - 51:35) Thank you. All right. This is a great segue. Thank you for public comment. We do have the Climate Action Plan Committee as well as the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee here this evening to discuss recent climate-related impacts to Swampskate. [Speaker 4] (51:36 - 51:49) David, may I just say I just really, really appreciate everyone coming out here and speaking on these issues. This is just, like, fantastic democracy in action, really having this discussion. I just want to thank everybody for coming and speaking your mind. [Speaker 9] (51:49 - 51:56) Absolutely. Absolutely. So I do think you, Martha, I think if we can start with you. Sure. [Speaker 41] (51:56 - 51:58) Can I say a certain topic today? [Speaker 9] (51:58 - 51:59) Sure. Absolutely. [Speaker 41] (52:06 - 52:12) Resiliency. Resiliency. PowerPoint. [Speaker 7] (52:17 - 52:42) Yes. There it is. Are we ready? [Speaker 4] (52:50 - 52:51) Slide show. [Speaker 34] (53:01 - 53:03) Slide show. [Speaker 4] (53:18 - 53:36) It's been 20 years now. [Speaker 6] (53:43 - 53:53) Excellent. Okay. [Speaker 7] (54:04 - 1:02:38) So my name is Martha Smith. I'm the chair of the Climate Action Plan Committee. This is, to be clear, it's not a presentation of Climate Action Plan Committee activities. It's more of an overview of projects that are related to resiliency in Swampskate since there's a number of different municipal projects and there's a number of different committees involved. So, next slide. Okay. So how do we address climate change, which is making our weather more severe, causing flooding and other events? So there are really two major ways to address climate change. The first is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and the other is to mitigate impacts from climate change. So this slide just kind of bins the different activities, including related plans and committees in Swampskate that under these two approaches. So, for example, Renewable Energy Committee works on emissions reduction projects by promoting energy efficiency. And at the municipal level, we've taken advantage of green communities grants to implement energy savings projects. Under resiliency, we have our town's hazard mitigation plan, recommendations from the Kleinfelder Report, and a number of committees that also contribute to resiliency activities. Next slide. So no surprise that we're already experiencing climate change. So we've got two flood maps here. This one is for 2030 projections, and the next one is for 2015. So you want to page through the next one? Next slide. Yep. So go back one. So you'll see in 2050, the gray regions show areas that will be flooded at least once a year at 100% probability. So, you know, we talked about Phillips Park, so, you know, there's assets such as a police station that are impacted, also Kings Beach area, so all along the street there. Next. And then in addition to flooding events, climate change is also driving extreme heat on occasions. So this map shows heat islands of Swampsca, and heat has been shown to cause even more negative health impacts than cold, so this is also a concern. Next. So we're just going to review kind of a laundry list of activities. So, for example, we have a hazard mitigation plan. We just received a grant, which I understand will be used to update the plan. Our climate action plan includes a focus area called resilience and vulnerability, which spells out a few actions to make our infrastructure more resilient and to improve emergency preparedness in town. Next. So with green communities, we are a green community, and we've got over $1 million so far since over the last 10 years, and this set of grants that really focuses on energy efficiency and emissions reduction. We've identified, I think, Max has identified potential projects for grants in 2024, and there is a new program called Green Communities 2.0, which will be more focused on emissions reduction as opposed to energy efficiency. We have an opportunity to step up and be designated as a climate leader, and we do need to meet two criteria in order to achieve that label, so we need to adopt the specialized energy code and also create a municipal decarbonization roadmap, which will enable us to get more grants. So next. So MVP grants, municipal vulnerability program grants, are focused on building resilience to climate change. So we have received one grant so far, okay, and that was used to build up our resilience along our beachfront, so with the seagrass and sand dunes, and we are planning to apply for an additional grant or two this spring, and we haven't identified a project yet. Next. Oh, so municipal projects. So we have addressed repairs to seawall. I believe the Kings Beach seawall has been completed, repairs to that one, and we're proposing to repair Ismans Beach seawall next. I think that's been put in the plan at least, and the other seawalls to be completed include Fisherman's and Whales, and then municipal infrastructure that's at risk includes the fish house, pump station, police station, and I don't think Hawthorne should be on that list. Next. Climate Action Plan Committee, we have five focus areas, and we are actively working on a few actions, including actions in the resilience and vulnerability and natural resources area. Next. Renewable Energy Committee also supports actions in the Resilience Slums Action Plan focused on buildings and energy and transportation. Next. And then there's other committees involved. Again, some of the activities dovetail into things that we are supporting in the Climate Action Plan Committee. For example, open space does support action that are reflected in the natural resources focus area. Trees Committee, likewise, promotes health of the town's public trees, and as we know, trees absorb carbon in our atmosphere, so that also supports resilience activities. There are a number of other major grants that are available. Also, Maura Healy recently announced a new resiliency program for coastal districts, and we don't have details on that yet, but that's a work in progress and something that we should be plugged into. Next. So a number of recommendations were made from the Kleinfelder Report. I don't know that we've acted on all of these, but certainly these should be prioritized, taken into account, especially in the capital plan or in the ARPA funding that we get. Next. And then again, the Hazard Mitigation Plan had 9 or 10 goals in 2015, and this will be refreshed, and hopefully we'll get some enjoyment from other stakeholders in the process of getting updated. So that will be an important activity that we focus on. So I think that's it. I'm not sure if this is what you expected to hear, but it's kind of an overview of resiliency activities in town. [Speaker 9] (1:02:39 - 1:02:42) Thank you, Martha. Questions, comments from the board? [Speaker 6] (1:02:43 - 1:03:04) I have a question. We have a Kleinfelder Report from 2016, and I'm just wondering, what are we going to be doing this year in this year's capital budget and in this year's budget to work on anything that was recommended to us from 2016? Is there anything in here? [Speaker 3] (1:03:10 - 1:03:16) Yeah, I don't believe that we have anything in the project that's connected to that report. [Speaker 6] (1:03:20 - 1:03:47) So is there a way that we can take some time and just reevaluate it? I'm hearing people are falling through the boards in the pier. The water is out of control. If there's anybody at this table that knows the risks of climate, it's me, and it is something I'm worried about. But I also would like to see, we have a report from 2016, and I'd like to see something in here. [Speaker 3] (1:03:47 - 1:03:54) We've advanced quite a bit of effort for the pier. We've drafted grants. [Speaker 6] (1:03:54 - 1:03:56) Well, we're going to be talking about the pier next, right? [Speaker 3] (1:03:57 - 1:04:30) Yep, but you brought it up. I want you to know, we're working with state and federal agencies on getting funding for many of the projects. We've got a harbor and waterfront plan that has, I think, a series of projects in there that I've gone over in great detail with our congressional staff and legislative delegation just to try to identify some opportunities. We've built some of those projects into some of our harbor and waterfront plan. [Speaker 1] (1:04:32 - 1:05:00) So I think that's why we're here tonight, right? I mean, respectfully to your question, we're here tonight to have that conversation and advance that dialogue. And I think when we hear from the harbor, I think we're also going to hear about the living reef or the breakwater or any number of versions, which is a key resiliency factor. And so I just appreciate your question, but I think that's actually why we're all here tonight to engage in this conversation. [Speaker 6] (1:05:00 - 1:05:28) The other question I have is when Neil Duffy was here, he talked a lot about the leaks in the gas lines and how that plays a significant role in the climate. And I'm just wondering, how are we focusing on that, working with National Grid and anytime the roads are open? What is that plan? Because he really focused on how that played such a major role. [Speaker 7] (1:05:29 - 1:07:02) Yeah, it's a good question because I think the gas leaks are, buildings are responsible for like 52% of our emissions, and I think gas leaks another 8% if I have the number right. So the gas leaks, National Grid works with Gino to have a plan in terms of working around which streets are getting paved so we're not paving over areas that are planned to get replaced with new gas pipe infrastructure. But what happens is that National Grid is required to fix the Category 1 leaks, and then they fix Category 2 and 3. So we have, I think, 100 leaks in town, but as soon as we fix the more critical ones, other leaks show up. And so they have to redirect, you know, replan if new leaks show up that are Category 1. They have to kind of set aside the fixes that were planned to go focus on the more critical leaks, and that's why the plan gets reworked over time. But the data shows that the backlog's been 100 leaks for years because as soon as they fix the leaks, new ones spring up. So we always seem to have a backlog. Unfortunately, it's an old, leaking infrastructure. [Speaker 1] (1:07:03 - 1:07:47) There's actually DPU. DPU is now overseeing National Grid and utilities in terms of the gas leak repairs. People aren't really going to be able to see this, but all you need to do is see the red. So this is a tracking map, a heat map of all the leaks at Categorize 1, 2, and 3 as to priorities here. The list is ridiculously long, and it's actually not driven really by the DPW director in the streets. It would be great if it was because we've been digging up streets that we've paved recently just to do gas lines. But it's really driven about the utilities and the utilities prioritizing communities in Class 1 leaks. So it's getting the utilities' attention, and you're just competing with basically every town that has gas, unfortunately. [Speaker 3] (1:07:47 - 1:08:30) We're competing with cities. We're competing with other, you know, potentially populated areas. I know that there have been a number of neighborhoods that have really had significant problems. I've been on the phone with DPU. So as our assistant town administrator, you know, we do try to advocate when we can to try to address some of these challenges up in the town. We do get frustrated because, you know, we hear that some of our problems are Tier 2 and Tier 3. We believe that a lot of them are serious, and we know that, you know, neighborhoods are very concerned about this as they ordinarily would be. But it's very frustrating to see the magnitude of problems. [Speaker 7] (1:08:30 - 1:09:00) And all of these are known. The leaks are all categorized. They're like exact addresses are known. And we could also, I don't know if it helps, but we can make that information available. So there's a nonprofit called Heat that's mapped out all the gas leaks. We can see all the leaks in town. So if it's helpful to make that available, we can do that or, you know, generate reports on a regular basis as well. [Speaker 9] (1:09:04 - 1:09:13) So, Sean, so has the town made investments in climate action and coastal resiliency over the last 10 years? [Speaker 3] (1:09:13 - 1:09:35) Yeah, we have. We've got projects. You know, we've done some resiliency work in front of Fisherman's Beach. There's been smaller projects, but nothing major, nothing that really kind of reflects a major piece of infrastructure that will mitigate damage based on, you know, storm data and frequency. [Speaker 9] (1:09:35 - 1:09:41) So what are the investments that we're going to need to make today for the next five years, the next 10 years? [Speaker 1] (1:09:41 - 1:10:41) Every one of our seawalls needs cantilevers. That's why we ask these people here to educate us, and I appreciate we're asking the question, but I thought that's actually what our agenda was today, was to get smarter. Okay, well, he was about to answer the question, and I guess the point was we want everybody to learn here. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but the truth is we haven't made any investments. And I'm sorry, I know we're doing small things and we've gotten a couple of grants, but I think there cannot be even a reasonable debate that we've done, never mind enough, that we've done meaningful something as a coastal community exposed like we have. Like, I just don't think that's a fairly debatable thing. And so I just, I think that's why we ask these communities tonight to come educate us and raise the issue publicly so that we can raise the discourse publicly. So I just, I appreciate, Sean, you wanting to chime in and say things we've done, but respectfully, and I'm not putting it on all of us, we are behind. [Speaker 4] (1:10:44 - 1:10:46) But there are a lot of opportunities. [Speaker 18] (1:10:46 - 1:10:47) Yeah, there is. [Speaker 4] (1:10:47 - 1:10:50) There is, but can we, yeah, let's hear from Harbor and Water and then we can talk more. [Speaker 5] (1:11:34 - 1:11:38) I almost pulled a picture of my new grandchild. That's not going to work. [Speaker 1] (1:11:39 - 1:11:43) Jackson, can you just start by introducing yourselves and Jay in particular? Sure. [Speaker 5] (1:11:43 - 1:11:55) My name is Jackson Schultz, Precinct 3, town meeting member, Chair of the Harbor and Water Advisory Committee. This is Jay Borklin, who has been working with us for 10 years? [Speaker 2] (1:11:56 - 1:11:56) More. [Speaker 5] (1:11:57 - 1:12:02) More. He came on, we hired Apex and what was the other company? [Speaker 2] (1:12:03 - 1:12:03) Ramble. [Speaker 5] (1:12:03 - 1:12:09) Ramble. And then he went to Woods of London, correct? And now you work for Amagrove? [Speaker 2] (1:12:10 - 1:12:11) I do. [Speaker 5] (1:12:11 - 1:12:36) And they're the ones who are doing all the wind farm off of Martha's Vineyard and he's basically, he's the go-to guy on our committee. We rely on him and our engineer, John McAllister, greatly for their input and experience in helping direct us in the right direction for mitigation and all the things that we've been talking about tonight. [Speaker 1] (1:12:36 - 1:13:39) Mr. Chairman, can I just take a second just to do a different introduction of Jay Borklin? Jay Borklin's a Town of Swampscott resident. He's raising his family here, he's been here, and I say that just because you guys should all go Google him, you should go look up his CV, you should look up his background to understand that we happen to have one of the foremost people to deal with the issues that we're about to talk with that happens to be a resident here. And I just want to say we're on year three, you've been paid a fraction of the brain matter that you give in our town just because you are a resident here. And I just wanted to just publicly acknowledge that and appreciate that because you don't have to do the things you're doing, and I don't think you would if you weren't raising your family here and so committed to being here, so I just wanted to thank you for that because I think that's critically important for us to, again, in volunteers and at times, you know, as a consultant role, but we get so much out of you and so much technical information, which is really, really critical to guide us because we don't naturally have it here. So I just wanted to introduce you that way because it's really, I think we should be very grateful for everything that you've been doing. So thank you. [Speaker 4] (1:13:39 - 1:13:43) And I forget, Jay, are you a member of the committee or a consultant to the committee? I can't remember. [Speaker 1] (1:13:43 - 1:13:44) An advisor to the committee. [Speaker 4] (1:13:45 - 1:13:46) Okay, not a member. Okay, thank you. [Speaker 5] (1:13:48 - 1:13:53) And pro bono, like you mentioned. He's just doing it because he's committed to it. [Speaker 2] (1:13:54 - 1:14:14) And thank you, Peter, for that. And the only thing I would add is that there is a lot of brain power in this community. I think there's a lot of passion. And it's wonderful to be able to help out and to hopefully make a change when there's so many, you know, really good souls and good ideas here in town. [Speaker 5] (1:14:15 - 1:17:05) All right, so, Diana, could you go to the next slide? These are the three plans that we have currently in place. We've got the 20 Master Plan, the Harbor and Waterfront Plan, which was approved by the slate board in 2020. And we are now in 2024. And then the resiliency plan that we spoke to earlier. If you could go to the next slide, please. This is what we were looking at on January 13th of 2024. This is obviously Fisherman's Beach. Those are Jersey barriers. Those Jersey barriers are designed to keep cars from running off the road. And they're getting tossed around like bricks. And you can see the flooding in the parking lot. You can also see, if you look a little closer, how the waves are actually over the pier, which is why we are losing those four floorboards at the entrance to the fish house, which I will comment on, is still there. I was down there this morning, and those floorboards are still not put back. And one of the reasons they're not put back, I think, is because the joists that they rest on are all rotted away. And you'll see pictures of that coming forward. Next slide, please. This is the, we got two grants. The first grant was for $100,000, which we were able to do the feasibility study for the pier. And we have recently, as of July 28th, 2023, got a second grant for $212,800 to try to get us up to 60% design for the new pier. Next slide, please. So we're going to show you some slides now to reinforce the damage that has been going on over the years to Fisherman's Beach and the pier. These, you can see the Richdale at the middle slide there, completely submerged. Next slide, please. This is a result of the storm in 2023 in January. And I want to emphasize that those storms are not hurricanes. They're just regular, run-of-the-mill, B-flat storms out of the southeast. If we were to get a hurricane, say goodbye to the pier. It's gone. And I don't even want to recollect what would happen to the fish house if we were to get a hurricane. Next slide, please. Jay can speak to this, because I've done enough talking for the time being. Why don't you mention what's going on with the foundation there? [Speaker 2] (1:17:06 - 1:18:55) Yes, I think one of the things to emphasize here, and it's actually been stated a few times in public comments, there's a significant amount of damage that's coming from the increasing intensity and size of the storms and the fact that sea level is higher now than it used to be. And what that's beginning to do is have a real impact on the structural integrity of both the pier and the fish house. What we're seeing here is some undermining of some of the foundation of the fish house. This will likely continue as storms continue, and this kind of undermining will create structural damage to the fish house eventually. So it is already creating significant damage to the pier. We have a couple of other slides that will talk about the pier structure and its design life. But what we're really beginning to see now is the first indication that the real structural integrity of this part of the coast in Swampstock is really being impacted, and these structures in particular are going to be damaged and are already damaged. This would be considered fairly significant damage, and the civil engineers that we've been working with have sort of pointed out that there's a great deal of cracking in the foundation around the front end of the fish house and the porch, and all of that infrastructure that's there is really starting to get to a point where it is at risk. So the pier and the fish house are both really being impacted by this incrementally increased storm action. [Speaker 4] (1:18:56 - 1:19:05) Jay, can you just... I'm a little confused. Are you referring to the part that's, like, out to the beach? Is that the foundation of the fish house you're saying? [Speaker 2] (1:19:05 - 1:19:05) Yes. [Speaker 4] (1:19:06 - 1:19:09) Or is this picture not exactly showing what you're talking about? Right. [Speaker 2] (1:19:09 - 1:19:33) I'm sorry. That piece of concrete that's coming toward us that has a missing front to it, and it has been undermined there with some of the rivulets from the water that's coming out from underneath. Yeah, I see that. That's the concrete footer for the fish house. The footer is built much larger than the house itself, and it sticks out into the beach and previously under the beach. [Speaker 4] (1:19:33 - 1:19:37) So is water, do we understand, is water getting all the way back to the fish house underneath? [Speaker 2] (1:19:37 - 1:19:50) Yeah, water is now getting... It's hard to tell exactly how far back it's getting, but it's beginning to erode the substructure underneath the foundation that's holding up the fish house. So that will have to be addressed. [Speaker 4] (1:19:50 - 1:20:03) And have you seen, you referred to kind of clearly the structure of the fish house being affected. Have there been tests to identify literally that the structure of the fish house has been affected already? [Speaker 2] (1:20:04 - 1:21:04) I don't know if there have been. I'm not sure. But the cracking that we're starting to see now in this foundation, it probably should trigger something, an evaluation of what's happening and whether or not there may be places in the structure where they're starting to open up, as I suspect that the front end of the fish house is starting to sag a little bit because we're undermining and pulling out material from underneath the concrete footer. And that footer was placed there partly for the fish house, but then was used as the basis for the pier, which came later after the fish house. So the pier is resting on that as well. And we didn't put all the photos, of course, for this presentation that show the damage, but there's a number of places where this falling concrete related to where the fish house and the pier come together. And that's occurring because of the storm damage. [Speaker 4] (1:21:04 - 1:21:19) Has there been a professional assessment done of the expected time for this to break down more fully? [Speaker 5] (1:21:19 - 1:21:28) No, we're seeing the beginnings of it, and that has not taken place. But it's paramount to point out that this is in the process of happening. [Speaker 9] (1:21:29 - 1:21:50) So Jay, just a quick one. So right now, as it stands today, this could be fixed. However, just with the frequency of these storms, it can be fixed, and then it can degrade and erode continuously. So you're constantly in this cycle of repair. [Speaker 2] (1:21:51 - 1:23:27) Well, one of the concepts that is being considered or is considered to be very important, maybe paramount within the pier project, is to include resiliency for the front end of the fish house. So whether the pier is rebuilt where it is or whether it's moved to another location, the current project envisions that there will be resilient interventions in front of the fish house that will help protect it and hopefully stop or at least reduce this level of storm damage that is creating the problems with the fish house. So one can add resilient. Now, there's nature-based resilient solutions, and there's walls and structures that can be placed in there. That comes out in permitting and in what the desires of the community are. But in any case, there are a number of resilient interventions that can be added. And part of the design aspect of the pier project is to look at some of those interventions. So we talk about it as a pier project, but it's also a pier project and an increase the resiliency of Fishman's Beach area project as well. It would be irresponsible to just, you know, fix the pier but not really handle any of the other things that are part and parcel of the situation that's going on and it's just going to get worse. [Speaker 5] (1:23:28 - 1:23:29) Go to the next slide, please. [Speaker 6] (1:23:29 - 1:23:42) Wait, can I ask one question? Jackson, when you're looking at all this and you are considering what to do with the pier, did you also consider lifting the fish house and the pier all at one time? Was that ever considered? [Speaker 5] (1:23:43 - 1:24:00) No, because we're proposing relocating the pier to a different place. The idea of raising the fish house is something that can be considered. I think along with that would be raising the parking lot. And there are other issues that, and that's a bigger project than what we're looking at right now. [Speaker 4] (1:24:02 - 1:24:23) I think that does go a little bit to this dialogue that we've had even from public comment, right, about, you know, in calling it the pier project versus kind of an overall resilience project. I think that's where maybe we're getting into a little bit of trouble and people feeling like one isn't ahead of the other when I think, for the most part, people realize that it's all going to have to come together. [Speaker 5] (1:24:23 - 1:25:36) Well, as we know, and you know this as well, when we originally applied for the pier grant, we applied for the Living Reef as well. And Seaboard Economic Council did not give us the funding for the Living Reef because we wanted both things to be in tandem. We think that one was connected to the other. Why are you going to rebuild a pier if you can't protect it with the Living Reef? We did get funding for the Living Reef, and so we had to move forward, I mean, with the pier, so we had to move forward with that project. We are still in the process of trying to apply for grants to address the Living Reef issue. I had a conversation with Liz Smith the other day about getting her committee and our committee combined because one of the things we're talking about is putting oysters, seeding oysters into the Living Reef. And what oysters will do in the Living Reef is that they'll filter out the water and clean the water that's at Fisherman's Beach. So it's a way of possibly even getting the schools involved in aquaculture, and there's a lot of potential good things that can come out of this project for the Living Reef, but we need to readdress the grant issue for that. But in the meantime, we're still moving forward with the pier project. I hope that answers your question. [Speaker 2] (1:25:36 - 1:28:37) And I should probably add that there is a little bit of a structural problem in the state that's been longstanding. The Seaport Economic Council, which typically funds waterfront projects for cities and towns in Massachusetts, their remit has mainly been public structures. So they are used to building piers, seawalls, groynes, harbormaster facilities, lobstermen, like in Marblehead, they funded the lobster off-take activities. So they fund hard infrastructure. When we came to them with Living Reef, they weren't quite sure if it fit in their remit, and so they asked us to sort of put it aside for the time being, that they would fund what they understand. Oh, and they also fund dredging, too. But that's, you know, they wanted us to stick to the things that were in their remit, which is why they funded the pier. They said they will help the town identify places where funding can be made available for the Living Reef or other resilient activities that the town might want to undertake, whether it's building new seawalls that cantilever out that help protect the coast and reject the wave energy, or those kinds of things. But there hasn't been a clear source of funding for that. There's a new administration now, relatively new, and they have, some folks will mention it later, there's a resiliency czar now, and what we're hoping, and there's a bunch of communities on the North Shore that are interested in creating a regional resiliency group. So, you know, we think that we should partake in those activities and really look for the funding in the longer-term situation. It's been mentioned here several times that the big picture of protecting the whole coast, those are the kinds of things that Seaport Economic Council typically doesn't do. Coastal Zone Management or the EPA, the state agencies that are involved in the environmental have been involved in that. But really, the problem is happening faster than the government is changing its way of thinking. And so we're hoping that we can at least stay on the forefront in terms of trying to figure out how to really take a comprehensive approach to the problem. In the meantime, we've been given money to do a structure, and we will try to work in some resiliency activities for the beach and for the fish house into that structural thing. But the Seaport Economic Council, at least thus far, has not been providing funds for the kind of overall resiliency that we'd all like to see. So that's a work in progress. [Speaker 1] (1:28:37 - 1:30:37) Can I just ask, as you go through this, if you can just help educate me and others, perhaps, on what is necessary because of resiliency versus not resiliency. So, for example, I think that we all have, and someone spoke about it in public, we have romantic notions, if you will, attractions, good warm feelings about our view of the pier and our view of the fish house. And so when we talk about changing those things, that is unsettling, right? And I think totally understandable it's unsettling, but I think there are certain realities that you're going to talk about, about things having to change because they can't stay where they are because it's not resilient. They will end up in the water. Or there's not going to be any funding for them if you want to not make the change. And so I think it would just be helpful as you talk about the pier, and again, as we talk about the fish house, and talk about the parking lot, and talk about the areas, there's so many things around town that we are so comfortable with and that we like, and I am as guilty as anyone to that, but that we also have to begin, including in our dialogue, the reasons for the change and discern that just so that's part of the dialogue here just to help us and help us change our mindset a little bit about those things because it is going to require some drastic changes because in truth, it's not likely we're going to build a big wall around the fish house. What's likely is the fish house is going to probably need to be elevated because the grades there are what they are. And so it is more likely than not, if you're going to get millions of dollars for the fish house, it's going to be to do something that not just people in Swampscot but the state and federal government say is going to be truly resilient and do those things. So I think just as we talk about it, that would be helpful, Jay, especially the pier because I know we're going to talk specifically about the pier, but why can't we just have this pier is just something that always sits in people's minds and I think we just need to include, I would ask you to include that explanation in your words as you go forward. [Speaker 2] (1:30:37 - 1:30:42) Yeah, thank you for the comments and I think you just sort of summarized our last slide. [Speaker 1] (1:30:42 - 1:30:44) Oh, sorry. I haven't seen your presentation. [Speaker 5] (1:30:44 - 1:31:40) That's great. Diane, can we have the next slide, please? We're going to go through the rest of these because that was pretty quick. You can see on the left-hand side there the pier up against the fish house and you can see the concrete and the granite being deteriorated. That's the hole in the pier. It's not three floorboards. I believe it's five floorboards and you can see that the springers are all rotted away and your last select board meeting, you were introduced to Doug Schmidt who happened to find that in the middle of the night and go halfway through it. Fortunately for the town, he didn't hurt himself badly and fortunately for him, he didn't hurt himself badly. Can we have the next slide, please? There's some more pictures of the sand getting dragged away from the foundation of the fish house. [Speaker 2] (1:31:40 - 1:32:02) This is just showing some of the undermining of the ramp that leads up to the pier and also the fish house. This is obviously a serious situation and if enough of that sand gets moved out, that whole area is going to subside and then some real serious structural damage will occur. [Speaker 5] (1:32:04 - 1:32:37) Next slide, please. Here's just some more wave action and pictures around the fish house and the parking lot. Next slide, please. There's Humphrey Street. Next slide, please. There's some more. You have all the sand in the parking lot. You can see the wave action going over the pier which is why the pier has to get raised. Next slide, please. This is a movie. I don't know if it's going to play because it didn't play on my computer. [Speaker 2] (1:32:39 - 1:32:41) There's a push button at the bottom. [Speaker 5] (1:32:42 - 1:32:51) There it is. This is from looking at the deck on the fish house. [Speaker 2] (1:32:57 - 1:33:14) You can see that it's sunny out. This is mostly post-storm and this is forces that are still at work on the tail end of the storm. You can imagine what was happening during the actual height of the storm. [Speaker 5] (1:33:17 - 1:33:25) Next slide, please. These are movies as well. [Speaker 2] (1:33:26 - 1:33:49) This just shows water running down Humphrey Street. As the overflow from the fish house and the parking lot allowed water to sheet flow across the parking lot and the driveway next to the fish house and onto Humphrey Street and then created essentially a river flowing down Humphrey Street toward the 7-Eleven. Where is Richdale? [Speaker 5] (1:33:50 - 1:34:43) Richdale. These movies are taken from inside the coastal collective building which is the new store that opened up across from the fish house. Fortunately, they didn't take any water but Richdale obviously had to close for three or four days because of the storm. I can tell you I've talked to Don Golden at North Haven and the other businesses on the street and they're very concerned about the flooding that goes on down here. They've invested a lot of their time and money into their businesses and they're very concerned about what's going to happen with the flooding and so this needs to be addressed yesterday not today and not tomorrow. Next slide please. There are some pictures of the pier being damaged. Next slide please. [Speaker 2] (1:34:44 - 1:35:57) The point on that slide really is we were asked to present what some of the challenges are to the work that's moving forward. One of the challenges is that the pier is deteriorating now. It is well over a decade past its design life. It was built in the 60s. It was intended to last until 2010 or so. We're now at least 10 to 15 years past that and as was mentioned by others, it's going to take a while to get the permits and get everything going. We'll be at 20 years past its design life. There's a very good chance that the pier won't survive that long if the storms continue the way they are. So there is a sense of urgency in what we're looking to do and what the funding has been provided for. What happens if the pier tomorrow disappears? So that is a problem. I knew that, Jerry. I just don't know what kind of problem. The Swampscott's a special place for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is it has this really healthy bed of eelgrass in the harbor that has a very high level of regulatory protection. [Speaker 5] (1:35:59 - 1:36:01) If you go to the next slide, you can see the eelgrass. [Speaker 2] (1:36:02 - 1:37:11) Yeah, that's right, there it is. And you can see on the right, that's kind of the progression of the eelgrass. It's one of the few places in Massachusetts where the eelgrass is actually expanding and that means that it has a very high level of regulatory protection. The pier that's there now can be replaced or fixed because it's an existing structure. Once it's destroyed, the regulatory authorities and the regulations will consider that it's not there. And then it's as if we're trying to build a new structure over this eelgrass bed. So we can replace either in place or nearby, but it's going to be very difficult. I've been cautioned to say it's not impossible. So it is possible, but it's extremely difficult and will cost a significant amount of money if it is destroyed completely. And the regulatory authorities will look at that as, well, then there's no pier in the harbor. And so they'll want any new structure that they're permitting to really take into account and be protective. And so there'll be a lot of more mitigation that would have to be done. [Speaker 1] (1:37:11 - 1:37:27) So you're not just eelgrass, though. I mean, let me just say this. So eelgrass aside, right? I hear you on the eelgrass. But also, would the regulators let us put back the exact pier we had today without... If we do it while the pier is still there. [Speaker 2] (1:37:27 - 1:37:54) If the pier is gone, they'll consider it to be missing, essentially. It's not there. And you can go through emergency... You can try to get an emergency declaration, but it's our feeling that the eelgrass bed being as much a protected situation as it is, that it would be extremely difficult to convince the regulators to let us start over if it's gone. [Speaker 1] (1:37:54 - 1:38:14) Are you aware of any grant programs that would pay to us to repair a pier that's been taken out because it's low and water's taken out? Or would you recommend the town spend $10 million building a pier in this location? Or would you say that would be, to use the phrase of somebody else, bad money after good money, good money after bad money? [Speaker 2] (1:38:14 - 1:38:55) Well, it's bad money after good money if it is built the same way, the same height as it is. It needs to be more resilient. We can see the pictures. We can stand there and watch it be inundated constantly. The entire structure now is beginning to come apart, partly because it wasn't built to be submerged all the time, and so its tendency is, the water is trying to float it. So it's essentially pulling it up out of the ground when you have these high water elements. And that's beginning to weaken the structure and cause it to basically be rickety. [Speaker 5] (1:38:55 - 1:39:13) The point of that is because the boards going across are not nailed into the stringers. They're lag bolted into the stringers, so when the waves come up, the stringers don't separate from the stringers, the boards don't separate from the stringers, so the whole thing gets pulled up and down and up and down. [Speaker 4] (1:39:14 - 1:39:32) It's essentially pulling it out of the ground. I have a couple questions. One is, and I don't need the full answer, more the yes or no variety. Do we have a short-term kind of emergency repair plan, given the fact that these stringers are deteriorating and the boards are missing? [Speaker 5] (1:39:32 - 1:39:32) No. [Speaker 4] (1:39:32 - 1:39:35) We have no plan right now. [Speaker 2] (1:39:35 - 1:39:40) I think the short answer is the DOT, and they've done a yeoman's work so far. [Speaker 3] (1:39:43 - 1:39:44) We've repaired them a few times. [Speaker 4] (1:39:45 - 1:39:50) But are they still repairable with the way the underbeams are? No, they're becoming more and more challenging. [Speaker 3] (1:39:51 - 1:40:01) The wood is, the structure of the sphere, as I understand it, is just becoming more and more in disrepair. [Speaker 5] (1:40:01 - 1:40:13) I think to repair it, you'd have to put wood alongside the stringers to reinforce that, and then put the boards across that way. But again, that's a temporary fix that would probably get broken up within the next big storm. [Speaker 4] (1:40:13 - 1:40:24) Sure. I don't know if you guys get to this later in terms of what the timing is if the pier replacement project goes forward. Is that timing in here? [Speaker 5] (1:40:26 - 1:40:35) We asked our engineer to put together some numbers for us, and he thinks that realistically the new pier will not be built before 2030. [Speaker 9] (1:40:36 - 1:40:38) Before 20... 2030. [Speaker 4] (1:40:40 - 1:40:46) And Peter floated a number of... I don't know if that was... Do you want to... [Speaker 18] (1:40:46 - 1:40:47) Price-wise? [Speaker 4] (1:40:47 - 1:40:51) Reel that in or validate that? He's going to blow it out. [Speaker 5] (1:40:52 - 1:41:15) It depends on the... I mean, we're already about four or six months behind because of what the regulators are making us do because of the eelgrass. They originally wanted us to go through the test borings that we wanted to put in. Now, understand, a test boring is a three-inch diameter, and they want us to go through and film cameras. I think it was a 20-foot circumference showing where the eelgrass is. [Speaker 2] (1:41:15 - 1:41:16) Some pictures of that later. [Speaker 5] (1:41:16 - 1:41:44) Well, yeah. But... So we ended up doing that, and we gave them the pictures, and they said the pictures weren't clear enough, so now what we have to do is we have to put a diver in a hardhat helmet and send a diver down to then take pictures, which is going to be very expensive. It's estimated here that the hardhat diving is going to cost at least $5,000 additional cost to what it's going to eat up our... [Speaker 1] (1:41:44 - 1:41:57) I think Doug was saying, do you have a sense of order of magnitude of what replacement pure products in $2,024 is a reasonable expectation? I said $10 million just as a random, out-of-the-air number, not based on anything, because I have no clue. [Speaker 2] (1:41:57 - 1:43:35) I mean, there's a bracket that we generally think of, and it's in the $4 to $20 million range for these kind of municipal piers that have to have things like... This isn't like a private pier. It has to have ADA-compliant structures so that it's wheelchair accessible and all those kinds of things. It has to be at least at elevation plus 14, mean low, low water, in order to be out of the danger zone for sea level rise and future storms. And so those things are the things that put the price up higher than, say, something you might just build at your house if you were looking to build a pier. So that's the range. The 60% design that's going on right now is typically used to come up with... Because then we'll know... Out of this, we will figure out what kind of pilings will we need. Are they going to have to be steel? Will they be... Can they be wood? Will they be 10 feet long? Or do they have to be 80 feet long to get down to a bearing structure? All of those things are going to impact the price a great deal. Once this 60% design work is finished, then a good engineer's estimate of the cost of this will be able to be generated. And, of course, that will all be part of what gets turned into the state. And then they will help Swampscott decide if the right thing to do is to continue with funding something or if we should be looking at a Plan B. So the work that's being done right now shouldn't be thought of as this is an irrevocable path forward. It is to get us to the point where we can make decisions. [Speaker 4] (1:43:35 - 1:43:41) And all of that's just about the pier. That's not even protecting the fish house or anything else. Now you're really talking about the pier. [Speaker 2] (1:43:42 - 1:44:02) Well, that part is about the pier. There will be, in addition, the 60% design will include some of the soft structures to help protect the fish house. It's not the raising the fish house. That's got to be a separate... because that's a different animal, basically, than marine structural activity. [Speaker 10] (1:44:02 - 1:44:12) If we were starting from scratch, if the pier went away tomorrow and you wanted to permit a project, how would the cost go then? [Speaker 2] (1:44:13 - 1:45:21) Probably double. Yeah, if you could do it at all. I think at that point, if the pier went away, we would have to decide if we want to manage our harbor differently. Would we want to just put floating docks in in the summer for something we'd probably have to think about? A different way of accessing the boats if it would be wise to keep the boats there. At that point, we need to sort of think about what the longer-term potential is and really kind of evaluate. Right now, the feasibility that was done in the first phase of this was to replace the pier either in its current position or next to it or in a different position that would make it more accessible and make it more resilient. And those are the two options that really kind of exist without having to go. It's still going to be a challenge to permit, but it's not going to be as challenging as if there was nothing in the water now. [Speaker 10] (1:45:21 - 1:45:26) And how many grants are being given out for new pier projects versus replacement pier projects? [Speaker 5] (1:45:27 - 1:45:28) Right now, we have two. [Speaker 10] (1:45:29 - 1:45:47) No, I understand how many you have. I just mean at the state level. I'm trying to ascertain if it's much more likely that we will be met at the table with funding from other partners if we replace the pier versus if the pier went away tomorrow and we had to come from scratch. Are we likely to have partners meet us at the table to help out for it? [Speaker 2] (1:45:47 - 1:46:35) There's some doubt as to whether or not the state would even fund a pure replacement because it would then get damaged. It would still be in the damaged zone. And so most of the work that's being done, that's being funded, is to upgrade to the new resiliency standards, whether it's a pier or a harbormaster house or a bulkhead or anything. They're all being required to be new standards, and they're not allowed to build back the same thing. They're being discouraged from building back the same thing. It doesn't mean that doesn't happen sometimes, but then it's just a matter of time. It might take 10 years or something, but it's a matter of time before then that is... [Speaker 6] (1:46:35 - 1:46:44) Did Manchester-by-the-Sea lose their pier just a few years ago in a bad storm? My understanding was that was replaced. [Speaker 2] (1:46:44 - 1:47:32) They were able to do an emergency replacement, and that in part was because they don't have the kind of resource that we have that was easier for them. As I say, we would stop short of saying it's impossible to replace the pier if it went away. It will be very difficult, and part of that is not just because it's hard to replace a pier or a structure like that when it goes away, but because of the special circumstances that exist in the harbor and Swampscott, there is this resource that is considered very important to the overall ecology of the coast of Massachusetts. And so it has kind of a special protected status that we believe would make it very difficult once the pier is gone to replace it. [Speaker 9] (1:47:32 - 1:47:51) So can we spend some time talking about the living reef and the benefits of the implementation and how that piece of infrastructure can help our coastal resiliency and help protect the fish house as well as coastal Swampscott? [Speaker 5] (1:47:52 - 1:48:54) I guess the main difference between a living reef and a breakwater is a breakwater is a wall. The living reef has a very large footprint, so the wave action comes very slowly up the living reef to reach the top and then rolls over. The ones we proposed are curved, and so if you remember the ones down off of Kings Beach, they're round. The waves go around and circle around. They don't crash over as hard. It also breeds crustaceans, and if we can build mussels attached to it as well, cleaning the water environment. Of course, these mussels you wouldn't want to eat, but that's another topic. But that's basically what they do is they take away the wave action, and that's what pushes all the water up onto Humphrey Street. You're still going to get the sea level rise, but you're not going to get the wind pushing the waves up onto the roadway in the parking lot. That's the main difference. [Speaker 6] (1:48:54 - 1:49:52) And can you just tell me, where is this information coming from? I just want to know where, like have we had marine biologists? Have we had universities? Have we had the Army Corps of Engineers? Are they saying this? Because one serious concern that I have that I learned down on Long Island after Hurricane Sandy was that one of the serious problems they had was during Hurricane Sandy, when the water came over the barrier islands, it destroyed the south shore in Amityville, Massapequa, and then the water went to recede, but it hit the barrier island again and came back and just destroyed that whole section of the north shore. And that's a real serious concern, and that came from FEMA. They attended a FEMA meeting to find out what exactly happened. So I just want to know, who is actually telling us that, and where is the information coming from? [Speaker 5] (1:49:53 - 1:50:10) Well, we were very fortunate because Jay was the one who was involved in the Super Sandy down in New York City, and he actually did a, Obama did a contest to find out how to protect the area, and Jay and his group won that. And so why don't you speak to the Super Sandy stuff that you did down in New York? [Speaker 2] (1:50:10 - 1:52:23) Well, I mean, there are corollaries, obviously, and you're bringing some of them up, that from Super Storm Sandy, and what Jackson said is correct, is we were, the group that I was with, was fortunate enough to be able to work with people from the overall coastal area, from New Jersey, New York, and up into Connecticut, and come up with some resilient, nature-based design resilient activities to help protect what's called rebuild by design. And the idea was, is don't just rebuild what has been knocked down in the same way it was, but to make it more resilient, and at the same time build sustainability into it, so you're getting kind of a two-for-four. That's the kind of approach that we're trying to take here. Now, that said, we can't build a pier out of sand dunes, so there has to be some hard infrastructure, but there will be included a significant amount of ecological and nature-based design activities, and we have had both universities, Tufts University looking at some of this as well as experts, the people who did the eelgrass mapping for us, they call themselves Megalodon. They are a corporation, but they are also a group of PhDs that's been working with coastal zone management to come up with ways of addressing the ecological systems that are along the coastline. So they're some of the best. A lot of governments around the world use them for similar activities. So we are plugging in what we can, and I think we're also negotiating with regulatory authorities that are very well-heeled in terms of what they will allow us to do, and they're not going to let us do something that is going to make a situation worse, for instance. I don't know if that answers your question. Is there more to your presentation? Yeah, there's a couple more slides. We just probably should skip to the... [Speaker 5] (1:52:23 - 1:52:57) Why don't we just focus on this one for a second. The committee has decided that the middle slide there is where the new pier will be relocated. It touches on to Chasen Park, between the parking lot and Chasen Park. That area is three feet higher than where it would be by the fish house. Because of handicap accessibility, the ramp that would go up to the pier, because for every inch of height you need one foot of length, is going to be approximately 70 feet long. [Speaker 2] (1:52:59 - 1:53:01) If you did it by the fish house. [Speaker 5] (1:53:01 - 1:53:58) Yeah, if we did it by the fish house. So that would be obstructing the lockers where the fishermen would be. I think the historical commission would object substantially because of the impact it would have against the fish house. So we moved it to an area where it is there in the middle. And one of the comments that I received that I thought was particularly poignant was that this placement of the pier makes the pier seem much more welcoming. When you had the pier in front of the fish house, the question was, are we allowed to walk on that? Is that just for the fishermen? Is it just for the boating community? Who's allowed to do it? And it makes it much more welcoming to the entire community. Because one thing I want to emphasize is we're building this for the entire community. So we want everybody to have access and everybody to be able to enjoy what it is. So go to the next slide, please. And there's Jay and the group doing the mapping. [Speaker 1] (1:53:59 - 1:55:34) Can I ask a question before you get to that? Can you just go back for a second? So am I wrong that there is a... Is there a... Do you believe in this community there's an evenly split or decisive community the other way that says, we don't actually need a pier, why are we worrying about the pier? Do you believe this is... The pier doesn't belong to the Yacht Club. The pier belongs to the town. It is a public pier. Many people use it with or without boats. But I guess I'm just trying to get to the... I'm happy to share my vote on that poll, but I think there is... I hear in the subtext of some that say if the environmental concerns are so significant, then we may just not have to have a pier. Or if we have to focus resources on other things, then we may not need to have a pier. And I guess I'd just be interested in if in your committee meetings and you're talking about in the community, do you think that we should be taking a step back as a town and just saying, do we need a pier? Or hey, we have one until it goes away. Isn't that great? Or do you believe that generally speaking is it accepted that a pier is part of our community and part of our infrastructure in our community and as a seaside community, it is an important if not essential part of a seaside community? [Speaker 5] (1:55:35 - 1:55:38) Well, from what I heard tonight with the public comment... [Speaker 1] (1:55:38 - 1:56:09) No, don't go with that. You've been doing it for years. I heard it too tonight. I'm trying to go back to your years of discussion here. I mean, look, I'll be your first vote. I can't imagine the town without a pier. I don't belong to the Yacht Club. I don't have a boat. I've never docked a boat there, but I'm just sharing that. But do you believe this town needs to actually step back and actually have a dialogue about whether or not a seaside community like Swampscott needs to have a pier? Or should we just be without a pier? [Speaker 5] (1:56:09 - 1:56:26) We had a conversation about that. You know, what happens if a storm comes through and you go wake up the next morning, you go down to the fish house and it's gone? Just think about that for a minute. Are you good with that? [Speaker 41] (1:56:27 - 1:56:27) No. [Speaker 5] (1:56:27 - 1:56:57) No, I don't think the members of this community are going to be good with that either. I think the pier is the focus of the downtown area. The businesses rely on it. They want people to come down and use their businesses and take a long walk on the pier. I really think it's part of the character of this community. You know, that scenario of waking up one morning and all of a sudden having it be gone, to me, is stunning. To answer your question, I think that people do believe in the pier. [Speaker 1] (1:56:59 - 1:57:03) David said his response. Does anybody on the committee disagree with David? [Speaker 4] (1:57:03 - 1:57:46) Well, I think it's easy to answer that in the abstract. Sure. Hey, it would be great to have a pier, right? But we have to start there, right? But then you've got to get real, right? If we're talking about $10 or $20 million for a pier and that's just the pier, I don't know, that's not for the breakwater or the living reef? I don't know if it's really protected. Does it sound like it's really protecting the fish house or raising the fish house? So you've got to take a concept and you've got to put some dollars with it, right? So I think that's a great question. Actually, you have to ask that question. And I'd love to have a pier. I'd love for it to be restored. But I do think that that's a real question to ask. [Speaker 1] (1:57:46 - 1:58:02) Yes, but my question wasn't one about balancing everything that we have to do as a town, right? I didn't bring that up. No, but I think my question was more about just, honestly, at its core, is this an infrastructure piece that should be part of our investments? [Speaker 2] (1:58:03 - 1:58:03) You're asking how? [Speaker 1] (1:58:03 - 1:58:27) I'm just asking simply, and again, I understand it may get delayed because of other things. I'm just trying to say, are people committed to the idea that this town should have a pier? Not when, how, and I'm not saying blank checks. I'm not saying we're approving anything. I'm just saying, just philosophically, do we believe this is a town that should have a pier? I'm really being simplistic with my thought process here because, and I'm sure David said yes. I'm just curious out of that. [Speaker 10] (1:58:27 - 1:59:00) Well, I will offer an alternate position just because when I was running, I had mentioned this to a couple folks, and I distinctly remember a couple people said, well, I've been here since before the pier, and I might be here when the pier's gone. And so although I might have that feeling because I've only known Swampscott with a pier, there are folks here who have lived here long enough to know Swampscott pre-pier. So to just voice their opinion, because they're not here. [Speaker 2] (1:59:02 - 2:01:49) If I can just comment for a second because this is, the pier itself is a sort of small piece of the overall situation and issues that are affecting the Fisherman's Beach area and also some of the other low areas that are impacting. And one of the big questions that's now come up, and it's not just Swampscott, it's all up and down the coast, is do we retreat or do we defend? And that's a big decision that needs to be made. We are, along the Fisherman's Beach area, we're beginning to come to a point where we will have to start to make those decisions. And if the town believes that the pier is iconic enough, that the fish house is iconic enough to save it for future generations, then we have to defend, right? Then we need to do those defensive things. If we as a town decide that it's either too expensive to do those things or that it's just not as important, then we should retreat. And that's going to mean not just letting the pier fall over, it's moving the fish house out of there, it's moving the businesses along Humphrey out of there, it's turning that waterfront into a park, basically, what they call a blue-green water park, and turning the harbor into an ecological area. It's moving the boats out of the harbor. It's changing the complexion down there, some would say, for the better. And that may be a debate that we should have overall, but the fact of the matter is, as the water levels come up and the storms increase in intensity, we will have to grapple with those decisions. And Hurricane Sandy aftermath was mentioned here. That was one of the things that we were asked to do by the Obama administration, was to go up and down the coast and ask communities, do you want to move? We will pay you to move out of the area, and we will turn it into an area that is allowed to flood and into an ecological blue-green water park. Or do you want us to help you defend? Because if you just keep building back what you have, it's going to keep getting destroyed, and because the storms are getting more severe and the water is getting hotter, it's going to happen more often. And so that is an overall question that the Harbor and Waters Committee has recognized and realizes they need to come to start this dialogue. That's more of a general question about sort of the whole coastline of Swan Sky. [Speaker 1] (2:01:49 - 2:04:09) I'm asking it only because I just feel as though we have a committee and we're dedicating people, power, and resources, and time to a defend strategy, a replace strategy, and we'll talk about the breakwater and whatnot. So you're doing that. What I don't like is you to feel like you are spinning your wheels if people are saying, well, you're trying to solve a problem that I'm not even willing to concede is a problem. I'm not talking about resiliency issues themselves. I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about losing the pier is not a problem. So why are we spending so much GD effort on saving the pier? I think for whatever reason someone doesn't want it, that's okay. There's so many different reasons, and do it here. I just feel as though as a committee, you shouldn't, and I'm hearing it, and I've heard it in some of your committees, and I've listened online to some of your meetings. I quite literally heard that question, disguised as something else, I think, but that question, and I just feel as a community, we either have to stiffen our back and say, this is important and we need to do this, or we need to say, hey, we're going to retreat. And again, that decision may be made well beyond my life in Swampskate or whatever, but I just feel as though that shouldn't be hampering, and we should be either, again, methodically, a lot of public process, a lot of public input, do it economically smart, get resources, get grants, do it all the smart ways of doing things, environmentally sensitive, yada, yada, yada, but I don't think that we should hamper our efforts with the debate about whether or not we should have a pier or not. Somehow, we as a town have to decide, this is important to us, do it. And again, I've obviously expressed my opinion of where I'm on it, but I just, you guys are on year three of something that, again, I still hear people showing up to your meetings, I hear elected people in town, I hear town meeting members, I hear board members, I hear other people, you know, at times, inherently questioning whether or not we need a pier. So I just, I throw that out, I'm actually saying it to my colleagues as much as anything, that maybe we need to think about that, because I think that's a remarkable, that's a very important thing that we should be doing. If people don't think we need a pier, then maybe tomorrow we go ahead and we just start talking about resilient pickleball courts. [Speaker 5] (2:04:10 - 2:04:38) Well, I can tell you from my experience here, and over these last few years, attending farmers markets, attending the events down at the fish house, the marine experiment, and all the things that I've talked to people only one person said, don't make a pier. Only one person. Out of probably hundreds. So that's my experience. [Speaker 1] (2:04:38 - 2:05:04) Yeah, so I hear you. Anyway, I think the political, I'm speaking as much of the political leadership as I am to you and your committee, that's not your responsibility. I think, frankly, it might be a good time for us to reaffirm the political leadership, reaffirm their commitment to this, because we're asking you all to put a commitment towards it, and it's not insignificant what you guys are doing. I think the challenge with that, Peter, I think you're raising an excellent point. [Speaker 4] (2:05:04 - 2:06:21) I give you a lot of credit for bringing this topic to the table in general, because I think it deserves this type of airing and this type of thinking through. And I think this presentation is fantastic, and yet I think it also, I think it illustrates a little bit of the feeling that there's a lot more energy, maybe because that's where the grant has led us, there's a lot more energy around the pier than there is around the whole kind of sustainable harbor. And I think, Jay, you're raising more of the sustainable harbor perspective in answer to Peter's question, and I do think that it's really hard for everybody to get on board with any piece when it feels like it's this or that. And maybe ultimately it is. But I think this presentation reflects the fact there's not a lot here about what happens to the fish house or what happens to stop the flooding, you know, the whole Kleinfelder report and all the kind of raising the seawalls or, you know, all the other things that are in that report. I think those things, understandably, there's only so much man or woman power on the committee, and to your point, Peter, I do think that we need to take a broader planning perspective here to make sure that we're investing our resources appropriately and consistent with kind of the larger community's desires. [Speaker 5] (2:06:21 - 2:06:25) If I might, Doug, the harbor plan speaks to the things that we've been talking about. [Speaker 4] (2:06:25 - 2:06:26) It does. [Speaker 5] (2:06:26 - 2:06:29) And the whole harbor plan is based on resiliency. [Speaker 4] (2:06:29 - 2:06:29) Right. [Speaker 5] (2:06:30 - 2:06:49) And we tried to get funding for a very big part of that, which was the Living Reef. We're not letting go of that. We're still going to keep pushing to try to get funding for the Living Reef. We still want to talk about cantileving along the seawalls so when the waves come in, they bounce back out to the sea. All that stuff is still in play. [Speaker 4] (2:06:50 - 2:06:52) It's in play, conceptually. I get that, Jackson. [Speaker 5] (2:06:52 - 2:06:56) But we need to wait for the funding to be able to open up so we can apply for it. [Speaker 4] (2:06:56 - 2:07:10) Well, or maybe we need to reallocate our resources to be able to actually seize some of the resources that are out there differently. I mean, you only have so much, you know, bandwidth to be able to do this. I mean, there's a lot of federal money swimming around right now. [Speaker 5] (2:07:10 - 2:07:12) And we need all the help we can get. [Speaker 4] (2:07:12 - 2:07:12) Yeah, exactly. [Speaker 2] (2:07:13 - 2:10:09) And I don't mean to repeat that statement, but the fact of the matter is the federal government, the state governments, local governments are all trying to figure out the bigger picture. And it's not clear yet. There is money out there, but a lot of it has not been accessed. It hasn't been used because people are having debates just like we're having here all up and down the coast as to what do we do? Do we spend the money to move ourselves out of the danger zone? Or do we reinforce the danger zone so that it's not dangerous? And that process is a longer one that is now starting to really... I mean, the fact that everybody here is talking about resiliency to me is incredible because 10 years ago when I got into the field, nobody was talking about it. But the fact of the matter, the reason the Seaport Economic Council will fund a peer project is because to them it's fairly pedantic. I mean, yes, it has to be raised. We have to add some resilient aspects to it on the coastal end of it. There's an economic... But to the Seaport Economic Council, they have replaced peers today and yesterday and into the future. And that kind of thing is easy to fund. We will get the funding. Once they've started the funding of the design work and feasibility, they will fund it all the way through construction. I'm not saying it's going to be free to the town, but with town match they will cover a significant part of that funding. They don't know how yet to evaluate nor does sort of any state. This is one of the reasons why Governor Healey appointed a resiliency czar is to help sort of figure these things out. How do we figure out the value of protecting some area versus not protecting it? How do we decide where the... Because there's not enough resources in the world right now. I mean, you've probably all heard about the concepts of building a wall around Boston Harbor. You know, there are ways that engineers can protect things, but the question is, do we want to change our world to do that? This peer project, while it may seem like a big deal and a big change, because our peer is iconic. I mean, we all love it. But the fact of the matter is it's not going to be there, so we have to do something if we still want to have it here. That'll look a little bit different, but it's still something that sort of the normal processes within the state can handle that sort of activity. The larger question of how to protect the whole coastline is something that's being worked on, and now there's a lot of people working on it, so it should accelerate, but we will, you know, that's something that I think the committee is prepared to do more yeoman's work to continue to go down that. [Speaker 1] (2:10:09 - 2:11:49) So I think the question that Doug asked, the question you're asking, Doug, I appreciate it, but I just don't see, if it's a question of reallocating resources, let's talk about where resources, and I guess what I'm trying to say is, well, first of all, let's talk about where the resources are. I think we've spent a total of $100,000 of maybe town money this far on your peer efforts. I'm rounding, but I think I'm probably... And you're in year three, and in the last five years we've done about $13 to $15 million of capital projects in our town. And $100,000 went to this. So let's just put it in context. So if we're talking about reallocating resources, are we talking about that it's an either-or? We can either do the peer, or we can save the harbor. Well, no, that doesn't actually seem like the right choice, but maybe if that's what we're talking about. I don't think it is what we're talking about. The resource reallocation we're talking about is, how is it that $100,000 is all we've spent in the last five years, three years? $60,000. I like to exaggerate, so I can't get called later on by saying I downplayed the dollars. But to me, that's the conversation then, and I don't want to be mistaken. You may think that the peer needs to be considered as one of the things that we have to bargain with. I'm just trying to make it very clear that, again, I don't think the town needs to necessarily think the peer is something we have to bargain with, because frankly, we haven't spent anything. Frankly, we should be thinking about where we have been spending money, or spending more money, because, again, I just don't think reallocating resources, I don't want to imply that we should be taking the pittance, which is the nicest word I can think about that we've spent on our harbor, and have to reallocate that. [Speaker 10] (2:11:49 - 2:12:34) I think the other point, to echo what you might be getting at also, is we came forward to the Seaport Economic Council, which we did, with two proposals, the living reef and the pier, and they funded the pier, but they're saying we haven't yet figured out how to grapple with the living reef or resiliency projects like that. It's not as if to them it is one or the other. So they're not saying we're going to award you this, but not that. They're saying we haven't come to a process for that yet. Is that right? So, in your opinion, do you feel like we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage, taking money to rebuild the pier, to preclude us from what could happen with the living reef project? [Speaker 5] (2:12:35 - 2:12:40) I don't think so, no. They're two different buckets, because they're going to be coming from two different agencies. [Speaker 2] (2:12:40 - 2:13:18) What the Seaport Economic Council has done, and you have to think about, they're the people that replace, fix, or build the kind of public infrastructure that's in the ports, right? They have referred us to coastal management to seek funding, and they will support. They're saying we've read their proposal, we think it's valid, but it's not what we do. So please weigh in on this. CZM is still trying to sort of figure things out in terms of how the overall process of giving grants for these kinds of things goes. [Speaker 10] (2:13:19 - 2:13:22) So it's not like there's one bucket, and we're bidding against ourselves. [Speaker 2] (2:13:23 - 2:13:49) And there's more buckets that are coming, because as we're talking here, this exact meeting is being repeated up and down the coast, and the language that's being used is stronger, and the voices are louder, that are really beginning to mobilize some of the state resources to start thinking about this. So we're on the beginning of something that's changing that we should be able to take advantage of. [Speaker 3] (2:13:49 - 2:16:47) So I just want to share what three years ago we sat with the Seaport Bond Council, and we actually met with CZM, and we talked about how inconsistent it would be to actually go forward with our advocacy. For the first time, we actually started to seek these grants. Town hasn't been at the table. Other communities up and down the coast, all across the east coast of Massachusetts have been asking for funding, and we show up, and we get funding to start to fix this incredibly important asset. And we said to CZM, we said to our colleagues in the Seaport, hey, we want to fix the pier, but we also have to protect it. We have to protect the human beings that live in this town. These surges, the flooding, this isn't the first time in the last five years that we've had this dramatic impact on this town. It happened in 2018. I took pictures, I drove around the town with the police chief and the fire chief, and we looked at how many neighborhoods were stranded that were literally going to be trapped if we needed an ambulance or a public safety call, and we have these issues, and we know that we have to be working around all of these issues, but please believe, please believe that success will beget success. Please know that when we start to work with these state agencies, we will get more funding. We will become frequent flyers, and they will trust us, and they will believe that we can protect this town and this commonwealth by making really smart investments, and Peter, look, I appreciate the question about who wants to be on the pier, but I want everybody to believe that depression is real, and mental health issues are real in this town, and there's no better way to actually take care of yourself than get outside and go out there and enjoy the most important resource that we have, and that's the water. People love that. Everybody down to your toes knows that. Safest way, 12 months out of the year, to enjoy yourself in this town is to take a walk on that beautiful pier and stare at the capital city of New England and just thank everything you know that you live in this beautiful town. Everybody knows that. Nobody has to debate that, and frankly, I do appreciate the work that our volunteer committees do. Every one of our volunteer committees are helping us, and Ryan, you're awesome. Honestly, I do think we have awesome committees. I just think we've got to figure out how to work together on some of these issues. [Speaker 9] (2:16:48 - 2:17:04) Thanks, Sean. I just want to echo Sean's comments and thank Jackson and Jay for coming and presenting, and Martha, thank you as well. This is the first conversation that we're having. I don't want it to be the last. Please come back soon. [Speaker 6] (2:17:04 - 2:17:29) Hold on. I do have one question here, and I have one concern, and I'm sorry because I know it's going late, but one serious question I have here is I don't feel that the public outreach has been good at all. I think it could really be a whole lot better. When there's a public hearing that only a couple people show up to, I think that was in September. It was September 13th. [Speaker 5] (2:17:29 - 2:17:35) Yeah, that was a late announcement because the engineer that we had was in the country. Was in the country. [Speaker 6] (2:17:35 - 2:17:39) Right, so we have an engineer that isn't even in the country. [Speaker 5] (2:17:39 - 2:17:40) He lives in Rhode Island. [Speaker 6] (2:17:41 - 2:17:41) He lives in Rhode Island? [Speaker 5] (2:17:42 - 2:17:43) But he also lives in France. [Speaker 6] (2:17:43 - 2:17:43) He is in the country. [Speaker 5] (2:17:43 - 2:17:44) He also lives in France. [Speaker 6] (2:17:45 - 2:18:58) He lives in Rhode Island and he lives in France. And he said he was going to be back in the country. This is on September 6th. He's going to be back in the country, so he had to scramble to have a public hearing on the 13th and it wasn't enough time to really get people in, which means that this here is being designed, something that is incredibly important to our community, is being designed and decisions are being made by an advisory committee to the select board. I don't think that there's enough input in what's going on over here, and I think if we have much, much bigger public hearings or at least just advertise it, whether people show up or they don't show up, at least advertise so people can come in and feel like they had a part on this. They have something to say. That would make a big difference. I'm not sure why we need a peer that's as big as that and it goes out as far as that, but I would have liked to have had my say if I was, you know, really trying to make a decision. I mean, to answer Peter's question, the thought of not having a peer is a little shocking to me. I didn't even think of not having a peer, but I would like to have more public meetings around here and get people's input. [Speaker 5] (2:18:58 - 2:19:00) I think it's a great suggestion. I'm all for it. [Speaker 6] (2:19:00 - 2:19:08) I'd also like to consider having an engineer that lives in Rhode Island or closer that we could have. I'm surprised the engineer's not here tonight. [Speaker 3] (2:19:10 - 2:19:14) I don't think we should actually speak about, you know, the engineer, where he lives. [Speaker 1] (2:19:14 - 2:19:35) I mean, people are hired based on qualifications. Mary Ellen, you've been, I mean, respectfully, you have been to more Harbor and Waterfront Committee meetings than anybody on this board. You've watched them online. We've seen you. You have, and so I just don't, I get that we're now sitting publicly saying this stuff. You have been, but they have been talking about this going back to the Harbor plan. [Speaker 6] (2:19:35 - 2:19:45) I'm talking about the public, Peter, the public that come out. Let's talk about the public. Let's talk about facts. Having a public hearing, just a small public hearing where only three people show up is a problem. [Speaker 1] (2:19:45 - 2:20:07) You're talking about one thing on one aspect, and you're doing it in a way that seems to undermine what has been years of meetings to the Harbor plan, years here. And I get that you may not like where this is going and you want more. That's fine, but I just ask you to please do not take one example that you've chosen to use to disparage the work of volunteers, because that is actually what it is. [Speaker 9] (2:20:07 - 2:20:09) We are talking about a peer for the public. [Speaker 42] (2:20:09 - 2:20:10) A peer for the public. [Speaker 9] (2:20:10 - 2:20:21) We're going to be moving on. Thank you. I do want these presentations. Diane, if these presentations can be added to the website tomorrow, please do so. Thank you. [Speaker 5] (2:20:21 - 2:20:23) And we're happy to come back anytime. [Speaker 9] (2:20:24 - 2:20:39) Thank you, Jackson. Thank you, Jay. We're going to move on. We're going to talk. I'm going to move to Amy Sarah. [Speaker 1] (2:20:41 - 2:20:55) Can I just ask? We have people that want to comment on the Hadley Hotel, and this is only one of our two comment periods for that. Do you mind if we do that? I apologize, Amy. I don't want this to end up being a 9, 30, 10 o'clock asking neighbors and residents to come back. [Speaker 9] (2:20:56 - 2:21:24) Fine. We'll move on. Public comment related to the Hadley School Hotel presentations from January the 30th. Again, we'll take public comment. The whole idea of this is for the select board to listen. I don't see us responding. I think we just need to continue to listen to neighbors' comments and concerns, and we will limit your time to speak to two minutes. Anybody in the audience? [Speaker 19] (2:21:24 - 2:23:18) Yes, sir. Hi. I'm Mike Bryson. I live precinct 4 and I'm a town meeting member. I live directly next door to the Hadley project. Virtually every one of the drawings that you see of the new hotel, you see my house. Right five feet away from the chain link fence where the little baseball field and the playground is, that's my house. I implore the town, the select board, to talk to the neighbors that live in the area. Maybe we didn't want the hotel in the first place and we've lost that, but listen to our concerns about infrastructure, about light pollution, about sound pollution, about traffic. Listen to us. Have whoever you choose as the contractor to build this. Listen to us. Talk to us. We haven't been talked to yet. Nobody's come to my house to ask me questions about what we might want. We're giving up a lot already, so please listen to us about what we want and don't want in the development of the property. I'll close by saying I haven't heard the words King's Beach tonight, and I don't think that there should be any meeting that goes by without talking about progress being made at King's Beach. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (2:23:24 - 2:26:23) David, I know you were trying to take comment, but I do think some of these comments, to be able to articulate process, is going to, I think, negate or address some concerns so that the residents at least know process going forward. As opposed to just saying it and then leaving not having any more information. I'll let you decide, but there seems to be some things that we probably should. If you would like to respond. I think this is the process thus far has been a multi-year process to decide what the options were for reuse of Hadley, and then this board decided to advance one of those. Went to town meeting and did it. The process now is, assuming this board comes to consensus and a decision, to designate a group so that that group then can actually earnestly begin the process. What they've been doing to now is just saying these are our general ideas. And so I just want to, no, no, I want to make you feel comfortable about it because there's been so many, we've done interviews with the groups. The groups, no matter who is selected, I think I can say with great confidence, knows that they are going to be expected to come with an open mind and go through a, I'm going to call it a public process because it is a public process, and this is one that we did for the Michon School with the Burpee Road neighbors and with the Greenwood School, which is, this is actually even better than a normal private development. If the school next door to you was a private development, the developer would just go to the zoning board and the planning board and have those conversations. Here, there's another layer built in the whole process, and that's because it's a public process. So like the Michon and like the Greenwood, there's a whole design process that happens here with this, right, before they even get permission to go to the planning board or the zoning board to do things. And so that's an extra layer that's built in. I think it worked well for the Michon neighborhood. At the time, very unsettling, very concerning stuff. By and large, I think as though it's been accepted as a good neighbor, and the mitigation worked. But that mitigation didn't exclude public dialogue here. The legal agreement that the town entered into with the non-profit that was doing the Michon School was, hey, you need to know before you go and file for any permits, you have to get the select board to approve the design. And so what that does is that, kind of unusual because it does politicize it a bit, as opposed to just going to the zoning board, but in a good way. It adds another layer that allows us to make sure that before it gets into the process, the official process, that they are going to sit here and have community meetings, have neighborhood meetings, and say, we've heard these things, we've addressed these things, so I hear you. I just want you to know that it's quite literally the first inning, to use a baseball analogy here, and to let you know that we've done it, and the town has done it to other school buildings, and that's an important thing just for you to understand that that process is coming, and your concerns are intrinsically, inherently fair, and that conversation is coming. [Speaker 28] (2:26:26 - 2:28:17) Hi, Andrea Amore, Precinct 3. Tonight I'd like to publicly express my support for NoAnna as the best developer for the Hadley Hotel. Until about two years ago, I worked in real estate specializing in new construction in Boston. I've been in dozens of new construction buildings. You begin to hear about the good, the bad, and the lawsuits against developers as you accompany clients around the city. There are some really good builders, ones that have done high-quality construction and try to be fair with buyers of their buildings. Two of the most recent projects with the best reputation in Boston are Raffles and One Dalton, which houses the Four Seasons Hotel. Both were overseen by NoAnna. So as far as building caliber goes, I believe NoAnna does some of the best work in our country. Secondly, the word partner was mentioned again and again during the RFP presentation. The selected developer would effectively be getting into a long-term relationship with our town as a tenant, so we would want to pick someone who is ethical, fair, thoughtful, and people-oriented. Following my question about King's Beach last meeting, Jordan Warshaw reached out to me. He thoughtfully asked questions about the beach and how he could get it opened as soon as possible for everyone's best interest. He assured me that his hotel would not be actively promoting going to King's Beach until it was clean for his guests. He also seemed ready to join in our actions to find solutions to King's Beach, whether it be through novel engineering ideas or finding earmarks through Seth Moulton's office. To me, Mr. Warshaw and NoAnna present, by far and away, the best choice for our town and for the guests who will be visiting our town. Thank you. [Speaker 33] (2:28:18 - 2:28:29) Thank you. Thank you. [Speaker 16] (2:28:29 - 2:31:48) John Jantis, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, also a member of the Sponge Squad School Committee. And just for some context, like this gentleman, I live on the other side, right across from Hadley. Every summer we get a collection of baseballs from the ball field hitting our house, so we're right there. And I guess, as far as which proposal, my wife and I both listened very carefully last week, and we thought that the Drew proposal actually seemed to take most out of all the proposals taken to the neighbor's considerations about buffer zones, size of the project relative to the site. They didn't build right up to the last square inch. It seemed more appropriate for the neighborhood. That's how it struck us. And what also struck us was that the whole team showed up. The architects, the key stakeholders from Drew, they all came. And at least to us, that showed some level of commitment to be engaged throughout the process. Just some other context, just since we're right there across from Hadley, we've been for the last three years, we've been kind of dealing with the construction with the convent conversion, so we kind of had like a sneak peek what to expect with the hotel. We also have two schools on either side of us now, temporarily, so we've had a lot of noise considerations. So, just looking forward, and we'll be engaged in this process going forward, but we still have a student here in high school. We want her, she's an honor student, athlete, all-state athlete, we want her to be able to continue, you know, get her rest, be able to study without interruption from the construction going forward. We don't want excessive noise with the construction or, frankly, with vermin and dust. And also, we just want to be cognizant of heavy equipment parking along Reddington Street next to our houses. They can park on the school side, but we don't want them parking on our side just with sewer pipe discharge, things like that. Just want to avoid that. So, I guess, and also to this gentleman's point as well, once the project's nearing completion, we want to be engaged with noise mitigation discussions, we want to be active participants in those discussions, light mitigation, traffic mitigation, all of these things are going to be super important. I know when the mission first opened, we could hear the band every Friday and Saturday nights, and it was to the point where, well, there they go with Tequila Sunrise again. We could hear them. So, we don't want that going forward. So, and I know David in particular has been, I've heard you say a number of times that that's an important consideration as well as far as working well with the local neighbors. So, we'll be engaged in that process as well. Lastly, the baseball field and the playground are going away. That ball field is a heavy, heavy use. I don't know if folks are aware of that, but kids use that thing all the time, and I just, I'm not sure if there's been discussion on is there a new place for that, or is there something that can be done as a new substitute field for the kids to have a place to go. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thanks, John. [Speaker 20] (2:31:50 - 2:35:16) Hi, Lori Lubben, Precinct 4, Hadley Advisory Committee. Very excited to see this project going forward. I just want to make a few brief comments about each of the proposals that we viewed last week. First of all, the Drew group. I thought theirs was the most thought through plan. The design concept was very clearly expressed. The design showed some consideration of the neighborhood. As John mentioned, it wasn't built right up to the property line. The Drew team showed an understanding of the community's desire to activate the Humphrey Street corridor as well as Linscott Park. They really highlighted the community engagement that we're looking for. Most of the project on the entire first floor is going to be open to the public. I thought that was a great feature of their design. This team has experience with extremely complex construction projects. As an abutter of the project, I'm really going to advocate for the Drew team. I agree with John, it is very disappointing for that playground to go away. Emotionally, for myself, my daughter grew up playing there. Now, I love hearing the kids playing there. If there is some place they can have a place to hang out, that would be great. The NoAnit group, again, a very qualified team. I felt they really did not respect the neighborhood in their initial design plans. The massing of the addition is not of a scale for a residential neighborhood. The garden option, as well as the seaside option. I thought it was interesting to connect to Humphrey Street. That was a really great idea, but the scale is massive. If they could shrink that down, would they be willing? I know they talked about considering that. Not sure if that would happen. They're really concerned about the ocean views for the guests. People that are there year-round, we want to make sure that we're not able to reach out across our front yard and talk to one of the hotel guests. They're right there. The hotel at the Hawthorne site, interesting idea, but again, their frontage really took up most of the street. You had to duck around to get to the beach park. Again, option two that we saw at the Hawthorne meeting, it was a smaller building with an arbor that stretched across it. You've got that ocean view. I think that's what most of the town was looking for. That was a very popular scheme. We went to that meeting. Clear view, I felt the fact that they did not bring an architect was a detriment for me. That was a deficit. The design really wasn't as developed as some of the others, especially the landscape. They just showed a big open parking lot. This gentleman's house is looking right at the cars. We're looking right at the cars. Yes, they will bring someone on board that's qualified, I'm sure, but we don't know who that is. We know Cambridge 7. We know CBT. We know the group. We have some confidence there. I'd like to thank all of you for your work on the RFPs. It's great. It's an exciting project. I have wholeheartedly supported this use as a part of the committee, even though this wasn't the subgroup I was on. Thank you. [Speaker 12] (2:35:16 - 2:35:20) Thank you, Lori. Yes. [Speaker 21] (2:35:31 - 2:35:33) Do I say my name again? [Speaker 41] (2:35:33 - 2:35:33) Yes. [Speaker 21] (2:35:33 - 2:36:35) It's Colleen Sproul, and I live on Ocean Avenue. I'll just say that I wanted to speak in favor of Del Mar. I don't know what the name of that company is, but I like that. I like that they all had... It really seems like this is in their wheelhouse. I love that they're one-stop shopping, and they have their own construction company, because that's where costs and overruns tend to occur. They actually were the only developer that had their own construction company. I don't know which party did this at the Four Seasons. Which group is that? Because they ruined the Four Seasons. I loved that place. I have a home in the Back Bay, and I've been a resident of Fenway in the Back Bay since 1992. The Four Seasons, the public access areas were so much fun. It was a hangout bar. People that lived at the Ritz would just get sick of their own bar and come to that one. I lived on Marlborough Street, and I made so many friends there, and they ruined it. They took out all the windows. [Speaker 1] (2:36:35 - 2:36:45) In fairness, none of the three groups had anything to do with the Back Bay Four Seasons, just so you know that. By the way, I agree with your opinion about the Back Bay Four Seasons. [Speaker 21] (2:36:45 - 2:36:54) I know, but someone did mention the Back Bay. Didn't they have a picture of it? I definitely hate the Four Seasons. [Speaker 1] (2:36:54 - 2:36:57) I agree with you completely. They should never build in our town. [Speaker 21] (2:36:58 - 2:37:23) I really like the Del Mar. I like that all of their projects were seaside projects. I just liked how they developed that crappy hotel and made it like an Italian Mediterranean feel on the coast in Connecticut. I think that they had a real ear to the ground on the historic nature of our town. I wanted to voice that. [Speaker 9] (2:37:23 - 2:37:24) Thank you, Colleen. [Speaker 13] (2:37:39 - 2:41:52) Hello. I'm Mary DiCillo. I live at 7 Rockland Street, which is the lower end of Rockland Street. My husband and I live just around the corner from Hadley School. We are supportive of having the hotel. In my previous role on the school committee, I served on the school building committee for the high school. I would strongly suggest that there be an advisory committee put together that works directly with the developer that can funnel information and can raise issues along the way. It was really helpful to have people on that committee, the school building committee, that were involved in trades, that were involved in management, finance, that kind of thing, that they can listen with an ear for what is being said by the developers. It also brought up issues when issues needed to be confronted along the way. We were very fortunate with the people that we picked. I was very pleased to see all three of the projects. I also served on the local historic district committee several years ago, which created the Olmstead District. One of the last presentation was very heavily favored in that direction. I wasn't as... I didn't like that design as well, but I think that we have to emphasize as a town how important preservation is for us. It is for me. The man that said he rode around the Olmstead District and looked at it and said, wow, was this... Somebody who appreciated what an asset that is for our town, and it's the gateway for our town. When we did that local historic district, getting all the different properties, including Olmstead, the man from the local historic district from the state that worked with us on creating those plans, when he came to visit us to Swampscott, his words were, this is a town, you have no idea how envious other towns would be to have the kinds of... the variety of historic properties as well as the condition of which and the different styles of architecture. He was in awe, actually. I think we get used to being here and not realize what we have in hand. That is going to be a thing that's going to draw people to come here to be walking those streets as well as the ocean. The most important thing, one last thing, it's a commitment not just to build the place but to manage it. I think to think very carefully going forward about managing some of these relationships. It's about relationships with the town and the government and the private sector, but also making sure they say it's going to be open to the public. That has to be just underscored and going forward. One last thing is I do have concerns always about when these projects are built the sustainability of them and I'm also concerned about flipping and how private equity is my big thing now is looking at private equity and how it's a real problem with turning over of businesses which then severs the relationship that you have pre-existing and it may just be for profit. So you need to be thinking and listening for this kind of stuff. Thank you. [Speaker 9] (2:41:52 - 2:41:52) Thank you, Mary. [Speaker 12] (2:42:03 - 2:47:06) Good evening. Chair Germa, Precinct 3, Town Meeting Member, Historic District Commission. I was really pleased last week to see the caliber of all three projects. Trained as an architect and really was impressed by the caliber of the two architecture firms that were involved. And in the third project actually had a great appreciation for the fact that they didn't have an architect signed on because in his presentation it was addressing historic preservation and the question that came up over and over about how this would be a green building, their approach was to not demolish a third of it. At the point that you tear apart and dispose of sound structure, you are really negating the ability to create a green structure. So that did stand out to me and it's something that I think the town needs to look at in a hard way when we look at structures that are sound and usable, what we're creating through demolition. To speak of the three, I was very grateful that there was a conversation of community engagement on the first project and that they left their facades blank but I was concerned by the actual scale, I was concerned about the relationship to the street, I was concerned about the fact that it did not pay any attention to view corridor and really didn't pay attention to the view corridor from either the historic district, the town center side, or actually coming down Reddington Street. The second project, I thought was much scale wise, much better and the fact that they pulled back from the street and allowed the school to show. The first building was lost. It was really, the school was lost in the massing that was sort of glommed onto it. The school itself is a historic structure, it is, the annex actually doesn't take apart its symmetry and its original boy-girl entrance scenario, which is what Hadley has with the two separate entrances that come up the front of it that sort of stand out to education 1911. When you talk about, sorry, are you still talking about Drew or are you referring back to I'm sorry, Drew Drew's attachment, I didn't like that we were demolishing, but Drew's attachment honored the Hadley School. The glomming on in the first was the actual Cambridge 7 project. The school started feeling like the way that we see hospitals added onto. Where it's like every architect comes in and has their signature moment and that isn't always what responds to the town well. And I really felt like any view of that, the school was in peril. And so that's something that sort of stood out to me. I don't think any of us need to talk about the encroachment into Linscott Park, but that in the CBT project, the second project, that doesn't feel like a feasible approach. Possibly access to Linscott Park, but taking it over as private space and public space and considering the amount of jurisdictions Linscott Park falls under. So anyway, but all of that said, I think there's a fascinating amount of decision making. I think all three of these folks came with a clear vision. And I do have to say I have exposure to the property in Traverse City that the Miramar has because that is my childhood stomping ground and I think they come into communities with an understanding of the communities and how to fit into them. And I do feel scale and preservation-wise that did mean a lot to me. Community input, enormous on all of these and really thinking about, Mike mentioned the light pollution, really thinking about how we talk about foot lighting in a parking lot versus pole lighting to really not have an impact. This building needs to exist feeling like a residential property in the residential neighborhood that it's in while still having the amenities of commercial property for the community it's adjacent to. So thank you. Thank you. [Speaker 22] (2:47:20 - 2:49:35) Hello, Joe Duet, Precinct 3. I was really impressed with the presentations as well. There were some things that stood out to me that I don't know where they fit in this conversation, if it's now or if it's later. Thinking about the projects, I agree with what a lot of people were saying. The first one seemed too big. The second one, I liked the style of it, but as Jared just mentioned, the encroachment into Linscott really got me worried. And so I just wanted to make sure that we as a community weren't seeing that as part of this project. As I was looking at the designs, I was seeing that the trees that my son used as his goal posts to learn how to play soccer were probably going to come down in order for them to make what they need to make, and that's fine. But Linscott Park as a place for so many kids to come down and play after school, to just let off steam with this gorgeous view of the ocean, I don't want us to lose that as a place for kids, for families. And as the conversation and relationship builds with these hotels, which look really fancy, and they say this is going to be open, the lobby will be open, it will be community space, will it be community enough that a bunch of kids who are really hot from playing soccer in the field could go in and use the bathroom and have some water without the hotel staff saying, hey, you kids get out of here, this is a fancy hotel. So how can that relationship be a place where we as a community feel like anyone could go in there and enjoy the space and not feel like the business is feeling like they shouldn't be there. Related to that, and the relationship to the community, where is there a conversation for the hotel and their relationship to the town to welcome in groups to use their space for events at, say, a discounted price? Think about all the people that went through Hadley, and maybe those reunions would want to have a nice place. Right now it's really hard to find a place. We priced out Mission, and it was like $10,000 just to get the deck. So if the hotel has this standing relationship, I don't know, maybe I need to talk to somebody on the board. [Speaker 1] (2:49:36 - 2:49:38) But it's crazy. You can have my house in one. [Speaker 22] (2:49:39 - 2:50:06) Right. Where did we end up? We ended up at Gennaro's house in Nahant, which was really fun. But if there's Hadley Hotel, it can say to the classes of Swampscot whatever, hey, we've got two nights a year that you guys can use this place at a little bit of a discount. I'd love to see that type of relationship with who went through that school and who lives in this town. And for the current students and kids who play there to really feel like they can go into that hotel and refresh themselves and feel like it's part of their community. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (2:50:06 - 2:50:58) Can I just respond to one thing there? Because I just think the Linscott Park part of it. You're raising a really important point. My colleagues will chime in if they think. Linscott Park has a conservation restriction on it. To be perfectly clear, without commenting on any proposal, because we're still deliberating them, I just want to reaffirm. Linscott Park has a conservation restriction. The use of Linscott Park is sanctioned and secure. And I don't want residents to worry about that, because that actually is something that actually referenced layers of bureaucracy, but there are layers of regulatory controls on that park that would make any commercialization of that park not possible. I just want to put that at ease. Appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Lau. [Speaker 21] (2:51:08 - 2:51:08) Sorry. [Speaker 11] (2:51:09 - 2:57:02) Laura Lau, Outlook Road. So it's just sort of a running record of observations and things that I really would like you to keep in mind when you're making the decisions. So reflections of the projects, just please consider the following the expansive scale of two of the projects that will utilize a tremendous amount of concrete and steel, two of the most significant producers of gas, CO2 gases, you know, and hotels on their own just use a tremendous amount of water and electricity just, you know, in operation of their spaces. Comments were made by the third proposer about cutting down trees, you know, I guess the likelihood to improve their views. So hopefully some limits will be put in the writing and that there won't be just too much sort of given over without real consideration of these important points. Moving into the Linscott Park for commercial use and guest overflow, you know, I'm sure that they will be able to, you know, apply for permits to use the space just like, you know, any other person would be able to do. So we need to keep that in mind. It sounds like we'll probably have conflicts with events, aligning our town events with wedding venues that they may not look too kindly on our port-a-johns, you know, kind of sitting in the back of Linscott Park, you know, for races and other events. We're losing our town, our kids are losing an open field, we're losing an aging playground that still provides joy. We're losing memory-filled swings and that's regretful. The noise from the third floor, I can hear from my doorstep, I can hear the summer concerts, I think that's great, but I'd imagine we're going to really hear the addition there on the fourth floor of Hadley. The RFP was, you know, one of the presenters said that, you know, they were then asked to go back and take a look at how they might use the Hawthorne site. And it seems that when we approved that at town meeting with I think two hands up most of us, the intention behind that space was that it would be, we were told by you, Peter, that it was to be public space. Don't go back on that unless you're willing to go back and then have a bigger conversation with the town. So, Mary Ellen, your point earlier about communication, I am going to keep beating that drum because it is insufficient. Thank you. I'm going to keep going, Dave. So, the pinnacle report, we were never directed to it before the last town meeting, you know, it said 40 rooms and then we approved 60 rooms and then they added rooms. So, it's developer creep, much like Elm Place was. You know, those developers could have come back and said, you know, the community wants a smaller space, I'll give it to them. They're not going to do that. It's just not going to happen. Seems like parking is the topic that moves everybody. Parking will need to be addressed. Traffic will change. At 11 a.m. checkout and a 4 p.m. check-in, it will be very different for those community members around there. They just still don't get how their food and beverage is going to be a real, and retail, is going to be a lot of their bread and butter. And I just don't see how that complements our businesses on Humphrey Street at all. Public access, a room, we should have a space in there that should be a requirement because we asked, it passed, and it's reasonable, it's very reasonable. There's no bathrooms in that area unless town hall is open and that's stuff with small children and lots of people. So the word boutique really just feels so exclusive and not at all inclusive. So if you can be mindful of how we can change that lens to support that, I would find that to be incredibly important. I think the last couple of things are just that it would be really great if this project does have to happen that our schools would benefit from the fact that this was a school. So could some of the finances, a dollar amount, I don't think a percentage will work, but we'll see. Something. Sort of like the millionaire's tax, if it ever actually does end up going to schools. So that a portion of it is designated so that the financial gain that we hopefully get will go to our schools and kind of support that. So there's a few bucks there that we can kind of bank on. I would hope that that could get worked into the deal. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (2:57:03 - 2:57:33) Thank you. David, can I just quickly, just on one point, relative to the Hawthorne, the Hawthorne was not included in this RFP, so nothing the board decides here, just so to put people at ease. Just so you know that this is Hadley was the only property put in the RFP. One or more select board members might have wanted that question asked, but I think that was in the context of thinking about future planning for the Hawthorne. But this proposal is about the use of the Hadley property only. So that's all we can decide with that. [Speaker 11] (2:57:33 - 2:57:57) I understand, but it sounded like from one of the developers that it was sort of an after the RFPs were found, you know, were submitted after the 21st of December, let me finish, Peter, that they were directed to say, oy, you know, we're in the 16th inning of, you know, let's go ahead and add this and say throw this nugget out to them. [Speaker 1] (2:57:57 - 2:58:16) So that nugget was thrown out to them. No, they were, during the interview process and the supplemental questions, one or more select board members asked that question, and so they were responding to that question. What I'm saying is, I just want you to know that nothing this board decides on that RFP can impact Hawthorne, it's only going to impact Hadley. [Speaker 11] (2:58:17 - 2:58:26) Because it did seem to coincide with what I've also said, all of a sudden, it dried up. Those conversations about Hawthorne sort of magically dried up, and that sort of stopped. So... [Speaker 1] (2:58:26 - 2:58:35) Well, they haven't. Good news. I think, what's the date? February? February 20? I think it's March. It's March 6th. March 6th. Hawthorne's on the agenda. [Speaker 11] (2:58:35 - 2:59:06) Thank you. My last line that I didn't say was just that I think that the third presentation seems to be more, I think somebody said this perfectly, in scale with the community, and just really, I think it provides the least amount of harm. Because there is going to be harm, even though there may be some long-term good, I think that this is still just such a loss for the community to be losing this property, and adjacent to Linscott Park. It's just a huge loss. [Speaker 9] (2:59:06 - 2:59:07) Thank you, Ms. Long. [Speaker 14] (2:59:08 - 3:00:40) Mr. Spritz. Hi, Wayne Spritz, Precinct 3. So there's been, at the very end of the presentation, the question was asked, well, how many employees would be working at any one of these hotels? If I remember correctly, I think the number was like 100. I know that's not 100 all at the same time. That's 100 over multiple different shifts and whatnot. Then I started wondering, you know, the parking that was proposed in each one of them left no room for air. If anything, a couple of them were short for the amount of rooms that they had. Now, granted, not all rooms will be booked at all times. I can't help but to think, so you have 60 rooms, 60 parking places, and let's say 30 people working at any given time, plus contractors. I mean, is this the elephant in the room? I don't quite get how you get from here to there. I don't see how you overcome it, other than finding satellite parking. I know the gentleman, the Reverend from the church spoke, and there was a laugh about the fact that, hey, I've got an opening for some parking. Truly, realistically, I mean, has the Board thought about how that's going to be taken care of? We're all going to be sitting there scratching our heads when all of a sudden this thing's built and literally there's nowhere to park. Hopefully, there'll be a solution that comes out of this. Thank you. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (3:00:42 - 3:00:54) Can we agree that the Board's smart enough to have thought of that? Wayne, I appreciate you raising it. You just asked, has the Board thought of it? I'm just going to answer it to let you know. At the very least, was it smart enough to have thought about that? [Speaker 12] (3:00:56 - 3:02:41) It's a great question you're asking. Sorry to return. I just wanted to say something really quick on parking. There are many urban hotels that don't have parking lots and they do do balleting. It is an opportunity for the religious parking lots that sit empty for so much of the time to actually develop that relationship. The other thing is another urban move that I would like the Board to really encourage any hotel that comes in is them setting up a system of getting people to and from the train station and getting people to Wonderland Station. We live near a hotel in San Francisco that had a 1940s Woody with their beautiful hotel stuff painted on the side of it. You can do this in a way that isn't feeling like Uber. I think there's a lot of possibilities for that. I know that a lot of time gets spent talking about parking in restaurants and people are coming to them. They may be walking the distance they would walk to get into North Shore Mall, but they're still coming. If we can get something that's working, the parking does work itself out. I'm very glad that the town has opened up Monument Avenue now that it's being parked in. The teachers park. I live on Elmwood Road. They park on our street. You know what? It's okay. I think that is something. I watched them maxing out that field. I think they can cut back on that. We could be looking at greening that. We could be looking at a lot of things and utilizing these other areas. Thank you. [Speaker 4] (3:02:46 - 3:02:51) Welcome to the three-hour club, everybody. [Speaker 1] (3:02:53 - 3:06:13) Can we just, before we get off? I don't see Before we get off, Hadley, maybe just talk next steps so that we're sharing publicly next steps and then make sure we're all agreeing on steps. My understanding is that we're going to welcome public comment again on Monday night. There is the possibility that we're then going to engage in dialogue and potentially take a vote to designate a developer. That doesn't close the discussion. That just means that under 30B, we have to designate a developer in order to really negotiate and to really see what's possible. It's a procedural thing. We can't negotiate with three bidders. The back and forth is somewhat constrained right now for us. We're just taking it to the next step to be able to then take those dialogues to another level to address many of the things that you've all raised tonight. That then would be the next step on that process there. That then, there is a pretty significant time period that would be to have those conversations. Like I said before, two of the three respondents have proposed ground lease structures. One proposed a fee, meaning they purchased the property. I'm just going to talk about the ground lease structure because that's something we're familiar with because the Michon School and the Greenwood School both are on ground lease. Greenwood, we sold outright. I apologize. We sold Greenwood outright. Michon's on a ground lease. Why that's important is that in addition to the land development agreement, which is the agreement I was making reference to Michael earlier that gives us more controls, there's also a lease for ongoing controls. Not this generation, but next generation, 10 years from now, 10 years from now, 10 years from now, when they want to do different things, when they want to change operations, when they want to change exterior things or do things, that lease is an ongoing covenant that follows that property for the entire duration. That's important. I just want to share it with you to let you know that just like in the Michon School, Michon can't tomorrow all of a sudden just do things differently. They have to come back to town and then select board to seek to modify that ground lease or get permissions under that. I can't say for sure it's going to be a ground lease, but I think you can read T-lease enough to know that I certainly think the ground lease is a really important tool for a community because it allows us to have that ongoing control not just for us but for future generations of us to deal with big changes on that. That is also part of the negotiation. You can imagine there's a land disposition agreement. There's a ground lease. They're pretty comprehensive documents. There's many votes this board will need to take before this is final. Designated developers are just the next, shall I say, of a series of public votes. We would have to vote publicly on the land development agreement, on the purchase and sale agreement, on the ground lease. We would have to publicly vote on the design. If we have design approval, then there's a public process that we're going to have to vote publicly on design. I just want you to know that there's a series of ... Maybe what I'll do is I'll try and put those on a slide for Monday just so people see them. There are a series. I'll use Michonne as an example just to put people at ease enough to understand what's the next step. There is a tremendous amount of public process and certainly votes of current and future select boards relative to just bringing this project to reality. [Speaker 9] (3:06:13 - 3:06:39) Thanks, Peter. Yes, we are at three hours. I would have sat here for another three hours just so we hear all the comments from the community. I think it's incredibly important. This is a transformational asset. The conversion of the Hadley School to a hotel is something that is certainly important. Everybody has their opinions. We are moving on. [Speaker 11] (3:06:40 - 3:06:47) Mr. Christian, real quickly, I'm quite sure that Peter Cain said at the January 30th meeting that the 7th and the 14th were... [Speaker 9] (3:06:47 - 3:06:49) It's the 7th and the 12th. [Speaker 11] (3:06:49 - 3:06:57) Oh, okay. That was the 14th. I just didn't want that to be one thing said and advertised differently so that gets cluttered. [Speaker 9] (3:06:57 - 3:07:03) We will meet on Monday the 12th. Please come back, bring additional comments, questions. [Speaker 6] (3:07:05 - 3:07:08) If people have comments, they can also email them. [Speaker 9] (3:07:08 - 3:07:10) You can also email the select board. [Speaker 6] (3:07:10 - 3:07:13) Email which design you felt was the best design and why. [Speaker 9] (3:07:13 - 3:07:17) We welcome that as well. Thank you. Good point. [Speaker 10] (3:07:17 - 3:07:22) We should just acknowledge that we have some of those tonight. We've already done that. Yes. [Speaker 9] (3:07:23 - 3:07:51) Thank you. We're going to move on to discussion of fiscal year 24's second quarter budget and financial forecast. This will be a presentation from our Director of Finance, Ms. Amy Sero. Welcome to the conversation. [Speaker 1] (3:08:01 - 3:08:21) We're tackling everything on this agenda tonight, yes? Could we just maybe try and create some time allocations to shut people up like me? Yes. I would love a... Amy's quick. No, not you on everything that we're about to talk about. The town meeting warrant we have to spend Yeah, I know. We're going to spend. That's next. [Speaker 10] (3:08:24 - 3:08:25) Take it away, Amy. [Speaker 8] (3:08:27 - 3:15:24) Let's cover a multitude of financial topics. Feel free to jump in with questions on each slide. In this very brief presentation, we're going to do an overview of Q2 revenue and expenditures, areas of concern, the end of year projection, FY25 budget development, and the financial forecast. Just so you don't get bored tonight. Just a quick overview. Revenue for FY24 is projected to hit our estimates that were discussed in November and December at tax rate setting time. The collector let me know actually right before I finish this presentation to come here, that we just got the main motor vehicle excise commitment, and it's $1.92 million, which is a 6% growth over last year, which was unexpected. At this point, there's a chance we're actually exceeding our revenue estimates. Not often I get to bring good news. Expenditures are projected to be over budget at this point. Police and fire are being actively monitored and worked with. We are looking at savings and efficiencies. Some have already been identified in building facilities and human resources. For the first time since the pandemic, we have projected surplus in health insurance due to less participants. The financial forecast remains tight through 2031, which is when the pension contribution becomes fully funded, and we will resume normal cost at that point. Next slide. This slide, you don't have to read the entirety of it. This is just an overview of Q2 revenue year-to-date. Just a couple things I want to highlight. You'll see an anomaly in state aid showing that we've received 377% of our veterans and elderly exemption. We received our FY23 abatement of $62,000 in August. This is really a prior year receipt recognized in this year. For local receipts, at the time that we were projecting the revenue and estimates, the T-Mobile cell tower agreement, they had indicated that they were not going to renew. After the estimates were set, they came back and decided they did, in fact, want to renew. We now have that revenue recognized. That is about $7,000 a month in revenue that we were not anticipating. For licenses and permits, the building permit for Elm Place was $512,680. We got that in September. The building department has already superseded their estimates for this year. Investment income, even though it's not an acute call-out, is already at 110% of estimates this year. We will be exceeding that, unfortunately, probably for the last year. It will be a good year, and we'll go strong on it. Expenditure, highlights, or lowlights. Our legal line is already over. This is something the Town Administrator and I are already looking at and working on. This is not necessarily due to our Town Council contract, but just special outside counsel that has been needed. The recreation line is already at 72%, but that's because the lifeguard salaries are typically spent in the summer. Fire and police overtime, as I said, is being actively monitored and corrected. We're meeting with the chiefs biweekly at this point, reviewing staffing, reviewing scheduling, and staying on top of that. Employee benefits reflecting at 70% is the workers' comp insurance, and pension are paid in full in July. Any questions before I move into our next little briefing? End of year projection. I put this really condensed kind of cost center version up top. If we have a continuation of our current trends for the remainder of FY24, we would be projecting a deficit of $222,879 for this year. We are doing a FY24 budget freeze to ensure no nonessential spending and any expenditures over $500 would need the approval of both myself and the Town Administrator before it can proceed. We are actively working with police and fire on staffing vacancy over time and managing the budget, and the Town Administrator has identified strategies to manage legal. At this time, those are the only areas of concern that we have. In looking to the future, FY25 budget development. We do have some known challenges. We have an estimated decrease in local receipts of about $1 million. The bulk of that is from the loss of investment income. Because we will have spent the bond proceeds from the new school and interest rates are anticipated to come down. Perfect storm on that one. The pension increase for this year is 4.68% for the general fund portion, or $277,000. The GIC health insurance released a presentation last week that they are expecting a 9.6% aggregate increase. This is a weighted average, so this is not every single plan is going to go up 9.6%. It is slightly higher than last year's projected increase. We have the Linn dispatch contract, which is an increase of about $103,000. A debt increase based off our initial projections of 8%, or $568,000. As well as a school committee request increase of 5.1%, or $1.3 million. Really, next steps, we're working to identify efficiencies. We're reviewing and right-sizing insurance and coverage premiums. The treasurer and I have been meeting with different insurance brokers to shop around our policies and make sure we have the right coverage levels and the best premiums for the town. We're still looking at identifying any additional local revenues. We have community development and the building department looking to see if there's any additional permits or anything that we have not already projected. We are working to maintain fiscal discipline in developing this budget. [Speaker 9] (3:15:26 - 3:15:33) Is there any good news in the development of the fiscal 25 budget? Yes. [Speaker 8] (3:15:34 - 3:15:58) I actually do have good news. I would say the best news that we have so far is I did the initial health insurance projection, even with the increases. We're actually projecting at this point only a 1.5% increase in our health insurance line. That's before taking into account any staff efficiencies that the school has. [Speaker 9] (3:15:58 - 3:16:00) What about state aid? [Speaker 8] (3:16:01 - 3:16:29) State aid, at this point, we've kept level funded. The governor did put that she is increasing 3% on school and unrestricted. We haven't recognized that yet because we still have ideally one more cycle that we'll receive before we release the town administrative budget. We want to see how that's going to go through the process before we really get anyone's hopes up. [Speaker 1] (3:16:29 - 3:16:32) You mean the House Ways and Means budget? You're looking to see what they say? [Speaker 6] (3:16:32 - 3:16:33) That's the cycle you're talking about? [Speaker 3] (3:16:35 - 3:16:37) I anticipate, though, that that's going to survive. [Speaker 8] (3:16:37 - 3:16:37) Yes. [Speaker 3] (3:16:38 - 3:17:15) I think the other thing that we're looking at is we've got opportunities for regional services. We're looking at other additional revenue streams. There's other opportunities for us to look at non-real estate tax revenue. Some of those opportunities might be some difficult conversations, but we've got to just start looking at revenue. It's a challenge. I think every year we've gotten this budget tighter and tighter. We've certainly got a lot of work to do. [Speaker 8] (3:17:18 - 3:18:22) This is just a quick overview of our timeline to get to annual town meeting on May 20th. We're still in the process of developing the town administrative budget to be released by March 1st. At the March 6th meeting is when the budget will be presented publicly to the board. March and April finance committee will review. April 17th is the deadline to close the warrant so that we can meet the printing deadline. May 20th, we will all get to go through the entirety of the town meeting. This is just a brief overview of our 10-year summary of financial forecast. As you can see at the bottom, like I said, it's tight up through 2031. We are actively working on this. This projection was updated with the FY25 revenue projections that everything else has been based off of. Outside of that, we have average assumption models built into this. [Speaker 1] (3:18:24 - 3:18:31) For example, the school budget that was released the other week is not included due to an average assumption. [Speaker 8] (3:18:38 - 3:18:40) Barring any questions, that is all. [Speaker 6] (3:18:42 - 3:18:54) I have one question. On the school budget, is the additional money that the Healey administration is adding in there for next year's budget, is that factored in there? [Speaker 8] (3:18:55 - 3:18:56) What additional money? [Speaker 6] (3:18:58 - 3:19:02) Didn't they come out with a chart sheet saying they were going to increase school aid? [Speaker 8] (3:19:04 - 3:19:07) As of right now, we have level-funded the estimates for a chart sheet. [Speaker 6] (3:19:08 - 3:19:15) We've level-funded. I thought the Healey administration came out and said they were going to be increasing it. [Speaker 8] (3:19:15 - 3:19:18) It will still go through House Ways and Means, Senate Ways and Means. [Speaker 6] (3:19:18 - 3:19:20) I got it. Thank you. [Speaker 8] (3:19:22 - 3:19:24) Any questions from the board? [Speaker 4] (3:19:30 - 3:19:32) Thank you, Amy. [Speaker 9] (3:19:37 - 3:20:00) Now we're going to review the special town meeting warrant of March 11, 2024, including review, discussion, and votes on the articles for inclusion in said warrant. I think we should just go through. We have Article 1 that's sponsored by the select board and the town administrator. [Speaker 15] (3:20:09 - 3:20:12) I'll go ahead and bring up the screen. Thank you, Pete. [Speaker 1] (3:20:19 - 3:20:27) It's in the warrant. We're going to vote to close the warrant. If someone wants to take something out of the warrant, then they should say they want to take it out of the warrant. [Speaker 6] (3:20:27 - 3:20:32) Go ahead, Pete. [Speaker 9] (3:20:32 - 3:20:32) Article 1. [Speaker 15] (3:20:33 - 3:21:00) Article 1. Let me skip down. This is amending the appropriation for FY 24, allocation for Chapter 70 funds to the school district. This is for the increase of $186,001 of additional Chapter 78. The table below shows the shift showing that the net change is zero. [Speaker 1] (3:21:01 - 3:21:10) On 1 and 2, I just asked, can we just please make sure the business manager of the schools see this before Monday night when we close the warrant just to make sure there's no questions or concerns about the language? [Speaker 15] (3:21:12 - 3:21:12) Sure. [Speaker 1] (3:21:13 - 3:21:13) Thank you. [Speaker 8] (3:21:16 - 3:21:19) All of the projections were net of these changes. [Speaker 1] (3:21:20 - 3:21:21) Got it. [Speaker 8] (3:21:21 - 3:21:21) Yes. [Speaker 1] (3:21:24 - 3:21:27) All right. Have FinCon taken action on this? [Speaker 8] (3:21:29 - 3:21:30) Not with their meeting on Monday. [Speaker 1] (3:21:31 - 3:21:43) I know. So aren't we? All right. I would just suggest we wait for the recommendation on the financial item. Move on? Okay. [Speaker 15] (3:21:45 - 3:22:02) Article 2 is the approval of transfer of free cash regarding the homeless and foster care transportation. The transfer is the $26,445 to FY 24's school operating budget line 57. [Speaker 1] (3:22:02 - 3:22:23) Same things. Have the business manager take a look at it, make sure she's fine, and then defer recommendation until it's done. Okay. I don't anticipate any issues, by the way, but I just want to make sure we don't show up with a printed warrant that causes concern or consternation about anything. [Speaker 15] (3:22:25 - 3:22:49) Article 3 is regarding the collective bargaining agreement for the Public Works Union. This has been updated since the previous review. This is instead amending the appropriation of FY 24 operating budget, essentially utilizing operating budget funds in order to cover the cost within the current fiscal year for that collective bargaining agreement. [Speaker 3] (3:22:49 - 3:22:55) You do not see that in your hard copies, but it's actually here on the screen. [Speaker 1] (3:22:56 - 3:23:08) Oh, and that was the copy that circulated just before the meeting. Got it. So, again, we haven't taken that vote yet. This assumes that we take the vote in the affirmative. [Speaker 9] (3:23:08 - 3:23:25) Yeah, so we're meeting Monday. This is on our agenda. We're not talking about that. Good. That's great, because we'll get on to it. It's a Monday executive session agenda that we're then going to vote on. [Speaker 3] (3:23:25 - 3:23:30) We posted this agenda prior to the executive session. [Speaker 1] (3:23:34 - 3:23:52) Can we just update the comment, because the comment will need to be updated, because this says if negotiations aren't done, there will be indefinite postponement, and I think that's not what you intended to be saying at this point. Assuming this board votes favorably on Monday, the comment should just be updated. [Speaker 4] (3:23:56 - 3:24:05) We skipped over item five. Did we just do it there at the end? We have people waiting here for that. [Speaker 37] (3:24:05 - 3:24:17) Understood. Should I move on to Article 4? [Speaker 15] (3:24:18 - 3:24:48) Yes, Pete. Article 4, this is the Home Rule legislation regarding the chapter removal of Chapter 61B This, again, has to do with the allowance for tax abatement, essentially tax abatement for open space. It would be a Home Rule petition? [Speaker 1] (3:24:49 - 3:24:54) Yep. Again, FinCom's going to meet Monday night. [Speaker 8] (3:24:55 - 3:24:58) Their general discussion was in favor, but they did not formally vote. [Speaker 1] (3:24:59 - 3:25:17) I suspect as much. For the next two warrant articles, I think we're trying to So just as a practical matter, if we're meeting at the same time that the Finance Committee is meeting, how are we going to be able to Between now and Monday figure that out. What time are they meeting, do you know? [Speaker 8] (3:25:17 - 3:25:27) They're meeting at 7. I currently have Patrick leading that meeting because they're also going to be discussing capital, and I'll be dueling laptops, so I'll be able to let you know. [Speaker 1] (3:25:27 - 3:25:31) So if you could just ask them to do warrant first, if they can, and then we're doing Hadley anyways. [Speaker 8] (3:25:33 - 3:25:36) I believe the Chair is on here as well. [Speaker 1] (3:25:36 - 3:25:49) So, David, on the next five and six, we're trying to get Lauren Goldberg from KP Law who actually drafted these and can answer specific questions to be here on Monday. Okay. [Speaker 6] (3:25:49 - 3:25:51) So these are the voting questions? [Speaker 1] (3:25:51 - 3:25:51) They are. [Speaker 6] (3:25:52 - 3:26:27) I would like to take the voting questions out and move them to either the annual town meeting That's just my I would rather wait and put it on the annual. I'd rather wait and get a little bit more public discussion about it rather than bring this to town meeting in a matter of weeks. [Speaker 9] (3:26:29 - 3:26:31) Other thoughts from the Board? [Speaker 4] (3:26:33 - 3:26:49) That makes some sense. Peter, do you have any sense of public engagement process over the next month about these? I know you mentioned something last week about the schools, but do you have any other thoughts about ways in which this is going to be kind of publicly discussed? [Speaker 1] (3:26:50 - 3:29:04) Schools are talking about it with the kids, just generally about voting, so that's not really public engagement in the true sense of what you're talking about here. I have offered to one of the political parties in town who seemed to have a lot to say about this foreign article to meet with them at any time and it's been almost a week and I haven't heard from them yet, but certainly we can do more public engagement. I'm thrilled to death that for the first time in nine years anybody took this microphone and talked about voting. First time in nine years, so I'm thrilled to death that these articles are creating that discussion and I would like to keep them on meeting warrant and I would like town meeting to engage in that conversation because they are very relevant to this conversation and if they decide at that point they want to postpone, they can decide they want to postpone, but I think it is the healthiest of all conversations that we're talking about turnout in this town and that 12%, 13%, 9%, 22%, 23%, that's just not okay. And by the way, we're not different than other towns and I will share all the other town data. We're not. This is a big problem but no one else is going to solve our problem. So I'm thrilled. I love, totally disagree 100% with some of the comments I made earlier. Couldn't disagree more. I believe our 16 and 17 year olds surrounded by teachers that can teach them the importance of civics and the responsibility of voting and how to educate themselves is a perfect way to make sure that they're voters in the future as opposed to setting them free at age 18 and not saying a word about it. But that's a healthy debate because what we're going to do is we're going to do it in a way that doesn't decrease turnout. We're inevitably going to help chum the waters here. So I would ask that it maintain on. I can't wait for full-throated debate and discussion at town meeting floor about it because that are some of our most active citizens and let's have that conversation. And then if they think it's foolish and we shouldn't talk about it at all, we don't need to have much process. We can postpone and have process. If they want to move forward, they're our representative democratic body. The irony being that we can, I guess, let them vote for it. I'm thrilled and I'm grateful that people showed up tonight to express their opinions and there are lots of e-mail threads talking about how irresponsible or brilliant this is. I think that's wonderful. I just truly do. We've never talked about it once. [Speaker 3] (3:29:05 - 3:29:45) For me, I'm happy to sponsor this. I can't believe how people are indicting our young citizens and not thinking about every other cohort, every other age group. For me, it's unfair to them. If we had them sitting here tonight, I would want one person to stand up and defend them and say, hey, you matter. We're here because we are a community and a democracy and we can have every one of these voices debate that civilly and respectfully. [Speaker 4] (3:29:45 - 3:29:48) I'm not sure people are indicting the kids. [Speaker 10] (3:29:50 - 3:30:42) It does feel a little disparaging to them the way some folks spoke about children in public comment. I mean, it does. I understand what you're saying and you're trying to but it does feel like that their brains cannot conceptualize the decision making at 16 and 17 that somehow their parents under their thumb are going to control how they vote. Some parents can't control what they eat for dinner. How are you going to say they can control how they vote? Maybe some of those undereducated youth that we're talking about are going to pull their parents who don't vote now to vote with them. I just think, I said it last time, I think this is part of a great experiment. It doesn't mean that we're going to have all the answers to everything right now. It means that we're having a wonderful conversation which we've never had before and we should continue to have. I think we should be very conscious about how we're having it because we might be disenfranchising voters in this conversation. [Speaker 6] (3:30:43 - 3:31:02) My point in bringing this up was to move it into May in a couple weeks. That was my point. Can we move this into May where there's whatever conversations are happening. I don't follow social media. I'm just saying, moving to May. [Speaker 1] (3:31:02 - 3:31:11) I appreciate that and I am eager to see if you're going to propose what you suggested last time. You said you didn't know if ill-informed people should be able to vote. I was wondering if maybe that would be an advantage. [Speaker 6] (3:31:11 - 3:31:26) What I did was, I commented on what an individual said to me. He said, would you really want me to vote if I don't follow up, if I'm not up to speed on different subjects. I thought that was a really good question. [Speaker 1] (3:31:27 - 3:31:27) But isn't the answer yes? [Speaker 6] (3:31:30 - 3:31:31) No, I don't know if the answer is yes. [Speaker 1] (3:31:32 - 3:31:36) Ill-informed people. My point is, I hear you. [Speaker 10] (3:31:38 - 3:31:46) No, but the point is it should be his choice if he wants to vote. Not yours. But that is his choice. That is his choice. [Speaker 1] (3:31:49 - 3:32:25) I would like it to stay on. I would like we are engaging the superintendent and the principal at the high school are engaging kids to teach them an active lesson in civics. Win, lose, or draw. That's democracy. That's scheduled. That's happening this month. They know it's happening. If town meeting decides this is premature, and they aren't equipped to make this decision, I'm totally open to the fact there are better ideas. Tonight, was the first time we even talked about voting. Nine years. No, no, no. Respectfully, respectfully, Wayne. [Speaker 41] (3:32:25 - 3:32:26) No, no. [Speaker 1] (3:32:28 - 3:34:22) This is a dialogue. I understand. Respectfully, I think the attitude is, what is our select board doing to turn out voting? I argue and say that we actually do the most of anybody in town because we're the ones out there getting elected. We're the ones talking. We're the ones doing it. I find it incredibly sanctimonious and hypocritical when someone actually says that to us when that person themselves can't stand up and say what they've done to get people out and vote. Please don't try and hold us to a different standard. Let's have this conversation. Let's have it be really interesting. Tonight, my son got his license. You better believe I had second thoughts about 16-year-olds. Right? But he went out and got me ice cream, so we're good. That was good judgment. I'm saying let's have that dialogue. Let town meeting tell us where they want to go with this. I think people would be, frankly, if they don't know about our voting turnout, they'd be disgusted. The irony is, we're talking about and the people who are sometimes speaking the loudest are not happy with decisions that are being made in town. It sounds like they just want to keep the percentage low so they can control the decision. No. If the kids are irresponsible and you're worried that kids are going to show up and vote for funding schools, then you show up and decide you're not going to fund schools. That is how you counter it in democracy. It's amazing. It's perfect. Right now, we can count votes because we have six people in a pigeon voting at town elections. We know where things are going to go. Why are you surprised? Because the same 12% vote. Let's challenge our constituency. Let's challenge town meetings. Let's have this vibrant debate. I think it's awesome. My God, I just sounded like Sean. It's awesome. It is. I would ask my colleagues that we keep it on the warrant. Lauren Goldberg, hopefully, is going to be here Monday night just to answer some technical questions because I think there are some technical questions and reasons, for example, why November voting isn't being proposed here. There is a reason that Lauren Goldberg will be happy to walk us through specifically. There are questions like that. We wanted to make her available to you all so you can have technical questions answered. [Speaker 4] (3:34:23 - 3:34:27) David, I don't know if you're entertaining any person from the audience. [Speaker 1] (3:34:27 - 3:34:28) I am not. [Speaker 10] (3:34:30 - 3:34:32) Do you want to make a motion? [Speaker 6] (3:34:34 - 3:34:36) No. I have the votes. [Speaker 10] (3:34:38 - 3:34:39) I'm just asking. [Speaker 9] (3:34:40 - 3:34:41) Make a motion. [Speaker 6] (3:34:41 - 3:34:50) Sure, I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to remove this from the warrant at this time and add it to the annual town. [Speaker 9] (3:34:51 - 3:34:52) Do I have a second? [Speaker 4] (3:34:55 - 3:34:58) I'll give Mary Ellen courtesy of giving her the second. [Speaker 1] (3:34:59 - 3:35:01) All in favor? [Speaker 41] (3:35:02 - 3:35:02) Aye. [Speaker 1] (3:35:03 - 3:35:29) Opposed? No. I would make a recommendation that we don't take any recommendation on it. Also, we may not want to do that on Monday as well. This may be one that we won't want to use our time in February to engage before we make a final recommendation. We can include it, but not make our printed recommendation a passage. That would be nice. I know there will be a debate at town meeting. [Speaker 4] (3:35:30 - 3:35:32) You have proposed a series of things. [Speaker 1] (3:35:33 - 3:36:13) I'm totally open to it. I think it would be great. I truly, I mean it sincerely that inadvertently I was copied on a string of emails, inadvertently because my name was said a lot in the emails of one of the political parties in town. My mind is blown how crazy the idea is being received that we're going to try and expand voting. I want to engage with those people because they are thinking about something that hasn't even occurred to me, so I'm open minded to know why we shouldn't do it. Why we should change our voting to April or June, excuse me. Why we should do two days of voting. I look forward to it, so I want to engage and I will reach out again to that group and others. It's terrific. [Speaker 9] (3:36:18 - 3:36:23) So that was article five and six. [Speaker 15] (3:36:25 - 3:36:51) Article seven, Pete. Article seven is a general bylaw amendment to adopt the specialized energy code. This would be brought in as article 16A. It is modeled after the model language from the commonwealth and it is in line with an action item from the climate action plan. Comments or questions? [Speaker 1] (3:36:52 - 3:36:53) Are you all comfortable with it? [Speaker 6] (3:36:54 - 3:36:56) Do we have to get finance committee recommendation? [Speaker 1] (3:36:57 - 3:37:37) No, I don't think so, but I'm comfortable with article seven. I'm just wondering what the public process was that allows us to put this article here at the climate action committee and I probably only, I don't think I've ever seen anybody from the public actually attend those meetings. I'm just curious as to what the public dialogue has been about this because this is actually going to change the investment requirements of every single homeowner in Swampscott. This will not impact anybody. This will change it 100%. Now, to be perfectly clear, I'm 100% in favor of it. I'm just asking what the public process was and we're going to change the building code to be happy to tell you. Besides the climate committee. Do you want me to tell you? [Speaker 4] (3:37:37 - 3:37:55) I do. We have a meeting scheduled for February 27. Of last year or this year? This year. So it hasn't happened yet. We've had the committee meetings and we're going to have a public process. We've engaged the building commissioner and we have a public meeting scheduled for this room on February 27. [Speaker 1] (3:37:56 - 3:38:17) I appreciate that. I assume then we don't know whether we should include it or not. Because we have this thing about public process we were just talking about. No, I'm actually being serious about it. I said we keep it on the wall. We can't raise public process when it's a guise for us not supporting something. We have to raise public process. [Speaker 18] (3:38:17 - 3:38:19) No, I'm not talking to you. I'm not talking to you. [Speaker 1] (3:38:19 - 3:38:29) I'm not talking to you. I'm talking generally. We, at times, raise public process as a cudgel. We raise it. [Speaker 4] (3:38:29 - 3:38:31) This came out of a committee. [Speaker 1] (3:38:31 - 3:38:45) I'm not talking about something part of this. I hear it, but I'm saying because you agree with it doesn't mean that it's ready to go on the warrant. All I'm saying is we can't, with one breath, forget what we said two breaths ago. [Speaker 4] (3:38:45 - 3:38:46) That's all I'm saying. [Speaker 1] (3:38:47 - 3:38:48) It's not. [Speaker 10] (3:38:48 - 3:38:51) Why don't we let Doug explain why it's two different situations? [Speaker 1] (3:38:52 - 3:38:55) Because you're having meetings in the future after we close the warrant? [Speaker 4] (3:38:55 - 3:39:18) No, because there's been a committee that's been working through this that has proposed this to begin with. There is a meeting scheduled. All I was asking you before about the voting was could we have a public meeting in advance because there's a lot of things there for people to digest. I appreciate it. [Speaker 1] (3:39:20 - 3:39:22) My comments had nothing to do with it. [Speaker 4] (3:39:22 - 3:39:23) I'm sorry. [Speaker 1] (3:39:23 - 3:40:19) I'm 100% in favor. I just want it to be recognized that there are times that we use process as a guise for why we're opposing things. I think, frankly, people should just start saying I don't like an idea. I'm opposed to it instead of process because a lot of people who engage in the process get undermined and undercut by saying that. With that, I'm happy to have this be in the warrant because I think it's a wonderful idea, but I think we should make sure that town meeting members actually find out what this is because, in fairness, it does have a direct financial implication on their lives and it sounds wonderful. I live it. I build all electric buildings in my day life. I believe in it. I know how to do it. It's wonderful, but I'm just saying that I do think this is one of those warrant articles that if you didn't attend a public meeting as a town meeting member, you may not fully understand it because it is an extremely complex topic. [Speaker 10] (3:40:19 - 3:40:27) Doug, can you explain how the committee is reaching out to town meeting members to attend that meeting? Maybe that's helpful too? [Speaker 4] (3:40:27 - 3:40:38) It's going in the newsletter. We can do a direct message through the town moderator. We can do an email to engage people. That would be fine. That would be great. [Speaker 10] (3:40:39 - 3:40:41) It can't hurt to overcommunicate. [Speaker 4] (3:40:41 - 3:40:51) Absolutely not. Of course, we'll do a very short little presentation at town meeting hours as well to make sure that people get the latest information at the time of the vote. [Speaker 9] (3:40:52 - 3:40:58) Based upon this information, are we in a position to make a recommendation this evening? [Speaker 1] (3:40:59 - 3:41:01) Or do you want to wait for the public meeting? [Speaker 3] (3:41:01 - 3:41:02) No, I want to wait for the public meeting. [Speaker 1] (3:41:04 - 3:41:07) There you go. You're picking up what I'm putting down. That was good. [Speaker 3] (3:41:07 - 3:41:09) The City of Salem adopted it. [Speaker 1] (3:41:12 - 3:41:15) Let's lead. I am perfectly fine voting to recommend passage of this. [Speaker 4] (3:41:16 - 3:41:24) I'd like to make a motion for this board to support this article on the warrant. Do I have a second? [Speaker 3] (3:41:24 - 3:41:24) Second. [Speaker 9] (3:41:25 - 3:41:27) All in favor? Aye. Awesome. [Speaker 3] (3:41:30 - 3:41:30) Excellent. [Speaker 15] (3:41:31 - 3:41:48) Article 8. If you don't mind, I just had a quick question as to that vote that was just taken. It sounded like it was to include it on the warrant as opposed to favorable action. [Speaker 1] (3:41:49 - 3:41:53) No, no. You conferred that we're recommending favorable action. [Speaker 15] (3:41:53 - 3:41:54) You're right. [Speaker 4] (3:41:54 - 3:41:58) Both. It's favorable action. Everyone for that? [Speaker 1] (3:41:58 - 3:42:11) I don't know. We can ask FinCom if they think they need to make a recommendation on it. I don't think it has a financial implication. I guess technically, buildings are going to need to comply to a more enhanced energy code, but they may decide that they want to have an opinion. [Speaker 4] (3:42:13 - 3:42:16) If there's new construction, that's what it applies to. [Speaker 15] (3:42:18 - 3:43:12) Article 8, Pete. Article 8. This is appropriation for the park grant. This is to appropriate, transfer available funds or borrow a sum of $103,870 in relation to the park grant that we have been awarded in order to construct four pickleball courts at Phillips Park. The difference with this, the language in this article versus the article at the last special town meeting is that it is strictly using free cash as noted in the comment, which will be based on the FinCom recommendation and also that it is a general use of the pickleball court to be placed somewhere in Phillips Park without a specific location that would be determined during the design process. Thanks, Pete. [Speaker 9] (3:43:12 - 3:43:20) As of this evening, FinCom has not taken a vote on this particular article. They have not. [Speaker 10] (3:43:22 - 3:43:33) To talk about public process, Sean, do you want to speak to what is on the horizon regarding So what's the design process after? No, no, no. [Speaker 1] (3:43:33 - 3:43:34) You're talking about the next month? [Speaker 10] (3:43:35 - 3:43:35) Yes. [Speaker 3] (3:43:36 - 3:44:22) So we're we've got a community engagement meeting scheduled next week at the Senior Center. Next Thursday at 6pm we have staff that are reaching out to the neighborhood. We are very much interested in anybody's idea of where else we could put a pickleball court because we want to consider every neighborhood for recreational opportunities. We're a town of three square miles. We have we think, we believe that we have a good location but certainly want everybody to come down and inspire us with all of their good ideas about where we can get more active. [Speaker 9] (3:44:23 - 3:44:39) And just to supplement that there were sound tests that were conducted yesterday. Decibel tests. Yeah, decibel tests. With a decibel reader. Yes, and notices were mailed to direct abutters. Notices were posted in the regular locations. There's going to be posts on social media. [Speaker 3] (3:44:39 - 3:44:51) They whacked the pickleball. They pounded her off the ground. They couldn't actually discern that it actually got any louder than So I say square words quite a bit more than a pickleball. [Speaker 1] (3:44:51 - 3:44:56) The yelling of square words is something you probably should have measured. I'm so bad at it. [Speaker 3] (3:44:56 - 3:45:12) So the noise doesn't really seem to be anything that challenging. But we're going to do more tests. We actually went to the corner of people's homes and it dissipated considerably. Did you do it off their house? [Speaker 1] (3:45:13 - 3:45:13) We did not. [Speaker 3] (3:45:14 - 3:45:18) I specifically said do not walk on private property. [Speaker 1] (3:45:18 - 3:45:24) So we're going to wait on recommendation until Monday night, potentially. Okay. I'm fine with that. [Speaker 4] (3:45:25 - 3:46:07) I know a couple of us had a chance to chat with Margie. Margie asked to chat with us. There's been a lot of feedback, obviously, about this. So the more obviously explicit we can be about the mitigation ideas that we have, that's from willow trees to permeable core, whatever, mapping it, the noise, whatever, the more explicit we can be. I would love to be fully in support of this and alleviate some of people's fears or concerns. So the more information you can bring, that would be terrific. [Speaker 3] (3:46:08 - 3:46:11) We will explore every option. [Speaker 6] (3:46:12 - 3:46:23) How does it work with the Conservation Commission and what is the They have to go there. You don't go there before, you go there after. [Speaker 1] (3:46:25 - 3:47:00) It's a performance. Wetlands Protection Act is a performance standard. It's not a prohibitive standard. You have to show how you're building your structure, your improvement within a resource area or within the buffer of a resource area meets the design performance stuff. And so part of the design is actually designing it to, for example, let's say hypothetically it was an area prone to flooding. They would design this to take into consideration flooding considerations, etc. So they have to meet design criteria, performance criteria, which is in 310 CMR 10.00 and show that to the Conservation Commission. [Speaker 6] (3:47:00 - 3:47:09) But then how does that affect the bottom line? Because if the sum is 103 and you have to design something, say that it's up off the ground, just like every project, just like the new school. [Speaker 1] (3:47:10 - 3:47:20) We approved a new school before we had all permits in hand. We approved a new police station before we had all permits in hand. It's the same process as any number of things. [Speaker 6] (3:47:20 - 3:47:25) But the number doesn't change. It doesn't change with the park grant. That means we'd have to go back and try to apply for another park grant. [Speaker 1] (3:47:25 - 3:47:33) I assume staff has done the diligence to hopefully avoid that issue, but it's the same risk I think all projects have that require permitting. [Speaker 10] (3:47:34 - 3:47:43) If something unforeseen would have occurred that alters it, could we build two instead of four? Does the park grant allow for that? [Speaker 3] (3:47:44 - 3:47:50) I'd have to look into it. Not sure. I'm sure we can get some clarity in the next... [Speaker 4] (3:47:50 - 3:48:19) Given this conversation, I wonder also whether or not it would help people if there was some piece of the language that was added that was not literally exactly how many trees can be planted or this, that, or the other thing, but there's some language to the point of there's going to be extensive efforts to mitigate noise impact and flooding impact in the design. That's not mentioned here at all. [Speaker 1] (3:48:20 - 3:48:22) But how do you quantify that? [Speaker 4] (3:48:24 - 3:48:25) It's better than nothing. [Speaker 1] (3:48:26 - 3:48:35) Maybe work then over the next month. If town staff can come up with language that can be a floor motion that we can just modify if it's part of the motion on the floor. [Speaker 3] (3:48:35 - 3:48:56) I think that spirit is something that we always should be working towards. We want to be good neighbors. We want to do everything we can to try to ensure that we're going to mitigate anything that might be disruptive to a neighborhood. Again, we're at a multi-use rec campus. This is a neighborhood that feels... [Speaker 4] (3:48:56 - 3:48:58) It does have other issues to it. [Speaker 6] (3:48:59 - 3:49:03) Could you send out the size, what that size would be, the dimensions of what they're looking for? [Speaker 16] (3:49:03 - 3:49:04) Sure. [Speaker 15] (3:49:26 - 3:49:57) Article 9. The final article is the increase to local room excise tax. This is increasing in relation to MGL Chapter 64G Section 3A from the current 4% to 6%, which is the maximum allowance. That would only take effect July 1, 2024. So don't open any hotels before July 1, 2024. [Speaker 10] (3:49:57 - 3:49:59) All three of them said they would. [Speaker 1] (3:50:00 - 3:50:15) This is unfair to business. Are we also waiting for FinCom on this particular article? It's a tax, so I assume FinCom is going to chime in. Just out of respect for them, I think we have. I think they know where we are on this. [Speaker 8] (3:50:17 - 3:50:23) I did mention this there last time. It was a favorable discussion. It was a favorable discussion, but not a formal one. [Speaker 1] (3:50:23 - 3:50:28) All right. We got one. [Speaker 8] (3:50:28 - 3:50:29) That's all right. [Speaker 1] (3:50:30 - 3:50:31) We'll be able to knock a whole bunch out. [Speaker 41] (3:50:32 - 3:50:32) That's true. [Speaker 9] (3:50:34 - 3:50:45) All right. We'll move on to discussion of possible vote for use of $30,000 in town ARPA funds for the preservation of the John Glover House. [Speaker 1] (3:50:45 - 3:50:54) David, I apologize. I have a hard stop that I have to go deal with. Excuse myself. Thank you. Yes. [Speaker 3] (3:51:05 - 3:52:10) We actually have received a proposal from a historic preservation firm to prepare bid specifications to preserve elements of the historic General Glover House. This is the most historic property in the town and is a priority for our historic commission, and I am requesting the board's support for this. This will give us a chance to work with this firm and prepare bid documents that ultimately would allow a historic preservationist firm to come in and work with us to preserve the elements of this property. I think we all have a desire to preserve the building, but that does not seem as though it will be achievable in place, and so we'll have to kind of think about alternatives. [Speaker 9] (3:52:11 - 3:52:23) So this $30,000 of town ARPA gets us to an RFP where we can find, where we can glean additional information. There are fundraising activities. [Speaker 3] (3:52:23 - 3:52:41) We have a lot of support for this. We haven't identified exactly what the cost will be to actually salvage elements of the building, but this gives us a chance to go out, get responses back, and come back and have an update for the board. [Speaker 9] (3:52:41 - 3:52:44) And what would the timeline be for the... [Speaker 3] (3:52:44 - 3:53:00) We've heard that it could take 60 days to develop the RFP, and we heard that a month ago. We're going to do our best to try to put a lot of pressure on this firm to expedite things. We're racing against the clock. [Speaker 9] (3:53:01 - 3:53:02) Additional questions? [Speaker 10] (3:53:03 - 3:53:07) I had a question about the fund that was collected. How much was that for? [Speaker 3] (3:53:07 - 3:53:08) It's $25,000. [Speaker 10] (3:53:10 - 3:53:13) So can we not use that? No. [Speaker 3] (3:53:13 - 3:53:29) That actually is not recognized as revenue right now. It's just funds that have been collected. It will have to be enough to follow the free cash and be audited through our annual audit process. Not available yet. [Speaker 10] (3:53:30 - 3:53:36) And there are no other funds available for fundraising efforts? [Speaker 3] (3:53:37 - 3:54:02) Not enough. We need to act now. We're behind the eight ball. It's my hope that the board can authorize this and give us the ability to move forward and come back and have a further conversation about where the intersection of public funds and private funds can help us preserve this historic property. [Speaker 10] (3:54:04 - 3:54:08) Do you know where those fundraising efforts are? I was just about to say. [Speaker 4] (3:54:09 - 3:56:00) Sure. As people know, there have been several events. Nancy and John are here, and they've been doing events at the Dockside, and there's another one coming to Marblehead, another one coming to Salem. Things in the works for a big, big one in March. We have made, Nancy has made contact with someone who is a professional fundraiser. We've started just breaking the last 24 hours, so there's a real kind of line of sight towards a mega effort here. The idea is to do this now, to get the RFP out, to get to what the real number is by the end of April. Probably going to be in the neighborhood of $200,000 actually to disassemble it and store it. So that's the fundraising goal by April, mid-April, is to raise $200,000 and to take care of that. Obviously additional select board support for a piece of that down the road would be fantastic. We'll deal with that then. And then God knows what it'll cost to actually put it all back together and where it'll go, but we're assuming that's like another million dollars. These are not easy, but not unprecedented types of fundraising efforts. They're done in Marblehead, they're done in many places around here for this type of property. That's not to say that it's all just going to happen, but there's been a lot of work done with a lot of different potential sites around town, thinking through the pros and cons of it, so we don't necessarily have this kind of mapped out all the way to the end point, but they're starting to see a little bit of a through line to how this process gets chunked and kind of escalated. We've dealt with Annie Harris, who's from Essex Heritage Trust, who Sean knows and is the ambassador of doing these types of projects and she's very enthusiastic about the possibilities here, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. [Speaker 10] (3:56:02 - 3:56:20) Could you just explain, and I apologize, I know this has been explained multiple times and it's late, but what would come out of Glover and be salvaged and what would not? I think originally we had sort of more grandiose ideas of what might come out. [Speaker 4] (3:56:21 - 3:56:49) Well, I mean, I think right now Structures North has said they think about 60% of the property can be salvaged. So 60% of beams and everything basically be taken apart and marked and stored so that whenever we figure out exactly where we want this to go that it can be reconstructed. And there's some beautiful exhibits which I certainly, we can share with you of what's happened in other towns with very, very similar properties that look really, frankly, beautiful. [Speaker 3] (3:56:50 - 3:57:49) So that 60%, that's a significant amount of historic beams, but I think the most important element is the hearth. And so it has that really iconic historic hearth and there's a way for us to kind of recreate that sense of historic prominence and really celebrate Swampskate. Not just the Glover, but everything about colonial Swampskate, the history, the regiment. That regiment was the most diverse regiment in colonial America and to me it's really worth telling that story and celebrating that story. So I hate to just lose it. We're facing that imminent problem. It seems like we're always in this position. We want to get to a property where we're not actually facing that. [Speaker 4] (3:57:49 - 3:58:01) But I know we've talked about doing a survey and an inventory and all that stuff, but I think if Nancy was speaking right now, I think Nancy and John would probably say, like, if there's one we're going to do, this is the one. [Speaker 10] (3:58:03 - 3:58:48) Yeah, I guess my struggle is, and I've said this to Nancy, so this is not going to be shocking, but I'm just struggling to understand what we're investing in to come out. Like I know you're saying 60% of beams, but obviously the house is made of more than just beams. The hearth, hopefully a good large portion or representation of that hearth would be able to be reconstructed in a historically accurate way or however it's done. I'm not a preservation expert. But when you say 60%, it sounds like if you cut the house in half, you'd have more than half. But you're not actually going to do that, right? You're going to take pieces of it and then the rest of it is going to be recreated around it. [Speaker 3] (3:58:49 - 4:00:03) They've taken pictures of everything. They're going to be able to go in and they're going to be able to restore the property with other material, maybe period material if they really get into a preservationist kind of program. But as Doug mentioned, that's going to be expensive. There's all sorts of things that we'll have to abate. The paint and the varnish, all the things that are part of that property are going to need to be treated very carefully. But it's a project of national significance. I can't underscore how important these properties were bumping up to revolution 250? 250th anniversary of the revolution. This is going to get quite a bit of attention and I think it's a feather in our cap as a community that really have aspirations to preserve some element of this historic property. [Speaker 10] (4:00:05 - 4:00:31) I have one more question. Go ahead. Have we explored I understand the push to save 60% and that's like the big push towards the full dollar amount and the expenditures going forward, but have we explored just saving the hearth or saving the most historically significant piece if we can't afford to save it all? [Speaker 3] (4:00:31 - 4:01:21) That's a conversation I think we'll have in a short period of time. I don't know if it's a few weeks or a couple of months. As soon as we get the responses back from the RFP, as soon as we look at those numbers and have a conversation with our team, I think we'll be able to come back and have a more accurate conversation about the reality of what can be preserved for what dollars. My question is if we're saving the hearth and we're deconstructing it, I mean, isn't We might be able to just remove it and there's been so many we don't know if a firm's going to be able to go in there and just deconstruct everything around it and pull that out. There's so many different methodologies. [Speaker 4] (4:01:21 - 4:01:25) We don't know yet. You can actually move fireplaces, but I don't know if you wanted to ask them or not. [Speaker 33] (4:01:33 - 4:02:50) It's a very good question. Both Nancy and I attended a preservation meeting yesterday for a house in Hanover, much larger than Glover, where they deconstructed the entire house, moved it to another street in Hanover, and they're reconstructing it. In the case of Glover, they're saying 60% of the original house, but there are so many other buildings on that property of the same vintage that what they will do is take beams and portions to make the rest of it. So it's not like they're going to have to go to Home Depot and age the wood. They're going to use authentic pieces. The house in Hanover also moved a complete fireplace and hearth intact. They took some of the bricks apart, but you can move, believe it or not, a whole fireplace. So the intent is to end up with a full building, not a piece. There are actually diagrams with outbuildings that were there originally. This will help get us get it fleshed out a little bit more. [Speaker 9] (4:02:51 - 4:02:52) Thanks, John. [Speaker 33] (4:02:53 - 4:02:54) Additional questions from the board? [Speaker 10] (4:02:56 - 4:03:16) I just think conceptually it's much easier to understand the Hanover instance you just made. I get taking a building down and putting it somewhere else. I just end up having a difficult time understanding what gets preserved and then how the significance remains by just taking pieces. [Speaker 6] (4:03:16 - 4:03:20) Are you concerned that we're just going to throw down $30,000? [Speaker 10] (4:03:23 - 4:03:39) Yeah, I just don't know that if I have enough detail here to understand what that money exactly will get us from a historic conservation position post-vent. I'm having a difficult time understanding that. [Speaker 9] (4:03:40 - 4:04:01) I'm having a difficult time too, but I also want to get them to an RFP. I want to learn more information and get to the RFP so we have more information. I'm willing to vote in favor of the $30,000 so that way we can explore this a little further. I'm just one of five. [Speaker 6] (4:04:01 - 4:04:22) I had a problem with spending ARPA money on anything, but after this financial review, Amy has helped me with a decision that I do think we need to... I look at this as an emergency. I think this is important. [Speaker 8] (4:04:23 - 4:04:25) I didn't think that's where you were going with that. I was like, I'm going to be blamed. [Speaker 6] (4:04:27 - 4:05:07) No, because of the financial situation, what you're looking at at the halfway mark, there's no extra money here in the budget. There's nothing even under... If you're falling short, you're going to have to do a shuffle with what's there. I'm going to go out of my norm and I would end up supporting this, I do think, because of the situation of the budget, I don't see how we could get any money out of here and I would support taking money out of ARPA. I feel pretty confident that $30,000 is going to get us a good answer on how to figure this out. [Speaker 4] (4:05:07 - 4:05:33) I'd love to have you clear, and supportive as well, because it's no secret what my vote is. Just one more time. You take whatever is usable, you mark it all up, and then you're recreating literally exactly the way the house was later, ideally with all those pieces and some additional pieces. [Speaker 10] (4:05:34 - 4:05:35) I understand that part. [Speaker 4] (4:05:35 - 4:05:39) I figured you did, so I was trying to figure out where the gap was. [Speaker 10] (4:05:39 - 4:06:12) To me, it's like, from a cost value situation, if we can spend 5% of that and have a hearth that's historically significant in one of the buildings we already have, that seems like a better value spend to me than to spend $1 million or $2 million on taking apart 60% of a house, which needs a lot more work and commitment. People are shaking heads. I'm not a historical preservationist, so I don't know if that's not a legitimate thing. [Speaker 4] (4:06:12 - 4:07:38) What you're not benefiting from is a lot of the work that's gone out from the committee, and I apologize. I didn't realize we'd get into this level at this point, but it's totally reasonable. The historical significance of putting a house back together and then using that as a place that may have multiple uses, but one primary use of it will be to honor Glover and the regiment and have that be an educational place for people to reflect on. I won't give a whole big speech, but about what they really went through for the revolution and have that be alive for someone, as opposed to just having a hearth sitting somewhere. The entire space will not only be this educational aspect, but will have probably a commercial aspect as well. It gets into how this actually plays out, and there's different paths for that, but I think it simply said, and Nancy and John can correct me, I think the historical significance of a re-put-together house far surpasses simply reusing a fireplace or a hearth. Maybe at the end of the day, for whatever reason, that's all we can get, but until we actually do this piece of the puzzle, we won't. [Speaker 3] (4:07:38 - 4:09:12) I do think we could spend a lot of time with some of these concepts until we get a quote-back-ma bona fide preservationist to say this is what it's going to cost to do A, B, or C. We just don't know enough. I would just, to Doug's point, if you go to the George Peabody House in the city of Peabody, if you go to different properties in the cities and towns in Essex County that are part of the newly established Essex County National Heritage District. Andy Harris actually worked 25, 30 years ago to establish this district. For me, to have Swampskate, to have a property where every child in this community or every resident could go in and just see elements of our colonial history and appreciate it for what it is, and it's grand. It's significant. It's as important as Salem's, as important as Hoove Report, as important as Gloucester's, and to have that history, the nautical history, to have everything come alive in that building. To me, that would be a gift that this generation could preserve for future generations because we know we've lost so many. We lost the Pitman House. We lose these things. I want to have, I would love to have the national groups that actually care about the revolution and what this nation is get involved in this because I cringe to think how much it's going to cost, but we've got to try to figure that out over the next couple of months. [Speaker 10] (4:09:14 - 4:09:27) I just think it's difficult to envision that future because we don't have a plan, and this is chicken egg situation, right? How do you make a plan without having the RFP done? How do you decide to spend the money on the RFP when you don't have a plan? [Speaker 4] (4:09:28 - 4:09:52) We don't have a definitive plan exactly where it's going. There's probably more of a plan than you're aware of right now, at least kind of how this will play out most likely. It has played out many other times. It's not like we're making this up for the first time. Yes, it's not like we know exactly where this house is going and exactly that we have all the money and $30,000 is the end of it. That's true. [Speaker 6] (4:09:54 - 4:09:55) Should we take a vote? [Speaker 4] (4:09:55 - 4:10:11) Sure. Entertain a motion. I would like to make a motion that we allocate $30,000 of ARPA funds for the beginning of the process of preserving the Glover House. [Speaker 8] (4:10:11 - 4:10:22) Can I ask that the motion just include that it's through revenue recognition of ARPA? Revenue recognition through ARPA. The vote has to include what mechanism is ARPA. [Speaker 4] (4:10:23 - 4:10:28) Okay. What Amy said. Revenue recognition through ARPA as of the $30,000. [Speaker 9] (4:10:29 - 4:10:56) Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. All right. We'll move on. Approval of the consent agenda designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the board. Select the 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 6] (4:10:57 - 4:11:11) I have to I'm not sure if I have to take this out of the consent agenda or can I just make a motion to make an adjustment within the consent agenda? I think you have to pull it out. All right. So I have to remove Solid Waste Advisory Committee. [Speaker 9] (4:11:13 - 4:11:15) Okay. Okay. [Speaker 6] (4:11:15 - 4:11:19) Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? [Speaker 9] (4:11:19 - 4:11:19) As amended. [Speaker 6] (4:11:20 - 4:11:21) As amended? Second. [Speaker 9] (4:11:21 - 4:11:22) All in favor? [Speaker 6] (4:11:22 - 4:11:22) Aye. [Speaker 9] (4:11:23 - 4:11:23) Thank you. [Speaker 6] (4:11:24 - 4:11:39) Now I'd like to go back to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. I'd like to make a motion to adjust the term expirations. It should say 2024 on the three new people because then that will offset it. 2024 then you have three in 2025. [Speaker 10] (4:11:40 - 4:11:41) Isn't that this one? [Speaker 6] (4:11:42 - 4:11:53) Mine says 2025. 24. No, I changed it. Please don't change the 2024. 2025. Oh, so you want to go back to 2024. No, I want to go back to 2024. [Speaker 7] (4:11:54 - 4:11:56) But the problem with that is they're one year terms. [Speaker 6] (4:11:57 - 4:11:57) It's fine. [Speaker 7] (4:11:58 - 4:11:59) But then they'll all come through at the same time. [Speaker 6] (4:12:00 - 4:12:11) No, if it's 2024 if it's 2024 Yep. then we're going to come through at the end of we'll come through in 24 and then 25 is going to come through. [Speaker 10] (4:12:11 - 4:12:16) Just those bottom three. Not everybody who's 25 just the bottom three who are 25. [Speaker 4] (4:12:17 - 4:12:20) So their term is just going to be for like four months right now? [Speaker 6] (4:12:20 - 4:12:30) Yeah, but then it just pops and it stays with them. That's great. You have Stephanie Newman Matt's new Helen O and new member. [Speaker 10] (4:12:33 - 4:12:41) Yeah. So there'll be three at 26 three at 25, three at 24. Correct. Okay. [Speaker 9] (4:12:43 - 4:12:44) It doesn't matter to me. [Speaker 10] (4:12:45 - 4:12:48) And then they'll come up for reappointment in June. [Speaker 14] (4:12:53 - 4:12:54) After. [Speaker 6] (4:12:57 - 4:13:16) Everything is three years. Correct. So the only thing we have to remember, Sean, can you remind Diane to just put this on the agenda for June so that we can just it'll pop up. Well, I didn't want to ask it myself. [Speaker 10] (4:13:18 - 4:13:20) Motion to adjourn please. [Speaker 9] (4:13:21 - 4:13:26) We haven't voted on this. Do you have a motion? Mariela has a motion. [Speaker 10] (4:13:27 - 4:13:27) Second. [Speaker 9] (4:13:28 - 4:13:29) All in favor? [Speaker 10] (4:13:29 - 4:13:30) Aye. I made a motion. [Speaker 9] (4:13:32 - 4:13:33) Motion to adjourn? [Speaker 10] (4:13:34 - 4:13:34) Second. [Speaker 9] (4:13:35 - 4:13:36) Aye. [Speaker 6] (4:13:37 - 4:14:03) Oh, wait! Wait, no, no, no, hold on. You can't adjourn. I have to make a motion to bring us back in. So I do want to thank Joe Dulet. Joe Dulet. Sammy David. Danielle. Nathan. I also want to give the update on the health budget. The opiate settlement is going on. [Speaker 10] (4:14:04 - 4:14:05) Did we do it on Monday? [Speaker 6] (4:14:06 - 4:14:08) Yes, all right, so I'd like to take this to Monday. Thank you, Mariela. [Speaker 4] (4:14:08 - 4:14:11) And thank you to the 4-Hour Club out there. [Speaker 10] (4:14:12 - 4:14:13) To all of you, hats off. [Speaker 37] (4:14:14 - 4:14:15) 4.15.